Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/21/1992C/Meyer stated that there needs to be a definition section to identify not only the terms on page 2, but the various terminology used throughout the element. VC/MacBride requested that the letter "m" in "march", first line, second paragraph, be capitalized, and the words, "very important", be deleted. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the Commission is assuming that the data in Tables 1, 2 and 3, as presented in the document, are accurately reflected. r C/Meyer suggested that the abbreviations, on page 7, activity category D, table 2, be specifically spelled out, and dated. CD/DeStefano, in response to VC/MacBride, stated that there is an Appendix for each Element, which can be found in the MEA, the Existing Setting, and the General Plan. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 1992 �- CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Room may' CC -2, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Li, Grothe, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, and Candid O'Neil, of the Planning Network. CONTINUED Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the Commission will PUBLIC HEARING: review the revisions made to the Plan for Public Health and Safety:Noise, as was recommended by the Noise Element Commission April 27, 1992. VC/MacBride suggested that the word "Pitch" be deleted from the second bullet on page 1. C/Grothe suggested that the term be left as Frequency/Pitch, but that the following words "Frequency is", be deleted. Candid O'Neil explained that pitch is the commonly used word, and frequency is the scientific term. If the Commission would like to change it, as suggested by C/Grothe, then it would need to be done consistently throughout the other bullets. The Commission concurred. C/Meyer stated that there needs to be a definition section to identify not only the terms on page 2, but the various terminology used throughout the element. VC/MacBride requested that the letter "m" in "march", first line, second paragraph, be capitalized, and the words, "very important", be deleted. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the Commission is assuming that the data in Tables 1, 2 and 3, as presented in the document, are accurately reflected. r C/Meyer suggested that the abbreviations, on page 7, activity category D, table 2, be specifically spelled out, and dated. CD/DeStefano, in response to VC/MacBride, stated that there is an Appendix for each Element, which can be found in the MEA, the Existing Setting, and the General Plan. May 21, 1992 Page 2 VC/MacBride, referring to Figure G-4, page 11, questioning if the area of Sunset Crossing, westerly of the freeway should be shaded, stated that he finds it hard to believe that the area is experiencing a background noise level of over 60 dba, similar to Diamond Bar Boulevard. Candid O'Neil explained that the graph indicates that the areas are potentially experiencing over 60 dba, and that some shaded areas may experience a higher noise level than other shaded areas. The study was based on the existing conditions on those streets, and, not all streets were included in the study. C/Li, noting that the consultants used FHWA Analysis based on existing Average Daily Traffic, as footnoted on page 13, Table 4, questioned if DKS actually conducted a sound study. VC/MacBride stated that he is not convinced that the sound study was made most of the way west of the freeway. He informed the Commission that three people from the Sunset Crossing area have communicated to him that they feel the map is a sett up in order to have a truck route through the neighborhood. He questioned if the study was conducted at the off ramp point, or midway between the YMCA and the off ramp. Chair/Flamenbaum noted that, regardless of how many residents speak out, the only way to refute the data is with data. He requested that staff check the location of where the traffic study was done. If it was done at the off ramp, then augment the study at the other end of Sunset Crossing. Take the shading out of the map, if appropriate. C/Li suggested that there be an additional footnote, on page 13, Table 4, to reflect that the ADT source is to be found in the traffic report. VC/MacBride suggested that the last sentence, in the last paragraph of subsection 3. Stationary Noise, page 14, be amended to read, "...there are no known significant sources of stationary noise.". The last sentence, in the last paragraph of subsection 4. Local Noise Conditions, page 14, should delete the words "need to". The Commission concurred. C/Meyer stated that the first sentence in subsection 5. Sensitive Receptors, page 15, should not use the word "discourage" but rather indicate 7777 . _ . _ . �s, a May 21, 1992 Page 3 C that incompatible noise intrusive land uses are carefully studied to affect mitigation. The Commission concurred. C/Li suggested that the first paragraph, on page 15, properly reflect that the Figure number is 11- 1-5. All the figures, within the element, should be properly designated. VC/MacBride suggested adding the clause, "and through formal interaction the transportation corridor representatives, whose facilities are located within the City, with the purpose of constructing sound barriers, such as walls along the right of ways, where the Ln exceeds acceptable limits compatible with adjacent receptors", to the second sentence of the last paragraph on page 15. C/Meyer, noting that the paragraph accurately describes the existing condition, suggested that such a statement may be more appropriately placed in the Goal section. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that Figure 11-G-5 note the potential site for an educational facility in the Tres Hermanos area. The Commission concurred. �v C/Grothe suggested that the map also be dated in case the names of the facilities get changed. The Commission concurred. AP/Searcy noted that number 15, Figure 11-G-5, be amended to read Mount Calvary School. C/Meyer suggested that the map be checked for accuracy to assure that all the schools are included, with the proper names, and the proper location. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to page 18, Figure 11- G-7, questioned if footnote 4 is properly placed in the Existing Setting, or if it should be placed in the Goals section. Candid O'Neil explained that the 45 CNEL is a standard that is recommended by the State, and is neither a present standard nor a future standard. VC/MacBride suggested that the statement, "although there will be ...are not considered significant.", be deleted from the last paragraph on page 19. The Commission concurred. May 21, 1992 Page 4 Chair/Flamenbaum stated that Table 5, page 20, needs to cite the future traffic study conditions, projected to the year 2010. CD/DeStefano stated that he put the definition discussion in the Existing Setting section, on page 22. Strategy 1.10.2 - Change 60 db CNEL to 65 db CNEL. Strategy 1.10.3 - Move the clause in parenthesis after the word "projects". Strategy 1.10.5 - Replace "or exceed" to "reached". Strategy 1.10.6 - Delete the word "annual". C/Meyer suggested that the Strategy be reworded to state, "As part of the General Plan review, determine: 1. whether traffic levels have increased; 2. if new stationary noise generation sources have been created; and 3. if the noise contour map needs to be updated.". The Commission concurred. Strategy 1.10.7 - Replace "proposed" with "identified". Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove, noting that Golden Springs Road cannot run west of Sunset Crossing Road, as indicated on page 12, of the Noise Element, suggested that it be changed appropriately. Chair/Flamenbaum, in response to Gary Neely's concern, suggested that the last paragraph, on page 19, of the Noise Element, be deleted. The Commission concurred. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare the final draft of the Plan for Public Health and Safety: Noise, as amended. Pian For CD/DeStefano distributed the Plan For Physical Physical Mobility to the Commission. He suggested that the Mobility Commission may wish to review the Minutes, on the Plan for Physical Mobility, in conjunction with these goals and policies changes that have been provided by the consultants, and begin discussion on the Housing Element at this time. Housing The Commission concurred to begin review of the Goals, objectives, and implementation Strategies of the Housing Element. May 21, 1992 r- , 6--- Page 5 DCA/Curley, in regards to the specific comments by the Housing of Community Development (HDC) to the Housing Element, stated that it is preferred that the philosophy of the General Plan be responsive to the HCD concerns. If there is a conscious decision to disregard the HDC's comments, then a rationale must be provided explaining why we are being nonresponsive. C/Meyer suggested that the word "Residents" be deleted from the overall goal to avoid being discriminatory. The Commission concurred. Objective 1.1 - Delete the words, "a reasonable portion of the", and, "in the region". Strategy 1.1.1 - Delete the words "large scale", "that", and "be provided". Chair/Flamenbaum, in regards to Strategy 1.1.2, which had been deleted, stated that he likes the idea of encouraging the mixed use concept. Strategy 1.1.2 - The Commission concurred to reword the strategy to read, "Encourage large scale commercial/off ice developments to provide a residential component as part of an overall mixed use concept, where feasible." Strategy 1.1.3 - Delete the words, 11 included in the Diamond Bar Development Code", and replace the first "unreasonably" with "needlessly". CD/DeStefano, in response to DCA/Curley's concern that there should be mention of how and when the City will accomplish Strategy 1.1.3, suggested that Strategy 1.1.4 be reworded to state, "Prepare a public information packet summarizing the City's zoning and development requirements for residential construction.". The Commission concurred. Strategy 1.1.4 - Reword as previously indicated by CD/DeStefano. Strategy 1.1.5 - Delete the clause "(next five years)", replace the word, "produce an annual report which identifies the revenues that are available" with "produce required reports to May 21, 1992 Page 6 accomplish", and delete "and which sets production goals". Strategy 1.1.6 - Delete the words "quality,", "the development of", and "on". CD/DeStefano suggested that the deleted portion, of Strategy 1.1.7, should be put back in, except for the phrase "discretionary and nondiscretionary residential". In response to C/Li, he explained that the third bullet, in Strategy 1.1.7, is requesting that those agencies hold a joint public hearing on the EIR in order to expedite the process. Strategy 1.1.7 - The Commission concurred to put the strategy back in, as indicated by CD/DeStefano. Strategy 1.1.8 - Delete. Strategy 1.1.9 - Reword the statement to read, "Encourage use of innovative site development and construction materials and techniques.". Strategy 1.1.10 - Add the word "or" before "make 10 percent...", and change the second line to read, "providing a minimum of 25 percent...". Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that Strategy 1.1.11 delete the words "of large residential". CD/DeStefano explained that, because HDC had requested further classification, GPAC requested the first two bullets be deleted. However, the consultants suggested that the bullets be revised to read, "Developments with less than 250 units will be able to pay an in lieu affordable housing fee, assessed per unit, to help provide affordable housing in other locations, within the City, if they cannot be reasonably provided on site.", and also "Developments with more than 250 units will be required to provide at least 10 percent of their units to meet current affordability guidelines, or pay the in lieu fee.". Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that it read, "Developments of residential units are to -provide a mix of dwelling units types.". It is unlikely that a 250 unit would ever be developed within the City, and that number should be lowered. Developers should be encouraged to put in affordable smaller homes so our young people can live in the same community as their parents, and local folks can afford to retire into these smaller homes. ,__R .. - .r,A„ . w[ , , , 1 ”' , Ar., May 21, 1992 Page 7 - C/Meyer stated that low cost housing should be equated with financial assistance, rather than with the quality of construction. Strategy 1.1.11 - Delete the words "of large residential". Bullet one: The Commission concurred to reword bullet one to read, "Developments of 5 units or more shall pay an in lieu affordable housing fee, assessed per unit, to help provide affordable housing in other locations, within the City, if they cannot be reasonably provided on site." Bullet two: The Commission concurred that 10% of all new housing is to be affordable units, is an acceptable standard. Bullet three: The Commission concurred to reword it to read, "Establish parking requirements for senior citizen housing to a level consistent with the residents transportation needs.". The sentence following bullet three is to be deleted. Strategy 1.1.12 - Add to the first sentence, "...and other viable economic alternatives.". Goal 2 - The Commission concurred to delete the word "gender". Objective 2.1 - Add the words, "very low," before "low". Strategy 2.1.1a. - Change the word "participate" to "provide". and add, " ..and encourage relocation within the community.", to the end of the sentence. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that a new subsection e. should be added indicating a requirement that those houses should always be maintained as low cost/moderate housing. Strategy 2.1.le. - The Commission concurred that staff is to write this subsection as indicated by Chair/Flamenbaum. May 21, 1992 Page 8 Strategy 2.1.1d. - Delete the word "Annually", and delete the last sentence. Strategy 2.2.1 - Either develop a new strategy 2.2.2 stating "Participate in the Fair Housing Programs" or reverse the strategy numbers. VC/MacBride suggested that, for continuity, Objective 2.3 should include mention of the disabled, and the strategies should include mention of the homeless. Strategy 2.3.2 - Delete the word "rental". Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that there be mention that there are an "x" number of housing available to the disabled, as well as the appropriate standards for the handicapped in those "x" number of houses. VC/MacBride noted that Strategy 2.3.1 indicates that housing is to be accessible to the handicap. The Commission concurred. CD/DeStefano stated that Objective 2.3 should also include large families and other groups in need of affordable housing. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that there should be a City program that refers individuals to emergency shelters if it is ever needed. The provision should state, "The City shall provide information regarding emergency shelter availability.". CD/DeStefano stated that he will insert "City" and "Housing Development Funds" just above "Private Organization", on page 61, and include information regarding emergency shelters, as well. C/Li suggested that mention of the funding program be included in Objective 3.2. CD/DeStefano stated that the HDC would prefer that the City identify potential location for the development of these kinds of housing. The Housing Element should talk about how the City will pursue affordable housing throughout the community, with these particular areas, and with these policies. Then, the Land Use Element can discuss the locations more specifically in terms of densities. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that there be a fourth goal the states, "Identify potential location of x w. 1� May 21, 1992 ADJOURNMENT: Page 9 affordable housing within the City", and then identify those sites, generically. CD/DeStefano stated that the Commission will also need to discuss the issue of determining what the highest density, in the community, should generally be. The GPAC has recommended a maximum density of 12 units per acre. C/Meyer, in reference to the location of the affordable housing, suggested that HDC be told that the affordable housing will be located in the vacant property through specific plan development review, and in fill will be looked at by a case by case basis. CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry, stated that the vacant land will be referred to in it's broadest term, and not to the map. The Public Hearing was declared open. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Objective 3.1 - Add the words, ",and encourage the improvement of,...", after the word "Maintain". The meeting was adjourned to 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, May, 26, 1992. Respectively, JPes Secretary Attest: "119-1ruce Flamenbaum Chairman