HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/2000MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management
Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Tye.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners
George Kuo, Steve Tye, and Joe Ruzicka.
Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Robert Pittman, Assistant City
Attorney, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, David Meyer,
Planning Consultant, Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary, Sheriff's
E Department representatives Sgt. Flannery, and Deputy Terry McLaughlin,
and Fire Department representative Inspector Joe Alvarado.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Agenda items were scheduled in the following order: Public
Hearing Items 8.2, 8. 1, and Continued Public Hearing Items 7.1 and 7.2.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR: None.
8. PUBLIC HEARING:
8.2 Development Review No. 2000-17, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-20
(pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020.A(1), 22.42.060 and 22.58) is a request to construct
a two-story, single- family residence of approximately 17,532 square feet, with balconies,
porch, patio and detached five -car garage and limousine garage with a guest house.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2899 Vista Court (Tract No. 47850, Lots 17 and 18)
�'° Diamond Bar, CA 91765
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
Diamond Bar West, LLC
3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300
Torrance, CA 90503
Richard Gould
3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300
Torrance, CA 90503
DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve Development Review No. 2000-17, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-20,
Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution.
C/Tye asked that Condition (e) on page 8 of the draft resolution be amended to indicate that
the access easement be obtained prior to permit issuance.
Kurt Nelson, Diamond Bar West, LLC, stated that in accordance with C/Tye's concern, his
firm has reserved the easement in question, evidence of which can be provided to staff prior
to construction. Landscape plans will be provided in accordance with staff's time line.
There is no problem with staff's condition regarding the Cabana.
VC/Zirbes asked if the, applicant would agree to the addition of the following language for
Condition (e) in accordance with C/Tye's concern: "...guest house, prior to construction of
the structure," to which Mr. Nelson responded "absolutely."
Richard Gould asked if Condition (e) could read: "...easements as necessary..." because he
does not believe an easement is necessary to access the applicant's own property. The
applicant grants an easement to another party to access the property.
VC/Zirbes suggested the following verbiage for Condition (e) "The applicant shall obtain
and record the necessary Grant of Easement for the Right to Access of the Easement for
Emergency Vehicles for access to the limousine garage and, guesthouse prior to the
construction."
DCM/DeStefano stated that staff recommends the following language in the event of
Commission approval: "If required by the City Attorney, the Applicant shall obtain and
record a Grant of Easement for the Right to Access of the Easement for Emergency
Vehicles for access to the limousine garage and guesthouse. Said Easement shall be
recorded with evidence provided to the City prior to occupancy."
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public
hearing.
-17 1 � , " 1 7- '1 �":I � �, ': I , , 1� , � it": "I !,M -,, I � �, " , �-J I �Ar
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Ruzicka moved, C1Tye seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-17, and
Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-20, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval,
as listed within the resolution including the following amendment to Condition (e), page 8:
"If required by the City Attorney, the Applicant shall obtain and record a Grant of Easement
for the Right to Access of the Easement for Emergency Vehicles for access to the limousine
garage and guesthouse. Said Easement shall be recorded with evidence provided to the
City prior to occupancy." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-02, and Development Review No. 2000-20 (pursuant
to Code Sections 22.58.020, 22.42.130 G and 22.48.020) are requests to co -locate a
telecommunications facility on an existing monopole approved on January 25, 1993, by
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-11. The request also includes an equipment cabinet, utility
pedestal and concrete pad for both.
t
David Meyer, Planning Consultant, presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-02, and Development
Review No. 2000-20, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the
resolution.
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
Craig Clute, 21217 Fountain Springs Road, asked if alternative sites were considered, and
how much co -location is acceptable in the City. He asked that the Commission to condition
the project to require fence and landscape screening for all equipment.
DCM/DeStefano indicated that it is within the Commission's purview to require screening
to mitigate the visual impact of this project- He recommended that the applicant respond
to questions posed by the speaker.
Keyur Mistry, Metricom, Inc., stated that the reason his firm concluded that this site was
most appropriate is that this is the best site in Diamond Bar from a height standpoint which
connects to their other service sites. Metricom prefers locating on existing monopoles
whenever possible to avoid building new sites. Because the antenna will be located barely
above the tree tops it is anticipated that it will be well camouflaged. Metricom has no
problem providing landscaping and screening as set forth by the Commission. To eliminate
this site would create a hole in Metricom's network. This is a wireless internet site rather
than a cellular site. A monopole is essentially built to allow for two or three co -locations.
Currently, there is one existing carrier at the top of the monopole. Because Metricom
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
intends to locate at the 50 foot level, a third carrier would be required to go below tree level
which would make no sense and would indicate that Metricom would be the last co -
location on that monopole. Metricom paints the antennas to match the monopole or
whatever color the city prefers. Experience indicates that attempts to shield antennas on
a monopole draws more attention to the monopole than by simply locating the antennas on
the monopole and painting them 'a matching color. He asked the Commission to provide
him with information regarding the type of desired' screening so that he can take the
information back to his engineer.
PC/Meyer asked the Commission to provide direction to staff in order to allow staff the
opportunity to work with the applicant toward providing the desired information.
C/Ruzicka asked that staff update the Commission about the proposed technology and how
it compares to cell site technology and the number of sites that may be required in the
future.
Mr. Mistry explained to C/Ruzicka that the power and frequency of Internet technology are
much lower than of cellular technology.
Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing.
VC/Zirbes moved, C/Tye seconded, to re -open the public hearing and continue this matter .
to January 9, 2001, to provide applicant the time to interface with staff and for staff to
provide an updated report to the Commission with respect to design and screening/shielding
of the site. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:12 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:30 p.m.
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 99-4, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 99-9, originally
approved on August 10, 1999, to allow for the operation of a restaurant with outdoor
dining, the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages and entertainment
(i.e., dancing with a DJ, karaoke, guitarist, folk singer, and comedy nights) at the location
afr,
referenced -below. In accordance with Condition No. 50) of Resolution No. 99-19, a A
periodic review of the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Conditional Use Permit is
-required to assure compliance with conditions of approval and to consider whether to
. .. ., _ --11-1-1 I ., 1" r1l "v.rn..z..-,nor:, `m ^,aeat_r:.f�G@:I,eb.
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
modify, add conditions as necessary, or revoke the permit. Municipal Code
Section 22.76.020 authorizes the City to schedule a public hearing before the Planning
Commission to consider modification or revocation of Conditional Use Permit. (Continued
from October 10, 2000.)
PROJECT UNDER REVIEW:
PROJECT OWNER:
APPLICANT:
Platinum Restaurant
245 Gentle Springs Lane
(Parcel 1, Parcel Map No. 15547)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
SX Diamond Bar
259 Gentle Springs Lane
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Chris Pierce
245 Gentle Springs Lane
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
r i DCM/DeStefano and PC/Meyer and Sgt. Flannery presented their reports. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. DCM/DeStefano
reported that today staff received a fax copy of a letter dated November 27, 2000, from
Jeffrey Meltzer, an attorney representing the property owner, SX Diamond Bar. The letter
generally addresses the parking issues between SX Diamond Bar and Platinum Restaurant.
