Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/23/1991Teddy Decker, residing at 1875 Tenta Drive, indicated that there should be considerations made in the fencing code, and the CC&R's regarding flag lots. I MINUTES: C/Schey requested that the Minutes of September 9, 1991 be amended on page 10, first paragraph, to Sept. 9, 1991 indicate "only" as opposed to "particular". VC/MacBride commended staff on the quality of the September 9th minutes. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of September 9,_ 1991, as amended. PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu addressed the Commission regarding the request made by the applicant, Zelman Development Tentative Parcel Company, to merge two lots into one parcel. Staff Map No. 23039 recommended that the Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 23039, the Findings of Fact, the Categorical Exemption, and the attached resolution and listed conditions. II The Public Hearing was declared opened. -" Ben Reiling, of Zelman Development Company, located at 1661 Hanover Road, City of Industry, stated that the building is complete, and 40% is leased. The Public Hearing was declared closed. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:08 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: Ben Reiling. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner Schey, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe. Commissioner Harmony arrived at 8:35 p.m. Also present were Planning Director James DeStefano, City Planner Emeritus Irwin Kaplan, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Norman Franere, residing at 21205 Kerndall, stated THE AUDIENCE: his concern for the proposed conversion of the triangular area to a mixed-use planned development as stated in the General Plan. Teddy Decker, residing at 1875 Tenta Drive, indicated that there should be considerations made in the fencing code, and the CC&R's regarding flag lots. I MINUTES: C/Schey requested that the Minutes of September 9, 1991 be amended on page 10, first paragraph, to Sept. 9, 1991 indicate "only" as opposed to "particular". VC/MacBride commended staff on the quality of the September 9th minutes. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of September 9,_ 1991, as amended. PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu addressed the Commission regarding the request made by the applicant, Zelman Development Tentative Parcel Company, to merge two lots into one parcel. Staff Map No. 23039 recommended that the Commission approve Tentative Parcel Map No. 23039, the Findings of Fact, the Categorical Exemption, and the attached resolution and listed conditions. II The Public Hearing was declared opened. -" Ben Reiling, of Zelman Development Company, located at 1661 Hanover Road, City of Industry, stated that the building is complete, and 40% is leased. The Public Hearing was declared closed. September 23, 1991 Page 2 Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend approval of the Tentative Map No. 23039 to the City Council. Tentative Parcel PD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding Map No. 22102 Tentative Parcel Map No. 22102 to subdivide, an existing 4.39'acre site into two parcels. The'site is located at the end of Valley Vista Drive in the Gateway Corporate Center. Staff met with the applicant to review the draft conditions of approval. Additional time is necessary to revise the conditions. Staff has requested that the Commission continue this public hearing to the October 14, 1991 meeting. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the public hearing item to the October 14, 1991 meeting. CUP 91-9 PD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the request for a reverse vending machine to be located at the Standard Brands,Paint Store shopping center. The City of Diamond 'Bar received a letter on September 18, 1991, from the Reynolds Aluminum Recycling Company, requesting the withdrawal of the application. PD/DeStefano explained that though staff had indicated full support for a recycling facility at that location, they had expressed concern to the applicant that the facility may not be architecturally compatible with the rest of the shopping center.' The applicant chose to withdraw the application. Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to receive and file the matter. General Plan PD/DeStefano stated that this is the second in the series of public hearings before the Planning Commission regarding the adoption of the, City's first General Plan. The General Plan is a document that is a result of approximately 20 meetings of the citizens General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), as well as about 10 study sessions either held before the Planning Commission or the City Council. There was concern expressed at the September 9th Public Hearing regarding the document's faithfulness to the document prepared by the GPAC. The Planning Commission concluded their; discussion by requesting that the GPAC members be invited to attend the' September 23rd meeting, be given an opportunity to present their comments at' 8 September 23, 1991 Page 3 any and all public hearings, be given a recent copy of the plan, and suggest that they reconvene to review it. The City Council also discussed the General Plan at a study