Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/28/1994MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MARCH 28, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium,, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Meyer; vice Chairman Plunk; Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong , Also Present: Associate Planner Searcy; Planning Technician Ann Lungu; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; and Recording Secretary Liz Myers Absent: None MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove, inquired if any investigation has been done regarding his suggestion to install an off-site electronic sign off the 60 freeway at Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs to advertise the center in that location. Chair/Meyer stated that the matter will be brought before the City Council for their consideration. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 14, 1994 Moved by C/Schad, seconded by C/Flamenbaum and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of March 14, 1994, as presented. OLD BIISINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 2. Zone Change No. 92-2: vesting tentative Map No. 51169; Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-2 AP/Searcy reported that, on December 13, 1994, the Commission decided, with the applicant's concurrence, to continue the March 28, 1994 Page 2 public hearing for this application to the March 28, 1994 meeting due to the absence of a General Plan. He noted that the City received an Extension of Time from the State Office', of Planning and Research (OPR), but that the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) is still in the process of reviewing' the General Plan, and the Significant Ecological Advisory Technical Committee (SEATAC), whose recommendation is made a part of the environmental report, has not yet completed their review of this project. It is recommended that the public' hearing be continued to 60 days from this date to allow time, to schedule another SEATAC public hearing on this item. C/Flamenbaum suggested that the EIR be presented to the Planning Commission for review while SEATAC is completing'I their review of the project. Chair/Meyer stated that he would prefer to receive the staff' report and the environmental report at the same time. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened and invited' those wishing to speak to come forward. 'Brian Bier, the legal representative for Union Wide, stated that the applicant, with reservation of all of its rights, continues to request processing for approval of its map by the City and reserves all of its rights as an applicant for approval under vesting tentative map, including those rights under General Plan as already approved. Without waiver or prejudice to any of its rights and reserving all of its rights as a vesting tentative map, Union Wide agrees to the recommendation of the Planning Commission staff to a continuance for 30 to 60 days of this Planning Commission hearing in order to provide the Planning Commission with information from the SEATAC review. Gary Neely questioned why a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required with a zone change. He inquired who is' on the SEATAC. AP/Searcy explained that the CUP is required for a hillside development project. He stated that the SEATAC consists of three individuals: Dr. David Berry, a geologist; Craig Nelson, a professor; and Dr. Hewitt, a professor of biology. The SEATAC is a City of Diamond Bar committee. Gary Neely pointed out that the location of the proposed project is in the same general area of the northern terminus of the proposed City of Industry dam, if it is moved south to include part of Tonner Canyon, which could flood the park in the Country. March 28, 1994 Page 3 I In response to C/Fong, AP/Searcy stated that staff will provide a complete packet to all Commissioners prior to the scheduled public hearing. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer returned the matter back to the Commission for consideration. Moved by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Plunk to continue the public hearing to May 23, 1994. Moved by C/Flamenbaum to amend C/Schad's motion to continue the public hearing to May 9, 1994. The amended motion Died for lack of a second. The Planning Commission voted on the motion made by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Plunk to continue the public hearing to May 23, 1994. The Motion Carried 4-1 with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, VC/Plunk, and Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS C/Flamenbaum suggested that a letter be drafted, representing the Planning Commission, respectfully requesting that the City Council learn to get along, and that comments be confined to City business items only. C/Schad requested that the Tree Ordinance be brought before the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Chair/Meyer stated that the item should be placed on the agenda as an action item, to include a staff report determining its priority based upon the Planning Commission's authority to generate this kind of activity and the staff workload. - VC/Plunk suggested that City Consultant Dale Beland chair the General Plan discussion when it comes before the Planning Commission for review. She then suggested that a risk analysis be conducted to determine the feasibility of the City remaining a incorporated if the City is unable to settle its problems and develop a General Plan. Chair/Meyer requested that the Development Code also be placed on the agenda for consideration by the Planning Commission, with input from staff on ways to update it. March 28, 1994 Page 4 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS Chair/Meyer reported that the GPAC, though composed of dynamic individuals, appears to be losing focus. He stated that there is, much debate occurring,, but without appropriate direction and leadership from the committee. C/Schad concurred with Chair/Meyer that the General Plan revision' process seems to be without vision. He stated that one abstract consideration after another is being discussed, but nothing really seems to be coming together. VC/Plunk expressed her concern that the City Council changed the voting procedure policy of the GPAC midway into the process. AP/Searcy reported that the interim Sign Ordinance for temporary!, signs will be coming before the Planning Commission at the next public hearing. The Planning Commission will also be reviewing the fence wall policy, particularly for newer development in the City. ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously, to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully, 51imes DeSteta io Secretary Attest• id eyer Chai man