HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/13/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:11
p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Board Meeting Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: C/Meyer.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Li, Commissioner Flamenbaum,
Commissioner Meyer, Vice Chairman MacBride, and
Chairman Grothe.
Chair/Grothe suggested that the Commission send a
list of the issues, with the goals and objectives,
regarding architectural review, to the City
Council.
C/Flamenbaum proposed to recommend to the City
Council that the issue of large buildings, of any
nature, should be part of the Commission's
development review. Specifics could be discussed
at a later date.
C/Li stated that he is opposed to creating another
level of government. The Commission can exchange
ideas during a public hearing, and receive
recommendations from staff.
Chair/Grothe stated that the intent of forming a
sub -committee would be to review the development
review process, to develop guidelines, and to make
appropriate adjustments to the process. The sub-
committee would not be permanent.
Also present were Community Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney
Bill Curley, Lloyd Zola of the Planning Network,
and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Minutes of
Minutes of March 23, 1992 of the Consent Calendar.
Mar. 23, 1992
NEW BUSINESS:
CD/DeStefano reported that discussion of the
Development Review Ordinance is placed on the
Discussion of
agenda per the request of the Commission on the
Development
March 9th meeting. The issues rested on the
Review
following concerns: The review of buildings,
ordinance
specifically single family homes that seem to be
getting larger and larger; the massing on the side
of residential structures; and architectural style.
It was further suggested that a subcommittee, of
the Commission, be formed to review some of the
issues of concern.
Chair/Grothe suggested that the Commission send a
list of the issues, with the goals and objectives,
regarding architectural review, to the City
Council.
C/Flamenbaum proposed to recommend to the City
Council that the issue of large buildings, of any
nature, should be part of the Commission's
development review. Specifics could be discussed
at a later date.
C/Li stated that he is opposed to creating another
level of government. The Commission can exchange
ideas during a public hearing, and receive
recommendations from staff.
Chair/Grothe stated that the intent of forming a
sub -committee would be to review the development
review process, to develop guidelines, and to make
appropriate adjustments to the process. The sub-
committee would not be permanent.
April 13, 1992 Page 2
CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Li, explained that
G�or`gl�'
the issue is being brought back, per direction of
the Planning Commission, after the review of a,
7,500 sq. ft. home that came before the Commission
only because it involved an oak tree removal
permit. One of the issues being raised is to
determine if homes of such scale should be reviewed
on a regular basis, versus the authority contained
in the ordinance which precludes Commission review.
The community is expressing a desire to see these
homes, and provide guidelines -to make sure they are
architecturally and physically compatible with the
setting that they are being placed within. Staff
has the following additional issues regarding the
Ordinance: it is not clear when review begins or
ends; there needs to be clarity of the Public
Hearing process; and there needs to be further
direction to staff on issues of heighth, bulk,
shape, mass, size and compatibility. Staff desires
to clean up the grey areas of the ordinance, modify
the ordinance pursuant to the direction received by
the Planning Commission, incorporating staff
thoughts and, if appropriate, the wording of a
subcommittee of the Commission, and then bring the
package back to the Commission for full review, and
forward the recommended changes to the City
#`
Council.
C/Meyer, noting that the Development Code is
supposed to be consistent with the General Plan,
suggested that the issue of whether or not the
Commission should review the construction of
mansions could be reviewed with respect to the
public hearing process on the General Plan. Once
that is concluded, the Commission could take a look
at a Development Code that would implement, and be
consistent, with the General Plan.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride and seconded by
C/Meyer to table the matter until the completion of
the General Plan review.
Chair/Grothe suggested that staff receive some
direction for their design review, from a sub-
committee of the Commission, regarding side yard
setbacks and architectural style, with the
' understanding that it will be rewritten upon
completion of the General Plan review.
C/Flamenbaum stated that the purpose of the
j
Development Review Ordinance is to outline the
procedures for a review of a particular
development, and describe those applications that
falls under the purview and jurisdiction of the
I' I,
`,
April 13, 1992
Page 3
Planning Commission. It is not intended to do much
in terms of specifics. He once again suggested
that the Commission express their concerns to the
City Council that the purview of the Commission
should include buildings of a "yet to be
determined" size or larger.
