HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/18/1992CALL TO ORDER:
j
ROLL CALL:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 18, 1992
Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at
6:12 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Building, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California.
Commissioners: Meyer, Li, Grothe, Vice Chairman
MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum.
C/Meyer requested staff to clarify the comments
made by the Housing of Community Development
department (HCD) regarding the draft Housing
Element.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
CD/DeStefano stated that, in his opinion, the
Housing Element is the only element in the General
Plan that is written to respond to the mandates of
State Law, and the guidelines of the HCD. HCD is
statutorily responsible for reviewing draft Housing
Elements prepared by cities. They responded to our
draft Housing Element, which we submitted
July/August of 1991, like they do to most
communities, with a sense of displeasure. The HCD
commented that our Housing Element needs to set
forth a more specific program to respond to the
State wide housing issue. The. State is attempting
to implement state-wide housing needs and to
require each local city to devise programs to deal
with their fair share of that state-wide housing
need. The HCD basically wants Diamond Bar to
increase density, rezone properties, that are not
now high densities, into high densities, and reduce
or eliminate the bureaucratic process to allow
housing to be developed expeditiously, and with
less costs associated with fees and permits. The
GPAC reviewed all the comments made by HCD, and
disagreed with most of it. They were not
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Lloyd Zola, from the
Planning Network, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
CONTINUED
CD/DeStefano stated that the City Council's public
PUBLIC HEARING:
hearing for the draft General Plan is scheduled to
begin June 9, 1992. The Planning Commission may
Draft General
want to schedule additional meetings in order to
Plan: Housing
complete the review of the General Plan by that
date. Tonight's review will be on the Housing and
Land Use Element. The Commission will need to have
a discussion on the Land Use issue so that staff is
able to finalize the goals and objectives that will
be -publicized in the Highlander.
C/Meyer requested staff to clarify the comments
made by the Housing of Community Development
department (HCD) regarding the draft Housing
Element.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
CD/DeStefano stated that, in his opinion, the
Housing Element is the only element in the General
Plan that is written to respond to the mandates of
State Law, and the guidelines of the HCD. HCD is
statutorily responsible for reviewing draft Housing
Elements prepared by cities. They responded to our
draft Housing Element, which we submitted
July/August of 1991, like they do to most
communities, with a sense of displeasure. The HCD
commented that our Housing Element needs to set
forth a more specific program to respond to the
State wide housing issue. The. State is attempting
to implement state-wide housing needs and to
require each local city to devise programs to deal
with their fair share of that state-wide housing
need. The HCD basically wants Diamond Bar to
increase density, rezone properties, that are not
now high densities, into high densities, and reduce
or eliminate the bureaucratic process to allow
housing to be developed expeditiously, and with
less costs associated with fees and permits. The
GPAC reviewed all the comments made by HCD, and
disagreed with most of it. They were not
May 18, 1992 Page 2
particularly interested in increasing densities or
providing low to moderate income housing.
Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if HCD would be content
if the City simply increased the densities in all
available land within the Plan.
CD/DeStefano explained that the HCD would prefer
that much more of the implementation aspect be in
the document. They would want the City to identify
means that would ensure that the higher densities
would bring and maintain lower income housing.
C/Meyer noted that the HCD would want the
implementation strategy in the document because
that is the only document by law that they have the
authority to review and comment.
DCA/Curley, in response to C/Li's inquiry,
explained that HCD is a recommending body, that
reviews the document subjectively. Since any
interested party could challenge the General Plan,
particularly the Housing Element, having HCD's
approval adds to the weight that the City's
document is satisfactory. How we respond to their
comments is also subjective on our part. The key
is how good faith is the city's action.
CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry
r
regarding the regional housing allocation number,
stated that he feels that the allocation of 450
units of low to moderate income housing is, very
reasonable, and if we chose to, very achievable.
