Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/11/1994MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the SCAQMD 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 Chairwoman Plunk; Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; Engineer Consultant Mike Myers; and Administrative Secretary Marilyn Ortiz VC/Plunk arrived at 7:07 p.m. C/Flamenbaum arrived at 7:15 p.m. I , MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of June_ 13, 1994 CDD/DeStefano requested the minutes reflect his absence from the June 13 meeting. Moved by C/Schad, seconded by C/Fong and carried unanimously to adopt the minutes of June 13, 1994 as amended. NEW BUSINESS 2. Planned Sign Program No. 94-6 Request for approval of a sign program which includes two proposed wall signs on an office building located at 1350 Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar. Continued from June 27, 1994 public hearing. AstP/Lungu reported that the project site is located at Gateway Corporate Center which is in the Commercial Manufacturing Zone with a draft General Plan land use designation of Professional Office. The project site is surrounded by the Orange Freeway and the C -M Zone. Pursuant to the Sign Ordinance the maximum sign face area of a wall sign is 125 square feet for every linear foot of frontage not July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 2 to exceed 125 square feet per use. A wall sign shall not exceed 80% of the building frontage_ The maximum number of wall signs permitted is one per outer wall per use. As a special condition no permits shall be issued for wall sign at a multi -use building or commercial center in which more than one sign is proposed without the Planning Commission approval. The proposed project is for two wall signs to comply with the sign code. The proposed signs are non -illuminated, approximately 10 feet in width and four feet in height, and each sign equals 40 square feet in sign face area. Both signs, will be located on the easterly side of the bulding facing Copley Drive. One will have a copy of "QTC" and the other' will have a copy of "Baybrook". The propsoed Plan Sign Program complies with the City's Sign Ordinance. The, applicant nees to obtain approval from Gateway Corporate, Center. The Planned Sign Program does not require a public hearing. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Sign Program No. 94-6, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Applicant/Glen from Deadline Signs stated there are multiple corporations within this facility and they wish to be able to identify both corporations. One is a subsidiary of the other. In response to Chair/Meyer, Glen replied there are no existing' signs on this building and that he understands the recommended' conditions of approval. Moved by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong to approve Planned Sign Program No. 94-5 with the Findings of Fact and conditions', within the resolution. The motion carried 4-0 as follows: AXES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, VC/Plunk, Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum PUBLIC HEARING: 3. Appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 94-3 A request to appeal the decision of approval to construct a first and second story addition of approximately 1,291 square feet, 1 car garage, and deck/patio cover to an existing 1,750 square foot two-story residence located at 1243 S. Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar CA 91765. Continued from June 27, 1994, public hearing. July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 3 AstP/Lungu reported that on May 24, 1994 a public hearing was held for this project. After reviewing the staff report, visiting the sight and receiving testimony from the applicant property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Behdin, the Community Development Director approved this project with conditions as listed in Resolution 94-4 which is attached to the staff report. Pursuant to the Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990) , the decision of the Community Development Director shall be final and shall become effective within 10 calendar days after adoption of the resolution by the Director. On June 3, 1994 the City of Diamond Bar received a letter from the appellant, Mimi Chan, accompanied by neighbors' signatures, in opposition to this project. Mrs. Chan resides at 1253 Deerfield Place which is the adjacent property to the subject site and directly effected by this project. The appellant's main objectives are related to the side yard setback, privacy, and the altering of existing neighborhood characteristics. Staff revisited the site reviewing the appellant's objections. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood maintain original side yard setbacks anywhere from nine (9) to 15 feet. One home has a side yard setback of six feet eight (6.8) inches. The adjacent neighbor has a side yard setback of 10 feet. However, the side yard setbacks are relating to the garages of the homes rather .-than -to the habitable space. The habitable space setback is 15 feet. Another home has a five (5) foot side yard setback but their neighbor has a 20 foot sideyard setback. The appellant's property maintains a 12 foot side yard setback. The project site currently maintains'a 16 foot side yard setback. The proposed addition for the project will maintain a five (5) foot side yard setback. This means a side yard setback reduction of 10 feet. These setback's relate to the distance between habitable space of each home. Since the addition reduces the side yard setback it may also reduce the privacy of the appellant as well as for the homeowners project site. The original approval for this project requires that staff investigate the appropriateness of a master bedroom window that is proposed for the room addition. Staff determined that, although the room addition is not directly across from the appellant's window, it does offer the opportunity to look into the appellant's home. There is a down slope on the project site adjacent to the property line which is shared by the appellant. Staff feels that perhaps planting shrubs may be a mitigation measure that can offer more privacy to the appelant. As stated in the staff report dated May 13, 1994, Administrative Development Review No. 94-3 complies with the City's development standards. However, permitting additions which maintain only a five (5) foot side yard setback may begin to change the ambience of the neighborhood and diminish July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 4 the feeling of openness. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission sustain the Community Development Director's decision, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. In response to C/Fong's question AstP/Lungu responded that the relative elevation of the subject sight and the appellant site is approximately five (5) feet. C/Schad asked whether vegetation would block the view of turning the corner. AstP/Lungu stated that The City's Parks Department is investigating whether the City or Los Angeles County is responsible for trimming the vegetation. Staff is still investigating the matter. There are several properties with similar situations. In response to VC/Plunk, AstP/Lungu indicated that the! combined setbacks on the all other houses were not 20 feet or' greater. The average sideyard setback for each house is 10j feet. Some are more. Only one site has a five (5) foot setback. The adjacent neighbor's sideyard setback is 20 feet. Chair/Meyer stated that DBIA submitted a letter indicating', they had reviewed the plans and determined that additional' information was needed for further review. Chair/Meyer requested that the applicant come forward and address the Planning Commission followed by the individuals who are in opposition to the plan. Applicant/Behdin stated the difference in elevation between his property and that of the appellant is 5.8 feet ie: 5.8' feet lower than appellant's lot. The proposed addition will' be a two story, matching the height of the two story that, exists, and with the two story addition, the roof line will be - approximately two (2) feet higher then the appellant's first story. The side of the appellant's house toward the applicant property is only one story. The second story starts on the opposite side so that the subject addition will be only approximately two feet higher at the roof line. with respect to the •vegetation along Longview Drive that C/Schad questioned, Applicant/Behdin provided documents showing easements to Los Angeles County for property maintenance. He did not bring the document with him because he has submitted same to Planning. The applicant objected to DBIA's 21 day time extension. The applicant presented a setback analysis of a 300 foot radius including photographs of homes represented in the analysis. He indicated a setback of 18 feet between structures on the applicant's property and the appelant's property, upon completion of the proposed addition, and compared it with all properties included in the analysis proving his contention that his addition would conform to the 0 I July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 5 area contained in the report. In addition, the applicant went outside the 300 foot radius to a 500 foot radius to prove his theory that his property would be conforming with the completion of the addition. Applicant/Behdin maintained that the existing five (5) foot wall between the two properties would block the view, not his proposed addition. Regarding privacy, the applicant maintains he has met all requirements of City Planning. Appellant/Mimi Chan, 1253 Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, the property next to the proposed structure, states she does not mind the neighbor wanting to build an addition but she feels the proposed structures is too large for the lot and does not fit the characteristics of the neighborhood. She says the applicant should maintain a larger setback from her property. She objected to the applicant cutting into the slope. She submitted photos of the neighborhood to the Planning Commission. In response to C/Fong, Mrs. Chan stated that her dining room and formal guest room are next to the block wall between the properties. Mrs. Chan responded to C/Fong clarifying that cement is on her property in the side yard next to the block wall between the properties. Mariann Hess, 1261 South Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar stated her concern about the stability of the hill and potential damage to her property. She further stated concern that the proposed addition would create a structure too large for the lot size. She expressed her main objective is to avoid a precedence stating that houses can be built so close together. She indicated she is not objecting to the addition, but to the size of the addition. She says she hopes the structure can be completed in a timely manner. RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Dave Arcero, 1297 Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, stated his opposition to this project saying the completed structure with the addition will overpower the other houses in the neighborhood. (Kathy Arcero, 1297 Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, says her main concern is with the size of the structure and that it will be too big for the neighborhood and the neighborhood will lose its airy feeling. In response to Dave and Kathy Arcero, Chair/Meyer indicated that if a building addition does not exceed 500 of the floor . TT--_ July 11, 1999 Planning Commission Page 6 area of an existing structure there is no need to notify the neighbors. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, stated he does) not live in the area of the project and has not seen the plans, but is opposed'to the project in principal. In response to Chair/Meyer's request for rebuttal testimony, Applicant/Behdin stated that he had presented all of the information to the Planning Commission for decision. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed the Public Hearing and returned the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. VC/Plunk indicated, she feels the aesthetics are good and she does not find the house to be oversized for the neighborhood. She does have concerns about how close the addition will be to Mrs. Chan's property and would like to see a side yard setback) of eight (8) feet instead of five (5) feet for a total of 20 feet between the two structures. She indicated the window should either be removed from the planned addition or not) aligned with the neighbors windows. Responding to C/Fong, AstP/Lungu indicated there would bel! approximately 17 feet separating habitable space between the', two structures. She said the majority of the structures in, the area have more space between them, and some have less. In response to C/Fong, Chair Meyer indicated that the technical aspects of a retaining wall are outside the scope of the Planning Commission. VC/Plunk requested a recommended language for a condition regarding the retaining wall. AstP/Lungu's responded that the language is in the resolution which states that the applicant shall comply with all Planning and Zoning, Engineering, Building and Safety requirements. C/Schad indicated his concerns with the retaining wall, the footings and the soil. In addition, he is concerned whether the air conditioning is adequate to handle the addition. If an additional unit is required, where will it be placed and is the electrical capacity of the present service sufficient. He stated he believes the window should be eliminated. Chair/Meyer stated that although he does not agree with the magnitude of the addition, the applicant has complied with all 1y regulations and should be granted approval. fi In response to VC/Plunk, CA/Montgomery stated that with regard to property rights the Planning Commission may decide this case either way, depending upon their finding of whether or ,Tiny 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 7 not the proposed addition is in conformity with the existing neighborhood. He cited a case that allowed denial of an application to be upheld. The court found that it was in the Planning Commission's purview to determine whether or not the harmonious design and aesthetics of the neighborhood require that the application be denied. In this case, it was a neighborhood of single family residences. A second story was proposed that would have overwhelmed the yards of the surrounding neighbors and given them a view directly down into the pools and rooms of the other houses. He further stated, the finding will not be disturbed in court unless it is arbitrary or capricious. Responding to Chair/Meyer's request for motion, CA/Montgomery indicated that before a vote could be taken by the Planning Commission, it should be noted for the record, that because Mr. Flamenbaum apparently lives within 300 feet of the application of the opposition, he has not participated in these proceedings in any way and has abstained from making a decision. Moved by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Fong and carried to adopt the Resolution denying the Appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 94-3. I �« AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Vice Chairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 4. Parcel Map No. 22102 Chair/Meyer stated that the Parcel Map No. 22102 is a request to sub -divide 4.39 acres of property on Valley Vista and that the applicant and staff are recommending that this item be continued to the July 25, 1994, meeting. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. There being no one wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. Moved. by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Plunk, and carried unanimously, to continue the item to the July 25, 1994, meeting. Chair Meyer noted for the record that C/Flamenbaum has again taken his seat on the Planning Commission. July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 8 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad, Vice Chairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 5. 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. Chair/Meyer stated that the applicant and the staff recommend that this item be continued to the July 25 meeting. Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing open. Lex Williman, Planning Director for Hunsaker and Associates, 10179 Huennekens, San Diego is requesting a continuance in order to work out the final conditions of the approval for the July 25, 1994, hearing. r In response to Chair/Meyer, Lex Williman agreed to waiving of'u rights. There being no additional testimony, Chair/Meyer closed the Public Hearing. Responding to C/Flamenbaum, AP/Searcy stated that the application will be ready for the July 25, 1994, hearing, the concurrence as related to the General Plan processing and having adequate time to review the document and its importance. The reason for the requested continuance is so that the Planning Commission may concentrate on the General Plan and the applicant has concurred with the request and submitted a letter to that effect. The Planning Commission voted on the, motion made by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Plunk to continue the public hearing to July 25, 1994. The motion carried 4-1 with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, V/Chairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None �s ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: Chair Meyer recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair Meyer reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m-. July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 9 6. Adoption of the General Plan. Chair/Meyer stated that the General Plan for 1994 has been under consideration by the General Plan Advisory Commission (GPAC). They have made recommendations and presented them to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. Chair/Meyer asked for consensus from the Planning Commission of a schedule of events and suggested meeting on Saturday, July 16, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. at Heritage Park for a "shirt- sleeve" session. Responding to VC/Plunk's question regarding a joint meeting with City Council, Chair/Meyer replied that the Planning Commission had expressed opposition and further wished to avoid a joint public hearing. VC/Plunk asked how staff could get the Traffic and Transportation meeting minutes from Thursday, July 14, 1994 to the members of the Planning Commission for review prior to the Saturday meeting. Chair/Meyer stated that it is his understanding that there has been no direction by City Council that the Traffic and Transportation Commission had to review the General Plan. Following a discussion among the Planning Commission members regarding future meeting dates, Chair/Meyer indicated it was the general consensus of the Commission that the meetings be scheduled for July 16 and July 25, 1994 reiterating that July 25 is a regular Planning Commission scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at AQMD. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Chair/Meyer agreed that the General Plan will be the first item on the agenda as a continued Public Hearing. In response to Chair/Meyer's request, CDD/DeStefano provided the staff report to consider adoption of the 1994 General Plan. The General Plan is a statement of our aspirations in the form of goals, policies and implementation programs that guide the long range physical development of the community. In January, 1994 the City Council created a 38 person GPAC to develop the 1994 General Plan. GPAC utilized, pursuant to the Council's direction, the rescinded 1993 General Plan as its discussion draft. GPAC reviewed each element over a six months period from January 11 through June 30, 1994, to review the document. GPAC made some significant changes to the previous plan. The General Plan is required by California State law. There are seven elements of a general plan. Collectively, they serve to identify Land Use, Circulation, Environmental, Fiscal July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 10 and Social goals and policies for the city or for the planning area incorporating our sphere of influence. It provides a framework for which the Commission and Council can make land use decisions and from which the citizens can not only participate in that decision making process, but also participate in the framework from which those decisions will ultimately be made. It is specifically designed to inform the citizenry, the developers and the decision makers as to the city's plans for its future and how it envisionsdevelopment within its borders or its sphere of influence'. Our element incorporates the seven state mandated elements into six sections: the Land Use Element; the Housing Element; the Resource Management Element, where we have combined the Open Space and Conservation Elements; the Public Health and Safety Element, where we have combined the State mandated Noise and Safety Elements. We also have a Circulation Element. State law allows us the ability to create optional elements. We have chosen to create a Public Services and Facilities Element. The draft 1994 General Plan is before the Planning Commission for the beginning of this public review process. A Master' Environmental Assessment (MEA) was prepared in 1991 and 1992 providing a technical base line and environment data -which was, used for the preparation of that draft General Plan. The information provides a foundation for the policy plan and for the further environmental analysis. The MEA is a resource tool. It is not intended to be City policy. It is a document that should be regularly updated with, for example, the changes in census statistical data. A previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains all of the environmental documentation for the General Plan as required by State law. It includes detailed analysis of the various impacts of ultimately developing Diamond Bar and outlines several alternatives dealing with land -use densities and intensities. It detailed the impacts and created a mitigation plan and monitoring program for the alternatives considered within that document. It also contains all of the technical appendices related to the noise studies, air quality studies, etc. The environmental considerations within the 1994 General Plan were covered within the EIR. Therefore, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines of the State, we will be presenting an addendum for Commission consideration. The highlighted areas within the document are GPAC'S additions. The strike -outs within the document are GPAC's deletions, and the underlines within the document are changes that were added by our consultant as a result of GPAC's direction. The document that is before the Commission at this time requires corrections and additions. Some changes, that GPAC motioned approval for have not made it into the document as 'a 111 9 July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 11 �. result of the last two meetings that GPAC held because the minutes were not yet available for those meetings. So we plan to bring to the Planning Commission and the public and of course all of the members who participated in this process, an errata document that outlines the specific changes that are not yet in the document before the Planning Commission. The majority of those are minor but they are necessary in terms of faithfully