C/Meyer stated that development criteria, such as
setbacks, are in the zoning criteria. The
Ordinance indicates that whatever findings of facts
made by the Planning Commission on 5 units or more,
staff would make the same findings of facts on
fewer than that. Furthermore, any "size"
determined would be arbitrary and capricious.
Chair/Grothe received a request to speak from a
member of the audience.
Martha Brusque, residing at 600 S. Great Bend Dr.,
referencing the development that occurred on Kiowa
Crest on property once considered undevelopable,
stated her concern that there are no levels of
government in Diamond Bar, and not much planning.
C/Flamenbaum inquired why the Commission is
required to review a 2,000 sq. ft. commercial
structure, but yet a 15,000 sq. ft. home does not
come under the Commission's jurisdiction.
The Commission voted on the Motion made by
VC/MacBride and seconded by C/Meyer to table the
matter. The Motion CARRIED.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Meyer, VC/MacBride,
and Chair/Grothe.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Chair/Grothe inquired how the Commission would go
about making a change to the side yard setback.
C/Meyer, with CD/DeStefano's confirmation,
explained that the item would have to be placed on
the Commission's agenda, whereas a consensus would
have to be received to give direction to staff to
modify the zoning ordinance. Staff would then
modify the ordinance, per direction of the
Commission, come back with an environmental review,
and a draft ordinance, to be presented to the
Commission in a public hearing process.
C Chair/Grothe requested staff to place the matter on
( the agenda as a discussion item.
6,
Reorganization VC/MacBride suggested that the reorganization of
April 13, 1992 Page 4
the Planning Commission item be moved to the last
item of the agenda. The Commission,concurred.
CONTINUED CD/DeStefano reported that, at the conclusion of
PUBLIC HEARING: the public testimony on the March 23rd meeting, the
Commission directed the applicant and staff to
TT Map 31977 investigate the possibility of incorporating
revisions to the tentative map, permitting 16 units
on 22 acres, located at Highcrest Ave. near
Goldrush, in order to bring the map closer to
current development standards. The applicant and
staff have met to discuss potential alterations to
the map. However, because the tentative revisions
were submitted to the City for review on April 8th,
staff has not had an adequate review period to
comment, nor discuss the ramifications of the
revisions with the City Attorney and City Engineer.
However, staff was able to review the map briefly,
from a planning perspective, and noted the
following: it incorporates land form grading to
the extent that it provides undulation in the 2:1
slopes being proposed; and the map has been
modified to provide independent access from the
street for each lot. The issues were reviewed with
the City Attorney's office, and the issues are
generalized in these various areas: if the map
were to be continued, the existing map would remain
alive allowing the developer to modify the project,
if in agreement, and provide the staff with the
appropriate fees based upon the fee schedule to
pursue the modifications to the document;
continuing the project keeps the map alive and,
therefore, the developer could submit the final map
to the City Council; if continued, and all the
conditions of the tentative map have been met, the
City Council has to approve the final map; the
extension of time can be approved; the extension
of time could be denied; and if denied, the
developer could revise the map to meet the current
standards, or to appeal the denial to the City
Council. After a brief review, at this point in
time, staff is not convinced that it is a map that
should move forward in the system.
DCA/Curley, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated
that since it is a vesting map, any changes and
ordinances, that have occurred since 1990, that
require health and safety modifications, can be
imposed on the map as a condition of an extension.
The applicant can also consent to accept a
continuance based on certain amendments. There is
a risk factor with the second option in that if
there is a proposition, along the way, that the
consent was coerced, the action could be challenged.
April 13, 1992
II
Page 5
C/Meyer suggested that the Commission recommend, to
the City Council, a one year extension of the
vesting map, subject to modification of the grading
plan to substantially comply with the Hillside
Grading Ordinance, as determined by the Community
Development Director and the City Engineer. The
Commission can make a finding that the old grading
plan is a condition that is dangerous to the health
or safety of the residents of the community.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Wes Lind, 13801 Roswell, Chino, applicant,
explained that not everything can be done
conclusively to meet the new Hillside Ordinance
because of certain constraints, such as the streets
in the tract are already existing, and some of the
grading has already been done. Revisions have been
made to try to meet the intent of the map. He
consented that what the Commission is proposing is
acceptable to them.