Also, today staff received a letter from Dale Hoy who resides in a condominium adjacent
to the site. The letter refers to problems related to noise issues. Also received this evening
is communication from Rutan and Tucker, attorneys for Platinum Restaurant, which
responds to issues that are outstanding as a result of the October 10, 2000, Planning
Commission comments.
ACA/Pittman indicated to C/Ruzicka that he is not privy to what occurred in the lawsuit.
He said he would assume that the temporary injunction was to prevent the hotel owner from
blocking off the parking spaces as they were doing at the time of the previous Commission
hearing.
C/Ruzicka asked if ABC has taken any action with respect to the liquor license.
Sgt. Flannery explained that the recission is not a denial. It is a withholding of approval
until the licensing detail can be assured that the public safety concerns have been addressed
satisfactorily with respect to the number of calls for service and strain on the field staff.
`. This is not an unusual action.
i
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
4upCi
VC/Zirbes referred to the October 10, 2000, packet attachment 27. Assuming that the
usable square footage of the facility is 6,724 square feet and the use is for a nightclub, what
would be the required number of parking spaces?
DCM/DeStefano stated that as PC/Meyer indicated, regardless of the square footage for
dining or dancing, the ultimate determination on the appropriate number of parking spaces
lies with the Planning Commission. This is a discretionary permit.
VC/Zirbes asked if the City regulates on -street parking on Gentle Springs Lane.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the street is a private street. It is his understanding that
each of the property owners own a portion of the street frontage. He is not aware of any on -
street parking restrictions on that- street. However, parking is prohibited on the vast
majority of the street. Enforcement lies with the property owners.
C/Kuo indicated to the City Attorney that his understanding is that the Planning
Commission has a right to review the CUP and modify or add new conditions to the CUP.
However, correspondence from the restaurant operator's attorney (page 5) states that if the
Commission does so it would be abuse of discretion and an unconstitutional taking of their
property rights. Please comment.
ACA/Pittman stated that the Commission has the ability to review a discretionary permit
that it has issued. It' must be done with notice and give the owner and applicant an
opportunity to be heard during the process before the Commission can impose any
conditions or revoke the permit. With respect to modifying the approval and imposing
additional conditions, that is something that is within the rights, provided circumstances
and evidence warrant it. The Commission must establish on the record that there are
factors or conditions that were not considered previously or that have I changed since the
approval, that warrant the imposition of additional conditions, or that are a violation of the
Conditional Use Permit and either need to be mitigated through additional conditions or
warrant revocation. The City's Code sets forth specific grounds on which the Commission
can look at or modify the existing approvals.
PC/Meyer responded to Chair/Nelson that when he conducted his observation of the site
on the evening referenced in his report to the Commission, he concluded that there seemed
to be adequate parking, good circulation, no vehicles were stopped on the street, and traffic
moved in a reasonable and rational manner until about 11:30 p.m. at which time two of the
security guards moved to the parking lot east of the establishment and began directing
traffic. From an overall perspective, there was good parking management. With respect
to noise, he could hear music playing from the Kmart parking lot. He did not have a noise
meter, but from experience the noise was somewhat obtrusive and of heavy bass. He was
approximately 150 feet away from and in front of the establishment at about 30 feet above
the facility. There was no milling around in the parking area on the part of patrons.
. „, . �,.. ,m.,. ,•.,, . -r, •,..:..mss :•n>
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
PAGE 7
PLANNING COMMISSION
Patrick Munoz, attorney of Rutan & Tucker, wants the Commission to understand and
appreciate that his client has done everything that has ever been asked of them and
continues to be willing to do everything that is being asked of them within reason - to
operate a good business that is good for not only them and their pocketbook, but for the
City. Bear in mind one thing, that the alternative to having this business there is to have
a shuttered up empty building. The building was there for a long time, not doing well. The
original staff report points out that there was a lot of need for work in the parking lot. It
was a blight. As Planning Commissioners, your role is to make certain you don't have
blight in the City. Good planning is kind of your role. Well, doing something that will
negatively impact this business to a point where it has to shut down will cause the exact
opposite of what your duty is as Planning Commissioners, you will cause the result of
blight. If you impose additional conditions of parking on this property they (Platinum)
cannot meet it. It is beyond their control to guarantee additional parking spaces. They will
be out of compliance and you will be perfectly entitled to revoke their CUP for being out
of compliance presuming you are entitled to impose the conditions and put them out of
business. In this case, the Platinum Restaurant and Nightclub asked for a temporary
restraining order, which the judge granted. The judge clarified his order that 290 spaces
that exist on the property must be made available at all times for both parties, the hotel and
the restaurant. Neither party has the right to restrict .any of the parking spaces. The case
-~ is over, Platinum has won. So, Platinum cannot abide by an order from the Commission
that says that Platinum has to have 290 spaces available or 150 spaces available, or
anything more than 96 spaces available because Platinum cannot guarantee the Commission
that the judge might not make a final determination in which he determines that the spaces
will be split down the middle. In his opinion, Platinum has a 75, 85, 95 percent of getting
the original order as its permanent injunction. This case is over - Platinum has won. The
barrier is down and there are 290 spaces available on-site. In addition, there are 50 parking
spaces on the private street. The parking problem is solved. The better news is that my
client (Platinum) has voluntarily gone out and tried to make certain that there is additional
parking. They have secured informal parking agreements. There is better news. Although
we do not have to, we have offered to the hotel to pay for half of the cost of turning the last
corner of that property into a parking lot. Platinum wants to help solve this issue. We
cannot understand why the hotel isn't being looked at. The hotel'is causing the problem.
If this does not occur, Platinum has more parking, based upon the,City's Code, right now.
Platinum envisioned a business where 60 percent of the revenue was generated by
restaurant service and 40 percent of the revenue would be generated by nightclub activities
(dancing and entertainment). That is a vision. There is no requirement in the CUP that
they do that. In fact, there is no requirement in the CUP application or in the CUP itself
that they even provide you with their business plan. But in an effort to be up front, they
gave it to the Commission. Everyone is trying to make it sound like the City got tricked
- that this is more of a nightclub than a restaurant and nobody ever told you that. And, if
—° you had known that you would not have approved the CUP like this and you would have
required more parking. The City Code currently requires 96 spots. Fifty percent of all of
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
the cities that were surveyed do not have the one spot per 35 square feet number. If the
hotel requires 88 spots, that leaves more than 200 parking spots.
Mr. Munoz continued stated his client was surprised by the Sheriff's statement.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Sheriff would have a difficult time explaining how they
approved the facility when the conditions were worse, because they just testified tonight
that the conditions have gotten better, and now when conditions are better they're not going
to approve the facility. Nevertheless, Platinum will provide what the Sheriff wants. He
read from page 1 of staff''s report regarding the 1999 public hearing process which
described Platinum as a "fine dining establish." He stated his concern that tonight's staff
reported that there appeared to be no diners on November 23 and 24, 2000, which was the
night before and Thanksgiving Day. He pointed out that the name of the establishment
does not matter. What matters is, the use of the establishment. The parking problems
being discussed occur after 10:00 p.m. There is nothing in the CUP or in the law that says
Platinum has to be successful' as a restaurant or as a nightclub or that prohibit Platinum
from being successful as a restaixrant'or as a nightclub. The Commission will have violated
the law if it imposes new conditions on Platinum. Not only is Platinum required to have
96 parking spots, Platinum spent a "fortune"' to make certain that it had 290 parking spots
and, Platinum offered' up an addition "fortune" to create 1 a whole new parking area
(Exhibit A of the eonsultant'§ report). If the hotel does not accept this offer, maybe the '.
