Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/28/1998MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 28, 1998 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:05 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 Tye. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman McManus, Vice Chairman Tye, and Commissioners Kuo, Nelson and Ruzicka. Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Director of Public Works George Wentz, and Associate Planner Ann Lungu. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of April 14, 1998. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was carried 5-0. -OLD BUSINESS: 1. Planning Commissioner's Policies & Procedures Manual., AstP/Lungu presented the revised manual which included the comments and recommendations received at the April 14, 1998 Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file the adopted Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual. The Planning Commission unanimously concurred to receive and file the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures Manual as presented. NEW BUSINESS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 2 IBILI 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01 and p Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume Land 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 24, 1998 meeting.) Property Address: Generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue. Property Owner: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership 550 W. orangethorpe Avenue Placentia, CA 92870 Applicant: Todd Kurtin, SunCal Companies 5109 E. LaPalma Avenue, Anaheim, CA AstP/Lungu presented staff's report. The alternatives include a proposal for 120 units and a second proposal for 130 units on Lot 6. The City's Environmental Consultant Tom Smith, Bontara Consulting, presented an overview of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). He explained the differences between the two proposals. He stated that three technical areas received special studies as part of the evaluation of the Response To Comment Alternative: Grading, Hydrology and Biology. Staff recommends" that -the Planning Commission: Open'Ithe public hearing; receive comments on the project; close the public hearing and begin_ deliberations on VTTM,No. 52267 and its entitlements, working toward a conclusion with recommendations for City Council's consideration; I nd direct staff to prepare appropriate documentation in support of the Planning Commission's recommendations. Staff is in support of the 130 unit project subject to the following: Approximately 273 acres of the project area (excluding the manufactured slopes and including the remaining 'natural portions of Lots 4, 5, & 7, and all of Lot 9 of Tract 31479 = nAicated to the City as public open �{'~ space, and a contribution to the City's Parks and e Acquisitions Fund. APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 3 DCM/DeStefano stated that all public correspondence received by the City of Diamond Bar regarding this project have been forwarded to the Planning Commission. DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/McManus that staff has discussed a specific amount of contribution from the developer. Staff has not discussed this matter with the developer. Bruce Elieff, SunCal Companies, said it his hope that in the -time -this project has been before the City for consideration that the public would have the facts of the proposed development and not be confused with fiction. He stated that his company sent approximately 2,000 brochures explaining the proposed project to residents surrounding the proposed project. Return cards were enclosed with the brochure. SunCal received three completed return cards. He said that SunCal believes the 130 unit project presents the superior alternative and enables the city to take ownership of many acres of native land. He stated he read staff's report. With respect to conditions, he explained that his company will pay appropriate fees to mitigate the city's parks system. However, SunCal feels it is inappropriate to deed Lot 9 to the city at this time because it is a separate legal parcel which is not a part of this application. Lex Williman, Planning Director, Hunsaker and Associates, San Diego, gave the Planning Commission a perspective under which this project was conceieved, how it relates to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and to dispel some of the rumors and misinformation that has been presented during past public hearings. He concluded stating that 273 acres is a significant amount of land to be donated to a public entity and due to its natural_ habitat, it is a significant benefit to the city. C/Nelson asked Mr. Williman to compare the grade of the street with the straight run down street A ° of approximately 750 feet with the analogous street on the Response to Comments Alternative which has a straight run of only 500 feet and incorporates curves. Mr. Williman used the overhead maps to compare the various grades and length of grades for the two plans. C/Ruzicka asked Mr. Williman to explain his, statement that giving 273 acres to the city is a significant benefit when the staff report indicates it to be a minimum -benefit. He stated that the canyons and hillside grades are such that it is almost impossible to build in r the area without the expenditure of significant dollars. APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 4 Mr. Williman responded that the hillside grades on the Jd>! 