Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/31/1994CitCOU,RC/10/ AGE- NIDA Tuesday, May 31, 1994 7:00 P.M. Adjourned Regular Meeting South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member City Manager Interim City Attorney City Clerk Gary H. Werner Clair W, Harmony Eileen R. Ansari Phyllis E. Papen Gary G. Miller Terrence L. Belanger Michael Montgomery Lynda Burgess Copies of staff reports, or other written documentation relating to agenda items, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 860-2489 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. I11,1�!lll�ll 11.11: � Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking ' The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper in the Council Chambers. and encourages you to do the same. MISSION STATEMENT The City Council meeting is the forum established to conduct the business of the City of Diamond Bar, its citizens, property owners, and businesses. The City Council has chosen to conduct its business meetings in a televised, open forum. This has been done to assure that all community members are kept informed as to the status of City business. It is the Council's objective to conclude the business stated on the evening's agenda by a reasonable hour, which is 11:00 p.m. To accomplish tonight's objectives, the City Council requests that: 1. Public comments may be directed to Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public, which are not on this evening's agenda. 2. Public comments on scheduled matters will be heard in conjunction with the respective agendized subject. 3. There are to be no personal attacks toward individual members of the City Council. Such comments are viewed as personal attacks against the entire City Council and will not be tolerated. 4. There are to be no personal attacks from an individual Council member. Such are viewed as personal attacks from the entire City Council, which are not conducive to a positive business meeting environment; and, will not be tolerated. The Diamond Bar City Council appr iates your cooperation. Gar We ner, Mayor Clair W. Harmony -- Phyllis E. Papen Mayor Pro Tem ` Council o Eileen R. Ansari r G. Mill Councilwoman Councilman N � \ --..'- Next Resolution No. 94-25 Next Ordinance No. 03(1994) 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Werner ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Papen, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony and Mayor Werner 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2.1 PARCEL MAP NO. 24031 - The proposed project is a request to merge Lot 1 of Tract 31479 and Lot 61 of Tract 42557 creating a single parcel totaling 68.10 acres. The ap- plicant requests removal of the right to restrict con- struction of residential buildings upon the existing parcels. That right was acquired by the City upon incor- poration in 1989. Approval of the application would require the City's abandonment of currently -held open space and building rights restrictions on the newly - created parcel. The site is currently vacant and exists in a primarily natural state. The project site is zoned RPD -20,000-2U and is located south of Grand Ave., west of Shotgun Ln., east of Summitridge Dr., extending to the Chino Hills/County of San Bernardino boundary line. The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing on the application on May 23, 1994. Recommended Action: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Parcel Map No. 24031. Requested by: Mayor Werner 2.2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8; AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 91-2; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - This Public Hearing is to consider a request for approval of a mixed-use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, park, open splice and school facilities. The project site contains approximately 171 acres and is located north of Pathfinder Rd., west of Brea Canyon Rd., east of Morning Sun Dr. and south of Rapid View Dr. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 2 290,000 sq. ft.; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 -acre neighborhood park and the construction of a middle school. The Planning Commission conducted a public meeting to review project alternatives on May 23, 1994. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from staff and project developers; open the Public Hearing, receive testimony and take appropriate action. Requested by: Mayor Werner 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 4. ADJOURNMENT: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL I -I TO FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK /t-/ A `'f I, -,IA )" ( —, Z'- z c DATE:V-3 / �y PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: Y96VNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK /k/- IV -IV ib�.l" C,I- DATE: -Vgl 9i PHONE:, -?c /_ ,lf4 a I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL u TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK C I -A (-rON A, c �� ViVU5 n -So. Pt,, M Ae,KLAW DATE: PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: DATE: 5 PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature �u TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK 2�o zg DATE: PHONE: AGENDA #/S JECT: �n I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. —4V - ignature D TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK �IbILj� H ,� N1 N?o4 ��,-j- DATE: f/13 ! / 91 PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. a Signature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REuur-5T TU ADDRESS THE GITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK V eY\11�i r r; DATE: g, 3 • 3iei i-4- kov1 R PHONE: eA 1!5090 k-2) I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Kh►�P1% Signature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE: tt0I-0q2{ Z - I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. S nature 0� TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK �- JGVI-4 l.C(4ynnvl DATE: X31 /qu Z n�5�4 (?0[(`1 IZLAY) DYo PHONE: �0���1CP2 H 1' M �e aal<-C)l �e7 I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Coc,afi� Signat .0W VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK -4 q 7 La r'k-4t 0,eP-0 111 r ut) ilt 14", � , I Co U q 1,,, P 0 ( r DATE: �1 '" qq PHONE: 5gQ�V vZ- I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK i FROM: t OC/C E;/ DATE: �� -3/ - 9Y ADDRESS: 18{.36 �V ,?hd lV"d AQae� $ PHONE: ,:5797—,76 ?.3 ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #JSUBJECT: �--� I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: ;V �, . /.� �, �� [. DATE: ADDRESS: -c ti i'� icef PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: i I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. �/ Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL T--.. CITY /CLERK C ) FROM: Oq I`� � J 1 � C-) DATE: ( � ADDRESS: HP ONE: 0 754 ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject age;4a item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature )1* VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK 'A� kc�', 7��� Pt� DATE: s/3i PHONE: °tel V -o-) 12. I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. 44-*�/&=gnature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK � FROM:'t�,�.G�` %�2,e DATE : Aw�,,?l ADDRESS: PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: 2 2- I I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK (/ FROM: J (.��/K.' �� DATE: S 3 ADDRESS: g' �C� S rim L�-� �^-T PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: �— I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect n name and address as written above. D U JCS Signa re VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK A A e e - DATE: 0106 7/ L.glQX6` D�� b� . PHONE: c -Ye =- ?/ ?/ i I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect m name and address as written above. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL u TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK Lt r1 DATE: 573//51 /V lv G5 �cr �,� en ��* �- PHONE7- -� a fi &u; /Z /, �o u �� Pof,'i-7Le I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect m,, name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: (---" � ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: DATE: PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect m name and address as written above. S natu VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY '�;U,. TO: CITY CLERK FROM: a C G� D TF: ADDRESS: 1=-��-1 C� �_ F'HONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: nt 5- 3(lq W.P���Pn�l I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect r name and address as written above. —YM 40�.Q . Signature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect r name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ti TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK q DATE: % r k1Ay W'I F u (' L- PHONE:' I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature "I TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT CITY CLERK DATE: 3 71 PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. y/ ;t �11 'd Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL 'TO FR( A: AD[ IESS: OR( ANIZATION: AGE JDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE:iG%' I exptot to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. ,Signature . , Y N AAY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL If� TO: CITY{ CLERK FRC `A: ti` l t ��nF��i� DATE: 3 �� ADEj=3ESS: PHONE: ORC. ,>NIZATION: AGE�'4DA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Ali Signatu U TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY CO,-, \'„ AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK r ,D -16o / kd, PI-IUNE: Pd O --(4-2- -< I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect n name and address as written above. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK kV c DATE: f �f PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature &Vd �kly� Signature TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK a L �r DATE: PHONE: W t( I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. ignature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL QOM: DDRESS: )RGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK i DATE: I PHONE:-ttJEJ 2K� I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. A/P' &1)ev— Signature L DATE 05-31-94 TIME 19:15:21 AGENDA ITEM # a - I V O -CO `-d rn ae c;� INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID ANSARI YES WERNER YES HARMONY YES INVALID PAPEN YES ID FA -b INVALID INVALID TOTALS . . . . . . . 4 0 0 THIS AGENDA ITEM HAS -_______- (MOTION) BOARD MEETING: S " �3 Maker. e_ n Second: >> IarrL•n Comments at City Council Meeting by Terry L. Birrell May 31, 1994 Approval of South Pointe Master Plan Alternatives Violation of General Plan Extension and Government Code Section 65361 On January 31, 1994, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research granted the City of Diamond Bar an extension of time in which to adopt the General Plan. This extension was subject to certain conditions. Condition 3 provides, in pertinent part: "The city shall not initiate or process any specific plans ... or specific plan amendments until approval of the draft general plan, except for those initiated prior to the effective date of this extension." Since all of the Alternative proposals were introduced after January 31, 1994, consideration or adoption of any of those alternatives tonight would be in violation of the General Plan Extension and Government Code Section 65361. Thus, the City Council may only consider and vote upon the original South Pointe Master Plan this evening. Approval of South Pointe Development Agreement with RNP Violation of General Plan Extension and Government Code Section 65361 Approval of the South Pointe Development Agreement with RNP would violate Condition 1(a) of the General Plan extension. Condition 1(a) provides in pertinent part: "Until approval of the draft general plan by the city planning commission, the city may not approve discretionary land use projects unless it makes written findings, supported by Comments at City Council Meeting re Approval of South Pointe Master Plan Violations of General Plan Extension and Government Code Section 65361 Probable Violation of Government Code Section 1090 by Terry L. Birrell May 31, 1994 Page 2 of 6 substantial evidence in the record, that there is little or no probability that the project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted general plan...." Since the GPAC has already voted to preserve map restrictions and the development of the RNP property would require the removal of such restrictions, there is no way in which the City Council could logically find that the RNP Development Agreement would not interfere with the future general plan. Approval of South Pointe Development Agreement with RNP Probable Violation of Government Code Section 1090 Approval of the South Pointe Development Agreement for R/N/P Development Inc., including the South Pointe Master Plan, etc. by the City Council will, in my opinion, be a violation of California Government Code Section 1090. Section 1090 states in pertinent part: If city officers ... shall not be financially interested in any contract made ... by any body or board of which they are members." There is ample case law providing for both the broad construction and strict enforcement of these provisions. Contracts and agreements in violation of section 1090 are void not merely voidable. And it appears that a City Council member, Gary Miller, in spite of his public statements, has a financial interest in RNP and, hence, the South Pointe Master Plan. I. In spite of Mr. Miller's public statements denying any interest in the South Pointe Master Plan, there is significant documentation refuting Miller's and Miller's father-in-law's assertions that their involvement with RNP ceased in February 1991 An article in the Daily Bulletin dated August 16, 1993, reported, based on Gary Miller's statements, that: "In February 1991, Miller sold R -N -P and the land to Dwight Forrister." "Miller said his father-in-law is not an executive with R -N -P and that it's the county's fault that his father-in-law's name was not immediately removed as an official of R -N -P." Comments at City Council Meeting re Approval of South Pointe Master Plan Violations of General Plan Extension and Government Code Section 65361 Probable Violation of Government Code Section 1090 by Terry L. Birrell May 31, 1994 Page 3 of 6 A letter signed by Robert L. Rumsey, Gary Miller's father-in-law, and dated May 10, 1994, states that: "I am not affiliated with RNP Development nor have I had any affiliation since the corporation was sold in February of 1991." In light of the following documentation, Mr. Miller's statements that his and his father-in- law's involvement in RNP Development, Inc. ("RNP") ended in February 1991 appear not only self-serving but also erroneous and intentionally misleading. Each of the following documents prepared after the claimed sale of RNP to Mr. Dwight Forrister by Mr. Miller lists the corporate address of RNP as 151 Juanita Avenue, Glendora, Ca which is the personal residence of Robert Rumsey, Miller's father-in-law. In addition to being Miller's father-in-law, Rumsey was also a Vice President of G Miller Development Co. and held the contractors license for that company. 1. The Subdivision Application submitted by RNP to the City of Diamond Bar on September 24, 1991, with respect to Lots 49 and 53 in what is now the South Pointe Master Plan and signed by Jan C. Dabney, the project engineer and agent for RNP. This was seven (7) months afterwards. 2. On December 16, 1991, a Review of Restricted Use of Property and Open Space Grand Avenue to Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, was prepared by Dabney and Associates for RNP. Ten (10) months afterwards. 3. Corporation Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents recorded by RNP with Los Angeles County on April 8, 1992 providing security for a loan was signed by Dwight Forrister, President. This was more than one (1) year afterwards. 4. The State of California Statement by Domestic Stock Corporation filed by Jan C. Dabney as Secretary of RNP on September 3, 1992. This was nineteen (19) months afterwards. 5. The Agenda for the City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission meeting of April 29, 1993, shows the South Pointe Master Plan as the only agenda item. RNP is listed as one of the applicants. This was two (2) years and two (2) months afterwards and only three (3) months before Mayor Miller voted for the General Plan. 6. The Annotated Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Pointe Master Plan prepared November 1992 and annotated November 1993 by Ultrasystems Engineers & Constructors, Inc. lists the applicants in Chapter 1, page 1-3. This was over 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 years, respectively, afterwards. Comments at City Council Meeting re Approval of South Pointe Master Plan Violations of General Plan Extension and Government Code Section 65361 Probable Violation of Government Code Section 1090 by Terry L. Birrell May 31, 1994 Page 4 of 6 7. Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for South Pointe Master Plan dated February 1993 corrects errata found in the Draft EIR. An apparent typographical error on page 1-3 relating to the inversion of two of the numbers in Jan Dabney's telephone number was corrected. However, there was no correction of the corporate address for RNP Development. This report was dated 2 years afterwards. Only after growing public awareness of the conflict of interest and within months of the vote on the second General Plan was Mr. Rumsey's address removed from City documents. Either Rumsey's involvement and Miller's interest continued or the Environmental Impact Report is seriously flawed. I would question the validity of an EIR which can not even properly identify the applicant. II. Relationship of Carolyn Elfelt to Gary Miller The president of the Community Club which supports the building of the South Pointe Middle School at any cost, i.e., supports the SPMP, is Carolyn Elfelt. I would like the residents of Diamond Bar to be aware of and the record to reflect the fact that Carolyn Elfelt is employed by Caroline Pacific Corporation. Caroline Pacific is a land banking company owned by Gary Miller. (Forms 72 1) Furthermore, Gary Miller and his wife Cathleen are the only officers and directors of Caroline Pacific per the Statement of Domestic Stock Corporation dated October 7, 1992. Since the original plan for the construction of the school involved only Mr. Arciero and the school district, I question whether Mrs. Elfelt's "build -at -any -cost" philosophy and campaign is motivated by concern for the school or by concern for her employer, Mr. Miller. III. Relationship of Mr. Dabney and Mr. Miller Mr. Dabney has been a business associate of Mr. Miller's for many years. Mr. Dabney determines possible and best uses for land, consults regarding engineering and infrastructure matters, and resolves issues for Mr. Miller in his role as builder/developer/land banker quite often. Their offices are within a few feet of one another. It is Mr. Dabney who is representing RNP in the development approval process. After a long absence, Mr. Forrister, the alleged owner of RNP, recently introduced himself to the City Council. Then, apparently because Mr. Forrister knew so little about the project, he referred all questions to Mr. Dabney. Comments at City Council Meeting re Approval of South Pointe Master Plan Violations of General Plan Extension and Government Code Section 65361 Probable Violation of Government Code Section 1090 by Terry L. Birrell May 31, 1994 Page 5 of 6 I would think that the owner of a project with a $100 million potential might have some passing acquaintance with that project. Rather, Mr. Forrister's sole interest appears to be in his smaller project located in Texas where he lives. It appears that Mr. Dabney and Mr. Forrister, like Mrs. Elfelt and Mr. Rumsey, are fronting for Mr. Miller. IV. Mr. Miller Finally, Mr. Miller would have us believe that, because he has not been present when the South Pointe Master Plan has been discussed, he has done nothing to promote the South Pointe Master Plan. It is well established doctrine that a sitting officer, i.e., councilmember, can influence the thinking and actions of other officers (councilmembers) and staff and thereby promote their financial interest without ever having to vote on the matter. Furthermore, Mr. Miller has voted in a manner favorable to the South Pointe Master Plan. Mr. Miller voted twice for General Plans which would have permitted the RNP property to be developed rather than preserving its open space designation. Mr. Miller actively campaigned against residents seeking to put the 1993 General Plan on the ballot. Now that the 1993 Plan allowing the RNP property to be developed has been rescinded, Mr. Miller has turned about face and wants it put on the ballot. Al Are these acts not attempts to influence the South Pointe Master Plan project? Ho wou eaten V. Summary of Code Section 1090 Issue Furthe In conclusion, it appears that Mr. Miller never sold Lots 49 and 53 consisting of vould Sandstone Canyon nor lots 1 and 61 on Grand Avenue as he claims. °Vernr, Rather, he contributed them to a corporation, RNP, in what appears to have been an effort ereF to cover-up his ownership. °re DIV the And he refuses to provide documentation of the sale to the City Attorney unless the City ter pl Attorney promises silence, i.e., to do nothing about any possible conflict. In other words, r has nr he has refused to provide documentation of the claimed sale. Why? the Cot Why was the corporate address that of Mr. Miller's father-in-law and vice president for 'lents over two and a half years after the date Miller claimed he sold the corporation? existing At first, wasn't Mr. Miller directing the development process through his father-in-law and vice president, Rumsey? ty Clerk their en Comments at City Council Meeting re Approval of South Pointe Master Plan Violations of General Plan Extension and Government Code Section 65361 Probable Violation of Government Code Section 1090 by Terry L. Birrell May 31, 1994 Page 6 of 6 Now, isn't Miller directing the development process through his long-time friend and business associate Jan Dabney? Isn't he attempting to gain community acceptance through the efforts of his employee: Carolyn Elfelt, President of the Community Club? I calculate the odds of these four people - Miller, Rumsey, Elfelt, and Dabney - randoml functioning in concert in these positions as being 1.5 quintillion (1.5 x 10 to 1. Y ) Based on the foregoing, I believe that Miller has a financial interest in theSouth Poin Development Agreement with RNP. to Thus, I believe that the South Pointe Development Agreement for R/N/p Development Inc., including the South Pointe Master Plan, etc., if approved, will be void. SUMMARY OF ALL POINTS Many proposals have been presented, presumably, with the best of intentions. ni However, none of the alternatives may be considered or adopted this eveng as that would be a violation of the conditions of the General Plan extension and wou extension to be rescinded. Id cause the Furthermore, the development agreement with RNP can not be considered tonight as that would vi Government Code sect olate condition 1(a) of the General Plan extension and appear to violate ion 1090 and create a void contract. Therefore, if the members of the City Council wish to faithfully discharge their duties and follow the laws of the State of California, they may only consider the original South Pointe Master Plan, excluding any agreement with RNP until they have irrefutable proof that Mr. Miller has no financial interest in RNp. Thus, the Council may only consider tonight the original Arciero and Sasak Development Agreements. (With respect to those agreements, I would urge that density be limited to density existing in the surrounding areas). For the City Clerk's convenience, I have formalized my comments and request that the included in their entirety and with exhibits in the minutes of the meeting. Y be DA*E 05-31-94 TIME 22:52:17. AGENDA ITEN t INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID ANSARI NO YES HARMONY NO INVALID FAFEN YES INVALID INVALID TOTALS . . . . . . . 2 2 Q Lf 22 141-t -** r BOARD MEETING• Second: iv net ..___________-> ' FAILED THIS AGENDA ITEM HAS� (MOTION) L # DATE Q5-31-34. TIME 22:48:54 AGENDA IY`El+i PL. Y`ti INVALID INVALID BOARD MEETING' INVALID r a -v n I14VALID Maker. INVALID YES Second: ANSARI No WEER YE M:EWVALID No PAPER I14VALID INVALID � � d GALS . , , THIS AGVIDA ITEM HAS -------------> �gAILED (MOTION) L DA°rE 05-32-94 TIME 22:37:15 AGENDA ITEM it 2..2 INVALID S INVALID INVALID INVALID INVALID ANSARI NO YES U4imY NO FAFEN YES INVALID INVALID 2 2 d BOARD MEETING• �� � y Maker.. ��"�'v n �A-, Second: P • Tp'�AI,_ _�� THIS AGENDA ITEM HAS ------------->> FAILED / (MOTION) PETITION I -C C 0— v -_S I - 7 y. cry cU1,Lk. We, the undersigned, are petitioni_nq l;he Diamond Bar City Cou-,cil not to remove the existing map restrictions on the property surroundinc the Country and Brock Hills. We feel the restrictions on this property should remain to protect our property values, to protect the homes of our wildlife, to keep Grand Avenue traffic, already too heavy, at a minimum, to kacp more traffic ouL of Lhe C'ounLry, Lr, keep from buil.dinq r1(-01 r(-)a(j into this area, and to protect our children from over crowded school -s, L)ecausO more humes would be bu i tt. We ,ire r -i l so concerned at.)r,uL mud slides and fires if digging/bui:l.dinq would be allowed. PROPERTY ADDRESS � 1q 5. S-r,4re��2sT ►�j� . - (�M ©1vDW -CA �-- SIGNATUR OF OWNER(S) — -- V� ( t�, (& c" -kms /D) ` aftuwt,�, ba a (9412 I -c -i � j-� q �. v1Cf4) - r PRINT Nk,14E OF OWNER 9N1NlC!_ 4((90 VZ r ��J PETITION We, the undersigned, are petitioning the Diamond Bar City Council not to remove the existing map restrictions on the property surrounding; the Country and Brock Ilil_ls. We feel the restrictions on this property should remain to protect our property values, to protect the homes of our wildlife, to keep Grand Avenue traffic, already too heavy, at a minimum, to keep more traffic out of the Country, to keep from building new roads into this area, and to protect our children from over crowded schools, because more homes would be built. We are also concerned about mud slides and fires .if diggingjbuild:i_ny would be allowed. PROPERTY ADDRESS SIGNATURM OF OWNER(S) LPTN'C NMI,, OF, OT,,THE r- 'j s 14 Ilk, -J (,) 3o b 4 IL -L' c /C YC L:" 'V L "Y/Z/t - / "-T-" <- �c L v •�zaA) C7'7ON IVe, the under to rorrrov, , _ sl9ned, arc c tl.� c�i.st' Potiti.on.i-n Country and 1119 111,1 9 t=he Diamond Brock Hills, PWeestri-cti_orrs on tlrc par remain City C<�1rncil wildlife ° protect our pro feel the restr_ ' r rOr'ertY sur_rc;undi rnl not property values to ,actions on this the' to keep mor to keep Grand Avenue traffic protect the property should into * tr J7rand out of tlrc , al.roady tooheavy, homes of phis area, and to ounCry, heav °i1r because more homes protect our()1<ce� Y at a minimum Sl would be children I from build_i_nq n�_-W and fires built. from over crowded if digging/buildin wc- arc' Also concernedschools, PROPERTY ADDRESS g would be allowed. about about mud SIGrZ URF; OF O WIVE R NAME u E OF OFP;IER ----------------- i -7— /5 7,44, lVA h c PrTITION We, the undersigned, to remove the are Petitionin County exist- ma g the Diamond Bar Cit Country and Brock Hills, p restrictions on the Propert y Council not remain to We feel the restrictions on Y surrounding the Wildlife, pookeet our property values, to this property should Wi keep p Grand Avenue traffic protect the homes of our p more traffic out of , already too heavy, into this. at -o ���d to the CourILr Yeep, at a minimum, because more homes wou-I t-c,c`i our chi ldr<tn From over building new roads slides and .t`i.res if di c .i.nbuildlinc We crowded scho"]S, g7 �/ arc also concerned about mud 1 wou].c_I t�)e allowed, P/R�OPERTYADDRESS r7'i��7�7 � � �`/"'/( SIGN TURD. OF' OWNER (S) k- ?%7c f� PRI NV NAME OF OF77,JER w4mc-00 mai S t' � le dE P. 6Atrn 0 lob a Fa L ,R Ivy,- - a �'R .2l{-Zz3 `-� �—=�rFc 711f- �3z;r.► d� 1'z /ill --��{ — s�� `' a► l no ('EVit' I'V ION Wo, the undersigned, are peLitioning t -he Diamond Bar City Council not to remove the existing map restrictions on the property surrounding the Country and Brock Hills. We feel the restrictions on this property should reina-in to protect- our P.ropurty values, Lo I)roLccL Lhe homes (.)f o��r wildlife, to keep Grand Avenue traffic, already too heavy, at a minimum, to keep more traffic out of the Country, to keep from building new roads into this area, and to protect our children from over crowded schools, because more homes would be built. We are also concerned about mud slides and fires if digging/building would be allowed. PROPERTY ADDRESS SIGNATURE OF OWNER (S) PRINT ?,TT\.ME OF OWN --�44A-0dJ -h'-j6' ff —f+ ,?,/-'� L�7 Lr�ayi J�F�r' k—.J-�`1 f----� @, y,�', /l.l��� I✓��j.?'� 4i1:�4J ja i /l 1 s. r.�-'.7 y _. ..�+ f✓7p C t CLe-- fiG'�Gk: w D C�� T�� ' mis4 c C �-3 7 A�5- 0 G PIETTTION We, the unders.icTned, are pc,k.itioning t -he Diamond Bar City Council not to remove the oxisti_n<j map restri.cL-i.ons oii the property sur_roundinr. the Country and Brock dills. We feel the restrictions on this property should remain to protect our property values, to protect the homes of our wildlife, to keep Grand Avenue tr_affi.c, already too heavy, at a minimum, ----- -- to 1.� �_moie_ tr-a f ic_ otit--L) - t le �auuLry, t O keepTr_om- F�ui�zl�-nq rie.� roads into this area, and to protect our: chi.ldr.c,n from over crowded schools, because more homes would be built. We are also concerned about mud slides and fires if di_ggi-ng/buildinq would be allowed. PROPERTY ADDRESS SIGNATURE OF OWNER(S) E NAME OF OWNI c1 1 Y �i PETITION We, the undersigned, are petitioning the Diamond Bar City Council not to remove the existing map restrictions on the pi aper. Ly sui i ouuui=ir, Country and Brock Hills. We feel the restrictions on this property Should remain to protect our property values, to protect the homes of FM our wildlife, to keep Grand Ave. Traffic, already too heavey, at a minimum, to keep more traffic out of the Country, to keep from building rew roads into this area, and to protect our children from overcrowded schools because more homes would be built. We are also Concerned about mud slides and fires if digging/building would be allowed. G.J'��• 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS SIGNATURE OF OWNER(S) Print 15,01 �j -y C ` 1— K (� r C{" C G 2. �G. fI �' PL' i ZRd t � PETITION We, the undersigned, are petitioning the Diamond Bar City Council not to remove the existing map restrictions on the property surrounding the Country and Brock Hills. We feel the restrictions on this property Should remain to protect our property values, to protect the homes of our wildlife, to keep Grand Ave. Traffic, already too heavey, at a minimum, to keep more traffic out of the Country, to keep from building rew roads into this area, and to protect our children from overcrowded schools because more homes would be built. We are also Concerned about mud slides and fires if digging/building would be allowed. PROPERTY ADDRESS S NATUR OF OWNER(S) Print l Itt C44 6-7 1K�nd�s- y ���/L 4y;`� PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING CITY OF DIAMOND BAR �CC011� MSSION OF THE DENIAL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 24031,AQUESTING Y MERGI, TWO EXISTING PARCELS, To MERGE BUILDING RIGHTS TO REMOVE ACCESS , ND RESTRICTIONS, AND OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS ON A 68 ACRE SITE, SOUTH OF S LOCATED GRAAVENUE, EAST OF SHOTGUN LANE THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE,AND WEST OF DIAMOND BAIL, THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA AND MERG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals_ Development, Inc., (i) J.C. Dabney and Associates, acting as Agent for R -n -P 4439 Rhodelia Ave., Claremont, CA. 91711 has filed an application for Parcel Map No. 24031, for property located as described in h this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Parcel Map -application is a e hoe of referred to as "application". as a duly organized mato On pr 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established pursuant to the requirement of the California Government Code Seration of the State Of ction On said date, 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance N Title thereby adopting the Los Angeles County No. 14, Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Code as the ordinances of the City of Development Code of the County Los Angeles County Code contains the development applications, including he subject application, Angeles withini theoy' applicable to Ban'City of Diamond Accordingly, action wasitakh City he f Dia application, . lacks an Operative General Plan. adopted General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of an consistency of planning future and Research Extension granted pursuant to California Government eCodefplanning 65361. Section (iv) On May 23, 1994 the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and said public hearing on that date. concluded occurred. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have 1 B. Resolution. NOW, THEIZEpORE, it is found , determCommission of the City of Diamond Bar as fined and resolved b as follows: Y the Planning 1 • The Planning Commission hereby s facts set forth in the Recitals, p Y specifically finds that all of the and correct. art A, of this Resolution are true 2• Based upon substantial Commission Burin evidence presented to g the above public hearin the Planning g and oral testimony Provided at the hearing, the Planning specifically finds as follows: Commission hereby (a) The project relates to a site comprised 68 acres and is of absent of development and serves approximately as a natural drainage area. The site is located within the RPD-rnia; _2IJ Zone, in the City of Diamond Baz California; (b) The subject site is surrounded b to the north, south and west, d vacant undevelopresidential deveed an to the east, ped land (c) The subject site is bounded b roadway and by Summitrid e Grand Avenue, a major g nve, and Rimford Lan (d) The site is currently and Lot 61 of Tract 42557. Both Lot 1 of Tract No. 31'' } restrictions and lot 61 additionallyth loEs contain bui for access to Grand contains prescriptions impact of creatingopen These restrictions have the pen space easements over the lots; (e) The nature, condition considered, and size of the site has been The site is adequate in size to accommodate the use although the geotechnicalnot lend themselves to developmentand of the site; The may The project may have an adjoining uses. It may adverse impact on adjacent or use, enjoyment, or valuation n of p o�1Y detrimental to the located in the vicin- P PertY of other persons or welfare of persons residing in may the surrounding versely the health area; 2 ig) That the map is not consistent with applicable goals of the contemplated General plan; (h) That the design of the subdivision and the prosed improvements are likely damato cause substantial environmentalntal ge or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; W Based on substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above referenced ublic h and upon the specific findings PDg Planningg presented herein, the Commission concludes that it cannot find conformity with Government Code Section 51093 and 65874 regarding the abandonment of the open space easements. il) Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Daily Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in and 2 above, this Commission hereby that Parag recommends the raphs 1 Council deny the application for Parcel M p No. 4031 and Cthe abandonment of the existing open space easements and building rights restrictions. The Planning Secretary Shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified certified mail, to J. C COPY of this Resolution, by Dabney and Associates and R -n -P Development, Inc application, at the address as set forth on the APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF M AY 1994, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF , DIAMOND BAR. HE CITY OF BY: David Meyer, Chairman Attest: James DeStefano Secretary K I, James De.Stefano, Secretary 1, mond Bar, do hereb of the Planning Commission of introduced, passed y certify that the foregoingthe City of Commission held on the 23RDpts' at a re Resolution was duly da o f regular meeting of the Plannin Y May, 1994 b th g AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT. Y e following vote -to -wit: [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] 11 Flamenbaum, and Meyer Schad Fong, Plunk CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 2- • I TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: May 31, 1994 REPORT DATE: May 26, 1994 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Parcel Map No. 24031 SUMMARY: The proposed project is a request to merge Lot 1 of Tract 31479 and Lot 61 of Tract 42557 creating a single parcel totaling 68.10 acres. The applicant requests the removal of the right to restrict the construction of residential buildings upon the existing parcels. That right was incorporation in 1989. Approval of the application would require the City's abandonmmeentbof currently h y the City ld Open space and building rights restrictions on the newly created parcel. The site is currently vacant and exists in a primarily natural state. The project site is zoned RPD -20,000-2U and is located south of Grand Avenue. west of Shotgun Lane, east of Summitridge Drive extending to the City of Chino Hills/County of San Bernardino boundary line. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application on May 23, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Parcel Map No. 24031. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:& Staff Report X Public Hearing. Notification Resolution(s) — Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) _. Ordinances(s) — Agreement(s) X Other: Correspondence, Negative Declaration, petition received 5/23/94, minutes of May 23 Planning Commission Meeting EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: None SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? _Yes x No 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: PUBLIC WORKS V WED BY: T rrence L. Belan a Frank Usher J es DeStefano City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Development Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. Z'1 MEETING DATE: May 31, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Parcel Map No. 24031 ISSUE STATEMENT: The proposed project is a request to merge Lot 1 of Tract 31479 and Lot 61 of Tract 42557 creating a single parcel totaling 68.10 acres. The applicant requests the removal of the right to restrict the construction of residential buildings upon the existing parcels. That right was acquired by the City upon incorporation in 1989. Approval of the application would require the City"s abandonment of currently held open space and building rights restrictions on the newly created parcel. The site is currently vacant and exists in a primarily natural state. The project site is zoned RPD -20,000-2U and is located south of Grand Avenue, west of Shotgun Lane, east of Summitridge Drive extending to the City of Chino Hills/County of San Bernardino boundary line. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application on May 23, 1994. BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted the parcel map project to the City in conjunction with the development of alternative scenarios of an off-site project (South Point Master Plan, R -N -P Development, Inc. property). The applicant is requesting that the City approve: 1) the merger of two distinct lots to form one new parcel totalling approximately 68 acres; 2) a reversion to acreage, thus removing all access and building rights restrictions as well as the open -space easements. The applicant is requesting that these approvals be granted as a quid pro quo compensation for non -development of a portion of the South Pointe site by the developer as stipulated in Alternative 1 of the South Pointe project. 1 Pursuant to Section 66499.20 1/4 and Section 66499.20 3/4 of the Subdivision Map Act in concert with Section 51093 and 65874 (b) of the California Government Code (CGC), provisions for petitioning the governing body for removal of restrictions and easements have been provided. The governing body is required to make the required findings in order to remove the legislative constraints placed on the site. Staff recommends however, that the City Council proceed in its review in one of the following manners. Method No. 1 The City Council can review this project as requested by the applicant, that is, as a quid pro quo compensation in conjunction with the approval of Alternative No. 1. If the City Council wishes to proceed in that context, staff feels that an extensive Development Agreement would be required to protect the interests of the applicant, and the City, and an additional re- circulation of the South Pointe Master Plan EIR would be required to address the new project. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition of a project, consideration of this project as a part of Alternative No. 1 would bring this project under the envelope of the South Pointe EIR. Method No. 2 The City Council can however review this project on the its merits irrespective of the South Pointe project. Under this evaluation criteria the Council can take action immediately based on the project information and the environmental information prepared for review. APPLICATION ANALYSIS; The two independent lots were created from the subdivision of separate tract maps. Lot 1 of Tract No. 31479 was recorded in 1981. The tract map was a subdivision of a large area encompassing the land bounded by Lot 1, north to Carpio Drive which is located south of the SR 60 freeway, and west to Golden Springs Drive. Tract No. 31479 indicates Lot 1 serves as a natural drainage course and is restricted for pubic health and safety concerns related to the management of the area. Subsequent to the recordation of this tract, Tract No. 42557 was initiated. Tract No. 42557, recorded in 1982'encompasses the area south of Grand Avenue, west of the County line, east of the entrance to The Country Estates and north of Rimford Lane. The area inclusive of Lot 61, once again has the building restrictions maintained from the previous tract map restrictions, as well as access restrictions to Grand Avenue. The restrictions on Lot 61 of Tract No. 42557 consist of building restrictions which prohibit the construction of residential buildings or other structures and also includes prohibitions concerning access to Grand Avenue. Lot No. 1 of Tract No. 31479 has similar restrictions which prohibit K the construction of residential structures. The Interim City Attorney has determined that the result of the access and building restrictions create non -possessory open space easements as defined in Government Code Section 65560 (b. 3 & 4). The zoning for the area is RPD -20,000-2U (Residential Planned Development, 20,000 square foot minimum lot size, with a maximum of 2 units per net acre). The RPD zone was created by the County to provide for flexibility in the design of hillside areas and to require large expanses of open space (not less than 30 percent of the net area) and for large separations between structures. Often, developers in the hillside areas were granted approval to use clustering and lot averaging when designing their projects. Review of the tract maps and the existing lot configurations indicates that many of the lots are non -conforming in the gross square footage that they were developed with. The development surrounding the application site exhibits all of the elements consistent with lot averaging and the RPD Zone. The RPD zone requires that the development provide one or more of the following: a) Common open space for recreational purposes; b) Areas of scenic or natural beauty forming a portion of the development; c) Present or future recreational areas of a noncommercial nature; d)present or future hiking, riding, or bicycle trails; e) Landscaped areas adjacent to streets in excess of minimum required rights-of-way; f) Other similar areas determined to be appropriate by the Council. The consolidation of the two lots and the lifting of development restrictions and the derived ability to construct one residential unit will not, in and of itself, create an immediate conflict with the intent and action of the County's approval. Analysis of the existing development reveals that currently there are approximately 28 acres of residential development and 73 acres of open space including passive and active uses. The existing development possesses two pocket parks, a three acre open space parcel and the assessor's information indicates that Lot 1 and Lot 61 are traversed by trail easements. With no development plans to accompany the application there is no base of information to determine future impacts of relinquishing the restrictions and easements. The Council may however approve the lot merger and maintain the restrictions or revise the restrictions to allow the construction of one unit. The property owner reserves the right under state law to bring additional projects or subdivisions back to the City for additional entitlements. conclusion: The parcel map application as requested by the applicant may involve extensive action on the part of the City including the recirculation of the South Pointe Master Plan EIR because of the inclusion of this project as part of the South Pointe project. Staff feels that the Development Agreement approved by the Planning Commission as part of the South Pointe project would have to be revised and would be subject to review by the Commission prior to approval of this project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council review this project on its merits, separate from the South Pointe project. Review of the existing development surrounding the project site, as it relates to the RPD Zone development standards, indicates that lot averaging has been implemented in the design of the residential project. There are large parcels of open space (exceeding zone requirements) that include the subject site and were incorporated as required amenities for the development and to maintain the average lot size conformity. Approval of this project will not immediately place this balance at risk. All future development proposals must be approved by the City via the public hearing process. The Council may consider removal of the restrictions on this property, amending the restrictions to allow one residential unit, or to maintain the current restrictions although approving the lot merger and address the issue when a definitive development project is submitted. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff concluded the review the initial study and determined, pursuant to CEQA, that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate and has prepared the document and made it available for public review. FINDINGS OF FACT: Government Code Section 51093 (1) That no public purpose described in Section 51084 will be served by keeping the land as open -space; and (2) That the abandonment is not inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter; and (3) That the abandonment is consistent with the local General Plan; and (4) That the abandonment is necessary to avoid a substantial financial hardship to the landowner due to involuntary factors unique to him. Government Code Section 65874 (b) Upon determination that the restriction of the property is no longer necessary to achieve the land use goals of the City or county, a release shall be recorded by the City or county in the county where the restricted property is located. Government Code Section 66474 (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 4 (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision . In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. PUBLIC NOTICE: This application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on May 7, 1994 and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on May 6, 1994. Two hundred three (203) property owners within a 1000 foot radius of the site were mailed notices of the public hearing on May 5, 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On Monday, May 23, 1994 the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing to consider an application by J. C. Dabney, as agent for RNP Development Inc., to merge the two referenced lots into one parcel. The Commission received considerable public testimony and concluded its hearing by recommending denial of the proposed Parcel Map. Draft Minute Excerpts from the Planning Commission meeting are attached. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Parcel Map No. 24031. PREPARED BY: Robert L. Searcy Associate Planner attachments: Negative Declaration Correspondence received to date Petition received 5/23/94 Draft Minute Excerpts of May 23 Planning Commission Meeting E CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA NO. I-' - AGENDA REPORT Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager 26, 1994 TO: May 31, 1994 REPORT DATE:. May MEETING DATE: James Stefano, Community Development Director FROM: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional Use Ves TITLE: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Tentative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Vesting No. 512ac and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12, 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-2; Tentative Tract Map rt No. 92-1, continued Oak Tree permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Repo from May 9, 1994. ro ect, public hearing earin of the City Council to consider a request for resappidential, co mercial Park, open SUMMARY: This ointg of land uses which include known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting roximately 171 acres in size and is located north of pathfinder space and school facilities. The project site is app id View Drive. The project Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid approximately 200 single - Road, west of Brea Canyonsquare feet; s a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of 290, n May 23, 1994. family detached residential dwelling to review project alternatives o y The Planning Commission conducted a public meeting is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from City Staff and RECOMMENDATION' It receive public testimony; and take appropriate action* project developers; open the public hearing; tion LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) X Other EXTERNAL DISTRIBU'T'ION: Public Hearing Nohfica Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: l Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? or 4/5 vote? 2. Does the report require a majority 3 , Has environmental impact been assessed? 