HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/28/2005MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 28, 2005
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low,
and Commissioners Dan Nolan and Steve Tye.
Also present: James DeStefano, Assistant City Manager, Nancy Fong,
Planning Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development
Services Associate, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant.
2. RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING COMMISSIONER JACK TANAKA— continued to
July 12, 2005.
3. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
8. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
Move Item 8.2 before Item 5.
8.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2004-34— In accordance to Chapter 22.48 of the
City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of plans
to construct an approximate 8,076 square foot addition to an existing 2,777 square
foot two-story single family dwelling on an existing 9.10 acre R-1 9,000 zoned parcel
with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density
Residential (RL). The development also included an attached 1,008 square foot 4 -
car garage, swimming pool, tennis court, basketball court, and detached gazebo.
PROJECT ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER/
APPLICANT:
701 Featherwood Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Randy and Olga Rodriguez
701 Featherwood Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
PM/Fong advised the Commission that due to technical issues that needed to be
resolved, staff was recommending that the project's review be continued to July 12,
2005.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus continued
the public hearing to July 12, 2005.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
5.1 Minutes of the Study Session of June 14, 2005, and Regular Meeting of
June 14, 2005.
C/Nolan moved, C/Tye seconded to approve the minutes of the Study Session of
June 14, 2005, as presented and the Regular Meeting of June 14, 2005, as
corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
6. OLD BUSINESS: None.
7. NEW BUSINESS: None,
8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): Continued:
Nolan, Tye, VC/Low, Chair/McManus
None.
None.
8.1 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 2004-01 — Between the
City of Diamond Bar and Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC for the Diamond Bar Village
Specific Plan, a 71 -acre development consisting of 180 multi -family residential units
and up to 270,000 square feet of commercial, retail and institutional uses. The
proposed amendment is to consider proposed changes to the financial terms of the
contract and the minor changes to the schedule of performance.
PROJCECT ADDRESS: South of Grand Avenue, East of Golden Springs
Drive
PROPERTY OWNER/ Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC
APPLICANT: 1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91765
JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
ACM/DeStefano presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of Amendment
to Development agreement 2004-01.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
ACMIDeStefano confirmed to C/Nolan that the City had an agreement in place that
called for the commencement of construction by June 1, 2005, and assured the City
that if that did not occur the City could draw down the Letter of Credit in the amount
of $41,000 plus, and the City could exercise its agreement right as it was currently
written. C/Nolan asked ACMIDeStefano to explain the downside of not adhering to
the agreement as written. ACMIDeStefano said that at this juncture both parties
were working to resolve the issues of the agreement and working to get Target and
Brookfield under construction. The downside would be a financial loss to Lewis and
the corporate concerns of the cashed collateral and it would have significant
impacts on the City's relationships with Brookfield and Target. C/Nolan asked if staff
was certain that the $2 million fee was the correct fee and wanted assurance that
the City would not find itself liable for not covering itself in the bargain (the traffic
impact fee). ACM/DeStefano explained that the traffic impact fee was a direct result
of the identified traffic impacts as a result of the residential, commercial and church
portion of the development. Staff went through the numbers a year ago. However,
no dollar amount was attached to the improvements. Over the course of several
months after June 2004 staff attached a dollar amount to the physical improvements
and negotiated a conclusion and staff believes that the $2 million is an appropriate
number. The City has a responsibility for improvements as a result of existing
conditions at the various intersections for which $2 million was set aside with the
largest portion of the set-aside going toward the Grand Avenue/Golden Springs
improvements already underway. ACOM/DeStefano further explained that the City
felt it was possible for Lewis to construct the residential component and never
construct the commercial component. In order to protect the City's interest it was
willing to grant the residential component but wanted the security that Lewis would
build the commercial project so a $2 million Letter of Credit was established
representing approximately four years of sales tax revenue and if Lewis never built
the commercial component the penalty would secure that the City received the
projected tax revenue from the commercial component to which the City believed it
was entitled. C/Nolan had some reservation about the City losing an additional two
months of sales tax revenue. Staff said that Lewis had been working very hard to
get the City an anchor tenant of the quality sought by the residents. Target is an
outstanding corporate partner, a great retailer and will do well for Diamond Barand,
staff is very excited that Target has chosen to locate in this community and that the
Commission approved the project. The City selected an opening date of April for the
JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
anchor. However, staff learned that Target opens stores only three times during the
year and April is not one of those times. During recent discussions with Target it
became abundantly clear that a target date of July 2006 would not happen.
Therefore, the public opening was pushed out to October 2006. Yesterday staff was
assured by Lewis and Target that everyone could meet the October 2006 date.
C/Tye asked if CA/Jenkins had reviewed the language of the amendment because
he was concerned about interjecting "at the sole discretion of the developer."
ACM/DeStefano responded that CA/Jenkins reviewed and approved the
amendment as presented to the Commission. C/Tye, referring to page 3 said that
anytime it said that the amendment would "provide a City agreement to not impose
any additional development exactions or development impact fees" it led him to
believe the developer felt the City had done so in the past. The City was getting
what it felt was the fair -share of traffic mitigation but nothing over and above. If
everything cost $2 million the City had determined that the Brookfield Homes and
Target projects should be about $1.2 million and the City would pick up the rest
because it was time after 16 years to retrofit that intersection. C/Tye asked if the
foregoing was a fair and accurate statement. ACM/DeStefano responded that based
upon the impacts that the projects would create it owed the City $1.2 million in traffic
impact fees. What the City was doing with this agreement is memorializing what the
two parties have already agreed to do and that the contribution was a part of the
overall funding needed to improve Grand Avenue and Golden Springs. If the City
finds additional problems once the improvements are underway it is his assumption
that the City would be responsible for any additional cost. ACM/DeStefano
explained that the agreement not to exact any additional fees from Target has
nothing to do with the City of Diamond Bar and nothing to do with a relationship
issue or decisions made in the past. It has to do with Target needing reassurance
that the City would not exact additional fees. Retailers operate on a very slim margin
with every dollar going toward the cost of construction affecting the bottom line. And
in his opinion, there was nothing else that would or could be necessary to protect
the City and for the City to agree not to impose any additional fees was not an issue
for Diamond Bar. Target is a successor in interest and thus has concerns about
what it is purchasing and this amendment offers Target a sense of security.
Darren McCleve, Vice President of Development, Community Development, for
Lewis Operating Companies, thanked the Commission. This development
agreement was recorded and runs with the land and as the portions are sold it
affects the purchasers. Target approached Lewis because they had been burned on
other projects around the country and wanted assurance that a) the development
agreement was what it said and would do what it said and b) as the lot line
adjustments were processed for the Parcel Map that additional conditions would not
be imposed. He thanked staff for standing fair. He felt that staff and Lewis and their
JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
contractors had adequately and fairly arrived at the $1.2 million that would be
provided toward traffic impacts and he said he believed that staff had made
Herculean efforts to move the Target project forward. He asked for the
Commission's recommendation for adoption.
VC/Low asked if Mr. McCleve anticipated requesting an amendment prior to
completion of the project and Mr. McCleve said he felt there would be no further
amendments requests. VC/Low asked if the construction commencement and
completion dates contained in the amendment were in his view realistic and
Mr. McCleve responded that they were because they came directly from Target.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the
public hearing.
C/Nolan moved, VC/Low seconded, to recommend City Council approval of
Amendment to Development Agreement 2004-01. Motion carried by the following
Rall Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, VC/Low, Tye, Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
8.3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-14 — In accordance to Code
Section 22.48.020(x)(1), this was a request to construct a three-story single-family
residence with two car garage and balconies totaling to approximately 5,187 square
feet. The request also included retaining walls within the front, side and rear yards
not to exceed an exposed height of six feet.
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PROPERTY OWNER
1198 Chisolm Trail
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Mitchell Won
5719 Paramount Lane
Pico Rivera, CA 90660
APPLICANT: Brent Hallam
Westwood Design
133 E. Bonita Avenue, Suite 202
San Dimas, CA 91773
JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission
approval of Development Review No. 2005-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the resolution.
Brent Hallam, Project Designer, stated that he and his client read the conditions of
approval and agreed to the terms. In addition, he said he would make all pertinent
adjustments with staff.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the
public hearing.
C/Tye moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Development Review No. 2005-14,
Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, Nolan, VC/Low, Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
8.4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-19, MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2005-05,
MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05 AND TREE PERMIT
NO. 2005-11 — In accordance to Code Sections 22.48.020(x)(1), 22.56,
22.30.080(5) and 22.28, this was a request to construct a three-story single-family
residence with three car garage, balconies and deck totaling to approximately 7,100
square feet. The request also included walls, retaining and non -retaining, with the
front, side and rear yards not to exceed an exposed height of either feet. The Minor
Variance was for a 20 percent reduction in the required 30 -foot front yard setback.
The Tree Permit was related to the removal, replacement and protection of oak and
walnut trees. The Minor Conditional Use permit was for a driveway wider than the
maximum 14 feet allowed at the street property line.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2142 Rusty Spur
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER/ Mr. and Mrs. Saeid Shantiyal
1250 Valley View Avenue
Pasadena, CA 91107
AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission
approval of Development Review No. 2005-19, Minor Variance No. 2005-05, Minor
JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05 and Tree Permit No. 2005-11, Findings of Fact
and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
C/Tye asked where the resolution specified the number of trees that were to be
replaced. AssocP/Lungu referred C/Tye to 5(c) on page 5 indicating 12 trees were
scheduled for replacement.
Mr. and Mrs. Saeid Shantiyal indicated they read the conditions of approval and
concurred with the findings. Mr. Shantiyal explained that with the 3:1 replacement
ratio there would be too many trees planted on the property because the rear of the
property was planted with trees and if there were a way to reduce the number he
would like to exercise that option. They were told that one option would be to pay for
trees being planted in an alternate location. Chair/McManus explained that the
number could not be reduced but that a certain number could be planted off-site.
Mr. Shantiyal indicated he would work with staff on that matter.
VC/Low asked if staff was recommending that 12 trees be planted off-site. PM/Fong
stated that the resolution called for replacement of 12 walnut trees the size of 24"
box. Whether the applicant would be placing 12 trees on the site, staff would work
out the formula. Perhaps half the replacement trees would be planted on-site and
half off-site for example. Mr. Shantiyal indicated to VC/Low that he concurred.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the
public hearing.
C/Nolan moved, VC/Low seconded to approve Development Review No. 2005-19,
Minor Variance No. 2005-05, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05 and Tree
Permit No. 2005-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the
resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Nolan, VC/Low, Tye, Chair/McManus
None.
None.
8.5 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2004-45 — In accordance to Code
Section 22.48.020(a)(2), this was a request to establish private college classrooms
at the University of Phoenix in existing office business park suites.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1470 S. Valley Vista Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
PROPERTY OWNER: 1470 S. Valley Vista Drive, LLC
4641 District Boulevard
Vernon, CA 90058
APPLICANT: Apollo Group, Inc., Harlan Lindholm
4305 Hidden Oaks
Yorba Linda, CA 92886
APPLICANT'S AGENT: CB Richard Ellis, Inc., Travis Boyd
3501 Jamboree Road #100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission
approval of Development Review No. 2004-45, Findings of Pact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the amended resolution.
Chair/McManus wanted confirmation that the building would be cleared out prior to
commencement of the 6:00 p.m. classes so that there would not be a parking
conflict. DSA/Smith responded yes and referred the Commissioners to the matrix.
Harlan Lindholm thanked the Commission and DSA/Srriith and staff for their
assistance. He reviewed the report and conditions. He also reviewed the occupancy
figures with campus personnel and was comfortable with the numbers indicated in
the report.
VC/Low asked if Mr. Lindholm had spoken with his neighbors about the parking
situation. Mr. Lindholm said he had not but felt the owner/landlord would have done
so or at least taken the situation into consideration.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the
public hearing.
C/Tye moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2004-45,
Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the amended resolution.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: Tye, Nolan, VC/Low, Chair/McManus
None.
None.
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
JUNE 28, 2005 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
9. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/Tye asked PM/Fong to use photos he provided to explain the bulldozing that took
place. PM/Fong explained that last Friday staff received a call about the site which
as a proposed development of 19 single-family lots. The application was incomplete
and not ready for Planning Commission review. The applicant must do an
environmental review and one of the required studies was a geotechnical study. In
order to do the geotechnical study they must have access to the site to conduct soil
borings to analyze whether the slopes are safe for development. A tree removal
permit was required to be approved for slope access. Unfortunately, the workers
attempted to shortcut a pathway and got onto a neighbor's yard. Staff immediately
took action to stop the workers and revoked the Tree Removal Permit. The
applicant has yet to return staff's call. Staff plans to monitor the situation and make
certain that an Arborist is on-site to monitor the work when it resumes. Of course,
the applicant will be required to mitigate the problem the workers created. CITye
stated that the affected homeowner appreciated staffs quick and efficient response
to the matter. He felt that it was a problem for the two debris piles to remain close to
development because they could quickly present a fire hazard. The homeowner
believed that there was a drainage channel that went through the back of their
property that was destroyed by the developer's actions. PM/Fong indicated that if a
drainage ditch existed prior to the damage the developer would be required to
replace the drainage ditch before the rainy season.
C/Tye asked if AssocP/Lungu observed the property north of the Chisolm Trail
project that was somewhat fenced. There was no home on-site and there was a
pool sign. The property is accessible from either end of the fence and the gate does
not come together. He feared for the safety of children in the area. ACM/DeStefano
said that staff would look at all four properties and report back to the Commission at
its next meeting.
C/Tye commented about Lewis's praise of staff. He appreciated ACM/DeStefano's
statement about negotiating in the best interest of Diamond Bar and said there was
no one he would rather have negotiating on his behalf.
C/Nolan echoed C/Tye's comments about staff receiving positive comments from a
50 year-old development company. C/Nolan reiterated his concern about the broken
neon/lastic Diamond Bar Village monument sign. He wished everyone a happy
July 4 h.
VC/Low echoed C1Tye and C/Nolan's comments about the high praise for staff on
their fine work on the Lewis project. She said she appreciated C/Tye's activism and
JUNE 28, 2005
PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
rapport with the citizens but was concerned about his bringing photos to the meeting
for discussion because she felt it bordered on having a public hearing without the
applicant, owners and affected homeowners being present. She asked staff if the
matter should have been scheduled for public hearing or due process in a public
forum. ACM/DeStefano said that if he felt the Commission or a Commissioner were
going askew he would certainly step in and he had not seen or heard anything that
would be detrimental to the future public hearing request for development of the
property. What he heard and saw was a reaction to an issue in violation of specific
direction given to the developer by staff and most definitely a code enforcement
issue and he said he was comfortable with the way in which it was discussed.
Chair/McManus said that as a contractor he had appeared before a lot of cities and
had extensive experience dealing with cities and city staffs. It was nice to hear
Lewis Homes speak well of Diamond Bar's staff especially knowing that problems
had existed early on in the City's history.
10. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: PM/Fong asked the
Commissioners if they would like to participate in the San Gabriel Valley COG
Leadership 21 conference meetings. She said that staff was attempting to
determine the dates. C/Nolan said he would be in a position to respond when he
had actual dates.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in tonight's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Ily Submitted,
James DeSteflno, Assistant City Manager
Attest:
Me cManus, Chairman