273 acres are no different from the hillside grades on concerns about "negative cashflow" to the city for the Lot 6. Therefore, the cost to build would !be this project. He said -that "SunCal isn't giving anything approximately the same. 'He reiterated his statement that the natural habitat is a,significant benefit to the city. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. his Steve Lasser, 23403 Stirrup Drive, reiterated concerns about "negative cashflow" to the city for the proposed dwelling units. He asked why the city needs this project. He said -that "SunCal isn't giving anything back to the city that it doesn't already have. It's deed restricted and they knew it was deed restricted when they purchased it." If SunCal is allowed to build, they should be restricted to portion for which they have a right to build. Sue Page, 1333 Sims Place, said she is confused about the proposal. She has received propaganda for and against this project. -She stated her concerns regarding the proposed elimination of 430 oak trees, additional traffic, and use'of dynamite during construction. DCM/DeStefano stated that staff's position is that if this project is approved, there will be no dynamiting at this site. Chair/McManus responded to Sue Page that this project will tip the air quality threshold during construction only. Sue Page asked the Commission to maintain the property as open land and not allow this project. VC/Tye reiterated Lex Williman's statement that ,the project is proposed on privately owned vacant land'and not open space. Karen Mahoney, 23834 Country View Drive, talked about the cutthrough traffic in her neighborhood. She explained that her husband was killed on Diamond Bar Boulevard and not gift of. ]_and can replace her husband. The city'has enough traffic from Chino Hills. Michael Burch, 605 S. Hoss Street, said his major concern is increased traffic as a result of the proposed project. The developers right to build should -not overshadow what is best for the public good and this project is not good for the public. Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Drive, stated his concerns regarding visual impact, cut and fill of millions of cubic feet of dirt, the amount of dust, exhaust and noise I APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 5 generated by grading two million cubic yards of cut and fill and its impact to surrounding residents, and no significant benefit to the city. The city should follow the Hillside Development Code. The grade is steep and only a minimum number of lots should be allowed limited to 2.5 lots per acre. Lots should be contour graded to minimize disturbance. This project does not minimize grading or disturbance, and incorporates no contour grading. This project should be redesigned to comply with the city's Oak Tree Ordinance. He presented a map of Lot 6 which shows six raptor nests that will be destroyed. He stated that Lot 5 will become a 10 acre technical island. He said it is his opinion that the amount of sediment pollution from 40 acres of hillside acres to the natural water course and the plant and animal habitat, cannot be mitigated. By virtue of the fact that the land has been vacant for a long period of time, it has become an important open space for the surrounding residents. He said that if the Commission approves .this project and staff says there is no dynamiting allowed, it's just something that staff says and not necessarily what will happen. He stated that there are a lot more oak trees at the project site than are being reported. If the builder is going to give this land to Diamond Bar, and the City of Diamond Bar has ownership of this land, will the city have a declaration:,. that says it will make the area into the park and never sell it to another builder because the coffers are empty, or because the city is going out of business? Is there any guarantee that this land is ours and nobody elses - we the people of Diamond Bar own that land and there is nobody who will every have the right to build on it? He said he understands from his counsel attorney that the MOU is non-binding on the builder. There is nothing in writing that states this is a binding contract which the city has to honor. He showed a map he acquired from Los Angeles County which shows 61 residents, the map the Bramalee offered to the city. He asked that the builder not be allowed to build outside of Lot 6. He presented a 2,000 signature petition opposing the project and stated that the 2,000 signatures represent 700 households. Allen Wilson, 22809 Hilton Head Drive Unit J7, said he moved to Diamond Bar two years ago into a project that was built by a developer and if it was not for this project he would not be living in Diamond Bar and participating in such events as the Friends of the Library and the solid Waste Task Force. He stated he is concerned about the impact of the project on traffic and solid waste removal. He said he believes the project will be good for the city. The developer is proposing to give the city almost 300 acres of land which will triple the city's open space which tracks with the.General Plan. APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 6 He