C/Meyer stated his concern that the density
bonuses, granted to developers by State housing
law, would substantially increase the density
established in the General Plan.
CD/DeStefano stated that he would suggest that the
Commission and the City Council establish either a
range or some type of upper limit density that
would be acceptable. Incentives could be created
to get the developer to work towards achieving the
maximum density established. In exchange we get
affordable housing or some type of additional need
that the City has.
In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, CD/Destefano
4
explained that, since HCD wants cities to generally
identify sites, the Tres Hermanos site can be
identified, in the document, as a candidate for up
i!
to "x" amount of units, and then that can be put
' r. .�.1...'.k_t
i Aaf�I�AJ pY�i4
F4�A�ia'�ft�7�'Jbmffi�A.
May 18, 1992
Page 3
4
into the specific plan discussion for Tres
Hermanos.
C/Grothe stated that an attempt should be made to
satisfy the State requirements, however, the
residents of Diamond Bar should be kept happy
first, and the character of Diamond Bar maintained.
The document should indicate that the percentage of
low to moderate housing should be met in Tres
Hermanos and other developed areas, but in
developments where it can't be met, a fee should be
collected to buy land to build the housing at a
later date.
VC/MacBride suggested that staff be directed to
determine what extent there have been changes in
the document, correlate those changes with the
Planning Commission's philosophy and critiques, and
then determine how far along we are in terms of
data and mandates. Philosophically, we must meet
two massive criteria: take care of the housing
needs; and protect this City from the mandates of
the State. He suggested that the first paragraph,
in the Introduction, be amended to read, "The
purpose of the housing section of the Plan for
Community Development is: 1. To identify local
housing problems and needs; 2. Relate these needs
to the City's proportionate share of the total
projected need for housing in the region as
determined by State law; and 3. Identify measures
necessary to mitigate and alleviate these needs and
problems for all economic segments of the
community."
C/Li stated that he would like a statement included
informing the public that there is money involved,
in the future phases, if we don't meet State
requirements.
The Commission concurred that the first paragraph
should be amended as suggested by VC/MacBride.
They concurred to review of the Housing Element
page by page.
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that footnote 1, on the
bottom of page 37, be deleted.
P.- VC/MacBride stated that the (s) in "statement", in
the second bullet on page 37, should be deleted.
Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the statement on
page 39, section G., Citizen Participation,
properly define that the appointed citizen
May 18, 1992 Page 4
ilP,l;
committee is the General Plan Advisory Committee
(GPAC).
VC/MacBride suggested the following changes: page
39, bullet one, delete the word "shall"; page 39,
bullet three, delete the third word "any"; page 39,
delete the last sentence; page 40, first line,
place a period following the word "stock"; and page
40, line nine, delete the statement, "obvious
deviation from plumbing".
Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the names "Flores"
and "Tarrago" be deleted from page 41, section c.
Substandard Units.
C/Meyer suggested that the last sentence in section
c., Substandard units, page 41, be deleted, and
that the word "healthy" be deleted from page 41,
section d. Housing Assistance Needs, second
paragraph, fourth line.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened in the AQMD Auditorium
at 7:18 p.m.
VC/MacBride suggested the following: second
paragraph, third line, page 42, of Household
Characteristics, delete the word "the" following
i the word "similar"; page 43, second paragraph,
delete the second sentence; page 43, third
paragraph, second line, place a comma following the
word "component" and "age", and replace "who" with
"which"; page 44, first paragraph, first line,
delete the word "also"; and page 44, first
paragraph, the elements in the paragraph need to
reflect the categories that follow.
F
Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the data in table
1-3, page 43, be amended to reflect the 1990
census, and the paragraphs on page 44 and page 45
4 should also reflect the 1990 census, if available.
C/Meyer suggested that the first bullet, third
line, on page 44, delete the statement "subtle, or
not so subtle". He noted that, in subsection a.
Handicapped Households, last paragraph, the
County's percentage rate is used, yet, earlier in
the document we stated that we are dissimilar to
:!:r
the County's characteristics.
CD/DeStefano explained that it was put in to
respond to a question for the State's purposes.
i`
Y
i
a
.- _. �.'i. _1�;��uq', gu [,g.th�'.�h�§��<�-K��45r
May 18, 1992 Page 5
i,
The information will be updated when the 1990
census data is available.
C/Meyer suggested that the word "Unfortunately" be
deleted from page 45, second to the last paragraph,
fifth line.
VC/MacBride suggested that the second sentence on
page 46, last paragraph, be deleted.
Lloyd Zola explained that the Housing Element
guidelines states that opportunities for energy
conservation must be discussed. He suggested that
the sentence be rewritten to state, "There is an
opportunity to use alternative energy sources and
to reduce energy consumption through the
implementation of conservation measures.". The
Commission concurred.
VC/MacBride made the following suggestions: page
47, reword the first sentence to read, "Relative to
addressing Diamond Bar's housing needs, consider
proportionate share of low and moderate income
housing."; delete the last sentence just before the
three bullets on page 47; replace the word
"indicates" with "contains", in the first sentence
of the last paragraph on page 47; and delete the
statement, "has the largest amount of vacant land",
in the last paragraph, fifth line, page 47.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the statement,
"Bramalea property", on page 47, fifth line of the
last paragraph, be deleted, and then properly
identified.
Lloyd Zola, in response to C/Meyer's concern that
the wording in the first paragraph, page 48, is
awkward, suggested that it be rewritten to state,
"The land available within the current City limits
for general residential development could yield an
additional 3,000 units. However, land within the
current City limits could support up to 5,500
additional housing units if development density was
to be increased.". The remainder of the paragraph
can remain as it is written. The density numbers
will be recalculated upon the final approval from
the City Council.
CD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum's
inquiry if the densities, described on page 48 and
49, are standard, explained that each of the land
use categories reflect Diamond Bar's densities.
Since many of the cities have their own acronyms,
classifications, and definitions, it is not
May is, 1992 Page 6
possible to set a standard for the purpose of
consistency. The density numbers indicated are the
densities recommended by GPAC.
Lloyd Zola explained that the residential land use
categories on page 48 and 49 are the categories
recommended in the land use portion of the General
Plan. He suggested that this discussion wait until
the land use review. The Planning Commission
concurred.
VC/MacBride suggested that the second sentence, on
page 49, section 2. Government Constraints, be
rewritten to properly reflect, "Increasing demand j
to meet State mandates, with decreasing commitments
to housing...".
C/Li suggested that the fourth paragraph, first
line, delete the word "very", and the statement
"moderate to severe".
I
sfCy4u 6 p : INiZ
C/Grothe suggested that the third paragraph,
section d. Fees, delete all the "etc".
C/Meyer made the following suggestions: it should
be noted that a lot of the statements on page 50
conflict with the conclusions of density per 1 unit
for every 2 1/2 acres; paragraph one, page 51,
delete the last sentence; page 52, second to the
last line, should properly indicate Table 6; and
verify the data indicated in Table 1-6 on page 53.
VC/MacBride made the following suggestions: place
a comma following the word "financing" in the first
paragraph, on page 53; page 54, fifth paragraph,
delete "under contract with the City" and change
the numbers 112-3" with 111-211.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the name "Barbara
Mowrey" should be deleted form the fifth paragraph
on page 54.
C/Meyer suggested that the Government Code Section
should be inserted in the section J. Progress
Report on page 54. The word "However" should be
t
deleted from page 55, second paragraph, first line.
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the Land Use
Element be discussed prior to discussing the goals,
I'h
objectives, and implementation strategies of the
Housing Element. The Commission concurred.