Andrew King, residing at 1595 S. McFarren, Monterey
-- Park, stated that they do not disagree with any
proposal the Commission has put forth. However, he
pointed out that since receiving approval of the
tentative map in 1990, they have not received
definitive direction from the City of Diamond Bar
as how to proceed with this.
Donald Robertson, residing at 309 N. Pantado Dr.,
member of the GPAC, inquired if the project falls
within the parameters set up by GPAC at this time.
CD/DeStefano stated that the General plan is
designating that site as RL, which is low density
residential with 3 dwelling units per acre. That
three dwelling units per acre is consistent with
all of the properties surrounding it.
Gary Neely, a GPAC member, stated that, from an
audience standpoint, it would be helpful to have a
picture of the project.
Andrew King explained that they had presented
pictures at the time of the application.
Martha Brusque stated that she hopes there was
consideration made for a traffic signal with two
left turn lanes at Goldrush/Diamond Bar Blvd.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
April 13, 1992 Page 6
Draft
Plan
CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer, confirmed
that there is a resolution that sets forth the
conditions for the vesting map.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend to the City
Council a one year continuance to the project
subject to the grading being modified to
substantially comply with the Hillside Development
Ordinance, that is currently in existence, as
interpreted by the Community Development Director
and the City Engineer.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 8:12 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 8:29 p.m.
General CD/DeStefano explained that the GPAC, General Plan
Advisory Committee, is comprised of dedicated and
concerned residents that have studied the choices
for the future of Diamond Bar for the last two and
one-half years._ The General Plan serves as a blue
print for the type of community we desire for the
future and the means by which it can be obtained.
The General Plan will serve as a comprehensive
strategy for the management of growth and change in
our community throughout the next twenty years.
The Planning Commission will conduct six to eight
public hearings to give the residents an
opportunity to voice their opinions about the
policies outlined in the General Plan. The
Commission will use public input to revise the
document before it submits it to the City Council
for adoption. It is anticipated that the City
Council will begin it's review in the months of
June and July of 1992.
CD/DeStefano stated that State law requires each
city and county to prepare and adopt a
"comprehensive, long-term general plan for the
physical development" of the community. The
General Plan incorporates seven required elements,
mandated by State law, into five major sections.
The Planning Commission will review The Plan for
Public Services and Facilities, and the Plan for
Resource Management at tonights meeting. GPAC has
made further changes, at their April 9th meeting,
to The Plan for Public Services and Facilities, The
Plan for Resource Management, and The Plan for
Physical Mobility which outlines the Circulation
Element. Staff will outline these changes to the
Planning Commission, and will be providing GPAC
with the final changes to these sections for their
perusal at their next meeting. Various methods
were used to advertise this document and the
�, a...._,:,,.,..�Fu, C�..ate.Nw4G T �_�,ti00 W. a. ,,
April 13, 1992 Page 7
T
j upcoming scheduled public hearings, as indicated in
the staff report. The General Plan, once adopted
will not remain static. State law permits up to
four amendments per year. He stated that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) had been
developed as a "Program EIR", as is required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is
recommended that the Commission begin the Public
Hearing process on the General Plan, receive
testimony, forward comments to staff, review the
Plan for Public Facilities and the Plan for
Resource Management and continue the Hearing to
April 20, 1992. The changes made by the Commission
tonight will be brought back for the April 27th
meeting.
Lloyd Zola, of the Planning Network, explained that
the General Plan is to "act as a constitution for
development, the foundation upon which all land use
decisions are to be based". This plan, upon it's
adoption, will govern the zoning designations
throughout the City, and the subdivision
regulation. All public improvements need to be
consistent with the City's General Plan, as well.
The General Plan is to address all of the issues
related to development, regulation,. and management
of land use. He reviewed the seven mandatory
elements mandated by State law: The Land Use
Element; The Circulation Element; The Housing
Element; The Conservation Element; The Open Space
Element; The Noise Element; and The Safety Element.
The Diamond Bar General Plan will also include a
Public Services and Facilities Element. The
General Plan incorporates these elements into five
major sections: The Plan for Community
Development; The Plan for Resource Management; The
Plan for Public Health; The Plan for Public
Services and Facilities; and The Plan for Physical
Mobility. In addition to the General Plan
document, the Commission will be dealing with the
Master Environmental Assessment, and the EIR. It
is requested that the Commission review the General
Plan in the following order: Public Services and
Facilities; Resource Management; Public Health and
Safety; Mobility; and Community Development.
Following the Planning Commission's recommendations
to the General Plan, the document will go to the
City Council for review. State law provides that
any changes that the Council wishes to make in the
General Plan, that has not been reviewed by the
Planning Commission, will be referred back to this
Commission for a report prior to final Council
action. Mr. Zola noted that, in -regards to the
land use element of the Plan for Community
April 13, 1992
Page 8
Development, the GPAC has . recommended the
following: The triangular area bounded by Brea
Canyon, Colima, and the 57 is to be retained as
residential use; and the Diamond Bar golf course be
kept as a golf course.
CD/DeStefano explained that there are sections of
the document that have been stricken out. GPAC has
recommended that a public information document,
outlining a variety of these issues, be created,
and provided to the community. Also, those
statements repeating what is already code, have
been stricken to avoid repetitiveness.
CD/DeStefano explained that in some cases, the
recommendations of the GPAC may be different than
the Parks and Recreation Commission, which reviewed
the Pian for Resource Management in February of
1992, and the Traffic and Transportation Commission
(TTC), which reviewed the Circulation Element of
the Plan for Physical Mobility. Staff has
forwarded, to the Commission, the recommendations
of GPAC. GPAC, and the general public, has been
invited to every meeting. The TTC has been
specifically invited to the meeting of May 4, 1992
in order to review the Plan for Physical Mobility.
The Commission concurred to first open the public
hearing to allow public comment, close the public
hearing to allow the Commission to review the
document, with staff, section by section, and then
reopen the public hearing for further public
comment..
The Public Hearing was declared open for comment on
any portion of the General Plan not on the agenda.
Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek,
concerned that GPAC began with 30 members and
dwindled down to 6 members, stated that he does not
feel the document is representative of the
community. He argued that the idea of preserving
Tanner Canyon is unrealistic because development is
coming into Tonner Canyon from LA, San Bernardino,
and Orange County. Something must be done to
direct the traffic out of the City of Diamond Bar.
Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Dr., a GPAC
member, thanked the Commission for sending the
draft General Plan back to GPAC for further review.
He complimented CD/DeStefano and staff for
expediting the process. He stated that, though he
has a basic philosophical difference with the idea
of not building Tonner Canyon Road, he feels that
98% of the document is a good document.
In
...........
April 13, 1992 Page 9
I�
Chair/Grothe inquired if there was any comment on
the Plan for Public Resources and Facilities.
Gary Neely made the following observations: page
2, section B, second line - Inhouse services do not
include parks and recreation. The organizational
structure for the City is parks and maintenance;
page 3, section C, third paragraph, last sentence -
The statement "sphere of influence" should read for
"the entire City"; page 5, subsection D.1.1.6a -
This section was put back in by GPAC and reads,
"Discuss plans by the Metropolitan Water District
to locate a reservoir in upper Tonner Canyon.". He
requested that the word "Discuss" be changed to
"Encourage". He offered to provide a status of the
Tres Hermanos Water Resource Project; and page 6,
Strategy 1. 3.2 - He stated that it is not a good
idea to encourage this City to promote benefit
assessment districts, and would like to see it
removed.
CD/DeStefano stated that other than the change to
page 5, subsection D.1.1.6a, as referenced by Mr.
Neely, the only other change to the Plan for Public
Resources and Facilities, made by GPAC is on page
8, whereas GPAC added a new strategy 2.3.3 which
reads, "Provide a regular City bulletin to inform
citizens of current issues, public safety
information, resource management information, city
services, public meeting schedule, hazardous
material collection programs, etc."
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
VC/MacBride made the following comments: page 7,
strategy 2.1.1 - He is uncomfortable with the use
of the word "node"; page 8, strategy 2.1.5 - He
indicated that he liked the strategy and feels it
should not have been deleted; and page 2, section B
- He suggested there be reference made, in the
menu, of the postal service, the school system
(with special reference to a High School in the
north end of Diamond Bar), a bus system, a comment
to the existing YMCA in Diamond Bar, and a comment
if there is or is not a Senior Citizen facility.
C/Flamenbaum concurred with Mr. Neely if the city
is going to do a Master Drainage Plan for the
"sphere of influence" or the "entire City". He
made the following comments: page 4, section D -
There is no mention of the need for a fire station
in Tres Hermanos, and one should be mentioned; page
4, section D, Goal 1 - There should be reference to
senior Citizen facilities, as well as Youth
April 13, 1992 Page 10
X112
facilities; page 7, strategy 1.5.2 - He questioned
if "an ecological museum pertaining to Diamond
Bar's botanical heritage" needs to be in the
document. He suggested that it may be more
appropriate to say "a museum pertaining to Diamond
Bar's heritage"; and page 8, strategy 2.2.1 - He is
uncomfortable referring to California legislation
by .it's associated Assembly Bill, and suggested
that we cite the appropriate public resources civil
code or whatever it evolved into.
C/Meyer, referring to page 7, strategy 2.1.5,
concurred with VC/MacBride that there should be
mentioned, as often as possible, that every service
needed and demanded has a cost associated with it.
C/Li suggested that, page 2, Existing Conditions,
mention the need for a larger Public Library
System.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that, page 6, Objective 1. 3,
strike the wording "legally defensible". He once
again questioned the need for a "botanical
heritage" museum.
CD/DeStefano explained that there is an interest to
create some sort of a heritage, historical type of
museum for our residents, or a specifically
identified facility, or aspect, involving the
issues with the open space, land use, and the
circulation element dealing with the botanical,
biological resources in the community.
C/Meyer suggested that the idea of a museum be
indicated generically in the Plan for Public
Services and Facilities, but be more specific
regarding the botanical heritage of the community
in the other elements of the plan.
Lloyd Zola suggested changing the wording to "a
museum related to Diamond Bar's natural and
cultural heritage".
Chair/Grothe made the following comments: page 8,
strategy 2.1.5 - He concurred that there should be
some mention of revenue; page 8, strategy 2.3.3 -
He stated that the method of delivery in providing
citizen with information is too specific.
i
C/Flamenbaum inquired of the Commission's consensus r
to the wording of strategy 1.1.6a on page 4.
C/Meyer indicated that the term "Investigate" may
be more appropriate.
April 13, 1992 Page 11
I I
CD/DeStefano outlined the changes identified: page
2 - Review the issue of the Master Drainage Plan
and deal with the conflicting language; add and
expand discussion, on page 2, regarding the school
facilities, the post office, the bus system, the
YMCA, - senior citizen facilities, and youth
facilities.
Lloyd Zola stated that the youth and senior
citizen's facility should be added on page 3,
section C, because it is not an existing condition,
but rather an issue that needs to be discussed.
Also, on page 2, section B, first paragraph should
read "parks and maintenance", as suggested by Mr.
Neely. The correct phrase, on page 3, is that a
Master Plan will need to be developed "for the City
and it's sphere of influence".
C/Meyer, objecting to the changes made to the
recreation, stated that, ultimately, there is still
a City staff person that is responsible for
recreational activities, whether they are provided
through a contract.
CD/DeStefano, concurring with C/Mayer, recommended
f that page 2, section B, first paragraph not be
changed. Additionally, the issue of whether or not
additional fire station(s) are necessary for Tres
Hermanos needs to be addressed.
C/Meyer suggested that the issue be tied in with
Development Activity as opposed to being site
specific.
CD/DeStefano continued outlining the changes made:
page 5, strategy 1.1.6a, would read, "Investigate
plans by ..."; page 6, objective 1.3 should read,
"Establish and implement comprehensive equitable
solutions to the financing..."; page 7, strategy
1. 5.2 should read, "...art center and a museum
pertaining to Diamond Bar's natural and cultural
heritage"; page 7, strategy 2.1.1 change the term
"nodes" to "areas"; page 8, strategy 2.1.5 should
read, "Prepare and maintain a municipal cost
benefit model."; page 8, strategy 2.2.1 to
reference specific assembly bill identifications to
the proper civil or government code section of
State law; and add on page 8, strategy 2.3.3 to
read, "Provide regular information to citizens of
current issues of importance."
i
C/Flamenbaum proposed that a new strategy be added
to page 5, to become strategy 1.1.7, to read,
"Promote the addition of larger library facilities,
April 13, 1992 Page 12
improve senior citizen and youth facilities within
the City."
