Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/30/2019 Spec MtgMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 30, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Barlas called the meeting to order CIO32 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Vice Chairperson Farago led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Kenneth Mok, William Rawlings, Vice -Chairperson Frank Farago, and Chairperson Naila Barlas Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Fabian Aoun, Associate Engineer; Natalie T. Espinoza Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator, 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes —September 24, 2019: C/Rawlings moved, C/Mok seconded, to approve Consent Calendar Item 4.1 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke, Mok, Rawlings, VC/Farago, Chair/Barlas NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 4.2 Minutes — Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission — September 25, 2019 C/Mahlke moved, C/Rawlings seconded, to approve Consent Calendar Item 4.2 with changes. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke, Mok, Rawlings, VC/Farago, Chair/Barlas NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 4.3 Minutes — Special joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission — October 8, 2019. C/Mok moved, C/Mahlke seconded, to approve Consent Calendar Item 4.3 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke, Mok, Rawlings, VC/Farago, Chair/Barlas NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2017-139 —Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the property owner and applicant requested a Conditional Use Permit to increase the medical office uses from 11,634 square feet to 16,906 square feet located within a 35,687 square foot professional office building; construct three tiered six foot high retaining walls; and, add 19 new parking spaces. The subject property is zoned Professional Office (OP) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Commercial Office (CO). PROJECT ADDRESS: 750 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 911 %J PROPERTY OWNER: Johnney Y. Zhang Zhang Group 750 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Suite 188 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Howard Zelefsky 9735 La Capilla Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 CDD/Gubman stated that the applicant requested ar continuance to complete the study needed to respond to Commission concerns, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission keep the public hearing open and continue the matter to the December 10, 2019, Planning Commission Meeting. Richard de la Fuente, project architect, stated that in an effort to attempt to resolve some of the questions addressed at the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant hired his previous traffic engineer to provide a parking OCTOBER 307 2019 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION study which was conducted on October 7, 8 and 9 and is currently under review prior to issuing the report. The study developed data regarding the amount of parking that is being created for possible future tenants and additional data will be provided to the Commission on December 10. VC/Farago moved, C/Mok seconded, to continue the public hearing for Development Review No. PL2017-139 to December 10, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke, Mok, Rawlings, VC/Farago, Chair/Barlas NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Brea Canyon Business Park —Planning Case No. PL2017-169: The applicant proposes to build a new commercial development consisting of a 109 room, four- story hotel; a 47,642 square foot, three-story office building; and, an 8900 square foot one level medical office building on an approximately 5.7-acre vacant parcel located on the east side of south Brea Canyon Road between Lycoming Street and the SR60 freeway. Prior to June 2019 the property operated as a recreational vehicle and boat storage facility. Pursuant to Titles 21 and 22 — Subdivision and Development Code Sections 22.70, 22.321 22.581 21.201 22.481 22.30.050 and 22.36.060, the proposed project consists of the following: General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Professional Office (OP) to General Commercial (C). Zone Change to change the zoning district from Light Industry (I) to Regional Commercial -Planned Development Overlay (C-3-PD). Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the subject property into four parcels, and to create a condominium subdivision for two office buildings. The condominium subdivision proposes to subdivide air space for 34 office units within the three- story office building, and subdivide air space for two medical office units within the one story office building. Development Review to approve the site and architectural designs of a new commercial development to ensure consistency with the General Plan, Development Code, and compliance with all applicable design guidelines and standards. OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Conditional Use Permit to approve development on a site subject to a Planned Development Overlay District and allow modifications to the building height limit to allow a 64' (64 foot) high, four-story hotel and a 55' 2" (55 foot 2 inch) high, three-story office building (where 35 feet is the maximum allowed); reduce the parking requirement to allow 289 spaces (where 299 spaces are required); and, deviate from the parking design standard by reducing the size of a 53 parking spaces to 8' x 6' (8 foot x 6 foot) to allow for compact spaces (where 9'x19' spaces are required). Parking Permit to share access and parking between the proposed parcels. Comprehensive Sign Program to establish design criteria for all signage associated with the proposed buildings. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 850 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Philip Lee, Lycoming LLC 17777 Center Court Drive #725 Cerritos, CA 90703 Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City prepared an initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. Pursuant to CEQA Section 15105, the public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration began September 20, 2019, and ended October 19, 2019. SP/Lee presented staffs report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Brea Canyon Business Park, Planning No. PL2017-169. C/Rawlings asked for confirmation of traffic mitigation efforts provided in staffs report and stated that according to the presentation there will be traffic improvement in the PM hours, particularly with no significant traffic problems being created in either the morning or pm hours. SP/Lee said that C/Rawlings was correct. C/Rawlings asked with respect to the right-turn-in/right-turn-out, if there was currently a U-turn lane at Brea Canyon and Lycoming. SP/Lee responded that there was not. C/Rawlings asked how vehicles making a right -turn -out during the morning hours and visiting businesses to the north would be able to turn around to get back to the freeway entrance without a permitted U-turn lane and what kinds of impact might that create. SP/Lee said she understood there was not enough room to make a U-turn on Lycoming which she will double check with the traffic engineer when he arrives. OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Mok said that before the Commission discusses the traffic issue any further he would like for staff to confirm the following: Some of the tables such as 11-1 on Page 59 in the report refer to "modify traffic signals" in the future. He asked for a detailed explanation of that phrase and whether it might include left -turn only arrows on the signal. SP/Lee said "yes". C/Mok said the reason he is asking this question is to specifically determine whether people traveling north will be able to make a left turn (green left turn arrow) onto Lycoming. SP/Lee responded yes, that they would be able to do so. Chair/Barlas opened the public hearing. Preston Chan, Executive Development, stated that he is the project manager for the Brea Canyon Business Park and thanked the Commission for taking time to review the project. Executive Development is a commercial real estate developer located in Cerritos and their experience includes hotel, retail, mixed -use and office development. As staff mentioned, this project has been in the works for a number of years and Executive Development has been very diligent in studying various uses and have run through many feasibility studies that have produced over 20 site plans. In addition, his firm hosted a neighborhood seminar for the community to hear their concerns. The idea behind this project was to fill the need for hospitality and office in the City. Due to the high cost of construction, new office developments are somewhat few and far between compared to other types of developments. This lack of supply has forced many businesses to go elsewhere to find space so the primary focus of th.is project is to bring those businesses back to the City of Diamond Bar and provide them with the opportunity to purchase their own office space. To that end, the spaces will be subdivided so that instead of leasing, occupants can purchase their own units. These business owners are generally motivated to own so that they can truly invest in the space because they know they will remain in their space for a long period of time. In addition, occupants will not suffer rent increases or face lease expirations that force them to find other spaces. Hampton Inn is Hilton's most popular franchise and arguably the most recognizable among all hotel brands in the US. The franchise fee has been paid and Hampton Inn is secured. His firm believes that the synergies between the hotel and office will work well at this site. He again thanked the Commission for their consideration and said he was available to answer questions. Public Comments: Grace Lim -Hays stated that she lives close to the proposed project, a 15-minute walk from Hampton Court. She is Board President of her neighborhood (Washington Street adjacent to Brea Canyon Road) and is speaking on behalf of the residents. She hoped that the Planning Commission would consider and address the concerns from her community. It seems this project is being rushed OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION at an accelerated rate for something that will need a General Plan amendment and zoning change. This represents a significant change in the community's character and traffic, and her association believes a more thorough public input process should have taken place. Instead, only those within a 700' radius were informed which explains why she was not at the prior developer -hosted community meeting. However, the impacts of this project will radiate beyond the 700 foot radius. Brea Canyon Road is a major arterial road for Diamond Bar residents and one of the main access points to the freeways and ingress and egress in case of emergency and Brea Canyon Road is the only access to her neighborhood. She asked that the comment period be reopened for the Mitigated Negative Declaration to address the concerns of the community and said the project should be better publicized to the entire City. She also questioned the analysis of the traffic study and the conclusion that resulting traffic would be less than significant, which is very doubtful for those who live in the area and will experience the stress of a four-story Hampton Inn. Traffic is already very difficult with people exiting the train station. Brea Canyon Road and Golden Springs Drive are usually at a standstill at this time of the evening. _ Supardi Dermawan expressed concerns about the traffic. He lives close to the Montessori School at the southwest corner of Brea Canyon and Lycoming. Currently, there is a left -turn for traffic from Brea Canyon Road onto Lycoming which allows for a U-turn. He believes traffic will become more dangerous with hotel traffic. Chris O'Brien, a Diamond Bar resident, spoke in support of the Brea Canyon Business Center and wants to make sure that this community makes the best decision for all residents. Some of his friends are looking for office condos in this area for their small businesses. And, his family would greatly benefit from a Hilton hotel because they have many visitors coming to Diamond Bar from outside of the US during holidays. As members of the Hilton and Marriott membership program, his family members complain about the lack of a Hilton or Marriott hotel in the area, many of whom stay in Anaheim or Riverside. Benefits from this hotel locating in Diamond Bar would include tax revenue, patronage to City businesses and easy access to local family members. Michael Chen, a 29-year resident, has witnessed changes in the City and believes the City is moving in the right direction with respect to its retail decisions. The proposed development will, in his opinion, be a great economic plus for Diamond Bar. Hospitality is a booming industry that continues to grow annually. As a local real estate agent, property value is very import to his clients, and buyers want to purchase homes where they can see potential growth in the real estate market. Being able to add value to their land is very often a make or break deal for home buyers. By adding a commercial project like Brea Canyon Business Park, the City will see a direct effect on home values throughout the City. More jobs will be created and more demand to live in Diamond Bar will OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION increase housing values for most of the current residents. The hospitality market is an industry that is continually in demand by international and domestic travelers and as Diamond Bar continues to move forward, he believes it is essential to consider the addition of more hotel accommodations which will bring convenience to travelers and economic benefits to the City. At this time, there are only three well -recognized hotel chains in Diamond Bar and to have a globally recognized brand like Hilton will be much more beneficial from a marketing standpoint. Lee Paulson said this is an interesting project and he can see the value of the hotel tax and everything that has been expressed. He believes that if it can be done correctly so that it works well for the City it will be a nice addition to the community for all of the reasons mentioned. Has only real concern is that it be done right which he believes will be a serious challenge given the intersection it is in. From 5 to 7 pm that portion of Brea Canyon is a literal parking lot and by adding a hotel, it would seem to him that it would make matters worse. He would like to request that the traffic engineer do an additional study to look at the timing of the 3,200 trips and how that can be mitigated in the best possible way. Cynthia Brown, a Diamond Bar resident since 1992 who lives on Dryander Drive, said she agreed with a prior speaker that additional traffic assessments need to be done because of the intersection of Brea Canyon Road and Lycoming Avenue where there is not enough space to make U-turns. When the overpass was built, it created even more traffic problems for the residents and she does not see the need for another hotel. Also, three residences will be affected by the shadowing of this project and she wondered if anyone had taken the time to survey those residents. She is concerned because there are two schools on Lycoming and because of the additional traffic on Lemon and Lycoming. Between 5 and 7 pm, it is a parking lot from Valley Boulevard to Golden Springs Drive. She asked that the Commission reconsider making an exception for the height of the proposed buildings. Jolene McCurry lives in the neighborhood that is directly affected by this project, just north of the SR60 and west of Brea Canyon Road in the community next to the school district office. Her issue is that she did not have ample time to review the documents. She received something in the mail about two weeks ago and shortly thereafter was told that the opportunity to review the documents ended on October 19th. She is not sure if the traffic study was included in those documents and she would like to have more opportunity to review the documents and an opportunity for further public discourse. She said she could not understand how the proposed plan wouTd mitigate traffic and does not understand how a business can be opened and less traffic is expected. The 2018 proposal showed parking OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION spaces totaled about 275 and she wanted to know how that number increased to 299. She reiterated she would like more time to review (the documents) and take a closer look at the traffic study. Aman Braman lives on Dryander Drive and spoke in opposition to the project for many reasons, primarily because he moved to Diamond Bar from LA and feels the traffic is following him. He does not believe this is a good project and his neighbors feel the same. He is worried about the safety of the school students who have to traverse the intersection and he is concerned about privacy, height of the buildings) and traffic, as well as, the value of his property. Kevin Ferrier lives on the south side of Diamond Bar. He commutes via Brea Canyon Road past the project area on his way to the train station and he can attest to the issue of traffic between the hours of 5 and 7 pm during which there is a fair amount of cut -in traffic. If the fair -share for this business includes traffic mitigation, he would suggest there be a consideration of more mitigation measures than what has been proposed. If there is no U-turn allowed he would suggest shortening the very wide lane to one lane with a buffer, or that it be increased to three lanes to increase capacity and include a right -turn only lane on southbound Brea Canyon Road onto Lycoming continuing to the freeway entrance. Ezri McCurry lives in the residence near the Montessori preschool. Since the freeway entrance has been moved, her residence is now blocked On on both sides and they have no way out during morning and evening peak hours. She understands the hotel would be beneficial to the City and believes the lot should be utilized because it is an eyesore. But the traffic needs to be improved and if it is not, she cannot see staying in Diamond Bar. Rich Barretto, traffic engineer and Managing Principal for Linscott, Law A. Greenspan Engineers, said he was present to answer questions from Commissioners. VC/Farago asked staff to display the rendering of the changes to the traffic pattern. C/Rawlings said he was told there was not enough space for a U-turn from Brea Canyon Road at Lycoming so that people leaving could exit the project site and get back down to the freeway and wanted to confirm that with the traffic engineer. Secondly, he asked Mr. Barretto to talk him through the mitigation efforts and which, specifically, would get the City from the potential LOS F to LOS D. Mr. Barretto responded to C/Rawlings that Diamond Bar has guidelines to follow and as traffic consultants, he and his firm look to the City to establish their own Level of Service criteria and standards, as well as impact criteria which is a good OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION roadmap for professional engineers to follow. Under existing conditions, traffic operates okay but when one looks at the project, if it opened up tomorrow the question would be, what would happen at that location and would it degrade the service level. And this is where the decision makers and the public may have a problem wrapping their heads around a couple of things where sometimes the engineers will say the conditions after the project will actually be better with improvements than are the current conditions. In this particular situation, what is meant by that is that when the project opens and it adds traffic to this location, there are only certain things the City can do. The City cannot build half a lane or half a left -turn lane, so the benefit of the project adding a second left -turn lane is fully realized not only by this project, but also by existing traffic. In other words, when a second left -turn lane is added and take volumes at that location, the way intersection service levels are calculated are based on conflicting movements — such as, left turn versus southbound through, or through versus southbound left or cross streets. In this particular case, when one looks at the volumes at that location, there is enough justification that the City should probably look at a second left -turn lane. Hence, with this project and the access the way it sets up, there will be a right-in/right-out, a median to double back and drivers are either making a left turn to head down Lycoming or making some other movement to do that. So when the volumes are added to that intersection and the projects volumes are added to that left turn lane, it makes sense that when one looks at the intersection the question would be, what could actually help the intersection as a whole. And hence, the second left -turn lane was the agreed upon mitigation measure. So, because one cannot build half a lane, the project's capacity at that location may be 7 to 10 percent (or whatever the number is), but the added left - turn lane adds more capacity (beyond what is generated by the project) that is not only beneficial for the project but also for existing traffic. C/Rawlings said