City should'be, looking at their CUP. Conclude your review and let Platinum move
forward: The City, s Building �Offici�al told the Cori�nission that he cannot believe the fire _
department thinks' they get lo, decide occupancy. �,, 's !his (the building official's) job.
Platinum never represented that 60 percent of its facility would be used for restaurant and
40 percent would be used for other. Platinum said !in its business plan that 60 percent of
the revenue was projected to !be from the restaurant portion and 40 percent from other
business. ABC does not look at whether 51percent is used for food or not. ABC looks at
whether you are a' bona fide eating establishment which Platinum is. Platinum did not
request a continuance. Platinum wants its business' license completed. Platinum submitted
a business plan in April 2000. They were not to scale because; no one told Platinum they
had to be to scale. They (the plans) were for use by the fire department and the fire
department does not calculate occupancy. They want to see that the establishment has a
seating plan that is safe for egress purposes. After the fire department found the plans after
they had lost them the second time around they said, for the first time that they had to be to
scale. So Platinum went back, and resubmitted them to scale by using a CAD program and
detailing every nook and cranny. These `oto scale" plans did not get turned in until just prior
to Thanksgiving. Mr. DeStefano sent a referral to the Business License Commission a
couple of days after the October 10, 2000, hearing telling them that the City wanted
Platinum's Business License denied which lead to a hearing appearance. A couple of days
later Platinum was told it -was a mistake and that they in fact did not have to appear for a
hearing. Platinum did not know about the yellow page issue until it was brought up this-
evening.
hinevening. Platinum pays for the yellow page ads and they advertise their establishment as
both a restaurant and a night club. Literature was provided to the Commission this evening
- ___—_— .-_ �._..—.�... .. ........_ .,.,....... �. _—�"_•--"=',sx�:,�.,'x �:�.:s�r..g �=�::_r1,L—��___ _—i:amFl III.rmnw Nk,Nle�u,naikFrvrNx.rk.ni, --__ —___ _ _ _ _-- _ __- _ -_ _ _ _—_ _ � __
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
that shows Platinum advertises itself as a restaurant only. Platinum has two business uses
- two uses that the Planning Commission approved that says Platinum was approved to be
a restaurant before 10:00 p.m. and a nightclub after 10:00 p.m. Platinum will try to live up
to the Commission's vision of their establishment. Tell them what you would like and ask
them to do it voluntarily - it will be done.
C/Ruzicka asked the City Attorneyto comment on the preliminary injunction.
ACA/Pittman responded that there are three levels. However, because of the type of
underlying litigation, all three levels would end up in front of the same judge. He
(Mr. Munoz) is correct that the middle level injunction is decided upon its merits. Absent
additional information or the judge having a change of heart it is unlikely that if the hotel
continues to push the issue that they will get a different result. They (the hotel) may end
up with a permanent injunction that bars them from doing it.
C/Ruzicka asked Mr. Munoz about a possible reciprocal parking agreement with the Kmart
through their management company.
Mr. Munoz responded that through the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce, Platinum
has had some negotiations with Kmart. It is his understanding that at this point in history
` W Kmart is waiting to hear back from their corporate offices. The local management was not
able to make the decision. He stated that Platinum does not want to come before the
Commission this evening and reference "pie in the sky" possibilities.
Mr. Munoz responded to C/Tye that the City requires 88 parking spots for the hotel - one
spot per room. The City also requires one spot for each two employees at the busiest shift.
Assuming a maximum of 10 employees at one time, that means 5 additional spots for a
total of 93 parking spots which leaves nearly 200 parking spots for Platinum. Doubling the
96 parking spots (one spot for every 35 square feet plus) indicates 192 parking spaces
which leaves 5 or 6 on-site extra parking spots not taking into account the number of
(50) off-site parking spots.
C/Tye said he believes that the name on a business application is relevant, because it was
not represented as Platinum Restaurant and Nightclub. When he came on the Planning
Commission he was given three criteria to consider: 1) is it good for Diamond Bar, 2) is it
good for the neighborhood, and -3) does the use fit the location. He believes that to a person,
the Planning Commission would agree that a restaurant fits the location. He was present
when the original CUP was reviewed. He was never under the impression that this was
going to be a nightclub, successful or otherwise. He agrees that there may not be a
"1 requirement that revenue be generated on such a basis, but there was a representation made
in a business plan that may not have been legally required but was represented. There are
continuing representations that something was represented but that's not what we meant.
This is a Conditional Use Permit, not an unconditional use permit. Certainly, it is within the
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
purview of the Planning Commission to see what actions are appropriate. Sgt. Flannery
specified that 30 calls were significant. You (Mr. Munoz) began your testimony by stating
that there were only 30 calls and not all of them were significant. What he (Sgt. Flannery)
was clarifying was that of the 100 represented at the October 10, 2000, meeting, 30 were
significant.
Mr. Munoz stated that that is what Sgt. Flannery said the first time. The second time he got
up he clarified again and he said that 30 of the total calls apply to the restaurant and he also
said that the last six calls that have occurred were not significant. That means that all 30
were not significant. Taking the facts in the worst possible light for my client - I wasn't here
-you were -I just look at the objective documents. What you approved on paper is what a
judge is going to look at. What you approved on paper is a nightclub after 10:00 p.m. And
it is a Conditional Use Permit. But that means that at the time you issue it you can impose
conditions. It does not mean that afterward you can change those conditions. Once you've
issued it (Conditional Use Permit) the vested right exists. They have a right to use it as
approved, period. You can't change it unless they violate the conditions.
Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing.
Vince Galloway, 300 Prospectors Road (Fall Creek condominiums) (provided map of
41
condo layout) stated that he has lived at his location for approximately 20 years. Prior to
a hotel or restaurant he came before the City to discuss whether residents would approve
or disapprove of the creation of hotel and restaurants. The residents were happy to have
such quality establishments available. However, in no way did the representation include
a "nightclub" activity which would have been a concern to the residents if so noted.
i Homeowners have written letters to the City regarding the public nuisance aspect of this
facility (noise, ingresslegress, trash, problems with patrons getting in and out of the
complex). His biggest concern is that they feel the City has been tricked. The residents
would love to have a good food establishment in that location. However, he really thinks
this is a ploy to represent what they do in their advertisement. He provided cards that speak
about the nightclub aspect of the facility. He hoped to find out the actual capacity numbers.
He read from an advertisement brochure that states "every Saturday night a party at the only
club that caters to California college students. All Greeks that wear their letters in free all
tonight. Three dance floors, six fully stocked bars, three rooms, 1000 capacity. Doors open
at 9:00 p.m. 18 and over. Bring a friend and receive two for one Platinum etc. Greek
Night - beginning Thursday, November 30 and every Thursday thereafter - UCR, CSUF,
CalPoly-Pomona, UCLA, USC, UC Cal -State, LACSULS, CSU and UCSD, SDSU and
many other campuses." And with respect to Ms. Pierce's dialogue talking about Diamond
Bar and its great demographics of 30-40 year olds, the reality is that Diamond Bar is not
- really being targeted. It's really more of the college campuses and the younger crowd
which is okay. The biggest concern with the Fall Creek residents has to do with the
massive numbers of people who frequent this establishment and related traffic
management. The residents are also concerned about the value of adjacent properties. The
-41
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
sign on the restaurant indicates the hours of the restaurant to be Wednesday to Saturday
5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. which is four nights and does not measure up to what a bona fide
eating establishment is supposed to be. As a resident of Diamond Bar he is concerned
about the amount of police and fire support that would be required for service calls made
to this location. On a really busy night, not like the evening witnessed by the City's
consultant, when they (Platinum) have a big event the traffic can be much more horrendous
all night long. Residents want restaurants and other businesses in the area. They want
something that is not quite so disruptive of the residents' day to day life.
Ashlyn Nicholson, 364 S. Prospectors Road #140 (Fall Creek), stated that in addition to the
items covered by Mr. Galloway, her window faces the Platinum. She can see the facility
from her bedroom window. At night, four nights a week and sometimes five nights a week,
her walls vibrate. The problem was even greater during the summer. She could not keep
her windows open at night because of the extreme noise. Even with the windows shut she
has to wear ear plugs. As a result, her ears are starting to bleed and she has to sleep in her
living room often because it is less noisy. There is excessive noise emanating from the
facility. She realizes that she should have been calling the sheriff's department earlier. She
has only recently begun calling them because she did not realize that it was an option
because it is a business. She has not seen any difference since she began calling. Even if
the sound is lowered it carries outside because the doors are open to the outside patios. She
is frustrated that Platinum is being portrayed as a victim. She does not see Platinum as the
victim, she sees Fall Creek homeowners as victims because they have to put up with this
nuisance. She also has problems with access to her back gate in the late evening hours.
Late at night security guards don't even ask her where she's going, they tell her she's not
allowed on that street. She does not feel safe having a nightclub within 500 feet of her
residence. She has had people park in her parking space who have told her they are going
to Platinum. She is also worried that these people are drinking and they are so close to
residences she feels uncomfortable. At least one day a week on the weekend the
association's gate is broken open which would allow people to enter the community. She
went to Platinum Nightclub on November 18 with a friend. She was very surprised. What
was portrayed at the October 10, 2000, hearing was nothing like what they witnessed. It
was not people in their 30's and 40's. In fact, at 28 and her friend at 29 were about the
oldest in attendance. There were many young people. The music included a lot of sexual
profanity. She witnessed one couple simulating sex in front of her. There was no place to
sit except for reserved seating: It was very crowded and was probably a fire hazard that
night. It was very hard to move. People were pushing other people. A waitress pushed her
very hard so that she could move. And there were not many people on the dance floor.
Platinum was open as a nightclub on November 22 and 23rd. She presented a flyer
confirming this fact. To her knowledge, there was no food served on the night she attended
the facility. She was never offered food service nor did she see a menu. Several months
ago when she began to be frustrated by the noise she went to City Hall and looked up the
Noise Ordinance. She referred to Chapter 22.28. She called Platinum today to find out
their restaurant hours. She got a voice recorded message that referred only to the nightclub
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION
and she could not get any information about the restaurant - only that they are open this
Sunday night for some kind of ladies free night. Section 4. 0) of the Planning
Commission's resolution states that "granting the Conditional. Use Permit will not be
detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, injurious to persons, properties or
improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located." She
believes that the granting of the. Conditional Use Permit is detrimental to the public
interests, to safety, to health, etc. She has epilepsy and if she does not get enough sleep she
has seizures. As a result of this establishment, she is at risk four nights a week because she
does not get sufficient sleep until after 2:30 to 3:00 a.m. after the Platinum closes and car
alarms and traffic ceases. She wondered how many of the Planning Commissioners would
like a neighbor like this.
Mr. Galloway pointed out that Ashlyn Nicholson and David Hoy's units are indicated on
the map he provided. Their bedroom windows face out toward the back into the parking
lot, toward the gate, toward the club. At the October 10, meeting Mr. Haber spoke about
how he does not hear the noise and he (Mr. Galloway) does not hear it either because their
units do not face'the club.
Tim Schlose, 380 S. Prospectors Road #87, presented flyers that he pulled down from
nearby offices in Brea between State College and Cramer between Lambert Road and the
Imperial Freeway from which he read. He stated that nowhere in this advertisement does „
it refer to Platinum serving food. In addition, Platinum frequently advertises on KISS FM
as a nightclub and not as'a restaurant. He also presented photographs of the Platinum
parking lot he took on November 7, 2000, at 11:00 a.m. which show bottles thrown in the
ivy. This is minor compared to what he has seen and picked up at other times. He went
around to the back of the facility and found bottles sitting on the inside of the wall well on
the ContinentalBurger side. He regularly picks up bottles from in front of the hotel and
Platinum parking lot and puts them in the trash.
Trudy Coleman, Vice President, NAACP, Pomona Valley, turned over her time to John
Thompson.
John Thompson, President, Pomona Valley NAACP, said he has listened to the comments
and concerns of the residents and the Planning Commission. He is not in the habit of
championing establishments of lewd conduct, gambling, etc. He believes morals are very
important. Safety of the patrons as well as, the safety of the community is very important
to him. He spoke about matters of culture. He does not normally patronize clubs.
However, in today's culture, they need a place to go and something to do. Access in 2000
is a problem in terms of the African-American community. Generally, establishments such
as this have a two to three year life span. The Platinum Club is an exceptional club in that
thousands of people attend and the community has two or three complaints from the police
department. Diamond Bar is not known for its diversity. It is an expensive community and
certainly property value is an issue for its residents. More than likely, the people who live
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION
here make great sacrifices. Notwithstanding, the issue of the licensing is relevant to the
City's attitude toward diversity. Platinum is not primarily a white establishment. The
complaints are directed toward black people and what black people do.. This is not a
workplace. He salutes the City's thoroughness and scrutiny. He does not visualize an
attitude of working with this situation, he visualizes an attitude of how fast can we get rid
of this situation. As the young lady stated "these" people and they have to be African
American and Latino people. This community has the proud privilege of enjoying an
establishment that handles large numbers of people without problems. For all intent and
purpose, he sees the City trying to make problems where problems do not exist. This club
has not been issued a license and there is no reasonable excuse why this process hasn't gone
forward. His concern is one of fairness, concern for the neighbors and the patrons as well
as, other stated concerns. He asked the Commission not to turn away the opportunity -to
entertain the diverse community in terms of this establishment. He encouraged the people
who are against this establishment to try to come together to work out the communities in
order for this business to continue until it lives out its life. The parties involved are willing
to work through the process. His concern is for the community and what Diamond Bar's
attitude will be with the diverse community. He urged the parties to- work together to
resolve this issue.
Angela Pierce diDonato, reminded the Commission that her mother is Jill Pierce and her
brother is Chris Pierce. She was at Platinum on November 18, when Ms. Nicholson states
she was there. She is proud to say she is going to be 30 next month and she was one of the
younger people at the establishment that evening. Friday night and Saturday night are both
21 and over. College night is Thursday night. The dance floor was packed. There are
appetizer menus all over the establishment on every level. Any appetizer can be ordered
from any of the cocktail waitresses. All of -the bartenders direct patrons to order things
from the cocktail waitresses. In response to a former speaker who is supportive of a
restaurant being in that location but not necessarily a nightclub, we have not seen any of the
people who spoke patronize and support the restaurant portion of the business. Both
portions of the business are advertised. Shortly after Platinum opened the establishment,
they were asked not to put posters up in Diamond Bar and posters were not placed in the
City of Diamond Bar after that. Our competitors posters are placed all around our
establishment on the neighboring off -ramps but you will not see our posters in the City of
Diamond Bar. The restaurant is advertised in the newspaper, in the entertainment booklet,.
in the Pennysaver. She is an attorney in Los Angeles and brings her attorney friends to the
night club on the weekends. It is not a teeny-bopper establishment. It is a place where
professional people go to have a drink, to listen to music, and to enjoy themselves which is
what it has always been. It is a very respectable place. No adjacent business has spoken
against Platinum. The only business that has opposed the establishment is the landlord and
r three residents. There are no dates on the photographs, there is no time -line for the
30 telephone calls to the Sheriff's Department. Within the past two months there were six
calls. Over a 16 month period there have been 30 calls of somewhat significance. She is
concerned that Ms. Nicholson stated she made three of the six calls within the last two
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION
a,u
months. It is disturbing to think that every night their business runs she may call to make
a complaint. There will always be people who do not support a business. Platinum is not
trying to portray itself as the victim. This is a family business. Sixteen months ago this
family relied upon the fact that it could open this business. All of its resources, financial,
emotional and physical support went into opening this business. Platinum has brought
business to surrounding businesses. She has been a resident of Diamond Bar for the past
four years., She asked the Commission to support the business.
Joel Haber, 356 S. Prospectors Road, stated that on October 10, 2000, he mentioned that
there was trash in the area outside the Fall Creek gate which is supported by photographs.
This fact was brought to the attention of the Platinum owners and that has been cleaned up.
He walks down Gentle Springs Lane every morning to get a newspaper. The trash is not
there anymore. With respect to the traffic, it moves and it moves very smoothly. He has
gone by the establishment many times in the evening and he goes through without any
problem. No one stops him. If he' is stopped they do' so in a very friendly manner. With
respect to noise, if it is a big concern, why didn't anyone go to the owners and say they had
a problem and ask them to do something about it. They have not.' In fact, when the owners
received a letter from the Fall Creek Homeowners Association, they sent a letter out
indicating that if anyone had a problem to come to them and let them see if they can work
something out. He has eaten at Platinum, it is a restaurant and they do advertise it as such.
He does not see people supporting the restaurant. Hv sees people criticizing the nightclub
but nobody comes to the ;restaurant and he'does not believe it is because Platinum has a
nightclub. He has had food at the Platinum. He has, seen people have fun. They dance,
they have fun and they leave. The security guards' are there and makes certain everyone
gets to their cat and peopl1e leave. They do not cause any problems in the community. He
has seen what goes on in the evening. The people who frequent the nightclub come there,
they leave and they do not cause any trouble. In fact, the adjacent businesses welcome
patrons because they frequent their businesses. He does not have a problem with the
nightclub. If other people have problems they should go to the owners and tell them. He
is certain the owners would work with neighbors just as well as they are working with the
City and that a compromise can be' worked out.
Scott Duffner,1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3-K, Tustin, CA 92780, representing Kmart
Corporation, stated the following: As of 3:00 p.m. today, neither the Director of Real Estate
nor the Vice President and General Counsel of Kmart were aware of any additional
negotiations with the Platinum Club, the Platinum Restaurant or anyone associated
therewith for the use of Kmart's parking lot. We have, and continue to make it clear, that
Kmart is not inclined to' provide any shared parking on any basis whatsoever for that
operation. Secondly, Kmart has enjoyed a significant long-term relationship with this City
and has found this City to be very much business -friendly. He and his client wish to go on
record as supporting the City's Staff and the Planning Commission in their determinations
this evening.
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE'15 ` PLANNING COMMISSION
Jill Pierce, owner of the Platinum Restaurant and Nightclub, stated that with respect to
noise, Platinum had 5 noise calls in 16 months, three of which were from one person. In
every instance, Platinum has looked into the matter. Platinum is zoned C-1 commercial.
Under the Code, there are requirements relative to noise levels. She believes it is
55 decibels prior to 10:00 p.m. and 50 decibels after 10:00 p.m. On a regular basis,
Platinum conducts sound level meter readings. Platinum has never had one single reading
that has been in excess of the City's Code. The landlord hired a professional to take
readings on Friday and Saturday night. The professional told her that "there is no sound
issue here" and even if there were, the freeway noise completely obliterates it. We believe
that on Sunday night when the freeway noise is less that there may be more sound carried
and Platinum will investigate that issue. Not believing the results of the survey, the
landlord asked the professional to return the next weekend for a reading which he did with
the same results. With respect to trash, the street has always presented a problem and
Platinum cleans it up. Relative to the Kmart issue, she has exhausted all of her options
with Kmart Corporation. There is some reason that Kmart Corporation will not tell us why
they will not entertain any options offered by Platinum. ,Recently, the Diamond Bar
Chamber of Commerce stepped in and directly negotiated with the local manager of Kmart
who said that if it was asked of her she would have no problem with it but she does not
have the authority to make that decision on her own. As early as this afternoon - 5:30 p.m.
- she received another follow up telephone call from a Chamber member who was working
on this negotiation to say that there most recent update is that the manager of the Kmart has
not yet heard back from Corporate. The County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Code
Enforcement that today rescinded the approval that they made a year ago is under the very
direct and immediate direction by City management as is the County Las Angeles Fire
Department and each and every effort that Platinum sees from them that becomes
detrimental to Platinum, the name Jim DeStefano comes back. She believes that it is the
City management of the City of Diamond Bar that is making direct detrimental efforts and
using the County and City agencies against Platinum to facilitate the actions they would
like to see happen.
The owner of Continental Burger stated that the photograph (of the bottles lined up on his
wall) was correct. He picks up the trash himself almost everyday. He spoke to his landlord
about this matter about a month ago. No matter how they try, most problems involving
trash and people who urinate on the premises will continue to exist. He asked his landlord
to build a large wall between his establishment and Platinum but he has not had a response.
He does not believe these problems will go away.
Craig Clute agrees that diversity is needed in Diamond Bar. He believes it is great to have
an entertainment club in Diamond Bar. He attempted to get food at the restaurant one
F " evening but it was too crowded and he left. With respect to noise, the restaurant is in a
freeway corridor and the sound decibel is allowed to be well above 60-65. Unfortunately,
today's technology produces low-end frequency a lot more accurately. Perhaps Platinum's
security people could monitor the condominium area. His neighborhood suffers from
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 16
PLANNING COMMISSION
alcohol containers and other trash from the high school and the school does not pick up the
trash. He is a neutral observer of this situation. Regarding parking code violations, this
City has wide spread parking problems. It is not exclusive to this establishment. He
supports the sheriff's department in their efforts.
Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing.
C/Ruzicka asked Mr. Duffner to amplify his statement regarding a possible parking
agreement between Platinum and Kmart.
Mr. Duffner stated that Kmart is a large,corporation. He has been with the corporation for
a long period of time. The direction -he has and has had consistently from the people he
answers to, the Director of Real Estate for the Western Region and Kmart's General
Counsel, is that they have no interest in providing a parking agreement, not just to this club,
but to any such club. It is a policy and it is not necessarily an opinion based on this
particular operation. Kmart had problems with this group early on which has since stopped.
While the trash problem still occurs, the incidents of problems have abated. He cannot say
that this decision is forever. His personal opinion, having represented Kmart for 10 years,
is that an agreement is not in the foreseeable future.
r
C/Tye pointed out that Ms. Nicholson has raised issues of noise and safety. To
Mr. Thompson's comment that the City of Diamond Bar is not diverse is interesting to him.
His children attended grade school where 15 languages were spoken. Ms. Nicholson said
"those people" that Mr. Thompson assumed she meant people of color or Latins. He
(C/Tye) did not assume that for a minute. He understood her to mean those people at that
establishment. Any more than when he heard Mr. Thompson say "we're" 16 months into
this process, he didn't assume for a minute that he was part of the ownership. Mr. Duffner
has made it pretty clear that Kmart has no inclination to provide shared parking which he
It
believes is different from what Mr. Munoz represented. As the Continental Burger owner
stated, it will be an ongoing problem. It is something that needs to be addressed because
it is not something that was considered when the Planning Commission considered this use
'- as a restaurant that the City would have this problem today. To Mr. Munoz's point that
Diamond Bar is an awful place to do business he took exception and appreciated
Mr. Duffner's comment on behalf of Kmart. The City went to great lengths to see that this
business (Platinum) as represented could open without the appropriate licenses and permits,
and here we are today as a result. Anybody can sue anyone at anytime for anything they
want. It -isn't who is right or wrong, it is who can afford to lose the most. Unfortunately,
this is an entity that is willing to go to the mat and a resident (Ms. Nicholson) who states
that the walls of her residence shake which gets back to the noise and safety issue and he
wants to make certain that the Commission addresses those issues as it looks at the
Conditional Use Permit.
.i. -'cam• -Yr r�R'n4'R �_ .. w
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Nelson asked Ms. Nicholson if the noise is constant or if it occurs only when the
front doors are open to which Ms. Nicholson responded it's constant.
Chair/Nelson, addressing Jill Pierce, asked her to talk about valet parking.
Jill Pierce stated she felt that valet parking was very appropriate for Platinum's upscale
customers. It is an expensive proposition, it is not a money maker. Platinum did it as an
added customer service. It became a liability issue. Valet parking was done for three
month and it was discontinued because Platinum felt it was detrimental to moving people
out of the parking lot in order to avoid additional talking and noise. Currently, it takes
Platinum about 15 minutes to get everyone out 1 of the parking lot and onto the freeway at
closing time. - When they had valet parking it took about 45 minutes. Platinum has about
the same number of clientele currently that it had when valet parking was offered. There
was no parking problem until the barricade welit up.
ACA/Pittman advised the Commission that the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land
and it grants the property owner a vested right to continue that use provided it is in
compliance with the conditions of approval and does not.constitute a public nuisance.
i Among the grounds for the Commission's ability to impose conditions on a discretionary
j permit, Mr. Munoz is correct that generally, the opportunity to do so is at the time of
approval unless there are grounds to hold a hearing and that there is substantial evidence
to support the imposition of additional conditions, modification of existing conditions, or
evidence that substantiates that, the continued operation of the use that was approved
constitutes a nuisance. If the Commission determines that those grounds exist it could
impose additional conditions or it could commence revocation proceedings.
VC/Zirbes stated that it seems to him from what he has read from August 1999, what was
presented to that Planning Commission and what the approval was based upon, was
conversation and representation that this establishment was intended to be a restaurant
which would provide entertainment after 10:00 !p.m. In none of the documents that were
submitted by the applicant or through testimony at the Planning Commission level or
through the questions posed by the Planning Commissions would there be any reason to
believe that the Platinum Nightclub to be as popular as it is and cause these numbers of
people to patronize the establishment. His concern about its use centers around the nearby
residents and business that may be impacted] both positively and negatively by the
operation. He is not sure how he feels about the Conditional Use Permit as it is written and
he does not know that there is an easy answer. Recently, he read an article about 19 people
being killed in Mexico in a nightclub that was overcrowded. The establishment was
operating as a nightclub but under a CUP for a restaurant. It seems to him that a load
occupancy of 600 with parking spaces of 192 there may still be a parking deficiency. This
is a family business and there has been testimony on both sides.
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Ruzicka agreed that this is a difficult situation. He personally does not want to see any
business in this City that is close to being successful for any reason, die because of what
he might or might not do. Therefore, anything that he can do to help iron out the problems
that exist and keep this business in operation is what he would like to see. He is not really
too sure about where it comes from, but there has been some type of onus put on this
situation that there is some type of a race issue. He cannot in his wildest imagination see
how there is a race problem in this issue. The only color that everyone is trying to see is
the color green because these folks are spending money. But while they are doing so, they
are causing others a problem somehow. What this Commission is about is trying to solve
that problem. He believes that the CUP needs to be modified in some way so as to insure
the applicant's right to use their property and to take care of some of the problems that
exist. He does not understand why Kmart does not see a business opportunity and most
especially a profitable business opportunity in this instance in supporting some type of
reciprocal parking agreement. Such an agreement, would solve a good portion of the
parking problem and it could be managed in such a way as to insure that Kmart had ample
parking during the daytime hours and Platinum had ample parking during the evening
hours. This leaves him questioning how the CUP can be modified to ,take care of all
parties,. He wants no, part of revoking this CUP. Neither does he want it to stand as is.
Therefore, it needs to be modified.
C/Tye asked if it is possible to tie parking requirements to occupancy to which
DCM/DeStefano responded "yes, it is." He asked if, using a number of 500 patrons, the
City decided that there had to be enough parking spaces to assume that 80 percent of the
patrons arrive alone so that they would need 400 parking spots, is that a legitimate way to
deal with this issue to which DCM/DeStefano responded that fundamentally, it is a
legitimate conclusion, but such a conclusion would require much more of an analysis than
one given night of observation. The numbers indicated seem too high. C/Tye asked if
occupancy can be set based upon the number of available spaces, to which DCM/DeStefano
responded affirmatively.
C/Kuo asked if during the past year the City brought to Platinum's attention that they may
be in violation of the conditions of approval of the CUP. Based on the City's study, what
is the total number of parking spaces staff would like to recommend to the Commission?
On one hand, the City wants to help and protect new business. On the other hand, the City
Ordinances must be adhered to for the benefit of all parties.
Chair/Nelson shares C/Ruzicka's thoughts on being optimistic and being able to work out
this situation. He tends to take exception to criticisms of this body or the City's desire and
ability to conduct periodic review. He does not want to confuse his own thoughts with
whether or not this was a bait and switch type of situation. He does not believe the City
was duped. He believes that this is an opportunistic private enterprise that made a
projection that indicated it was more profitable to go in one direction rather than in another
direction. He does not believe that Platinum came in attempting to hide anything. He
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION
believes that the operator is more than willing to be a good neighbor. He believes that the
operator did the right thing which was unfortunate in sending a bulldog attorney in here
who did his job very well, although he did take exception to Mr. Munoz's constantly
pointing at Sgt. Flannery. He believes there is a trash problem. Perhaps the solution is
picking up at night and again in the morning and being more thorough about it. He believes
that there can be parking issues and he believes there are solutions which the operator is on
the road to solving in a permanent fashion. He is concerned about the noise issue. He does
not live in the condominium complex but he has to believe that the walls and/or windows
vibrate from the noise. He would prefer to have the operator be a good neighbor and to
come to a compromise solution whether it be turning down the volume or some other
solution. He believes that modifications are in order and he does not believe that
modifications will be so onerous as to cause a hardship for the owner. He believes that if
the Commission is reasonable that the operator will accept those modifications. If the
owner is going to police its own operation, there must be some commitment that it will be
done so in perpetuity as long as they own the establishment, that it is not going to be
something that is done for a month and then becomes lax and falls off altogether.
Mr. Munoz stated that coming into tonight's meeting it was the owner's opinion that
° parking was the major issue. With respect to parking, Platinum is in an impossible
situation because it only has rights to so much land. Platinum is very disappointed to hear
=s from Kmart's counsel that what they were led to believe at 5:30 this evening is not a
possibility. Platinum is still willing to do whatever it takes to continue to work with Kmart
which is an obvious and easy solution for all parties. If there is insufficient parking to
accommodate patrons, they will not come to the establishment. Legally, Platinum is
y entitled to do what they are doing with 96 parking spaces. They are doing everything
within their power to insure that more spaces are available. The other issues can be
addressed. The trash issue is simple. Platinum's position is that they are not causing the
problem, they are cleaning up the trash. If the Commission modifies Platinum to clean up
in the evening and in the morning they will abide by the modification. However, Platinum
would prefer to be asked to do so and they will comply, rather than having the Commission
make it a part of the CUP modification. With respect to noise, the City's Code provides
noise levels within which Platinum must operate. If a noise issue exists, Platinum is
willing to address it. Platinum will re -institute valet parking, however, there is a concern
that this will, in fact, generate more noise. If the Commission has other suggestions or
other possible solutions related to parking, Platinum would like to hear them.
Chair/Nelson asked PC/Meyer to comment on Mr. Munoz's analysis in which he compared
site conditions with the most common requirement for similar uses, one parking space per
37.5 square feet of assembly area which amounts to 178 parking spaces and the Platinum's
ability to accommodate their patrons.
Jill Pierce stated that 6,700 square feet is the assembly area. The remaining area (the
difference between 8,900 and 6,700 square feet is kitchen area and non -assembly areas.
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION
PC/Meyer stated that most nightclub parking operations is a major concern and is generally
not satisfied on site. Most nightclubs of this size run upward of 200 available parking
spaces.
VC/Zirbes stated the original condition has 96 spaces based on a restaurant use. It seems
that the nightclub use comes into play after 10:00 p.m. We're not really sure what the
outcome will be with the property owner SX Diamond Bar. Is there a way to modify the
parking condition based upon the hours of use, i.e., if the condition is left at 96 parking
spaces for the restaurant use, that leaves the restaurant in tact. Moving into the Minor
Conditional Use Permit for entertainment, to modify that parking condition, can the
condition say that the parking would be 96, but at 10:00 when entertainment takes effect,
the establishment must provide XX spaces on-site and/or off-site.
ACA/Pittman agreed that such a condition is fairly common that conditions run with the
use because_ urbanized cities in particular suffer from parking shortages. It is not
uncommon to have shared parking arrangements where after, for example an office
building which doesn't need their parking after 6:00 or 7:00 p.m., offers it up to a nightclub
or restaurant that needs it somewhere between 6:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. The problem in this
case is the applicant's ability to obtain parking agreements or reciprocal agreements with ?,
their neighbors. All of this is dependent 'on the number of spaces staff and the Commission
determine -to be adequate. —
VC/Zirbes stated that with the on-site parking required for the hotel, it would seem to be
in this property owner's best interest to accommodate both of these properties. If you look
at the -number of parking spaces that are currently on-site and you assume that most of the
people who check into the Best Western will do so prior to 10:00 p.m., the Best Western
should have a fairly solid feel for what their parking load will be. This is still assuming that
88 spaces are available for the hotel use. He feels that at this point Platinum is entitled to
use those spaces. If matters of noise, trash and loitering are cured by Platinum which will
create less of a burden and impact to their residential and business neighbors, perhaps there
is a way to work around the parking issue. Like C/Ruzicka, he would like to see that this
restaurant/nightclub moves forward.
C/Ruzicka agreed. He said he believes that the Kmart attorney can see how the
Commission is struggling to find an equitable solution for all parties and he hopes that
Mr. Duffner relays that message to his people at corporate headquarters. This is an honest
attempt in good faith to accommodate everyone including Kmart. If Kmart would extend
themselves and realize that it is not their philosophy that the Commission has any argument
with at all. They have a very good business sense of what is good for them. In this !r;
articular case, however, there is an opportunity for both the folks at Platinum to ameliorate
P Ply tY
one of their problems and for Kmart to make a profit on a possible agreement in which`''
Platinum could workout a plan to protect Kmart's parking lot during the hours of their use
r,
•--" ' .: �--_�- �. _-_—__—_— .pie — __�_-—__.,—_ — _— ___ _�- _'—.
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION
and even cleaned up and made a better parking lot as a result of the reciprocal agreement.
He is certain that Platinum wants to work with the Commission.
Mr. Munoz recommended that the Planning Commission recess in order to allow him to
speak with the Kmart attorney to ascertain the possibility of an agreement.
RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 11:55 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 12:14 a.m.
Mr. Munoz stated that he spoke with the Kmart representative who indicated he cannot
make any decisions tonight, but that he certainly will relay the offers that Platinum has set
forth as well as, comments from the Commission. He has also indicated that Kmart has an
adamant policy and in all likelihood would not agree to a shared parking agreement. Based
on what he's hearing he does not believe Platinum can rely on Kmart for a solution. With
respect to the existing parking he believes that now that an injunction exists and as long as
it stays in place with the 290 spots on-site less the 100 spots for the hotel, it leaves about
200 spots on-site plus the 30-50 on -street parking spots. He believes that there is a general
consensus between PC/Meyer and DCM/DeStefano that this is probably adequate based
upon the numbers indicated. His concern is that if the Planning Commission were to
_ impose a modified condition that Platinum has to have 200 parking spaces, if the judge
ultimately came up with a ruling that did not guarantee Platinum an unimpeded right to the
full amount Platinum would then be in violation. As a practical matter, perhaps the
Commission need not do anything. The issue may have solved itself. Platinum is in
negotiations with the hotel owner to pave the open area. Platinum is also willing to do
additional cleanups. With respect to noise, there is a patio door nearest to the
condominiums that is apparently open much of the time and so long as it is okay with the
fire department, that door can remains closed except when people are entering or exiting
the area. He offered that the Commission could conclude their review for now and review
the matter again in six months to be certain that these issues have been resolved. His
clients have asked him to state that if this is the position of the Commission they will do
everything in their power to increase the cleanup and attempt to come up with solutions for
noise mitigation.
VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to modify the Conditional Use Permit with regard
to parking to wit: The required number of parking spaces will remain at 96 until 10:00 p.m.
at which time the required number of parking spaces will increase to 222. In addition, the
owner is required to seek whatever remedies possible including buffering to reduce the
r
noise levels and increase trash cleanup on and off-site.
Mr. Munoz pointed out that if the judge renders an adverse decision, Platinum will be
unable to comply with the modification. He offered as a possible solution that the motion
be amended to indicate that those numbers would only apply as long as the existing
- _ _ _1 __-_._____ ,_._- _ _
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION
conditions in the preliminary injunction continue to prevail; or, as a preferable
consideration, to reconsider whether the Commission needs to make this as a modification
to make it a resolution rather than a modification indicating that the Commission strongly
urge or direct the applicant to insure that 222 spaces are available after 10:00 p.m. and that
the owner address the trash issue with diligence.
ACA/Pittman concurred with Chair/Nelson that the applicant. can always ask for a
modification to the CUP.
Mr. Munoz stated that if the Commission passes such a motion, Platinum will be in a
position of having to appeal the decision in order to preserve the rights it currently has
because Platinum does not know at this time what the judge will ultimately do in the case
with the hotel.
ACA/Pittman agreed that Mr. Munoz's statement is accurate. If Platinum consents to the
modification of the conditions there is a small window of time for them to challenge the
conditions. If the resolution is worded to the effect that assuming that the court or a court
of competent jurisdiction does not otherwise limit the applicant's ability to provide the
required number of parking spaces on-site, after 10:00 p.m. they must provide 192 on-site
and 30 off-site, either on street or at another location. An additional requirement could be 7
added to the effect that if the court determined that the hotel does not have to maintain' `
those spaces available to the restaurant that the City be notified immediately and that the
applicant work with the City to make whatever necessary arrangements can be made.
Mr. Munoz indicated that his client will consent to that type of modification without
waiving their rights as long as the modification to 222 parking spaces after 10:00 p.m.
would revert back to 96 if the court did anything that would impede, the ability of Platinum
to provide those spaces. In this event, they would immediately notify the City.
VC/Zirbes agreed to amend his motion to include the provision to direct staff to work with
the applicant that in the event that the case before the trial judge goes against the applicant.
If the applicant is successful in this court proceeding, the applicant agrees to accept the
condition. C/Ruzicka seconded the amended motion.
C/Tye said he believes the Commission needs to be more specific in its direction.
Mr. Munoz explained that he and the owners as well as, staff members, are unable to come
up with specifics at this time with which Platinum can unequivocally comply. His
preference is that the Commission pass a resolution that states the Commission would like
Platinum to do some things that has no impact on the CUP. If those things are not done,
review Platinum again in six months or a year.
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Nelson said that until specific recommendations are made for mitigation he is
uncomfortable imposing conditions. He asked C/Tye if he would be comfortable leaving
all issues up to staff.
C/Ruzicka said he believes the Commission has a handle on this matter in that it has a
perfect right to review the CUP at any time.
C/Tye stated that in light of the contempt that Mrs. Pierce has for Mr. DeStefano and staff
he would suggest to the Commission that if it chooses to review this matter it will only
provide more evidence to pile on her long litany of abuse, oversight and meddling.
Therefore, it makes more sense for the Commission to be specific.
ACA/Pittman suggested that the noise and trash issue be dealt with by making it subject to
staff's approval or have them work with staff. The concern at the moment is that we do not
know what would work. And if the owner is tied to a specific noise mitigation, for
example, we may find out that it will not solve the problem and yet they have been tied to
a specific condition that either needs to be amended or they are in violation of the CUP.
Mr. Munoz again emphasized that his client is willing to work with the City's staff in these
matters. His concern is, however, if the Commission makes a modification to the CUP
tonight he is painted into a box where he has to appeal that modification to protect his
client's rights to live with what is on the CUP at this time. He understands that there are
strong feelings on the part of all parties involved in this issue. He really believes that since
the best solution is at this point, a resolution, as opposed to a modification to the CUP, to
the effect that you want us to work with staff on the trash and noise issue, and that you want
us to have 222 parking spots after 10:00 p.m. that doesn't modify the CUP, doesn't put him
in the position of having to decide whether to appeal or not; the Commission has been clear
about what itwantsand Platinum knows it has no more than six months before the City
looks- at the CUP once again. He appreciates C/Tye's concerns and is also not anxious to
relive this matter. However, he will tell his clients that as long as staff is coming up with
reasonable solutions, they should incorporate those solutions.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the Commission is not in a position to take action on a
resolution this evening. Based upon the motion, the second and the discussion, the
Commission is in a position whereby it would be directing staff to come back with a
resolution that would amend the conditions of approval. If the Commission directs staff
to prepare a resolution for the December 12 meeting, it would provide staff with time to
work with the restaurant operator, their legal staff and the City's legal staff to see if
reasonable solutions can be determined for the issues that have been identified. If staff is
r not able to do so, that information can be reported on December 12.
_ ACA/Pittman stated that the motion, as he understands it, is to direct staff to prepare a
resolution for the meeting of December 12, 2000, amending the conditions -of approval on
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION
the Conditional Use Permit and the MCUP to include a requirement that 96 spaces be
maintained up until 10:00 p.m.; that when the use changes primarily to a nightclub at 10:00
p.m. the applicant maintain 192 on-site and 30 off-site parking spaces, providing that the
court allows those spaces to be provided; in the event that those spaces are not open to them
that they notify the City as soon as the court so determines and that the requirement after
10:00 p.m. would revert back to 96 spaces; that the restaurant owner seek reasonable
remedies to address the potential noise impacts on the residents at the adjacent
condominium complex; and that the applicant to implement more diligent trash pickup both
on-site and off-site. Motion carried by the following Rolle Call ,vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 4 Kuo, Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Chair/Nelson thanked the members of the audience who participated in this matter.
7.2 Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element (under the authority of Government Code
Sections 65091(a)(3) and 65588(b)(5)) for the periodic review and revision to the city of
Diamond Bar General Plan. (Continued from November 14, 2000.)
y,rV.
Six elements comprise the City' s General Plan, which was adopted in July 1995 (pursuant
to Governmental code 65300). The General Plan is a comprehensive document
establishing goals and strategies to fulfill the community's vision for its future.
PROJECT: Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element
(GPA No. 2000-01)
ADDRESS: Citywide
APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive
Diamond bar, CA 91765
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission re -open the public hearing, receive
testimony, close the public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 00-01) for the draft 2000-2005 Housing
Element.
Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to testify on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public
hearing. " �
p{•
- LLn
NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 25 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to adopt a resolution recommending City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment GPA No. 00-01 for the draft 2000-2005 Housing
Element. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None offered.
9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects - as noted.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the Agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned
the meeting at 12:52 a.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
r
JWLIeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
del
/PY-40t <22
Chairman Steve Nelson
__ ra--. "".IEIM'7�%'PoM�Vwi�.�p'MH .... .... ,.. _. i. nnln .l��..., �..�...... �. «, � � _..,,,a,�— •..r y