HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/12/1991I
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
j MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 1991
,CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:04
p.m. in the Walnut Valley School district Board
Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Kent Norton.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Schey,
Commissioner Lin, Vice Chairman MacBride and
Chairman Grothe.
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, City Planner Emeritus Irwin Kaplan,
Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning
Technician Ann Lungu, Planning Technician Armando
Villa, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. City
Engineer Sid Mousavi arrived at 7:50 p.m.
MINUTES: PD/DeStefano reported that staff compiled a
response to the Commission's directive for
July 8, 1991 clarification on dialogue on the July 8, 1991
meeting. A verbatim report, taken from the
recording of the meeting, has been submitted. In
addition, staff has included, in its entirety,
d' VC/MacBride's discourse on the Diamond Bar legacy.
} Staff recommended the Commission discuss the
contents of the attachment and the draft minutes of
the meeting of July 8, 1991, and direct staff
accordingly.
C/Harmony suggested that the entire verbatim staff
j report be included as part of the Minutes of July
8, 1991, as well as the inclusion of VC/MacBride's
discourse.
Motion was made by C/Harmony, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Minutes of July 8, 1991, as amended.
July 22, 1991 C/Harmony requested that the Minutes of July 22,
1991 be amended on page 4 to delete paragraphs four
through seven.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
July 22, 1991, as amended.
STUDY SESSION: PT/Lungu addressed the Commission regarding the
second draft of the tree preservation ordinance.
Preliminary Draft Comments from the Commission are requested. The
Tree Preservation next time the Commission meets to discuss this
Ordinance ZCA 91-3 topic, it will be in ordinance form, and a public
hearing.
_ —�� - .1LllL-..dlu:-['•��.Y.4W IIIbYnU iFl•�x il.-�_—.—_--.�.. .-�i_.r+_._.---.u._. _...__ _.._ _"__ __ y,-.y,µW,*, F�wi�F Yiw w�M». _ _
August 12, 1991 Page 2
VC/MacBride made the following comments: Under
Purpose, amend the phrase "as well as defined" to
"definitive of"; under Intent and Applicability,
the ordinance should pertain to both public and
private property; and page 3, under Exception C,
include shrubs, and add the wording "... necessary
to keep street and sidewalk easements clear of
obstruction..."
C/Schey requested that the syntax "shall mean",
"mean", etc. be eliminated from the Definition
section. He also stated that defining a Heritage
Tree, simply by size, seems to be an overly broad
definition.
VC/MacBride requested staff to review the item,
possibly with Don Schad, and reword it.
Following discussion, C/Schey suggested that the
Significant Tree and the Heritage Tree be
differentiated. The�ieritage Tree can have the
full review it is warranted, and the Significant
Tree have at least some review.
C/Harmony made the following comments: Under
�naW Diseased Trees, staff 91hould include some reference
to insect infestation,- as well as wording
indicating "and others inflicted by, but not
limited to."; he indicated concern regarding the 2
inch guideline referred to in the Routine
Maintenance section and Pruning Permit section; in
reference to the removal or relocation of oak trees
or heritage trees, some significant tree removal
should remain in the purview of the Planning
Commission and the Council; and on page 7, item E,
replacement trees should be maintained for a period
of five years.
C/Schey discussed item E, page 5, regarding the
enforcement of replacement trees. A warranty
period of 3 to 5 years is a long time, and often
the developer has become unavailable. He suggested
that language be included in the context that the
applicant, permittee,' or successor, whoever is
responsible for that property when the tree is
removed, is responsible for the replacement trees.
C/Harmony suggested that a provision for paying the
City the appraised value of the lost tree, if it
cannot be replaced, be included with the tree
replacement clause.
C/Schey, noting that often times developers view
the fines as a more desirable option, requested
uumwi�.i............... . .
August 12, 1991 Page 3
staff to review the provision in Claremont, which
carries a heavier penalty.
C/Lin inquired how the capabilities of tree
specialists are differentiated.
I
PT/Lungu stated that they must have proof of
qualifications and references of past work.
i
VC/MacBride requested staff to determine if there
is a California requirement that establishes
standards which indicates that the specialist is
licensed, bonded, or certified.
Chair/Grothe noted that, in the replacement of
trees, quantity is not discussed. Understanding
that tree sizes and types must be varied, he
cautioned that unless there is a minimum
replacement number indicated, some developers will
manage to elude the specifications.
PD/DeStefano stated that a section will be added
pertaining to the replacement ratio, and the issues
pertaining to the size of the replacement trees.
He then stated that, with the Commission's
� comments, staff will prepare the document in full
ordinance format, and establish a public hearing
process for the Commission's recommendation to the
City Council.
General Plan CPE/Kaplan addressed the Commission regarding the
General Plan. The discussion for tonight is to
familiarize the Commission with areas of the
General Plan that are either too vague, or too
specific, as well as get the Commission's thoughts
on items that are not, but should be, included in
the General Plan. Lloyd Zola and Kent Norton, from
the Planning Network, will discuss the physical
changes that will happen as the result of the Land
Use Circulation Element. Also, there will be a
r discussion on the policies that are in the Housing
Element, and their implications.
Kent Norton stated that the intent of the
discussion is to compare the existing land uses to
the proposed land uses, under the GPAC Plan, and
indicate any major differences. He displayed two
_ maps to illustrate the areas of change.
f
C/Harmony inquired which area is being considered
for the High School Swap site, and how the
construction of the school will impact the
particular area.
I
August 12, 1991 Page 4
PD/DeStefano stated that the Pomona School District
is considering 5 sites for the high school. The
Tres Hermanos area is one of the favored sites.
Kent Norton stated that the GPAC plan for Tres
Hermanos is for a planned development with a
mixture of commercial and low density residential
of about 1.4 units per acre.
VC/MacBride inquired what the Planning Commission's
relationship is to the decision making process in
regards to the location of the high school.
Kent Norton explained that recent State legislation
requires school districts to work more closely with
cities. Cities now have review authority over any
school district development. However, they still
have autonomy in terms of location of sites.
PD/DeStefano stated that Diamond Bar is committed
to assisting the Pomona School District in
providing a north Diamond Bar High School. The
location has not yet been determined, therefore,
the school is not specifically a General Plan issue
at this point. The City of Diamond Bar is working
with the City of Industry in order to prepare a
specific plan for the 800 acre Tres Hermanos ranch
area.
CPE/Kaplan stated that we are working with the City
of Industry and the School District to assure
whatever site is selected makes sense within the
total concept of the area. The General Plan calls
for a specific pian for that area.
Kent Norton, referring to vacant areas, indicated
that areas that had previous building restrictions
would maintain those, as the jurisdiction switched
from the County to the City. However, the
committee designated those areas that had no
previous restriction with appropriate densities
based on slopes, and other physical characteristics
and surrounding land use. The committee set the
maximum for higher density categories at 16 units
per acre. However, one of the overriding goals of
the GPAC plan, regarding land use designation, was
to maintain existing uses as much as possible.
Therefore, there are a number of individual
projects and complexes in the City that may be
slightly over, or under, those density
calculations.
Kent Norton indicated the plan specifically does
not allow through traffic at the Sunset Crossing.
August 12, 1991 Page 5
i
i
VC/MacBride inquired if there is sufficient area
allocated for the completion of the 57/60
interchange.
Kent Norton indicated that, at this time, Caltrans
does not have adequate right of way.
Following discussion regarding an interchange
study, VC/MacBride requested sketches of what might
be done with the interchange, so as to be able to
determine it's feasibility, and review the
alternatives.
CE/Mousavi informed the Commission that Caltrans
will have some preliminary information, regarding
the interchange study, sometime in December.
Kent Norton, continuing with the discussion, stated
that the GPAC plan recommended retaining the
recreation uses at present. If at some point the
City determines that that area should be developed,
it outlines some general guidelines for its use.
C/Harmony inquired what the reasoning was in
allowing alternate conditions other than just
-. leaving it as open space, park, and/or golf course
use.
Kent Norton stated that part of it was to give
direction that would highlight the economic
development goals of the City. There was a feeling
that the Golf Course represented a very centralized
part of the City's future development scheme.