that some speakers commented that the southbound traffic is problematic. He asked if there were any gation efforts to help with that or did the mitigation efforts focus on southbound traffic at all, Mr. Barretto responded to C/Rawlings that one can think about this as if there is a tool box. In looking at the situation, perhaps in lieu of the left -turn lane, maybe - -- - - - - - --�u►��i��: U1W�1•1llUl!1•1lNLiU1IM LIP RwMA7UlWfIN11►M � � • � through these improvements and work with staff on what could be done, they go through a menu of things that could happen. Typically, when they look at intersections, they go from least impactful to most impactful in terms of what will be done to the street. Sometimes the recommendation might be to stripe a right - turn if there is sufficient width; or, perhaps modify the median and add a second left -turn lane. When getting to the point of discussing adding a through -lane, sometimes the City ends up with a situation where they might have to widen lanes or shift lanes in the north and southbound directions to eliminate some of the offsets meaning that when one looks down the line the goal is to make sure traffic ends up on the far side without driving into another lane. That is not to say it OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION cannot be the mitigation, but when staff looked at what would be beneficial and what could be constructed with relatively less impact to existing curb returns, the second left -turn lane was the mitigation lane. If a U-turn were to be allowed, the street from the inside left -turn lane to the outside curb would require about 34-36 feet which would give the vehicle sufficient room to complete the U-turn. C/Mok said it seems to him that most of the mitigation heading south on Brea Canyon Road (yellows and blues on the site map) are addressing the northbound traffic and then heading west on Lycoming. He wanted to hear more about how the traffic heading south would be mitigated since a lot of employees that work in the warehouses and different commercial areas north of the freeway will be heading toward the SR60 because he can see how that could become a parking lot from those areas all the way up to the SR60. Mr. Barretto responded to C/Mok that when studying the impact of the project because this is a mitigation where the project has a direct impact so it is under existing plus project conditions, the way the mitigation measure is written is that they have to construct the project and when the engineers and staff looked at it from that standpoint, the second left -turn lane would be the improvement that would happen. Again, that is not to say that as a substitute the third through lane would be the improvement, but what the engineer identified working with staff about what that mitigation measure would be, the second left -turn lane was the improvement determined for existing plus project conditions. C/Mok asked Mr. Barretto to elaborate on the phrase used on most of the tables "Modify traffic signal". Mr. Barretto explained that what is before the Commission is a disclosure document for the City's decision makers and for the applicant. When looking at physical improvements, all options are on the table, there is a very good chance that if there is an existing signal there, something will have to be done with it because the curb returns might move and the signal would have to be modified and "modify traffic signal" is a general comment used so that when going through the improvements the goal is to identify what other physical improvements or what other hardware improvements would have to go along with improving an intersection. VC/Mok asked if "hardware" meant replacing signals that might accommodate a left -turn arrow at Lycoming and Brea Canyon Road northbound. Mr. Barretto said a change of hardware could include signals that might accommodate aleft-turn arrow at Lycoming and Brea Canyon Road northbound. On the front end, given this is a "planning" document, when the engineer goes through the conceptualization of improvements the goal is to identify physically what the City would have to do on the street to get that second left -turn lane. OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Ultimately, if the signal pole arm length is not long enough, it will get defined on the construction side or the design/development side of the document as design plans are prepared. This is something that would be pointed out by the traffic engineer who is doing the design plans or City staff as they review the plans. That is why the catchall notation on the report is "modify traffic signal" because physically, beyond just the striping, there is a good chance that some of the signal poles, controller, and equipment that is required by the City may need to be replaced. VC/Mok asked who would pay for the changes and Mr. Barretto responded that it would depend on how the conditions are written. Most likely, if it is a project improvement he would guess the responsibility for payment would go to the project applicant. While he has not read the conditions, in his experience when there is a condition related to the project, the applicant is required to make and pay for those improvements. C/Rawlings referred to the bottom of Page 53 and the discussion about the intersection at Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive and asked for