Land Use
CD/DeStefano stated that the Land Use plan
Element
basically provides the City's intentions for the
4
I
sfCy4u 6 p : INiZ
May 18, 1992
.. _.- -.. .-..,-.... _. i., ..w _,__, _..� ...41�.111.,.4rnNl..i,i�, .ii •w4J..atl�� ,_ —_.,__ _�__ __ ____—::�—. —
Page 7
development, redevelopment, growth, and
preservation of its public and private property.
The element should chart a course for the vision of
our City. The GPAC has presented an overall land
use plan that reflects a lowering of density and
development intensity. As the document is crafted,
there will need to be a variety of zone changes,
essentially down zoning, in order to make the
zoning consistent to the General Plan. The GPAC
reviewed all remaining open/undeveloped land within
the City, and recommended that all remaining
open/ undeveloped land be down zoned to the Open
Space classification, regardless of the present
zoning. This document must be consistent with all
the other elements within the General Plan. The
plan before the Planning Commission contain the
recommendations of GPAC as of February 29, 1992.
There were some changes made at GPAC's last meeting
held in April of 1992. Additionally, there are
approximately a dozen requests, for changes, from
developers, as well as changes recommended by
staff. It is recommended that the Commission open
the public hearing, accept testimony, and then
review the element based upon the broad goals and -
objectives presented.
Chair/Flamenbaum read the list of the
correspondences received by the City: Fred P.
Janz, of Fred Janz Real Estate Investments, dated
April 24, 1992; Eric R. Stone, dated July 15, 1991;
Marc Perrin, of the Bramalea California Inc., dated
May 4, 1992; Howard Mitzman, of the Bramalea
California Inc., dated Sept. 25, 1991; Frank
Arciero, Jr., of Arciero Builders, dated Sept. 11,
1991; Frank Arciero, Jr., of Arciero Builders,
dated Sept. 23, 1991; Jerry K. Yeh, dated Jan. 21,
1992; Daniel Buffington, dated July 11, 1991;
Manuel E. Nunes, dated Sept. 13, 1991; Thomas H.
Tice, of T.H. Tice and Associates, dated May 4,
1992; Thomas H. Tice, dated May 4, 1992, addressed
to Jim Gardner of the Diamond Bar Country Estates;
Lyman K. Lokken, of TransAmerica Minerals Company,
dated Aug. 7, 1991; Warren Dolezal, of DFL
Partnership, dated January 7, 1992; Ronald J.
Crowley, of R.J. Crowley, dated Sept. 11, 1991.
Alice Truax, dated Sept. 4, 1991; Jan C. Dabney, of
J.C. Dabney and Associates, dated May 15, 1992;
Eric R. Stone, dated May 18, 1992; and Warren
Dolezal, dated May 18, 1992.
CD/DeStefano stated that staff 'has provided the
Commission with the following: a matrix
summarizing all of aforementioned requests, as well,
as a graphic illustrating their location within the
May 18, 1992 Page 8
City; a graphic and table outlining the properties
that have development restrictions; a graphic
summarizing the properties within the community
that would require down zoning as a result of the
adoption of the presently configured General Plan;
and a reduced copy of the GPAC land use map dated
Feb. 29, 1992.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
Chair/Flamenbaum presented C/Grothe with a plaque
in recognition of dedicated service as planning
commission chairman from July of 1991 through April
of 1992.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Ben Reiling, President of Zelman Development Co.,
the developers of the Gateway Corporate Center, in
reference to page 1-24, in the Plan for Community
Development, requested that bullet five be
clarified. He noted that a portion of their
property, located on Golden Springs between the
Gateway property and the Church property, also s'rp
known as lot "zero", is presently designated as
open space. However, it is a moderate slope that
can be graded to create about a 4 acre pad.
CD/DeStefano stated that the language, in the fifth
bullet on page 1-24, does not properly reflect what
GPAC had recommended on April 22, 1992. GPAC Is
approved language was: "To ensure residential
views, buildings should be stepped down from the
southeast side of Gateway Corporate Center to the
freeway. building adjacent to the freeway, along
Gateway and Bridgegate should have a maximum height
of 6 stories. Buildings along Copley and Valley
Vista should have a maximum height of 8 stories.
