HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/9/1991— .1.m«,VLAt4 ,,.r�°.I 11,1-- -.... ._, e. .,- _—._.._. I'll m._,.......,.._._ ---
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 9, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:03
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: Gary Neely.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Schey, Vice
Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe.
Commissioner Lin was absent.
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 Don Schad, 1824 Shady Wood Road, cautioned that the
THE AUDIENCE: homes below Sandstone Canyon could possibly be
damaged from the heavy rain fall predicted this
year. He suggested that the situation be assessed.
MINUTES: VC MacBride requested that the Minutes of Au
/ q gust
26, 1991 be amended on page 5, eighth paragraph, to
Aug. 26, 1991 properly spell "principle", and paragraph three, to
omit "and the bounds..."; page 4, fourth paragraph,
to omit "privy of information"; and page 6, seventh
paragraph to pluralize the word "statement".
Motion was made by VC/MacBride,- seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
August 26, 1991, as amended.
! PUBLIC HEARING: CPE/Kaplan indicated that this is the first in a
series of public hearings on the City of Diamond
General Plan Bar General Plan. He explained that the General
Plan was prepared by the General Plan Advisory
Committee (GPAC), which consisted of approximately
35 citizens that had met for a period of two years.
The Planning Commission has not been involved in
the formulation of the plan. The Commission will
formulate a plan for presentation to the City
Council after it receives and considers public
input, makes it's own comments and recommendation,
and receives staff comments. Staff will make a
brief presentation of the highlights of the General
Plan, and then open up the hearing for public
fi comments.
�m C/Harmony requested staff to outline the schedule
of hearings and deadlines.
E
September 9, 1991 Page 2
PD/DeStefano explained that State law requires all
new cities to process and complete their first
general plan within 30 months of incorporation.
Diamond Bar's deadline is October 17, 1991. The
public hearing process has begun tonight before the
Planning Commission, and another is planned
September 23, 1991'. Two public hearings are
tentatively set before the City Council on the 1st
and 15th of October. Also, on September 17th,
staff has scheduled to bring a, recommendation to
the City Council that an extension of time be
requested from the State of California in order to
further the public review and input process, and
complete the document in an, appropriate time frame.
C/Harmony asked what kinds of information articles
were used that proceeded this hearing.
PD/DeStefano stated that a city newsletter was
published approximately nine months ago that
included a discussion about the City's forthcoming
General Plan. There have been announcements, at
every City Council meeting, indicating the time and
place of GPAC meetings. Recently, press releases
have gone out to various news media, notices have
been published within the newspaper, and special
letters have been sent to a variety of
organizations in the community, as well as a
variety of property owners that may be affected by
the General Plan. Additional notification is
scheduled via Jones Intercable, and the Windmill.
Notices has been sent to the Chamber of Commerce
and to major retailers in the communities asking
that fliers, outlining the public hearing process
scheduled beyond this evening, be posted within
their windows. Also, the City's fall newsletter is
devoted substantially to the General Plan. It
outlines the issues faced by the City, the major
components of. the General Plan, and encourages
public input.
Kent Norton, of the Planning Network, stated that
the plan is intended to meet all the State planning
law requirements addressing General Plan elements
such as land use, circulation, and housing. The
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General
Plan is intended to meet the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act. Copies of
the entire document are available at City Hall and
the Diamond Bar Public Library. This plan is
designed to chart the course of the City's decision
making process into the 21st century. Almost all
the goals, objectives, and strategies were
developed and approved by the GPAC. There are a
September 9, 1991 Page 3
number of strategies included that is believed to
be logical extensions of GPAC policies. However,
the Planning Commission and the City Council public
hearing process is either going to validate or
eliminate one or more of these strategies.
CPE/Kaplan highlighted the ' critical and
controversial issues of the General Plan, while Ken
Norton pointed to the indicated areas, on the
presentation map.
The following are the highlighted issues regarding
land use: Retain much of the existing remaining
open space, in residential areas, by maintaining
existing restrictions on certain undeveloped
parcels; reduce the density of other vacant
properties, which are mostly on hillsides, below
that which the existing zoning currently allows;
modify the character of hillside development to
look more like the natural terrain, as well as
protect the ridgeline from development; lower the
density of certain residential areas, which are
already substantially developed, to reflect the
densities that actually exist; permit multiple
family units, up to 16 units per acre in certain
locations; allow second units in single family
zones, under certain conditions; a specific plan
for the 800 acre of Tres Hermanos Ranch; the
annexation of Tonner Canyon, primarily for open
space with golf courses and conference facilities;
the potential conversion of the Golf Course into an
"urban village", but only if the golf course was no
longer to occupy the site; the eventual convergence
of the area between Brea Canyon Rd., Colima Rd.,
Villa Serela, and the 57 freeway into a mixed used,
mid to high rise tower development for office,
hotel, conference, and/or multi -family use;
additional sites be considered for commercial use;
density limits for commercial uses which are less
than the zoning currently allows; a hospital at the
Grand/Golden Springs intersection; allow churches
by CUP, except in general commercial zones and low
density residential areas; additional parks areas
at Sandstone Canyon, Sycamore Canyon, and Brea
Canyon Cutoff; transfer development rights for
sensitive areas; a City wide bike way and
pedestrian trail system; and the annexation of the
open land west of Brea Canyon Cutoff, and the
residential development west of the 57 freeway in
Rowland Heights.
The following are the highlighted issues regarding
the circulation element: The City should encourage
CalTrans to make the freeway system work more
-,
September 9, 1991 Page 4
effectively, and at the same time down grade the
local system to restore the streets to local use; a
Tonner Canyon by pass is too high a price to pay;
widen Grand Ave. to three lanes in each direction,
within the existing right of way, and consider
grade separation or an over pass at Diamond Bar
Blvd.; and Sunset Crossing should be maintained as
a cul-de-sac at the Little League field and not be
opened to through traffic through residential
areas.
The following are the highlighted issues regarding
housing: There should be a residential component
in large scale commercial office development;
reduce the parking requirements for senior citizen
housing; utilize State, Federal, and private
programs to expand affordable housing opportunities
within the community; permit sorority and
fraternity housing if the nuisance factors can be
mitigated; incorporate defensible space design;
recognizing the SCAQMD is here and that those
facilities represent a state of the arts in terms
of air quality innovation and experimentation and
suggests that Diamond Bar be a demonstration
community; a tree preservation and replacement
ordinance with a. ratio of 3:1 for oak, sycamore,
and walnut trees; require drought tolerant
landscaping in conjunction with development, except
if reclaimed water is being used for irrigation;
suggests a variety of energy conservation measures;
the prohibition of new, development if the
development will reduce the level,'of public service
below that which', is ''felt to, below an acceptable
standard; a high school recreational facility be
integrated into the design'in the Tres Hermanos
plan; and consider an institution of higher
learning in the community.
PD/DeStefano pointed out the public hearing process
for the General Plan includes discussion regarding
the EIR. The EIR is in it's draft stage and is
currently out in it's public review process. The
time for public review has been extended for an
additional ten days to generate more public input,
and will not close until September 23, 1991.
Throughout the process of reviewing the document,
and it's impacts to the community, a variety of
errors have been found in the Land Use Element,
particularly dealing with the map. Staff will be
responding to those errors in a recommendation for LI
the next Commission meeting. Staff will also be
responding to the correspondence from approximately
five developers with interest in seeing land use
changes for their property, and to some suggestions
September 9, 1991
Page 5
made regarding changes to the circulation element.
Additionally, staff and the consultant have not yet
indicated the changes felt to be appropriate. The
entire package, from a staff's standpoint, will be
coming back to the Commission on the September 23rd
meeting, with the final comments on the EIR.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Dr.,
presented studies showing that the circulation
element of the EIR would not work. He also
presented a community plan done before
incorporation. He inquired if letters will be sent
to homeowners living near the golf course informing
them of the possibility of developing the golf
course into a regional commercial center. He
inquired if the residents living in the area west
of the 57, south of Colima, and east of Brea Canyon
Rd., will be notified of the provision to change
those homes into high rise buildings. He presented
his overview opinion of the General Plan: There is
no 'discussion regarding the potentiality of
redevelopment financing for the City; there is no
discussion regarding a need for a road to the new
high school site; there is no discussion regarding
the need for infrastructure, including water
facilities, for the site; a second sewage treatment
plant is needed; the map does not indicate a Chino
Hills Pkwy.; the map'is not to scale; the document
barely mentions the Tres Hermanos Water Resource
Project; there's a discrepancy with the 23 acre
Pantero Park area; and the circulation element
portion of the document is out of date.
Lavina Rowland, residing at 23945 Highland Valley
Rd., inquired how the traffic on Grand Ave. can be
down graded, and what other canyons can'be used as
a bi pass for the traffic.
CPE/Kaplan suggested that everyone in the audience
have an opportunity to speak, then the appropriate
staff members can be asked to clarify any comments.
Bill McDonnell, residing at 1825 Morning Canyon,
speaking for himself and his partner Roco Patera, a
legal owner of parcel 13, tract 46485, a 20 acre
parcel south of the Country, stated that they are
opposed to the change of zoning and density of this
parcel.
Bruce Flannenbaum, a member of GPAC, indicated that
the General Plan does not reflect what the GPAC
arrived at. There are numerous additions to the
September 9, 1991 Page 6
plan which were not at the recommendation of the
GPAC. Additionally, there are areas that were
specifically rejected by the GPAC but included in
the plan, such as the request,to expand Grand Ave.
to three lanes, and the call for an institution of
higher learning.
Tod Chavers, residing at 23816 Chanuk Place, a
member of the Traffic and Transportation Commission
(TTC) speaking as, a resident and a professional
transportation planner .and engineer, stated the
following concerns: The Land, Use Element and the
goals explained are inconsistent with the
Circulation Element; we will not be able to get an
EIR cleared for a grade separation at Diamond Bar
Blvd., and Grand Avenue; and there are many
inconsistencies in the Plan.
Don Gravdahl, residing at 23988 Minnequa, member of
the TTC, stated his disapproval for the forming of
a ,Benefit, Assessment District to fund slope
landscaping, on Diamond Bar'Blvd., Grand Ave., and
Golden Springs.
Dan Buffington, residing at 2605, Indian Creek,
suggested that the GPAC reconvene to review the
General Plan document.
Greg Hummel, residing at 23239 Iron Horse Canyon
Rd., member of GPAC, supported a review, by GPAC,
of the final draft version of the General Plan as
compared to the document presented tonight.
Eric Stone, residing at 24401 Daring Drive, member
of GPAC, approved of the idea to reconvene the GPAC
to review the document. He stated that, as a
property owner with land in Diamond Bar where
zoning is changing it's current status, he feels
the changes are beneficial to the City.
Al Rumpella, residing at 23958 Golden Springs Dr.,
remarked that the project proposed by Mr. Stone was
not favored by residents before incorporation. He
stated that there may be a conflict of interest
with other members of the GPAC, as is with Mr.
Stone.
Jerry Arnett, residing at 1646 Ono Nuevo, suggested
that the one car garage provision for senior
citizens be reconsidered.
John Arconio inquired what it would take for
Diamond Bar to create and establish their own
school district.
September 9, 1991
Page 9.
W C/Harmony requested staff to describe the condition
of a specific plan for the Tres Hermanos Ranch
area.
CPE/Kaplan explained that the City Council
authorized the beginning of a concept study for
Tres Hermanos at their last meeting. Once the
framework is set, it will then be developed into a
specific plan that lays out the detail such as the
circulation system, the infrastructure, associated
costs, and so on.
C/Harmony inquired if there was talk of a specific
plan for the golf course.
PD/DeStefano responded that there is not a specific
plan for the golf course. There is discussion
regarding a proposal for a specific plan in the
Tonner Canyon Boy Scout property, with some
consideration for a golf course in that area.