recording GPAC's activity. In order to advertise the GPAC process we advertise through the use of the local newspapers by purchasing classified ads, as well as display ads, to try to solicit public involvement in the process. We also use the Windmill providing monthly inserts to solicit input incorporating citizen interest in the development of this plan. We would recommend that you determine a process for review element by element; issue by issue; and with that we can focus on each of the elements and provide a brief overview for you for each element. State law establishes a requirement that the General Plan must pass several legal and policy tests in order to be adequate. We have outlined for the Planning Commission what some of those might be in terms of questions for the Planning Commission. First of all, is the General Plan complete? Is it I j comprehensive in the long-term? Is it internally consistent? Is it informational? Is it easy to read? Is it easy to understand? And can it be implemented? The public hearing notice for this meeting was provided via City On -Line and City newspapers. We have regularly distributed, to approximately 300 persons and organizations, General Plan materials that have been provided to not only the GPAC, but to members of that list, the Planning Commission, the City Council, etc. We provided to the Planning Commission, last week, a copy of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, and Resource Management Elements for review. On Friday, we provided a copy of the final complete document from our consultants. We have also provided additional copies of the Master Environmental Assessment and the Environmental Impact report, and all of the GPAC meeting minutes up to June 23, 1994. We also presented to the Planning Commission all of the information that was presented to the City staff either prior to a GPAC meeting or at a GPAC meeting. We have distributed that to you so that you can see what some of those issues were in terms of those that were discussed and deliberated upon and those that were not discussed. Within this packet of information we have given you some guidelines presented by the State of California on the Land Use, Housing, and Circulation Elements. We will be providing other guidelines to you in future meetings. 3 CDD/DeStefano addressed VC/flunk's concern that staff could either provide a document to the public that does not faithfully record all of GPAC's decisions and make that fact July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 12 known or provide the errata sheets in order to get the: information to the Planning Commission. CDD/DeStefano indicated in response to C/Flamenbaum's question that GPAC meetings have come to an end unless the Council might require additional meetings of GPAC and further, indicated there are no additional meetings scheduled for GPAC at this time. In response to C/Flamenbaum's concern CDD/DeStefano responded that GPAC has not reviewed and approved the final document prior to the distribution of the document to the Planning Commission. CDD/DeStefano reported in response to C/Schad's inquiry that the Planning Commission has received every element of the General Plan. He indicated the errata would be delivered in written form on Thursday, July 14, 1994. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. Former GPAC member, Robert Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow Drive,1 Diamond Bar stated that in reviewing the document he found the flavor to be very different from what was originally intended. He encouraged the Planning Commission to take time and give) the plan careful consideration. Mr. Huff pointed out that in the beginning of the process he viewed the intent of GPAC as promoting limited growth. Toward the end of the process the intent seemed to shift to more that of no growth. Mr. Huff indicated that he feels the document needs wisdom and legal i counsel. Specifically referring to the first sentence of the vision statement on page 1, Mr. Huff recited, "It is a primary goal of the City of Diamond Bar to maintain a rural and country living environment". He further indicated that the City cannot maintain something that it does not have. He suggested that although this first sentence may be inappropriate, the balance of the vision statement reads well. Mr. Huff further stated that in its zeal to save land, GPAC incorporated a lot of restrictive language throughout the document which may defeat the very purpose of what the committee was trying to achieve. 11 In response to C/Flamenbaum, Mr. Huff indicated that he would provide the Commission with suggested language. In addressing the Commission, Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind, Diamond Bar offered, in writing, suggested recommendations and changes to the General Plan. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the General Plan should clearly spell out how the City functions and the relationship between the City of Diamond Bar and the gated community known as "The Country". July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 13 } On page I-20 of the General Plan of the Land Use Element, Mr. Smith suggests adding a strategy to talk about developers, developments and the addition of play areas for children. C/Flamenbaum asked Mr. Smith for clarification of his proposal submitted under Strategy 2.2.1 requesting that Realtors submit changes in ethnological trends to potential buyers and why he picked that term versus race, sex, etc. Mr. Smith responded the subject was racial discrimination and that the Housing Element would be the appropriate place for this item, reiterating that the statements contained in the document are weak and meaningless and because they make no attempt to identify where racial discrimination exists. Dr. Lawrence Rhodes, P.O. Box 2258, walnut, CA 91788 apologized to the Committee indicating that he was not prepared to attend the hearing as he had received the General Plan that afternoon and did not have a chance to go through it. He indicated that in doing some research on Sandstone Canyon he could not locate a recording of an EIR in the county and he is concerned that there needs to be language addressing endangered species in the General Plan. F, Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Drive, Diamond Bar indicated that he had delivered written comments on four of the elements and partial comments on the Land Use Element to the members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Neely urged the Commission to take the time necessary to review the document. He pointed to his 35 page written document as containing comments which could be studied by the Commission emphasizing the organizational structure of the document and offering, specifically, a reorganization of the document beginning with the introduction. Mr. Neely stated that he felt the organizational structure of the General Plan is incoherent and should be changed to the. following order: Introduction; Resource Management Element; Public Services and Facilities Element; Public Health and Safety Element; Housing Element; Circulation Element; Land Use Element; (and finally, ending with) Land Use Map. Mr. Neely indicated that by taking action on each of the individual elements in this order the Planning Commission may find that there is a synergistic effect, as each of them build on the other. By the time the Commission gets to the Land Use Element, the understanding of this element ought to be considerably clearer. He cited an example of requirements for low and low to moderate income housing in the Housing Element that would require setting aside some land. That being the case, as indicated by State mandate, Mr. Neely added that this should be discussed before getting to the Land Use Element. In addition, he stated that he believed that the Commission would have to deal with the Circulation Element prior to dealing with the Land Use Element. In addition, he stated the I IAV I'III I''�i II il� II July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 14 Commission may find certain strategies listed in the other elements, be it Resource Management or Public Services and Facilities that might limit the opportunities for further development prior to getting to the Land Use,Element. In summary, Mr. Neely suggested that each item be considered in the order he has indicated. Manny Nunes, 9731 Royal Palm Boulevard, Garden Grove, planner for property owners who own Tract No. 46485 in the back country of "The Country Estates" stated that in connection with a letter signed by Mr. Christopher Li which was delivered to the Planning Committee, he would summarize the concerns of the property owners for the purpose of the Planning Commission, gathering information. Mr. Nunes stated the group is concerned that any additional slope classifications would place an additional burden on their project since they have had a map into the City for three and one-half years, during which time they have met all City guidelines and have conformed with evolving City policies. The group maintains that R-1-40,000 zoning standard and existing environmental concerns would very amply protect the community interest. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, handed the Planning Commission three sections of the Walnut General Plan indicating he believed the language in that plan could be used by the Planning Commission as a blue print for the General 1 Plan. Mr. Maxwell indicated there had been several attempts to get the General Plan on the ballot. He asked staff if all maps, tables have been completed. In response to Chair/Meyer, Mr. Maxwell provided a summary list of his comments to the Planning Commission. C/Flamenbaum, responding to Richard L. Callard, 24105 Palomino Drive, Diamond Bar, cited a motion by Mr. Max Maxwell and seconded by Jan Dabney on March 22, 1994 that objective 1.7 on page I-18 of the Land Use Element be deleted from the General Plan. Mr. Callard stated that he believes this item should be returned to the General Plan. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, Diamond Bar, thanked the Planning Commission for taking the necessary time to complete deliberationswithrespect to the General Plan. She stated that, in her estimation, GPAC sought a democratic process and made a genuine effort to listen to the desires of the public and incorporate their wishes. She indicated her willingness to attend additional meetings of GPAC but felt that they had contributed all they could. W„„m•,,....., m.....,m.,-.« -.-_ � _. .-"-.. _ �- « -, --«--. .,. _ _=««w,NF-NSI..�.�.0.FIIwox1.J14.L4ukSN�uIJ-�= July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 15 C ' • Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. CDD/DeStefano recommended that the public hearing be closed for the evening and continue the item to Saturday, 10:00 a.m. wherein the intent would be to reopen the hearing to the public for further input and deliberation. He further recommended that the meeting be continued to the Heritage Park Community Center. Attorney/ Montgomery recommended that the Commission use the term recess in place of close. Following a brief discussion by the Commission members, CDD/DeStefano summarized the proposed order of agenda topics for review of the General Plan on Saturday, July 16, 1994, meeting as follows: 1) Resource Management; 2) Public Services and Facilities; 3) Public Health and Safety; 4) Housing; 5) Certification; 6) Land Use. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Fang, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:42 p.m. to Saturday, July 16, 1994, at 10:00 a.m. at Heritage Park Community Center, -2900 Brea Canyon Road. Re pectfully, es DeStefano Secretary Attest: ,�--, — , - is .- ey:er ----- ----- Chairman III �I �lrr�l I � II�I'`II I