HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/23/1992 Minutes - Adj. Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 23, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Kim called the meeting to
j order at 7:01 p.m. at the AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge
of Allegiance by Mayor Kim.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Kim, Mayor Pro Tem Papen,
Councilmen 7Forbing, Miller and
Werner.
Also present were Acting City
Manager Terrence Belanger; City
Attorney Andrew V. Arczynski;
Community Development Director James
DeStefano; Public Works Director/
City Engineer George Wentz; Parks &
Recreation Director Bob Rose and
City Clerk Lynda Burgess.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard.
2.1 Draft General Plan - Lloyd Zola, Planning Network, stated
that one of the major issues of the Land Use Element is the
disposition of existing open lands within the community. The
Planning Commission recommended that property under public
ownership should be designated as open space while those
privately -owned properties should be handled as restrictions
to open space through zoning rather than as a General Plan
issue. Also identified is lands to be used for commercial
purposes and that a recommended goal of the City is to
identify the means by which the City can generate more sales
tax without adding to the traffic problems. The Land Use
Element also deals with the relationship of land use to
natural and man-made environments. The Planning Commission
recommended that the land use maximum in Tonner Canyon have a
density of one unit per acre, and a density maximum of three
units per acre in Tres Hermanos. Another Planning Commission
recommendation is that the City take an active role in
regional land use planning to ensure that surrounding
communities fulfill their responsibilities toward mitigating
the impacts of development including traffic mitigation
measures.
M/Kim made the following corrections: Percent Of Residential,
in Table I-1, page I-3, should accurately indicate 90.6%; and
(RLM) on page I-10, strategy 1.1.1c., should indicate Low
Medium Residential. He asked about the status of the City's
entry monument signs, and whether Southern California Edison
has a program laid out for the City in regard to
undergrounding of utility lines.
ACM/Belanger explained that the entry monument sign proposal
is on hold until final decision on the State budget and its
JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 2
impact on the City. Southern California Edison plans to add
underground some of the overhead lines along Diamond Bar Blvd.'
from Sunset Crossing toward Temple, on the east side of the
street, using monies collected through the Public Utilities
Commission.
M/Kim opened the Public Hearing.
Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., referring to property
bordered on the west by Golden Springs Dr., east of Armitos,
south of Carpio, designated as property #10 on the downzoning
study chart, requested a change in the land use designation
from RLM back to OS, for the following reasons: any further
development would result in an increase of traffic in an area
already congested; the area has a 65 decibel level; the land
is unstable; there is a natural catch drain basin at the
farthest eastern end of the property and the area should be
made into a park. He suggested that an ingress/egress road be
built for the new high school, running parallel to the 60 fwy.
with a cul-de-sac at the end.
C.DD/DeStefano, in response to MPT/Papen's inquiry, explained
that the property indicated is one large lot, with one house
currently on it, currently zoned R-1 10,000. The Planning i
Commission classified the property as RLM, allowing up to 6
DUJ acre, which is consistent with the surrounding neighbor-
hood, as was recommended by the GPAC.
C/Miller asked if the City zones the property as a park, it
could be considered inverse condemnation, and if the City'
would be required, by law, to purchase the property.
CA/Arczynski stated that, if the City's General Plan desig-
nates a specific piece of property as open space with a park
designation without providing some type of viable economic use
of the property, the City may run the risk of an inverse
condemnation action and buy that property eventually. The
existing use has to be taken into account, and the fact that
there is something on the property, by definition, means that
there is some economic value to it.
C%Miller asked whether there is a balancing risk, from a
neighborhood standpoint, if it is zoned for single family
development, consistent with the neighborhood, that the
property would some day be developed.
CA/Arczynski explained that there is always that risk, even if
it is classified OS because someone could also ask for changes
to that designation.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the General Plan is a visionary
statement for a 20 -year period. The purpose of the Land Use
Element is to establish land use classifications consistent
with the policy of the community, with that 20 year vision in
mind. The goals and objectives contained within the element
JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 3
are best represented graphically by the land use map. The
actual implementation of the General Plan is handled through
such enabling legislation as the Zoning Code and the
Subdivision Map Act. He further explained that the net effect
of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City
Council is an overall lowering of densities within the
community, with the exception of Tres Hermanos and Tonner
Canyon, which are being proposed as specific plans by the
Planning Commission.
Al Rumpilla indicated that the land owner was aware that the
property was designated as open space, and came before MAC in
1987 requesting a zone change to be able to develop a mini
mall.
C/Miller requested CDD/DeStefano to verify the prior zoning of
the property and to bring back the information at the next
meeting.
Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado, noted that Page I-6 indicates
that surplus lots should be developed. He suggested that a
stronger statement be made that defers in favor of all implied
or expressed County restrictions, since that land was not
intended to be filled in when the County originally approved
'I those developments. The reclaimed water lake in Tres Hermanos
should be treated and should be checked if it is environ-
mentally acceptable to have an untreated lake upstream from a
fresh water reservoir. is another hotel and golf course in
Diamond Bar economically viable, as suggested in Tres
Hermanos. Instructions for the specific plan in Tonner Canyon
does not create a distinction between the present region,
designated a significant ecological area, and the plans for a
general increase in density and a highway.. Tonner Canyon
highway would become another freeway bypass from the 60 to the
57 freeway, which would increase traffic in Diamond Bar, and
increase the fire hazard for Tonner Canyon. Undefined terms
and misleading words for Tonner Canyon is unacceptable and we
can no longer support annexation of this sphere of influence
unless the City continues to protect it.
ACM/Belanger explained that the Tonner Canyon property lies
within the County of Los Angeles, and the major property owner
is the Los Angeles County Council of the Boy Scouts of
America. The ultimate use of the Tonner Canyon property is
going to be determined by either the City of Diamond Bar or
the County of Los Angeles, depending upon which one agrees
with the owner of the land as to its ultimate disposition.
The underlying reason why the property has been given the
lowest possible density, with a General Plan designation of
specific zoning, was to allow the City the greatest
flexibility in dealing with Tonner Canyon, without
discouraging the Boy Scouts of America from the possibility of
annexation.
CDD/DeStefano read Page I-15 in the Land Use Element and
JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 4
pointed out that there is additional discussion contained
'''N
within the Open Space and Conservation Element regarding they
need to preserve the remaining biological resources and the
means for accomplishing those goals.
C/Miller read an article from "Brea Future" published by the
City of Brea pertaining to Tonner Canyon. He pointed out that
the designation that the Planning Commission of Diamond Bar
has suggested to City Council is less dense than what Brea has
suggested to their City Council. If the City indicates that
we do not want to do anything with the Boy Scout property but
preserve it entirely as a nature preserve, then they will not
want to become part of the City of Diamond Bar and they will
deal with the County of Los Angeles.
MPT/Papen, in response to the issue of a roadway through
Tonner Canyon, stated that the General Plan calls for a
transportation corridor and not a major highway. The City has
discussed the possibility of bringing up an alternative mode
of transportation, such as a light rail/monorail system, from
the Anaheim transportation center up the 57 freeway and
possibly out Tonner Canyon, as an effective way to alleviate
traffic. This is a tri -County issue, not a Diamond Bar/Los
Angeles County issue.
Don Schad, noting that the City does not have a tree
ordinance, stated that the City will never have a complete
General Plan until it protects the natural wilderness areas of
vegetation, trees -and all wilderness. He requested that the
City post "Deer Crossing" signs by the two reservoirs just
west of Brea Canyon Rd. because it is a natural migrating path
for deer. -
C/Werner pointed out that the City does have a tree ordinance
in place, for smaller developments, dealing primarily with oak
trees. Larger developments would trigger a review of all
trees and all natural resources on a piece of property.
David Reynolds stated that, in order to provide a decent
quality of life, we need to maintain open natural spaces
within the basin area. If the input of concerned citizens
continues without heed, then the quality of life will continue
to decay. He suggested that Tonner Canyon be designated as a
protected area and, at some point, be acquired by the State to
protect the community's well being while serving a portion of
the BSA's financial interests,
David Arajo, 3206 Falcon Ridge, stated that the GPAC advised,
in various areas of the draft General Plan, the importance of
maintaining, in tact and undisturbed, those environmentally
sensitive areas that Diamond Bar has been entrusted with. He,
pointed out that the developers knew that they were investing 3
in a sensitive ecological area at the time of their purchase
in Tonner Canyon.
JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 5
Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch Dr., suggested that, since
the BSA has lost money every year at the Firestone Boy Scout
Reservation, it would behoove Diamond Bar to ask the Boy
Scouts to give Diamond Bar the property, to make it into a
nature conservancy for our children.
William Gross, 21637 High Bluff Rd., presented a letter to
staff from Paul and Pam Delgado. He stated that the City
Council has consistently disregarded public input on the
Tonner Canyon issue. We need a proactive City Council
supporting our ecological area of Tonner Canyon.
Mary Busse, representing several people from the Diamond Ridge
tract, requested an update to the Site D property, as well as
the park bond issue that was to be on the June ballot, but was
not. She stated that they desire some input as to the
development of the site for a park and a recreational
facility.
ACM/Belanger stated that the General Plan designates that site
as PF (Public Facilities), with the intent of making it into
a park and incorporating in it other facilities such as a
community center. The City is not in a relationship with
Walnut Valley Unified School District to make a proposal to
T— fund the purchase and development of that site. He explained
r that the County of Los Angeles elected to set the park bond
issue over to the November, 1992 election.
MPT/Papers asked whether the WVUSD had taken Site D off the
surplus property list and if negotiations have ceased.
ACM/Belanger stated that, to staff's understanding, they are
not in any kind of active involvement of development interests
on that property. At the time that their surplus land
committee was considering that particular property, the City
of Diamond Bar and residents indicated that we are not
interested in the kind of development proposal being proposed.
The ultimate determination was to not proceed with the
development of that site for residential purposes.
Linda Grave, 1147 N. Del Sol Ln., noting that it is a popular
trend in the State to control growth within cities, suggested
that Diamond Bar follow suit.
David Craig, 227 N. Pintado Dr., 15 years old, stated that he
is upset because his class can no longer have overnight field
trips to Firestone because it has been closed for development.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that the first 27
pages of the General Plan has 30 items that promote
development, destroy the environment and grant the City the
power to impose taxes. The Planning Commission has
accommodated the 11 developers that had written requesting
special consideration to develop, despite GPAC's
recommendation for the past two years of lowering the density
JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 6
to 1 DU/ 2 1/2 acres. He stated that Significant Ecological
Areas (SEA) are
supposed to be protected, yet the
Council
approved Mr. Buffington's proposal for development
on his
property in SEA
15. There are no provisions in the
General
Plan to preserve
Tonner Canyon, but rather provisions
to have
the General Plan
fit developer's desires.
ACM/Belanger explained that the benefit assessment district
had been imposed in residential neighborhoods to the property
owners, primarily within new subdivisions, for the purpose of
those landowners paying for the maintenance of open space
areas and small park areas that specifically benefit their
property. The benefit assessment districts, as referenced in
the General Plan, are not imposed on the community at large.
Connie Ward, 24141 Silverspray Dr., stated that the Golden
Springs and Carpio property had always been open space, and
not R-1. She made the following inquiries% does the
developer pay for relocating the pipes, or the taxpayer; and
where will the water that flows down Golden Springs go to if
there is development. She noted that there is already too
much traffic in the area.
t Lydia Plunk, 522 Deerfoot, Parks & Recreation Commissioner,
' stated that the issue is not as simple as being pro -
development or anti -development, but what enhances the
community. There is a consensus as to the need and desire of
the community to protect some of the open spaces.
Greg Hummel, 23239 Iron Horse Canyon Rd., former member of
GPAC, stated: the intent of GPAC's proceedings was to
establish a plan that would not just continue the status quo
of development imposed by the County but to impose new
restrictions and standards to set Diamond Bar apart as a
unique community; the.GPAC designated Tonner Canyon as 1 DU/2
1/2 acres, and that standard should be reestablished; the
community newsletter should be issued on a monthly basis to
encourage community input; the City should consider contacting
the Nature Conservancy, an organization that competes with
developers for purchasing land as a means for protecting the
Firestone property; he is opposed to a transportation corridor
through Tonner Canyon as a solution to the City's traffic
problem; Tonner Canyon should be designated as a significant
ecological area to discourage development.
William Zalewski, 21244 Chirping Sparrow Rd., questioned the
RLM designation, 6 DU/acre, for the Chirping Sparrow Rd. area
and other areas in town as similar developments in Diamond
Ridge are designated RL. There should be some consistency in
these designations. He asked if he would be able to,
subdivide, if so desired, since he has a larger piece of
property.
CDD/DeStefano explained that GPAC designated the properties
consistent with their existing land use, requiring a down
JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 7
zoning for much of Diamond Bar's single family neighborhoods.
The Planning Commission, in order to avoid the extent of the
down zoning that would have been necessary, recommended that
the properties, within presently developed residential
neighborhoods, be designated consistent with their existing
zoning. Since the General Plan is a broad approach, there may
be,properties that do not fit the designation given to them.
There may be opportunities for future subdivision on some of
those properties that are larger scale, if they meet specific
development standards, as well as the policies contained in
the adopted General Plan.
Annie Burke, 612 Chaparral Dr., complained that residents did
not receive sufficient notice of the June 9, 1992 meeting.
She requested that the Council have more respect for the
citizen's intelligence, that they can deal with the
complexities of issues facing the City. She noted that
progress and growth for Diamond Bar does not have to equal
expansion. There should be more emphasis on traffic
management and encouraging environmentally benign businesses
to locate in Diamond Bar to develop a good financial basis,
not encouraging more roads and housing developments that can't
support themselves. Wildlife does not recognize boundaries,
_ therefore, all of Tonner Canyon needs to be protected, not
just SFA's.
' RECESS: M/Kim recessed the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Kim reconvened the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
I
Eileen Ansari read a poem written by Mr. Steve Schmous
regarding the oak tree and the natural environment.
Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., stated that the ,.City and
San- Bernardino County have an agreement to form a benefit
assessment district for Tonner Canyon.
C/Miller stated that the goal was to only assess those
projects that would be developed contiguous to Tonner Canyon,
not the entire communities of either Chino Hills or Diamond
Bar.
James Roberts, 32627 Bower Cascade, expressed concern that the
earth's environment is being destroyed and that the Council is
not responding to citizen concerns.
C/Forbing pointed out that the reason people moved out here
was because they did not want to live in high rise tenements
in urban areas. It is the choice of the people in Diamond Bar
to live in large homes on large lots and to discourage
multiple dwellings and highrises. The Council has
participated in workshops to improve the economic conditions
in this community. He further stated that if there was a
benefit assessment district, Diamond Bar could afford to buy
Site D tomorrow. Furthermore, unless a:conservancy can offer
JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 8
$100,000 million for Tonner Canyon, the City Council has no
way to do anything about what is developed. The General Plan
needs to be sensible and allow the Boy Scouts to see their way
clear into annexing into Diamond Bar, which will give the
Council some control and participate in the planned growth of
Tonner Canyon.
Kathy Wong, 828 Del Sol Ln., pointed out that we all have to
realize that we need to work together, not be adversaries, and
realize that these plans are going to cost a lot of money,
requiring sacrifices.
Dave Reynolds, 1160C N. Golden Springs, stated that Tonner
Canyon is very critical to wildlife.
Clair Harmony asked whether there is a plan regarding an
assessment district to buy the school district site that the
citizens do not know about and what investigation was done
with the Boy Scouts of America. He stated that there is a
legal concept of the sphere of influence and a proactive
Council is desired; a road in Tanner Canyon is not needed to
maintain control; some members of the Council attended
community meetings a year before incorporation that restricted
discussion on the concept of incorporation; and we need to
learn from the youth how to be environmentalists and conserve
what little open space is left in Diamond Bar.
MPT/Papen clarified that the meeting referred to by Mr.
Harmony was sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce. The Board
of Directors took a nonpolitical position on the issue of
incorporation because they did not want it to affect the
business community, and have their customers split.
William Zalewski, 21244 Chirping Sparrow Rd., suggested that
it may be appropriate to work with the Boy Scouts to fund the
money lost yearly as a compromise that they continue
preserving their land.
There being no further comments offered, M/Kim closed the
Public Hearing.
C/Miller recommended that Page 1-15, Strategy 1.6.3, be
amended to read, "if development is to occur, require a
specific plan pursuant to the provisions of Government
Code..."
C/Forbing asked Strategy 1.6.3 be amended to indicate that the
specific plan in Tonner Canyon permit 1 DU/2 1/2 acres. He
further stated that the sentence "Development which would be
appropriate..." is contrary to the earlier part of the
paragraph and should be rewritten to be consistent with the
concept of protecting its unique biological and open space;
resources.
C/Millersuggested deleting the latter half of .the paragraph'
JUNE 23r 1992 PAGE 9
stating, "Development which would be appropriate... per acre
may be permitted.".
C/Werner suggested that the 1 DU/2 1/2 acres be maintained.
MPT/Papen noted that if it is to remain, then it would appear
that development is being supported.
M/Kim suggested that the second sentence be changed to
"Development which would be appropriate.., include recreational
and other uses." and then delete the remaining sentences.
It was agreed that the last three sentences following the word
"region" be deleted entirely.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the Council is not defining the
scope of what is envisioned with the development of a specific
plan in that area.