VC/MacBride explained to the audience the
importance of adopting a General Plan, and
encouraged them to express their concerns and
comments regarding the document. The following are
a variety of comments expressed by VC/MacBride:
The document should address some commentary about
the concern for political stability; it should
address our relationship with the Rail Transport;
noting that over 50% of the community does not want
a raise in taxes, or additional assessments, there
should be a segment discussing services versus
revenues; there should be a major segment
discussing residential amenities; the persons who
gave their time on GPAC should be identified and
acknowledged; the term "high quality of life" is an
assumption, and the document ought to be talking
about the low quality of life in Diamond Bar and
how to bring it up to a consensus of what we all
dream for; the GPAC document, that is to become our
"constitution" ought to be changed from the thick
document to something more comprehensible and
concise; he desires a community that respects
senior citizens, and makes housing accessible to
them; he desires a hospital facility; he concurs
that Diamond Bar should establish itself as a model
City of innovation, in Southern California, to
reduce air pollution; and he would like to see a
dozen such different attributes grow out of our
inspirations from a decent document.
um ,
C/Harmony commented on his surprise on the amount
of speakers present, considering the type, and
4
amount of advertising that was done. He encouraged
��r __-- n- .I I I ! 1 ._., 11
September 9, 1991
Page 8
the public to involve themselves in making sure the
't�
City Council and the Planning Commission respond to
staff's recommendation for a continuance of the
General Plan.
Al Rumpella stressed that the major problem is
attracting public awareness and encouraging the
silent majority to speak out.
CPE/Kaplan encouraged the public to submit their
specific comments to staff, so that it can be
entered as a matter of record.
VC/MacBride requested that an executive summary of
the document be included, and distributed via the
Windmill.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
public hearing to the meetingof September 23,
1991.
Chair/Grothe stated that the General Plan needs
further polishing before the Commission can review
it item by item. I 01-il
C/Schey indicated that the General Plan should only
discuss specific development on specific parcels
that are going to occur now, not what may occur
someday. When it is appropriate to discuss an
issue, it can be dealt with as a General Plan
amendment. Hewillsubmit his specific comments to
staff.
CPE/Kaplan suggested that, in addition to the
written specific comments, it would be appropriate
to also strike those items that the Commission find
inappropriate.
Chair/Grothe suggested that the GPAC and staff meet
and redraft a new version of the General Plan.
VC/MacBride requested that the GPAC members be
invited to attend the public hearing on the 23rd of
September, and offer their testimony to clarify the
issues presented tonight.
C/Harmony requested a copy of all the comments
made, as they come in, from other government
agencies, with respect to the EIR.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:24P .m. The
meeting was called back to order at 9:35 p.m.
I
- ..N, ,.I gni u, ..Aar.W,H.IaWN.N,�wIIY.:-r-.I._,...ti-...=�. �•_in-_.. �..:—r.�.���__,—__-. ....�..�.��.,�-.��-...�.�...r.��.+om.,.�.s�..___— �__ _--�___—_ —__ .—__—�_
September 9, 1991
i3age 9
ZCA 91-3 PT/Lungu addressed the Commission regarding the
request to amend certain provisions of the Los
Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted by the
City of Diamond Bar pertaining to political signs.
Staff recommended approval of the Draft Sign
Ordinance to City Council.
C/Harmony and DCA/Curley, upon C/Harmony's request
for advise, discussed the conflict of interest
provision. C/Harmony decided that, in the interest
of fair play, and to avoid any appearance of a
conflict of interest, he would feel more
comfortable withdrawing from discussion regarding
the political sign ordinance. He removed himself
from the meeting room.
PD/DeStefano explained that there was a request to
bring a political sign ordinance before the City
Council for their consideration in time for this
years election. An ordinance was brought to the
Council on July 23, 1991. At that time, it was
suggested that the Planning Commission was the more
appropriate body to review a political sign
ordinance. During the interim between that time
and today, the Council requested an enforcement
w policy such that all candidates for office would
understand the existing limitations within the
existing LA County code, and the proposed
limitations that were contained within the sign
ordinance recently reviewed by the Commission and
approved by the City Council. A briefing sheet was
prepared for the Council, in early August, which
attempted to outline political sign issues, and
reference both the existing ordinance, which is in
effect till September 20, 1991, and the new
ordinance. The briefing sheet, sent to all the
candidates, is not as restrictive as the ordinance
before the Commission for consideration.
