Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/14/1992 Minutes - Adj. Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JULY 14, 1992 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Kim called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers, AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Kim. ROLL CALL: Mayor Kim, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing, Miller and Werner. Also present were Terrence Belanger, Acting City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Director of Community Development; George Wentz, Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer; Bob Rose, Recreation Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN: CDD/DeStefano stated that the draft General Plan documents to be reviewed are an accumulation of all changes made by the City Council to date. He reported that there are several outstanding issues still needing attention including land use change requests on the Land Use Map regarding the Marlboro property (approximately 20 acres at the end of Fern Hollow) and the Stone property (approximately 10 acres at Carpio and Golden Springs). In addition, he asked Council to look at the Tonner Canyon designation to make sure that the proper language was inserted in the text. Correction and errata need to be made to the Circulation Element. In regard to land use designation requests, CDD/DeStefano stated that requests had been received from individual prop- erty owners for specific designations and that additional requests were received prior to the June 30th meeting. Council gave staff tentative direction on all requests with the exception of the Marlboro and Stone properties. Regarding the Marlboro property, the Council originally agreed that it should retain its 1 unit per acre designation as recommended by the Planning Commission. However, the question had been raised as to whether or not it was an appropriate designation for the developer's proposed project. The property was erroneously estimated at 28 acres although it is actually 20 acres which means that the developer's proposal of 23 acres would not fit within the 1 unit per acre classification. On June 30th, Council discussed the matter and deferred decision until July 14th. The other property needing decision is the Stone piece con- sisting of approximately 10 vacant acres at Carpio and Golden Springs. This property is traversed with a variety of ease- ments including Caltrans, County Flood Control, etc. as well as a variety of specimen trees. The question of present (R1-10,000) and former zoning was brought up by a member of the audience. The issue is whether or not the property should be given any zoning rights through implementation of the JULY 14, 1992 1PAGE 2 General Plan. The Planning Commission recommended a classif- ication of RLM which would allow 6 units per acre maximum. The property has a variety of restrictions on it and at this time there is no proposed development. In regard to the designation for Tonner Canyon, CDD/DeStefano stated that Council previously discussed an agricultural designation and that the Council may have requested a future specific plan on the property. He then asked for clarifi- cation toward correcting the language in the Plan as to the Council's desire for a specific plan or whether they wished to retain the present language which does not precisely specify a future specific plan. It is, however, referenced in another part of the document but there is no specific reference to an agricultural designation for Tonner Canyon. MPT/Papen asked if the Stone property was originally one lot or if the ten acres plus the single family residence were remnant property bought in addition to the residence. CDD/DeStefano stated that the 10 acres were purchased as part of the purchase of the single family home. C/Miller stated that the Stone property is encumbered with deed restrictions and that prior to any development om n from he property, the owner would have to obtain support two-thirds of the community that he is a part of. CDD/DeStefano stated that this is a complicated piece of property to develop due to the easements across the property, in addition to significant storm drain issues and noise and traffic issues that would be generated due to the intersection where it is located. CA/Arczynski stated that the City would not be able to remove the deed restrictions; that it would be up to the rest of the community in which the property is located. M/Kim opened the Public Hearing. Tom Van Winkle, resident, requested that the Council continue consideration of the General Plan for 45 days in order to give the public an opportunity to fully review and comment. CA/Arczynski stated that the document needs to be approved and sent to the State by the middle of August and that the City cannot delay approval for 45 days without State permission. He pointed out that the General Plan may be amended up to four times annually to address specific concerns. Ron Hockwalt, Superintendent of the Walnut Valley Unified School District, presented Council with a letter from the School Board requesting that the Public Service and Facilities Element address schools more extensively and specifically. Their request included the following: In Section D, under JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 3 Goals, Objectives and Implementation Strategies, Item 1.31 be expanded with an additional Strategy 1.3.3. to indicate that future residential development would be linked directly to the 'onal facilities, i.e., schools. availability of local educate This request is based on the fact that schools are already overcrowded. The second request was that Site D not be designated as a proposed school site and that the General Plan designate property on the basis of actual use or on its highest and best use and not merely ownership. CA/Arczynski stated that wording presented by Mr. Hockwalt had been previously forwarded to staff for use by the Planning Commission's review of the draft General Plan. At that time, it had been recommended that that type of language not be included in the General Plan and that the provisions that currently exist in State law in regard to school funding are likely to be adequate, particularly in regard to the fact that the growth inducing impact of this document does not appear to substantially generate new numbers of school children assuming build -out of the proposed General Plan. In response to M/Kim's request for clarification, Mr. Hockwalt indicated that the School Board is requesting that Site D be designated either residential or commercial zoning. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., spoke in favor of keeping Tonner Canyon in its natural state and allowing the Boy Scouts develop the land for youth activities. He further asked that the Council consider allowing the original GPAC to come together to review and evaluate the Plan. He expressed opposition to the 1 unit per acre use of undeveloped land and that the GPAC had specified 1 unit per 2.5 acres. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., stated that the General Plan that had been sent out to all residences in the City was not the same that came before the Council. He further requested that Council review the document to make sure that the wording in the Land Use and Resource Management segments is consistent with that of the EIR and the Master Environmental document. C/Miller indicated to Mr. Smith that the document he received was an overview of the Plan at the time of mailing and that it would be impossible to mail out the entire General Plan. He further stated that there is an obligation by the public to attend Public Hearings if they wish to have input. Anne Burke, 612 Chaparral, felt that the Summary General Plan did not given citizens adequate information and that residents need further time to review the draft document being considered by the Council. She asked what the Council was doing to support business to locate and stay in the City; what incentive programs are there; why build homes in Tonner Canyon that can't pay their own way and don't contribute to the City's financial well being; and why does the Council point JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 4 out that these homes can't pay their own way in one breath and recommend their construction in the next. William Gross, 21637 Highbluff, requested the Council to extend the review period until residents have had time to review the final draft. He chastised the Council for what he felt was a lack of consideration for the public's input. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that if residents are opposed to any item in the Plan, they are entitled to seek legal remedies and indicated areas in which he considered that discrepancies exist. CA/Arczynski stated that the document referred to by Mr. Maxwell is the Environmental Impact Report that by law is required to address a variety of alternative development proposals from a "no project" alternative to the "worse case" possible alternative so that it can develop information to the Council and Planning Commission, etc. to determine what would occur with regard to various types of potential approvals and what different approaches this document could take; however, it is irrelevant to what is in the General Plan. Dan Buffington, 2605 Indian Creek, commended the Council on dealing with the public abuse that they have received over the last few weeks and pointed out that while he does not agree with everything that is in the Plan, on the whole, it is balanced and therefore should be adopted. With no further testimony offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 8:50 p.m. RECONVENED: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m. 2.1 DRAFT GENERAL PLAN (Cont'd.) - Following discussion, Council made the following changes: Under Land Use, Page I-13, 1.2.6 strike "require" and replace with "When possible encourage developments..." On Page I-21, Item 3.4.2 strike "Require that existing." The sentence should read "Promote incorporation of hillside features into project designs." MPT/Papen expressed concern over the lack of clear definition of churches in the Land Use Element based on the fact that many churches use either commercial or school facilities on a — temporary basis or share facilities with another congregation. She asked that the Tres Hermanos Specific Plan include an allocation for churches. CDD/DeStefano stated that Page I-16, Objective 1.6.4 discusses the formulation of a specific plan for Tres Hermanos. The JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 5 statement "Such facilities may include a high school and other educational institutions..." can be altered to include churches. On Page II -4, Table II -1, numbers under "City of D.B." and "City Percent" do not correspond with Page II -3, paragraph 2 under Housing Stock Condition. Other references indicate that the City has 12,589 single family residences, or 71.3%, yet the table shows 87%. Mr. zola stated that the correct numbers for Table II -1 are: 12,589 single family, 4,784 Multiple Units and 294 Mobile Homes, for a total of 17,664. He further stated that corresponding changes should be made in the Land Use Element, Pages I-1 and I-3.1. On Page II -15, first sentence, strike the second occurrence of "by. On Page III -3, Parks and Recreation, add "Chino Hill State Park" to the last sentence in the last paragraph. On Page III -9, Objective 1.2, change to read "Where ecologically and financially feasible, maintain, protect, and preserve areas that are designated biologically significant, including SEA 15,..." On Page III -10, Item 1.2.3, change to read "In conjunction with local schools and volunteers, the City may participate in an environment education program." On Page III -11, Item 1.3.1 change the seventh bullet to "Pursue protection of environmentally significant areas." Remove the last bullet entirely. On Page III -12, Item 1.3.7, change the rate to 3.0 - 5.0 acres. Strive to provide neighborhood and community park facilities such that a rate of 5.0 acres per parkland is ultimately achieved. On Page III -13, Item 2.1.2, change the second bullet to read "flush valve operated water closets which minimize water usage." On Page V-19, Table V-6, change Roadway Improvement Stds. (ft.) for Diamond Bar Blvd. from 80 to 100. M/Kim re -opened the Public Hearing. There being no testimony offered, M/Kim closed the Public Hearing. CDD/DeStefano stated that the Council may wish to discuss the following: JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 6 On Page I-16, Strategy 1.6.3, include a statement "See also Section 1.1.9 of the Circulation Element referring to the transportation corridor. Section 1.1.9, Circulation Element, perhaps add a statement "See also 1.6.3 of the Land Use Element." On Page I-12, at the end of 1.1.9, add "See also 1.6.3." Following discussion, the Council agreed to follow the Planning Commission's recommendations for designation of the Marlboro and Stone properties. On Page III -4, Table III -1, Local Recreational Facilities, change to indicate that Heritage Park has a half court basketball facility, Paul Grow has no basketball court and Ronald Reagan has a lighted basketball court. Mr. Schad suggested water convection for usage in new developments. On Page V-16, paragraph 1, update numbers based on the final adopted Land Use Map. Following discussion and consensus of the Council to incorporate the changes recommended by CDD/DeStefano as well as those changes suggested by the Council itself, C/Miller moved, C/Werner seconded to adopt Resolution No. 92-43 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONDITIONS and Resolution No. 92-44 entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN - Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/Papen, M/Kim NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - None 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: In regard to the Concert in the Park to be held Wednesday, July 15th, MPT/Papen announced that the music will be "blue grass" and C/Werner stated that the D.B. Rotary Club will be selling refreshments. M/Kim recessed the meeting at 10:09 p.m. to Closed Session. 4. CLOSED SESSION: Personnel - G.C. Section 54957.6 Litigation - G.C. Section 54956.9 5. ADJOURNMENT: M/Kim reconvened the meeting from Closed Session at 10:18 p.m. and announced that no action had been taken. With no further business to conduct, M/Kim adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m. JULY 14, 1992 PAGE 7 _d 4LIA ES BURGS,. t clerk ATTEST: