Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/27/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the Study Session to order at 6:02 p.m. in Conference Room CC -8, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee; Kathleen Nolan; Osman Wei; Vice Chairman Tony Torng; and Chairman Steve Nelson Also present: James DeStefano, City Manager; Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 2. POWER POINT PRESENTATION BY CITY MANAGER DESTEFANO REGARDING FUTURE ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS. CM/DeStefano talked about property acquisitions, possible annexation of some of those properties and Diamond Bar's receipt of an application to develop the acreage between Diamond Bar and Brea on property known as the Aera Energy property. CM/DeStefano referred to the large vacant acreage between the southerly portion of Diamond Bar and the northerly portion of the City of Brea. On the map the graphic in yellow is the entirety of the Aera Energy property holdings, about 3,000 acres. The yellow line on the east side of the SR57 is about 300 acres owned by Aera and lies within the City of Diamond Bar's sphere of influence. The yellow area on the west side of the SR57 is about 2700 acres with the greater portion lying within Los Angeles County. About 300-400 acres lies within Orange County and is intended to become a part of the future jurisdiction of the City of Brea. CM/DeStefano stated that Diamond Bar has some involvement in Areas 1, 2 and 3 shown on the graphic. Area 1 is the Crestline 150 acre area is currently in the City of Walnut and the homeowners are interested in incorporating into the City of Diamond Bar and the City is pursuing annexation. Area 2 is property currently owned by the City of Industry, is comprised of about 110 vacant acres and Diamond Bar is in escrow for the purchase of the property. Area 3 is known as the Reed property - it is outside of the City limits of Diamond Bar and includes about 170 acres. Diamond Bar entered into escrow to purchase Area 3 in May 2006. The interest in the Reed and Industry property is a direct result of the City's interest in relocating the Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County owned) Golf Course to another location as a tie-in to the Aera Energy development. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION CM/DeStefano explained that the reason the City is interested in the Aera Energy property, Reed property and City of Industry property is for a potential site to relocate the existing Diamond Bar Golf Course that sits at the confluence of the SR57/60 and experiences 350,000 vehicle trips per day. The current site has the potential to serve as a much better amenity to Diamond Bar than it does as an open space recreational use and the City Council has authorized staff to look at possibilities including retail, restaurants, housing, office use, etc. For example, a comparison would be the Irvine Spectrum and Victoria Gardens in Rancho Cucamonga, which include these types of amenities. In short, the current golf course site could be converted to a more intensive use with amenities that would meet the community needs and provide long-term revenue and jobs. In order to develop the property Diamond Bar would need to structure a deal with the property owner to relocate the golf course within its current jurisdiction. The Diamond Bar golf course is 170 acres. The Reed property is 170 acres. However, the difference is that the Diamond Bar golf course is flat and the Reed property includes steep undulating hills and a 170- acre flat golf course would require at least 250 acres of hillside property. The Reed property would not accommodate a comparable golf course. The City of Industry property came to the City's attention for use in creating a golf course so the City pursued its purchase. The missing link is the property shown below the line on Aera Energy, which would supply the link to meet the requirement of Los Angeles County. Access to the golf course would be via Brea Canyon Road and there would be no access point to Pathfinder Road and there is no housing proposed around the golf course. The communities adjacent to the site in Rowland Heights do not want to see any more housing in their area and respecting their wishes the City of Diamond Bar does not propose any housing surrounding the golf course holes along with no access via Pathfinder Road. Aera proposes a project within their 3,000 acres that would be comprised of a variety of amenities. Aera recently brought an application to the City's attention to annex and develop a portion of its propertywithin the future jurisdiction of Diamond Bar. Generally, everything east and west of the SR57 north of the blue line is the area Aera is interested in developing in Diamond Bar. This acreage is not currently a part of Diamond Bar's sphere of influence. In order for Diamond Bar to incorporate this acreage let alone give serious consideration to a development proposal, several things would have to happen. Much like the Crestline property but on a larger scale with the Aera Energy property, Diamond Bar needs to make formal application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the entity that determines locations of municipal boundaries, in order to take this area under consideration. In 2005 LAFCO thought that the future of this acreage should be a part of Diamond Bar and made preliminary findings along that line well before Aera Energy applied to do anything. The Planning Commission would take part in the application process and would be a part of future General Plan applications, zoning applications, specific plans for development, considering land uses, roadway FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION networks, etc., and Diamond Bar is being asked to do all of these things as a result of Aera's application. Aera is looking at all of its acreage for future potential usage. The developer has shown Diamond Bar "bubble" maps that identify their interest in a residential community, a commercial development in Diamond Bar (red near Brea Canyon Road), a mixed-use area in Brea/Orange County (pink), and open spaces, some of which are