context of some of the options offered such as, "construct an additional exclusive southbound right -turn lane, construct an additional eastbound through lane, construct an additional eastbound left -turn lane, and construct an additional exclusive westbound right -turn lane" and asked if these are things that would possibly be done as part of this project for restriping that the City may be doing or if they were potential ideas for traffic mitigation for the future. Mr. Barretto responded to C/Rawlings that the way the City's Traffic Study Guidelines are written is that not only when one looks at the project's impact upon opening, it is of real concern when looking at an existing plus project because it presumes that the project on its own would generate a bunch of traffic on day one and those impacts are identified on day one. Beyond that, the City's Guidelines also look at this as what happens upon opening year, 2020-2022. Under the City's Guidelines and even looking out to 2040 which is what the City's Guidelines allow the City to do and gives the applicant an idea of what their obligation would be, which identifies a list of improvements that would mitigate the cumulative impact of the project as well as, the build -out impact of the project. Many cities go through this exercise because somewhere along the line, these improvements that are identified in this document and other documents including the General Plan document, it may end up on the City's Capital Improvement Program. It may be an improvement the City knows it has to begin to fund over the years, 20 years down the line so they determine the project's fair -share is this much and another project's fair -share is this much over that long-term period. OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Rawlings said that considering other potential improvements, if the Commission were to approve this project as presented this evening, he would assume that the Traffic and Transportation Commission would have the opportunity to explore some of the ideas that are raised in the proposal. CDD/Gubman responded no, that the Planning Commission would be making its recommendation on the Conditions of Approval that are written in the resolution to require all of those roadway improvements. The Traffic and Transportation Commission has no role in project -specific traffic improvements as part of the project preview. C/Mok referred to Exhibit 8.1.a —ADA Parking on Pages 196 and 197. "The proposed site plan only illustrates two handicap parking spaces in direct proximity to. As a result, at least with regard to the proposed hotel, location of handicap parking does not appear to comply with minimum ADA Parking Standards C/Mok asked if he should assume there will be something done to remedy this. Roger Deitos, Project Architect, GAA Architects, responded to C/Mok that as the site has been designed, it is a shared parking between the facilities. The number of parking spaces for handicap have been distributed based on the anticipated occupant loads for the individual uses and square footages. Currently on the site, there are two parking spaces that are handicap for the smaller building that is on the street frontage (Brea Canyon Road). As one enters the site, there are two parking spaces that are allocated for the hotel use immediately in front of the entrance and for the office building there are four parking spaces. There is a chart required by code based on ADA Accessible to Van Parking alone. The current plan addresses the required number based on the overall parking that is being provided. The way the site is connected, there is an accessibility point from the sidewalk to the entrances of all of the buildings and all of the handicapped parking spaces have accessible walkways. So, for the hotel, if the parking spaces are in use/full, there are opportunities to park elsewhere and get to the entrance via accessible pathways. C/Mok said that if the two spaces next to the hotel are being used, handicapped individuals are being asked to travel an additional distance to get to the hotel. Mr. Deitos responded to C/Mok that there is a drop off area in front of the hotel for easy access. C/Mok said he did not see designated parking spaces for handicapped parking for the medical building. Mr. Deitos responded to C/Mok that there are two parking spaces on either side of the medical building entry for a total of four handicap spaces. OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Mok said there are 53 parking spaces that will be smaller than normal parking spaces (8' x 16') and the document states those parking spaces will be for employees. Are all 53 spaces in one general area or are they scattered throughout the lot and would there be delineation. Mr. Deitos responded to C/Mok that the compact spaces will be labeled as compact spaces, all of which are toward the east portion (triangle piece) of the site. The consideration was to congregate all of these in one area to alleviate the front parking area for patrons of the hotel, office and the one-story building on Brea Canyon Road. This will be part of the management plan. As individuals are brought on they will be informed about the parking regulations by their employers. The crosshatch areas are the pathways for the handicapped individuals to exit their vehicles and access the buildings. VC/Farago referred to the Site