Lloyd Zola suggested that the library be added to
strategy 1.4.3 on page 7, and the senior citizen
and youth facilities be added to the strategies in
the Land Use Element or under recreation.
Chair/Grothe recommended that the senior citizens
and youth facilities be put in the Plan for Public
Service and Facilities as an issue, since it is
mentioned in strategy 1.3.1 of the Resource
Management Plan, as referenced by Mr. Zola.
C/Meyer suggested that the senior citizen's and
youth facilities to be added to page 7, strategy
1.5.1. The Commission concurred. The Commission
also concurred to move the library from strategy
1.4.3 to strategy 1.5.4.
The Public Hearing was declared reopened.
Gary Neely stated that he is concerned that the
Commission only wants to "investigate" the Metro
Water District plan to locate a reservoir in upper
Tonner Canyon. Also, he is concerned that the
Commission never dealt with the assessment district
issues.
Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star,
referring to page 7, strategy 2.1.1, stated that
the strategy is very general.
Lloyd Zola explained that the strategy aims at the
intensification of the sales tax generating from
existing business, not necessarily the uses
themselves, by promoting "Shop Diamond Bar".
Martha Brusque informed the Commission that a
tremendous amount of the parking space in the
shopping areas are taken by commuters from 6:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff
to amend the document as corrected, and to return
I�
it to the meeting of April 27, 1992.
L
Due to the late hour, and in accordance to the
policy of the Planning Commission, C/Flamenbaum
j proposed that the next section of the General Plan
! be tabled to the April 20th meeting at 7:00 p.m.
I
April 13, 1992
Page 13
Chair/Grothe suggested that the public hearing be
opened to allow anyone, who had anticipated the
item, an opportunity to comment. The Commission
concurred.
The Public Hearing was declared opened for the Plan
for Resource Management.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 10:27 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 10:34 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS: CD/DeStefano reported that, pursuant to the
Ordinance amendment by the City Council, each
Reorganization Commission should handle the annual reorganization
in March of each year, or the first available date
following April 7th of this year. Staff
recommended that the Commission consider to
recommend and elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairman.
Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Li to
nominate C/Flamenbaum for Chairman.
Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by
C/Flamenbaum to nominate C/Grothe for Chairman.
Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by
C/Flamenbaum to nominate C/MacBride for Chairman.
Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by
C/Grothe to close the nomination.
The Commission voted on the Motion for C/Flamenbaum
for Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: M e y e r, L i, a n d
Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride and Grothe.
The Motion CARRIED.
Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Grothe
to nominate C/MacBride for Vice Chairman.
Motion was made by_C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Li
to nominate C/Meyer for Vice Chairman.
Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Grothe
to close the nomination.
�= The Commission voted on the Motion for C/MacBride
C for Vice Chairman.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Li, Grothe and
Chair/Flamenbaum.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride.
April 13, 1992
INFORMATION
ITEMS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Page 14
The Motion CARRIED.
VC/MacBride suggested that the Commission recommend
to the City Council that, for continuity, they
consider having fixed terms for all the
Commissions. The Commission concurred.
Chair/Flamenbaum requested staff to place the item
on the agenda for discussion at some future
meeting.
CD/DeStefano recommended that the Claremont's
informational statement, regarding the Commission
meetings, be attached as the last page of the
Planning Commission agenda. The Commission
concurred.
CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that City
Manager VanNort has accepted the City Manager
position in Chino Hills, City Engineer Sid Mousavi
has accepted a position in Baldwin Park, and Parks
And Maintenance Director Charlie Janiels has
accepted a position in Fresno.
Motion was made C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
10:55 p.m. to April 20th at 7:00 p.m.
Attest:
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman
Respectively,
fA'
JAes DeStefano` `
Secretary/Planning Commission
[t7
6 ,a ,. ....= 17....2, a C^a..i _ . i ,h,u,. au .'..I U,