proposed to remain unused native virgin land, some reconstituted acreage from cleaning up oil fields, some manmade and so forth. The idea is for the open space to retain an environmental corridor that is believed to exist between the 605 Freeway in Whittier and the Cleveland National Forest. Environmentalists believe that this piece is important to maintaining the wildlife corridor so the developer is looking to preserve about 50 percent in open space to allow animals to traverse the corridor. The developer is proposing that within Diamond Bar that there be 2800 homes, about a 20 -acre retail oriented commercial and open spaces. Also within the Diamond Bar portion would be the complimentary public facilities (schools, fire stations, water and sewer facilities, etc.) Aera proposes primarily open spaces in the Orange County portion with some residential (close to Berry Street in the City of Brea) and mixed-use higher density residential and offices. On the Harbor Boulevard side the developer is proposing a couple pockets of residential with the brighter green area proposed for athletic facilities for the La Habra and La Habra Heights side of the project. The road network creates one gigantic loop on Brea Canyon Road and no connection whatsoever to Harbor Boulevard. An earlier discussion proposed a direct link between Harbor Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road and that has since been dismissed by the developer because there was a great deal of surrounding community concerns about the traffic impacts and primarily the traffic impacts on Harbor Boulevard that would affect Rowland Heights, l_a Habra and communities on the west side of the project. The majority of the traffic impacts of this project would be on Brea Canyon Road and affect the cities of Diamond Bar and Brea. The result is a substantial number of trips per day that would be added to the immediately adjacent roadway networks — predominately Brea Canyon Road, for which the details of the impacts to Diamond Bar are not known. Based on typical data for these kinds of roadways it would likely result in an additional 25,000 to 30,000 trips per day. These impacts would likely require widening of Brea Canyon Road south of Diamond Bar's current City limits and Extending it at least to the Orange County line and possibly into Brea to connect to the widened Brea Canyon Road at Central Avenue in Brea. CM/DeStefano showed a rough drawing that indicated the proposed boundary line of the area for the Diamond Bar portion. The area is not proposed to have any connection to Pathfinder Road and does not have any physical association with the future community of Rowland Heights and it is therefore proposed to become a part of the City of Diamond Bar at some point in the future in conjunction with the L.AFCO proposal and the developer's current proposal. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Aera Energy has asked Diamond Bar to annex the property and entitle the property within the jurisdiction of Diamond Bar. December 19, 2006, the City Council made one decision of many that will have to be made over the next couple of years. The decision the City Council made on December 19 was to enter into a Pre -Annexation Agreement with Aera Energy that is simply a foundational document that says Diamond Bar will take a look at the project, give it due consideration and make decisions over time. There are EIR's that need to be completed, fiscal impact studies that need to be undertaken and completed and a wide variety of things that have to be done before Diamond Bar gives any consideration toward this project. The City will be considering this project just as it does other projects that come to the City by presenting it to the Planning Commission and City Council for final decision-making. This is a large effort. The developer is looking at roughly 1900 acres of the 3,000 acres coming into Diamond Bar. The developer has been working with the Rowland Unified School District and their boundaries are mapped by LAFCO. The vacant acreage is within that school district and if the project proceeds, RUSD may be interested in building one K through 8 School. This acreage is also within the jurisdiction of the Rowland Water District and not the Walnut Valley Municipal Water Districtthat serves Diamond Bar. Sewer, etc., would either come from Los Angeles County District No. 21 or from Brea. Fire would be Los Angeles County. The project is of sufficient size that it would require its own fire station. The County of Los Angeles would provide sheriffs services, even though the area is technically within the Industry station jurisdiction. If Diamond Bar pursues the effort it would have the jurisdictional boundary change from the Industry station for reporting purposes to the Walnut/Diamond Bar station. There does not appear to be a need for a sheriffs substation. The project would be required to meet all of Diamond Bar's standards at a bare minimum, which means that it would have parks and open spaces absent whatever the developer proposed to set aside. This acreage is within Ecological Area #15 that except for Chair/Nelson, the Commissioners are unfamiliar with. In the late 70's and early 80's the County of Los Angeles mapped out 62 areas throughout the County setting those areas aside as having some varying levels of environmental significance, and this was one such area (Area #15). The area fundamentally stretches from the boundary of the orange bubble up into Diamond Bar's jurisdiction close to where JCC built homes during the past 10 to 15 years at the backside of "The Country Estates." Diamond Bar used to have an advisory committee that looked at projects within the SEA and advised the Planning Commission. Chair/Nelson was involved in the original mapping of the 62 areas and was an original member of Diamond Bar's Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee. Diamond Bar ended the service of SEATAC about 1999-2000 because there were no more properties that required the committee's oversight within Diamond Bar. This property is within the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County and still within SEA#15. The reason FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION the SEA was created for this area was due to the extensive existing oak and walnut woodlands, the resource deemed to be of significance. It does not mean that development is not permitted in these areas, only that entities must pay much closer attention to the environmental quality that exists and work in ways to protect those qualities. Los Angeles County has a SEATAC and looked at the property while it was being pursued under the jurisdiction of LA County. LA County's SEATAC disapproved the project because they were not convinced that it faithfully responded to the issues within the area. SEATAC is an environmentally oriented body that often recommends denial of project, often shapes projects to the County Planning Commission and in the old days to the City's Planning Commission, and their interests are carefully considered because they look at the environmental quality and how the project would ultimately affect the environmental quality. CM/DeStefano said that the City has not gotten very far into any of this proposal. Staff is looking at hiring an environmental consultant to oversee the creation of an EIR. The developer has prepared environmental studies, traffic reports, etc., which the City has not yet received. The City needs all of those documents so that they can be reviewed by its environmental consultant to determine whether or not they meet the test for flora and fauna studies, accurate studies, respond to the City's issues (acceptable traffic standards) and the consultant working through the City will cause the environmental documentation to be revised, corrected and put into a form acceptable to Diamond Bar for distribution to the general public and public agencies. At some point Diamond Barwill look at General Plan amendments, zone changes and the development of a specific plan for the entire area. CM/DeStefano said that while the developer has spent several years working on this project it is still a bubble map and he expects that Diamond Bar will want changes to what the developer has proposed, not unlike other projects the Commission has seen over the years and will see in future years. He expected that a project of this magnitude would be molded and shaped by the Planning staff as it is brought forward. C:M/DeStefano said the environmental review would take at least the rest of 2007 and would probably not come before the Planning Commission for at least a year. There are a variety of decisions that need to be made that are not likely to be made for at least a year and possibly over the next couple of years. The LAFCO decisions are good for 18 months to two years and they take a long time to complete. Because this is a large area not currently within the City's sphere of influence, Diamond Bar needs to negotiate with Los Angeles County to bring this property into the City. There are dozens of things that need to be done, some of which can run concurrently, some of which will run consecutively. The decisions Diamond Bar needs to make are not months away, they are a year or more away and the Planning Commission will be hearing a lot about this matter as the City responds to a developer's inquiry. This project overlaps with the golf course development because there is an opportunity to capture a portion of the property for FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION the golf course development interests. And that is part of the negotiation that has started with the Aera Energy developer. This developer is proposing 2800 homes, etc., and in exchange Diamond Bar would expect to receive something in return for entitling this type of project. The City has started an inquiry about what might be appropriate for Diamond Bar to receive in exchange for granting entitlement. And Diamond Bar has done that before. Diamond Bar approved 129 homes for the Diamond Crest project built by Pulte Homes and received in exchange through negotiations, 360 acres of public open space and $1.5 million to use toward public purposes as well as a variety of other things. In exchange for the JCC 99 homes project on 12 acres, 18 acres or so will be set aside as open space and there will be a new public park. JCC will likely contribute in excess of $1.5 million to the community of Diamond Bar. What is this developer granting the City of Diamond Bar in exchange for Diamond Bar entitling the property? So far, not much and as the City's Manager, he is compiling a list of things that he believes should be considered within this project. The City Council and the Planning Commission have not yet weighed in on that premise but he believed that the City should be looking at amenities that would benefit the entirety of Diamond Bar, not just the new group of homes and the 10-12,000 people that might live in the area in the future. As an example, he has been discussing a community sports park with this developer for many months. A sports task force Chaired by Council Member Zirbes identified a need for soccer fields, ball fields and other amenities in a sports park. There are a variety of youth and sports organizations that talk about the need for more facilities and staff has looked at a couple of tiny'pieces of property to accommodate such a project. From the City Manager's perspective there is an opportunity for this developer to provide that amenity for the entirety of Diamond Bar and it is an item that is on his list. He said he believed the open spaces should be expanded and that they should be publicly held or owned by some form of a conservancy so that they are not privately held open spaces but publicly held open spaces for their permanent protection. He believed the commercial center should be bigger to promote more of an economic incentive for Diamond Bar to consider such a project as opposed to just considering up to 2800 homes. It could be five, seven or 10 years before any homes are built should the project be approved and probably 15 to 20 years before the project is completed. This property should be considered to embrace what the area believes it will be technologically 10-15-20 years from now. Why should this project not be a completely wireless community? Why would it not embrace a sustainable living environment, why would it not embrace green technologies? What will the community of Diamond Bar receive for benefit of a developer of such a project? This process is not unlike what is done for other projects in the City — however, this project has a long way to go and it most certainly will not be completed in a couple of months and it is most certainly not a "done deal" at this point. The developer has been looking at this project for many years. Diamond Bar has been talking about this project for only the past couple of months and there is a long way to go. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION CM/DeStefano responded to VC/Torng that the golf course design at the proposed new location was developed as a result of the availability of land that provided a somewhat more favorable area for such a development. The property on both sides of the SR57 is very hilly and contains sensitive environmental areas that would require aggressive grading. Therefore, the belief that the somewhat U-shaped design is better at the proposed location has not been verified. A new golf course, if pursued may not be at that location. VC/Torng felt it could be located closer to the SR57. CM/DeStefano said that the proposed golf course would have access from Brea Canyon Road, not from Pathfinder and the idea is that Brea Canyon Road feeds into Diamond Bar. The developer is concerned about maintaining the hills. When drivers traverse the SR57 they can view both sides of the hills that contain rnuch of the beauty of the canyon and the developer's proposal is to stay out of those areas and he believed the City would embrace that concept. And would never been interested in developing a golf course in that area. CM/DeStefano responded to C/Lee that it would take at least 18 months and possibly two and one-half years to get through the annexation process. The small Crestline annexation will take a couple of years. It is not dependent on Diamond Bar's decision; it is a decision for LAFCO and Los Angeles County. The Aera Energy discussion is a much, much bigger issue and he would not see the annexation process happening quickly. Is Diamond Bar interested? He said he was not interested in pursuing anything that would be financially or physically detrimental to the community. If this happens it should be self-sustaining and result in a positive cash flow to the City. There are lots of unanswered questions because the detail work has not been completed. Chair/Nelson asked if he should recuse himself from discussions about this potential project due to his SEATAC involvement and ACA/Kovacevich responded that his office would need more information to make a determination. Chair/Nelson said he would hold his questions until a determination was made. CM/DeStefano reiterated that one of the first things the City has to do is to look at all of the environmental work the developer collected and the City will not take the information it receives from the developer and assume it to be accurate. There will be a thorough review of the material as was done with the Daniel Singh and JCC projects. C/Wei said his immediate reaction to the presentation was that there would be unavoidable impacts to the City. The negative impact would be from traffic on Brea Canyon Road because the cars will cut through the City of Diamond Bar and the City will become even more congested. If the annexation failed the golf course project would not work because the available acreage is too small and there would be no connectivity to Diamond Bar and Diamond Bar would lose its ability to develop a golf course that would fulfill the requirements for an exchange with the current golf course. CM/DeStefano responded that the City does not know whether FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION the Aera annexation and its project will ultimately have merit and whether it will be approved by the City Council. However, there is a desire to build a golf course, which requires some of the Aera Energy property and Diamond Bar would still want to pursue that effort because the potential for doing something on the current golf course site is substantial and that issue is an entirely separate discussion and will involve many years of consideration. Diamond Bar would be interested in acquiring the necessary acreage from Aera even if their project does not move forward. Finding a location in Diamond Bar for a new golf course is the most critical piece in building on the existing golf course and whether it winds up being at the proposed location or at some other location is yet to be decided. But it needs to be a location that is favorable to Los Angeles County in order for it to work. C/Wei asked if Rowland Heights was competing to annex the property. CM/DeStefano. Almost every jurisdiction surrounding the Diamond Bar is very worried about the project and most have stated they are not in favor of the project. Brea, La Habra, La Habra Heights and Whittier are very concerned. Rowland Heights is worried about it potentially going to the community of Diamond Bar and not becoming part of the future community of Rowland Heights. Rowland Heights still has an interest in incorporating and if they do incorporate they want this property to be part of their future jurisdiction. However, Rowland Heights is not necessarily embracing the project, it is just very concerned. CM/DeStefano responded to C/Nolan that with respect to the project being offered to other jurisdictions, the developer has only a couple of choices one being Los Angeles County and the other being Diamond Bar. It does not make any sense to do the project anywhere else. Rowland and Hacienda Heights are unincorporated communities so it would revert back to Los Angeles County or Diamond Bar for entitlement. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carolyn Buhart, La Habra Heights suggested that Diamond Bar consider an alternative that would benefit the City. There are environmental groups that have a lot of money and are trying to purchase this property to make it permanent open space. La Habra Heights had 300 acres that was purchased and is managed by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and is preserved as open space. The area provides hiking, access for nature study groups, deer, etc., and is very beneficial to the community as open space. There is grant money available to purchase and enhance this property and she opined that it would be very beneficial to the residents of Diamond Bar to have a large open space available for natural events. She felt that if the project were approved traffic would be a problem because the SR57 would be flooded with traffic and Diamond Bar would have to provide sheriff, fire, paramedic, road maintenance, etc. She recommended that Diamond Bar approach HOSAC and was sure that HOSAC would be contacting Diamond Bar. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the study session at 6:58 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, ivancy tong i Community D elop t Director Steve Nelson, Chairman MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 2007 CALL 'TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 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; Sandra Campbell; Contract Senior Planner; Gregg Kovacevich Assistant City Attorney; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Submitted 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 13, 2007. C/Wei moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve the Minutes of February 13, 2007, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lee, Nolan, Wei None VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review No. 2006-31 — in accordance with Code Sections 22.58 an 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review no. 2006-32 FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION for a proposed project involving an approximately 19,000 square foot addition to an existing church and conceptual approval of future phases to include a 60,000 square foot parking structure and 17,000 square foot bookstore/sanctuary building. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 22324 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Hidden Manna 22324 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Dale Goddard Calvary Golden Springs 22324 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CSP/Campbell presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review No. 2006-32, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng asked if there were any time limits on the CUP. CSP/Campbell explained that this was a review of conceptual plans for a bookstore and parking structure and when the applicant has final plans they will be required to come back to the Planning Commission for a Development Review. She confirmed that the project was conditioned to provide a walkway from church site to the commercial development. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. David Nicks, Crow Architects, said he was available for answer Commissioner's question. CDD/Fong offered a change to the resolution. On page 4, item 5 add "....and the attached standard conditions" at the end of the last sentence. The applicant responded that he was in agreement with the conditions proposed by staff. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 and Development Review No. 2006-32, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None None 7.2 Development Review No. 2006-43 — In accordance with Code Section 22.48 of the Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested Development Review for an existing learning center for kindergarten to eighth grade. The learning center is considered an intensification of use. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: AP Learning Center 1019 Via Sorella Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ying Akkos 1019 Via Sorella Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CDD/Fong presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval , of Development Review No. 2006-43, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng asked if there was a standard for the map format. CDD/Fong responded that in cases where the applicant has limited resources and cannot hire a high-end architect to provide plans staff assisted the applicant. In fact, the applicant provided a better map today. CDD/Fong showed the new map on the overhead. VC/Torng asked if there was a second floor and CDD/Fong responded that there was a second floor proposed and it would be used only for one-on-one tutoring. The building is non -conforming and does not meet the ADA requirements to accommodated classes. Therefore, all classes will be conducted on the ground level. VC/Torng said he visited the site today and said he was concerned because he could not find a parking site. He found it difficult to traverse the area. CDD/Fong agreed that there were site constraints. No physical improvements are being done so there is no nexus to provide staff an FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION opportunity to require that the applicant do a major overhaul of the site. VC/Torng said he was concerned about safety issues because there are children involved. When he backed up a mother was bringing her kids outside and the area sloped down making it difficult for him to back down the slope and maintain full visual of the area. CDD/Fong said that staff was not concerned because the entire street serves only two parcels and there are no other businesses or residences on the street. VC/Torng asked who submitted the complaint and CDD/Fong responded that it was the adjacent property owner who since sold the property. Staff is meeting with the group that purchased the adjacent property because they are interested in demolishing the existing single family home and constructing a new private school. In the meantime staff conditioned the project for parking re -striping. The facility provides one-on-one tutoring and some classes from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Parents drop of their kids and staff does not see a problem with parking. VC/Torng said he was not concerned about parking but about safety because it was a difficult site to traverse and the view would be blocked when cars attempted to back off. He asked