Trees natives to the area should be used to
obstruct unsightly views. Maintain the overall FAR
at .5."
Frank Piermarini, residing at 2559 Wagon Train,
representing Jerria with Union Wide Developers, in
regards to parcel lot #1528, parcel #14, 125 on the
open land survey, objected to strategy 1.2.4(a), on
page 1-12, of the Plan for Community Development.
He noted that The Country exists today as one unit
per acre, as is indicated on page 1-3.
Furthermore, the term "steep" is ambiguous.
Fred Janz, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge, stated
that his property located on the southeast corner
vmoak �, �C�
L�
May 18, 1992 Page 9
of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Brea Canyon has been zoned
residential, even though the other three corner
lots are commercial. He requested that the
property be zoned general commercial.
Jan Dabney, with J.C. Dabney and Associates,
located at 671 Brea Canyon Rd., representing Frank
Arciero, Jr. and R&P Development Inc., referring to
#17 (78 acres) and #31a -e (130 acres), of the open
land survey map, stated that their property is
being down zoned, and the developers are asking
that the property be left as is. Additionally, R&P
Development is asking that the 130 acres have a PD
designation, on the portion of the 78 acres, for
residential and commercial development.
Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if there is construction
prohibited recorded as part of the map.
Jan Dabney explained that it was not uncommon for
the County to put building restrictions, or some
kind of covenants, on the property so that the
property would have to come back, before the
supervisors, before any future development could be
done. We would request that parcel #17 be zoned
RR, and that parcel #31 be zoned residential,
allowing a large park, and the remaining 29 acres
be zoned commercial.
CD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum,
stated that the bulk of parcels #17 & #31a -e have
development restrictions placed upon the recorded
subdivision map. The zoning for these properties
allow for substantial development rights.
Therefore, the zoning is not at all consistent with
the recorded maps. The language on the recorded
maps requires the developer to come back to the
City, request that the restrictive language be
removed, and that development rights be granted
upon the property. This opens up the door for
substantial negotiation between the City and the
developer.
Jan Dabney explained that the restriction on the
property is not a restriction in zoning, it is a
restriction in consideration. The property was
zoned as R 10,000 with the County. In response to
VC/MacBride, he explained that both developers,
through some guidance by the City, have been
attempting to work with the school district to
resolve the issues that the City has with the
school district, and to allow these developments to
proceed in a relatively timely manner. They are
willing to spend the money to put in commercial to
May 18, 1992
Page to
get the tax increment into
and mitigate the financial
exists in the City.
the community to offset
problems that already
Eric Stone, residing at 24401 Darrin Dr., referring
to #4 on the open land survey, stated that the
proposed OS zoning is inconsistent with GPAC's
final resolve on that particular piece of property.
He noted that the letter he presented to the
Commission addresses a development concept for that
lot.
CD/DeStefano, confirming Mr. Stone's comment,
stated that the map is dated February 29th, and
GPAC did make a change at their April 22nd meeting.
GPAC's final recommendation, on that specific
parcel, was to retain the existing zoning
classification, which would permit about 4 units
per acre.
C/Li suggested that staff to develop a summary
table to cross reference these lots.
Tom Tice, 17611 Yorba Linda Blvd., Yorba Linda,
referring to #7, on the land use designation
request, 125 on the open land survey, parcel #13
and #26, and a portion of #79 in the down zoning
study, requested a consideration to the RR land use
rather than the RH. From a zoning standpoint, R-1
40,000 would be more appropriate.
Frank Piermarini, referring to parcel #18, item #55
in the down zoning study, the Diamond Knoll
Estates, pointed out that it should not be zoned RH
because it was approved by the City, in January of
1991, as RR, 1 unit per acre. He also noted that a
portion of The Country is zoned R-1 20,000.
CD/DeStefano stated that The Country is comprised
of four different zoning classifications: 50% to
60% is zoned R-1 40,000 located mostly in the NE
portion; 30 to 35% is zoned R-1 20,000, located
mostly in the SW portion; about 50 acres are zoned
A-1 or A-2; and there are some properties on the
fringe of the formal Country area, but not part of
it, with egress and ingress rights, that are zoned
R-1 8,000.
Warren Dolezal, general partner of the D.F.L.
Partnership, referring to 2 1/2 acres zoned R-1
8,000, located on the north side of the extension
of Steeplechase Dr., and adjacent to Las Brisas
property, #9 on the land use designation request,
stated that the master map displayed at City Hall
.. ... 9fr..�.
May 18, 1992 Page 11
properly indicates the property as being 2 1/2
acres, and designates it as RL, however, the maps
being sold to the public designates it as RR, and
indicates that the property is 4 acres. He
requested that it be designated RL.
CD/DeStefano, confirming the discrepancy between
the two maps, noted that regardless of what the map
says, it is incumbent upon the Commission to
provide a recommendation to the City Council on
this issue.
Marc Perrin, with Bramalea California, Inc., 1 Park
Plaza, Suite 1100, Irvine, stated that item #13, of
the open land survey, lots 4, 5, and 7 of Tract Map
#31479, are improperly listed as having prohibited
construction. It should be listed as restricted
construction. He also pointed out that land
previously restricted by LA County, now comes under
the discretion of Diamond Bar, and the City can
allow development on the land. Therefore, it is
suggested that the statement in the Land Use
Element, page 1-28, Objective 1.5.1.b, "It is the
City's policy not to renegotiate these prior
commitments.", be removed, and the decision, on
whether restrictions should remain or not, should
be made at a later date, preferably in the
processing stage of the final Tract Map.
Lloyd Zola explained that the LA County zoning
code, adopted by the City, has density control
development which allowed cluster units in exchange
for open space. Unfortunately, since the County's
records are unclear, it is difficult to determine
if the open space restriction on the map is in
exchange for density elsewhere, or if it was land
just set aside. The decision as to how these open
space land is designated on the map, and if the
City chooses to' renegotiate, is a policy issue.
The GPAC chose to take all these restrictions and
call them open space. Designating it as open space
on the map does not restrict the City to
renegotiate. In response to C/Meyer's inquiry, he
confirmed that regardless of what category the
General Plan designates the land, a building permit
would still not be issued until the restriction is
dealt with.
Gary Neely stated that, if the Commission desires
to review the history of some of these
developments, as discussed by the Municipal
Advisory Committee (MAC), the files were given to
the Historicalr Society. He stated his support for
Mr. Reiling's request for modification.
May la, 1992
Page 12
Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if anyone in the audience
wishes to address the Commission on any areas on
the down zoning map that has not been previously
addressed by letter or testimony.
CD/DeStefano explained that there is an existing
set of zoning classifications for all properties
within the City. Existing land uses may be
different than existing zoning, and the .proposed
General Plan may be different from existing zoning
and/or different from existing land use.
Therefore, in order for the proposed General Plan
to be consistent with zoning, the areas represented
on the map must be down zoned.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Meyer questioned the purpose behind down zoning
fully developed residential subdivisions, since
nothing can be changed. Talking about down zoning
can generate misunderstanding from the public. He
suggested that there be a different way of doing
it.
C/Grothe stated that there is benefit in having
some consistent zoning throughout the community.
It would retain a similar character throughout the
community as large parcels get annexed into the
community.
CD/DeStefano explained that, as an exercise, it was
necessary to do a study to determine how many areas
would be affected by the proposed General Plan,
which is basically designed to prevent higher
densities from what presently exists. The
Commission could change the designation from RL to
RLM, or increase the density within the RL to the 5
to 6 unit per acre range. It is a major policy
issue for the Commission to recommend to the City
Council.
C/Grothe pointed out that without consistent
zoning, it is possible for an assemblage of very
large lots, zoned with very small minimum lot
sizes, to be replaced by a larger number of homes,
or condominiums. This is very disruptive in older
communities. Chair/Flamenbaum concurred.
DCA/Curley, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's
inquiry if down zoning could take away a property
owners right to develop, explained that changing
land use designation and the zoning, in the General
Plan, does not preclude the property owner from
coming back in and seeking a change of zone to meet
May 18, 1992 Page 13
their development needs or expectations. The
General Plan public hearings are being noticed
consistent with legal requirement. In the future,
when the consistency zoning change happens, there
will be further notice to the public.
Lloyd Zola summarized the different issues: the
general proposition that we will identify existing
developed properties, in the General Plan at their
existing densities; land with existing land use
restrictions are shown as open space; and the
general lowering of the densities, and intensities,
of potential multi family uses, or elimination of
multi family zoning.
C/Grothe, in concurrence with the concept of making
land use match zoning, stated that he sees the
benefit of keeping the community in it's intact
form. If the community wants to make a change in
it's zoning, the whole community gets involved
rather than just those neighbors in the 500 foot
mailing radius of some little development site.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 10:07 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 10:24 p.m.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission may wish
to schedule additional meeting dates in order to
meet the scheduled June 1st date of completing the
review of the draft General Plan.
The Commission concurred to meet on the following
days: Thursday, May 21st; Tuesday, May 26th;
Thursday, May 28th; and Monday June 1st.
Chair/Flamenbaum, returning back to the discussion
regarding the down zoning map, stated that his
purpose of discussing the map was to eliminate a
large portion of the GPAC's recommendation, in the
down zoning map, to make Diamond Bar's General Plan
consistent with todays land usage.
C/Meyer, in response to the suggestion to zone
school property as "Schools", stated that because
schools do sell off their property, there is no j
harm created by keeping an underlying zone of R-1,
with a public utility use on it, or zoning it POL.
C/Meyer recommended that the Land Use designation
reflect the existing zoning, as opposed to GPAC's
recommendation of having the Land Use designation
reflect existing development. VC/MacBride and C/Li
concurred.
IIIIIIIIJ�I'4' I'II
May 18, 1992 Page 14
Chair/Flamenbaum .recommended that the specific
designations to the areas defined as Tres Hermanos
and Tonner Canyon be deleted from the map, and be
made part of a specific plan. The Commission
concurred.
Lloyd Zola stated that, the limitation on taking
out any reference to the density of development, is
j the State law requiring that the General Plan
i
specify the intensity of use on parcels.
CD/DeStefano stated that staff, Lloyd Zola, and the
City Attorney will work out specific language on
the two specific plan candidates.
!' Lloyd Zola, in reference to C/Meyer's suggestion
regarding the land use map, pointed out that there
are situations where parcels are zoned
manufacturing, but in the current community plan it
�s is commercial, and situations where condominiums
k are located in commercial zones.
C/Meyer stated that he was referring to existing
residentially developed property.
CD/DeStefano suggested that those areas designated
RL, that would be required to undertake a down
zoning, be designated RLM, which is consistent with
the present zoning, allowing 6 units per acre. The
Commission concurred.
C/Meyer suggested that those land use categories,
with potential development that surround The
Country, and other large tracts of land, be debated
i on their merit. The Commission concurred.
C/Grothe suggested that all public facilities
remain designated as Public Facility on the map.
The Commission concurred.
C/Meyer suggested that The Country's land use
designation be dealt with as a specific issue. The
Commission concurred.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
10:58 p.m. to be continued to Thursday, May 21,
1992 at 7:00 p.m.
Respectively,
D
May 18, 1992
Attest:
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman
LF'--
Page 15
Jai s DeStefano
Secretary