Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/23/1994MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 23, 1994 I - CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge -of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk; Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; Engineer Mike Myers; and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of April 25, 1994'and May 9, 1994 Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of April 25, 1994 and May 9, 1994, as presented. NEW BUSINESS 2. Planned Sign Program No -94-5 As'tP/Lungu reported that the property owner, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., and the applicant, Robert H. Lee & Associates, 'are requesting approval of Planned Sign Program No. 94-5 which includes a proposed freestanding monument sign with legal price sign and a legal price sign for an existing automobile service station located at 21095 E. Golden Springs Drive (Parcel Map 7207, Lot 1). She reviewed the application as outlined in the staff report. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Planned Sign Program No. 94-5, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. j Chair/Meyer opened the meeting and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Mark Butzspan, with Robert Lee & Associates, 1201 S. Beach Boulevard, La Habra Heights, expressed concurrence with the conditions as listed by staff. 1171117 Pd IPll111111 1 IG Tom ~ May 23, 1994 Page 2 There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed the meeting and returned the matter -to the Planning Commission for consideration. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously to adopt a resolution recommending approval of Planned Sign Program 94-5, with the Findings of Fact, and listed conditions. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 3. Zone Change No. 92-2, vesting Tentative Map No. 51169, 'i, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3, Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3, and Environmental Impact Report No. -92-2 Chair/Meyer noted that it is staff's recommendation to continue this item to the regular meeting of June 13, 1994. C/Flamenbaum inquired if SEATAC has completed their environmental review regarding this project. C/Schad stated that SEATAC has had a meeting and is in the process of finalizing their report. Chair/Meyer'declared the public hearing opened and invited' those wishing to speak to come forward. Lex Williman, the Planning Director for Hunsaker & Associates, 10179 Huntington Street, San Diego, expressed concurrence to' the continuance and waived his right to a speedy review of the tentative map. He confirmed that SEATAC has met and has; prepared a draft report on their environmental review of the project. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, read a letter from ; Jerry Yeh to the City Council, dated January 21, 1992, which, indicated their opposition to the GPAC recommendation of RH 11 du/2.5 ac because it is felt to be inconsistent with.existing adjoining land in The Country, and requested a- land use designation of RR 1 du/ac. Mr. Maxwell pointed out that there, are quite a few dates back in 1992 to substantiate the proposal of a 1 du/2.5 ac land designation for the back hills of The Country. He suggested that the applicant hold their, project until the General Plan has.been approved. There being no one. else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer returned; the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. Chair/Meyer directed staff to address Mr. Maxwell's comments in the staff report available June 13, 1994. Moved by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Schad and. carried unanimously to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of June 13, 1994 May 23, 1994 Page 3 Chair/Meyer suggested that item 5 of the agenda, the South Pointe project, be considered prior to item,4 of the agenda, Parcel Map No. 24031, to assure the Planning Commission has sufficient time to discuss the South Pointe issue as directed by the City Council.' There being no objection, the order of the following two agenda items were reversed. OLD BUSINESS 4. 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; OAR TREE PERMIT NO 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 AP/Searcy reported that the Planning Commission has been directed to consider project alternatives identified within the South Pointe Master Plan which were not contemplated as elements of the original project. He stated that Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 are actual project revisions which supply new information whereas Alternative Nos. 3, 4, and 5 supply. no new information. He then reviewed the -five alternatives as outlined in the staff report. CDD/DeStefano stated that it is recommended that the Planning Commission review the submitted request, receive public comments and direct staff --to prepare the appropriate Commission recommendation for the City Council's consideration at their special meeting scheduled May 31, 1994. C/Schad read a statement indicating he will not ,:be participating in the final vote pertaining to the South Pointe Master Plan project due to a perceived conflict of interest; however, he will be participating in the public hearing as a citizen. Chair/Meyer stated that the City received correspondence from Sasak Corporation, dated May 13, 1994, requesting favorable consideration of Tentative Tract Map No. 51253, and correspondence from Mr. Don Gravdahl, dated May 10, 1994. Chair/Meyer- invited the proponents of the project to come forward and projvide testimony. Jan Dabney, 6711S. Brea Canyon Road, Ste. 5, stated that he is available to aniswer any questions. C/Fong asked how the proposed road from Brea Canyon to the development and�the school, as outlined in Alternative No. 1, will cross the blue line stream. May 23, 1994 Page 4 Jan Dabney explained that it is anticipated that an arch" culvert will be used to go into the stream bed to allow the; utilities to cross at that point without interfering with the structure. He stated that the structure will be large, and, have PCC on one side for access above the water level to allow people who want to utilize the canyon to walk through the structure without disturbing the environment. VC/Plunk, noting that the proposed road has a 9.5% grade at the bottom of the