Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/10/2003PLANNIN( FILE O. COMMISSIC k Government Center Building Auditorium 21865 East CopleyDrive Diamond`i..:.. [, Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Dept of Community & Development Services, located at 21825 E. Copley Djjve, and are Rvailable forpublic inspection. ff you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during ^ ! r business In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title // of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) order i communicate at a City publiceei must inform - Dept. of Ci mmunity & Development Services at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same RULES-, MEETING r U : [O t31 E"I�I` i>tr The meetings of the Diamond Ear Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda 'items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Ear Planning Commission. A request to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission. As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Friday. Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030 General Agendas (909) 839.7030 email: info@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1® ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice -Chairman Dan Nolan, Steve Nelson, Joe Ruzicka, and Jack Tanaka IS.` 5WIT I rQ'• lQW)PIQ 40 u� The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from thd agenda by request of the Commission only: 1 11111111111111111111 1 r ZTROWI Me 4-11 Review of Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Conformity with the General Plan Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a resolution finding that the FY 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program is in conformance with the General Plan. 6.2 Discussion of future Development Code Amendments 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. ENMM�����Zol TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Fia'01i'm w 1 64���Z� 17, (First in series) Thursday, June 12, 2003 - 7:'f.###,».m. 1161QA411", itp" KA U-MOMMMOT raVA VNJ Thursday, June 12, 2003 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD/Govt. Center Hearing Board Room 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 630 p.m. AQMD/Govt. Center Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 6:00 p.m. AQMG/Govt. Center Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, June 24, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. AQMD/Govt. Center Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive "Soundbytes" (60's - 90's music) Wednesday, June 25, 2003 - 6:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park 22930 Golden Springs Dr. Thursday, June 26, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. AQMD/Govt. Center Hearing Board Roorr 21865 E. Copley D■rive Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21 865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. Commissioner Tanaka led the pledge of allegiance. Present: Chairman Steve Tye; and Commissioners Steve Nelson; Joe Ruzicka; and Jack Tanaka. Vice Chairman Dan Nolan was excused. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez; Administrative Assistant. 20 MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COM NTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve the May 13, 2003, minutes as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered with VC/Nolan being absent. 6> NEW BUSINESS: None. a►' .: T VI 7®1 Devview No. 2002-3 (Pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a 31,050 square foot single -story building to be utilized for medical services-clinic/labs on a vacant lot in the Gateway Corporate Center. (Continued from April 22, 2003) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1336 Bridge Gate Drive (Lot 18, Tract 39679) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROJECT OWNER: raiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. 393 W. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188 APPLICANT: Nancy Burke 393 W. Walnut Street Pasadena, CA 91188 DCM/DeStefano reported that this was a noticed public hearing for the Commission to consider a new building within the Gateway Corporate Center for Kaiser Permanente. Kaiser has sent a letter to the City indicating they wish to withdraw their project at this time while they work out some architectural and site planning details with the Gateway Corporate Center. Therefore, staff requests that the Planning Commission receive and file this matter. When the applicant submits new plans and drawings to the City staff will reschedule the matter for the Commission's consideration. 8.1 Development Review No. 2002-16 (Pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020.a.1) is a request to construct a two-story, single-family residence with portico, balconies, covered patio, pool bath and garages totaling to approximately 15,546 gross square feet. The request also includes pool/spa, BBQ, tennis court, and a series of retaining walls with an exposed height varying to a maximum of six feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2001 Derringer Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 r".fir � _ •, Vinod Bhatia 56 Westbrook Lane Pomona, CA 91766 Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue #D Upland, CA 91756 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2002-16, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Pete Volbeda, project architect, said this project has gone through a couple of design revisions. The owners would have preferred to have the house more visible from the street, but it was not possible. With the resulting design, most of the retaining walls are not visible from the street, a benefit to the surrounding neighborhood. It is a large house situated on a large piece of property. He felt the design fit the surrounding neighborhood very well. He and the property owners agree with staff's conditions of approval. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. C/Tanaka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2002-16, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Ruzicka, Tanaka, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan 5.2 Development Review No. 2003-04 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-07 (Pursuant to Code Sections 22.45, 22.56 and 22.65). The applicant requests approval of plans to remodel and construct an approximate 1,242 square foot addition and covered patio to an existing 2,333 square foot one-story single-family residence with covered patio and three car garage. Additionally, the applicant =1 requests approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the continuation of a legal non -conforming distance of approximately 14 feet between structures on adjoining parcels. 1609 Ano Nuevo Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Tony Maese 1609 Ano Nuevo Drive Diamond bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-04 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-07, Findings of Pact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Tye asked if the 1,242 square feet included the covered patio area. In addition, there is no permit on file for the existing patio cover. However, it appears on the assessors' records. DCM/DeStefano responded that it is possible there was a permit and that it was miss - filed or lost in the transition of records from Los Angeles County to Diamond Bar. Tony Maese indicated to Chair/Tye that the 1,242 square feet includes the covered patio. He read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval. When he purchased the house in 1988. the patio was there. DSA/Smith was somewhat confused about why the patio was on the assessor's record and said he may have to obtain a permit. He said he would like to keep the hedges five feet high because it obscures his front yard. The hedges were there when he moved in, his neighbor likes them and he keeps them trimmed. He has never received a complaint about the hedges. The conclusion referred to the possibility of obtaining a geological report. Although the property has hillside area, it is natural hillside and not a fill. He said the remodel would take place only on the existing pad. AssocP/Lungu did not find a condition requiring a geological report in the resolution. DCM/DeStefano stated that the City has a requirement limiting the height of a hedge in the front yard. It also limits the size of a wall within the front yard setback. When the City reviews a project it looks to bring the property into compliance in all aspects of the municipal code. In order for the Planning Commission to permit the hedge to remain above 42 inches it requires a variance that is not on tonight's agenda. In addition, on page 9 of the resolution, the applicant is asked to submit a Soils report, if required. The Building Official Will decide whether or not it is required to support the project. The first priority is the safety of the residents and the proper structural integrity of the structures being created. Mr. Maese agreed with the item regarding the Soils report. He read it wrong. He has no problem with it because if it effects the safety of the area he would not want any problem. Regarding the hedge, he will do what he has to do so that the matter of the hedge would have no bearing on the project. DCM/DeStefano explained to Chair/Tye that staff could deal with a Minor Variance request for a five and one-half foot hedge. If he wanted the hedge to be six or seven feet high he would have to request a variance requiring another noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission. He felt the expense would no be worth the effort. However, it was the homeowner's decision. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka stated that in view of the applicant's acquiescence, he moved for Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2003-04 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2003-07, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed. C/Tanaka seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: Ruzicka, Tanaka, Nelson, Chair/Tye None VC/Nolan 8.3 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-01 (Pursuant to Code Sections 22.58 and 22.10.030 ® Table 2-6), is a request to provide entertainment and a bar in connection with an existing restaurant identified as Scribbles Grille. 245 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Far, CA 91765 P.N. Patel Ratan .Hospitality, LLC 1205 W. Sierra Madre Avenue Glendora, CA 91741 Raj Astavakra 6226 N. Calera Avenue Azusa, CA 91702 Z AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Tanaka asked what kind of security measures the applicant would provide. AssocP/Lungu referred C/Tanaka to the resolution section that stated "the applicant shall provide the appropriate security measures associated with this permit and as required by the City." C/Tanaka asked about the discrepancy regarding the hours of operation and sale of alcoholic beverages. AssocP/Lungu said the hours could be added to the resolution, Chair/Tye asked for clarification of the fifth and last bullet points on page 3. In particular, would music be allowed on the outside patio? Raj Astavakra, offered support that the legacy left behind by the Platinum Club would not be in any way shape or form if we establish Scribbles Grille. He understood the City to have numerous problems with adding the Platinum Club and the parking structure, the loitering of people, none of these activities going on. They shall not be there. It's going to be upscale dining with a jazz band playing. Last call is at 12:00 midnight. We kept it at 1:00 a.m. so that patrons could finish their drinks and have a cooling off period before leaving the restaurant. There will be no D. J. MAY 27, 2003 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION music or any dancing except for private events if they want to dance ® like graduation parties or things like that. Otherwise there will be no dancing at all. Not even to the jazz band music. It is just going to be for entertainment purposes only. C/Tanaka asked Mr. Astavakra what is the room capacity for the bar and for the room upstairs. Mr. Astavakra responded that the capacity for the upstairs room is 85-90 people sitting at one time in the banquet room. The bar has a 125 person capacity including the patio area. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. Chair/Tye asked if the project was conditioned to prevent prior adverse occurrences at the premises. DCM/DeStefano explained that this is a different application and a number of things have occurred since the Planning Commission considered another application for this location a few years ago. That applicant for that project ultimately incorporated practically all of the requirements that the Sheriff's Department and Fire Department required for the operation that they were conducting. As a result, many of those requirements have carried over to this project. This project may be slightly different and that is why the Fire Department will be taking a cursory look at the new operation. This is not labeled as a nightclub and it is not proposed to activate as such, as was the former project. Therefore, staff does not see the same issues and have attempted to write a variety of conditions that limit the activity to the D.J. and others that were mentioned. In addition, the Planning Commission received testimony from the applicant about what the activity would be. Staff believes the conditions are in place to protect the City from the problems associated with the previous operator. Should issues come to staff's attention i.e., noise in the neighborhood, condominium owners concerned about noise and debris, vehicles where they should not be, etc., would be brought to the Commission's attention with a modification process. Likewise would be non-compliance with fire department requirements, building and safety requirements and issues related to calls for service to the sheriff's department. At this point, staff believes the City will not have to deal MAY 27, 2003 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION with those kinds of issues. However, should they arise, the Commission has the ability to review the matter and to either change the operating conditions or revoke the permit. DC eStefano responded to Chair/Tye that this project is much further along than the prior project was when it received its approvals. There are a few items remaining for the applicant's compliance, but staff does not see the same kinds of issues that haunted the prior project. Also, the County business licensing had a number of staffing issues that occurred with the previous application that reeked havoc with the process. Those issues have not occurred since. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Tanaka's concern about appropriate security measures. If the Commission wished to do so it could change the condition to be more specific in its verbiage and would involve a discussion between staff and the City's team lieutenant to determine the most appropriate means of providing security for this project. This project requires a business license from L. A. County and there may be additional conditions related to security. Chair/Tye asked Mr. Astavakra to return to the speaker podium. Chair/Tye asked Mr. Astavakra if he understood staff's conditions and was in agreement with those conditions. Mr. Astavakra responded "that is true, sir." He said he had already applied for the entertainment business license from the County of Los Angeles and that it was approved. However, the security guard will be provided to the restaurant on Fridays and Saturdays, depending on the makeup and number of customers. He has not yet begun advertising pending the Planning Commission's approval. With the Commission's approval he will begin advertising for the live band and the alcoholic permit. Chair/Tye noticed that the floor plan was provided on Rangoli letterhead. He asked Mr. Astavakra if he operated that restaurant also. Mr. Astavakra responded, yes. Chair/Tye said, "so you know a thing or two about operating a restaurant." Mr. Astavakra replied "that is correct, sir." r _ F___ Chair/Tye thanked Mr. Astavakra. DC eStefano reminded Chair/Tye about Condition (i) and the question about the hours of sales and consumption for alcoholic beverages. The Commission may want to amend the condition so that the first sentence would remain as written and a second sentence would be added to wit: "No alcoholic beverages shall be sold after 12:00 midnight." C/Ruzicka said that in view of the discussion and taking into account the applicant's agreement with this evening's additional discussion on conditions, he made the following motion. That the Planning Commission approve conditional Use Pen -nit No. 2003-01, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution including the suggested changes to page 5 Condition (i) that "no alcoholic beverages shall be sold after 12:00 midnight." C/Tanaka seconded the motion. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: Nelson, Ruzicka, Tanaka, Chair/Tye None VC/Nolan Chair/Tye thanked Mr. Astavakra for opening his restaurant in Diamond Bar. The City appreciates his business. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Ruzicka stated that during recent discussions regarding amendments to the Development Code, one of the items was landscaping on the City's slopes. In a discussion with a couple of officials from the water district, he was told that Federal grants were available to cities for planting of native type plants on the slopes. He asked that staff take that issue into account when planning for landscaping of slopes. DCM/DeStefano said staff was not aware of grants for landscaping but was familiar with grants for creation of development standards. Staff will further research the possibility. He noticed over the weekend that a good portion of the major slope across from L,orbeer Middle School was landscaped. C/Ruzicka said that Sunset Magazine has a feature on "water -wise gardening for California." lip �, • �, , 9. Nelson, Ruzicka, Tanaka, Chair/Tye None VC/Nolan Chair/Tye thanked Mr. Astavakra for opening his restaurant in Diamond Bar. The City appreciates his business. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Ruzicka stated that during recent discussions regarding amendments to the Development Code, one of the items was landscaping on the City's slopes. In a discussion with a couple of officials from the water district, he was told that Federal grants were available to cities for planting of native type plants on the slopes. He asked that staff take that issue into account when planning for landscaping of slopes. DCM/DeStefano said staff was not aware of grants for landscaping but was familiar with grants for creation of development standards. Staff will further research the possibility. He noticed over the weekend that a good portion of the major slope across from L,orbeer Middle School was landscaped. C/Ruzicka said that Sunset Magazine has a feature on "water -wise gardening for California." MAY 27, 2003 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano said his advice would be to not drive the SR 57 between 9:00 p.m. until 5:00 a.m. starting Wednesday, or just about any other day for the next week between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. CalTrans will place large concrete barriers in the freeway as they work toward major improvements. Over the next week the freeways would be practically shut down with many ramps closed. Chair/Tye wondered if CalTrans would adhere to the 5:00 a.m. opening. Yesterday he witnessed Golden Springs Drive backed up at least a mile. DCM/DeStefano said he was not aware of any CalTrans activity this morning. The entire issue of freeway and ramp closures will be very delicate for all of D.B. residents because the streets will become even more congested. Staff will be meeting with CalTrans officials on a regular basis to discuss the construction process and what can be done to mitigate traffic on the City's streets. Chair/Tye said that three or four lanes of traffic traveling at speeds of 55 or 65 mph cannot be channeled onto two lanes through town going 40 mph with half a dozen stop lights in between. Was there any consideration given to traffic direction other than the regular operation of the signals such as having deputies in place to override the signals and direct traffic at intersections? DCM/DeStefano responded that the City might have to do that. Although such discussions have taken place, there are no formal plans in place to have that type of mitigation. The City does not yet know when and where the crunch would occur. DCM/DeStefano reported that last week staff and Council Members attended the International Counsel of Shopping Center Developers Conference in Las Vegas. Among other things, the group worked specifically on a project that is proposed to take place at the Calvary Chapel site. Contemplated for the area is a 14 -acre project that would have a bigger box and a group of restaurants and stores. The two bigger -box candidates are Target and Nome Depot. Only one can fit on the site. The leader is Dome Depot but it could go either way. The idea is for the restaurants to be upscale, not fast food. The retail stores are intended to be businesses requested by residents for a number of years. This is an opportunity that did not exist for Diamond Par just six months ago. He anticipates the project would come to the Planning Commission for consideration toward the end of this year. At that point, he believed that Calvary Chapel would then sell the 14 -acres to Lewis homes and Lewis Retails, a significant builder of retail product in Southern California and Nevada. The parking spaces used by the church will be relocated to a parking structure and the church P., L:^.. MAY 27, 2003 Page 11 PLANNING would move its sanctuary to a freestanding structure. Because Lewis has a substantial housing division, they will propose that about 200 condominiums be developed on the flat pad, the so-called Citrus Valley Health property hospital site. Staff is working on acquiring a two -acre piece of property from Lewis who is in escrow to purchase the property from Citrus Valley so that the City can follow through on a contractual agreement to retain a major sales tax producer by providing a site. The Planning Commission will look at a project that will incorporate about 50 acres of ground, General Plan changes, zone changes, a specific plan, development reviews — similar to the Walnut Valley Trailer property but on a grander scale and one that is more suitable for a specific plan process. This is an opportunity to generate significant sales tax for the City, fill voids and reduce the amount of sales tax leakage to other cities. Prospective retail clients love the demographics of Diamond Bar. The problem the City has had attracting retail is the lack of land. DCM/DeStefano further stated that the second site that the group was promoting at the conference was Site D on behalf of the property owner. In this case, the school district did not want to be contact and asked him to be the contact. The school district declared Site D surplus property but had not yet put it out into the marketplace. The school district is interested in the highest return possible on the sale of the property. The school district considers Site D to be residential property. The City considers Site D to be commercial/retail property. The City is moving forward with the concept for a retail center because it presents an opportunity to create a new grocery store and other goods and services for the south end of town and to pull people from the freeway. Site D is about 27 acres but a lot of ground is lost in slopes leaving about a 20 -acre project site. Site D is the site of second choice. It may be a year or longer before any project comes to fruition at this site. DCM/DeStefano stated that finally, the group was also pushing, with the owner's permission, the Walnut Valley Trailer site. This site gained a lot of interest with similar kinds of uses such as freeway -oriented uses (fast food, lodging, etc) and not so much on the boxes and sit- down restaurant side because they do not like the single access. The property owner has decided to hold the property for about another year before embarking on another project. That would probably depend on the property value and kinds of offers he receives. C/Tanaka asked if there were sites not currently being considered that would accommodate a sports complex. 2003MAY 27, Page O DCM/DeStefano responded that there is no suitable property in the City. What is left lies on the City's perimeter and would likely occur in that area. It could occur on Site D but Site D is seen as retail opportunity and revenue generator to pay for programs and services planned over the next several years. Chair/Tye asked DC eStefano if having Home Depots in Pomona and City of Industry would present a problem to D.B. He thought a Target was planned for Grand Avenue and Valley Boulevard in Walnut. DC eStefano assured Chair/Tye that it is not a problem for Home Depot. He has had numerous conversations with the western real estate developer for Home Depot and has seen documents that tell him it is not a problem. It could take business from Pomona. Puente Hills is overcrowded. The Brea store has a different merchandise line that caters to a different audience. According to the Home Depot people a Diamond Bar outlet would do very well and that is why they want to be in this location. Target is a little different. They are not at all concerned about hurting themselves and would look forward to taking what is left of the Kmart store as well as capturing new customers that shop Target and do not shop Kmart. He also spoke with the national real estate director for Target who is not afraid of this site and will be submitting a written offer to the developer to locate a store there. In both cases, they believe that Diamond Bar will produce above-average earnings for them and for the City because of Diamond Bar's geographical location and demographics. A few years ago there was a proposal to build a Target in Walnut that was approved and ultimately lost as a result of a citizen lawsuit and the project was ultimately abandoned. Chair/Tye asked if development of Site D would put the final nail in the coffin of the Country Hills Towne Center? DCM/DeStefano responded that it could. If Diamond Bar were successful in attracting a major grocery store to the center it would be a real shot in the arm for the center. Unfortunately, the City is not having any luck finding anyone who wants to be in that outdated center. If Site D became a theater center, it would have different kinds of impacts on Country Hills Towne Center. He felt that 10-15 years from now, the center could be a mixture of multi -family and small neighborhood commercial -retail center. As presented in the agenda. IJ Y 27, 2003 Page 13 PLANNINGMI I N C/Nelson pointed out that there were no agenda items scheduled for the June 10 Planning Commission meeting. DCM/DeStefano concurred that the Commission would likely go dark on June 10. A JOU NTo 'There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Tye adjourned the meeting at 5:32 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Chairman Steve Tye CITY DIAMOND .A To: Chairman and Planning Commissioners Subject: Review of proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program - for •nformity with the General Plan pursuant to Government o• Section 4. The California Government Code Section 65401 requires a Planning Commission The Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Budget proposes a Capital Improvement Program with a total expenditure of $6,685,213. The CIP proposes $4,155,000 for street improvements, $1,032,988 for traffic improvements, $893,215 for park and recreation lacility improvements and $604,010 for miscellaneous improvement projects. The specific list of projects is attached for your review. Funds to support the CIP are received from a variety of sources including the City General Fund, Gasoline Taxes, AB2928 -'Traffic Congestion Relief, Proposition "C" — Transit Fund,MTACall Projects, TEA 21 Funds, Developer -o•+. Impact Fees, Foundation,Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Proposition 12 — Park Grant, Proposition 40 — Park Grant Fund, LLAD # 38, Donations - Fund and .: • based & Water Grant. The CIP has been developed by Community and Development Services Department staff improvement .• •r the community. projects have been reviewed by staff for conformity with the adopted General Plan. The proposed FY 2003-2004 CIP is consistent _ overall Vision fliernorandurn to the Planning Commissiol June 2.2+#2 Page 2 �14- T -I =1 2 *§#>: Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. FY 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Project List 3. 5 Year Slurry Seal Areas Map 4. Excerpt from League of California Cities, Planning Commissioners Handbook. 5. Government Code Section 65401 f/2#222�#22#±»■2/« � �. �,., . � .� .- �w� �� *®' -a- * » , ■ _- ,■ «� : duly . . .. »,: ::� ■ » :, . organized municipal corporationof the State■: California. 2. @ y/ 1995, the 2; of Diamond Bar adopted its General Plar incorporating all State mandated elements. 3. The 2, : Manager kk, ,- - City of Diamond Bar has prepared k proposed City's Ca:: ©,,. !^:» #w- w■ *.«,f:°■- e ?|■/?|■k Fiscal Year which outlines a ,■#J -»a #° proposed ■�, works . improvement projects . :, ,:<.� during Fiscal i The projects include, but are not limited:, street and■»k -# f- traffic signal installations and modifications.., ,k©-,',.---- 4. California Government Code Section 6540 ■. the Planning Comm <n.a ■.- <<,' review proposed public works projects for ensuing > :cayear to determine compliance with .he City's 2ene 4 Plan. 5. On June 200/ at a regularly scheduled meeting, :h: Planning Commission, reviewed anddiscussed the City of Diamond Bar's Fiscal2 Year 2003-2004 Capital -,i. Program, » # the projects contained therein, and concluded said review prior to thadoption of Resolutiot. .. THEREFORE, .��»>�■ $�w< - isun■ determined and resolved by the Planning .. . .., Commission ,°:h! City ,°Diamond Bar as follows: . z Planning Commission®, specifically findsthat all of the set forth in the Recitals,\Part k: : Resolution are «.f and 2. Based upon the facts and evidence presented during the Planning Commission meeting regarding the City's proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program, including oral and documentary evidence provided by City staff, the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65401, hereby finds as follows: (a) ' The projects identified in the City's proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program are consistent with the General Plan adopted July 25, 1995; (b) The proposed CIP projects comply with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, regulations, and standards; and (c) The proposed Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program is found to be Categorically Exempt, pursuant to Section 15301, of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder. 3. This Resolution shall serve as the Planning Commission's report to the City Council regarding the General Plan conformity of the proposed public works projects in the City's Fiscal Year 2003-2004 CIP as required by California Government Code Section 65401. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, this Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program as proposed which shall conform to Exhibit "A" dated June 10, 2003. 1ROMIRITRO (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar for use in its deliberations regarding the City's budget. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 11T" DAY OF JUNE, 2003, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND 1341i'mo. 9 1, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond B do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, a adopted, . regular meeting • . e Planning Commission ` • on 2003, by the following vote to wit: 11 K U') LO co co .® .0 -, • 0 • • • • • •-•-• CN LO 2 .� CD *• • • r�. 2 iCL 0 LO E . � a 1. t 1 -. i!. i� .. • M ,0-o Y. yj _. • • .. i 5D - • i i •co 10 - 11 2 2 0 8 r, I 5 0 E ® ®6 M hLL C7 Cid fn f V ® ,qv ® ® ® ® co o ®IdI®®®LiuS N r: aa Ln o 0 CD o� ® ® _0 CD <� c 0 � N 0 ®, a^ C� C CDOCO O C o= ® O ®® W X E ® � o C - ® rL 0 ��� � ®> OD® ®� -0-0 Men( C ()�� >Aa-- 0 CD ® CJS O� �® c a Z C) COCry m V) (� ® co ° C ® c Lam LLL V) CNN CQ 04 C ® F N ! ol Call �d 06 CKS VS q Cd�9 OrNto MN�N `, U c Q t9 Q ® c 0) d O O U Q? ® ®yam Y c OWs� ®'D ®mac F+ Q ®� ®� � C � C � lD C OU���U ®o�®®a�C�� ® O ®�E) E EEECL C'� a 2 O ® ® O l' E OL 2� aa® x C8 E 0 c U U U U c - to M ® E -OM t O 0 6 C � 0 ®21B2212P C a -.0 P 123 lid W. �QQ ®+ J co� V) CNN CQ 04 aci aci aa) EEE >0 °O> ® O O o aaa IEEE E > U D Acca) � ®c o EUS 6 m C O CD ® c c CD ®�U ®LL®gin'® a)® m O Q m®® O O® O woi �w A SLU�aA .�_ S ������ AREAS �- ,, ^� t , �P y/ General Procedures Capital, Improvements Prograrntnine 121 IV -E. Capital Improvements ProgramminI Capital improvements are a community's long-term investment in its operating systems, including streets, sewers, storm drains, utilities, parks and other facilities. The r capital improvements program (CIP) is the multi-year planning mechanism for making those improvements. Since local government can seldom pay for these facilities through its an annual operating budget, numerous techniques have evolved to finance them over a longer period. The total investment, therefore, includes not only the cost of purchase, or design and construction, but also the cost of long-term financing. The capital improvements program is a useful planning tool. The availability of public facilities can serve as a basis for approval or denial of development proposals. in many cases, the costs of public improvements are borne by the private developer and eventually passed through to the home buyer or the commerciallindustrial/business user. The capital improvements program is also a valuable implementation tool for carrying out the general plan. Because the general plan establishes policies for the direction. iv-&-tsitv M U M WVVM IFTE•I TP1 VUYOSPt -tur Comormity with the The prioritized list of capital improvements must be flexible to respond to development opportunities, yet must be guided by the long-term benefits that will accrue to the local jurisdiction and its residents. There are four basic steps in developing a capital improvements program: L Project identification; I Reconciliation; and M§�= Needed capital improvements should be identified and reliable preliminary cost estimates should be prepared. Once identified, projects should be listed according to need. This listing should include why each project is important and what the consequences will be if it is or is not funded. The next step is to reconcile this prioritized listing into a comprehensive capital improvement program that coordinates improvement scheduling and recognizes the constraints of municip'l financing. Finally, the capital improvements program should be formally reviewed and adop by the local government. t League of California Cities Planning Commissioner's Handbook 2000 65401. Review of Public works PrOJ60ts fOr conformity with pl If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, within such time as may be fix 4 o by the legislative body, each county or city officer, department, board, or commissil and each governmental body 1, commission. or Aj TWMb special district or school district, whose jurisdiction lies wholly or partially within t ' county or city, whose functions include recommending, preparing plans for, constructing, major public works, shall submit to the official agency, as designated n t- i. r, the respective county board of supervisors or city council, a list of the proposed pub] f works recommended for planning, initiation or construction during the ensuinR fisc year. The official agency receiving the list of proposed public works shall list classify all such recommendations and shall prepare a coordinated program of pro public works for the ensuing fiscal year. Such coordinated program shall be submitted the county or city planning agency for review and report to saidoffal agency as conformity with the adopted general plan or part thereof. Chairman • Planning Commissioners Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner qp- Staff has been examining the Development Code further and has found additional are within the Code that may need amending. These areas relate to Development Revie English characters for business signs, definition of inoperable vehicles and other co enforcement issues. Prior to advertising a public hearing for any amendments, staff presenting these _ .- • • the Planning Commission -• • discussion only. are as • • Currently: (a) Development review. An application for development review is required for commercial, industrial, and institutional development, and residential projects that propose four dwelling units or more (detached or attached) and that involve the issuance of a building permit for construction or reconstruction of • the followingcriteria: New construction on parcel r • new structures, additions• • reconstruction projects which ar- equal to 50 percent or greater of •• area of existing structures on or r a minimum 10,000 square feetof • • -• gross floor Projects • rsubstantialchange or (e.g., the conversion of an existing structure to a restaurant or the conversion of r residential r to an office or • Residential,•mmercial, industrial, or projects proposed upon r descending slope abutting a public street. (b) Administrative development review. An application for administrative development review, in compliance with section 22.48.030, below, is required for residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional developments that 11 involve the issuance of a building permit for • •n or e • c: • if 9 structure(s) meeting the following thresholds of review: (1) Residential projects that propose up to three dwelling units (detached or (2) Commercial, industrial, and institutional developments that propose up to 10,000 square feet of combined gross floor area; or (3) Projects that do not meet the specific criteria identified in section 22.48.020(a), .ii ~• i i • OTWOMMUM3 i commercial,a) Development review. An application for development review is required for • and . institutionaldevelopment, • residentialprojects that propose any now residential units (detached • attached) and that involver. . building •^ i construction or _ _ •" • of meeting the following criteria: construction.vacantparcel . •new structures,additions • r •reconstructionprojectsequal • 0 percent or greater Residential districtsor greater in all other single-family residential zoning square of •..._• `• gross •i or Projects involving •: substantial change or intensificationof land usg • the conversionof an existing structure to a restaurantor r. Residential,conversion of a residential structure to an office or commercial use); as referred to above upon a descending slope abutting a public Administrative development An application •' administrative development section48.030 below,required for i^^commercial,• r and institutional developments involve the issuance of a building permit for construction or reconstruction of a structure(s) meeting the following thresholds of review: M • (2) The Director shall determine the review process of projects that do not meet the specific criteria identified in section 22.48.020(a), above. criteria(The suggested change will cause all new homes to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission no matter the square footage. Additionally, it changes the threshold additions that +:i Planning Commission approval for homes located in the Rural Residential i • district. Additionally, please note that ..r. s Development Code gives the Director/Hearing Officer the ability to defer action on permit applications to the Planning _ • •_ copy.• i•(text) ,. of permanent signs, relate only tothe name and/or nature of the business. Permanent "come-on" signs that advertise continuous sales, special prices, etc., shall not be allowed. Each business must provide i•r r i • . le in English character • w less than fourheight.• r_-.. businesses address or •eof ' occupant. letters shallbe in English .• alphabet. Address numbers shall letters and numerals shall be provided in digits which are visible from the adjacent street or parking lot drive Me claracters T6 I GMT= •the street, etc.)such asfour inches adopted. !jjj[r1rjFTQjF 11L 11WIIIIII1111 jpjr- gm of •Tj* I - . Uff PON M10 Inoperative vehicle. A vehicle (including, but not limited to cars, boats, trucks, recreational vehicles, etc.) not legally able to be operated on a publi* highway and/or in an obvious state of disrepair (i.e. flat tire, mechanical parts missing, interior used as a storage area, etc.). UMT-0 =P- WTH= ofit"IMUSM Inoperable Vehicle. A vehicle unable to be driven upon a public highway, in compliance with the California Vehicle Code requirements, due to the vehicles current condition. I he Reighborhood Improvement #Fv Csion is considering citations items like freestanding basketball hoops in the public right-of-way and Christmas lights that remain after the holiday season has ended. The prohibition of these items is in the Municipal Code. A quantitative definition for overgrown vegetation is also being considered as well as health and safety issues in the public right-of-way. Amendments to the Municipal Code are within the City Council's authority. Amendments in the Development Code are within the Planning Commission's authority to make a recommendation to the City Council for a final 0ecisiow. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission engage in a discussion on futurz Development Code amendments and direct staff as appropriate. Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Minutes dated August 19, 1997 and October 14, 1997; and 2. City Council Minutes dated June 16, 1998 F I C/McManus stated although the proposed Development Co offers more authority the City is reactive rather th proactive. I I C/Fong stated his concerns regarding the proliferation.1 multi-ethnic commercial signage (See Page 111-112). indipated he would like to see that signage [*xedominately English. Mr. Pflugrath referred C/Pong to E. Sign copy on,pagg 111-112. C/Goldenberg stated that signs may not be legally restricted for aest ' hetic reasons. The legal basis Par the Health and Safety Ordinance and Development Code should be indicated. Pf lugrath indicated he will speak with CA/Jenkins Mr. regarding this matter and advise the Commission. Chair/Ruzicka confirmed to Mr. Pflugrath that if there is no legal conflict, the Commission wishes a 50 percent or more English reference contained within the-&ode.- VC/Schad requested that Item 6. under D. Illumination,of i signs indicate "Par type lamps are safe for exterior use". SP/Johnson indicated that DCM/DeStefano recommended all Development Code defi.iftions be placed in Article VII for consistency. Following discussion, the Commission concurred to place Lhe Development Code definitions within Chapter C/Goldenberg suggested that A. Permanent signs with size limitation be changed to "A. Permanent signs Withb specific size limitation under Exemptions prom Bi Permits on Page 1.11-113. Mr. Pflugrath responded to C/Mcmanus that -R. Permandnt signs limited by ma , ximum size 6. on Page 111-114 should include "in area" in the last sentence so that it reads: "These signs shall not exceed four square feet in area and five feet in height; and". C/McManus asked for a definition of "Pole -mounted signED within Article VII (See N. on Page 111-118). 0 5—m—W-11 11we"I I 4. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment 2CA 97-1 and Negative Declaration No. 97-3) - . Review of all Articles of the Draft Development Code, Draft Subdivision Code, and Draft Design Guidelines. DCM/DeStefano explained that the Subdivision code will!be presented at a future Commission meeting as a separate Chair/Ruzicka reminded staff that the following items were discussed and agreed upon by the Commission: Businesses - the Commission concurred that the code should be the most restrictive code permitted by 1,iw; 11 s:�h e View Protection �ommission concurred that the La4una Beach Ordinance Was appropriate to Diamond Bar; and, with respect to TS_e__e Preservation and Protection, Item A. under Exemptionsi Page 111-131 was revised to the following language (�ee August 26, 1997 Planning Commission minutes): "Trees, except those designated by , the City Council as a historical or cultural tree, and trees required to b jareserved, relocated or planted as a condition approval of a discretionary permit, located on all developed properties prior to adoption of this Development Code." SP/Johnson presented the updated Draft Development c de and explained the document revisions. C/Goldenberg said he believes the commission agreed to require 411 inch digits with respect to address numbers (Article III - Page 117, Table 3-X, Section I "Additional DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Auzicka that the 411 requirement does not effect any other portion of the -Development Code. C/McManus asked about the standard -required for curbsi . de Following discussion, the Commission concurred to require 9 ' 1011 x 191011 (nine feet by nineteen feet) commercial parking spaces with no provisions for compact park�ng Bob Zirbes said he supports the Commission's recommendation for larger parking stalls. Ed MacDonald suggested that the Commissioner consider a 10 foot residential side yard setback - to allow for additional on-site parking. ' ~-- � `"�1 1..1.1 ...... -_--`_~-_~---_....~~-~-�~-^�__- _ va r M rrr,�� glil There being no further tesfinjony offe Mea -ring. M O O F U® ® 0 v� U �1@ u ® ® �® y, ® @® � C14 0 @ H n p r C) Z c+lUC✓� @- 5 z� C z z@ z @ z _ c� ®® —00 @ URo ®� �dU� �C)z ®� U ® m @ z Z0 ®® E -4 F -4 z E-0® @Z €� ®@ @Z c% @@@ M UFS �� '�� UF+ UUP Uu® �@ ®aa Aa E-0. �@ U �l �® ® F ®®i 064Qez yb 6z. a U z ®® z @ Im ®CO 124 � A U I M ® ®2 >4v, �� C7 r, C7 FCLQ c� o CJ cn cv e� cv 00 0 cv ul > va @ Fb U 04GO cv cv C7 "acn ® ® ® ® ®®® U N > C� @ F- � F u cu cn E cu 2, W @N C, LU z _u �Z0.0 u ® 0 ® ® ®� ®® ®� ® ®� Z b E==4� Z0 z � F ® 4 u W W CJS^ v' a - _ a a4 � � w CIO � a 2 ® z u a a u 00®00 . N N N 00 M N N N 1 ® ® M ® ® ®CD CD ® CD "' U �U �u v C) ® o 6 OF 0.'20721 C cz ® ®94 < w� u� >: w� w� z 2: N W u In Z W 7 w�W f O cn ,�y U) V C < u «+FOLLOW THIS `f I'D LIKE L«ADD: » ; HAVE THE HIGHEST REGARD AND SE T FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. ■<xL+«:(«»<Lfs+��« « L1L2+#»��2 «<2<f A.<«<:«;2« »2 ? xf■;«# d§«�+d�w� «<22:L>«t<f 2 d;� ^11»f2«2<»;t�2L + ^ ft# ? ««#L22 >SLk» .ZU1119 »K»»■. » x`ftL<:gid 15 CITIES IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY, FAMI)MMOMIM 11061410 K:#t<§ »#>§.»��« «�f #L:LL■f<dy�<«#<««�2)x>:K��<t. .,:... ., _ J8. NOTICE OF PUBLIC ETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING F STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) On June 10, 2003, at 7:00 P.M., the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular meeting at the South Coast Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, Stella Marquez declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On June 5, 2003, I posted a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on June 10, 2003, at the following location: South Coast Quality Management Heritage Park District Auditorium 2900 Brea Canyon Road 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 9, 2003, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community and Development Services Department g:\\affidavitposting.doc # and is reW for ing - F -i n7