CA/Arczynski explained that specific ideas need not be
defined, but rather something there for us to have a land use
designation for the property other than specific plan.
otherwise, the developer can just come in with any specific
plan development and request approval.
CDD/DeStefano explained that retaining the property with its
agricultural designation allows for a whole host of land uses,
including camp grounds, colleges and universities, golf
courses, landing strips, etc. He suggested that the Council
either go back to GPAC"s recommendation, which is to designate
it OP and Recreation, allowing for preservation and some
recreation uses existing today, or write an agricultural land
use designation which is far more limiting than is permitted
with the actual agricultural zoning.
Following discussion, the City Council agreed to write its own
agricultural zone as part of the Development Code.
CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will develop a land use
category called "agricultural" intended for use in the Tonner
Canyon sphere of influence area and staff will come back at
the next meeting with a discussion of that item and a
definition for insertion into the General Plan.
The following changes to the Land Use Element were agreed upon
by the Council:
on Page I-1, C/Werner stated that the word "touted", in
section C, Existing Conditions, should be changed to
"identified".
On Page I-2, MPT/Papen stated that the word "primarily" should
be inserted into the sentence, "This portion of the canyon is
presently owned "primarily" by the Boy Scouts of America...",
in.Section 3, Sphere of Influence.
JUNE 23, 1992
PAGE 10
Page I-5, MPT/Papers, concerned that the maps do not show the
difference between the City of Diamond Bar and its Sphere of A'!i
Influence, requested that this be made more distinguishable by
adding another ledger, and using a different color, on the
color maps, for the sphere of influence area.
Page I-6, MPT/Papen, in regard to section l.a, Open Space,
requested that the issues of vacant land and open space be
separated, maintaining that open space is land that has been
deed restricted. There also needs to be consistency regarding
the vocabulary and definition of public and privately held
land. The issues should be separated into vacant land, open
space and economics. Further, delete "...from these sources
cities derive property taxes from both residential and
commercial" from Section b, Economics, and make a new sentence
so that the meaning is more positive.
Page I-7, MPT/Papen suggested that the first sentence, second
paragraph under section b. Economics, "The City could attempt
toincrease property tax revenues", needs further
clarification as to how this will be achieved. Further, the
sentence, "In addition, after the passage of Proposition 13,
in 1978...", doesn't apply to the City of Diamond Bar since we
were incorporated afterwards. She further noted that the
sentence, "Aside from property taxes and per capita
subventions, sales taxes are often the largest source of j
municipal revenues", is not true in the City of Diamond Bar.
Page I-8, C/Werner stated that he does not concur with the
i last sentence in the first paragraph of section 3, City Image
j a. Master Planned Community, "The views from the freeway are
the City's image ... define the image of Diamond Bar wishes to
project", and that the City should strive to have open space
that benefits the neighborhoods rather than people driving on
i -the freeway.
A C/Forbing requested that "touted" be replaced by "identified".
1
Page 1-9, C/Werner suggested that the first sentence in
j section b., Land use Compatibility, the statement "...that
i represent a benefit to the community" should be deleted and
under Issue Analysis, delete the latter part of the sentence,
"...except where they are inappropriate or incompatible with
surrounding uses.".
MPT/Papen, concerned that the General Plan address the issue
of home occupancy businesses becoming commercial enterprises
and impacting existing neighborhoods, suggested that there be
more emphasis on discussion about maintaining the character of
residential neighborhoods.
r �•
C/Werner suggested that "and development" be deleted from
objective 1.1.
Page 1-10, C/Werner asked to change "Identify" to "Designate"
JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 11
MPT/Papen, noting that there are freeway -oriented areas that
CI are treated differently than general commercial areas,
inquired if this is the place that this is so identified.
Lloyd Zola stated that in the Planning Commission's recommen-
dation, it was assumed that the Zoning Ordinance would be used
to distinguish the various areas.
Page 1-11, MPT/Papen suggested that Strategy 1.1.5 more
clearly define deed restricted open space.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that Strategy 1.1.6 needs to include
the golf course designation.
MPT/Papen requested that staff review the designation, owner-
ship and responsibility of the three small recreational areas
in Landscape District #39.
Page 1-12, C/Werner requested that Strategy 1.2.4.b be changed
to "Earthwork in hillside areas should utilize contour or land
form grading." He further requested that Strategy 1.2.6.a be
changed to "When possible, encourage developments within
Medium Density...".