PD/DeStefano explained that GPAC, recognizing that
the Golf Course property represents an opportunity,
if exercised, for the community to broaden its
economic resources, developed a broad definition
concerning open space recreational uses.
Chair/Grothe indicated that there should be a
specific plan for the Golf Course within the
framework of the General Plan.
Upon the request of PD/DeStefano, CPE/Kaplan
discussed the Economic Development Strategy. He
explained that the basic premise of the Economic
Development Session was that if costs continue to
escalate at the same rate, without the provision of
any additional services, and revenues continue at
the same rate, within the next 5 to 10 years, they
will cross and causing distant revenues. There is
a need to develop an Economic Development Strategy
— -- �- - - - - s,,. ., e... -.. - -- —..R.- 1--- _ W -- � _ — -v
August 12, 1991 Page 6
that recognizes the need to intervene in the
process, today, to be fiscally solvent.
Kent Nolan pointed out more of the primary
geographical changes: GPAC recommended a triangular
parcel, down at the southern end of the golf
course, for commercial uses, and, specifically in
the General Plan, it recommends a restaurant; a
vacant parcel under the powerlines at Golden
Springs and Grand is recommended for office uses; a
pad has been graded, in an area labeled as open
space at the Gateway Center, modifying the open
space line; off of Clear Creek, down east of Grand
and Diamond Bar Blvd., there is a small two and a
half acres that has been designated as residential
hillside; GPAC wants to retain the 10 acre parcel,
located east of Golden Springs, south of the
freeway, that has a previous building restriction,
as open space; retain the slope as open space, on
the Bramalea property, east of Grand and Diamond
Bar Blvd.; prevent through traffic at Washington
and Lycoming, north of the 60, off of Brea Canyon;
the plan calls for existing uses to remain, at the
triangle area between the two freeways and Brea
Canyon, with an alternate plan for potential
�- development of a moderate to high density mix use
of commercial offices; GPAC recommended that
remaining Country parcels have a density of 1 unit
per acre, except for the far southern end which
will have a density of 1 unit per 2 1/2 acres; the
canyon, off the 57 freeway before Gateway Center,
is designated hillside residential to minimize the
impact to the hillside; it is recommended to leave
site D as, a public facility; GPAC recommended
designating the TransAmerica property as lower
density residential; and the canyons north and
south of Pathfinders, west of the 57 freeway, have
been designated as open space, and park areas, but
the area south of Colima has been designated as
hillside residential.
C/Schey, inquiring why open space areas and park
space areas are differentiated, asked if the intent
could be that the open space designation areas
would comes under the ownership of the City through
dedication.
Kent Norton explained that the open space area
designates a more passive or non use, such as
i
slopes. A park space area designates a more
~- active, passive use, such as nature centers,
trails, hiking trails, etc. He stated that a
decision was not made regarding the extent of the
August 12, 1991 Page'7`
use of the open space, however, there was
discussion regarding maintenance costs.
CPE/Kaplan stated that there was not an agreement
as to the extent for which that open space should
be used for anything else but open space.
C/Schey stated that a lot of the open space
indicated on the map should be converted to park
space so that they City can maintain control. If
some of these areas are left with any development
potential, there will be on going development
pressure.
Kent Norton stated that there are two other areas
designated as open space: The canyons west of the
Orange freeway, south of Pathfinder and north of
the Brea Canyon cutoff; and the area south of
Grand, and adjacent to the Country, off of
Longview.
CPE/Kaplan requested Kent Norton to comment on the
general change in the intensity, or character, of
use, where density has been reduced to conform to
I
the existing, as opposed to the current zoning.
Kent Norton explained that the GPACOs consideration
was to protect the integrity of existing
neighborhoods in regards to the existing
development intensity. In some cases, the existing
E development intensity was lower than what might be
allowed under existing zoning. We will be
developing a consistency information about what
areas specifically could be affected by down
zoning, and other kinds of changes and uses.
PD/DeStefano, indicating two examples of areas that
the zoning was changed to appropriately reflect
what has occurred, stated that the McDermott Mobile
Home Park, on Washington, is designated light
manufacturing and should more properly be
designated for medium density residential, and the
condominium complex at Golden Springs and Temple is
designated as C-1 commercial, and should be more
appropriately be designated as a medium density
residential.
CPE/Kaplan inquired if the GPAC discussed the
potential uses in the areas to the west, in the
proposed sphere, as indicated on the map.
Kent Norton indicated that the General Plan does
have information about potential annexation areas.
One of the potential development options is to take
F
.� .,...,.......... - -,
— - _ - - __ - — - L -.L=._. li i. Iri..r- wui w ,,......,-.-=.x-11111-1n_e �_sz __¢ �r'm- � -- ___ . _._- _ _ • - _ - — .. , � -_
August 12, 1991 Page 8
the Arciero business park and allow retail uses in
that area. GPAC recommended a tremendous
biological and open space resources in the Tonner
Canyon area. The primary recommendation was that
the land use is to be a planned development,
primarily with open space and recreation uses.
Also, it was recommended that a regional roadway
would not be built through Tonner Canyon.
PD/DeStefano confirmed C/Lin's 'inquiry that the
area indicated on the map as lavender, adjacent to
the golf course, has been changed from commercial
manufacturing to office professional.
C/Lin emphasized the importance of maintaining park
space area.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:40 p.m. the
meeting was called back to order at 9:50 p.m.
CPE/Kaplan highlighted those issues which are
departures from existing policy, and/or policy that
the Commission should be aware of in the Housing
Element: Build residential development into areas
that have large scale commercial development, to
achieve a mix use concept; there is a provision of
the California Government Code that refers to a
density bonus to developers that build a percentage
of affordable housing; developments which include
more than 250 urban residential units must provide
a mix of dwelling unit types; developments which
include more than 500 urban residential units,
ought to contribute to the city's bounds of
affordable housing at all income levels with the
intent that up to 20% of all new housing within the
project be afforded by very low,low, and moderate
income household; the developers contributions may
be in the form of actual construction within the
project itself or contributions of in lieu fees a
city's low income housing fund; maintain the
existing number of subsidized units; limit the
convergence of rental apartments to condominiums;
annually assess all affordable, housing that are
considered at risk; work with LA County Housing
authority in nearby cities to establish the
continuance emergence of shelter programs;, revising
the zoning ordinance to reduce parking requirements
for senior citizens housing projects to a level
consistent with the projects age restrictions;
permit sorority, fraternity, and other group
housing only to the extent, that the associated
nuisance factors are mitigated; determine the
feasibility of establishing 'a craftsmen and tool
lending program, utilizing State funding if
August 12, 1991 Page 9
_. necessary; permitting second units in single family
residential zones, zoned at 3 - 6 units to the
acre, at densities that would not exceed the zoning
densities; work with the State Franchise Board to
enforce the provisions of the revenue and taxation
code which prohibits owners of substandard housing
from claiming depreciation/amortization; and the
implementation matrix.
VC/MacBride inquired what would happen if a city
does not prepare a suitable General Pian.
CPE/Kaplan explained that the State may decide that
the city is not entitled to certain funds. Also,
the State may impose certain sanctions, if someone
sues the city.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: PD/DeStefano informed the Commission of the plans
to meet at City Hall, Monday, August 26th, at 3:30
Staff p.m., in order to go to the Claremont Colleges to
get involved in a unique process to help develop
our zoning and subdivision code.
Commission C/Schey commented on the ugliness of the new sign
at Vineyard Bank.
C/Schey inquired how it is determined which
Planning Commission seats are associated with which
new City Council person.
PD/DeStefano stated that the new Council persons
will be able to determine if they wish to retain
the Commissioner or select a new one of their
choosing. He stated that he is unsure which
Council seat replaces which Commission seat.
C/Harmony requested staff to determine if the
utility poles, in the area of Golden Springs and
Lemon, are being installed or being removed.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn at 10:30 p.m. to
Monday, August 26, 1991, at 3:30 p.m. at City Hall
in order to attend a Study Session regarding the
Development Code at the Claremont Colleges Computer
Center (8th & College)
Respectively,
J."
i G1�. /
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planniing Commission
August 12, 1991
I
Attest:
JacjVGrothe
Chairman
Page 10