4 Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Which Commission? affected by the report? 5. Are other departments Report discussed with the following affected departments: REV D Y: prank M. Usher TeInce L. Belang Assistant City Manager City Manager N/A _ Yes_ No MAJORITY X Yes _ No Yes X No X Yes No PUBLIC WORKS J es DeStefano Community Develo ment Director CITY COUNCII- REPORT May 31, 1994 AGENDA NO- MEETING O . !2.E MEETING DATE: Council TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Belanger, City Manager FROM: Terrence L. Vesting Tentative Tract Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; 92-8; Development Ag 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. Oak SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. Use Map No. 51407, 32400, Conditional Use Perm and Conditional Tentative Tract No. No. 51253 and Vesting 91-2% Tentative Tract Ma the South Pointe Master Plan; Tree Permit No. Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9% 1994. Permit No. 92-12; Oa Report r . 92-1, continued from May 9, Environmental Imp of the City Council to consider a This public hearing known as the South Pointe Master ISSUE STATEMENT: 1 ect, commercial► 171 request for approval la a mixed use P j is approximately consisting of land uses Wes. Thel project site residential, of Brea Canyon Plan, open space and school facilities. View Drive. Theproject acres in size and is located Ve rand southhof Rapid i View space of 290,000 Road, east of Morning Su ro oses to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/Office middle school._ le -family detached residential dwelling p P a roximately 200 sing ro ect square feet; PP neighborhood park; and the construction of areview P 7 units, a 28 acre mmig conducted a public meeting The Planning Commission alternatives on May 23► 1994- Commission the City Council and Planning On May 9, 1994, the South Pointe Master BOmple ed public meeting conducted to review ort and completed a joint P Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 65857, Plan project. The City Commission for referred project 23 1994, the Planning Commission considered the ro ect alternatives to the Planning recommendation. On May matter. Commission conducted a noticed The Planning upon alternatives. The Commission, PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT. ents regarding the project public meeting for a review of project ovided comments 1 is not conclusion of public testimony, P o. 'ves. onsensus on any of the other alternCouncil i The Commission found consensus that Alternative City alternat report for a viable option and there was af f to c provide a The Commission e Commission si on tcomments. summarizing h draft minutes Attached for the City Council's use pie information to are -minutes reg ing of the alternatives discussion individual Commissioner comments. PREPARED BY! James DeStefano ment Director Community Develop attachments: Excerpts from Draft Planning 1994. May 9, 1994 Staff Report Commission Minutes of May 23' MINUTE EXCERPTS FROM THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 11 DRAFT" MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MAY 23, 1994 CALL TO ORDER 05 p,m, in the AQMD Meyercalled the meeting to order at �' California. Chairman Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, Auditorium, 21865 E. p PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE led in the Pledge of The audience was ROLL CALL Present: Also Present: Allegiance by Chairman Meyer. Vice Chairwoman Plunk; Chairman Meyer; Schad, and Fong Commissioners: Flamenbaum, James Community Development Director Searcy; DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Interim . City Assistant Planner Ann Lungu% Engineer Mike Attorney Michael Montgomery; Liz Myers; and Contract Recording Secretary Myers *************** suggested agenda, the South Chair/Meyer 4 d that item 5 of the ag of the agenda, Pointe project, be considered prior to item planning Commission has Parcel Map No. 24031, to assure the time to discuss the South Pointe issue as directed sufficient Council. by the City agenda items There being no objection, the order of the two were reversed. OLD BUSINESS ENT AGREEMENT NOS • 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT AND OAR TREE 4. DEVELOPM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8' MAP 32400, MAP NO. 51407),92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 91-2; PERMIT NO- OAR TREE PERMIT NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND TENTATIVE RT REE PERMIT .NO 92-9; THE SOUTS POINTE MASTER PLAN: 92-12; OA 92-1 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. been pip/Searcy reported that the Planning Commission has entified directewere d to consider project altehnativ es CcAlternatives the South Pointe Mast er Plan prof ect which stated that Altern lnew elements of the originalro ect revisions which supply o new No. 1 and No. 2 are actual p 7 4, and 5 supply He then reviewed the five alternatives as information whereas Alternative Nos. , information. report* outlined in the staff rep Y 23, 1994 Page 2 ed receive public efano stated that it is recommend rest that the planning CDD/Dent the submittedthe appropriate Commission review staff to prepare and direct Council's consideration comments 1994. Commission recommendation schedul d May 31, at their special meeting yj-11 not be indicating he C/Schad read a statement ertaining to the South Pointe sting in the final votes perceived conflict of interest; particip ro ect due to a p public hearing as a Master Plan p participating in the however, he will be citizen. correspondence from received corresp favorable stated that the Ci13, 1994, requesting and Chair/Meyeroration, dated May No. 51253, Sasak corporation, Tentative Tract Gated May lo, 1994. consideration Don Gravdahl, correspondence from Mr. ro ect to come ro onents of the p 7 Chair/Meyer invited the p p forward and provide testimony• stated that he is 671 s. Brea Canyon Road, Ste . 5 � Jan Dabney, available to answer any questions. Canyon to the the proposed road from Brea 1t C/Fong .asked how as outlined in Alternative No. development and the school, will cross the blue line stream. that an arch anticipated explained that it is to allow the Jan Dabney P o into the stream bed with the culvert will be used to g point without interferingl arge, and utilities to cross at that pture he to allow structure. He stated that ess aboveon water k through the have PCC on one side for the canyon to walk people who want to the environment. structure without disturbing a 9.5% grade at that the proposed road has anding Vnoting ,IC/plunk, stated that it was her underst the bottom of the canyon, that a 7% grade was recommended for school Buse the the desirable grade is 8%, that stated that, though WVUSD) indicated Jan Dabney benefit then worrying Walnut Valley Unified school more of a the secondary access provided rade application. the about a g stated that Jan Dabney incl in response to Chair/Meyer,Council to approve the orifi desire the City however, alternatives applicants resented; South Pointe Master Plan as f uests from several membregers Of were developed in response to req that the ding his opinion he City Council to address expressed h nities concern the t $e thencompr preservation.ro osed to the developers compromise P p developers. community more than the superintendent of the WvUSD, stated that the the Dr. Hockwalt, the Sup South Pointe Middle Y1WSD is in the position to build Y 23, 1994 Page s the City Council to get the School with the cooperation of resent site. grading permits to move the dirt from the P Arciero & Tustin Ave., Anaheim, fives Frank Arciero, Jr., 950 N. 1 is a proposal that g reserve Sandstone Canyon by dedicating Sons, stated that o Alternative No* the opportunity ublic, and it also facilitates the this 75 acre site to the p construction of the school. and invited those wishing to Chair/Meyer opened the meeting speak to come forward. opposed to on Knoll Court, PP take residing that the City need not Robert Broddman 1, pointed out on site because the Alternative No. on that piece of ownership of the 75 acre Sandstone Canyon any already restrict development City can en space without having property and maintain it as open ect. He stated that the linkage to the Grand of the City negatively affecting all continuous develop residents. expressed concern Fred Fidel, residing at 24046 Shot °Gun hathe cont. uous trend that wildlife hasTt ° where to g towards develop in opposition to Michael Ferry, they residing at 24300 Kstated that they CW re'specifically told Parcel Map No. 24031, ro osed site will remain He pointed out that additional by Brock and TransA reeen belt* the P P trafficon as an agricultural g impacted. na development in that area will crenificant Y impacted. Grand Avenue, which is already Sig opposition e Drive, in residing at 1552 Summitrid parcel Map No. 24031, Tom Cooper, the map restrictions on rovIdes no benefit to lifting ment of that parcel p stated that the develop but rather adds more noise n d trathat to existing homeowners•Avenue. He expressed against one congestion on Grand it residents He 1 attempts to P five to another. Alternative No. land from one area to g lace does another by taking the map restrictions in p al liabilities, but lifting pointed out that keeping y new leg menu that not subject the City al actions and argu the restrictions will createlegCouncil, and the developers will occupy the residents, Y for years to come. stated that he was against the South Pointe Middle Don Schad resent location but to its never School being constructed in it the neighborhood, and impact tO built; however, since it is accessibility being and the against the school actually being dirt should be removed located at that site, $e stated that the laced on the Arciero property several hundred school should be constructed immediately- trees intact, dirt can be p which will leave the feet from the stream, and a strip of all the other f ment of homes beyond that provide water f°a de for the develop of life, entire area. land can be set permanent damage to the boundary, without doing Page 4 May 23, 1994 that -the EIR is incomplete and and must He expressed his opinion on is invaluable He stated that the cany and in the future. inaccurate. the children today be preserved for regarding his preferred VC/Flunk's inquiry would prefer no In response to Schad stated that he canyon into a the canyon. and putting the since alternative, Mr. ment in however, develop for preservation and restorationTo erty, then he conservancy development rights to his p p ty, Mr. Arciero has the dirt on the Arciero proper and would concur with putting the school development, to facilitate the constructiriis site. allowing Arciero to develop Fong, Mr. Schad stated that all the proposals Halso In response to C/ separate from one another. ed if considered sep develop should be the area do stated that the Grand Avenue site should not e it has map restrictions and if the residents in not want it disturbed or develope • Lane, submitted residing at 1926 Derringer24031. Romaine Biedelman, natures opposing Parcel Map No. the increase in traffic and noise petitions with 73 sig regarding She expressed concern withhe as well as a concern reg resulting from the develop d slides. potential mua Drive, in Sharon Hogan, residing at 1556 Summitridg 24031, stated ment of Parcel Map o be preserved in opposition to the develop the proposal would place that they were told that the site would alwaysincrease She stited ocalthat schools and would its natural staburden on an additional traffic. comments regarding expressed concern tbetincluded into the record for Chair/Meyer24031 will only Parcel Map No • comments are Pointe Master Plan but not into the record for e the South on parcel Map No. 24031 unless all public hearing o time. repeated at the agenda not noted that, had the order of have been ICA/Montgomery No. 24031 would decision then Parcel Map and a been reversed, South Pointe issue, however, discussed prior to the would have been rendered;ho be a regarding Alternative No. 1 there at this point, since both issues overlap, duplication of testimony. public ested opening the meeting to allow p C/Flamenbaum sugg the issues are inter -related, comments on both items, since pointe issue into and incorporate the comments 24031. South the record for Parcel Map No. assumes the exchange is not ICA/Montgomery stated that the event that the the proponents in he- deed e concurred going to be favored by therefore, deed restrictions art ally t ersameeissue. that they are p PUBLIC HEARING y 23, 1994 Page 5. parcel Map No. 24031 public hearing opened for Parcel Map Chair/Meyer declared the p public comment No. 24031, to run concurrent with the continued P enda item, portion of the South Pointe Mast ro r. tely lan greflect all requesting that the public record app P the comments made regarding the South Pointe Master Non 24031 considered as part of the record for the Parcel Map public hearing. RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. ted that the Planning Commission will accept Chair/Me Yer stated on the South Pointe project and Parcel concurrent testimony Cit received Map No. 24031. He then stated that the dated May 9, correspondence from Tamerica Products, Inc., Parcel Map No. 24031, and from Michael Scott, 1994, regarding rding Parcel Map No. 24031. dated May 12, 1994, rega residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Barbara Beach-Courschesne, 1 stated that the Road, in opposition to Alternative ein the South Pointe building restrictions on the RnP property ras should site should remain as was promised to the property on the Grand the building restriction on the RnP property Avenue site. She pointed out that there lifting are nheovbuilding considerations to permit the obability that the restrictions, and there is a strong Pthe futurestent to and project will be detrimentaGPAC has recommended that deedthat adopted General Plan since She also pointed out map restrictions be honored. have to be considered alternatives to the dirt removal may not allow dirt to be since the Department of Fish and Game may portion of rl dumped on the bardlessen ostream f what sindicated the ein thapproved tract 51407, reg opposition to Alternative No. 2 EIR. She then expressed oPP considerations, and because because there are no ould be destroyed on verriding property- the o erty.the blue line stream woiero should not be denied his building She stated that Mr. A rights; however, it must be taken into cShelexpressed support property is environmentally sensitive. ressed opposition to 3. She then e P the EIR for Alternative No • noting the multiple f 12 it is time Alternative No. 4, suggesting report, and to Alternative No. 5, gg for the City to move on. David Capestro, residing at 1652 South Longview, inquired if all comments made regarding the South Pointe agenda item will be included into the record for this item. Chair/Meyer stated that all comments made will be incorporated into the public record for both agenda items. estro expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031. David Cap proposed development would substantially He noted that the pro P May 23, 1994 Page 6 impact traffic on Grand Avenue. He also pointed out developers do not give away acreage in return for less. osition to Parcel Map No. 24031 Robert Broadny expressed opp osed development will for the following reasons: the prop Avenue; the parcels have map increase traffic on Grand urchased the property knowing the restrictions; the developer p proposals should not be linked area was a green belt; the two d that the City Council and the Planning He stated resent the interests of the residents, Commission should rep not the developers. at 24303 Rimford Place, expressed Tricia Guber, residing reasons: Opposition to Parcel Map No. estr for the following proposal will the parcels have building restrictions; the increase traffic and there has been enough fic and noise stated t development in the City. She su the the residents. the Planning Commission should fully PP at 24336 Rimford Place, and Astko Takada, Sue Peg, residing expressed opposition to residing at 24300 Rimford Place, ressed by Mrs. Parcel Map No. 24031 for the same reasons exp Tricia Guber. resident, Hero Wen, residing on 24328 Rimford a Craig Summers, residing at 24303 Rimford Place, Place, and Gordon Guber, NO, 24031 for the following expressed opposition to Parcel Mapich • the parcels have building resten tspace hshould°u ld reasonsbe not be • lifted; the wildlife and °p if the preserved; there are no benefeit developmentto the eSwilltsincrease restrictions are lifte sand pollution; the property was traffic, noise, litter, the purchased by a Council Member with the knowledge tect thef pen established restrictions to preserve and protect of the a y space, and sold to Mr. Forrestor who was fCit to stop restrictions; and Diamond Bar became a undesirable development. t, expressed opposition to the South a resident, Terry Burrell, reasons: it was approved Pointe Master Plan for the following planning mmission in 1993 by the Planning Coin violation to and zoning law; the South Pointe Master Plan is inconsistentng ace with the future adopted desi General to lmaintaindldeed p and map preservation in cumulative restrictions; the EIR is deficient in identifyingtions considera impacts; there are no acceptable °im ridiactsnthe community and since the housing density negatively P increases traffic; the community desires an aesthetically ace; the Lavandar Report pleasing project that retains open s P does not include the assumpbenefithe conclusions were based nor does it include such upon in regards to economic the information such as the current vaa in the Ci and the s les and cannibalization implicit in the projections, foot numbers; the financial status of the sales tax per square investigated; the proposed developers has not been properly the City, may be subject to commercial site, owned by May 23, 1994 page 7 landslides since it is fill; and estricted propere is no . benefit to the community by lifting either p on Knoll Court, a real estate broker, Haji Dayala, residing No. 24031. He stated that expressed opposition to Parcel Map decrease home values by developing the parcels will approximately He then asked d tired beingeveryone in hp audience to 15�. 