Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/2006MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 28, 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 Wei led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei and Chairman Steve Nelson. Absent: Vice Chairman Tony Torng was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Associate; 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: Chair/Nelson moved Item 7.2 to the end of the Public Hearings. 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 14, 2006. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the Minutes of November 14, 2006 Workshop as corrected by VC/Torng. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS 5. OLD BUSINESS: None Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson None VC/Torng NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 2 6. NEW BUSINESS: None PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 54081, Zone Change No. 2006-02/ Planned Development, Mitigated Neaative Declaration No. 2006-03, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 — In accordance with 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 was a 22 lot subdivision on a site of approximately 12.9 acres that 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. (Continued from October 10, 2006) PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: At the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Daniel Singh Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of a resolution recommending City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, Zone Change No. 2006-02/ Panned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 as amended. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing Lawrence Berner, 3716 Crooked Creek Drive, a 30 -year resident said he was concerned that construction of the three 16 -foot high brick walls behind the homes would completely ruin the views. Additionally, he was concerned about the mud and water coming down his drainage ditch. Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek Drive, said he reviewed the documentation and found certain items to be very disappointing and could not understand how the project got to this point. The geology report indicates the ground is subject to liquefaction in the event of an earthquake and he believed that with the added weight of deep watering it would lead to problems like those that took place in Anaheim Hills, Blue Bird Canyon (Laguna) and two years ago in Diamond Bar. He also wondered why there was no traffic mitigation plan. Jeff Layton, 3703 Crooked Creek Drive, spoke about the increased noise, loss of country view due to construction of a wall visible from the freeway and possible failure of the retaining wall and threat of personal and property loss as a result. Joyes Tweed, 2115 Running Branch, said she was pleased with the applicant's efforts to meet the requested changes. However, she was not satisfied that only one picture was taken from only one backyard because there are number of residences that will be affected. The project will also affect people who have property on the lower section of Diamond Bar and she was not comfortable about how their backyards would be affected and whether it had been properly explained during this process. She was also concerned about the resident at the very end of the street because it was not apparent whether that resident would be looking into walls across the street as well as next to them. She wanted to see more explanation and view from all locations prior to approval. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION June Sutherland, 20850 Gold Run Drive, said she was concerned about drainage from the top of the hill to the lower portion because she felt the drainage channel might be rendered inadequate by the project. She believed that the retaining wall would be visible from the freeway and place a negative impact on the surrounding property values. This project does not lend itself to country living, which is the reason people live in Diamond Bar. She said she was also concerned about the trees marked as "dead and dying" and felt the City should hire an Arborist to meet with a committee of residents that would ultimately be affected by the project. She also believed that the tree replacement ratio was too little because 10 -gallon replacement trees would not replace 100 year-old trees. She stated her belief that heretofore it had been difficult to get projects built in the City and giving variances of such drastic bias to the developer was unfair to the long-time residents of Diamond Bar. Daniel Singh, applicant, responded to speakers that he attempted to gain access to backyards of residences that directly face the property and only a few were willing to give his crew access to their backyards to take photographs. He presented additional renderings to the Commission that he said showed in 10 years how difficult it would be to see what had been built. In spite of their being no view ordinance for the City the applicant wants to cooperate and has sought guidance from staff to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Mr. Singh said that his biologist was present and would testify that all of the trees would be mitigated on-site and that the habitat area had been mitigated for the oak tree woodland. The City conducted an independent study of the project and asked for some changes that were ultimately included in the Arborists' report. The reason for requesting a zone change is to attempt to preserve as much of the open space as close to the development as possible. The applicant's biologist offered to answer questions. Hunter J. Tannery, 3802 Castle Rock Road, said he does not want any houses built because the animals would disappear and there would be no place for people to hike. Every day he plays with his dog in the backyard and they enjoy the view and do not want the City to tear down the country and make houses. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Norma Leon Enclade, 3611 Crooked Creek, said she was concerned by how the residents would be impacted by the construction that is occurring at the end of Crooked Creek. It seems the area will be developed and how do the residents ensure the safety of their children as construction trucks are coming in and out when children are playing in the street. If there were a question of liquefaction what percentage of the existing and thoroughly cemented vegetation would be left in place to prevent liquefaction that could occur? She believed there were a lot of children that took pleasure in exploring the area and felt it would be lost due to development. At what point does Diamond Bar cease development in favor of its residents? Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Wei said that although he was absent from the October 10 public hearing for this project he familiarized himself with the details of the project and read the minutes of the meeting. He asked the developer to respond to the following questions: 1) Is there sufficient drainage to mitigate future mudflow and excess water; 2) will the project infringe on the wildlife habitat and 3) is the tree replacement ratio and size sufficient and would there be sufficient replacement of vegetation to prevent excess mud and water flow; 4) respond to the concerns about the safety of children during construction. C/Lee said that last time he asked if the developer could lower the height of the retaining wall. Also, it appears that the developer did not respond to traffic concerns. CDD/Fong responded that it was the Commission's direction that the applicant was to provide additional information and one of the directions was for the applicant to determine whether he could reduce the height of the retaining wall. AssocP/Lungu explained that staff asked the developer to push the five and six foot retaining walls back to make the trail connection as required by the Trails Master Plan. As a result, the walls might have to be higher than five or six feet each. The developer responded that he could provide the area for the trail and retain the three five-foot high retaining walls. Other walls throughout the project are a series of five or six foot high retaining walls with planter areas between each wall. EC/Lewandowski again explained that with the preparation of the environmental documents for this project a traffic study was prepared that NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION examined the associated trip generation characteristics. The traffic study calculated the number of daily trips as well as, peak hour trips and clearly the project as with any project, would add traffic to the local roadways. However, the added traffic does not manifest in the need for signalization or additional traffic mitigations. C/Lee asked if this was a proper answer to the residents' concerns. CDD/Fong pointed out that this project consists of only 16 houses and although the 16 trips would add some traffic to the general area it would not be enough to warrant signals or stop signs. The City's traffic engineer will be looking at the issue and if the residents have concerns about the general area they are invited to address the Traffic and Transportation Commission and Neighborhood Traffic Management Program meetings. In general, there may be some mitigation measures that can occur in the area. However, based on expert analysis, this specific project does not warrant additional mitigation measures. C/Nolan stated that the photos showing the property from the northbound SR57 are unclear and there is no clear understanding of howthe "gatewayto the City of Diamond Bar would appear if this project were built. It is an important view corridor and she wanted to see how the views would be impacted by rooftops and retaining walls from all points of entry. CDD/Fong responded that the Commission's direction from last meeting was that the applicant needed to do a photo simulation to show what drivers would see as they traveled the northbound and southbound SR57. The photos did not provide that kind of information to the Commission. C/Nolan said she would like to see a rendition/drawing/graphic design rendition of what would appear in view — the homes, the rooftops, and the retaining walls as to what would be seen in the Diamond Bar gateway. She also wanted to see a rendition of what adjacent residents would see today and 10 years from completion of the project. Gary Dante, Civil Engineer for the project said he took the pictures from the ground and from the freeway. Basically, coming from the freeway there would be no direct view into the site. The closest view would be about a three second view from about a mile away. As one approaches the site there is a barrier of trees that completely block the view of the site. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Therefore, he does not believe there is a view corridor from the SR57. The view corridor from the houses below shows that with the separation of the walls and the planting between the walls the project is a considerable distance away from the back yards and those residents would not feel crowded because of this project. In addition, there is a 10 -foot no man's land even before the walls start. The five-foot walls are five feet high so that they step back and each step would have plantings that would render the walls nearly invisible. Mr. Dante responded to C/No►an that the first retaining wall would be about 15 feet back from the rear of the closest resident's rear yards. Additionally, the walls curve at the closest point and the photo was taken from the closest back yard. In some areas the walls are fifty feet from the back yards. He felt the mitigation was good. C/Nolan asked if staff agreed about the view from the SR57. CDD/Fong said that in fairness the applicant should simulate a photo without the high landscaping at the edge of the freeway in order to provide a true picture of what would be viewed from the SR57. The hills of Diamond Bar are very important to its image. Additionally, the developer could provide another photo that included the freeway landscape. Chair/Nelson asked for clarification of the hydrology drainage changes that would occur as a result of the project and the need to accommodate those changes. EC/Lewandowski responded that the applicant provided hydrology and geotechnical study evaluations, which were reviewed by the City's Engineer and found to be acceptable relative to the City's standards and in conformance with the County's requirements. With the introduction of impervious surfaces and the change in the site topography, clearly the drainage characteristics of the site would be modified. The modifications will necessitate drainage facilities to be incorporated along the roadway with the drainage safely conveyed to the channel. The changes in accordance with County requirements will not result in a substantive change in the quantity or quality of the water that is discharged from the project site. Chair/Nelson asked what safety measures would be implemented to provide for maximum pedestrian safety during construction. Mr. Lewandowski responded that from a traffic engineering perspective there were no NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION additional mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As a matter of policy the City requires a construction plan and stipulates that construction shall occur in accordance with the City's requirements and not adversely impact local residents. He believed there were a number of issues relative to this particular project. This site has a single point of access along a residential street and all construction traffic would therefore have to access the project site via the roadway. Ultimately, if there are safety considerations, and the City is very sensitive to those issues, those are enforcement actions that would have to be monitored by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Mr. Lewandowski confirmed to Chair/Nelson that the site balanced, that there would be no offsite earth movement and all grading would be contained within the project site's development envelope. As with all construction activity the site would be fenced and all construction equipment would be staged on the project site. CDD/Fong stated that the Commission could impose a condition that required the applicant to provide a construction traffic safety mitigation plan. Chair/Nelson felt such a requirement would address the concerns expressed this evening. Chair/Nelson asked if the trail went through the project and accessed the open space. CDD/Fong explained that the trail along Crooked Creek would lead to the regional trail at the edge of the City limits and that there would be a trailhead further up on the project site. Chair/Nelson asked if the grading would be visible from the SR57. Mr. Dante responded that the site was very low and that there were two streets between the freeway and the project site with houses on both sides of each street. Those houses would block the view as well, even if the freeway hedges were removed. The grading is not changing much of the site viewscape and the hill blocks part of the site. Chair/Nelson said he had difficulty believing there would be no view of the terraced grading. Mr. Dante said it was downhill from the freeway. Chair/Nelson asked Mr. Dante to take a photograph and simulate the grading and the roofs onto the photograph and if some parts of the graded slope are in fact visible that the applicant show what it would look like now, at a five year and 10 year interval. He believed it would be hidden but he wanted to know what it would look like and that was his request at the last Commission meeting. Mr. Dante said he would do a line of site because the site cannot be seen since it is down at the river level. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson asked what size trees were being used for the terraces behind the homes. Mr. Singh responded that they were 10 -gallon on 10 -foot center plantings Chair/Nelson recommended that the applicant consider mixing in larger trees to provide better screening in a shorter period of time. CDD/Fong stated that the City's Code requires that all trees must be a minimum 15 -gallon and a certain percentage must be 24" boxed trees. Mr. Singh said that when he reviewed the plan the tree sizes were interspersed. C/Nolan reiterated her concern about being provided a better rendition of what current residents would view from their back yards. Chair/Nelson said he was more comfortable with the project at this point. He thanked the applicant for making certain advancements such as an increased ratio of replacement trees and having a qualified restoration biologist on board. However, the Commission needs a little more on the visuals. In response to Chair/Nelson CDD/Fong confirmed that staff could review the construction safety plan. CDD/Fong explained that the there was no time limitation on this Zone Change. Chair/Nelson moved, C/Wei seconded, to reopen the public hearing and continue the matter to December 12, 2006. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng 8. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01 and Development Review No. 2006-01 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58, 22.48 and 22.42 these new applications update and replace the previous Conditional Use Permit No. 1997-02 and Development Review No. 1997-06; change the vendor information; modifies the lease area; adds additional antenna on the existing park light pole behind the existing ones, and modify the equipment area to an enclosed building to match existing park facilities. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 10 PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER PLANNING COMMISSION Peterson Park 24142 E. Sylvan Glen Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: John Talbot and J -Daniel Fox New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC c/o Wireless Development Resources, LLC P.O. Box 8823 Newport Beach, CA 92660 And Ryan Wells MMI Titan 129006 th Floor, Park Plaza Drive Cerritos, CA 90703 DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No 2006-01 and Development Review No. 2006-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Eric Stone, P.O. Box 9320 Cedarpines Park, CA 92322, said he owned 10 acres directly across the freeway from the site. One of the big differences he noticed with respect to this site was that it was not necessarily the best service site nor was it being camouflaged to be aesthetically pleasing for the City. The pictures clearly show the building "in your face." Since he was able to secure a copy of the agenda only today he asked if the Commission would consider continuing the item. Daniel Fox, Cingular Wireless offered to answer questions. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan asked if the map showed the current service area and Mr. Fox responded that it indicated future coverage. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. CDD/Fong responded to Chair/Nelson that a map showing opportunities and analysis of possible cell sites in the City of Diamond Bar exists that was used to adopt the wireless ordinance with a pre -approved location for cell sites. Wireless carriers that wish to be approved for those locations are required only to go through a development review application. Carriers wishing to locate in other locations must go through the Conditional Use Permit process. The City has allowed wireless companies to use park sites for providing sales and services to Diamond Bar residents as an economic benefit to the City. There are currently tall light fixtures in the park that does not affect adjacent residents and the City encourages carriers to place their sites within park facilities if it provides adequate reception. Mr. Stone is seeking other providers to locate on his property. However, his cell site is now a non -conforming use of the property. CDD/Fong explained to C/Nolan that the current tower will be replaced and a structure to house the equipment will be built to look like a park structure. Mr. Stone stated that this co -location could mean the elimination of the structure altogether, which would, in his opinion, create a more park -like atmosphere. He felt the proposed structure was unsightly and wondered if the applicant was given an opportunity to consider alternatives. His location is a stealth location with zero impact on the park and residents. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. Chair/Nelson felt the site was a great location, definitely better than locating it in a concrete tree. He said he was prepared to move forward unless there was a reason to continue the matter. Chair/Nelson moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01 and Development Review No. 2006-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng 8.2 Conditional Use Permit No 2006-02, Development Review No. 2006-05, Conceptual Sian Plan No 2006-01 and Mitigated Negative Declaration — In accordance with Chapter 21 of the Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of the following: Demolition of an existing service station building and canopy and removal of the existing underground gas pumps and pavement; and, construction of an approximately 2945 square foot convenience store, attached 843 square foot self-service carwash, 2750 square foot canopy and five pump islands. PROJECT ADDRESS: 150 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ John Amabile APPLICANT: Chevron Products Co. 145 S. State College Boulevard Brea, CA 92822 CSP/Campbell presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-07, Development Review No. 2006-05, Conceptual Sign Plan No. 2006-05 and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Tamara Finner, RHL Design Group, on behalf of the applicant, said that staff was very helpful and knowledgeable. She asked for elimination of Condition 5.b. (6) of the draft resolution requiring the applicant to come in a second time for a Conditional Use Permit for the freeway sign. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong responded to the applicant that staff was ready to approve the Comprehensive Sign Program minus the existing pole sign. There are design issues that have not been resolved and staff would propose to condition the project to allow for review of the signs. C/Lee said he was concerned about two projects taking place at the same time and about the safety issues during construction. He wanted to know how long the project would take to complete. Staff was not sure that both projects would be under construction at the same time. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-02, Development Review No. 2006-05, Conceptual Sign Plan No. 2006-01 and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng 8.3 Negative Declaration No. 2006-04 Conditional Use Permit No 2005-07 Development Review NO. 2005-36 Minor Variance No 2006-05 and Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-06 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58, 22.48, 22.52 and 22.36, the proposed project was a request to remodel and enlarge an existing service station as follows: Demolish one existing service bay; expand the existing convenience mart to 1,700 square feet to incorporate the two remaining service bays; add a 720 square foot drive-through carwash; and upgrade the exterior design of structures on site. The application approvals are required for the following reasons: a Conditional Use Permit to allow the drive-through carwash; Development Review to change the exterior design of structures; a Minor Variance to allow a two percent reduction in the required 15 percent landscaping; and a Comprehensive Sign Program to ensure proposed wall and monument signs that were architecturally integrated. PROJECT ADDRESS: 206 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 14 PROPERTY OWNER: PLANNING COMMISSION Sam Anabi Anabi Oil Corporation 1224 San Dimas Canyon Road San Dimas, CA 91773 APPLICANT: Western States Engineering, Inc. 4887 E. La Palma, Suite 707 Anaheim, CA 92807 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Negative Declaration No. 2006-04, Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-07, Development Review No. 2005-36, Minor Variance No. 2006-05 and Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lee talked about the congestion in the area and voiced his concern about the tight turning radius from the drive through to the carwash area. He was concerned about the elderly and female drivers or drivers who don't know how to handle their cars well. They may hit the corners of the island. He also felt the applicant should comply with the required landscape percentage. C/Lee believed it would be safer if the applicant eliminated three or four parking space in order to provide more landscaping. CDD/Fong responded that the applicant would have to comply with the required number of parking spaces. C/Lee reiterated that he was most concerned about the safety of the pedestrians and a 90 -degree turn in to the carwash would be safer. AssocP/Lungu said that addition of landscaping near the monument sign would put the applicant at over the 13 percent. Since the applicant is attempting to work with the current site there is little opportunity for change and staff is attempting to add as much landscaping as possible, work with what is available and also provide enough parking for the convenience mart. C/Nolan commented that it was her understanding that the applicant would be removing a walled landscaped area and replacing it with ground level landscaping which would give the appearance of more landscaping. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION Joseph Karaki, architect for the project, thanked staff for their endless effort to put the project together. The turning radius for the carwash is a standard turning radius that complies with any turning radius for a drive-through, carwash and fast food with 32 feet on the outside and 18 feet on the inside. Mr. Karaki responded to C/Lee that the applicant reduced the building size by 400 to 500 square feet and in order for the food mart to survive it would not be economically feasible to further reduce the size. He assured C/Lee that the radius was standard and would not jeopardize the safety of pedestrians. In fact, the oil company would not accept any standards that would jeopardize their clients. C/Lee said he was not comfortable with the proposed design and wanted the applicant to provide an alternative design. C/VVei recommended a slight variation in the turn area to widen the radius to satisfy C/Lee's concerns. C/Lee and the applicant concurred. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Negative Declaration No. 2006-04, Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-07, Development Review No. 2005-36, Minor Variance No. 2006-05 with consideration of modifying the turning radius to widen the driving area as suggested by C/Wei, and Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution as amended. Chair/Nelson recused himself from consideration of Item 7.2 and left the dais. RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 9:23 p.m. RECONVENE: AC/Lee reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 9:33 p.m. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.2 South Pointe West Residential Development and Public Park (Continued from November 28, 2006) NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 16 PROJECT ADDRESS: PLANNING COMMISSION South of Larkstone Drive, East of Morning Sun Avenue, West of Brea Canyon Road and, Northwest of Peaceful Hills Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ South Pointe West, LLC APPLICANT: 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, an 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 recommended 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 Chan a No. 2006-03 and Tree Permit No. 2005-06 — In accordance with provisions of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the applicant requested the Planning 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. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong presented a recap of the proposed project and public concerns. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the following to the City Council: • Certify the Environmental Impact Report-EIR NO. 2005-01, and State Clearance House No. 2005111118 complete and adequate and in compliance with CEQA; • Adopt the EIR Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration; • Approve the General Plan Amendment No. 2005-01 and Zone Change No. 2006-03; • Approve Development Agreement No. 2005-01; • Approve Specific Plan No. 2005-01 and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 063623; • Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05, Development Review No. 2005-07 and Tree Permit No. 2005-06. There were no Commissioner disclosures offered. C//Wei asked staff to point out the area of the proposed approximate 7.45 -acre site to be used as a repository for access earth material from the tract map area and CDD/Fong complied. AC/Lee reopened the Public Hearing. Steve Schwartz, South Pointe West, explained that stockpiling was proposed so that the site would not have any export and accordingly, the applicant arranged for the WVUSD to permanently raise their pad to cover excess dirt if needed. His firm has been involved in construction projects in the City for the past 10 years and builds quality products. When his company entered into escrow on this project there were competing concerns that had to be addressed. Because of the high price the school district was asking his firm was NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION the only bidder and as such, it was difficult to make the project work. I n addition, the City requested his company to fulfill an obligation for a park site the school district had years ago that was unknown to the developer at the time of purchase. As such, in order for the project to be economically feasible, South Pointe West looked at a denser attached project that would be harmonious with the neighborhood, which was not possible with an R-1 zoning. The proposed project was a compromise with an R-1 feel that is acceptable to the buying community. He said he was very proud of the product that his firm brought forward to the Commission. Tom Powers, on behalf of Mrs. Kim, 1704 Morning Sun, stated Mrs. Kim's property is adjacent to the Morning Sun gate. She is concerned about the loss of privacy and view and homes that will look down onto her property. Mrs. Kim is trusting staff that the property will be mitigated. Traffic concerns have been addressed. However, it is a two -block winding drive to get to Colima where there is no traffic signal. He said they had been working with Mr. Gould on planting trees and impressing their concerns. Stephanie Lee, 1611 Morning Sun Avenue, said she and her husband moved to the area because they wanted views of the countryside and open spaces. She wanted to know why the project proposed crowded housing when there was so much space n ce housewould spthe efer to see houses with space between hem like area. John Coursen, 1719 Chapel Hill Drive, thanked staff for their courteous and patient assistance as he has attempted to learn more about the project. He reiterated his concerns about traffic safety associated with the entrance gate onto Morning Sun. The treets directly affected are Morning Sun, Shepherd Hills Drive, Chappell Hills Drive and Tam Oshanter. While the studies addressed the congestion issue they did not consider the design and safety affecting these streets. In addition, the reports do not address safety concerns in the area of the second gate. He recalled that at the previous NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION meeting he and several residents were concerned about traffic on their side and the Commission specifically requested additional information on the issue. So far everyone has been non-responsive. These streets are quiet back -of -the -subdivision streets and cul-de- sacs and are not designed as thoroughfares. There is a large amount of pedestrian traffic, school children and families. Not previously mentioned, there are no sidewalks, no stop signs and no speed humps on the streets. The Los Angeles County ordinance requires that this type of subdivision have pedestrian safety mitigation measures beyond what is currently available in the neighborhoods. What is proposed as Street "A" within the subdivision has a sidewalk and it has been discussed that the streets on Larkstone would include sidewalks, which is not the case at the second access proposed for Morning Sun. He asked what Diamond Bar's exposure would be to litigation and liability in the event that the City knowingly approved an access point that would clearly violate LA County safety standards for roadway design in these neighborhoods. Further, as a parent he is very concerned because his son would soon be walking the same path to school buses and dodging traffic from that access point. He asked the Commission to consider eliminating the Morning Sun Avenue access point. Barbara Beach Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, said it was not possible to review the EIR information on this project because the information was unavailable or Ms. Campbell did not have permission to give it to her. On November 14 Chair/Nelson and CDD/Fong indicated there were issues with the EIR and those issues would be corrected and revealed. Tonight the EIR is perfect and she has concerns about what happened during the past two weeks and why a copy was not available to her. It seemed to her that 10 years had passed and nothing had changed in the City, a very sad statement for her to make. Why was the public hearing originally convened if the EIR had questions and concerns? Is the completion of escrow on this property with the Walnut School District contingent upon approval of this development? How can one comment at a public hearing when one does not have access to the documents or to the information? NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION What is Diamond Bar's policy on public documents? How can she receive a copy of that policy? The minutes of November 14 accurately describe what the residents said. However, there are statements that CDD/Fong and Chair/Nelson made that she considered crucial that were not in the minutes. So she would like an unabridged copy of a tape. She would like to know how she would get it and who has to give her permission to get it. What must she do to receive a copy of all documents for Public Hearings on this development from the review all the way up to today? And she needs to know who needs to approve that release because these are public documents. This is a right of a citizen, especially a citizen who is highly impacted by this project. The school is very anxious to sell this property but these developers are going to build 99 houses. She wanted to know where all of the children living in the houses would go to school. She hoped tthe school would not come back andask her for a bon Y land somewhere else to build another school. She wanted the Commission to know that she had been an educator for 46 years. She was very impressed tonight by both C/Wei and C/Lee and their concerns about residents when talking about the project in Item 8.2. They were concerned about water, traffic, wildlife and walls and she did not hear that concern with this project and she was confused and angry. She wondered if there was no concern because the people who lived on Morning Sun were of no concern to the Commissioners. The residents have as much concern and as much rage as she has. She quoted from a document entitled The Notice of Annexation of Territory. The document stated that "anyone who buys any lot becomes an automatic member of the Pathfinder Association, Inc. and must can enforce bhat" and she planaide by the tions" and it Ys that "any unit owner planned to do that Gayle Esfahaniha, 1720 Morning Sun, said she understood about the traffic study and its impact but it did not address the traffic. Ninety- nine homes could potentially have about 300 cars coming down the street every morning and every evening as well as other trips throughout the day. There are no sidewalks and there are children and joggers in the street. She asked to view the chart that indicated benefits and impacts. She questioned the benefit "preservation of NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION open space" and felt it should be moved to the impact side of the chart. If 99 homes are built it will diminish the current open space and that is not a benefit. As far as repair of the landslide it could be done without crowding the area with so many homes. She was told that additional weight would raise the water level. No one can predict how much rain and whether or not there will be an earthquake. She would hate to see all of those families in 99 homes disrupted because of dollars. When it comes to loss of life there is no dollar amount that can replace a loss of life. Several years ago she was forced to put her children in public school and thought South Pointe would be the school they would attend. Because of the boundary it was Rincon. She tried to get them into South Pointe but was told the school was already very overcrowded and was not open to additional students. Her child went to Rincon, another school that was overcrowded where her child had no desk. Fortunately, in about two weeks she was able to get him back into private school. If the schools were overcrowded several years ago what will they be like with an additional 99 families? The applicant may have met legal requirements but the residents in the area are not comfortable with this project. She asked the Commission to consider the quality of life of the residents when ruling on this project. She said Diamond Bar was not about 99 homes in such a small area. Tim Kutrus, 1611 Morning Sun Avenue, said there was much public outcry tonight about "country living" and in his opinion the polar opposite of "country living" is high density housing. This is a neighborhood of single-family homes on every side. He agreed that the property owners had a right to develop the property and make a profit but it should be with detached single-family homes that have space in between them to mirror the surrounding area. This area is zoned R-1 for a reason. Secondly, this area does not require a gated community because it is a very safe area. This proposed development is not comparable to `The Country Estates." The proposed development is more like condominiums. With respect to benefits versus impact, the indirect benefit is money to the schools. Preservation of open space is more appropriate listed under "impacts." Property tax revenue equals money. Traffic Impact Fees NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION equal money. The property owner was obligated to repair the landslide and it had not been done. A two million dollar contribution equals money, money, and more money. Impacts: These are crowded houses that are close together; the City loses the open space feeling of this area; the residents lose the countryside and the country living atmosphere. He would agree that if this were the last open space in the City of Diamond Bar and there was an acute housing shortage he could say that the benefits outweighed the impact because the City would need this project, but the City does not need this project. Keep it R-1 and build houses that look like the surrounding neighborhoods so that everyone can be happy. James Osowski, 20551 Summertown Street, concurred with previous speakers. He asked the Commissioners to consider how they would feel if they lived in this neighborhood and had the opportunity come before the Commission tonight whether the Commissioners would really want this project. Mr. Schwartz responded to speakers that he was proud of the proposed project and felt it would be a great addition to the City. He said his firm believed there was an acute need for housing in the City of Diamond Bar and this would be one of the few new housing projects built in the City during this time period. With respect to the designation of "open space" he agreed with staff's position that it was a benefit to take a certain amount of the space that was privately owned and make it permanent open space. The arguments made by some of the neighbors that this project takes away open space would be correct except that the property is privately owned and is not therefore open space. With respect to schools and school capacity, this is one of the best things that could happen to the school district. The school district is very supportive of this project because they will be receiving over $11 million including school fees and purchase price for the property, dollars that are important to the district. With respect to the landslide, the applicant, staff and the school district have engaged four soils engineers for the City, County, school district and applicant to look at this site and review and test it. All of the engineers are in agreement that the fix from a geotechnical standpoint is relatively simple. There is a landslide approximately 20 feet deep NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION that needs to be cut out, the dirt removed and properly placed back. All four engineers agree that once that is done under the supervision of the City's inspectors and a licensed soils engineer that there will be no further slides. And having done some very difficult projects with landslides in the past including three within the City of Diamond Bar his firm is very familiar with this type of work and have had no problems with any of the projects they have completed. CDD/Fong responded to speakers that with respect to potential loss of privacy, as a result of this project certain areas would be preserved in open space. The closest property is about 30 feet from the backyard to the nearest house. The proposed houses are at a higher elevation but they are much further away from the houses. In addition there will be landscaping between the project and the current residences and she did not believe there would be any loss of privacy. Rich Baretto, Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, said his firm prepared the traffic study for this project. His understanding is that the entry is a residence only entry and visitors will be required to enter the site from Larkstone Drive. About 30 percent of the project traffic would utilize the entry gate and there would be a little more than 300 daily trips in and out of the entry point. Consistent with the City's guidelines as well as, LA County guidelines, the study looked at residential traffic impacts along four segments within the area and concluded that the project, with its added traffic would not create a significant impact through added volumes. Pedestrian safety at the project entry as it accesses Morning Sun has adequate sightlines so that as traffic exits the project drivers are able to see in both directions. There is a sidewalk that leads from the internal roadway that exists all the way to Morning Sun. While there are no streets within the existing community it is not the applicant's responsibility to construct sidewalks outside of their property line. The study also concluded that there were adequate sightlines for cars to get in and out of the secondary access. With respect to stacking and queuing the gate would have to be located far enough into the project (50 feet) so that there is no queuing back onto Morning Sun. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong responded to Barbara Beach-Courchesne that the EIR has been available for public review at the counter in City Hall and a copy of the EIR has been available at the Diamond Bar Library since August 2006. The staff report for this continued public hearing was available prior to Thanksgiving and is available for review at the City Hall public counter. CDD/Fong stated that at the last Planning Commission meeting the EIR was complete except for the response to comments. When the City receives comments from various agencies staff must respond and staff was waiting for comments from the Department of Fish and Game. Since that time, the response to comments has been completed and all comments were routed to the agencies that responded to the EIR. Another missing item was the Findings of Facts and Statement of overriding Consideration, findings that are prepared for review by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to taking action. Those two missing items caused this public hearing to be continued to this evening and the items were available for review as part of tonight's agenda packet that was available prior toa � Thanksgiving. circulated and theCityhasametpact Report the CEQA was completed requirements. CDD/Fong responded to speakers that the adjacent community within the unincorporated areas of LA County follows LA County standards. This project is proposed within the boundaries of the City of Diamond Bar and follows the City's standards. Residents were concerned about their neighborhoods not having sidewalks and were concerned that cars coming down the drive from Shepherd Hills would increase the safety hazard for pedestrians. "The Country Estates" is a gated community that has no sidewalks. Many communities chose not to have sidewalks and she could not answer for LA County standards and could not answer for residents who lived in Rowland Heights. The proposed project has a sidewalk that links the residences to the park and to the school. CDD/Fong stated a speaker commented that the project should be zoned R-1. The site is currently zoned R-1 and it is proposed to be NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 25 PLANNING COMMISSION changed to Specific Plan. R-1, 10,000 meaning there could be four units or four lots to an acre, which translates to more than 99 units. However, the developer is proposing 99 units to cluster them closer together and preserve more open space. Nelson Reis, 1728 Morning Sun Avenue, asked if there was any way the secondary gate could be eliminated. He was concerned about privacy due to the height of the proposed three-story structures that could be viewed from his backyard. There could be fewer homes built and the ground could still be preserved. Michael Thomas, 20521 Shepherd Hills Road, said that although the traffic engineer said it was not the applicant's responsibility to install sidewalks in his area, the applicant appears to be installing sidewalks on the Diamond Bar side of the project. He agreed the secondary gate should be eliminated. A resident living at 1728 Morning Sun said she agreed with the rest of her neighbors. Unfortunately, LA County is not present to represent the residents. She agreed with her other neighbors that the developers had a right to develop the property but who is representing the residents in the unincorporated area of LA County. She and her fellow residents are good Diamond Bar neighbors and shop at Diamond Bar stores and hoped that Diamond Bar would be good neighbors as well. AC/Lee closed the public hearing. C/Wei stated that the Commissioners understand that the applicant conforms to the requirements of the various agencies that are looking for the benefit of the residents. He recommended the City consider installing stop signs, speed limit signs, warning signs and speed humps to help mitigate the traffic problems created by this development. He said he also understood that if the concerns fell outside of the City limits of Diamond Bar there could be no required conditions for traffic mitigation. However, the applicant may be able to install certain traffic mitigation measures outside of the City. C/Wei NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 26 PLANNING COMMISSION believed that because this was the United States that all documents and meetings concerning this and other City matters were available, transparent, and accessible to residents. Planning Commission seats are "hot" seats and all of the Commissioners live in Diamond Bar Planning Commissioners are charged with protecting both the City and its residents and must look at the benefit of the project overall. Any improvements will bring negative as well as positive impacts. He would not say that the Planning Commission's decisions were all corrector not correct. In Diamond Bar there is not much more land to be developed and the Commissioners have to look at whether this project is necessary to the City. At the same time the developer has to consider all aspects of a potential project and fortunately, there are many governing agencies that make certain developers complete their due diligence. Also fortunate is that California is in the forefront of environmental impact concerns such as safety, quality, energy, wildlife, etc. At the same time developers must conform to the requirements of all of the various agencies and if developers are approved by those agencies it means they meet the basic requirements for their projects. Sometimes individuals have to sacrifice their comfort level for the overall good and the rights of individual property owners. In his opinion, developers try very hard to accommodate the residents. In response to speakers, traffic safety and construction safety can be dealt with through modern engineering technology and the concerns about safety should not be as great as they might have been in the past. Surely no one can predict what Mother Nature will do with all of the faults that lie beneath the surface. Traffic safety is a matter of driver education, traffic system improvements and the attention of the people who live along the street as well as, law enforcement. The Commission will urge the City to study the area to make certain there are proper traffic mitigation measures in place to ensure proper safety and enforcement in the area. C/Nolan said she lives in one of the communities affected by this project. The Commission has a responsibility to the residents of Diamond Bar and has the responsibility of looking at the facts of the situation through review of the EIR, traffic studies and so forth. With NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 27 PLANNING COMMISSION respect to traffic, there are three proposed traffic improvements that will happen now and through the years 2010 and 2020. The City has the same concerns that the residents have — safety, privacy and so forth. With respect to the zoning, this is a new type of condominium project and that has to be taken into consideration and Commissioners do not take comments lightly nor do they take their responsibilities lightly. AC/Lee asked if the developer could explain the impact of a gated community within a non -gated community. Mr. Schwartz responded that his firm had done numerous gated projects throughout Southern California and whether it was a real or perceived safety issue it was very important to residents to have the perception of safety that a gate provides. In his opinion it is essential to have this be a gated community from a value standpoint. The City has asked his company for a lot of things including giving up property to fulfill other obligations, to pay fees, etc., and for this to be a gated community would be very critical to the developer. AC/Lee said that a long time ago he thought that development was only good for developers but in certain areas development is part of the renovation process of a community. Land is very important — one of the most important assets to developers and community members. And he wanted to remain unbiased in his decision process. AC/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded, to recommend that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report; recommend approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and, adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration for the South Point West Specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 063623 for a site comprised of approximately 34.52 acres generally located south of Larkstone Drive, east of Morning Sun Avenue and west of Brea Canyon Road. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: ninvFMRER 28. 2006 PAGE 28 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/ToChair/Nelson g AC/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to recommend City Council approval of 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, ZCg0dTree Permit No. 2005-06. Motion red by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: VC/Ton Chair/Nelson COMMISSIONERS: g g. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Wei stated that tonight's decision on Item 7.2 was a recommendation for approval to the City Council and that the City Council is the final authority on the matter. AC/Lee said he appreciated residents participating in this process. The applicants did a great job and performed their due diligence; and they made a genuine effort to 's ethics and bring forth a good project. Hesaid develohttosted pleasee takeallcromments nto professionalism and asked the per consideration. He thanked staff for a great report. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future protects• 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 PAGE 29 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chairman Lee adjourned the regular meeting at 11:08 p.m. Attest: Respectful jfSu Na(ficy Fong Community D el ment D (J)16uj- "-n, Steve Nelson, Chairman Kwang Ho Lee, Acting Chairman