Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/12/1999bIINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR — REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 1999 CALL TO ORDER i Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Hearing Board Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman Tye. i ROLL CALL: i Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairman Steve Tye and Commissioners George Kuo, Steve Nelson and Joe Ruzicka. k Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, George Wentz, City Engineer, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of November 24, 1998 and December 8, 1998. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of November 24, 1998 and December 8, 1998 as presented. Motion carried 5-0 with C/Nelson abstaining on the minutes of December 8, 1998. OLD BUSINESS: None 4 NEW BUSINESS: None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: r 1. Extension of Time for Approved Tract Map No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92- 12 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9 (pursuant to Code Sections 21.40.180, 22.56.140 and 22.56.2250) is a request for approval of a one-year extension of time of the City's approval dated May 17, 1995. The approval permits a 21 unit, single-family residential subdivision on 6.7 acres. (Continued from December 8, 1998) JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 2 PROJECT ADDRESS: East of Morning Sun Avenue and North ofPathfinder Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 PROPERTY OWNER/ Amrut Patel, Sasak Corporation APPLICANT: 858 West 9th Street Upland, CA 91785 AstP/Lungu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council denial of the extension of time request. Chair/McManus reopened the public hearing. Jan Dabney, J. C. Dabney & Associates, Agent and Engineer for the proposed project, stated that Mr. Patel cannot be present for tonight's meeting because he is in St. Louis, Missouri on business. He explained the time line for the project and spoke about the Morning Sun Avenue slide. He stated that Mr. Patel completed his portion of the required slide mitigation. He further stated that the Map was originally approved in May, 1995 with the understanding that the Map could not proceed without the participation of the Walnut School District. He indicated that as a result of the landslide, the school district needed Mr. Patel's property in order to mitigate the landslide to benefit their ownership. He explained the negotiations and agreements between Mr. Patel and the school district and how Mr. Patel has been damaged. He stated he believes that a denial of this project is not warranted. He claimed fault for assuming that due to a two and one-half year delay because of the school district's landslide that there would be a token consideration for further extension. He indicated he believes a one year extension is a reasonable request at this time on this specific project in this community. Mr. Dabney responded to Chair/McManus that the school district's mitigation was completed in early Fall of 1997. Since that time, the applicant has completed three grading plans, two separate hydrologies, designed reconstruction of Morning Sun Drive, submitted a grading plan to the school district, and submitted a preliminary hydrology report to the City. In order to proceed, the applicant needs approval of the extension. Responding to C/Ruzicka, Mr. Dabney stated that during a 90 day period all of the required data could be submitted to the City's staff. The stabilization drilling may require a longer period than 90 days. He stated he does not believe that a token 90 day extension is reasonable. All improvement plans can be submitted to the City within a 90 day period of time. CE/Wentz stated that he is concerned from an engineering standpoint that staff has not, seen any formal submittals from the applicant until NovemberMecember, 1998. He explained that due to the lengthy process of obtaining approvals from the County a resolution will not occur within 90 days. Staff is prepared to receive and review the applicant's submittals. It is up to the applicant to supply the information in a timely manner. JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE DCM/DeStefano stated that a 90 day period would be considered from the date of City Council approval of the extension. Within that time period there is definitive factual demonstrated performance of a bona fide application Mr. Dabney stated that the civil engineering aspect of the job is reasonable within a 90 day time frame. However, he cannot speak for the geotechnical engineer with whom he has no business relationship. Mr. Dabney responded to VC/Tye that he is capable of having the job completed within the requested one year extension period. The only hesitancy he has is with respect to a plan check issue with the County. Staff is correct that the applicant does not have permanent access onto school property. The applicant has temporary access for purposes of construction. If the final map is never approved, there is no access to the proposed map because access comes across school district property. CE/Wentz said he believes that staff can initiate the necessary language to assure that if the map proceeds to its final form that the property is owned by the map. Mr. Dabney confirmed to VC/Tye that Mr. Patel's understanding is that regardless of the makeup of future school district boards, that they will provide access_ Mr. Dabney explained to C/Kuo that because this project is a relatively small project for his firm he can assure the Commission that he will be able to complete the project in the time allotted if he is granted the extension. C/Ruzicka asked if staff has a problem with the assertion that the applicant can perform in a timely manner. CE/Wentz said that the August time frame requires that Mr. Dabney submit his improvement plans very quickly. DCM/DeStefano stated that staff has had a long relationship with the applicant and the speaker. Over the years Mr. Dabney has demonstrated his ability to provide the required j documentation in a timely fashion. It is up to Mr. Patel to provide Mr. Dabney with the direction and resources to accomplish the required documentation and responses within any given period of time. Staffs comfort level will only rise when the demonstrated performance is evident. There being no one else who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to recommend City Council approval of a one year extension of time for Approved Tract Map No. 52153, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12, and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9 of the City's approval dated May 17, 1995. JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 4 RECESS: Chair/McManus recessed the meeting at 8:09 p.m. to allow staff time to prepare a resolution of approval. RECONVENE: Chair/McManus reconvened the meeting at 8:19 p.m. DCM/DeStefano read the revised resolution. 2. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMNIISSIONER& ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Kao, Ruzicka, Chair/McManus VC/Tye Nelson None VC/Tye explained the reason for his "NO" vote is based upon Dr. Hockwalt's letter of December 3, 1998, stating that he believes that two new members of the school board who were not part of the prior discussion would require additional discussion. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance. Currently, the City has a moratorium (Ordinance No. 4-b (1998) on wireless telecommunication facilities which will be of no fin-ther force and effect as of July 17, 1999. A draft wireless telecommunication facilities ordinance has been prepared for the Planning Commission's consideration. If approved by the City Council, the wireless telecommunication facilities ordinance will be incorporated into the adopted Development Code, Article III, Section 22.42.130. Continued from December 8, 1998. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing and continue this matter to January 26, 1999-.- PROJECT 999: PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chair/McManus reopened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to continue the public hearing to January 26, 1999. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ___ — ______ __ .T _-_ - — —._— ,-1-i_s- _ rnr.M-eJ�try •rvM1.I�d.Jrll4lui-Nvrlwrna•�. �.�..._:E-r�..a1^rtsk=��_'�_I��G.x:L_y-. ... .. i_�._.vu:•rvwev+,•..».�. JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 5 PUBLIC HEARING: 1. General Plan Amendment No. 98-1 is a request to amend Objective No. 1.5, Strategy 1.5.3, page I-15 of the City's General Plan. The requested amendment proposes to insert the following language into the said Objective Strategy. "Any decision to rescind, terminate, abandon, remove or modify a deed must be supported by findings that the decision is of significant benefit to the City and the matter must be submitted as a ballot measure to the registered voters of Diamond Bar at an election; whereat a majority of those voting must vote in the affirmative on the ballot measure." PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DCM/DeStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony and recommend City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 98-1. C/Ruzicka stated that he believes development is one of the more obvious reasons for requesting the lifting of map and deed restrictions. What other reasons are there for lifting map'and deed restrictions? DCM/DeStefano responded that he is not aware of a reason for requesting a restriction to be modified or removed unless it had something to do with development. Chair/Ruzicka asked whether the lifting of restrictions would be considered for expansion of a park or some other recreational use. DCM/DeStefano indicated that restrictions would probably not effect a proposal for a passive park, nature trails, etc. and neither would they impact a proposal for an active park. However, they may effect other types of recreational use. C/Nelson asked how,, if this General Plan Amendment was approved, the City may have exposure to litigation or some other type of conflict. DCM/DeStefano stated that the City Attorney has not indicated he is concerned that the proposed language would provide an opportunity for inverse or some other taking issue. Whether or not someone wishes to litigate is their choice. JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 6 C/Nelson asked what effect this amendment would have on the proposal to place a civic center up near Summitridge Park which he believes falls within designated open space at Grand Avenue and Summitridge Drive. DCM/DeStefano stated it depends on where a civic center/community center type facility might be located. Summitridge Park is dedicated Parkland which has a different kind of "restriction" placed on it. He said he does not believe that the different type of restriction or issue would be impacted by a proposal to build a facility at that location. It might be an issue if the City attempted to build such a facility on one of the ridges adjacent to Summitridge Park that would be a part of the SunCal dedication to the City. C/Nelson stated that a newspaper article referred to the building of a civic center/community center at the immediate northwest intersection of Grand Avenue and Summitridge Drive which obviously cannot occur because it is on top of Summitridge Park. He said he does not believe that the community would tolerate giving up part of its parkland. Therefore, it would have to be some other portion of land which is dedicated open space and he is asking if,by approving this amendment; the City is painting itself into a corner to prevent a citywide vote . to place the civic center in that location.! DCM/DeStefmo said he does not believe that this amendment would jeopardize the ability to place such a facility within open space deeded/designated property. The physical characteristics of the SunCal property in that area may not lend themselves to the kind of facility that is being discussed. Whatever has been written or said about Summitridge Park as a candidate for such a facility is speculation at this point on the part of the writer. The City Council appointed a task force to look at amenities, size and location of a proposed facility. The task force will conclude its investigation and recommendation in June, 1999. The proposed facility could be situated at any number of locations within the City of Diamond Bar. There will no doubt be debate on the merits of any location that, is ultimately selected. With respect to Summitridge Park, the area within the park grounds that would appear to be a candidate is the area north of the ball fields and north of the long driveway into the park off of Summitridge Drive at the end of the concrete walkway leading up to the peak of the park. From an engineering perspective,, it is feasible to reduce the peak/ridge down and fill a two acre area just slightly north of that location.' Presently, there is a grassy volleyball facility at that location. It is possible to cut and fill in order to create about seven (7) flat acres for development. Such an undertaking is not without cost and environmental impacts. VC/Tye asked if it is correct that if a year ago this matter was before the City Council and the amendment was forwarded to City Council for approval and they approved the amendment, there still would have been no impact on !the SunCal matter because the SunCal' project did not involve open space. DCM/DeStefano responded that the SunCal property was not restricted as open space. In addition, it was a Vesting Tentative Map which would not, in his estimation, have been subjected to this issue. JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 7 I VC/Tye asked if the following scenario would require a vote of the people: If the City is deeded property from the SunCal project and the City Council, at some point in the future, determines that it would be a good idea to sell the property for development and use those j funds for developing a community center, building a library, etc. DCM/DeStefano responded that a sale of the property may not trigger this event. However, a proposed re -use of the property from open space may trigger this circumstance. VC/Tye asked why the references within the proposed wording are to "deed" when Strategy 1.5.3 talks about land designated as open space by deed, easement or map restriction? DCM/DeStefano indicated that the language suggested adds to the section that describes a deed only. However, the entire strategy discusses all three elements. He said he is unable to directly answer VC/Tye's question because there was no discussion of this matter at the City Council level. If the Commission has questions about the wording staffwill pursue the matter and provide an explanation. C/Ruzicka asked if the Commission could assume that the Council intended to include all three elements. DCM/DeStefano responded that he believes it would be more appropriate for the Commission to make a definitive recommendation so that the Commission's action points out that it wishes all three elements to be addressed. He said he does not believe that the Commission should assume that the Council intended to include all three items. VC/Tye said that if he had property that may be effected by this amendment he would be present to participate in the discussion. He asked if the Commission can imply from the fact that no audience members are present that this matter is of little concern to the public. DCM/DeStefano stated that it is difficult for him to surmise the intentions of the interested parties. He said that staff notified those persons who might be most directly effected. VC/Tye gave the following example. If "The Country Estates" had 150 acres designated as park and the association members decided that they wanted to develop 30 acres and leave the remaining 120 acres as open space. If the General Plan is amended, would that circumstance have to be put to a vote of the general community? Chair/McManus stated that the development of "The Country Estates" impacts the entire City. C/Nelson said that VC/Tye's question raises an issue that concerns him He indicated he can envision many scenarios, one of which is that there may be a group of individuals that wants to go into open space to develop active parklands. He said he believes this is a very real possibility and he so stated during the SunCal deliberations. People are not going to buy natural open space. And yet there may be a voting contingency that wants natural open space JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 8 and the rest of the citizens who do not care about natural open space do not show up to vote. Conversely, the opposite can occur. He said that it scares him to put it out to a political process to where small active special interest groups can get together where the minority out votes the majority simply because the majority is uninformed or unconcerned. DCM/DeStefano reiterated that he does not believe that passive open space issues would trigger a vote but he was not certain about whether active open spaces would trigger a vote. He said he is not prepared to answer questions about the implementation of the details at this point in time. He recalls that the open space area contained within "The Country Estates" is not designated by map restriction as open space. It is designated prohibiting the construction of residential buildings. "The Country Estates" would still need to come to the City for removal of that restriction, but it is not open space restriction and would not be impacted by Strategy 1.5.3. The removal of that type of restriction is discussed in Strategy 1.5.4. DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/McManus that the Commission's action will be forwarded to the City Council. The matter would not come back to the Commission unless there was further direction from the Council or unless the Council sought to incorporate issues that were not contained within the Commission's recommendation. Responding to C/Kuo, DCM/DeStefano stated that cities referred to in staffs report include the City of Napa and its County where they have designated areas of the community which require an election for consideration of nearly any type of development. The City of Cypress contains industrial areasthat require an election for modification to:, that land use. Several cities in San Diego County and in Central and Northern California. have ballot initiatives to consider insertion of this type of language due to growth control issues in those areas. C/Kuo asked if there is a trend of other cities and counties to adopt this type of amendment. DCM/DeStefano stated he does not believe there is a trend to adopt such an amendment but rather a reaction to growth policies that are not deemed to, be appropriate for those communities. He said he believes it is unusual for a local government to initiate such a provision. C/Kuo asked if staff is aware of any problems encountered by communities and counties that have adopted this type of amendment. DCM/DeStefano indicated he does not have a good historical record of what has been done in other communities. Almost every election speaks to issues in this arena. C/Nelson asked why staff is recommending approval of the proposed amendment. DCM/DeStefano responded that staff is recommending approval because it is an issue that the City Council wishes to entertain and it is reflective of concerns expressed by some residents through the SunCal process that open space land that would be dedicated to the City would be turned for profit to another developer and they view this amendment as a means to JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 9 mitigate that concern Furthermore, the proposed amendment is reflective of issues that were raised in the 1996 Initiative General Plan. This matter was discussed throughout all of the versions of the General Plan from 1991 forward. It seems to be reasonable to bring the matter forward for the City Council to ultimately conclude. Therefore, staff is recommending approval to move the matter forward and allow the elected members to make the ultimate decision. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Kuo that consideration of this General Plan Amendment requires a public hearing before the City Council. C/Ruzicka summarized that tonight's discussion has indicated that the Commissioners believe in the elected officials and their good intentions of considering an amendment such as this to the City's General Plan. However, he hopes that Council Members will take into account some of the very valid concerns that have been expressed during this discussion. VC/Tye concurred with C/Ruzicka that he has faith in the reasonable intentions of the present City Council Members. However, he is concerned about four and eight years from now. He wants to know if this is impacting few parcels and if so, is this a change for the sake of change? C/Ruzicka reiterated each Commissioner's concerns and said he believes that valid concerns have been expressed during this discussion. He hopes that the elected representatives will note the concerns expressed during their deliberations. Chair/McManus stated he believes the Commissioners would like to see open space remain open space - something between the current General Plan and Measure D. DCM/DeStefano stated that Measure D was much more restrictive in that it required voter approval for specific areas, specific land uses, and subdivisions. This amendment focuses on open space designated map and easement restricted properties. From that standpoint it is much less restrictive upon the entire community. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to continued the matter to January 26, 1999 and asked staff to provide answers to issues of concerns including what are the reasons why map and deed restrictions are asked for except for the obvious reason of home development and why easement and map restriction is not included with deed restriction. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None .r.=.. _.— __.. �'—�'-.,F.ag f i JANUARY 12, 1999 PAGE 10 A PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Nelson that as a result of the Sandstone Canyon/Pacific Standard project about a four acre portion of the upper portion of Sycamore Canyon park has been designated to include expanding the wetland area by about one-half acre and creating about a three and one-half oak woodland with the planting of 300-400 oak trees. This project is being designed and funded by the project as a matter of mitigation that was discussed within the Environmental Impact Report. He stated he will provide a copy of the City Council report on this project to the Commission. The project is proposed to be completed within about 60 days. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano stated that yesterday, Diamond Bar won the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency lawsuit. The Commissioners are invited to a groundbreaking ceremony scheduled for 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 21, 1999 for the Travelers Insurance Company building project, Lot 2 of the Gateway Corporate Center. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As agendized. ADJOURNMENT: C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m. I Respectfully Submitted, i AeseStefano4 Secretary to the Planning Commission Attest: e McManus hairrnan 'i `w, ,;'