11 pushed around stand up and state, I am sick 901which to take it anymore. and I m not g g eared to Mr. It is noted that everyone in the audience, which appeared be approximately 100 residents, stood up and repeated Dayala's statement. pointed out that Steve Nice, residing on Rising Star Drive, people signed both referendums over 4,000 oppositto aiding pen General Plan in ion to the position reg restrictions. He suggested that the Planning space and map people here tonight who are Commission should listen to tforp their City. He expressed expressing what they desire to develop in Sandstone support for allowing does not have map restrictions, as Canyon since his property long et their EIR approved as he develops in an environmentally sensitive mann He asked what the WVUSD needs to do to g by the City in order to move the dirt and construct the school. Max Maxwell, reminding the Planning Commission of the number at the Planning Commission take no of recall signatures coltYected as well as the two succes referendums, suggested action on any of the altheatives South Pointe rescindtheir hPlan prior He recommendation regardingut of f the cougar corridor stated that the alter which isives cdetrimental to the existence restricting migration, stated of cougars which often �travlafar as to0move ethe dirt in that it is Mr. Arciero s responsibility 24031 safe manner. He stated that ParceioMap ofNa•GeneralsPlan. He be discussed until after the adoption the agenda packet did not expressed concern that his copy and that he is having include overriding considerations, City that he has C problem getting information from the roved this evening requested. He suggested that nothing be app until a decision has been made regarding the ownership of the Parcel Map No. 24031 property to determine if there is a potential conflict of interest. on Rimford Place, opposed to Parcel_ Charles Williams, residing arcels on Grand Avenue is an Map No. 24031, stated that the p active wildlife area with a blue line stream that will require a permit from the Department of Fish and Game to deeting that stated that Jan Dabney indicated at a homeowners meeting they have every intent to develop the Grand Avenue parcels regardless of the outcomeof directed t Southhe presentPointe Mas staff areport asked why staff was n ed. He then suggested after the recess, as had been indicat May 23, 1994 Page S that the City utilize City on-line by including Planning Commission agendas. RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 9:45 P.m - RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 9:56 p.m. Chair/Meyer requested a staff report on Parcel Map No. 24031. licant, RnP Development, Inc., AP/Searcy reported that the apwo (2) existing parcels, Lot is requesting approval to merge I of Tract No. 31479 and Lot 61 of Tract No. 42557 to on located south f Grand Avenue, parcel totaling 68.10 acres, and east west of Shotgun Lane of Summitridge Drive and extends uire east to the San Bernardino County line h ldlcOwould penSpace and the City's abandonment of currently created parcel. he Building Rights Restrictions on the newly rovals stated that the applicant is requesting that these app pro quo compensation for non -development be granted as a quid onion of the South Pointe site by the developer as of a p project stipulated in Alternative No. 1 of outline d in he staff He reviewed the merits of the prof report. Chair/Meyer invited the proponents of the project to come forward and make a presentation. Jan Dabney clarified that the application did not request removal of any open space, or open space recorded easements from Lot 1 or Lot 61, but rather the removal of o ertdlis restrictions on the property. He noted that the openproperty space not open space, but has a one hundred (100) recorded easement to protect the view. He stated that the restriction on the property is for resident rty which the however, there are underlying uses for the proper to utilize, even if it is not for owner does intend He pointed out that the canyon residential development. property is privately owned astatedl hatbe fenced sanf It that the the owners discretion. development of the South Pointe Master Plan allows for a more y benefit by providing a park and a expansive use and community rif the South Pointe Master Plan passive open space; howeve, there will be no parks and the property will be is denied,at the owners feel they have fenced off. He stated tthe commun ty property to have had to put been misrepresented by ears has been intolerable. He up with the abuse for three y rovided stated t e developers consideration egi� nn to their application.by law too have C/Flamenbaum asked that benefit the City ons on the Grand Avenueosite derive by removing the restric Jan Dabney stated that they will be back before the Planning Commission regarding this site and most likely, through the negotiations between now and then, the necessary benefit will be derived to the surrounding owners. MAY 23, 1994 age 9 In response to VC/Plunk's inquiry regarding possible underlying uses, Jan Dabney stated that, though the property is restricted from building residential developments, a good allowable use for that facility could be an equestrian center. Frank Arciero, Jr., responding to a statement made that developers would never trade land of greater value for lesser value, clarified that he had intended to point out that the City has an opportunity to acquire some land that is currently privately owned, thus giving the City control over it now and in the future, and not that there is a trade of land of lesser value for more value. He pointed out that the South Pointe property is privately owned and Mr. Schad should not invite the community to visit the site because the community does not have the right to trespass on the property, in consideration of liability concerns. C/Fong, realizing that Mr. Arciero does have the privilege to build on his land with hopes of making a good profit and return, inquired if he would be willing to restrict development to the eastern portion of the site and not to interfere with the existing blue line stream and the oak trees on the westerly portion of the property. He suggested that the soil be moved from the South Pointe side down across the stream to the easterly portion of the site, restricting development to the easterly portion of the property. Frank Arciero, Jr., stated that they have researched various plans on how to develop the property with minimal disturbance. He stated that there are geological problems and soil problems associated with the property, and when the property is graded, about 90% of it will be affected by the grading operation in order to stabilize it. He pointed out that there are landslides on the slopes adjacent to Brea Canyon, and that moving the dirt into the canyon would fill the blue line stream. He explained that it is impossible to move 425,000 cubic yards of dirt to the easterly portion of the property because there is not enough property to accommodate that amount of dirt. C/Fong inquired if Mr. Arciero has given consideration to other alternatives to moving that dirt, such as using a conveyor belt to haul it to the easterly portion of the site or to Brea Canyon Road, thus not affecting the canyon. Frank Arciero, Jr. stated that the only feasible alternative since 1982 has been to take the dirt and move it into the canyon. He reiterated that the easterly portion of the site cannot accommodate 425,000 cubic yards of dirt because he would not be able to get to the property from Brea Canyon to develop that part of it, and it could not be utilized unless people are brought in by helicopter. C/Fong reiterated his suggestion that the dirt be brought over by a conveyor belt to the easterly portion of the property, so as not to impact the canyon, restricting development to only May 23, 1994 Page 10 n of the property, thus preserving the that easterly portio property. He suggested that Mr. westerly portion of the open mind on other ways to move Arciero and the WVUSD keep an the dirt, and consider developing the property by utilizing perhaps not yet thought about. He suggested other procedures p feasibility studies performed, that there be more engineering and that a contractor be contacted to see the various kinds of equipment available. the Frank Arciero, Jr. reiterated that he ann theddirt developthe the easterly portion of the property by accepting school site, nor can he afford to move the dirt off of the site. He explained that the cheapest estimate hhs receiwas ved to move the dirt by truck loads off of the property erly $1 million, and to have to convey it over to theby atrucks portion of the property first before removing would be even more Coto an new prohibitive. on howted that he would to move the dirt be willing to listen Y in a cost effective manner to develop the property. C/Fong stated that he is attempting to findsaves the solution that accommodates the construction of ,he and Mr. Arciero and allows development. He suggested thata work session. discuss the issue at another time during Mr. Patel stated that he has not received any objections to his development, nor does he have a problem with the cut and fill process, or with oak trees on the site. stated that he met with Mr. Patel on May 16, 1994 to C/Fong pointed out that a blue line stream view his property. He pro property and that there are several runs across Mr. Patel's p p Y oak trees along the stream. He stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Patel's property also has builhis ding restrictions allowing only 3 dwelling units; therefore, proposal of 23 homes is inconsistent with the draft General Plan. t $1 million to move he dirt is Haji Dayala pointed out henacompared to the amounttof homes to not an extreme expense w the cost of the removal be constructed. He pointed out that of the dirt can easily be added to the cost of the homes, which would be about $5,000 per home. l had icated to Max Maxwell expressed nconcern athat thereMr. wereeno restrictions on him earlier in wactual there is. 1 his property, when e CDD/DeStefano explained that currently Mr. Patel's property is restricted to 3 homes; however, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to lift that restriction to accommodate his proposal in conjunction with the South Pointe Master Plan, which is before the City Council for consideration. May 23, 1994 Page 11 to A resident pointed out that Diamond Bar became y He control sucon erne that nMr asForrestorthe s has beingproposed.never onstructed expressed and the City should be cautious considering e homes before, of the neighbors has no track record. He t Mr. stated Patel' proposed development, have expressed opposition contrary to what he has indicated. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed the meeting and returned the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. to be C/Flamenbaum made the following comments: there seems a trade off of environmental damage from one area to another Alternative No. 1 would exacerbate with Alternative No. 1; impacted; there traffic conditions in an area alreadyhighlyith removing the is no real public benefit to the City ears to be restrictions on Parcel Map No. 24031; and there appto no real public benefit with lternatinewNo. IastheSouthaPointe what is already offered i c7 unctioithMaster Plan. VC/Plunk expressed her opinion that it is ill advised to proceed with Parcel Map No. 24031 based upon the information presented before the Planning Commission. stated that, be anticipated with t, based upon what can C/Fong is to be no lifting of restrictions on there the General Plan, pP open space; therefore, approving Parcel Map No. 24031 would be contrary to the draft General Plan. t there VC/Plunk inquired if it is appropriate to assume thaif such will be absolutely no lifting of restrictions forever, as provision is indicated in the General Plan. people ICA/Montgomery stated that if there is a vote o est fictions, determining there will never be a lifting another then the only way a restriction can be lifted is by Plan vote of the people. He stated that if the General City indicates that restrictions thet General Plan unlessre not to thefGeneral Plan Council could amen of restrictions would require went to ballot, then the lifting a vote of the people. C/Fong expressed opposition to lifting current restrictions on Parcel Map No. 24031. made the following comments: since there is no Chair/Meyerthe required findings of fact that the General Plan, makingn is subdivision is consistent with the restrictions for lappurpose to do; Lot Nos. 1 & 61 were g� en space enjoyment in in terms of view preservation and opthere appears to be no regards to the Brock subdivision; an ther . public benefit to lifting y 23, 1994 Page C Flamenbaum and seconded by VC/Plunk to adopt a Moved by / No. 24031, as resolution recommending denial of Parcel Map amended by the Community Development Director. CDD/DeStefano made the following an to the Resolutions of Denial: change the heading on page 1 to read, of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Resolution Council cil Denial of Parcel Map 24031..."; replace the word "Director" with "Planning Commission" as indicated on page 2, subsection B ub on page 3 to read, "Based upon substantial f inding ( i) the above evidence presented to the Planning Commission g findings referenced public hearing, and uP presented herein, the Planning Commission concludes that and it cannot find conformity with Government Code Sections easement10 3 and 65874 regarding abandonment of the open space reword subsection 3. on page 4 to read, "Based upon ...this recommends the City Council deny the Commission hereby No. 24031 and abandonment of the application for Parcel Map rights existing open space easements and building g restrictions." The Motion Carried 4-0-1 with the following Roll Call vote: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Flamenbaum,. VC/Plunk and AYES: Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Schad ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Meyer asked the Planning Commission to provide comments he South Pointe regarding the alternatives presented with t Master Plan. roved the C/Flamenbaum stated that the Plear under the rules and laws in annin South Pointe Master Plan last y upon up effect when it was first proposed to the City, and based the benefit received by the City from the project; however, appears the current motivation of the City Council and the general public is to preserve as much of the canyon as il has he possible. He stated that the Coit Cofnthe canyonby capabilities to preserve the vast majority deeding a portion of its acreage to the public for the purpose hus of a secondary road on the north side of thand by canyon, educing preserving the southern Portion of the proposed tract maps. He then made the the density within the p Pas following commenusl Alternative No. 2 has nots: Alternative No. 1 is arealtbenefit indicated previo y►the dirt is moved because the canyon would be impacted once tion offered for around; and there has not been any viable the removal of the dirt. He pointed out that the or South Pointe Master Plan proposal contains all the parameters needed for the City Council to deliberate and approve the project. May 23, 1994 Page 13 vC/Plunk stated that, since the original approval last year, she now feels that the public benefit of lifting the restrictions on the SASAK was not demonstrated to her satisfaction. C/Fong stated that Alternative No. 1 is no longer an option based upon the decision made regarding Parcel Map No. 24031. He stated that Mr. Arciero has the right to develop his land, as indicated in Alternative No. 2; however, he must respect the City's desires to preserve the canyon and the WVUSD's desire to construct the middle school. He stated that if the Sasak property is developed, and the restrictions lifted, the blue line stream should be preserved, the oak trees saved, and there should be minimal grading on the land so that the development is an asset to the community. He stated that the restrictions should not be lifted on the RnP property, unless a plan is developed that would enhance the community and not take away from it, leaving as much open space as desired by the City. C/Flamenbaum, noting that RnP can erect a 6 foot high block wall around their property and grade (weed abate) the property until it is bare, leaving the City with nothing, pointed out that the recommendation made by the Planning Commission does at least provide the City with some benefit in return to allowing some development. He then recommended that Alternative Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 be rejected as a recommendation to the City Council, and that the City Council consider his recommendation of Alternative No. 6 as follows: construct the RnP project and the Arciero project as proposed, to exclude the commercial and park development, and moving the road to the north half of the canyon under the Arciero property line, but on City property, utilizing the bottom half of the canyon as a City owned park or open space. Chair/Meyer noted that the direction of the City Council was to discuss the Alternatives, and that there is no need to reach a consensus on the issue. vC/Plunk pointed out that private property cannot be considered a "park" for the community's use. She expressed her opinion that Alternative No. 2 needs further modification to include commercial development. Chair/Meyer pointed out that the community seems to desire all the benefits of urban services, but not development or growth that goes along with it. He stated that the benefits of urbanization and preservation are difficult to measure and require compromising on everyone's part. He expressed his opinion that the benefit of active recreational areas for children, as well as passive open space, was well balanced with the urbanization of commercial and residential development offered within the South Pointe Master Plan, ch offered a revenue source to create and pay for the urban services desired and demanded by the community. He stated that the alternatives offered have more problems than the 23, 1994 Page 14 original proposal. He expressed support for the Planning Commission's original recommendation. Planning 1 is not a viable Chair/Meyer not Alternative ve 1 140.onsensus °f the on Parcel Commission that Al recommendation based upon the recommendation m Map No. 24031, and that there is no consensus of the Planning Commission on the other alternatives -C Fong and carried Moved by rovide a rep C Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Fong for the City unanimously to direct staff n p the Planning Commission's Council's review summarizing comments made this evening. ****************************** C Fong and carried unanimously Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by / at 11:28 p.m. to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting SCALE I V'200' TR. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 24031 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA BEIM 1 NBNu OF IIT 4 lIN[f NG RIl1i Y NISAI w W film III BOY[ w Mq / TINMIM 1I N' NW w lOT U f IBAa p AAYT AA SMIBI INw Mu IY 4 IMM /AFu A 1INOIMI K INTJNIY( s AVA{ III IIM 6FIa i TIE N[liq r II[ 41NR lE u AMEtft RECEIVED GOMMUp All 9� NOTES: 1. =,fn SECTION 6849120 1/2 OF THE SIBDIVISION NAP ACT THE FILING OF THIS OBIRTNICT�I ON V GI�BETNIfIAI�mwalll.m. TOGTIIE EGu CARGO ANGELES THE -OFF K 111E RE4" BECOROfR�TIE I CI= IM PAGES 7 DIMh' OF IN AMBELES L7. FILED IM P. THE AREA.OFUl ,b1. TNACT-ND. 1257- IS L.47 ACRES S THE AREA OF LOT -1, TRACT ND 31479 .IS GS G3 ACNES N. THE AREA OF THE SINGLE PARCEL CREATED BY THIS MERGER 15 GS LO ACRES S PORTIONS OF THIS PARCEL ARE SUSAECT TO FLOODING ALONG THE INDICATED NATURAL DRAINAGE COLOSM L PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY IS VACANT LANG. T. PAOPOSED USE OF PROPERTY IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 1 WIT PER ACRE S CUgENT ZONING IS RPD -PD, D00-211. PPEPAPED BY: J. C. DABNE_ Y 6 ASSOCIATES LEGEND OM MY OF THE LAND BEING NERGEREO BY IN 19 NAP. SATAEEETS.TS CENTER -LINE OF EXISTING "PRESENTS EXISTING EASERENT TO AMIN. REPRESENTS ABANDONED PARCEL LINE ON TO THIS MERGER OF PARCELS. - - OWNER/APPLICANT: R -N -P DEVELOPMENT INC. 4439 RNODELIA AVENUE CLAREMONT, CA 91711 611 S. BREA CANYON RD.. SUITE S. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - 909-594-7566 UTY G CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 1 TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: May 31, 1994 REPORT DATE: May 25, 1994 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-2; Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1, continued from May 9, 1994. SUMMARY: This is a joint public hearing of the City Council and Planning Commission to consider a request for approval of a mixed use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. The Planning Commission conducted a public meeting to review project alternatives on May 23, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission receive a presentation from City Staff and project developers; open the public hearing; receive public testimony; and take appropriate action. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report Resolution(s) X Other EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: X Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belanger City Manager Frank M. Usher Assistant City Manager N/A _ Yes No MAJORITY X Yes No _ Yes X No X Yes _No PUBLIC WORKS James DeStefano Community Development Director CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: May 31, 1994 REPORT DATE: May 26, 1994 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Parcel Map No. 24031 SUMMARY: The proposed project is a request to merge Lot 1 of Tract 31479 and Lot 61 of Tract 42557 creating a single parcel totaling 68.10 acres. The applicant requests the removal of the right to restrict the construction of residential buildings upon the existing parcels. That right was acquired by the City upon incorporation in 1989. Approval of the application would require the City's abandonment of currently held open space and building rights restrictions on the newly created parcel. The site is currently vacant and exists in a primarily natural state. The project site is zoned RPD -20,000-2U and is located south of Grand Avenue. west of Shotgun Lane, east of Summitridge Drive extending to the City of Chino Hills/County of San Bernardino boundary line. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application on May 23, 1994. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny Parcel Map no. 24031. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) — Ordinances(s) — Agreement(s) X Other: Correspondence, Negative Declaration, petition received 5/23/94, minutes of May 23 Planning Commission Meeting EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: None SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes x No by the City Attorney? — 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes_ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: PUBLIC WORKS REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belanger Frank Usher James DeStefano City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Development Director 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE. SUITE 100 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177 909-860-2489 • FAX 909-861-3117 -------------------- DATE: May 3, 1994 FROM: City of Diamond Bar Development Department of Community TO: Property Owners Within 500 Foot Radius and Other Interested Parties SUBJECT: South Pointe Alternatives tosthe ter Planning Commisrral io Project Planning Commission In May of 1993 the Planning the South Pointe Master Plan Commission concluded its all its components(SPMP) by recommendingreview of Council has referred thto the City Council. The Cit approval of referred project, pursuant to Government Code Section 65857, to Planning g Commission for a report and recommendation on two Y proposed project alternatives. The Planning Commission will consider the matter on Mon 23, 1994. The public meetingday, May Quality Management District will be held at the South Coast Air CbeMD) auditorium located 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, and this letter are map s which ilgin at 7:00 P.M. Attached to roect the alternatives. lustrate the proposed attached Cit The project of record is summarized]withindthe are Outlinedyasofollo public hearing notice. The alternatives follows: I An alternative to the proposed consideration and is desipned to has been the Sandstone Cana g encourage the proposed for 7or area for n_. g preservation of involves Arciero and Sons Pen mace purnnc-o proper t (Tract Map No -3240" p The cnnceht Y, located east of the middle school ) trading their acres of the RNP Developmentor the westerly Arciero would develop Inc.Inc(Tract Map No.51407 e 35± include a new road access from e the former RNP site)apdoperty. school. The proposal would incorporate excessRoadearth middle for export from the school site. (Please see for RNP would not build upon Arciero s Alternative No. 1) remaining acreage to the south. RNpis � former site, nor their 75± acre Sandstone Canyon site to the Liter o dedication ti this by upon the removal of existingY, would be conditioned up RNP, located adjacent tomap restrictions on property, owned proposal for the Grand Avenue rsite and Awould •beAsu future development regulations for environmental review subject to all City Subdivision plans would be submitted for review at a later date. Gary H. Werner Clair W. Harmony Eileen R. Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Ansari Councilmember Cary it Miller Phyllis E. Papen RECYCLED PAPE Councilmember -------- - Councilmember Potential benefits of this proposal include, but are not limited to, the facilitation of the school construction, preservation and dedication of Sandstone Canyon to the public, and a substantial reduction of the proposed project's environmental impacts. Alternative 2 - Preservation of East/West Properties Another design concept for the Commission to consider is the maintenance of an east -west open space amenity by only permitting development of Arciero's Tract 32400 site. As an example, in 1991 Arciero and Sons proposed a subdivision of 75 homes upon their acreage utilizing a previous tentative map. The 1991 map consists of 85 lots on 47.6 acres. 75 single family lots are proposed on 19.5 net acres. The earthwork quantities indicate the need for 393,151.cubic yards of import (presumable from the school site). 21.2 acres are set aside as open space with the balance of the acreage, 6.9, devoted to streets. A U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers' permit and California Department of Fish and Game permit would be required prior to any modification to the existing streambed. This alternative provides the opportunity to facilitate the school development and preserve the east -west properties now owned by Sasak Corporation (6.7 acres) and RNP Development (78 acres). (Please see Alternative 2) The Planning Commission will review the alternatives to the proposed project on Monday, May 23, 1994. The Commission will also, that evening, consider the application for Parcel Map No. •24031, as previously noticed. The City Council has scheduled a public hearing on Tuesday, May 31, 1994 to review the SPMP, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and consideration of Parcel Map No. 24031. Please contact the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676 to review case materials, provide comments, and/or receive additional information. Attachments: C:\NP51\MEMO\SPMPJN7.MEM 'i ApPEATY LOCPLiMAP ME Iowa sac PNEP Ky49pww INC. god volow MAOW-RE _ _ p X145tINC-7 OUJNEI'�n�r 'tk 7 Li gom roi R* s•n �XI5tIN6 OWNV%69 I P r\ CZ) Ln T I i Imm OL P-4 z 0 all W 4 11 OL 's a E Ile / 7 -1k If 1 � � .� -' .'pa'1;Fr.r- / 1 .tom '• r'�/ •'..+-_..,..._LJ All- It . --�•J-% y F- , `�/--�-'�. , '- �'.'.: ,.- , moi- Ihiy S��-. J,' ,1� +. lo l 1'.1 r ' -. 7i > � �r/- � IIjiF " %�� '�� _C�Y i; � -.�\ 11 1 ' R r� s � r• 1'� '" _ _ :.� �.v• �-__ �F •moi?-_����1K'yI p,' _ .i / F I � II I: , • 1i ••• /--+ �� �. �• __ ,�, �-. %,_-,�,�„ I :�' �.% iii= , Fd G:• ' LI /y � - , • \ /�Fi[ � `� �I�r /i� 1 {yL'� / �ir , ' � i '�'� .1.' F !IA�rirt���. •' F r '' ''i' 'T if , � � ' w 1. f � T I/ �i/ / , ryy�� i r7 �d � jt•r-.:F' Y, , , I . ! 1 %i-'--_ 1.- • / "`NjI�1�/�ii Q�7a ri,. + 1 s t r 1I. i Ji / '' }} . � '� �// / •, - Z�rlt,l 1� r •-`T.^r^,r: •,.+c \•'y F/// ,� 1 ., � S _ v riI �'�),11 1 t '' I r , iY / 1 �_,.wc. , r' -i 1 .Ir / `� • - ' i- nj �1t,/ �r>%fl I +1- rT'' + + i I( J/ �1 • • L! HJT _IJ �l % /^ -'��� Imo• in,w� _�� � \' � � � `�, �� •' • ! O AliDc' r" tr /�i_l11i`• +. + + Da=-Q s ,,I,r�, , • „ ;;�,1� Q , ,• 111,11\ _ = : r-._ + + LLJ LL- CD — !' 1 •��1•F�' /ll/li/j1yL�� `� ,i�'�,�-r�:,s�,r_r nc� \ \ \%♦i r// ) LIP., �t W F- ` o Z r �� i i I/. /� f. r1i� �� � _ ;11 ! •;�Ir �•,,: �^/ �- !I -"' ♦S� I /�y'i/i�rr �� %/.�s W LILLM i e UBILIC HEARING NOTICE OF P City of Diamond Bar ■ 21660 E Copley Drive, Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 396-5676 TO: Property Owners within a 500 foot radius of subject site and other interested parties. FROM: Community Development Dept., City of.Diamond Bar _. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to State Law, that a public hearing will be held by the City Council to determine whether or not the subject request(s) shall be approved under the provisions of State Law and the City of Diamond Bar as follows: DATE AND TIME OF HEARING: Tuesday, May 31, 1994 7:00 p.m. PLACE OF HEARING: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUBJECT: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-2; Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master. Plan; and -Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1 REQUEST: This is a request for approval of a mixed use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres acre of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. APPLICANTS: (1) R -n -P Development, Inc., 4439 Rhodelia Court, Claremont, CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Son's, Inc., 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th St., Upland, CA 91785 (4) City of Diamdnd Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr. Ste 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project requires an Environmental Impact Report. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared (SCH No. 92081040), add is available for public review. Published in: San Gabriel Valley Tribune: April 11, 1994 Inland Valley Daily Bulletin: April 11, 1994 The May 31, 1994 Public Hearing is being held to focus attention on this project and to allow optimum public input. PLEASE ATTEND AND MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN To review case materials or for further information on this subject please contact the Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676 If you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN The South Pointe Master Plan has been proposed to guide the development of 171 acres in the South Pointe Middle School/ Sandstone' Canyon" area. The Master Plans incorporates property owned by five entities: the City of Diamond Bar, Walnut. Valley Unified School District, Arceiro and Sons, Inc., RNP Development, Inc., and Sasak Corporation. The project site is generally located west of the Orange Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, north of Pathfinder Road, and south of South Pointe Middle School. The proposed project, if approved, will be developed, in phases, with primary land uses of residential, commercial, park, open space, and school. Approximately 82 residential acres are requested for construction of 200 single family homes, 30 acres are proposed for a future commercial/office use, 28 acres are proposed for open space as a neighborhood public park site, and 31 acres are proposed for the construction of the South Pointe Middle School. As presently proposed, the project will be developed over a projected ten year period. Under the proposed development plan, all of the residential dwelling units, one-half of the commercial/office use, and the park site will be completed within a projected five year period. The remaining commercial/ office use is projected to be completed within the remaining ten year period. To accommodate the proposed land uses, a number of circulation system improvements are required. These improvements include the creation of new local streets within the project site, a new access road to the school from Brea Canyon Road, improvements to Brea Canyon Road, and a number of off-site treat._..and interccction improvements including new signalization. The proposed project will require the approval and implementation of Development Agreements between the City and the project applicants, adoption of a Master Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Oak Tree permit, Subdivision approvals and an Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended City Council Approval. The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to review and provide input on the South Pointe Master Plan on Tuesday, May 31, 1994. For additional information, please call the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676. MW '-7-Y Z_t sw -also 7 4ft4S 4w AEPJAL PHOTOGKA2.TY 7'- co C) > I-- LL] O m: O LL C) C-) O CD CD LLJ _j cr cr: Ld c) En cr C L'i cr rL -o CD m cn rr i�aa�o: n air:0 1 N CE OF PUBLIC HEARINGTI City of Diamond Bar ■ 21660 E Copley Drive, Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 9r765 19U91 J90-0,010 TO: Property Owners within a 500 foot radius of subject site and other interested parties. FROM: Community Development Dept., City of Diamond Bar NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to State Law, that a public hearing will be held by the City Council to determine whether or not the subject request shall be approved under the provisions of State Law and the City of Diamond Bar as follows: DATE AND TIME OF HEARING: Tuesday, May 31, 1994 7:00 p.m. PLACE OF HEARING: SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUBJECT: Parcel Map No. 24031. REQUEST: The proposed project is a request to merge Lot 1 of Tract No. 31479 and Lot 61 of Tract 42557 creating a single parcel totaling 68.10 acres. The application requests the removal of the right to restrict the construction of residential buildings upon those parcels. That right was acquired by the City upon incorporation in 1989. Approval of the application would require the City's abandonment of currently held Open Space and Building Rights Restrictions on the newly created parcel. The required hearing before the Planning Commission for its recommendation of whether the building restrictions may be removed is presently set for May 23, 1994, per notice published April 11, 1994. 