Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/10/2006MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Tony Torng, and Vice -Chairman Steve Nelson. Absent: Commissioner Osman Wei Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney, David Alvarez, Planning Technician; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant and Peter Lewandowski, Environmental Consultant 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CONSENT CALENDAR: As Presented. 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 26, 2006. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the Minutes of September 26, 2006, as changed. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None Torng, Lee, VC/Nelson None Nolan Wei OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Development Review No. 2006- 31 — In accordance with Sections 22.48, 22.56 and 22.68 of the Diamond Bar Development Code, this was a request to add 1,041 square feet to an existing 1,499 square foot single family residence on an existing 130,251 square foot lot consisting of 2.99 acres, zoned R-1-10,000 with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). PROJECT ADDRESS: 24445 Darrin Drive (Tract 42585, Lot 49) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Agustin and Zoila Agramonte 24445 Darrin Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: GS MMedia Consulting Attn: Gregory Springer 618 Las Palmas Irvine, CA 92602 sion PT/Alvarez presented sts repReview andrt recommended 2006-31deF ridings of Fact, and approval of Development conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no public disclosures offered by the Commissioners. VC/Nelson opened the public hearing. Gregory Springer, GS MMedia Consulting said he submitted the addition design and development for the Agramonte family and the addition was proposed for occupancy by the grandparents of Jose and Maria Agramonte. C/Lee asked if the owner was willing to fully landscape the property. Mr. Springer responded that the rear yard is landscaped with many fruit trees. The only landscape proposed for removal consists of orange trees and other fruit bearing trees to accommodate the addition. The remainder of the rear yard will remain intact and the front yard is landscaped and will be OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION untouched except for ingress and egress of equipment and materials. CDD/Fong explained that the proposed project meets code. VC/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Development Review 2006-31, 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 Lee, Nolan, Torng, VC/Nelson None Wei 7.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-14 — In accordance with Sections 22.58 and 22.42 of the Diamond Bar Development Code, this was a request to operate an Educational/Tutorial Center for students in Kindergarten through grade 12. PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Torng asked for more input regarding the apparent parking violation. The report indicated that staff visited the site several times and he wondered why staff would approve the shortage during certain hours. He felt the approval should be based on conduct rather than experience. CDD/Fong responded that typically, when shopping centers are developed the tenancy is based on speculation. Based on projected use, parking spaces are applied accordingly. For this particular shopping center the maximum number of parking spaces is 218. Through the years as tenants come and go they may have more retail, restaurant or services and each type of use has a different parking ratio. As an example, a retail use calls for one parking space per 250 square feet and a private school requires one parking space per 200 square feet. Based on the current mix of use in the center it appears there are not enough parking spaces. However, the code allows an applicant to perform a parking analysis in order to demonstrate that there is sufficient parking because shared parking is allowed by Development Code. Based on the analysis it was determined that there were sufficient parking spaces to OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION accommodate all businesses except for a short period of time from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 P.M. C/Torng felt it would be prudent to limit the number of students. He also felt the security of the students was a concern. C/Nolan asked if the van was transporting students parkand d PT/Alvarez said he assumed it would be housed the employee C/Lee said he believed that generally, students 14 to 18 years of age were dropped at school by their parents and felt that parking was not an issue. However, he felt that the number of students was very important. Based on the square footage of the aPT/fl accommodated by the facility. va rehow expla ned that the fire department determines occupancy. CDD/Fong stated that the fire department reviews occupancy differently from the Planning Department and allow many more students. Therefore, it is appropriate to condition the project to allow for a maximum number of students per class. There were no Commissioner disclosures offered. VC/Nelson opened the public hearing. Ben Wei, applicant, said he proposed to open the facility for the benefit of the community to improve education for local students. C/Torng reiterated his concerns about student safety and limitation with respect to the number of students. Mr. Wei said his number one concerty ncery was safety of the kids. He said he would abide by the codes, thewould be well lighted and there would be procedures for students leaving the facility. With respect to parking parents usually drop off their children. For safety parents will be required to accompany their children upon entering and leaving the facility. With respect to limiting the number of students the benefit to the children is that they are in small classes. Increasing class sizes would defeat the purpose of providing value to the kids. Mr. Wei responded to C/Lee that he expects to accommodate about 100 students. Mr. Wei responded to VC/Nelson tstudents allyut Oparent drop and there are other areas foudents and parents. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION off their kids, go about their business and return in an hour to pick them up. VC/Nelson asked if it were the case the classes that included students who drove were at a lower enrollment during off-peak hours. Mr. Wei said that the peak hours are usually during the lunch hour and students usually leave by 2:30 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. However, for the most part the students will be dropped off. Kirk Ramirez, 442 Rockridge Road, stated that his child attends the Montessori school within the center and the peak hour is between 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. In accordance with the current uses — he felt that parking would be a problem in the center. Also, there is no drop off curb and cars must be parked or they interfere with the traffic right-of-way. VC/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan said her concern was that parents would stop in a right-of-way to let their students exit the vehicle and that the practice would impede traffic and present a safety hazard to the students because the facility is close to the street and across from a liquor store. She recommended that the parents park at the back of the building and walk their students up to the school. CDD/Fong responded to a speaker that there could be parking issues in and around certain uses. Since classes for the proposed project do not start until 2:00 p.m. the lunch crowd has for the most part departs the center and parking spaces are available. She recommended adding a condition to specify that classes would not occur before 2:00 p.m. and that the class size would not exceed 12 students to make certain that the use would not pose a parking issue to the center. Mr. Wei said that he concurred with the recommended condition. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution and as amended by addition of the following condition: Classes shall not occur prior to 2:00 P.M. and participation will be limited to a maximum of 12 students per class. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: NOES: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Torng, Lee, Nolan, VC/Nelson None Wei 7.3 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12 — In accordance with Sections 22.58 and 22.42 of the Diamond that teaBar ches the aacientpment Coe, ls was a request to Korean rt of self - operate a Taekwondo studio defense. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1241 S. Grand Avenue, Suite J Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: A & J Sunset Village, LLC 10508 Wyton Drive Los Angeles, CA 90024 APPICANT: Young In Cheon and Ann Cheon 1129 Summitridge Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 sion PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and 006 12, recommended Planning Fact, and approval of Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Torng felt that this project presented the same parking situation and suggested staff consider applying a condition indicating the hours of operation. C/Torng further recommended a cap on the number of students. There were no Commissioner disclosures offered. VC/Nelson opened the public hearing. Ann Cheon said she was present to answer questions. She explained that the application should have specified six to 20 students per class. She responded to CDD/Fong that there were approximately six classes between 3:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. with six to 20 students per class. With respect to parking, the majority of the students are dropped off for class. The owners had a studio in the center from 1991 to 1996 and based on her experience she did not believe there would be a parking problem. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Torng asked if the applicant would agree to a 20 -student cap per class and Ms. Cheon responded that it would probably not create a problem. Ms. Cheon then asked if the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Commission for another approval if the school wanted to increase the capacity of its classes and CDD/Fong responded the applicant would have to seek a modification and staff would have to take another look at the parking analysis at that time. Ms. Cheon said it would not be a problem. VC/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee said that according to the occupancy requirements set by the fire department there could be 40 students per class and he felt a cap of 20 students per class would be too restrictive for promotion of a new business. Ms. Cheon explained the shared parking and staggered hours of businesses in close proximity to her studio. She said that in accordance with the parking analysis and from her observation she felt there would be no parking problems. Ms. Cheon responded to C/Torng that a cap on the number of students would prevent the school from growing. C/Lee reiterated that if classes were capped at 20 students it would restrict the business and the student from participating. CDD/Fong recommended that a condition be included in the resolution that classes would be conducted beginning at or after 3:00 p.m. In addition, the project should be conditioned to require reconsideration of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission if the size of classes should contribute to parking problems. C/Nolan said she visited the site at 4:00 p.m. today and found that there was ample parking available. Unfortunately, she was waiting behind two stopped vehicles while parents dropped off their kids at the Sylvan Center. She encouraged parents to park and walk their students to class. In the case of this project she agreed that the number of students per class should not be limited at this time. C/Torng said he was confused. CDD/Fong explained that staff and other Commissioners were advising no limit to the class size. However, there would be a condition that in the event there was a parking problem due to the OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION number of students the Conditional Use Permit would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. C/Torng said he hesitated because he believed the same conditions should apply to this project as were applied to the previous project. The applicant said there would 30 studenbe six to ts pere lass 3'Ocwas ff a based its approval on a maximumo reasonable cap. CDD/Fong responded to VC/Nelson that LA County approved this center. VC/Nelson felt that in order to survive, Diamond Bar should remain more flexible than the County. The County made many blunders and continues to make many blunders, hence, one of the reasons Diamond Bar incorporated. He suggested that staffs proposal would allow the City to give the business owners as much flexibility as possible without encumbering the remaining businesses in the center. C/Torng said he agreed but because this was almost the same kind of application asked f the Commission could change it ant to impose different criteria. H s vote to the previous similar so to impose same conditions. C/Torng asked for ACA/Kovacevich's opinion. After ACA/Kovacevich stated that staff's recommendation provided an effective method of monitoring projects. C/Torng reiterated his point that this project was similar to the previous project wherein the Commission imposed a cap on the number of students. ACA/Kovacevich responded to C/Torng that the previous project had already been approved by the Commission and they could not rescind their action at this time. osing a cap it C/Lee recommended that if C/Torng number of partic pantsas adamant aout pallowed by the should be in accord with the maximum fire department. C/Nolan felt that it was in the City's best interest to support a proven business owner and to not impose a cap so that the business owner could grow his business. However, she agreed with staffs recommendation for reconsideration of the CUP if the parking became problematic based on the number of students. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution subject to the addition of the following conditions: 1) Classes shall OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION be conducted on or after 3:00 p.m., and 2) if there is a parking problem the Conditional Use Permit could be subject to review. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Lee, Torng, VC/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei 7.4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 54081 • Zone Change No 2006-02/ Planned Development, Mitigated Negative Declaration No 2006-03; Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18• Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 — In accordance to the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance —Title 21, Development Code — Title 22, Sections 22.14, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38, the proposed project is a 22 -lot subdivision on a site of approximately 12.9 acres. It would provide for the development of 16 single-family detached homes on individual parcels ranging in size from approximately 5,705 square feet to 10,506 square feet. The proposed project would include: the construction of private streets, graded pads, manufactured slopes and retaining walls; an easement for a public pedestrian trail in a portion of proposed open space areas; and the removal of a portion of existing vegetation. The current zoning of the project site is R-1-10,000. The Zone Change to RL/Planned Development Overlay provides for compliance with the General Plan land use designation and maximum flexibility in the site planning and design, thereby allowing smaller lots in order to retain more open space within the project boundaries. The Conditional Use Permit relates to grading and development within a hillside area. The Variance relates to retaining walls that are proposed at a height greater than six feet. The Tree Permit relates to the removal, replacement and protection of oak and walnut trees. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Southern Terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Daniel Singh Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission adoption of a resolution recommending City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. Vest ng Tentat v0e Tract 06-02/ Planned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01 Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13. C/Torng asked for clarification of the number of units per acre as being three instead of four or five. CDD/Fong responded that the three units per acre requested via the zone change conform to the city's General thPlan designation for low density residential. In addition, the purpose for Planned Development Overlay is to allow for flexibility in the development standards and density. However, the density will not exceed what the General Plan allows. In short, this cllows for with the transferegce of density to more than 30 percent of the land area as Open pe the more developable portion of the parcel. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Torng e tg�ttitprojectentire subdivision and the City would not be aogezoning for aparticularlot C/Torng asked why there was a discrepancy in the tree replacement number from 98 in the initial study to 73 (Page 9) in the final study. Also, the initial study called for 2:1 replacement rather than 3:1 replacement. AssocP/Lungu responded that the applicant suggested on said the st dy referred to dead'or ty code calls for a 3:1 replacement. 9 dying trees and wondered if that ewas acement was based on thetnumbe9of AssocP/Lungu responded that r p living trees. AssocP/Lungu said she would review the numbers. est for C/Torng said he was concerned evebo ut the variance ment and asked q there wa P a� ule of foot retaining wall for hillside d p thumb for approval. CDD/Fong responded m ke f ndingshat this vas a in order to support the riance and the Planning Commission would have variance. osed C/Nolan disclosed that she spoke with clarif'catbon othe nly pT pere were1notother prior to tonight's meeting for purposes of Commissioner disclosures offered. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Ron Brown, RDC, Asset Manager for Jewel Ridge Estates, 159 South Waverly Drive, Alhambra, thanked the Commission for the opportunity to present the 16 -lot residential development proposed project. Mr. Brown outlined the history of the proposed project. The subject property consists of approximately 13 -acres and the maximum allowable density is 30 -units. As previously stated, the proposed project is 16 units to be located in the already disturbed area that is relatively flat. The existing zoning is R-1- 10,000 and the total grading quantities to develop the subject property is 98,000 cubic yards. Approximately two-thirds of the site will remain as undeveloped Open Space. During the past four years of pursuing this project, the City's Planning staff critiqued at least 12 different proposals. The initial project was for 26 units, which was reduced by response to City Planning comments. The preliminary vision for future houses is 2800 square feet and prices ranging from the high $800,000's to the low $900,000. He strongly noted that the zone change request was consistent with the City's General Plan and was not being requested to allow for increased density, rather to allow for a smaller development that preserves more Open Space than would otherwise be allowed under the existing zoning. In addition, the density was less than the density of the surrounding development. The applicant and staff held a meeting with the surrounding community to illicit input of the proposed project prior to staff presenting the project to the Planning Commission this evening. Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge, LLC, 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232 presented an overview of the project from its initial submittal to its present iteration and presided over the power point presentation. C/Lee asked if the applicant planned to build more houses in the future or if 16 units would be the maximum. Mr. Singh responded that the application was for 16 units and that was the maximum number projected. C/Lee expressed concern because he did not want the applicant to build more houses. C/Lee asked if staff could lock this project into 16 units only because the pad was designed for future houses. He also asked why the applicant asked for a 10 -foot retaining wall. CDD/Fong explained that this was a Vesting Tentative Tract Map meaning that the proposal for 16 -units was legal and could not be changed to increase the number of lots. Conversely, the applicant could reduce the number of lots but would have to come back to the Planning Commission to seek such a reduction. The Open Space lots will be deed restricted to Open Space. He asked the applicant if he was willing to reduce the height of the retaining wall to six feet and redesign the trail. Mr. Singh said that a redesign to six feet would require two OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION retaining walls instead of one retaining retaininglwall and whatever design erefore, it would result in one six-foot retaining wall and one four -foot was proposed would be plan checked and approved by the City. C/Torng said he felt residents would be concerned about the e.view i Singh mpact and asked if the trees would be plaovaainclude a upperon the side. whereby the explained that the conditions of app permit to be City controls the plantings. Therefore, staff would not allow a p issued unless there was a buffer or � t staff imposed acreening gthat condifion of approval roposed in the renderings. CDD/Fong explained requiring landscaping between a F nal retaining iis a tual provide ap and prior to recordation of theP the applicants required to a detailed landscape plan that staff will verify the compliance with the conditions of approval. C/Torng felt the area presented fire danger and asked the applicant to elaborate on is consplan trained ned and the only ccessr fire evenon. Mr. g s explained that currently hillside ac development, additional access is provided from the north. By opening the to areas that were difficult to access prior to the development. Furthermore, the applicant is required to provideaethe applicant to 00a elaboratot buffer, fire resistant eantings on the and so forth as conditioned. C/Torng flood zone situation. Mr. Singh responded eamthat the proposed and channel so there es No in a higher elevation than the existing applicant submitted a issue because the water would flow downhill. The app hydrology report indicating the water flow o ot bhat staff reviewed and in ased upon the grading p adntand there will be an additional hydrology pt such issues will be dealt with throughout the permit process. VC/Nelson opened the public hearing. Lucy Robinson, 3636 Crooked Creek Drive, said she strongly opposed the proposed project. She lives on te side of ked Creek that faces the The vegetation that they retaining walls that would be viewed from her yard have enjoyed is quickly disappearing. In addition, there is a safety issue for the children with the removal ofa cul-de-sac. esent 're is additionalher firesssuessue f concern because increased developmentP She said she was also concerned about potential sliding in the area of the development. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Greg Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek Drive, (west side of the street opposite the development) asked the Planning Commission to look at the aerial photograph off of the GIS on the D.B. website and ask for a transparency of the modified graded area. The majority of the existing trees will be gone and adjacent neighbors will be looking at modified slopes. Additionally, the proposed 10 -foot retaining wall is a combination of three six-foot retaining walls. The retaining walls will be an excellent surface for bouncing freeway noise into his and his neighbor's front yards. Freeway noise is so bad in his backyard now that it is difficult to carry on a conversation. The subdivision is about 12.9 acres and has the capacity to accommodate 53 lots of 10,000 square feet each. He said he would rather have houses randomly interspersed among the 12 acres. The residents of Crooked Creek will receive absolutely no benefit from the proposed development. The variances are proof that the applicant could not use the land without heavy modification. He asked the Commission to take a closer look at this project before making its decision. Jeff Layton, 3703 Crooked Creek Drive, agreed with what Mr. Shockley stated and said that in addition he was looking at this project as a quality of life issue for the people who live on Crooked Creek Drive. He was concerned about the height of the retaining wall across from his property and the noise that would be reflected off of the wall. Also, the wall will appear massive from eye level. How long will the new trees last and will they act as a noise buffer? He heard there would not be a gate at the end of Crooked Creek and wondered if it could be instituted following approval? The loss of the natural trees will be a huge negative impact on the area. He also had concerns about fire access and trail access and felt it would not happen if a gate were allowed at the end of the street. He was also concerned about traffic from 19 additional houses that would feed through what used to be a cul-de-sac. Eleanor Reza, 3748 Castle Rock Road, said that as a 19 -year resident she has enjoyed the "country hillside setting" and wildlife in her backyard that directly abuts the channel draining into Brea Canyon and where the development is proposed. Since living in Diamond Bar she has seen quite a bit of housing development and loss of wildlife habitat. Should the proposed housing development occur her new backyard view would be of a six-foot retaining wall. She asked when it might be a good idea to stop approving OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION housing developments in the City. A recent quote from the Diamond Bar City Newsletter (June 2006) states: "one of the best features of D.B. is that it is surrounded by rolling hills and open space. However, that mean Mountain hat the City is in a careful balance with nature, wildlife such as Coyote's, Lions and Bobcats." She asked if the careful balance with native wildlife meant eliminating their habitat and have there been any wildlife impact surveys done for this project. Steven Greenhut, 3622 Crooked Creek Drive, said that one of the main reasons he and his family moved to the cul-de-sac about eight years ago was for the hillsides and although he did not relish the thought of a new development he supported the project because he did not believe that City officials should stop people from building within approved zoning and within the General Plan. The applicant is seeking variances but is building far fewer houses than allowed under the current zoning. When he moved t was he City, Mr. Greenhut did his due diligence and discovered the property zoned for three houses per acre and he and his wife agreed they could live with such a project. His specific coand the beginning cern was thtenance of the 1 of the staining walls. behind his side of the street A homeowner at 3723 Crooked Creek Drive, said she was happy about the area. She paid extra for the last lot and the views. Also, her children play in the cul-de-sac and there is no traffic passing by her house. She was very concerned and fearful about a big change to her house and the additional traffic in the area. People have been tractors the winds blow a lot of get the equipment into the to grade streets and dust toward her house. Mr. Shockley said he was not opposed dd t development onld in the propece rth the felt it would be prudent for the pp -level housing and so forth rather than property by using step footings, multi proposing extensive grading and tree removal. George Wong, 20880 Gold Run Drive, said he was not too concerned about the development but he was concerned as via Crooked Creek Drive and as appeared to him that the only egress such, if he lived on Crooked Creek he would be against the development because there was no other exit. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION Art Melendez, 3710 Crooked Creek Drive, concurred with previous speakers about the traffic, noise and dust. There are a lot of kids that play out in the street because it is safe. With trucks and more traffic going through the area it will create a safety hazard and he believed the City would have to consider installing speed humps or other traffic calming devices. He said he opposed the project. Joy Tweed, 21155 Running Branch Road, said she agreed with everyone who spoke about problems of ingress and egress for the housing development off of Brea Canyon. She was concerned that any increase in the number of vehicles would create further problems. She moved to Diamond Bar in 1971 and at that time the slogan was "Country Living" in Diamond Bar With the arrangements of the high retaining walls she can no longer consider it country living. She believed that with the intelligence of the building staff there was a strong possibility that this project could be reviewed to limit the size of the area. She said she would like to have the applicant provide a park in the area for the children as a trade-off to the project. James Eng, 20935 Running Branch Road, concurred with most of the speakers about the traffic. During peak afternoon hours it is difficult if not impossible to turn into his neighborhood and he believed the City should take a closer look at the traffic pattern in the area, Mr. Singh responded to public speakers. He stated that a noise study was conducted that analyzed the future potential noise generated by the project once the project was completed. The noise report concluded that there would be no significant impact to the community. Regarding the proposal and variances, the initial application did not include a zone change and two of the variances. The requested changes are in fact a trade-off resulting in a smaller development envelope and larger open space. Again, the property has a General Plan designation and by allowing a smaller development a trade off is a large open space that is protected in perpetuity. To the speaker who talked about a transparency, a biological report was completed, a transparency was done and habitats were identified and the impacts as a result of the development were identified with the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Of course there are trees that will be removed but the mitigation calls for replanting those trees at a 3:1 ratio. In addition, the applicant is required to ensure and guarantee the survival of the OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION trees for the ensuing five years. Agate originally no gate be i Pursed and uantto the community meeting staff is recommending that the applicant has agreed. Currently, there is no trail. However, the and development will provide for a future ct rac of the l. Four surveys survese The 0 foore completetlarea the City's consultant verified thea Y behind the wall between the Crooked Creek residents and the project area can be addressed during the processof to requireng the CC&R's for the that the homeowner's homeowners association with language and other association be required to maintain o include w atering antdcr°o grading ng should mitigation measures are propose winds exceed a certain velocity. A traffic report adverse inmpacts would pleted and l resultsuldt by the City's consultant who found that no upon completion of the project. Apark project haswh ch will be seb aside foreen for parks the applicant to pay a Quimby fee, contemplated by the City. Additionally, 70 percent of the project will be permanently protected as Open Space. VC/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee asked the applicant to comment on rights of view. Mr. Singh stated that staff is very cognizant of views. As such, staff c t oitioned thstadeectedct to provide lower walls and provide screening. In applicant to flip the houses closer teo the existing ido mitigate lessen the second visibility and ensure heavy planting between the tiers o coment on the loss of wall. CILee asked the applicant tlicant in to develop ahportion dof the playground" and whether the pp open space as a small park or play area. Mr. Singh