D Willow Heights Development on south Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard and said that one of the major concerns of the residents who live adjacent to the development was that with all of these homes being built how it would affect neighborhood traffic. The engineer told the residents the same thing the traffic engineer has stated this evening about how the mitigation effort would make things better. However, everyone was very skeptical. He drives the area on a daily basis and in fact, the drive is better than it was 10 years ago. Yes, there is traffic, but he would like the engineer to repeat how this is calculated to address the skeptics because he was one of those skeptics who thought this is going to destroy his drive to work and it actually improved his drive. Mr. Barretto said he was holding his breath while VC/Farago was speaking because he was the engineer for the Willow Heights project. In all honesty, it is difficult to get one's head around the fact because when you have X-hundred homes and X-number of people, it results in skepticism. He has been doing this for 30 years and when he says that with confidence and assurances it is because he knows from before and after studies that is usually what happens. Yes, there is congestion along Brea Canyon and trouble at Lycoming with the frontage road and everyone getting off it in that area. He again explained how the calculations are made and how mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the additional traffic resulting from the project. If this project is built and the physical improvements are implemented, the conditions at Brea Canyon and Lycoming will improve. C/Mahlke said she noticed a correlation between peak parking times that seems to be different from what would be considered peak travel times. Mr. Barretto responded to C/Mahlke that there is always disconnect between parking studies and traffic studies. When conducting traffic studies, the objective i3 assessment of the impacts of the project during commute hours which is OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION usually am and pm unless it is at the beach where there are midday peaks. From a parking standpoint, given the type of uses, one being medical office and hotel, one thinks about people coming to work in the morning but they do not all accumulate at 7:00 or 8:00 in the morning. People wander in and then visitors and patients start to wander in and somewhere between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. that is the peak of the office and then it drops down because of lunchtime after which it ramps back up. The office component complements the hotel because when the office is asleep, that is generally when hotel guests are present and vice versa. That is why the shared parking study for these types of mixed uses — hotel and office, work really well and when looking at the peak of the combined uses they generally occur during the middle of the day. It is important that the property owner, tenants and tenant landlords be on the same page when it comes to mixed uses. Obviously, all employees should not be parking in front of the hotel because it does not bode well for guests, and property owners and tenant landlords have to manage this situation and give the employees a target of where they should be parking. The way the site lays out, it lends itself well for some of those employee spaces to be off on the triangle because that is closer to the front door of the offices and not in close proximity to the hotel and takes them away from the front door of the hotel. It is a snapshot of giving the City and applicant an idea of a good starting point and as users and tenants come in to play, they work toward the sweet spot that is good for all of the users. C/Mok said he appreciated the architect's flexibility in revising the plans to accommodate the residents on Lycoming and Dryander. Unfortunately, all of the trees adjacent to the flood channel will have to be removed and will be replaced with 222 new big box trees which is great. Looking at figures 16 and 17 on Page 99 it shows what the view would be like from the four story hotel to the residences on Lycoming and the three story office building to the residences on Dryander and he wanted to know when (how many years) the residents would realize the privacy the new trees would afford them. Mr. Deitos responded to C/Mok that what was specified is the 36" large box trees which are fairly thick in diameter and fairly good sized when installed. The growth rate he has observed is six months to a year that one notices significant growth toward maturity. It is unfortunate that those very large trees are within the easement and have to be removed, but the analysis shows that while two front yards are affected, there is currently a significant amount of landscaping in place that provides a visual barrier such as the mature Italian cypress that completely obscures the view of the houses. On the other side, what is being placed on the site are trees on the street side and for the resident living closer to the knuckle of the intersection, landscaping was installed, as well as fencing that exceeds 8 feet in height. As part of the design and the evolution, the site plan evolved and so did the building elevations. The proximity of the hotel and office building to the freeway, because of the proximity to the freeway, required acoustical study to determine noise levels for occupants. What was originally proposed for the office OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION building was wider and taller windows. In the final design, the height of the windows had to be reduced and while the visual appearance of the windows is wider, there is a spandrel condition that had to be infilled because only so many square feet of glass was allocated to meet the acoustical demand. From the hotel, the layering of the parking lot trees also creates a barrier. Typically, hotel patrons will close themselves in and for the office, it is normal office hours with no one being there at night which would be the time residents would be in their homes. Chair/Barlas closed the public hearing. CDD/Gubman responded to speakers that 36" box Mondell Pine trees and Brisbane box trees are proposed for the channel. While 15 gallon trees tend to grow faster than larger trees after planted, the larger box size stock will go in place with a fuller canopy which will provide more immediate screening. Staff has consulted with the City's landscape architect to prescribe the types of trees and how to arrange them on the site to provide that screening effect and staff is confident that on opening day there will be significant screening. C/Mahlke said she felt it was also important to note that the trees that are currently at the site are not well -maintained whereas with new landscape, it will be maintained and will ultimately reach better growth potential/maturity. C/Mahlke said speakers comment about notifications, frequency and distance of mailings and she wants it on the record that this project is well within the timeframes and distances required. CDD/Gubman said that the noticing was within those timeframes and the City has actually gone beyond the minimum requirements. The City received a copy of the mailing information of those who attended the aforementioned community meetings, and they were notified as well. The public review period for the Mitigated Negative Declaration was 30 days and that notice was sent at the beginning of the 30 day period. In addition, alerts are sent out through the City's email system regarding notification of upcoming public hearings. Chair/Barlas said that being in commercial real estate she has seen a lot of improvements because of the traffic issues. The City of Diamond Bar has more restrictions than some other cities and she has full confidence that City staff will be on top of these kinds of projects because the City suffers from traffic issues that staff is working to improve through these kinds of projects. With respect to the hotel, if one is a Diamond Bar resident one has likely had to deal with a water issue at their home. She has gone through three and every time she tried to get OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION a hotel room in Diamond Bar when her kids were young she was not able to do so. While Diamond Bar has traffic issues it should not stop development in the City and she has complete confidence in staff that the project will be properly implemented and that it will be good for the City. C/Mahlke said she appreciates the residents who spoke this evening. They have been heard and she believes a lot of their concerns have been addressed and mitigated. Knowing that at some point the area will be built out, she believes the reports the Commission has been given are thorough and thoughtful, and while staff cannot mitigate for bad drivers she believes that everything has been properly addressed. C/Mahlke moved, C/Rawlings seconded, that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Brea Canyon Business Park, Planning Case No. PL2017-169. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS Mahlke, Rawlings, VC/Farago, Chair/Barlas NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Mok ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATION ITEMS: C/Mahlke said she went to the Halloween Party at Pantera Park with her dog and it was fantastic. There were a lot of people and the animals. It was a really good event well executed by the City. C/Mok encouraged everyone to participate in the upcoming trailhead opening for Sycamore Canyon Park as well as Veterans' Recognition. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Project Status Report. CDD/Gubman stated that as a result of the Commission's recommendation, the City Council hearing for the Brea Canyon Business Park project will take place on Tuesday, November 19th at the AQMD Auditorium, The City Council meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and public hearing notices will be sent to property owners within the 700 foot radius, newspaper advertisement will again be published and email subscribers will receive notice of the public hearing. There will not be a Planning Commission meeting on November 12th. However, a special meeting has been tentatively scheduled for November 20th to consider recommendation of adoption of the General Plan Update. OCTOBER 30, 2019 PAGE 17 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Barlas adjourned the regular meeting at 8:37 p.m. to the Special Planning Commission meeting of November 20, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 4th day of December, 2019. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director l Naila Barlas, Chairperson