session held September 10th. The City Council concluded their discussion by directing that the document go back to the GPAC for at least two meetings in October of 1991, and that the document be more widely advertised. It is suggested that the Planning Commission do the following: Reopen the Public Hearing; accept additional testimony regarding the General Plan; direct the staff to take the appropriate action deemed necessary; direct the document to go back to the GPAC; and hold the next Public Hearing no sooner than November 11, 1991, or as soon thereafter that the GPAC concludes their review. CPE/Kaplan, upon confirmation that the majority of the audience came to discuss their concern for the rezoning of the triangular area between the 57 freeway, Colima Road, and Brea Canyon, explained that this is one of the items that the Planning Commission and the City Council was concerned with F also because it was not a GPAC recommendation. The main reason the General Plan document is.,being sent back to the GPAC is to give them an opportunity to identify items that are their recommendation, and those that are not. The items that are not will be deleted. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shady Wood Road, a member of the GPAC, stated his concurrence that the document needs to be reviewed by the GPAC. He suggested that the public be invited to attend the GPAC meeting and present their comments. Ada Kotowski, residing at 1856 Kiowa Crest Drive, stated her support for the suggestion made earlier in the meeting regarding the CC&R codes. Bruce Flannenbaum, a member of GPAC, indicated that after further review of the plan, there are other areas of the plan that do not reflect the desires, goals, aspirations, and decisions of the GPAC. Chair/Grothe requested a copy of the letter, received b the audience that has y , generated so much attention. He requested that it be included in the minutes for the record: 1 -------------------------------------------------- IMPORTANT ---------------r-rrte----------------r------------IMPORTANT September 23, 1991 Page 4 THE NEWLY -PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN SUGGESTS TEARING DOWN YOUR AND YOUR NEIGHBORS' HOMES AND REPLACING THEM WITH HIGH-RISE OFFICE BUILDINGS M This is -ONE of the suggestions for FUTURE development of your neighborhood (the area between 57 Freeway, Colima Road and Brea Canyon Road). The Original City Council (Papen, Miller, Forbing, Horcher and Werner) each appointed six members of the community to form the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC)'. The GPAC was given the responsibility of preparing several alternative plans for future development of Diamond Bar. At the suggestion of one council member, the resultant plans recommend the following: "Consider the eventual conversion of the triangular mixed-use area bounded by Brea Canyon Road, Colima Road, and the 57 Freewav to a mixed-use planned development of mid -to -high-rise towers that may include commercial, office, hotel/conference and/or multi -family uses." There is a hearing regarding this and other equally distressing GPAC recommendations before the Diamond Bar Planning'Commission on September 23rd at 7:00 pm. (Walnut Valley School Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon in Diamond Bar) I strongly suggest you attend. I don't know if you will receive any other notification of this meeting so I am making certain you are aware of this action. If I can answer any questions for you, please call me at my home. --LAVINIA ROWLAND 714/860-5802 ------------------------=------------------ PD/DeStefano, upon the request made by Chair/Grothe, read the section of concern from the General Plan, and confirmed that the underlined portion of the letter is a direct quote from the General Plan. However, the statement, "At the suggestion of one council member, the resultant plans recommend' 'the following:...", is not true. He explained that the suggestion is a result of i consultant work looking at the potential for the I future development of the community. It is exploring various options at this location and other locations around town. The statement came _ t n I�.d l 1'L �� �&xdi n i, — — — x.i. .w.bu�kd.IxFo•abdwwlllm�,_ � — _.-- September 23, 1991 Page 5 r from the consultants, and to his knowledge, did not come from any member of Council, present or former. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, stated his concern that many decisions are made on issues that are vague, unannounced, unpublicized. They are being sneaked through the system. Lavinia Rowland, residing at 23945 Highland Valley Road, indicated her concern for the following issues: allowing second units and attached dwellings behind the primary residential structure; the conversion of the Golf Course to a Mall, or a Civic Center; if Tonner Canyon is not to be built, then where else will there be an access road to get traffic off of our surface streets; and the rezoning of the aforesaid triangular area. Joan Sorensen, residing at 1137 Bain Ave., stated that it appears that issues are being put under the table, and that decisions will be made without the public's knowledge. Bill Tinsman, residing at 1014 Capen Ave., complained that he feels disenfranchised because, though he is a Diamond Bar resident, his zip code, 