VC/MacBride submitted various written suggestions
for revisions of the draft ordinance. These
suggestions included: grammatical errors; the
insertion of an additional requirement #3, under
Registration; change the removal period of
political signs to seven (7) days as opposed to ten
(10) days; change the dimensional limitations of
political signs to 9 square feet for residential
properties, and 24 square feet for non residential.
,v C/Schey suggested that there be a provision which
requests that there be some indication that there
is owner permission to place a sign on privately
F_ L, � it l u l � u -
September 9, 1991
Page 10
owned property, only in the situation where the
parcel is vacant.
Chair/Grothe concurred that there should be a
provision which gives the City the right to ask for
a written permission, however, making it mandatory
could complex the situation.
VC/MacBride suggested that requesting written
permission should'only be made mandatory for vacant
properties.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Greg Hummel, residing at 23239 Iron Horse Canyon
Road, vice president of Candidates Outdoor Graphics
service, stated the following: There are
precedents set in the courts that highly restrict
cities, counties, etc, . from placing size
restrictions of political signs on private
property; regarding political signs on non
residential areas, political campaign use signs
that correspond to the standard sizes of the lumber
and material available that the signs are made of;
time restrictions for the removal of political
signs on private property are not allowed; and
requested the inclusion of the provision that would
allow the use of cross bars.
Don Gravdahl noted that the worst offender of not
removing signs, in Diamond Bar, has been the Pomona
School. District regarding a bond election. He
inquired if the draft sign ordinance would cover
organizations as well as political entities.
DCA/Curley stated that the general sign ordinance
contains temporary sign provisions.
Bruce Flannenbaum stated his concern that the draft
ordinance seemingly limits free speech. He
inquired if political signs, not relating to any
specific election, and placed out of Diamond Bar,
would have to be removed if the persons erecting it
lived in Diamond Bar.
Greg Hummel stated that there should be a provision
in the sign ordinance stating that signs for
successful candidates in the primary election
should be, allowed to remain until the general
election.
Al Rumpella stated that the date for allowing
candidates to begin campaigning should correspond
with the closing filing date for candidacy. He
,I , . � l.. i . , , . k A - , . .4k,.A. R.. - w 't, .. Rti 41,. 1 -.. _ t4L_ ... T, ," .... I....._.._.,...
September 9, 1991 Page 11
suggested that the candidates be
gg required to clean
up old signs. He noted that if the political sign
ordinance is too restrictive, the City will be bi-
passed by national political campaigns.
I
Dan Buffington stated that signs should be
restricted from the right of ways.
Frank Dursa, residing at 2533 Harmony Hill Dr.,
suggested that the candidates post a $100 bond, to
` be returned when the signs are taken down.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Schey stated the following: He does not object
to restricting political signs from the right of
ways; he does not object to limiting the size of
signs; and he does not object to requiring a 7 day
removal time period.
Chair/Grothe concurred with restricting signs from
the right of ways.
VC/MacBride revised his earlier recommendation and
indicated that the size of the,- political signs
should be reflective of the smallest permissible
size, as determined by the City's attorney's
office. He further indicated that if there is a
` legal problem with limiting political signs on
private property, the issue should be disregarded.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED to direct staff to prepare a political
sign ordinance with the provisions of banning signs
from the public right of way; limitations of size
i and location pursuant to VC/MacBride's
recommendations; and the limitation on time
pursuant to VC/MacBride's recommendation.
C/Harmony abstained.
CUP 90-12 The application was withdrawn by the applicant.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to receive and
file.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: PD/DeStefano reminded the Commission of the planned
tour to the AQMD facility.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
W.- 10:47 p.m.
September 9, 1991 Page 12
- f �1l��illi,M
a,
Respectively, i
J es DeStefazo
Secretary/Planning Commission
J
�.-Attest:
;�� 441�1
Grothe �`✓ ��-y
chairman
I�
I
i