if there was any condition that could be imposed to guarantee the safety of the students. C/Torng asked if the new property owners were related to the facility and whether there was potential for further development. CDD/Fong responded that the new adjacent property owners are interested in building a new school separate from this proposed project. At this time, the only condition that might work would be to widen the driveway to improve circulation, which would require a retaining wall and promote loss of landscaping. VC/Torng said he would look more favorably on the project with a condition to widen the driveway. C/Nolan asked if the parking spaces could be reconfigured to accommodate a wider entry without requiring a widening of the street. CDD/Fong said that short of demolishing the building it would be difficult to retrofit. CDD/Fong said she would look at the area to see if the parking area could be improved and the Commission could condition the project to require the design approval to be subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. CDD/Fong responded to C/Wei that the applicant owns the property. C/Wei asked if there were restrictions on the office use designation. CDD/Fong responded that the office use designation allowed private school use. C/Wei agreed with the Commissioners about the parking spaces. However, in the FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION case of private schools kids are normally dropped off and picked up by their parents and did not feel that untoward restrictions and conditions should be placed on such facilities. C/Lee asked what kind of complaints were lodged against the applicant and CDD/Fong responded that the complaint was that the applicant was operating a business without a permit. The complaint indicated the applicant was running a daycare business, which they are not. C/Lee believed that there were two separate businesses. CDD/Fong responded that the applicant made changes based on staff's input and the changes indicate that there are separate classrooms and a separate office and they are not separate businesses. C/Lee was concerned that there was one ingress/egress. CDD/Fong said the applicant would have to meet code and there are two exits for each room via the sliding doors. C/Wei suggested the applicant could put in a door to connect the office and Classroom #2 and, at the lower left corner of room 1 the applicant could put in another wall or window to create another exit. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Ying Akkos, principal of the AP Learning Center and owner of 1019 Via Sorella Street, offered to answer Commissioners questions. C/Wei asked Ms. Akkos if she would agree to accept conditions to add more exits and reconfigure the parking area and Ms. Akkos responded affirmatively. She said she would agree to anything that would make it safer for her students. CDD/Fong responded to VC/Torng that the area outside the white lines is public property and staff is considering vacating the entire block because the street is a fully improved cul-de-sac and there is no reason for the City to own the street because it serves only two properties. If the City vacates the street the land reverts to the two property owners and the City would require a reciprocal/common access to the public street for the two properties. Before Caltrans took the land for the freeway Via Sorella extended into the City of Industry. Currently, there exists striped parking spaces within the public right-of-way and it has been used as such since the 1980s. CDD/Fong pointed out the playground area using the overhead. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Wei moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2006-43, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of a condition to wit: "The applicant shall modify the parking area and complete the revisions to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director' and a condition to wit: "the project requires a compliance review within six months of approval." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson None None 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nolan congratulated Ron Everett on his appointment to the City Council. VC/Torng said it was sad to lose Council Member Bob Zirbes. Ron Everett is a good person and will be a good advocate for the City. He was excited about the study session and said he looked forward to it. C/Lee said he visited after-school learning centers and in most evenings the parking lots were very crowded and presented a safety hazard when kids were running around in the dark. C/Wei commented that he was excited to learn about future potential for the City of Diamond Bar during tonight's study session and the role the Planning Commission will play in the City's future. Chair/Nelson expressed his condolences to the family of Bob Zirbes. Bob was much more than an advocate and a friend because he took pride in this City like most people take pride in their homes. He was a dear and close friend of this City. Chair/Nelson said he had the opportunity to work with Bob on the Planning Commission for a couple of years and he was not only very human he was quite brilliant in his resolution of City issues. He will be sorely missed. Chair/Nelson suggested that Commissioners keep to asking questions of the applicant during the public hearing portion of the meeting. If Commissioners launch into expressing their opinions during the public hearing it could lead to inciting debate. Public hearings are an opportunity for Commissioners to receive testimony in an objective manner and then to deliberate after the public hearing is closed and the Commission enters deliberation. FEBRUARY 27, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. ;STAFF COMM ENTSIINFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Fong reminded Commissioners about the Planners Institute in San Diego March 21, 22, and 23 and said she would contact participants to arrange and coordinate transportation to the event. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 8:08 p.m. Attest: Ily Suqmdal Nancy Fong Community DVvelopment Director teve Nelson, Chairman