'The future use of the site is proposed as single family residential estate development. The site is currently vacant and exists in a primarily natural state. There are no oak trees within the project boundary. The site supports wild grasses which are fed by the natural drainage from the surrounding residential developments. The runoff is deposited into an intermittent. blue line stream which traverses the site. The project is located south of Grand Avenue, west of Shotgun Lane and east of Summitridge Drive and extends east to the San Bernardino County line. The project site is currently zoned RPD - 20,000 -2U, which will not change as a part of this application. APPLICANT: R -n -P Development, Inc., 4439 Rhodelia Court, Claremont, CA 91711 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project requires a negative declaration. Published in: San Gabriel Valley Tribune: May 6, 1994 Inland Valley Daily Bulletin: May 7, 1994 To review case materials ' or for further information on this subject please contact the Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676 If you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. PLEASE ATTEND AND MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN SCALE f 1••207 TR MUTES: E DIA9IAMT GG SCCTIa NG451 R0 1/E OF THE SIMOIVISION NND ACT TM FILING OF TATS GG¢W1CTIOI�OF C461 IAL AAN000%T Oi IK RICHT TO A.ZIr THE Pu TwGr NAP a Tim a� aILDINGs AS aANT[D to TKr= OF L03 ANGELES mE-6i10E P ME.NE079 MC¢�EO IN 00011 Sq. PAGE; 3 IIa01aN 17. FILED IN 7NG CK"TT OF LOS ANKLa L mE AMA.W-L" GL TRACT AR AESTT IS L 47 ACRES• 3. TM AOA r LOT.I• TWCT N4 31479 IS 6465 ICMI 4. INE AMA OF TK -SLC DINEEL CMATED DT THIS MAVEN IS 6410 ACRES. I DORM ONS NIS SES. O< DAA[EL IVSUDJECT 70 FLOWING ALONG INE INDICATED MI fI.gAl DR4INAGE OF 6. OAESENT USE x DNODEFrl Is VACANT LINO. C T. DOOo05Ep DSE T DNODERII IS SINGLE FANILT RESIDENTIAL, I UIIT DEA ACNE B. LgRENT ZONING IS OD0-EO O00-nl TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 24031 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA rlr A .ON IN,- I, Tarr q nA>t u RaN r Nu Fna a Ar r rl4u r INral Ir r w r ur Al r u R> r w Ftu r 4Fr Iu rA4¢ s meal Ea raul.4 r A.rA IN nN rFl¢ r M sum r s m.n s IN RECEIVED CG'A1aE" ' ITY, LEGEND r","T OF rx LAID GANG Nis WDMERSERED AT . MPAESEIITS CENTER -LINE OF U,srING 3TREETS. _ ."'.SEATS FASTING EASEMENT r0 KNANL WPM "I's AN,- 0 DCEI ow DI.E TO IN I3 WAGE, OF AN DAIICEIi DWNERIAPP-ICANT: A -N -P DEVELOPMENT INC, 4439 ANOOELIA AVENUE CLARENDNr. CA 91711 Title. Source: Title Abbr: Language: Abstract: Major McSH Headings: Minor McSH Headings: Publ Type Coccidioidomycosis --United States, 1991-1992. MMWR. MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT, (1993 Jan 22) vol. 42 (2) : 21-4 MMWR-Morb-Mortal-Wkly-Rep Eng Unique Identifier: 93125455 During 1991, reported cases of coccidioidomycosis (i.e., valley fever) in California increased more than three -fold over the annual number of cases reported since 1986; during 1992, the number of reported cases increased 10 -fold. Coccidioidomycosis, a fungal disease caused by Coccidioides immitis, is endemic in certain parts of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah. Sporadic cases occur each year in parts of the United States in which the disease is not endemic and may present diagnostic difficulties and laboratory hazards because health-care workers may be unfamiliar with coccidioidomycosis. Recent increases in California and reports of isolated cases in areas without endemic disease suggest that physicians and laboratory personnel should be alert to the possible role of C. immitis. This report summarizes the occurrence of coccidioidomycosis in California during 1991 and 1992 and highlights three cases that occurred in areas in which the disease is not endemic. COCCIDIOIDOMYCOSIS: epidemiology (ep). ADOLESCENCE. ADULT. CALIFORNIA: epidemiology (ep). CASE -REPORT. DISEASE -OUTBREAKS. FEMALE. HUMAN. MALE. UNITED -STATES: epidemiology (ep). JOURNAL -ARTICLE. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: May 9, 1994 REPORT DATE: April 26, 1994 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director Revised May 5, 1994 TITLE: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-2; Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1. SUMMARY: This is a joint public hearing of the City Council and Planning Commission to consider a request for approval of a mixed use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission receive a presentation from City Staff and project developers; open the public hearing; receive public testimony; and take appropriate action. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) X Other EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: X Public Hearing Notification Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Report discussed with the following affected departments: N/A _ Yes —No MAJORITY X Yes _ No Yes X No X Yes _No PUBLIC WORKS RQ�IEWED BY: AlaCGt/ o 14t � Terrence L. Belanger Frank M. sher " fupks DeStefano .'ity Manager Assistant City Manager Community Devel pment Director MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. May 9, 1994 Report Revised May S, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-2; Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12; Oak Tree Permit No. 92- 9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1. ISSUE STATEMENT: The applications submitted request approval of a mixed use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the staff and project developers; open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony, and take appropriate action. 1 PROJECT SUMMARY: The South Pointe Master Plan has been proposed to guide the development of 171 acres in the South Pointe Middle School/ Sandstone Canyon area. The Master Plan incorpor- ates property owned by five entities; the City of Diamond Bar, Walnut Valley Unified School District, Arciero and Sons, Inc., RNP Development, Inc. and Sasak Corporation. The proposed project of record, if approved, will consist of approximatel,%j, 82 residential acres for construction of 200 single family homes, 30 acres proposed for a future commercial/office use, 28 acres proposed for open space as a public park site, and 31 acres proposed for the construction of the South Pointe Middle School (see Exhibit "A"). As presently contemplated, the project will be developed over a projected ten year period. Under the proposed development plan, all of the residential dwelling units, one-half of the commercial/office use, and the park site will be completed within a projected five year period. The remaining commercial/office use is projected to be completed within the remaining ten year period. To accommodate the proposed land uses, a number of circulation system improvements are required. These include the creation of new local streets within the project site, a new access road to the school from Brea Canyon Road, improvements to Brea Canyon Road, and area off-site street and intersection modifications including new signalization. The proposed project will require the approval and implementation of Development Agreements between the City and the project applicants, adoption of a Master Plan, Conditional Use Permits, Oak Tree Permits, Subdivision approvals and an Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended City Council approval. PROJECT APPLICANTS: The applicants for the proposed project are: (1) RNP Development, Inc. 4439 Rhodelia Dr., Claremont CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Sons, Inc. 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th Street, Upland CA 91785 (4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste. 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 2 The property owners within the boundary of the master plan area include the applicants and the Walnut Valley Unified School District. Ownership boundaries are identified within Exhibit"B", attached. BACKGROUND: . On July 27, 1993, the City Council adopted the General Plan. Prior to the General Plan's adoption, Ordinance No. 4 prohibited the hearing and consideration of the South Pointe Master Plan. On.September 14, 1993, the City Council began the public hearing process to consider development applications for the South Pointe Master Plan project. The Council received a presentation on the proposal from the City Staff and a summary of the environmental review process from the City's environmental consultant. The public hearing on the project was continued to September 28, 1993, October 5, 1993, November 16, 1993, and January 4, 1994. As a result of the City Council action of December 14, 1993, to repeal Resolution 93-58, which adopted the General Plan, the project was tabled. Subsequently, actions were taken to develop a new General Plan and a State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Extension letter was obtained which enables the City to process certain previously applied for development projects. The Walnut Valley Unified School District has recently asked the City for assistance in order that the district may begin construction of the middle school facilities. At issue is the removal of approximately 400,000 cubic yards of earth from the school site in order to facilitate construction of the permanent South Pointe school. The South Pointe Master Plan contemplates the relocation of the earth from the school site to Arciero's proposed subdivision site. Considerable community input has been received for and against the project. As a result, the 'private developers have discussed the submittal of an alternative proposal for consideration along with the project now before the City Council. The Planning Commission has been asked to participate in the public presentation such that they may deliberate and comment, as appropriate, upon any proposed modification to the project not previously considered by the Commission during its earlier public hearings. Time is of. the essence in regards to the WVUSD school project, specifically as regards State Capitol funds ($8 million) and construction contract considerations. If any contemporaneous assistance to the WVUSD is to be accomplished, it is necessary to move the decision making process forward, therefore, providing a response to the requests from the school district and developers. It should be noted that the WVUSD cannot remove the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt without the permission of the authoritative governmental body, which is the City Council of Diamond Bar. 3 PROJECT REVIEW: Developer Proposal The South Pointe Master Plan weaves five public and private ownership interests into a comprehensive land use plan designed to provide a mixed use neighborhood compatible with the built environmental. I. ��y\t .fir \``-�� ✓`� !. L��JT��; 11"_'�� - I I!-::ri1�����• ItJ � 111111 � u _' _� ' "'I""10 YIYI d4 CI I1 IA UML+) p. . SOUT11 PO ! NT,= A MASIEfI PL ANNEU UHHUN'fY ,n,UI un l+ m..tge scl— 3's -t cin a w..n.n em . ir.❑ a•.+n is zs+. to.•duim, ntaecr Aaw,%w The Master Plan project proposes the subdivision of a primarily undeveloped 171 acre site to accommodate the phased development and subsequent use of the site for residential, commercial, park, open space, and school purposes. As depicted in Exhibit "C", the project site has been divided into five (5) planning areas or enclaves. Project specific development standards have been proposed for each enclave. Each tentative tract map has been designed consistent with the proposed development standards. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400 Vesting Tentative Tract No 32400 is proposed by Arciero and Sons and consists of 93 lots on 47.44 acres. Ninety-one (91) single family homes are proposed with two lots totaling approximately 6 acres (2.58 and 3.34 acres) set aside for commercial purposes. (See Exhibit "D") The project indicates a residential density of approximately 2.2 units per acres. Preliminary Title Reports indicate no unusual characteristics. The site is zoned R-1-15,000. 4 The proposed map is located within Enclave 3. The minimum lot size proposed for Enclave 3 is 7200 square feet with a minimum pad size of 6000 square feet. The proposed project contains lot sizes that range from 7200 (lot #31) to 15,095 (lot #14) square feet. Pad sizes ranges from 6,070 (lot #69) to 13,365 (lot #45) square feet. Primary access is from Brea Canyon Road with a secondary access point through the future commercial development. Earthwork quantities indicate 1.795 million cubic yards of cut and 1.810 million cubic yards of fill. The proposed map is consistent with the design and development standards contained within the Master Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 is proposed by RNP Development, Inc. and consists of 84.20 acres containing 90 single family residential parcels with 28.13 acres proposed for recreational open space and 21.9 acres proposed as a commercial center. This map is located within Enclave 1, as described within the Master Plan development standards. Minimum lot sizes for this Enclave are 8,000 square feet with minimum pad sizes of 6,900 square feet. The proposed residential neighborhoods within this Enclave are designed to be compatible with the existing style and type of development pattern adjacent to the project. The property is zoned RPD -10,000-6U. VTM 51407 provides for an overall density of 2.59 units per acre on the 34.62 acre residential site. Lot sizes range from 8,977 sq. ft. (lot #24) to 18,679 sq. ft. (lot 134). Pad sizes range from 7,079 sq. ft. (lot #26) to 13,322 sq. ft. (lot #30). 28.13 acres have been set aside for open space/ recreational purposes (lot 191). Three commercial lots are proposed ranging in size from 3.40 acres to 13.05 acres for a total of 21.45 commercial acres. Earthwork quantities indicate 2,567,000 yards of cut and 2,571,000 yards of fill for the proposed map. The circulation pattern consists of a residential collector, street "A", from Brea Canyon Road to the middle school site, and a residential street "B" proposed extending through to Morning Sun Drive. The project proposes six residential dwelling units facing Larkstone Drive on property presently owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District. The proposed map would supersede previously filed Tract Map No.'s 32576 and 35742. Those maps dedicated the right to prohibit the construction of residential units within certain lots. That right was accepted by the County and is valid and enforceable against any development request. In 1979 an offer to dedicate the property as a "future park" was rejected by the County. The developer is currently limited to a total of two dwelling units. Other restrictions on the property relate to flood hazard and restricted use areas. This proposed map, if approved, would supersede and erase the existing development restrictions placed upon the property. (See Exhibit "E") There are other parcels in the community which are also subject to similar development restrictions. Properties with such development restrictions have been re -subdivided by Los Angeles County. The applicant has specifically requested approval of this application package which permits the City to evaluate the change in entitlement on the merits of the proposed project. 