believes the developer has address staff's concerns. There was debate in the last City Council campaign about { open space and considering the city will triple its open space, let's not deny this opportunity. Adnan Ayoub, 23656 Gold Nugget Avenue, said the freedom for the developer to build the project should stop because his freedom starts. Therefore, he is against the project. Ron Tehrani, 745 View Lane, asked if it is correct that the city made a non-binding agreement with the developer which it does not have to follow. He said there isl no benefit for the city to remove the restriction on this land and removal of the restriction is betraying the public trust. Everyone in the process will be liable. This property is restricted from any building. Dedication is not a benefit to the city. He asked that the geotechnical will not fail and if it does, that the city will not be liable. The environmental document should have been sent to the Fish and Game Department which never saw the document and did not comment on,the document. He requested that the Planning Commission direct staff to review and find options to keep these areas open space permanently and have the Parks Department maintain the area. The city should look Into have a special election to let the people vote on this project. Gene Mulinex spoke about his concerns regarding the increased rate of fluid flow on paved roads during rain storms and whether Sycamore Canyon will be able to handle the increased runoff. Albert Perez, Pantera Drive, stated he does not want to take away the developer's legal right to build. He said "the Planning Commission can recommend a development that is so construed that it would make it impossible for them to build what they want to build". Christina Goode, 624 Moss, stated the developer said they did not want to give up Lot 9 to the city which would make the 273 acre donation much less. She pointed out that a significant amount of air pollution of more than 10 times over the threshold resulting from construction will have deleterious effects which she believes should stop this project, Sandra Erickson said she is purchasing a home at 24008 Highcrest Drive. She asked if where the corumunity gates will be located, what effect 200 additional cars will have on Goldrush Drive, and what streets will be used to move construction equipment to and from the site. APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 7 „ Randy Nydo, Hillcrest Drive, said the fact that this issue has gone on as long as it has should make it clear to the Commission that this matter will result in a cantankerous, torturous issue that will tear the city apart. He said he believes that because the normal ratio is 1:10, 2,000 signatures means that there are actually 20,000 people who do not want project. The city should buy this land back from the developer for 2.7 million dollars, the price he paid, plus accrued interest by means of a 10 or 20 year bond. Leonard Doyle, 626 Junewood Place, said the developer has speculated on this development and they most likely have a portfolio of developments throughout California. He stated that if this development goes forward, he loses. Julie Gomez, Chandell Place, stated her daughter has severe .allergies and she is concerned about the = pollutants that will result from the project's grading. She asked what recourse she has against the city or developer if she is unable to live in her home during the construction period. She asked if the 273 acres that will be deeded to the city as a result of this project is usable land and suitable for a park. If the land is not developable, it is of no benefit to the developer and therefore not a benefit to the city. She asked the Commission to consider an alternative to the proposied plan and restrict the building to Lot 6. Mike Ritchie, Leyland Drive, asked for an explanation of the inconsistencies of this project with the city's General Plan stated by Mr. Smith. He is concerned about the traffic that will be generated by the proposed project. Lex Williman, in response to questions, stated that the project proposes to have two gates. The project will have private streets that are maintained by the Homeowners Association and not by the city. He explained s that Lot 9 is not included in the 273 acres the developer has agreed to deed to the city. DCM/DeStefano responded to speaker's questions and concerns. With respect to the concern about negative cash flow related to projects of this type, he estimated that a house selling for $300 - $350,000 is about a break even proposition for taxes as opposed to goods and services purchased for the household. The project is proposed to be a gate -guarded self-contained community which significantly reduces the city's associated costs. �z�Street maintenance, street lighting, hillside maintenance and fire services costs would be borne by the association and not passed to the city. He stated that if the Planning Commission recommends approval of this project, APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 8 of the oak trees -and work around them s don't build.) The ordinance desires to make such a statement and it also 4 states that if the oak trees need to be removed for development and the development is deemed appropriate, they must be replaced according to the ordinance's': replacement schedule. Currently, walnut trees are not f: protected by any ordinance.- The replacement of walnut ..a, . I C -.. 1 _.1-_ �_ . �I.11 „-T.,.,,,-,,.._ 1 1.. N staff will prepare conditions to prohibit the use of 4! dynamite. This project will generate an insignificant amount of additional traffic on the city's streets. The access off of Tin Drive is proposed to be this development's primary access. Highcrest Drive will be used only as a secondary emergency ingress/egress point for emergency vehicles. This project will utilize the new Pantera Elementary'School as its primary point for public education in the immediate area. The Environmental Impact Report recognizes the fact that there is significant grading which generates significant particulant emissions and that has a negative impact which cannot be fully mitigated down to a level of what is termed "significance". The EIR recognizes that'ithe aesthetic change is a significant change that cannot be mitigated down to a level of insignificance. Regarding statements that the use of grading techniques are not in compliance with the city's ordinances, staff believes that the project as proposed to use concave and convex grading and to deviate the horizontal and the vertical delineation of the grading 'lines to create undulation in the slopes is in compliance with the city's grading ordinance. The landscape plan requires that revegetation techniques be employed that .puts the new landscaping where the existing landscaping was or may be found in nature in compliance with the city's requirements. u' Regarding the project's proximity to Sycamore Canyon, the area known as Sycamore Canyon is the park immediately west of Diamond Bar Boulevard across the street from the general direction of the proposed project. The canyon on the east side of Diamond Bar Boulevard and adjacent to the proposed development .is sometimes referred to as Upper Sycamore Canyon or Steep Canyon. It is difficult to pull the project away from the canyon because there are landslides in that area that need to be remediated. Fish and Wildlife and authorities of the ilk were notified of this project and did comment on the project. Generally, these types of agencies are opposed; to projects of this sort. However, that does not preclude their approval_of projects of this nature - they dorso. We live on them. These agencies require mitigation which attempts to mimic what was in place at the time of development and acquiring land for permanent open space. The project will result in the removal of about 430 oak trees and about 30 walnut trees. The City of DiamondilBar has an Oak Tree Ordinance. It does not say preserve all of the oak trees -and work around them s don't build.) The ordinance desires to make such a statement and it also 4 states that if the oak trees need to be removed for development and the development is deemed appropriate, they must be replaced according to the ordinance's': replacement schedule. Currently, walnut trees are not f: protected by any ordinance.- The replacement of walnut ..a, . I C -.. 1 _.1-_ �_ . �I.11 „-T.,.,,,-,,.._ 1 1.. N APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 9 trees is an additional requirement because they exist in the area. DCM/DeStefano continued his response to public testimony. He explained the history of the Memorandum of Understand regarding development of Lot 6 which was inherited by the city from the County of Los Angeles upon incorporation. The County kept the restricted property in private hands. However, the restriction could be removed through a public process with the County of Los Angeles or with the local city. Diamond Bar faces issues similar to other cities that have incorporated within the past 15 years. If the County had accepted this property as their own, they would have passed the ownership to the City of Diamond Bar along with the parks. The issue of keeping the development entirely within Lot 6 has to do with the best use of the land for Lot 6 and is the developer's proposed configuration appropriate, or is a configuration that goes beyond Lot 6 more appropriate. And if development goes beyond Lot 6, what is the benefit to the community for giving up map and deed restrictions. Those are decisions the Planning Commission must make in looking at an environment that will exist for many ., decades if approved on this ridgeling. Therefore, the Commission should not be looking at the constraints of Lot 6 but rather at the best land use for the ridgeling. DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to the comment regarding the Memorandum of Understanding, the 1992 Cityd,_ Council approved a non-binding agreement with Bramalee_- for the contemplated future development of up to 135;,,:,_ single family units on the ridgeling. The documents that accompanied the City Council's decision to approve that non-binding agreement showed a bubble on the ridgeling - it did not show a.specific development of -what the 135 units might look like and did show Lot 9 as being transferred to the City of Diamond Bar along with the balance 'of Lots 4, 5 and 7. In addition, it showed a possible public facility or commercial use on the flat portion of property at Goldrush Drive and'Diamond Bar Boulevard. The adopted 1995 General Plan said build up to 130 units on this ridgeling and for the public to be given the opportunity to capture the property for public open space which does not necessarily mean that it would be open to the public. Chair/McManus explained that there are two references to building on this property: The Memorandum of Understanding and the City's General Plan. DCM/DeStefano stated that the EIR has determined that the proposed project mitigates fluid flow based upon the connections to the storm drain systems to a level of insignificance. APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 10 I��II�h DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to a comment about conditioning a project to the extent that it goes aZc�ay, a Planning Commission, a City Council, a City's is aff legally cannot knowingly condition a project in such a manner. If the decision-making bodies wish to deny a project, they must determine why the project is inappropriate for the community. DCM/DeStefano explained that with respect to the use of Highcrest Drive 'for transporting construction equipment, the city can and has conditioned projects to not use certain city streets. Projects are stopped by staff for non-compliance with project conditions. Chair/McManus stated in response to concerns regarding cut -through traffic that because this project proposes one gate at the terminus of Tin Drive, cut -through traffic will be non-existent in the adjacent neighborhoods as a result of this project. DCM/DeStefano stated that the Planning Commission is considering all options and not just the 120 and 1.30 unit proposal presented this evening. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Nelson that in 1992 when'the east leg of Grand Avenue opened the city's license plate9 survey concluded that 40 percent of the traffic traveling in the area was transient -traffic. The proposed project will not create any noticeable change to the traffic in Diamond Bar. A far greater impact to the city's streets is presented by the 800 new residential units being built by the City of Chino annually. DCM/DeStefano confirmed to C/Ruzicka that the total acreage for Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 is approximately 400. Lot nine is approximately 83 acres and the applicant.' proposes to deed approximately 273 acres to the City of Diamond. The remaining 65 acres are proposed to be graded with the residential units being placed on approximately 40 of the 65 remaining acres. The remaining 25 graded acres are slated to be regraded, relandscaped slopes that would be owned by and maintained by the homeowners association. The city has ithe prerogative of lifting map and deed restrictions in order to insure the best use of the land and that the project is as aesthetically pleasing to the city as possible. C/Kuo said the time has come to render a decision regarding this matter with constructive, and positive input from all sides of the issue. The builder has the right to request approval to build up to 130 houses.' The Planning Commissioner's are charged with the responsibility of listening to all sides and making a fair decision for the good of the entire community. ' The APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 11 Commission has not pre -judged this issue. The Commission is considering all input before reaching a conclusion. VC/Tye said that for some time the Commission has heard comments that this decision is being ramroded through the system. He stated he believes those present would be pleased to have a quick decision if it was a decision with which they were happy. That is a difficult thing to balance. He asked DCM/DeStefano to elaborate on the remediation of Lot 5. DCM/DeStefano stated that it is his understanding that there are significant landslides on both the north and south sides of the proposed project which impact Lots 5 and 7. In order to produce a project on this hillside, regardless of the number of homes, those landslides must be mitigated which will require significant grading to render the hillside safe. -DPW/Wentz generally concurred with DCM/DeStefano that the reason for relooking at alternatives for Parcel No. 6. Because of the soils and geology for the, entire area there would be significant impact regardless of the final look of the proposed tract. r VC/Tye stated his understanding that the General Plan includes consideration of Lot 9. DCM/DeStefano responded that it is staff's opinion that VC/rye's understanding is correct. The Memorandum of Understanding clearly discusses -the dedication of Lot 9 in whole to the City of Diamond Bar. The 1992 version of the General Plan discusses up to 130 units on the ridgelines, a minimum of 75 percent of the balance of the property in permanent public open space and no development on Lot 9. VC/Tye asked what the significant benefit to the city would. be if Lot 9 was not included in the proposal as suggested by the developer. DCM/DeStefano said that the developer stated during previous meetings that they were willing to grant approximately 50 acres of Lot 9 to the city. The issue of whether or not the city should receive only a portion of Lot 9 is ultimately a decision of the Planning Commission and the City Council. Likewise, the issue of significant benefit for the lifting of map and deed restriction is the'issue of those bodies. Staff believes that the proposal should include all of Lot 9. Chair/McManus closed the public hearing: APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 12 C/Nelson said he has concerns regarding the biological mitigation. He understands that a Biological Resource Management Plan cannot be prepared at this time because there is no project upon which to base the details. He stated he believes that the Commission should consider the following conditions for the proposed project. He said he did not see a requirement, that the oak tree mitigation occur within the City of Diamond Bar. DCM/DeStefano stated it is not contained within the report. It is the city,s policy to require that such mitigation be accomplished within the,City of Diamond iar and within, to the extent possible, the site that) is being developed. C/Nelson stated he wants the strongest possible language stating that the mitigation will occur within the city limits of Diamond Bar. C/Nelson said that although he agrees that the loss of 410 oak trees is significant, he does not agree that the replacement of all oak trees lost at a 2:1 ratio will reduce the level of significance to less than the threshold. Based on his count, 59 trees that are between two and three feet diameter, 19 at between three and four feet and 12 over four feet in size. He suggested a sliding scale on the replacement ratio for trees above 36 inches with 3:1 between 36 and 48 inches and 4:1 above 48 inches. He indicated he has the same type of concern regarding the replacement of the 18.7 acres Coastal age Scrub which would be lost. He recommended a 2:1 ratio replacement. He stated he would like to see part of the funds that are being discussed for putting toward the city's Parks and Acquisitions fund, go to the studylyand development of a spine system that connects Sycamore Park and Summitridge Park. C/Ruzicka stated he has listen to both sides of, the debate, studied all of the information that is available with respect to the proposed project and he visited the site. He further stated he takes the responsibility of his position as a City Council appointed commissioner very seriously and his motion is couched in that responsibility. C/Ruzicka moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending that the City Council approve vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use permit No. 98-3 and Oak Tree Permit No. 98-1 as recommended by staff and including the four additional conditions of approval recommended by Commissioner Nelson. C/Nelson asked Lex Williman how realistic the limits of grading to the north and south of the project are in NK APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 13 light of the landslides to the north and the south of the project shown in the 107 unit alternative (Figure V -l). DCM/DeStefano responded that the Planning Commission may determine. Staff is working toward a contribution from the developer for the Parks Land Acquisition and Development fund to the effect of the Quimby funds that would normally relate to this project. The Planning Commission can recommend anything that it requires that inure to the benefit of the community and warrants the removal of map and -deed restrictions needed for the 130 unit project. If the Planning Commission directs staff to prepare the legal documents that would lead to project approval, that will take a certain period of time to complete. When the documents are brought back to the Planning Commission for further discussion, staff could bring back the results of the discussion with the developer regarding funds. C/Nelson seconded C/Ruzicka's motion. The motion was carried 5-0 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None j ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None w, RECESS: Chair/McManus recessed the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Lex Williman responded to C/Nelson responded that the grading that is shown in the alternative does not reflect the remedial grading necessary to stabilize those out -of - bed slopes. C/Nelson asked Lex Williman if he could speculate as to the number of units that could be built if the grading was kept within the boundaries of Lot 6 or slightly beyond the boundaries. Lex Williman stated the approximately 70-80 units might be feasible. However, in order to determine an accurate count, a study similar to that conducted for the alternative would need to take place. Due to slope instability it may not be feasible to construct a road to the building sites. Lex Williman confirmed to-VC/Tye that if there is no off- site grading the road could not go through the building site. VC/Tye said he is not comfortable considering the motion unless he understands that there is a significant benefit s to the city. DCM/DeStefano responded that the Planning Commission may determine. Staff is working toward a contribution from the developer for the Parks Land Acquisition and Development fund to the effect of the Quimby funds that would normally relate to this project. The Planning Commission can recommend anything that it requires that inure to the benefit of the community and warrants the removal of map and -deed restrictions needed for the 130 unit project. If the Planning Commission directs staff to prepare the legal documents that would lead to project approval, that will take a certain period of time to complete. When the documents are brought back to the Planning Commission for further discussion, staff could bring back the results of the discussion with the developer regarding funds. C/Nelson seconded C/Ruzicka's motion. The motion was carried 5-0 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None j ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None w, RECESS: Chair/McManus recessed the meeting at 10:25 p.m. APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 14 RECONVENE: Chair/McManus reconvened the meeting at 10:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: 2. Development Review 97-7 and Parking Permit 98-1, pursuant to Code Section 22.72.020 and 22.56.990), is a request for a family restaurant in an existing commercial center. The proposal involves 'combining and remodeling two existing vacant units into one 2,700 square foot restaurant. This proposal also includes a request for a Parking Permit for the shared use of the existing parking within the commercial center. Project Address: 1126 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard (northeast corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue) Applicant: Johnny Chan, 123 S. Lincoln Avenue, 'Monterey Park, CA 91754 Property Owner: Nikko Capital Corporation, 3961 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 105, Newport Beach, CA 92660 DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Development Review No. 97-7 and Parking Permit No. 98-1 to the meeting of Tuesday, April 28, 1998 to allow the applicant additional time to revise a required parking analysis. DCM/DeStefano confirmed to C/Ruzicka that staff gill review the parking permit issue to insure compliance with the conditions of approval. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. Stan Heikennen, Nikko ,Capital Corporation, stated he read staff's report and concurs with the conditions) "of approval. He stated he believes that the proposed restaurant will be a positive amenity for the community. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. C/Kuo requested that staff indicate the number of parking spaces by zone for future projects. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve Development Review 97-7 in accordance with staff's recommendation. The motion was carried 5-0 wish the following Roll Cali. vote: 34 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus, APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 15 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 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 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. Continued from January 27, 1998. Property Address: Easterly side of Blaze Trail across from the intersection of Timbertop Lane. Property Owner/ Diamond Bar Country Estates Applicant: Association, 22615 . Lazy Meadow Drive, Diamond Bar, CA;91765 DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. 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 June 23, 1998. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing." There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye 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 June 23, 1998. The motion was carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC BEARING: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-2 and Development Review No. 98-2 (pursuant to Code Section 22.28.210 and APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 16 22.72.020.A.1), is a request for the construction of a 38,000 square foot L.A. Fitness health club/gymnasium on a 4.6 acre vacant site. Project Location: North side of Golden Springs Drive, south of the 60 Freeway betwieen Lemon_ Avenue and Brea Canyon Road. Applicant: L.A. Fitness, 100 Bayview #4000, Newport Beach, CA 92660 1 Project Owners: Lawrence R. Michaels, 20709 Gorden Springs Drive, Suite 208, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and, The Warren Companies, 3218 E. Holt Avenue #200, West Covina, CA 92660 DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 98-5, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. Todd Von Sprecken, L.A. Fitness, Inc., Director of Design Construction, stated there are two parcels with different owners. The option to purchase the Michaels Family Trust 35000 acre portion was not available and a compromise exchange was arranged for the Trust to acquire the most easterly 35000 acres. L.A. Fitness will own approximately 201,000 square feet and the Michaels Family Trust will assume ownership of the easterly parcel., He stated that his firm is in substantial agreement with the conditions of approval with the following exceptions. He, asked that the staff be allowed to review and approve the revised site plan to accommodate a required entrance and signal installation at Rapidview Drive on Golden Springs Road which requires that the building be shifted 35 Ifeet to the west of the proposed location. As a result of shifting the building, the height of the northerly retaining wall will be increased four to five feet which will require a change of the site plan. He asked that the review and approval of the site plan be reviewed and approved at staff level. Regarding Item 5.d. of the Resolution, he agreed to comply with the requirement to install a non -irrigated hydroseeded ground cover. Li Todd Van Sprecken asked that Condition 5.i. be changed to r include °'best effort° to reach an agreement with the property owner to the east because they do not know the property owner. Page 4 of staff's report indicates that L.A. Fitness will pay for its "fair share" of median island construction. He requested that Condition 5.q. be APRIL 28,' 1998 PAGE 17 reworded to indicate that L.A. Fitness will contribute a "fair share" of construction cost. Bob Kahn, President of RKJK and Associates Traffic Engineers, asked for consideration of a "fair share" of 50 percent of the cost or a maximum amount of $60,000 or to be determined based upon the actual traffic contribution at the intersection toward for the contribution of the traffic signal installation at Rapidview and Golden Springs Road. Condition 5.t. deals with the off-site traffic contribution to intersections. He asked for consideration of a fair share contribution of these improvements in the amount of $20,000 based upon his firm's calculations instead of the $50,000 recommended by staff. DCM/DeStefano stated that upon direction from the Planning Commission, staff will work with the applicant to reorient placement of the building to comply with the condition to align the driveway with Rapidview Drive. Staff is in agreement with the modifications proposed by the applicant. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo,. Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus None None 2. Development Review No. 98-5 is a request (pursuant to Code Section 22.72.020.A.) for the construction of a 20,500 square foot, one story building to be utilized as medical offices/urgent care center. Project Location: 1514 Valley Vista Drive, (Lot 11, Tract No. 39679),- Diamond Bar, CA 91765 i6c DPW/Wentz request that Page 8, Item H be clarified with —, the insertion of "after lot line adjustment or parcel merger as directed by the City's Engineer". With respect to the Item i., the second word "will" -be changed to `-' "may" be required. Regarding Item s., he stated he has no objection to changing the amount to $60,000. without having a maximum or minimum. He agreed to an amount of $20,000 for Item t. Following discussion, the applicant agreed to accept 50% of the cost of median construction as their "fair share". VC/Tye moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 98-2 and Development Review No. 98-2 subject to the Findings of Fact and Conditions .of h Approval listed in the resolution as amended. The motion was carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo,. Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus None None 2. Development Review No. 98-5 is a request (pursuant to Code Section 22.72.020.A.) for the construction of a 20,500 square foot, one story building to be utilized as medical offices/urgent care center. Project Location: 1514 Valley Vista Drive, (Lot 11, Tract No. 39679),- Diamond Bar, CA 91765 i6c APRIL 28, 1998 Applicant: Property Owners: PAGE 18 St. Jude Medical Center, 101 E. Valencia Mesa Drive, Fullerton, CA 92634 Diamond Bar Business Associates, ',707 Wilshire Boulevard, 13030, Los Angeles, CA 90017 AstP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 98-5, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. Steve Gilbert, St. Jude Medical Center, stated he read staff's report and concurs with the recommended conditions of approval. He further stated he believes the placement of this facility will bring technology and synergies that will allow the center to better serve Ithe community. Debra Little Pultz and Associates, landscape architects, asked that staff concur with the applicant's intent to place 60 trees within the parking lot and approximately 50 trees within the pad area of the building. There are existing trees on the slope banks and the slope banks have been landscaped. She requested she be allowed to work with staff to determine the number of additional trees that would be required to be added to the slope banks in compliance with the Gateway Corporate Centers requirements. Dr. Doug Starr stated that he began his practice in Diamond Bar as a medical student in 1978, becameli an employed physician in 1980, set up his own family group medical practice in 1984 and merged and formed a ion - profit agency with St. Judes Hospital four years ago.I,He believes the proposed facility offers Diamond Bar the opportunity of a full medical center. By increasing the space to the proposed level, the proposed facility can offer additional diagnostic services and expand urgent care. The center proposes to bring in outside sub- specialists not presently available to the community. Allen Wilson asked why the building is not proposed t' be a two story facility. Steve Gilbert responded that a single story facility Differs better public access and staff effectiveness. Following discussion, C/Nelson moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 98-5, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the IF ' 411 - _ vIiF M1�xlruMlrwaillm.wo-WlW.«4i.m4 APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 19 resolution. The motion was carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano stated that tonight he approved an Administrative Development Review for an increase in square footage from 3600 to 7200 at 2595 Wagon Train Lane in "The Country Estates". SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to adjourn the meeting to May 12, 1998. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 1 Ja s DeStefano Secretary to t.ze Planning Commission Attest: Je Mc anus rman