91789, is Walnut. He concurred that the public should be able to give input at the GPAC meetings. He stated his dissatisfaction with the Council members, and his skepticism that the public is being properly represented. Daniel Tanner, residing at 1056 Capen Ave., thanked Lavinia Rowland for the letter she distributed. He stated that regardless of their Walnut zip code, he expects to receive any and all mailing from the City. Linda Hedekin, residing at 1136 Hare Ave., inquired who is the consultant responsible for the document. Mary Delle, residing at 21225 DeVane Street, pointed out that most of the residents work and don't have time to get copies of the General Plan. The first priority of the City is communication, and representation that is fair and equal. Don Schad, a member of GPAC, explained to the audience that the GPAC consisted of Diamond Bar residents who tried their best to come up with a a blanket idea that would maintain our homes in the lifestyle preferred in the community. September 23, 1991 Page 6 Victor Panuellas, residing at 1053 Adelle Ave., suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that where there is an existing home, or tract of homes, there be no rezoning for commercial purposes only. y Randy Anderson, residing at 21265 DeVane Ave., a real estate broker, explained that the property values of the homes in the triangular area are affected by the suggestion that they could be rezoned commercially. CPE/Kaplan, upon Chair/Grothe!s request, explained that the purpose of developing a General Plan is to define the City's future onit's own terms. He explained that, the Planning Commission is seeing the document basically for the first time. The first step is to get a document that better reflects what the GPAC had intended, and figure out how to better proceed with communication to the residents. When this has been done, it will be brought back to the Planning 'Commission, and further testimony will be heard through the public hearing process. At that point, a recommendation will be made to the City Council. It will be the first time that the Council will have seen the document in it's entirety. He stated that the City will be requesting a year's extension, from the State, in developing the General Plan. C/Schey suggested that the Public Hearing be closed briefly in order to act upon the audience' request. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Schey, recognizing that this issue was not a GPAC recommendation, suggested that staff be directed to omit this issue, and any reference made to the indicated tract, from the General Plan. C/Harmony arrived to the meeting at 8:35 p.m. VC/MacBride suggested that, when the plan is sent back to GPAC for further deliberation and study, it be sent back with a strong,recommendation, without prejudice, that GPAC drop this item specifically from their work, unless they wish to originate it again. C/Lin addressed the audience and assured them that the Commission is equally concerned with the future of Diamond Bar. _. . —1 '01 1.. 1. ,I �. _ . ;, r i, :;:I! I'mI I ,I`;+r+a, 1pa iWi.cl I ti,f�J11�.d.c':.7 September 23, 1991 Page 7 F Linda Hedekin, doubting the Commission's concern, emphasized that there has been no communications made to the residents. C/Harmony, agreeing with the audience, stated that, at his political committees expense, he has sent letters out to every civic organization, and has had City staff make copies of the General Plan, in which he has hand delivered all over town. The original plan for the GPAC was to meet in different parts of the community so each of the neighborhoods could participate, and play a part in developing the 50 year plan. That did not occur. Even a summary report of the document was never sent out to the community. Something has gone awry in the whole process. He assured the audience that he is with them one hundred percent. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to delete the matter of the triangular area from the General Plan and defer it back to the GPAC, with a strong recommendation, without prejudice, that GPAC drop this item specifically from their -work, unless they wish,to originate it again. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Willa Clark, residing at 1038 Dale, inquired if the residents will receive a letter stating that the issue has been canceled. Lavinia Rowland, against the possible development of the Golf Course, inquired if the suggestions made concerning the Golf Course is one of the many issues that will be deleted from the General Plan. Chair/Grothe explained that the GPAC's recommendations will be brought back to the Planning Commission, and will be reviewed at the public hearings. It will take some time before the General Plan is reviewed by GPAC Tom Van Winkle, residing at 21103 Kerndall, stated that many issues slide by despite the public's opinion. Ada Kotowski stressed the importance of keeping the - public informed through the press. Mary Delle inquired why the project on Brea Canyon/Colima was not completed. September 23, 1991 Page 8 �III'Ip'l4� PD/DeStefano explained that,the applicant had been granted a permit by the County before the City had incorporated. However, construction did not begin on time.The Planning Commission, and the City Council, did not grant an extension of the project. C/Harmony stated that there are 48 items in the General Plan that was not recommended by the GPAC, yet somehow has drifted into the document. The same kind'of things drift into ordinances when staff and the legal counsel are asked to go back. He further stated that he had suggested that the o Planning Commission be put n cable television because of the important issues at hand. However, the Commission had voted against it. Also, he stated that he had suggested that the Commission appoint a speakers bureau to' discuss pertinent issue to the community. However, the Commission did not see fit to appoint one. C/Schey requested, as a point of order, that the discussion remain on the Public Hearing at hand. The Public hearing was declared closed. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to send the General Plan back to the GPAC,, as well as a summary of all comments made regarding the plan. Chair/Schey called a recess at 9:04 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:19 P.M. CUP 91-8 AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the request from the applicant, Jung Ho and Yeon Ho Kim, to permit'a billiard room establishment to be located in the Colima Plaza at 20627 Colima Road. 11 This use is before the Planning Commission because it is a discretionary action by the standards of the development code. The purpose of the discretionary action is to determine the appropriateness of the use at this specific location. Staff recommended that the Commission approve CUP 91-8 with the findings of fact and conditions as listed. Doug Smith, employee of Pfieler Associates Engineer, 612 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard, indicated that the establishment is to be a family billiard center. No alcohol will be served. AP/Searcy, responding to VC/MacBride's inquiry stated that the site plan indicates that there is an 8 foot concrete block wall immediately abutting September 23, 1991 Page 9 the building. He read a correspondence from the I Dianos Family objecting to the establishment because it could become a hangout for kids, and attract gangs and drugs. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Virginia Anderson, residing at 21626 Devan, objected to the location of the project. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, also objecting to the project, suggested that the applicant be requested to prove that there is a need and a desire that such an establishment will enhance the community. Bill Tinsmen, residing at 1014 Capen, Walnut, inquired where billiards rank relative to other types of entertainment in the community. The Public Hearing was declared closed. VC/MacBride inquired why additional conditions are needed for this kind of an institution. He also inquired if staff is comfortable with the information received from the sheriff's office. AP/Searcy stated that the conditions are necessary to mandate that this use will proceed, be successful, and meet the sheriff department's criteria. However, in a discretionary procedure it can be decided where the use is appropriate and not appropriate. If it is deemed appropriate, these are the conditions that are put forth. C/Schey indicated that good uses, as opposed to poor 'uses, vary from community to community. He s suggested utilizing the codes as .they stand, and placing conditions, as necessary, to manage the n use, and make it appropriate to the community, to 3 get the diversity a community needs. VC/MacBride stated that he is uncomfortable with allowing the use without first investigating if there is an alley way, the condition of the x billiards hall at Rowland Heights, and further discussion with the Sheriff's Department. -"I AP/Searcy read Title 7, section 18, of the LA County Code which states the grounds for denying issuance of a license. If the license is not 3 obtained, the CUP is null and void. ti September 23, 1991 Page 10 ' object to Chair/Grothe indicated that he does not the establishment if it is a -family oriented recreation, and not a hangout. He suggested asking the Sheriff Department for further input, and the applicant to provide more information regarding billiard establishments. C/Harmony stated that he has difficulty in going along with this kind of use. VC/MacBride stated that he would like information regarding the traffic generation, and the quantity of parking spaces, realistically given a full patronage of such a facility. C/Lin indicated that the establishment has a great potential for attracting undesireables. There is doubt that the conditions given by staff, in the recommendation, can be enforced. Chair/Grothe requested that the residents in the surrounding area be renoticed. There should have been more public attendance considering the nature of the application. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey and CARRIED to continue the matter to the October 28th meeting for further information on traffic, parking, and a sheriff's analysis as to why such safeguards are needed for this kind of institution. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schey, Lin, MacBride, and Chair/Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Tentative Tracts PD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the family units on 160 147850, 47851, & request to develop 120 single located east and south of Wagon Train Lane 48487; CUP 89582,acres & 89584 and Steeple Chase Lane. The site is located_ 89583, respectively; & adjacent to the "The Country", and within in Master EIR 91-2 Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15 northern Tonner Canyon. The development requires a in hillside Conditional Use Permit to develop a area, a SEA, and an Oak Tree Permit to remove oak trees. On June 24, 1991, the Commission was given a presentation by staff, and the consultant, on the project, and on the procedure underway to correct deficiencies identified in the draft EIR. Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) has coordinated the preparation of the revised draft EIR, and D. G. King & Assoc. has resubmitted it to the City for review and certification. PD/De reviewed the alternatives recommended by 5EATAC, recommended that the Commission direct staff to September 23, 1991 ,,.:.Page 11 request the detailed information needed to fully 'y understand Alternative No. 2 in the draft EIR, the extent to which this alternative satisfies the conditions established by SEATAC, and review the project in order to provide conditions applicable to the design. C/Schey inquired which alternative is preferred by staff. PD/DeStefano explained that Alternative 2 is preferred by the developers. Staff is also leaning towards Alternative 2, however, there are specific concerns that need be resolved before staff can give a recommendation. C/Schey inquired if the tract map is under common ownership, or if it is several tract maps under different ownerships. PD/DeStefano explained that there are two general partners in this project: JCC, an acronym of a company based in Torrence, and Dr. Al LaPeter, owner of Tract 48487. Dr. Al LaPeter is involved in a joint venture partnership with JCC for the development of the total project. The actual applicant is Diamond Bar Associates. He explained that the projects could be separated. However, in the proposed plan, they are sharing dirt, and need each other to make this project work. VC/MacBride inquired what the implications would be for the remaining Liu parcel, if alternative 2 is followed. PD/DeStefano stated that the grading, the street pattern, and the development pattern would be affected. C/Harmony inquired if the proposed overall study, of all the adjoining properties as they would affect the Tonner Canyon area, was completed. It is important to be sure that development is consistent with one another so that the area is not piece-mealed together. PD/DeStefano explained that the broader scope study, as recommended by SEATAC, was not completed because the consultant firm fell apart. There is an RFP prepared and ready to be distributed to other ecological firms. I The Public Hearing was declared opened. � I September 23, 1991 Page 12 Dr. Al LaPeter, resident of Diamond Bar, developer of tract 148487, indicated that his plan is to develop a good project for the City. Lex Williman, with Planning Director of Hunsaker & Associates, 10179 Huntington Street, San Diego, stated that.the development team has developed a project that meets all the zoning requirements, all the Hillside Ordinance requirements, and all of the legal requirements for the certification of the EIR. He explained the changes made to the project from the original plan submitted to the County. These changes included: The use of contour grading techniques; reduction of slopes internally; the elimination of the crib walls; and the mitigation of the geotechnical problems in the contents of land form grading. He further explained how they have incorporated the mitigations proposed by SEATAC. He reiterated the requests made by Cecil Mills. C/Harmony inquired if the homes will be built by the developer's.company. Cecil Mills responded that it is anticipated that some individuals lots will be sold in tracts 148750 & #48751, as well as building some individual homes and selling them in-house. Craig Weber, representing Dr. LaPeter and Diamond, Bar Association, architect, discussed contour, grading and what has typically been proposed as a, slope treatment, in terms of channelized drainage, and what the developers are proposing. Don Schad opposed the project completely for the following reasons: The dominant Black Walnut will 64 ll 'ri�'4�,��P Cecil Mills, a principal with Diamond Bar Associates, developer of tract #47850 & 147851, explained the joint operation of these tracts to the Commission. It was determined that it was necessary to cooperate with each other in order to be able to arrange mutual grading easements for cut and fill operations. He explained the process that led to the development of the proposed plan and alternative two. He requested that the Commission consider the following: Find that the EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA; evaluate alternative 2 as the preferred alternative; request staff to work with the developers to establish conditions of approval for alternative 2; and place the item back on the calendar for final consideration of the map no later than the meeting four weeks from today. Dr. Al LaPeter, resident of Diamond Bar, developer of tract 148487, indicated that his plan is to develop a good project for the City. Lex Williman, with Planning Director of Hunsaker & Associates, 10179 Huntington Street, San Diego, stated that.the development team has developed a project that meets all the zoning requirements, all the Hillside Ordinance requirements, and all of the legal requirements for the certification of the EIR. He explained the changes made to the project from the original plan submitted to the County. These changes included: The use of contour grading techniques; reduction of slopes internally; the elimination of the crib walls; and the mitigation of the geotechnical problems in the contents of land form grading. He further explained how they have incorporated the mitigations proposed by SEATAC. He reiterated the requests made by Cecil Mills. C/Harmony inquired if the homes will be built by the developer's.company. Cecil Mills responded that it is anticipated that some individuals lots will be sold in tracts 148750 & #48751, as well as building some individual homes and selling them in-house. Craig Weber, representing Dr. LaPeter and Diamond, Bar Association, architect, discussed contour, grading and what has typically been proposed as a, slope treatment, in terms of channelized drainage, and what the developers are proposing. Don Schad opposed the project completely for the following reasons: The dominant Black Walnut will 64 September 23, 1991 =, 'r Page 13 be destroyed; the area should be available to all, citizens of Diamond Bar, and not just the Country; the soil formation is not suitable building material; we will lose the animals if the wildlife corridor is closed off; that part of the City needs a park; the animals may perish from the water in the collection basins; the designs of the waterways may not be able to handle water from a heavy down storm; and moving so much dirt changes the natural terrain. William Gross, residing at 21637 High Bluff, complained that, although he lives to the left of the project, he did not receive a notice. He objects to the project for the following reasons: The intention is to pack as many units as possible; the project completely involves grading in the gully area which will redirect the flow; the project is being ramrodded; there is no mention of any land being dedicated to the City to offset the ecological and environmental impacts; there should be sidewalks; the wildlife is not being protected; and the dangers of brushfires. Diamond Bar should be preserved as it was originally conceived. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, stated his concern for the environment, the wildlife, brushfires, and density of the project. Brian McGirdy, residing at 24419 Top Court, a professional biologist and hydrologist, objected to the project for the following reasons: There is a need to know the cumulative impacts of the project; an ecosystem is complex and needs a large area; doubts the viability of the plan to protect the Black Walnut Woodlands; wildlife will be lost; nursery plants are not a substitution for natural vegetation; and there may not be sufficient water. He made the following recommendations: Wait for a Regional Study; use native seeds; and set criteria determining if the intent is to save the Walnut tree or the Walnut Woodlands. Lex Wiiliman stated the following rebuttals: SEATAC reviewed the project and it's relationship to the ecosystem; the development team offered to pay for a Regional Study; the project is in conformance with City standards in regards to density; native seeds will be used; the property has access through "The Country"; they will be getting additional letters of capacity from the Water District; and they are equally concerned about brushfires, and are proposing fuel modification zones. September 23, 1991 Page 14 CE/Mousavi, responding to C/tin's inquiry, stated that the details of the traffic report on Wagon Train and Steeple Chase have not been reviewed. The Public Hearing was declaredclosed. C/Harmony inquired how the formula for the park trade off is.being applied in this matter. PD/DeStefano replied that the issue has not yet been resolved at a staff level. He explained that the difficulty in requesting open space and dedicated land is that if it 'is a part of "The Country", then the dedication may not serve the purpose intended.' However, it could be requested that, as a condition of approval, an in lieu fee be assessed to be used to enhance open space elsewhere for the broader community. The project will be assessed a fee, or a dedication requirement, or a combination of 'both, as a condition of approval, if there becomes a project to be approved. VC/MacBride emphasized the importance of preparing a total Regional Study. He commended the efforts of the development team, in accommodating the best technology presently available to do the project well. He questioned if this, effort is sufficient to answer our total ecological needs in context. C/Harmony stated that the project impacts the area more than he had originally believed it would. C/Schey requested staff to explore the potential benefit of reducing density, giving a reasonable yield for the developer but still maintaining a reasonable level of ecological sensitivity to the community. C/Lin requested a traffic impact report on Steeple Chase. Chair/Grothe stated that if there is to be some dedicated park land in this community, it should be certain that it is to be located in a desirable area. He also requested that staff assess the various.mailing errors regarding notices. C/Harmony stated that the option of swapping land should not be disregarded, and should be discussed with the developer. Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter for 30 days, and request staff to report back with the +g September 23, 1991 Page 15 status report on the alternatives, and the status report on the study of the overall Tonner Canyon SEA as far as it's selection on a consultant, and the program that the consultant is working on. ANNOUNCEMENTS: VC/MacBride, referring to the comment made by C/Harmony which indicated that the Commission had voted not to accept the entrance of cable television, indicated that the statement made is inaccurate. He would like the Commission meetings to be as open, and as directed to the public as humanly possible. C/Harmony pointed out his argument to get the Commission to take a stand for cable television. As a result of the discussion, the Commission decided to go along with any recommendations or suggestions made by the City Council. Thereby, the Commission neither supported, nor denied cable television. C/MacBride reiterated that he does not appreciate being told in front of a large audience that the Commission voted against cable.. television. The Commission did not. C Harmon stated that this Commission has taken a C/Harmony negative position to cable television. C/Schey indicated his resentment of the implication, made by C/Harmony, that any vote taken here was taken in the intent of keeping information from the public. That is a clear misrepresentation, and is clearly untrue. C/Harmony recalled the comments made by the Commission that the General Plan was too difficult, and people didn't really want to deal with it and study it. The Commission was wrong, and the people came out and talked about it tonight. We have a disastrous plan here because it is wrapped up behind closed doors. He also indicated that ordinances are being modified by other people, like the City Council. The same things appear on our ordinances as appears on the City Council. The City is not getting a clear, clean, forward type of presentation and representation to the public. He requested a vote to determine if the Commission I wants cable television. Motion was made by VC/MacBride that, for record purposes, the Commission takes the public position that we welcome public examination in such matters as news reporters, or television cameras, or any September 23, 1991 Page 16 other media that may be appropriate at any of our publicly noticed sessions. C/Harmony requested that the motion include a recommendation that the City Council authorize cable coverage., VC/MacBride 'explained that the purpose of his motion is to clarify that the Commission is not opposed to any kind of public exposure. C/Harmony stated that the City Council has cable coverage, yet -these important issue of the General Plan, the constitution, are closeted. C/Schey reiterated his objection to the statement that implied that the Commission had forbid cable television.. That statement is not true. C/Harmony replied that the Commission has blocked cable coverage from coming into the meetings, and has opposed -the speakers bureau as well. He then recommended that the motion be amended to include a recommendation that the City Council specifically authorize cable television for the Planning Commission meetings. VC/MacBride stated that he is trying to stop the throat cutting and criticizing of a Commission that { is trying to work for community. C/Harmony replied that he will criticize at any time that he finds that the Commission is not representing the people, and is blocking the way for good public exposure of issues and policies that have to be discussed in the public. The General Plan is not even the plan of GPAC. The plan is being kept a secret by the City. The people need to know what is said in the document. C/Lin indicated her concern over this discussion and stated that it has never been the Commission's intention to keep secrets from the public. Chair/Grothe stated that the Commission recognizes that the draft General Plan is not acceptable. It is being sent back to GPAC. C/Harmony requested a second to the motion. C/Schey seconded the motion. VC/MacBride then restated his motion, and the purpose of the motion, and C/Harmony restated his proposed amendment to VC/MacBride's motion. iTI _.., .. ,,,,„.,.. ,. •,,.„, .. ,. .. .__ ,... ,. . ., , .„ i September 23, 1991 "Page 17 I F C/Schey, not realizing that he had seconded C/Harmony's amendment, withdrew his second. The amended motion failed for lack of a second. j C/Schey then seconded VC/MacBride's motion that, for record purposes, the Commission takes the public position that we welcome public examination in such matters as news reporters, or television cameras, or any other media that may be appropriate at any of our publicly noticed sessions. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony, Schey, MacBride, and Chair/Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin. I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. The motion CARRIED. I ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m. Respectively, 0 I J es ADeStef �n ecretary/Planning Commission Attest: Grothe V � V airman