C/Forbing suggested that Subsection a. be deleted from
Strategy 1.2.5 and be restructured to paragraph.
C/Werner suggested that "suburban, urban and rural" be deleted
from Objective 1.2 and replaced with, "a variety of housing
opportunities." He further requested that "suburban
lifestyle" be deleted from Strategies 1.2.4 and 1.2.5.
Page 1-13, C/Miller suggested that strategy 1.2.8.a. include
senior citizens, delete the word "or" and combine subsection
b. with subsection a. He also requested that the last
sentence of strategy 1.2.9 comply with strategy 1:6.5, and
state, "or to another site that is preserving the remaining
land.".
Page I-15, MPT/Papen noted that the issue of open space and
vacant land is being confused in Strategy 1.5.2.a.
C/Werner stated that Strategy 1.5.1 should not have a
subsection a. since there is no subsection b.
M/Kim noted that Strategy 1.6.3 should be deleted because it
will be in the specific plan.
-3 Page I-17, C/Forbing, noting that Diamond Bar has not been
able to determine what its motto should be, suggested that
Objective 3.1 and its strategies be deleted since objective
3.2 and 3.3 discuss the issue.
Page 1-20, C/Miller suggested that Strategy 3.4.2 be amended
to read, "Promote the incorporation of hillside features into
JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 12
project designs." He requested that "...in the SCAG Regional
Comprehensive Plan," Strategy 4.1.1 be deleted.
Page I-21, C/Miller requested that Strategy 4.2.2.b. be
changed to "The proposed annexation is consistent with goals
and objectives of the General Plan."
CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Council review the Land Use
Map to determine if it is consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Land Use Element.
i
C/Werner suggested that the designation of the Little League
and YMCA properties be changed to Recreation or Park use.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the Planning Commission
recommended that the Little League field, the YMCA and "The
Country" park, be designated with a land use consistent with
the surrounding areas because they are privately held.
Another issue that needs discussion is condominium or single
family homeowners' associations that may own and operate
privately held open space, such as the Maple Hill Club and the
Tennis/Swimming Club off of Sunset Crossing.
MPT/Papen pointed out that the facilities on the north end of
town may not be able to be deeded as park land since deed
restrictions already exist on that property. She recommended
that private recreation facilities within housing areas be
zoned consistent with the housing. She pointed out that there
is a deed restriction on the YMCA property. The Little League
field has a restriction specifying that the property convert
to City ownership should it cease being used by the League.
CDD/DeStefano indicated that staff will designate those fields
as "Park" with a notation in the text that they are privately)
held.
In response to C/Werner's inquiry, CDD/DeStefano explained
that the Planning Commission's recommendations concerning the
12 letters received from property owners are incorporated intoe
the Land Use Map. Two additional letters were received after!
the Planning Commission took action on the Land_Use Map. One
from Marboro homes interested in the property off of Fern
Hollow, south of the Gateway Corporate Center and east of the',
57 freeway. They requested a land use designation of 1'
DU/acre which the Planning Commission had already established'
for the property. The second request received was for'
property on Morning Sun and Shepherd Hill Road. The property;
owner requested that it have a designation consistent with the)
existing zoning of R-1 10,000, which is inconsistent with the)
current designation of a planned development with up to 3
DU/acre.
C/Forbing suggested that the parcel remain as a PD designation
and when the adjacent 80 acre site is developed, the parcel
can be zoned consistent with its surroundings.
Dl�
93"
JUNE 23, 1992 PAGE 13
MPT/Papers recommended that the park in "The Country," if it is
deed restricted to open space, be treated the same as the
properties off from Brea Canyon Road, "private park."
C/Werner suggested that staff contact those land owners whose
specific requests have not been accommodated to invite them to
the next Public Hearing to discuss their requests with the
City Council.
MPT/Papen suggested that the YMCA, the Little League and the
property behind the Mormon Church also be contacted since the
request for zone stipulation was made by a nonproperty owner.
CDD/DeStefano, indicated that staff will prepare changes to
the text and the map, notify the individuals mentioned and
bring back the changes at the next meeting.
3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Werner announced that the first
Concert in the Park would be held July 1, 1992 at Sycamore
Canyon Park.
4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to
conduct, M/Kim adjourned the meeting at 11:39 p.m. and
continued the General Plan Public Hearing to June 30, 1992 to
review the Housing and Resource Management Elements (Open
Space and Conservation).
LYNDA BUPGIPS'.T', Ci iy Clerk
ATTEST: