Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/10/2006MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7.05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low and Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee and Tony Torng. Commissioner Dan Nolan was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; John C. Cotti, Assistant City Attorney; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda K. Smith, Development Services Associate, Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant and Tom Smith, BonTerra Consulting. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Study Session of December 13, 2005. VC/Low asked that on Page 2, last paragraph, that the end of the first sentence be corrected to read:..." ... to mitigate the traffic outside of "The Country Estates." VC/Low moved, CILee seconded, to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2005, study session as corrected. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan 4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 13, 2005. C/Torng moved, CILee seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 13, 2005, as presented. Motion carried by the following Rall Call vote: JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): Torng, Lee, VC/Low, Chair/McManus None Nolan 7.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53430, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2005-03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-01, VARIANCE 2005-03 AND TREE PERMIT NO. 2005-10 - In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance — Title 21 and Development Code — Title 22, Sections 22.70, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38) this was a request to subdivide approximately 80 acres into 48 single-family residential lots for the eventual development of single-family custom homes. The Zone Change was related to changing the existing zoning from R-1-20000 to Rural Residential (RR); the Conditional Use Permit was related to grading and development within a hillside area; the Variance was related to retaining walls that were proposed at a height greater than six feet, and the Tree Permit was related to the removal/replacement/protection of oak and walnut trees. (Continued from December 13, 2005) PROJECT ADDRESS: Directly south of Rocky Trail Road and Alamo Heights Drive, and west of Horizon Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ John Bostick APPLICANT: Millennium Enterprises 3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 AssocP/Lungu presented staff s report and commented on responses made during public comments placed in evidence during the December 13, 2005, meeting. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the following to the City Council: Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003052202) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53430; Zone Change No. 2005-03; Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-01; Variance No. 2005-03; Tree Permit No. 2005-10, JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Statement of Overriding Consideration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolutions. John Bostick, applicant, stated that he has continued to meet with the adjacent landowners and respond to their concerns. In the spirit of taking public input very seriously Millennium Enterprises spent considerable time and effort to come up with a design to lower Alamo Heights Road and respect the approval for the Jerry Yeh property. He said he believed Dr. Wu's proposal was not the best solution and that Millennium had been able to show that the lowering of Alamo Heights would most likely create more and not less of an impact. In short, the applicant has responded to the direction of the Planning Commission by responding to the adjacent landowners and lowered the wall height to a maximum height of 15 feet. Mr. Bostick assured the Commissioners that the applicant would continue to work with the adjacent landowners and staff to arrive at the best solution for the construction of Alamo Heights Road. VC/Low said she appreciated Mr. Bostick's consideration for the project and his attention to the concern of the adjacent landowners. She asked for clarification of Mr. Bostick's comments regarding the increased impact to lowering the road. Mr. Bostick said that because of the conditions of approval for Mr. Yeh's property, lowering the road puts a 10 -foot retaining wall adjacent to the street. Tonight's request for approval is for no walls over 15 - feet high. In the area there is only eight feet to mitigate the wall with tree plantings. As he explained to the landowners, he believed the better plan was to have the wall on the property owners' side, that he would be able to provide better mitigation and that the end result would be a better product that was less visible and properly mitigated. VC/Low asked if Mr. Bostick had addressed the cost of building and maintaining the walls and the matter of liability with the landowners. Mr. Bostick stated that he explained to the landowners that the project included conditions requiring the creation of a homeowner's association with CC&Rs and a budget. The budget would have to cover the maintenance of on-site and off-site landscaping as well as walls built on and off-site. City staff and the DRE (State Department of Real Estate) review the budget. VC/Low asked if the applicant had offered financial incentives to the landowners in exchange for the grading easement. Mr. Bostick responded affirmatively and explained that during the January 5 meeting the residents were told that they would be compensated for providing easements in the form of a wall and landscaping. VC/Low asked what remedy Mr. Bostick JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION would pursue in the event some landowners failed to grant the easement? Mr. Bostick explained that the road would not change. If a landowner refused to grant the easement the applicant would work with staff to accommodate that scenario. The ultimate goal was to minimize the number of walls. He said he felt certain that he could work with the individual homeowners to coordinate the plan. C/Torng asked how many homeowners had agreed to the easement and Mr. Bostick responded that one landowner had indicated full agreement and others were in limbo. C/Torng asked staff to respond as to the City's position. ICDD/Fong stated that with respect to Jerry Yeh's concern the condition was intended to seek the cooperation of adjacent residents. She offered that staff could meet with Mr. Yeh and discuss Condition 2 that intends to provide flexibility for the applicant to work with the residents to complete the extension of Alamo Heights. Mr. Bostick responded that Mr. Yeh was not opposed to the project until the applicant proposed to work through the concept of lowering Alamo Heights Road. Again, by attempting to lower Alamo Heights Road it calls for a wall that is difficult to mitigate and that was Mr. Yeh's concern as well as the applicant's concern. Mr. Yeti's letter was in response to his concern about the possibility of another wall being placed on his property. Mr. Bostick appealed to the Planning Commission to acknowledge staff's support of the project and stated that although he is at Tract approval and does not have the exact solution forAlamo Heights Road he has a set of conditions that staff has indicated would create a good project for the City of Diamond Bar. He asked for Commission approval that included a substantially reduced variance. C/Lee believed that Dr. Wu's concern about the possibility of the wall collapsing due to water retention was legitimate and asked Mr. Bostick to respond. Mr. Bostick explained that there was always a possibility and that the engineers had done everything possible to make this project as safe as possible. The technology for real estate land development has dramatically improved in recent years. He stated that retaining walls will be designed to meet the criteria set forth by the City. C/Lee felt Dr. Wu's concerns should be given credibility because Dr. Wu worked in this field. ICDD/Fong explained that retaining walls must meet the City's Code. The Building Department intends to plan check the construction thoroughly to assure that it meets code and is safe. Mr. Bostick explained that his opinion of Dr. Wu's concern was that all of the walls were signed and stamped by a state certified civil engineer who does the math and calculations to say that those walls will stand up and meet the criteria of the City. He said he could not testify as to Dr. Wu's credentials and did not know if he was a state certified civil JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION engineer. If Dr. Wu is a state certified civil engineer the applicant would be pleased to provide him with the calculations. He assured C/Lee that staffs approval was for a structurally sound wall and believed that in accordance with code the applicant must rely on a state certified civil engineerto approve the project. C/Lee reiterated that Dr. Wu said that it was possible water could smear into the landfill and C/Lee said he wanted to know if that statement was accurate. Mr. Bostick explained that a drain channel is installed behind the retaining wall to relieve hydrostatic pressure. When retaining walls are built in today's marketplace a drainage channel must be provided. C/Lee said that Dr. Wu was concerned because he felt the retaining wall was too high. Charlie Liu, project engineer for applicant, said that it was true that in the past retaining walls had failed due to water build up behind and under the wall. He said he had been in business for 35 years and during that time engineers had learned from past problems. This project has a major fill and he and the soils engineer have worked together to provide a project that would meet the requirements set forth by the Code. Mr. Liu proceeded to described in detail as to how the retaining wall would be built. Chair/McManus explained that the Commission was charged with approving projects that were approved to code and that if C/Lee wanted to meet with the engineer on his own to get lessons on how to build retaining walls he could do so. ICDD/Fong explained staffs procedure for assuring the proper design of facilities to ensure safety. She further explained to C/Lee that if Dr. Wu was seeking assurance that the project was safe he should discuss the matter with staff and to date, Mr. Wu had not made any such inquiries. VC/Low felt C/Lee wanted to know how safe the wall would be and the engineer responded that based on industry standards and 35 years of experience the wall would be 99.99 percent safe because no one could guarantee at a level of 100 percent. In addition, he built a 35 -foot wall in San Francisco where there is more rainfall and there have been no incidents with the retaining wall in San Francisco. In addition, his license is on the line to make certain that the wall is built in a sound manner. VC/Low wanted to know if staff had determined how underground water would affect massive earth movement in the project area. Tom Smith responded yes. Contained in the Environmental Report and backup studies JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION the City required the applicant's civil engineer to conduct a hydrology study to determine the existing runoff conditions from the site prior to development as well as runoff conditions post development. Generally speaking, ground water is not near the surface in hillside areas. The EIR speaks to regional water basins and the nearest major ground water basin with an aquifer is near the SR605 and SR60. Generally, local areas of perched ground water and local aquifers exist in the canyon bottoms. The on-site subsurface borings did not detect any ground water. The geologist did note that in the canyon bottom, because of all of the vegetation, there was no opportunity to do borings and was unable to determine whether there would be a perched groundwater condition. When the time comes to do the detailed grading design and during grading the City inspectors will be on-site daily to inspect the grading and related conditions. If perched water conditions arise the City will require engineering solutions as the fill is placed. VC/Low asked if these procedures were set forth in the draft resolution. ICDD/Fong responded that that procedure was part of the environmental mitigation referred to as part of the environmental condition. Chair/McManus asked if staff was working with Mr. Yeh to resolve his concerns. ICDD/Fong said she believed so and whether the wall was located on Mr. Yeh's side of the street would be determined during the final design phase for Alamo Heights. Chair/McManus reopened the public hearing. David Leong, 22372 Kicking Horse Drive, said he and his wife appreciated the Millennium representatives meeting with the homeowners. However, contrary to Mr. Bostick's statement, Mr. Leong said his understanding was that there was no agreement with the project. He said that on January 7' 2006, Charlie Lui stated that the modified plan provided that no walls would be greater than 10 -feet tall. And yet tonight he heard Mr. Bostick asked for approval of a variance forwalls to a maximum of 15 feet. Another example of conflicting information was when VC/Low asked Mr. Bostick whether the developer had offered incentive or compensation to make it more palatable for homeowners to cooperate with this project and Mr. Bostick responded affirmatively. Mr. Leong said that he took from the December 5, 2005, meeting that Mr. Bostick categorically stated "no compensation." At the same time during a simultaneous meeting in a language that was not English those homeowners were given the impression that there would be financial compensation. Until the December 13, 2005, Planning Commission meeting neither the City nor the consultants acknowledged the existence of a creek running along his property. He said he had questioned Mr. Bostick about the JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION responsibility of maintaining the slope along the wall and the liability issues to the homeowners since the structures would lie on the homeowners' properties. To date he had not received any assurance to his satisfaction. It was presented to him that "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association would assume responsibility and liability for maintaining the structures. Yet, the homeowners association has indicated there has been no such agreement. Mr. Bostick indicated that it could be a separate homeowners association and how could Kicking Horse homeowners and Millennium enter into a binding agreement for a homeowners' association that was not yet in existence. He said he appreciated C/Lee's questions because the homeowners' have safety concerns and because there are so many unanswered questions, the homeowners have not been able to reach an agreement with Millennium. Paul Akin, 22505 Lazy Meadow Drive, said he was concerned about annexation of this property into "The Country Estates." He recommended that the developer meet with "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association and move forward with annexation as a single owner rather than wait until 48 homeowners were involved. ICDDIFong said that a Condition of Approval requires the applicant to negotiate with "The Country Estates" for annexation of the property. Hofu Wu, 22368 Kicking Horse Drive, felt the design detail of the retaining wall was correct. The City ordinance requires a maximum height of six feet and felt that the engineering for a six-foot wall would be fairly easy to attain. In his opinion, when a wall exceeded a certain height no one could guarantee its success rate. He said he was also concerned about water in the canyon and how the water would affect the proposed fill. He wanted to know why the homeowners were being asked to favor the easement when there were no concessions provided by the developer. He felt his recommendations were much better for the project because the retaining wall would be set on solid existing ground instead of fill. Using the drawings he commented the red lines indicated that the pad sizes for the 48 proposed homes exceeded the 33 percent lot coverage. He said he was not against the development but he was against the way the developer was proposing to fill the canyon that in his opinion was against the flow of nature's forces. He also favored an agreement between "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association and the developer. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/McManus asked if Mr. Wu met with staff to discuss his concerns. Mr. Wu said that he had not because he felt that Millennium would address his concerns this evening. Kyoung Yi, 22376 Kicking Horse Drive, said she shared the concerns about the negative impacts that would be generated by this development as presented by Professor Wu on December 13 and this evening. She does not like the construction of a high wall, the cutting of old oak trees and loss of the creek on her property not to mention the noise, dust and loss of privacy in her backyard during construction. The homeowners met with Millennium and no agreement was reached and further negotiations are necessary to reach an agreement that is mutually satisfactory. Mr. Bostick agreed that there was no formal agreement with Mr. Leong and was merely expressing that current conditions on the Tentative Map were more restrictive than those contained within the original project based on public input. The other language spoken during the meeting was Korean. Millennium's President is fluent in Korean and a couple of the homeowners indicated they were more comfortable discussing the matter in Korean. With respect to the wall height Millennium proposed a 10 -foot high wall plan for study only and Mr. Bostick again stated that he did not believe it was a good plan. Mr. Bostick clarified that he did not believe there would be any compensation for existing easements but that there was a possibility of compensation for additional easements. With respect to acknowledging a creek along the property, the flow line of the creek is shown on all of the Tentative Map submittals. The water and drainage concerns are covered in the Drainage and Hydrology report and the creek is also discussed in the EIR. Mr. Bostick clarified that the developer's intent was to annex into "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. Annexation requires a vote of the HOA members and that has not yet been done nor could he guarantee the vote outcome. As earlier stated by ICDD/l=ong, the project approval contains a condition requiring that the developer negotiate with "The Country Estates" for annexation into their HOA. Millennium has met with HOA President Steve Solis and committed to meet with the Crystal Ridge Homeowners Association on January 23. Homeowners are bound by an HOA and its CC&R's to maintain landscaping and retaining walls and he must have a plan and approved project before he can put together a budget and assemble a HOA. Mr. Bostick assured the Commission that if he received their approval forthe project he would continue to work with Mr. Leong on the issues he raised. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION With respect to Mr. Akin's concern about annexation staff had conditioned the project accordingly. Mr. Bostick responded to Dr. Wu's comment that walls higher than six feet are not safe and that there are many walls that exceed six feet. For example, walls at the Target location exceed six feet in height and whether these types of walls are located behind a commercial project or a residential project they must be rendered safe. The project has limitations on how much drilling and exploratory research can be done without a Tentative Map approval such as the one being sought from the Commission this evening. Once an approval is achieved Millennium would be able to go into the areas to determine the feasibility of the proposal. Diamond Bar has an excellent soils engineer that would oversee the drilling and he believed that the project area boasted no unique features that had not already been developed in other ridgelines within "The Country Estates." With respect to pad heights, they remain the same but the proposal previously set forth lowered the road. The slope easement was not recommended for the development side because all of the area of the project with the exception of the pad areas has slope. He was mystified by Dr. Wu's assertion that the pad areas did not meet the required percentage. In fact, the pad areas meet the requirements and design of the City and its codes. If not, there would have been no hearing in December. Mr. Wu mentioned that he was opposed to filling the canyon and Mr. Bostick said he understood and appreciated Mr. Wu's concerns but in fact, the highest and best use of the property as called out in the City's approved General Plan was "one unit per acre development" and this project was actually at .6 units per acre which is a 40 -percent reduction below the General Plan requirement. This requires a fill of the canyon similar to projects adjacent to and in the area of this project. VC/Low asked for further explanation of the existing road easement from the Kicking Horse properties. Mr. Bostick stated that at the maximum an additional 50 feet would be required to eliminate all retaining walls. If Millennium could acquire an additional 15 feet for example, it would reduce the height of the retaining walls. The reason Millennium would not place retaining walls on the project side of Alamo Heights Road is because they would be more difficult to mitigate with only eight feet between the right-of- way and the asphalt. On the Kicking Horse side there is 50 feet within which to mitigate a wall. He explained the options and what he felt was the best solution. Mr. Bostick confirmed to VC/Low that if Millennium were unsuccessful in obtaining the additional easement from the Kicking Horse Drive homeowners the project would require a maximum 15 foot height for the retaining walls. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Bostick responded to Chair/McManus that he was comfortable with the conditions of approval at this stage of the process. Mr. Bostick reiterated that the applicant has worked diligentlywith staff to provide a good project and he asked the Commission to believe that staff has presented the best possible project for approval. VC/Low asked what input the City had to the conditions of the CC&R's. ICDD/Fong responded that the City Attorney would respond to the proposed CC&R's and the CC&R's would reflect the conditions imposed upon the tract. Ultimately, the CC&R's are approved by the City Council. VC/Low asked if the developer's statements were binding to the project. TCDD/Fong stated that there was no condition binding the developer to pay compensation for the easement and in fact that matter was outside of the City's purview. ICDD/l=ong said she believed that the wall would vary from seven feet to 15 feet at its highest point if walls were needed within the existing 40 -foot easement. The variance is required to meet the maximum height needed. There is a condition requiring the applicant to negotiate with "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association for annexation. In addition, the project must form another association so that ultimately the 48 homes would have two associations as reflected in the CC&R's. ICDD/Fong agreed with Chair/McManus that the 48 homeowners would have their own association for purposes of liability and maintenance of common areas whether or not they were annexed into "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. Bill Liu, President, Crystal Ridge Association, disagreed with ICDD/Fong. Crystal Ridge is a separate association even though it pays money to "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association for limited security and gate enforcement. ICDD/Fong responded that in fact, Crystal Ridge was not annexed into "The Country Estates." The Millennium project requires that Millennium negotiate with "The Country Estates" for annexation. In addition, Millennium must form its separate association for maintenance of common areas. ACA/Cotti explained that the project was conditioned that it form its own association as well as conditioned to require Millennium to negotiate in good faith to annex into "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. Should that not occur, there would be an association in place that was fully funded as per the state DRE requirements to assure the ongoing maintenance of common areas. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Aiken agreed to a certain point. He said that if the project were annexed into "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association there would be no need for them to have a separate association. Chair/McManus explained that the City could not require the project to be annexed into "The Country Estates." ACA/Cotti responded to VC/Low that to the extent that the conditions were negotiated in good faith toward annexation it would not further bind the developer. All that the developer was required to do was to make a good faith attempt to negotiate and there was no requirementthat those conditions be finalized. ICCD/Fong responded to Chair/McManus that staff had imposed a considerable number of conditions on the project for the good of the City. Mr. Leong said that it was incorrectly implied that the homeowners had accepted the 10 -foot wall. If the Commissioners approve the proposed plan it would put the homeowners in a difficult situation of having to choose between a 15 -foot high wail and an easement. Chair/McManus said that negotiations were still open. Mr. Leong felt that there should be a memorandum of understanding of annexation before the homeowners could make a decision because the homeowners might be in a position of having to maintain the wall. Chair/McManus asked if Mr. Leong understood that if there was no successful negotiation a separate and binding homeowners association would be established that would be responsible for maintaining the wall. Mr. Leong asked if that was binding and TCDD/Fong responded that it was. ACA/Cotti responded to Mr. Leong that he could not respond to Mr Leong's statement that he could state there would be no possibility that the homeowners could be left "holding the bag" and in all likelihood the homeowners would have to take that into consideration during the negotiations for granting of the easement. C/Torng asked Mr. Leong if the residents could come together to reach a decision. Mr. Leong said that the real process of the developer explaining and disclosing took place after the December 13 Commission meeting and JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION he felt it was necessary for the homeowners and Millennium to continue negotiating so that the homeowners would not be left "holding the bag." TCDD/Fong responded to C/Torng that staff held a meeting in August for the homeowners. ClLeong reiterated that during the meetings prior to December 13, there was no advice to the homeowners as to their rights and there was no full disclosure of possible problems such as liability, etc. C/Torng said he participated in a hearing for South Point West and the detailed plan was submitted at that time. He believed that about 30 homeowners participated in that meeting. According to the City's code of procedure it must invite residents to participate in such hearings prior to the matter coming before the Planning Commission. ClLeong said that in his opinion, much more information came to light after the December 13 Planning Commission meeting. Some homeowners may have believed they agreed and might have done so because of a misunderstanding of the facts presented. He said that some of his neighbors believed they had no choice but to agree to a 26 -foot wall or an easement with no alternative. He felt it was incumbent upon Millennium to continue talking with the homeowners before they were stuck in an adverse situation. 1CDD/Fong stated that a 40 -foot easement already exists and Millennium could grade and build the wails within the 40 -foot easement. The only question before the Planning Commission was how high Millennium could build the walls. The first time, Millennium proposed walls up to 26 feet high. Since the Commission's recommendation for the applicant to work with the adjacent property owners Mr. Bostick decided that if he had to work within the 40 foot easement he would be able to build two walls with the wall on one side of the street being five feet and the wall on other side being 10 to 15 feet. Mr. Leong asked if it was correct that if Millennium wanted an additional 50 - foot easement they would have to negotiate with the homeowners and ICDDIFong responded "correct." Mr. Leong said the homeowners were told that the applicant would not have to negotiate because they already had a total of 90 feet for the easement. ICDDIFong said she did not believe Mr. Leong was correct. Mr. Leong felt that staff needed to provide the homeowners with accurate information because Millennium told the homeowners they had no choice but to grant the 90 -foot easement. ICDDIFong recalled that at the last neighborhood meeting staff attended it was made clear that there was an existing 40 -foot easement and that Millennium was asking for a 50 -foot easement. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/McManus advised Mr. Leong that this was a request for a tentative approval, not a final approval and in order for Millennium to move forward they needed a tentative approval to proceed with certain items that they had to complete. Staff has repeatedly and categorically stated that there is room for negotiation between the homeowners, Mr. Yeh and Millennium. Mr. Leong believed the homeowners were asking that because the homeowners were not provided accurate information and he felt that the Commission should grant additional time for Millennium to talk with the homeowners because once approved, the homeowners would be between a rock and a hard place. Chair/McManus asked Mr. Leong if he understood that this was not a final approval and that there were a lot of additional hoops that Millennium had to jump through before receiving final approval and that the project has already been continued for one month. Mr. Bostick said that at the very first meeting in May at the HOA, the HOA's legal counsel was present and explained that the easements were existing on all of these properties according to the current recorded tract map for the lots on Kicking Horse Drive. From the centerline of the street there is 40 feet for the street and a 50 -foot slope easement resulting in a total of 90 feet of easement on all of the heights to build Alamo Heights Road, a fact that has never been in dispute. He felt he had made every good effort to explain the situation and work with the homeowners in good faith for several months. Mr. Bostick further stated that the developer has another 9 to 12 months of preliminary engineering and design work before one scoop of dirt could be moved and during that time the applicant will continue to work with staff and the homeowners in good faith. The easements are in place and are not in dispute. Chair/McManus invited Mr. Wu to contact the City with his concerns and assured Mr. Wu that the City would not be contacting him for his expertise. Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. VC/Low detailed the review process and said that it seemed to her that Millennium had made considerable effort and progress toward discussing and resolving various issues with concerned citizens as directed by the Planning Commission on December 13. Therefore, it appeared there would be no benefit to further continuance of this matter as suggested by some of the comments. The applicant has a right to the use and development of his land according to code and the City cannot deny that right. The easement JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION currently exists and the applicant is entitled to build in the easement area. The question is whether the Commission wants to grant a variance allowing a wall to be constructed up to a maximum height of 15 feet and the City has allowed construction of such walls in the past. VC/Low moved, C/Lee seconded, to recommend the following to City Council: Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003052202) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53430, Zone Change No. 2005-03, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-01, Variance 2005-03 and Tree Permit No. 2005-10, Statement of overriding Consideration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolutions including additional conditions provided by staff today. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus NOES. COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04 and Development Review No. 2005-23 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.42, 22.58 and 22.48, this was a request to install a wireless telecommunications facility with antennas mounted on the roof -top concealed by the fagade and mansard roof and equipment cabinets in a retail suite. The Development Review related to architectural/design review for the replacement of faux stucco and roofing materials. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 1155 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Town Center, LLC Pacific West Asset Management 3191-D Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Chair/McManus recused himself and left the dais. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION DSA/Smith presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04 and Development Review No. 2005-23, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Danielle Brandenburg, representing Cingular Wireless, MMI Titan, responded to C/Torng that this project would improve the wireless phone reception in Diamond Bar. She responded to VC/Low that she concurred with staff's recommendations and conditions of approval. VC/Low opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04 and Development Review No. 2005-23, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/McManus returned to the dais. Torng, Lee, VC/Low None Chair/McManus Nolan 9. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Torng felt that concerned residents should participate more fully in the projects that come before the City. He believed that the applicant would work with the residents to come to a satisfactory resolution of their concerns and wished Millennium a good project. C/Lee said he expected Millennium to follow through with their promises to the residents and thanked them for their patience. VC/Low echoed C/Lee's comments and thanked staff for working hard with the applicant to bring together a good project. She thanked Millennium for their last minute improvements and wished them good luck in winning over the homeowners and moving forward with a good project. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/McManus wished everyone a Happy New Year and congratulated Millennium on moving their project through the Planning Commission. He asked Commissioners to get a copy of Roberts Rules of Order to refresh themselves on meeting conduct. Before coming on the Planning Commission he spent the better part of a day going through orientation and reviewing the responsibilities of Planning Commissioners and recommended that for those that had not done so it would be especially useful for them to take the time to review Planning Commission and Commissioner's procedures and responsibilities. 10. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. ICDD/Fong said she had not forgotten about Form Based Code and Art in Public Places. Staff intends to present information in the near future so that the Commission can discuss the matter and forward its recommendation to the City Council. 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 9:40 p.m. Res Nancy Fong Interim Cam Attest-_�__ r�� C (0-,� J e' McManus, Chairman E bmitted, Unity Development Director