Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/15/1994gym: MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 15, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Office, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk, Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy; - Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; Engineer Consultant Mike Myers; Administrative Secretary Marilyn Ortiz MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, feels the public is not being given enough opportunity to speak. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, believes the Planning Commission should start with the document furnished by GPAC and delivered to the Commission by CDD/DeStefano. Barbara Bruske, Diamond Bar; appreciates being contacted by VC/Plunk. She feels GPAC submitted a "citizens plan" and the Planning Commission is taking too long in its deliberation. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, Diamond Bar, feels the opinion of the GPAC members is not being respected by the Planning Commission. Bob Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow Drive, thanked the Planning Commission for doing a good job. Chair/Meyer declared the Public Comment portion of the meeting closed. 111111 11111141 August 15, 1994 Page 2 Planning Commission, OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1. ADOPTION OP THE 1994 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN A. HOUSING ELEMENT CDD/DeStefano reported the Planning Commission concluded the last meeting with a discussion regarding'; slope.density and what it means in terms of the remaining vacant properties in Diamond Bar which are suitable for development. In response to a request by the Planning Commission, staff provided the Commission' a handout indicating the slope percentages on these vacant properties. Staff recommends the Planning Commission conclude the review of the Housing Element and move on to the Circulation Element. y,- GPAC has presented the Circulation Element document for the Planning Commission review. In February, 1994, Gary Neely presented an alternative viewpoint of the circulation -Element. His document was not reviewed by GPAC. On June 30, 1994, GPAC indicated the -material presented by Mr. Neely warranted further study by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Included in the Planning Commission packet is the Traffic and Transportation Commission/Neely version of the Circulation Element in addition to.the GPAC recommended Circulation Element. Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the GPAC document as the basis for analysis and recommendation to the City Council. CDD/DeStefano stated a zone change request has been received from Abel Howe regarding property at 1035 1/2 Banning Way. Mr. Howe desires a change from agricultural zoning to a commercial class which would permit a proposed motel and restaurant project and other commercial uses. Staff recommends the Planning Commission receive and file the letter and direct staff to communicate to the property owner the process for „. filing a zone change. .. August, 15, 1994 Page 3 Planning Commission CDD/DeStefano further stated a copy of an August 12, 1994 City On -Line communication from Gary Neely regarding the Housing Element is included in the Commission packet. Chair/Meyer reiterated the Planning Commission consensus is that a slope.density formula is a reasonable approach for setting a control measure on hillside development and requested the Commission to continue the discussion for setting policy framework for a slope density formula. Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing portion of the meeting reopened with regard to the Housing Element. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1. 1994 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN A. HOUSING ELEMENT Gary Neely, 344 Canoecove Drive, stated the figures on table II -1 on Page II -15 are incorrect; Table II -4 on Page II -14 is incorrect and there is no itemization and no definition of mixed use ranges. He further stated a compromise for slope density would be the GPAC formula for rural residential and the Planning Commission formula for the other four residential areas. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, explained the slope density formula was arrived at because of the geotechnical problems of the back area of "The Country". Responding to C/Fong, Mr. _Smith stated the GPAC slope density applies to rural residential. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, feelstheslope density should apply to all designations and not just rural residential. CDD/DeStefano commented the tables referenced by Mr. Neely are the tables presented to the Planning Commission based upon GPAC's recommendations for land use designations. The number of acres that appear to be available for development and the amount of feasible dwelling units based upon the average slopes of the properties, is a summation provided by the consultant. August IS, 1994 Page 4 Planning Commission In addition, the maps are a compilation of GPAC's recommendations. With respect to the percentages of slope and the identified properties, a GPAC member raised the issue of applying a slope density formula specifically to the rural residential land use classification at the,May.24, 1994 GPAC,meeting. From, the discussion by the GPAC members, a decision was made to apply the slope density formula to rural residential properties only. With respect to the Housing Element, GPAC's direction to staff and recommendation to the Planning Commission was to consider a more "constraints oriented" Housing Element response to the State of'California. The reason the slope density formula is repeated in the Housing Element is to show there is,not,a great deal of vacant property remaining in Diamond Bar, and what is left may -not be leveled without due consideration. Therefore, Diamond Bar may not be able to meet the mandate to provide all of the low and moderate income' housing referred to in the State of California communications. A motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Schad to apply the slope density to the City of Diamond Bar and its sphere of influence. The motion was carried 4-1 with the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:24 p.m. RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. A motion was made by C/Fong and seconded by C/Schad to table the slope density formula question and go on to the Circulation Element. The motion was carried 3-2 with the following roll call vote: Fong, Schad, VC/Plunk C/Flamenbaum, Chair Meyer None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: August 15, 2994 Page 5 Planning Commission C/Fong suggested on Page II -14, third paragraph, the last sentence be corrected to show 14.2 acres. Table II -4 should be corrected by staff. CDD/DeStefano indicated there will be additional changes/corrections to Table II -4. On Page II -22, Figure II -2, legend "Historic Landslide" add to the footnote a second sentence to read: "Location and existence of landslides must be confirmed by site specific investigations." B. CIRCULATION ELEMENT CDD/DeStefano stated the Circulation Element is a major component in the vision statements which incorporated a reduction of regional traffic impact on local streets. F -a The issue is whether Diamond Bar will continue to accommodate the traffic or incorporate measures which will discourage traffic from using Diamond Bar as a bypass. This element is one of the seven required elements of the General Plan and is most closely related to the Land Use Element. Therefore, consistency is a most important component of the application of the goals, objectives, and strategies within the element. In addition to streets, highways, and the movement of automobiles through the community, railroad, aviation, bicycle, horse trail and transit services, etc. and the movement of goods and services, must be considered. Because Diamond Bar is substantially developed and is immediately adjacent to, and part of, the regional network of transportation routes, the opportunities are somewhat limited. Consideration must be given to the placement of some new future roads within the community and its sphere of influence and expanding the existing capacity of the current -major intersections. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission utilize the GPAC document in its review process together with the background guidelines provided by the State of California Office of Planning and Research. Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing portion of the meeting open with respect to the Circulation Element. d IN August 15, 1994 Page 6 _ Planning Commissioned .,,� Max Maxwell 3211 Bent Twig g Lane again stated the Planning Commission is not giving the public time to present their input. Gary Neely, 344 Canoecove Drive, stated he did not write the submitted document. The document was edited from OPR, MEA'and DRS documents except for the portion regarding Tres Hermanos, which he did write. He indicated the Traffic and Transportation Commission asked him to participate in the process. He questioned the reason staff,did not present the Traffic and Transportation Commission document along with the GPAC' document. He supports the document which the Traffic and Transportation Commission has presented to the Planning Commission. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Lane, stated he has not' received the requested information regarding projections and comparisons of traffic flow with neighboring communities. He is also concerned that there have been no definitive suggestions formulated to improve future projected traffic flow in Diamond Bar., Responding to VC/Plunk, Mr. Smith indicated the traffic problems in Southern California are characteristic of. the area, and it is unreasonable to expect that Diamond Bar will have no traffic problems when the surrounding communities have significant traffic problems. Land use intensity can be controlled by the city, whereas, traffic cannot be controlled to an unreasonable degree since Diamond Bar is part of a traffic corridor connecting other communities. Bob Huff, 1640 Fire Hollow Drive, stated he believes GPAC is against a road through Tonner Canyon. He feels the Traffic and Transportation Commission document presented to GPAC by Commissioner Chavers merits consideration by the Planning Commission. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, Diamond Bar, indicated GPAC� made a concerted effort to incorporate the public's wishes and if Mr. Neely felt the GPAC document was so flawed, he had ample opportunity to present it to the Planning Commission. The Circulation Element is one of the most sensitive elements of the General Plan and can be very divisive. w August 15, 1994 Page 7 Planning Commission Martha Bruske, Diamond Bar, asked the Planning Commission to consider the Traffic and Transportation Commission document. She stated she is against a road through Tonner Canyon. Mrs. Bruske again asked for a traffic light at Gold Rush Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Responding to VC/Plunk, CE/Myers indicated there isa traffic signal proposed for Gold Rush Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard. In response to Chair/Meyer, CE/Myers indicated the cost for a traffic signal is approximately $150,000 and the signals will be synchronized. The cost is funded by gas tax, general fund and developers fees. CDD/DeStefano indicated traffic signals are also funded by other grants from the State of California. Ken Anderson, Diamond Bar, asked if there would be a final version of the Circulation Element from the Traffic and Transportation Commission, or is the document which was distributed one which the Planning Commission is considering to approve or replace the existing GPAC document. Chair/Meyer responded the Planning Commission does not approve or replace any part of the document. The Commission merely makes recommendations to the City Council. The document received for consideration was created by the GPAC and during the public hearing process the commission attempts to obtain input from every source. Mr. Anderson continued he believes the DRS document is a flawed document. Building a Tonner Canyon road will not help the traffic situation in Diamond Bar. He would like to see vision in the Circulation Element with inclusion of alternate traffic methods such as bike paths and consideration of related noise levels. VC/Plunk stated the MTA is planning a regional coordination meeting on September 6, 1994. Max Maxwell, Diamond Bar, would like to see a correction of the SR57 and SR60 merger as a solution to Diamond Bar's traffic problems. He suggested the Tonner Canyon road could connect to the SR55 instead of "�` the SR57. August 15, 1994 Page 8 Planning Commission Gary Neely, Diamond Bar, stated there are only four suggested changes in the Traffic and Transportation Commission document. There is no Tonner Canyon Road proposed in either document. There is a, road called "Tonnes Canyon Scenic, Highway" which does not go through the canyon. RECESS: RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Regarding Page V-5, Table V-1, last sentence, C/Flamenbaum suggested striking the word "desirable".. The commission concurred. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Flamenbaum to accept the Circulation Element as recommended by GPAC with the correction recommended by C/Flamenbaum. VC/Plunk stated that to offhandedly and for purposes of expediency adopt the Circulation Element without entertaining the Traffic and Transportation Commission input, is foolish. Chair/Meyer stated he agrees. VC/Plunk asked staff if the Traffic and Transportation Commission document could be merged with the GPAC document. CE/Myers indicated that since there has not been a review of the Traffic and Transportation Commission document it could be a very difficult task_ of wordsmithing. The motion was defeated 3-2 with the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, VC/Plunk, Chair/Meyer ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None - ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None CDD/DeStefano suggested consideration of portions of the Traffic and Transportation Commission document. He cautioned that too much detail would necessitate a General Plan Amendment if changes became necessary. August 150 1994 Page 9 Planning Commission C/Flamenbaum asked if a Tonner Canyon road is warranted. He is against the road and believes it will merely move the traffic flow from one area of Diamond Bar to another and not cure the problem. C/Fong stated he is also against the road and that solutions should be considered outside the City of Diamond Bar and its sphere of influence. C/Schad indicated he and the City of Brea, are against a road through Tonner Canyon. VC/Plunk stated, as an alternative, she would consider a road around Tonner Canyon. C/Fong suggested the Planning Commission include the encouragement of additional mass transit within the Circulation Element. The emphasis should be on moving people and goods, not automobiles. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Flamenbaum that there be no road built through the area referred to as Tonner Canyon. Chair/Meyer asked how this recommendation fits in with the regional scheme. C/Schad responded he is working with a Whittier group on the -Chino Hills/Puente Hills wildlife corridor studies which involves 11 cities. The purpose is to preserve and improve wildlife corridor movements which were existing prior to the influx of man. A road in Tonner Canyon will sever that possibility. C/Flamenbaum stated according to the July 18, 1994 Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting minutes, council member Ansari is a member of the Four -Corners Committee. Thus, there appears to be contact with neighboring communities regarding Tonner Canyon. C/Flamenbaum called for the question. The motion was passed 4-1 with the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, Flamenbaum, Chair/Meyer COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk `77— VIII !IIi August 15, 1994 Page 10 Planning Commission ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None A motion was made by C/Fong and seconded by C/Schad to modify Page V-14, Strategy 1.1.4, last sentence, to read: "In recognition of the environmental sensitivity of SEA15, no major transportation corridor is to be constructed through,Tonner Canyon." The motion failed, 3-2 with the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk, Chair/Meyer ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None A motion was made by VC/Plunk and seconded by Chair/Meyer to accept GPACfs recommendation. The motion was carried 3-2 with the ,following roll call vote: 4 • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Plunk, Chair/Meyer, Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Meyer asked the Planning Commission to complete, the Housing Element slope density issue and the Circulation Element at the next meeting. C/Flamenbaum addressed the four suggested Neely changes. The first strategy, 1.1.14, has been dealt with by the Planning Commission. The second strategy, 1.1.6, appears to offer no significant change. CDD/DeStefano suggested that Mr. Neely's suggested language for strategy 1.1.6 could be incorporated as a new strategy 1.1.7. C/Flamenbaum suggested strategy 1.1.7 is already covered throughout the document with the exception of the proposed six lanes on Diamond Bar Boulevard. The Commission unanimously rejected Mr. Neely's suggestion. CDD/DeStefano suggested the inclusion of Mr. Neely's, strategy 1.3.5. The commission concurred. R. 0 August 15, 1994 At Chairman Page it Planning commission C/Flamenbaum stated Mr. Neely's strategy 1.3.2 warrants more discussion and debate at the next meeting. A motion was made by C/Fong and seconded by C/Flamenbaum to adjourn the meeting. The motion was carried unanimously. Chair/Meyer declared the meeting adjourned at 11:32 p.m. to be continued August 23, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District office. Re pectfully L James DeStefan Secretary