reiterated the City's ordinance that the applicant is required to contribute to Quimby funds and the City decides the appropriate locations for its parks. C/Nolan said she empathized opposite about w and then residents lose pa of the community. She lives Crest group of trees that were called the "dog find the street for the project She She visited the site today and could not said she would like to visit the site in to see vegetation What the walls with cells and view. She referred to a remark 9 vegetation growing off of the cells asked M where Singhreference expla explained thatdthe be found and if it was intended to reduce noise. retaining wall was a decorative wall with cells that have vegetation growing OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION out of them to camouflage the walls and blend them into the existing environment. The walls are directly opposite the current homeowners. To many of the residents the area is already visually blocked because there is currently a wall behind the property. The areas that residents view are the upper elevations of the proposed site that will be maintained as open space and generally undisturbed. C/Nolan asked if there is an "owner's right to view?" CDD/Fong responded that the City does not have a view protection ordinance. To C/Torng's question about the size of the houses, Mr. Singh reiterated that the average house would consist of 2800 square feet two-story house with an average of 1500 square foot pad coverage. From the applicant's standpoint the City was trying to balance the natural area. The original project called for grading 60 to 70 percent of the natural envelope. The City tried'to limit the project to the area that was already being disturbed and that is how the plan evolved and that is the reason for the zone change. Conversely, the project now impacts only 30 percent of the area with 70 percent remaining undisturbed. The current Crooked Creek residences sell for about $500,000 - $600,000 and the proposed project incorporates houses selling in the $800,000-$800,000 range. CDD/Fong responded to C/Torng that the applicant is building 16 homes and is required to pay park fees that will be used to improve or expand existing parks. There will be no new park in the area. In order to create parks there must be land available for parks. C/Torng believed that even small traffic impacts should be considered drastic impacts due to the volume of traffic. Otherwise, there would be no mitigation and benefit for the community. He supported the residents concerns about traffic impacts. Peter Lewandowsky, Environmental Impact Services, the City's consultant, stated that all of the comments from the community were specific and germane to the project. Relative to traffic, there are a number of issues. The primary focus of the traffic analysis looked at internal circulation, ingress/egress, street right-of-way and turnaround, etc. to make sure that those features were sufficient to accommodate the project. The 16 vehicles will generate about 160 trips per day. Relative to the traffic volumes in the area it is a small number in the overall context of traffic and as a result, the traffic analysis did not look beyond the project site. In short, the study did not OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION pass the threshold standards for traffic analysis for traffic signals and turning movements beyond the site. He concurred that it was a significant impact to the residents on Crooked Creek and concurred with the heartfelt comments of residents who feared the project might change the character of the street. With respect to safety, additional traffic along the roadway should prompt residents to consider the safety of the to ens'utle traffic voren, an f lumes areorcement s maintained. related to the traffic enforcement agency oint of emergency access in the The development will result in a secondary p event that emergency ingress and egress is required for fire reasons. There is no mechanism relative to the current procedures and methodologies with which traffic is assessed to impose significant threshold criteria. C/Torng said the residents of Crooked Creek, Running Branch and Gold Run experience significant traffic issues and wanted staff to think about it. C/Torng said he was concerned about the 25 percent grade and wanted to know if the pictures depicted reality. Mr. Singh confirmed d ,t is the picture was taken using a 3D model of the existing topography exact replica of the existing conditions. There are steep slopes in the area but those slopes are not being developed. The area being developed is relatively flat. Mr. Singh stated that the applicant would be open to considering a proportionate share for traffic mitigation. During the community meeting similar issues were raised and M/Herrera said that the City had adopted signalization at fair a of the intersections and the project would be willing to contribute its Mr. Singh responded to C/Torng that the project is conditioned to mitigate for noise issues by providing blocks with vegetation to prevent the noise bouncing back and forth. CDD/Fong and Mr. Singh confirmed to C/Torng that there would be no gate and that there would be a turnaround at the project entrance to mitigate the safety concern. VC/Nelson said he agreed with Mr. Lewandowsky that all concerns were valid. However, from his perspective he identified most closely with Mr. Greenhut's statement that he in no way wanted to restrict or take away the applicant's rights to the fair and reasonable use Dohe to makepropertyt However, it was his obligation and duty to do everything possible OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION as good a project as possible in consideration of the neighbors' concerns and the concerns of the community at large. To that end, he cannot act on this project until he sees an actual artist's rendering of the views of the property, the grading that will take place and what it will do or not do to the hillside from the SR57. He said he could not agree more with Ms. Tweed that "Country Living" was the theme in the City. He is a realist and knows where the City is heading. Nevertheless, it is a hillside that has always had special meaning as an entry view into the City. Secondly, he did not believe he could act on the project until he had artist's renderings of the views from the back yards that would be affected. Further, he is not at all comfortable with the oak tree and walnut tree and woodland mitigation. As it is currently presented it appears to be deferred mitigation. He cannot read the documentation as it currently exists and feel comfortable that potentially significant impacts to oak trees and oak woodlands and walnut trees and walnut woodlands can be mitigated to less than a significant level in terms of the number of trees proposed to replace current trees under the ordinance as well as the acreage of the communities those trees provide. As an example, in 1976 he and others prepared the 1976 Significant Ecological Area Study for the LA County General Plan and this hillside was designated as part of the SEA area. In 2000 his firm prepared an update and saw no reason to remove it from that category. He believed that there was ecological value and he wanted to feel comfortable that it could be mitigated. He wanted to know what if anything could be done for the trees that are claimed to be "dead and dying" because the Department of Fish and Game says that "dead and dying" trees are in fact habitat for a whole suite of species and he did not want those simply "written off." He also wanted the applicant to find a similar property as a commitment to part of the plan. With respect to the landscape plan he would like to use vegetation that was usual to the area — local or indigenous rather than like a garden - it should look like the surrounding hillside and function as an extension of that. He asked if the vines were intended for the gridlock and Mr. Singh responded affirmatively. VC/Nelson said he was not prepared to advise a good replacement but said that most vine species are highly invasive and he would not want to create a situation that would allow vines to creep into undisturbed woodlands and take over. He recommended that the applicant consult a restoration ecologist who might have an idea about how to replace the vines. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Singh pointed out that most of thees had been and did not see � eason foroffsite sult of the slopes and not of the development mitigation requirements. The project should be able to mitigate on-site. VC/Nelson said that if the applicant could replace the trees on a 1:1 basis and duplicate the community and lsuch as a 1:1trees replacement t would something on the "dead and dying trees be acceptable to him. CDD/Fongfelt w the plans. sln addition she hads might not be inot time for the City's consultant to review verified that the applicant could provide the artists rendering in 30 days. C/Torng and C/Lee asked for input withrespect to the retaining wall and whether a redesign was appropriatepossible. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to re -open the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. ic hearing to VC/Nelson moved, CILee seconded, the continuenue d pubic hearing ng mailed to November 28, 2006, with notices purpose of the continued residents within 1000 feet of the project. The pur p public hearing was to allow the applicant ed by thecient time to resfollowing Roll Calpl� ted Commissioners' concerns. Motion AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nelson, Lee, Nolan, Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei g. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Lee welcomed Commissioner Nolan. C/Torng commended staff on its support and commended staff for bringing forward the Jewel Ridge project. He welcomed Commissioner Nolan. C/Nolan thanked her colleagues for welcoming her and said she looked forward to working on the Commission. VC/Nelson welcomed C/Nolan and thanked staff for wonderful staff reports. OCTOBER 10, 2006 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 9.1 Project Status Report Update. 9.2 Public Hearing dates for future projects CDD/Fong stated that she hoped to schedule a workshop for today. However, due to the absence of C/Wei the JCC Development workshop was Postponed to October 24 as recommended by the City Attorney. The workshop will commence at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regular Commission meeting. Dinner will be served for the Commissioners between 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. with the location tentatively set for Room CC -2. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Nelson adjourned the meeting at 10:23 p.m. Attest: Respectfu)iy S Nancy FonJDveI015�ment Community Director Aeveelson, Vice hairman -