Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/9/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 9, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Torng 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; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney, Peter Lewandowski, Consultant, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Submitted 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 12, 2006. VC/Torng moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve the Minutes of December 12, 2006, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None VC/Torng, Nolan, Lee, Wei, Chair/Nelson None None JANUARY 9, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 54081, Zone Change No. 2006-021 Planned Development, MitilgAted Negative Declaration No. 2006 03 Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree 's 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 onindividual parcels elhomes tould nd Pe for the development of 16 single-family detached 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 December 12, 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 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and provided the Planning Commissioners with photographs and responses to Commissioner's requests and concerns at the December 12, 2006, public hearing. Also in accordance with the Commission's request, the applicant submitted a revised landscape plan that shows a variety of tree and size planted 12 -feet on center. Staff revised the condition to the resolution accordingly. JANUARY 9, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Additionally, in accordance with the Commission's request, the applicant provided information and structural drawings depicting the type of wall system proposed and included renditions of types of planting materials to be planted in the cells of the wall system. Following the presentation AssocP/Lungu said that the Planning Commission had the following options: 1) approve 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; 2) recommend approval to the Council with additional conditions; 3) recommend approval to the City Council with elimination of some lots; 4) direct the applicant to redesign the project, or 5) recommend City Council denial of the project. She recited new conditions added to the resolution in accordance with the Commission's recommendations. AssocP/Lungu stated that Planning Commissioners were provided a copy of a letter from Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek Drive that discussed his thoughts about the project. Chair/Nelson declared the continued public hearing open and asked for comments. Daniel Singh, Jewel Ridge Estates, again explained the project and its history. He said that at each public hearing on this project staff has recommended approval and the applicant has complied with and exceeded every request made by the Commission. He believed it would be somewhat unusual for people driving down the freeway to focus on the development. Steve Miller, Ladera Systems, Costa Mesa, introduced the Planning Commission to the segmental block retaining wall system that was proposed for use on the project site and discussed its application using vegetation to landscape its face using a power point presentation. C/Lee asked Mr. Miller if he was a professional engineer and Mr. Miller responded that he was a geologist. C/Lee referred to a resident's comment that this type of wall system tends to be used for commercial projects rather than residential projects. Mr. Miller responded that the resident must not be very familiar with the product because there were many single-family home JANUARY 9, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION residential construction projects using this type of system and said found the resident's comment to be irrelevant. VC/Torng asked about the earthquake load and Mr. Miller said it was very common to apply a surcharge during the analysis. His firm follows AASHTO or NCMA design guidelines. In both cases the site static earthquake loading is applied. The geotechnical engineers take site conditions, proximity to most active earthquake faults, the maximum credible number (size) of an earthquake that would occur on that particular fault and make recommendations for peak route accelerations. Mr. Miller indicated to VC/Torng that the most sizeable earthquake would be about 7.0 and dynamic factors of safety are commonly 75 percent of static factors. VC/Torng asked Mr. Miller if he was pretty sure it would be safe and Mr. Miller responded that his firm would follow all applicable building codes and generally accepted procedures and design methodologies for design of retaining walls. Gregory Shokley asked what would happen if the wall failed. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. There were no disclosures by the Commissioners. Chair/Nelson asked Mr. Miller to respond to Mr. Shokley's question, what would happen to the houses below if the wall failed. Mr. Miller said he was not afraid to say that there are failures in construction. His experience with retaining walls when they fail — especially geo-synthetic retaining walls, with which he has a fair amount of experience, is usually in the facing element. He has never seen a reinforced geo-grid zone fail. Therefore, the area of failure lies within several feet of the retaining wall depending on the height. VC/Torng said the key question was whether there was a safety issue and could there be a large area of damage due to seismic activity. Mr. Miller responded that certainly depending on where a house is located with respect to the retaining wall is apropos. If the retaining wall was 12 feet high and the house was three feet away and there were to be an issue regarding the stability of the wall the panels could fall near the house. Engineers formulate designs for what is understood and what is known and engineers cannot design for what they do not know. A meteor could hit the earth near this project site any time in the future and could impact the performance of the JANUARY 9, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION project. What engineers do is design things to standards of practice and they are built and inspected to the standards of practice and when projects do that there are no problems. Chair/Nelson asked how far from the toe of the proposed retaining wall assemblage the nearest residential structure was located. Mr. Singh responded that he believed there was a 10 -foot distance between the existing walls and the proposed walls and that most houses have a 25-40 foot rear yard; therefore the distance from the proposed retaining wall to the actual residence would be from 35 to 60 feet before the first six-foot wall. The planting distance between the lowest wall and the next wall up the slope is five feet and there are five feet between each wall thereafter. Each wall is six feet high and the total height is 18 feet. Mr. Miller said that visually, the worst case scenario would be the entire embankment failing — the geo-grid structure as well as the facing elements and traditionally, engineers use a 2:1 rule where the total height would fail at a slope of 2:1. Therefore, the resulting influence of a complete failure would be about 36 feet. C/Nolan asked Mr. Shokley to give the Commission specific failure information. Mr. Shokley responded that he cited three examples in the letter he addressed to the Commission and that there are more. He said he could find a number in the Journal of Civil Engineering. Most failures are failure of soil due to over watering. He cited failures near Cal State LA and Universal City. His concern was whether the 16 homes would have the resources to rebuild and or repair their homes and the homes below them in case of failure or would the City be held responsible. CDD/Fong stated that the City's Engineering staff has placed a condition on this property that the applicant submit very detailed information by engineers and geotechnical engineers to assure that the geological concerns were addressed in the design of the wall. Staff is not saying that this is the only material that can be approved; however, the applicant has proposed the system and material and staff reviews the application to make certain that it meets best practices and standards. City staff must conduct a thorough review of the proposed materials to make sure that they are adequate for the project and site. CDD/Fong responded to C/Lee that Diamond Bar and southern California is earthquake country and no one could define what would happen if a big earthquake occurred because it would be based on pure speculation. JANUARY 9, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION However, engineers and technical staff are experts in this area and apply standards to all projects to make certain that the best practices and standards are met based upon what the experts know. ACA/Kovacevich explained that when the Commission makes its decision this evening that the decision must be supported by "Findings of Fact" and those findings have to be supported by substantial evidence. Substantial findings consist of 1) facts, 2) expert opinion based on facts; and, 3) reasonable assumptions based or predicated on facts. In the record tonight there is no substantial evidence of any risk of catastrophic failure or any other matters of concern. On the other hand, there is substantial evidence for success in the form of expert opinion from a geologist based on fact as presented in the public hearing process and related materials. C/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded, to adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, Zone Change No. 2006-02/Planned 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. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, C/Torng, Chair/NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None CDD/Fong explained that this project moves to the City Council for consideration and residents will have an opportunity to offer further testimony in that venue. 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTSIINFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/Fong pointed out to VC/Torng that in accordance with the conditions of approval for the project discussed this evening the homeowners' association is responsible for maintenance of the common open space area and the retaining walls. With respect to VC/Torng's comment about the number of times this project has been before the Planning Commission, it is outside of staff's control. Staff attempts to present all pertinent information to the Commission at the initial public hearing and can only prepare the information if the applicant provides the information. Sometimes applicants provide sufficient information to move the projects forward and if the Commission requests additional information it leads to JANUARY 9, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION continuances until the applicant is able to prepare and provide the requested information. Therefore, staff has little control over whether the applicant is going to prepare the information the Commission wants. Different applicants have different styles. Staff strives to make certain that the necessary minimum amount of information is provided before bringing a project before the Planning Commission. VC/Torng asked his colleagues to have more trust that the City's engineering staff would make certain that projects were properly designed and constructed. C/Lee said he voted "no" on this project because he was not confident that such a high retaining wall should be constructed behind residential homes. He also felt the project was not compatible with the appearance of the surrounding neighborhoods. C/Wei said he shared C/Lee's concerns but he has confidence in the City's engineers and in that respect he echoed VC/Torng's opinion that the City's engineers would do everything possible to protect life and property. He said he appreciated staffs participation and explanation. Chair/Nelson thanked the applicant for providing the Commission with the aerial simulations because it was exactly what he had requested the first time he asked for the information. He suggested staff retain the photos to use as examples of what the City would like to have applicants produce for future projects. Chair/Nelson said this was not a slam-dunk approval for him and he agreed with C/Lee's comments. His vote for approval was based on the merits of the project, a project that was pared back from its original design. An environmental analysis indicates that there are no unavoidable significant adverse impacts as a result of this project. This Commission added conditions and mitigation measures and he became satisfied that the project mitigated potential adverse impacts to the degree practicable and to be reasonably expected. He said his vote was also predicated on a perspective he gained when he attended a SCAG conference in Ontario a couple of years ago. The growth projections for the Inland Empire region including Diamond Bar were such that by the year 2015 six million additional people would occupy the area and the shocking statistic is that 70-75 percent comes from inside the area. He said he has a very strong sense of responsibility for this City to do its fair share of providing for that population growth — certainly not at any significant environmental cost and not at the cost of human welfare and safety. Unfortunately, this project impacts in a serious way several residences and yet it does not compel him to set aside the responsibility he feels. Everyone has to do his part. In looking at the simulation he was gratified that the project did not creep up the hill to the ridgeline. He hoped that the applicant understood his need to see exactly what was intended for this project and he hoped that the residents who had expressed their honest and sincere opposition would also understand that perspective. JANUARY 9, 2007 PAGE 8 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong stated that the 2007 Planners Institute would be held in San Diego from March 21 to March 23. Commissioners who plan to attend should call SAA/Marquez to make reservations. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future pro'ei cts. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Acting Chairman Lee adjourned the regular meeting at 8:12 P.M. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 9th day of Janua , 2007. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, S eve Nelson, Chairman