5 Several tract maps, approved prior to incorporation, contain development prohibitions or restrictions upon a portion of the property. Although these Properties have been retained as open space, they were not dedicated to the County as open space. Therefore, depending upon the specific circumstances, a property owner could request the removal of the development restrictions and development approval. The decision as to whether or not development should be permitted is of major significance to the community. The Subdivision Map Act provided the vehicle for a property owner to seek abandonment of these property restrictions. The Map Act also appears to give the City considerable latitude to decide if abandonment is consistent with present or prospective city policy. Consideration of development upon the restricted properties is a matter of public policy. The City has no obligation to remove the restrictions. The developer has, it would appear, no inherent "right" to the abandonment or project approval. The benefit(s) of abandonment of the restrictive map language should be carefully examined (i.e. provision of significant community amenities). The Interim City Attorney has determined that the. restrictions constitute an "open space easement". In order to abandon an open space easement, pursuant to Government Code Section 51093, the City Council must refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a noticed public hearing and report; cause the county assessor to determine the full cash value of the land as though it were free of the open space easement; determine an abandonment fee, payable to the county; and find that: 1. there is no public purpose in continuation of the land as open space; and 2. the abandonment is not inconsistent with the purposes of open space law; and 3. the abandonment conforms with the General Plan; and 4. the refusal to abandon will cause a substantial hardship upon the landowner. Tentative Tract No. 51253 This 6.7 acre site is currently proposed as a 21 lot, 3.13 units per acre, single family residential development by Sasak Corporation. The proposed project as presently designed is consistent with the Master Plan development standards for Enclave No. 1. Lot sizes range from 8,241 square feet (lot #1) to 20,962 square feet (lot #4). Earthwork quantities indicate 145,800 cubic yards of excavation, 98,300 cubic yards of embankment, and 47,500 cubic yards of export. The proposed. subdivision provides for an extension of street "B" as shown within vesting Tentative Tract Map 51407 designed to connect with Morning Sun Drive. Title reports indicate this Tentative Map contains the same basic development restrictions as the previously discussed map and currently would permit a total of 3 dwelling units. The Subdivision Map Act 6 provides a means to remove such restrictions. If a resubdivision or - reversion to acreage of the tract is subsequently filed for approval, the offer of dedication previously rejected is terminated upon the approval and recordation of the new map. (see Exhibit "F") Master Plan The use of a "Master Plan" is proposed to guide the overall development. The components of the plan include permitted uses and development standards. The proposed zoning regulations. and development standards will be implemented via the use of development agreements for the RNP and Arciero proposals. The standards are attached to the Sasak proposal as a component of the Tentative Map conditions. The complete document is contained within the previously prepared report. The use of a master plan is a tool for implementing the General Plan and often bridges the gap between General Plan policy and zoning standards for the property under consideration for development. Development Agreements The :use of Development Agreements are proposed for the Arciero and RNP development project. The Development Agreement is utilized as a contract document to incorporate the Master Plan, the Hillside Management regulations, the Oak Tree Permit, the Development Standards with reference to the Tentative Tract Maps. Cities are provided with the ability to enter into Development Agreements with any property owner. Development Agreements are essentially a negotiated contract between a public agency and a private developer. The Development Agreement establishes the terms and conditions from which the development can proceed and provides the applicants with assurances based upon their commitment to timing and compliance with the agreements. The proposed agreements incorporate land transfers, contract zoning, and commitments by all parties toward the successful completion of the proposed project. Attached to this report are maps which illustrate the existing and future ownership of property as a result of project implementation. Hillside Management Ordinance Conditional Use Permit and Oak Tree Permit The Hillside Management Ordinance requires a conditional use permit approval for each tentative tract map proposal. The hillside management standards and guidelines have been incorporated within each development. The impact of the project grading is analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report within the earth resources and aesthetics sections. The Development Code requires an Oak Tree permit for the removal of any oak genus which is eight inches in diameter as measured four and one-half feet above the natural grade. Each proposed subdivision site contains oak trees which would require removal. 7 In accordance with requirements of the Code, an oak tree invent conducted for each subdivision site. Vesting Tentative Tract Map contains .449 oak trees. Tentative Tract Map 51253 contains 53 scheduled for replacement. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 32400 will rec, the removal of 276 oak trees. The Draft Environmental Impact Report indica that 92 percent or 768 of the 835 inventoried oak trees will be removed a, result of the proposed grading activities on-site. All oak trees removed a result of the proposed project are proposed for replacement at a 2:1 ratio The Developers' proposal provides potential benefits to the community in the form of facilitating the construction of the permanent middle school, development of a publicly held park and open space, creation of a freeway oriented commercial site and numerous area -wide traffic improvements. Action Required• 1. Certification of the Environmental Impact report along with Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Abandonment of the dedicated right to restrict construction of residential buildings upon RNP and Sasak properties pursuant to Government Code (§51903). 3. Approval of each tentative tract map, Development Agreements, Conditional Use Permits, Oak Tree Permits, and the Master Plan. (The Council must make written findings pursuant to Government Code §65360, and §65361, and the conditions of the extension letter, that there is little or no probability that the project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with that plan). 4. Recordation of EIR Certification 5. Completion of approved conditions, as required, for issuance of grading permits (including the applicant obtaining an Army Corp of Engineers, Section 404, permit and a California Department of Fish and Game, Section 1601-1607, permit for alteration of the stream). 6. Recordation of final documents, maps, etc. 8 Alternative 1 - North/South Canyon preservation An alternative to the proposed project has been proposed for consideration and is designed to encourage the preservation of the Sandstone Canyon area for open space purposes. The concept involves Arciero and Sons (Tract Map No. 32400) trading their property, adjacent to the middle school, for the westerly 35± acres of the RNP Development, Inc. (Tract Map. No. 51407) property. Arciero would develop 103 homes on the former RNP site and include a new road access from Brea Canyon Road to the middle school. The proposal would incorporate the excess earth scheduled for export from the school site. (See Exhibit "G") RNP would not build upon Arciero's former site, nor their remaining acreage. RNP's offer of dedication of this 75± acre Sandstone Canyon site to the City, would be conditioned upon the removal of existing map restrictions on property, owned by RNP, located adjacent to Grand Avenue. Any future development proposal for the Grand Avenue site would be subject to all City regulations for environmental review and development. Subdivision plans would be submitted for review at a later date. Potential benefits of this proposal include, but are not limited to, the facilitation of the school construction, preservation and dedication of Sandstone Canyon to the public, and substantial reduction of environmental impacts. Action Required 1. Referral of revised project to Planning Commission pursuant to Section 65857 for a report and recommendation. 2. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report, preparation of an addendum or supplemental EIR along with Findings of Fact and a Statement of overriding Considerations. 3. Preparation of revised project conditions and agreements outlining Alternative 1 (i.e. application of- conservation easement or building rights restriction upon former Arciero, Tract 32400, site) . 4. Planning Commission and City Council consideration of the RNP Grand Avenue site for removal of map restrictions (pursuant to Government Code §51093). 5. Approval of revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51407 and its associated CUP, Oak Tree Permit and Development Agreement. Approval of Tentative Tract 51253 (Sasak) and related permits. Approval of Parcel Map 24031 for RNP Grand Avenue Site (The Council must make written findings pursuant to Government Code §65360, and §65361, and the conditions of the extension letter, that there is little or no probability that the project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with that plan). 6. Completion of conditions required for grading permits, recordation of maps, etc. Although an intermittent blue -line stream exists upon the most westerly portion of Tract 51407, a significant amount of school site earth may be relocated to Tract 51407 concurrent with the processing of the 404 and 1601- 1607 permits. 9 Alternative 2 - Preservation of East/West Properties Another design concept to consider is the maintenance of an east -west open space amenity by only permitting the development of Arciero's Tract 32400 site. As an example, in 1991, Arciero proposed a subdivision of 75 homes upon their acreage utilizing a previous tentative map. The 1991 tentative map consists of 85 lots on 47.6 acres. 75 single family lots are proposed on 19.5 net acres and range in size from 7200 square feet and average 11,660 square feet. The earthwork quantities indicate the need for 393,151 cubic Yards of import (presumable from the school site). 21.2 acres are set aside as open space with the balance of the acreage, 6.9, devoted to streets. Arciero's property is encumbered by a "blue line" stream. An U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit and California Department of Fish and Game permit would be required prior .to any modification to the existing streambed. This alternative provides the opportunity to facilitate the school development and preserve the building rights restricted east -west properties now owned by Sasak Corporation (6.7 acres) and RNP Development (78 acres). (Exhibit "H") Action Required 1. Referral to Planning Commission pursuant to Section 65857 for report and recommendation. 2. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report along with Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Addendum. 3. Rejection of VTM 51407 (RNP) and TM 51253 (Sasak) with appropriate findings and conclusions. 4. Preparation of revised map, conditions, and agreements to facilitate the revised Arciero subdivision. 5. Approval of new VTM 32400 with associated CUP, OT and Development Agreement (The Council must make written findings pursuant to Government Code §65360, and §65361, and the conditions of the extension letter, that there is little or no probability that the project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with that plan) . 6. Completion of approved conditions, as required, for issuance of grading permits (including the applicant obtaining an Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404, permit and a California Department of Fish and Game, Section 1601-1607, permit for alteration of the stream). 10 Alternative 3 - No Proiect A "no project" alternative, if selected, would require the off-site exportation of the surplus -soil presently found on the South Pointe Middle School site in order to facilitate,. immediately, construction of permanent school buildings. As proposed, the existing excess soil will be used within the project boundaries. Depositing the soil at an alternative off-site location could require an addendum or supplement to the District's previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Middle School. The transportation of the soil, outside of the project boundaries, would require an estimated 26,000+ truck trips upon local streets. The additional time and cost of this alternative would be borne by the School District. Alternative 4 Certify the EIR, Deny projects, or specific components. Alternative 5 Continue discussion of the South Pointe Master Plan for further environmental analysis or investigation of additional alternatives. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared to assess and analyze the environmental effects of the proposed project. The City engaged Ultrasystems Engineers and Constructors, Inc. as an independent consultant to prepare the environmental documents. An Executive Summary of the environmental review record is attached. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: The South Pointe Master Plan project was publicly noticed in accordance with State and local requirements. Advertisements were published within the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on April 11 and April 22, 1994. Notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project boundaries on April 8, 1994 and April 21, 1994. Several hundred additional notices were mailed to interested citizens providing public awareness of the proposal. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning.Commission conducted numerous public study sessions and public hearings on the proposals. A walking tour of the site was conducted on December 13, 1992. Study Sessions were held in October and December 1992. Noticed. public hearings were held in January, February, March, April and May, 1993. The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of all project components on May 24, 1993. PREPARED BY: James De Stefano Community Development Director Attachments: (Previously transmitted within May 2, 1994 report) MAPS 1. South Pointe Master Pian (Exhibit "A") 2. Project Boundaries (Exhibit "B") 3. Planning Enclaves (Exhibit "C") 4. VTM 32400 (Exhibit "D") 5. VTM 51407 (Exhibit "E") 6. TM 51253 (Exhibit "F") 7. Revised VTM 51407 (Exhibit "G") 8. Previous (1991) VTM 32400 (Exhibit "H") 9. Environmental Review Record 10. City Council Staff Reports and Meeting Minutes 11. Planning Commission Staff Reports and Meeting Minutes 12. Notices of Public Hearing 13. OPR Extension Letter dated 1/31/94 14. Letter from J. C. Dabney dated 3/25/94 15.* Walnut Valley School District Letter dated 4/4/94 16. Timeline of Construction for South Pointe Middle School 1994-1995 17. Sierra Club Letter received 4/21/94 18. Letter from Frederick & Frances Strunck dated 4/17/94 19. 6 page Petition signed by 102 persons re: Sandstone Canyon 20. List of correspondence received from January 19, 1993 through June 8, 1993 - both for and against 21. Draft Environmental Impact Report { previously transmitted 22. Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated February 1993 { previously transmitted 23. Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Volume II dated November 1993 ( previously transmitted 24. Technical appendix -Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated May 1993 { previously transmitted 12 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) The Diamond Bar City Council will hold an Adjourned Regular Meeting at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, located at 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 31, 1994. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, LYNDA BURGESS, declare as follows: I am the City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy of the Notice for the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council, to be held on May 31, 1994 was posted at their proper locations. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Notice and Affidavit was executed this 27th day of May, 1994, at Diamond Bar, California. 1 s/ Lynda Burgess Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar