Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2006MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson 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 Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Alvarez, Planning Technician; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney, Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner; Peter Lewandowski, City Environmental Consultant and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Workshop of October 24, 2006. VC/Torng moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve the Minutes of October 24, 2006, Workshop as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Nolan, Wei NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Chair/Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 24, 2006. C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to approve the Minutes of the October 24, 2006, regular Meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote. NOVEMBER 14, 2006 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6 7 NEW BUSINESS: PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lee, Wei, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None None 7.1 Development Review No. 2006-35 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.48, 22.56 and 22.68, this was a request to add 1,920 square feet to an existing 1,305 square foot Single Family Residence on an existing 7,118 square foot lot designated R-1 10,000 zoned parcel with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 693 Armitos Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Michael and Christine Kupke 693 Armitos Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Andresen Architecture, Inc. 17087 Orange Way Fontana, CA 92335 PT/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-18, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-18, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-18 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58 and 22.42, this was a request to operate a Music Studio within a leased space of 1,040 square feet in an existing Country Hills Towne Center zoned C-2 (Community Commercial). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 2775-A Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Country Hills DB, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 214 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Ara Cho 22556 Birds Eye Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PT/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-18, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng cautioned the applicant about protecting the safety of the children during construction at the center. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Michael Kim, applicant's representative, said he and the applicant reviewed staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. CDD/Fong responded to VC/Torng that staff would closely monitor parking issues as the shopping center developed C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-18, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES NOES: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS Nolan, Lee, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None None 7.3 Conditional Use Permit No 2005-08, Development Review No. 2005-40 and Variance No. 2006-03 - In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58, 22.48, 22.54 and 22.42, the applications were a request to install a telecommunications facility for one carrier. The antenna will be attached to a faux elm tree commonly referred to as a "monoelm." A building was proposed to house equipment needed to operate the cell site. A Conditional Use Permit approval was required to operate the cell site; the Development Review was a design/architectural review, and a Variance approval was required because the monoelm was 45 feet tall exceeding the maximum 35 foot allowed height for a structure. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar Center/Summitridge Park 1600 Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Verizon 15505 Sand Canyon Road Irvine, CA 92618 and Cindy Leinart for Infra Next, Inc. 2200 W. Orangewood Avenue, Suite 225 Orange, CA 92868 7.4 Conditional Use Permit No 2006-03, Development Review No. 2006-16 and Variance No. 2006-05 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.48, 22.48, 22.54 and 22.42, these applications were a request to install a telecommunications facility co -locating two carriers. The antennae will be attached to a fax elm tree commonly referred to as a "monoelm." A building was proposed to house equipment needed to operate the cell site. A conditional Use Permit approval was required to operate a cell site; the Development Review was a design/architectural review, and a Variance approval was required because the monoelm was 45 feet tall exceeding the 35 foot allowed height for a structure. NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Diamond Bar Center/Summitridge Park 1600 Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Lior Avraham for Nextel 310 Commerce Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 90033 and Omnipoint Communications, Inc. for T-Mobile/Nextel 3 Imperial Promenade, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report for Items 7.3 and 7.4 and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-08, Development Review No. 2005-40 and Variance No. 2006-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution; as well as, Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03, Development Review No. 2006-16 and Variance No. 2006-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson asked if staff or the applicant had considered placing the towers on the Diamond Bar Center building. CDD/Fong responded that even though the Diamond Bar Center may have provided better coverage according to the applicants, the Summitridge Park location was the preferred location because the City did not want to adversely affect the design and exterior of the Diamond Bar Center building. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing for Items 7.3 and 7.4. Adan Madrid, representing Sprint/Nextel, said the application before the Commission this evening represented over a year's worth of negotiations between staff and the applicants to arrive at a design acceptable to the City. It is difficult to provide service in this area because of the significant amount of topographic relief, the mature trees and lack of uses that are not residential. The selected location is the only alternative available to the applicants because it is a non-residential land use and is strategically located NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION with respect to the topography. He responded to C/Wei's question about coverage area by displaying a map and pointing out the coverage areas indicating the blue and red areas offered the best coverage. The black areas offered no service. The most significant map showed current service and coverage that would be accomplished through installation of the subject site. He stated that his firm read staffs report and was in full agreement with the conditions outlined in the resolution. C/Nolan asked if the new tree growth in the park would potentially present a future problem for service. Mr. Madrid responded that when the site was considered that potential problem was taken into consideration. The monoelms are located in such a way that the antennae are pointed between trees or away from trees and would not hinder the functionality of the site. David Takeda, 1302 Summitridge Drive, said he lives directly across from the park and asked if the two buildings were proposed to be at Summitridge Drive level. He and his neighbors are in favor of having cell phone service at their homes but were somewhat concerned about the look and location of the buildings. AssocP/Lungu pointed out that the buildings would be located on the City's grassy area about 25 feet back from the sidewalk. Mr. Madrid showed a photo simulation illustrating the location and design of the shelters. Due to the proximity of the buildings to the residential neighborhood, staff required that the applicant use building materials to match the Diamond Bar Center for the shelters. AssocP/Lungu stated the height of the shelters was proposed to be 13 feet. Mr. Madrid further stated that staff required the structures to be landscaped to soften their impact. Gurpreet Naipaul, 24249 Springwood Drive, asked if there were any health implications with respect to the amount of energy being emitted from the site. ACA/Kovacevich responded that the federal government pre-empts regulation and the health effects may not be considered when rendering a decision. Mr. Madrid referred the Commission to Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act precluding the decision from being made based on perceived health risks. Nevertheless, his firm takes residents' concerns seriously and understands that unknowns generate fear. Sprint/Nextel and other carriers have an obligation to comply with the strict standards established by the FCC, standards established by a conglomerate of public and private agencies. In addition, the proposed sites are well below the safety standards. Individuals interested in obtaining non-partisan information can log on to the FCC website www.FCC.gov.com. NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson thanked the applicants for providing the photo simulations, an invaluable tool in the decision-making process. He also thanked the applicants for bringing in the sample. He said he was optimistically skeptical about the proposal because there are hideous examples of attempts to hide cell sites. He acknowledged that the St. Denis site was an example of how well a cell site should disappear into its surroundings with the use of the Italian Cyprus that tied into the Italian Cypress already existing at the location. He asked the applicant if monooaks were available. Mr. Madrid responded that there were many good and bad examples of trees. He said he had never seen a monooak. However, one of his colleagues was aware of a manufacturer that produced monooaks. There are objectives for getting a good product for this and future tree sites and one jurisdiction that do a very thorough review of its products is Yorba Linda. Yorba Linda requires that applicants provide the city with a cross-section of the trees at two and one-half foot levels at the time of application. If the Planning Commission were inclined to proceed with this type of design his firm would be willing to take the extra step to have the pole manufacturers provide very detailed drawings. Chair/Nelson said he would appreciate the applicant's best effort and trusted staff to make the final decision for the type of monopole and landscaping to mitigate the site. Mr. Madrid said the applicant would also offer trees with the highest branch density — 2.6 branches per linear whirl. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. Chair/Nelson moved, C/Wei seconded to reopen the public hearing. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. Chair/Nelson reopened the public hearing. Chaing Chen, 24223 Softwind Drive, felt the project might adversely affect the value of the homes in the immediate area due to perceived health problems. Mr. Madrid responded that cell site owners have commissioned property valuation studies to address concerns regarding cell sites. Because there are so many more dominant market determining factors that eclipse this type of issue it was found that cell sites had virtually no bearing on property values. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Torng moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-08, Development Review No. 2005-40 and Variance No. 2006-03; and, Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03, Development Review No. 2006-16 NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION and Variance No. 2006-05, including amended conditions regarding the monopoles. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS VC/Torng, Nolan, Lee, Wei, Chair/Nelson None None 7.5 Development Review No. 2006-34— In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story 7,420 square foot single-family residence. The site is a prepared vacant lot and the subject property is zoned R-1 (20,000) and contains 41,800 square feet of land area. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 3028 Windmill Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Young Pil Kim 1010 Marc Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-34, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Daniel Descanio, architect, responded to C/Lee that the landscape plans were conceptual and the civil grading plans were more precise with respect to the height of the walls on the property. The Section AA wall is proposed to be five feet high and the Section CC wall is proposed to be three feet high. C/Wei asked that the record in its entirety indicate that the proposed home is located in "The Windmill Homeowners Association rather than "The Country Estates Homeowners Association." Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2006-34, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Wei, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: Chair/Nelson recused himself from deliberating on Item 7.6, declared a recess at 8:16 p.m. and left the dais. RECONVENE: VC/Torng reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 8:26 p.m. 7.6 South Pointe West Residential Development and Public Park PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: South of Larkstone Drive, East of Morning Sun Avenue, West of Brea Canyon Road and, Northwest of Peaceful Hills Road South Pointe West, LLC 2632 W. 237th Street, Suite 201 Torrance, CA 90505 A. Environmental Impact Report No. 2005-03 — In accordance with CEQA guidelines, the applicant requested the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for certification of the EIR for the South Pointe West project consisting of 99 single family units, open space areas and a neighborhood park. The EIR covers the project site of approximately 31.28 acres, off-site neighborhood park site of approximately 3.24 acres, and a stockpile site of approximately 7.45 acres to be used as a potential depository for excess earth material from the tract map area. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing to consider the draft EIR. B. General Plan Amendment No. 2005-01,Specific Plan No. 2005-01 Vesting Tentative Tract No. 063623 Conditional Use Permit No 2005-01, Development Review No. 2005-27 Development Agreement No. 2005-01, Zone Change No. 2006-03 and Tree Permit No. 2005-06 In accordance with provisions of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the applicant requested the Planning NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission to consider a recommendation for City Council approval of the South Pointe West project consisting of 99 single family units, open space areas and a neighborhood park. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing to consider the proposed project. CDD/Fong presented a review of the EIR and power point presentation of the proposed project. Staff's recommendation is to open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony and continue the Public Hearing. ACA/Kovacevich explained that there was additional documentation required on the EIR and that the Planning Commission should open the Public Hearing to allow interested residents to speak and continue the Public Hearing with no Planning Commission deliberation. Residents were informed that more information would be added to the public record and concerned individuals would be invited to attend the next Planning Commission meeting to provide testimony or submit their concerns and questions in written form. In the meantime, residents may contact CDD/Fong or CSP/Campbell to review documents. C[Wei disclosed that on October 27 he visited similar project sites with the applicant and staff. He learned nothing more than has been included in the packet. C/Nolan said that on Monday she visited similar projects at two sites with JCC and staff. At that time she learned nothing new that was not previously disclosed in the public information. VC/Torng stated that he visited the same two sites on November 10 with JCC and learned nothing new that was not disclosed in the public information. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Kurt Nelson, applicant, stated that because this process would not conclude this evening he would show a few visual aids to better help residents understand the proposed project and respond to Commissioner's and speaker's concerns. NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION John Coursen, 1719 Chapel Hill Drive, thanked staff for their very courteous and responsive assistance. He said he understood that this was a verycomplex project and also understood that the EIR was incomplete with respect to items that could adversely affect the surrounding areas such as the influx of many more residents and the dense cluster of residences near Morning Sun as well as, the concern about the safety of pedestrian traffic at and near the access point. In addition, traffic leaving Morning Sun will cross two golf -crossing areas on Lake Canyon Drive. Residents are very concerned about what appears to be an incomplete study of the increased traffic. He emphasized that the proposed project was quite different than what had previously been studied for the area with a cluster of homes weighted toward the Morning Sun access area to Colima Road. James Osowski, 20551 Summertown Street, agreed with statements made by Mr. Coursen. It is typical of the area that there are no sidewalks and he was concerned about the safety of the children. The concentration of children, golf cart traffic, etc., as mentioned by Mr. Coursen are his concerns as well. He said he was also concerned about the wildlife in the area. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, said she was even more concerned after hearing the applicant's presentation. The members of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association paid a premium for their land as a result of the designated open space and they were assured the designation was permanent. For the past 18 of the 23 years she has lived in Diamond Bar the City has led a consistent relentless effort to remove that designation which she strongly opposes. Four lots of the proposed project are in the Pathfinder Community Association and her understanding was that the project would not conform to the association's CC&R's. Does the applicant know that the Walnut Unified School District is required to mitigate any slippage on the Pathfinder community property, a requirement that would fall to the applicant with property ownership? The area is affected by several faults and she felt that building would tend to adversely affect the land stability to an even greater extent. Far more significant is the threat of fire to the area and potential for loss of wildlife and pets. She expressed concerns about noise and aesthetics and the issue of the entire project and its potential related problems. NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION Gail Esfahaniha, 1720 Morning Sun, said that her neighbors who spoke before her expressed her concerns as well. She added that she was very concerned about the potential for landslide because she almost lost her home during the last landslide. She believed that had there been homes on the hillside as those that are being proposed for this project they would have fallen down on her home. The applicant is correct that the City of Diamond Bar is very desirable and it is very desirable because of the way the homes are currently situated and such a dense project would, in her opinion, be better suited for San Francisco or other beach front properties, not the City of Diamond Bar. She also shared the concern about the increased vehicle traffic coming down Morning Sun and the safety concerns about the pedestrian traffic. She pleaded with the Commission to consider not approving this project because she was very afraid to have homes on the hillside above her house. She wanted to know who would be responsible and liable for future landslides were this project to be approved by the City with these concerns on the record. She said she was also concerned about the structures not matching the style of the homes in the area. Luis Ortiz, 1469 Fairlance Drive said he was drawn to the area for its good schools. After moving to the area he learned about the landslide and was very concerned about his property that lies in the open space of the proposed project. He said he was very concerned about the density of the project, the heavy rain downfall and potential future landslides. He knew that something had to be done because even if the property were not developed the problem would not go away. He did not agree with extra vehicles coming into the area because of the potential safety hazard for children. He stated that after the big earthquake in San Francisco builders decided to build houses closer together to reinforce the soil. He thanked the applicant for having the vision to do something about the area and whether or not the City was willing to approve the project, someone was willing to step up to the plate and take action for which they should be commended. However, he was not in favor of people in a gated community traveling into the neighboring streets. If this plan moves forward the park should be built for everyone and not segregated for us by people in the gated community. VC/Torng said the park would be for public use. Mr. Ortiz said he applauded the applicant for moving forward because he believed that once the homes and park were built the soil would be much more stable. NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Ron Beacham, 1565 Black Hawk Drive, said he was concerned about the Larkstone outlet. Black Hawk is currently a cul-de-sac and with this project there will be a lot more traffic in his area. Norman Beach-Courchesne said he was retired from the City of Anaheim for 31 years. In Anaheim Hills places were extensively landscaped and that in places the city replaced gutter, sidewalk and major portions of the streets about every three months. He said that when heavy buildings are built on unstable land the land would slip even faster. The plans for Morning Star will add a lot of extra weight to an already unstable land and there would be a lot more slippage and damage. The streets in unincorporated Los Angeles County leading to Morning Star are crooked and narrow, and it takes the fire station on Pathfinder almost twice as long to get from Colima to Morning Star as it takes them to get to Colima. When the school was built it was supposed to include a turnaround that would go back out to Brea Canyon Road. Traffic at Brea Canyon Road and Pathfinder at the entrance to the school creates a traffic jam in the morning and afternoon on school days. This project will extend that traffic into Morning Star and other parts of Diamond Bar and create a major catastrophe. And if there is anotherfire with new homes in the area it will create another catastrophe in his opinion. Michael Thomas, 20521 Shepherd Hills Road, commented that although the park is proposed to be a public park it is on the east side of the development. Since it is a gated community it appears that residents on Morning Sun would not have access without going out to Colima Road and around to the park entrance. CDD/Fong said that Mr. Thomas was correct in his assumption. Kurt Nelson said he appreciated the concerns and would address the issues in more detail at the next meeting. He said that no one was more aware of the geotechnical condition of the property than the applicant and he believed they had not had a project more thoroughly studied. The Morning Sun slide was never properly remedied. Over a year ago he attended a meeting of concerned residents along Morning Sun at a private home. He said he believed that the buckling of the street probably would not have occurred had there not been 38 inches of rainfall. The point is, however, that any competent developer would consider that potential and remove and re -compact the 18 to 20 feet of unstable material. The applicant will not build homes until the ground has a substantial factor of safety that would NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION allow the developers to sleep at night. Who is liable? The builder is liable. It is completely understandable that the residents who live in the area are concerned about the potential for earth movement and landslides. He said that if residences were built on land above or below other residences current code dictates that the affected residents would be a lot safer. Frankly, the applicant intends to make the area safer than it has ever been so that it will never slide again. Residential development is the only area that offers potential for money to properly mitigate such areas. He urged individuals to read the traffic report because there were other avenues of egress. Every residential neighborhood has children present. This project impacts on traffic nominally at best and the fair share contributions the project will make toward badly needed traffic improvements will improve the situation most notably. Traffic created through residential developments is minimal when compared to regional traffic concerns. However, it is the residential development that puts forth the money for traffic improvements needed to solve problems not of their making. There are animals on the site and the biological study indicates that they move around the area. If there are Mountain Lions present, which he doubts, residents should be very glad that the area is going to be cleared and the Mountain Lions will go away. There is no regional corridor movement through the site. The homes will not increase the fire hazard. If anything, the area will be rendered safer from fire danger. The economic reality of the site is that if a developer were going to develop the area in the conventional single-family 5,000 — 6,000 square foot minimum manner there would be more grading and no contour grading and no sense of affordability. He believed that Diamond Bar was not just for people who could afford $2-$3 million homes. He said he did not agree that the project looked like it belonged in San Francisco nor does it look like an old single -story ranch style home. Unless the days of cheap land return those days are gone. However, the project offers a very attractive neighborhood that will create 18 -acres of residual open space that would be beautifully landscaped. He thanked all of the speakers for their opinions and hoped that in two weeks he could satisfactorily answer the remaining questions and concerns. CDD/Fong said that staff would prepare to address speaker's comments in the next staff report. C/Nolan asked staff to address the Morning Sun traffic concerns and provide more clarification on the Open Space restriction issue. NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng reiterated his previous concerns: Support the data contained in the Traffic Study; address the number of parking spaces; CC&R's; number of bedrooms in relationship to the number of vehicles and whether it would result in too many vehicles parked on the street; safety of pedestrians because of only one sidewalk; view from Morning Sun including the 18 foot retaining wall; whether or not the 20 foot retaining wall could be reduced; provide artist's rendering (done); tree mitigation; re -design of front entrance. VC/Torng said he felt that after viewing other similar properties it was a good design and that the architect was doing his best to create the best design. He felt that if the project were to be built the developer would have to understand the traffic impact fees, park fees and developer impact fees. He did not hear from developer whether he was in agreement with these items. CDD/Fong said that this project was still in the negotiation stage. VC/Torng said that if the City really has to have this project the development fees would be important to the community. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to continue the Open Public Hearing to November 28, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Lee, Wei, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ACA/Kovacevich stated there would be no further written public notification regarding this matter and that speakers were invited to return for the November 28 Continued Public Hearing and/or submit their questions/concerns in writing. 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Torng said he appreciated the opportunity to serve as acting Chair during tonight's meeting and indicated he would not be present for the November 28 meeting. He thanked staff for providing prompt responses to his questions and concerns. NOVEMBER 14, 2006 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Fong stated that Commissioners were encouraged to attend the Economic Outlook Breakfast on Friday, November 17. Commissioners who wish to attend should call SAA/Marquez for reservations. Two important projects are slated for consideration on November 28 — the South Pointe West project and the Daniel Singh project along with other public hearing items. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 10:00 p.m. Attest: Respectfull Submitted, 7 �VT Nancy Fong Community De elopesnt Director Steve Nelson, Chairman Toriy Torng, Acting Chairman