canyon, stated that it was her understanding that a 7% grade was recommended for school buses. Jan Dabney stated that, though the desirable grade is 89., thel Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD) indicated that, the secondary access provided more of a benefit then worrying' about a grade application. In response to Chair/Meyer, Jan Dabney stated that the applicants desire the City Council to approve the original South Pointe Master Plan as presented; however, alternatives were developed in response to requests from several members of the City Council to address the communities concern regarding preservation. He then expressed his opinion that the' compromise proposed to the developers compromises the community more than the developers. Dr. Hockwalt, the Superintendent of the WVUSD, stated that the WVUSD'isin the position to build the South Pointe Middle' School with the cooperation of the City Council to get theI I grading permits to move the dirt from the present site. Frank Arciero, Jr., 950 N. Tustin Ave., Anaheim,, Arciero & Sons, stated that Alternative No. 1 is a proposal that gives the opportunity to preserve Sandstone Canyon by dedicating this 75 acre site to the public, and it also facilitates the, construction of the school. Chair/Meyer opened the meeting and invited those wishing to' speak to come forward. Robert Broddman, residing on Knoll Court, opposed to, Alternative No. 1, pointed out that the City need not take ownership of the 75 acre Sandstone Canyon site because thei City can already restrict development on that piece of', property and maintain it as open space without having any linkage to the Grand Avenue project. He stated that the'' continuous development of the City is negatively affecting all residents. ; Fred Fidel, residing at 24046 Shot Gun Lane, expressed concern that wildlife has no where to go with the continuous trend towards development. ,�. . -7P ,.�,.+,i.n.,.. n I fll"p.: � .. Jr"" "" ^V, il ma,' ,ue May 23, 1994 Page 5 Michael Ferry, residing at 24300 Knoll Court, in opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031, stated that they were specifically told by Brock and TransAmerica that the proposed site will remain as an agricultural green belt. He pointed out that additional development in that area will create additional traffic on Grand Avenue, which is already significantly impacted: Tom Cooper, residing at 1552 Summitridge Drive, in opposition to lifting the map restrictions on Parcel Map No. 24031, stated,that the development of that parcel provides no benefit to existing homeowners, but rather adds more noise and traffic congestion on Grand Avenue. He expressed concern that Alternative- No. 1 attempts to pit residents against one another -by taking land from one area to give to another. He pointed out that keeping the map restrictions in place does not subject the City to any new legal liabilities, but lifting the restrictions will create legal actions and arguments that will occupy the residents, City Council, and the developers for years to come. Don Schad stated that he was against the South Pointe Middle School being constructed in its present location due to its accessibility and impact to -the neighborhood, but never r against the school actually being built; however, since it is located at that site, the dirt should be removed and the school should be constructed immediately.- He stated that the dirt can- be placed on the Arciero property several hundred feet from the stream, which will leave the trees intact, provide water for all the other forms of life, and a strip of land can be set aside for the development of homes beyond that boundary, without doing permanent damage to the entire area. He expressed his opinion that the EIR is incomplete and inaccurate. He stated that the canyon is invaluable and must be preserved for the children today and in the future. In response to VC/flunk's inquiry regarding his preferred alternative, Mr. Schad stated that he would prefer no development in the canyon, and putting the canyon into a conservancy for preservation and restoration; however, since Mr. Arciero has development rights to his property, then he would concur with putting the dirt on the Arciero property, to facilitate the construction of the school development, and allowing Arciero to develop his site. In response to C/Fong, Mr. Schad stated that all the proposals should be considered separate from one another. He also stated that the Grand Avenue site should not be developed if it has map restrictions and if the residents in the area do j not want it disturbed or developed. Romaine Biedelman, residing at 1926 Derringer Lane, submitted petitions with 73 signatures opposing Parcel Map No. 24031. She expressed concern with the increase in traffic and noise 1: 1 111 1llMMI ri 7 dll G May 23, 1994 Page 6 resulting from the development, as well as a concern regarding potential mud slides.14, 1 0 Sharon Hogan, residing at 1556 Summitridge Drive, in opposition to the development of Parcel Map No. 24031, stated that they were told that the site would always be preserved in its natural state. She stated that the proposal would place an additional burden *on local schools and would increase traffic. Chair/Meyer expressed concern that the comments made regarding Parcel Map. No. 24031 will only be included into the record for the South Pointe Master Plan but not into the record for the; public hearing on Parcel Map No. 24031 unless all comments are repeated at that time. ICA/Montgomery noted that, had. the order of the agenda not been reversed, then Parcel Map No. 24031 would have, been discussed prior to the South Pointe issue, and a decision regarding Alternative No. 1 would have been rendered; however,' at this point, since both issues overlap, there will be a duplication of testimony. C/Flamenbaum suggested opening the meeting to allow public, comments on both items, since the issues are inter -related, and incorporate the comments on the South Pointe issue into the record for Parcel Map No. 24031. I ICA/Montgomery stated that he assumes the exchange is not going to be favored by the proponents in the event that the deed restrictions are not removed; therefore, he concurred that they are partially the same issue. PUBLIC HEARING S. Parcel Map No. 24031 Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened for Parcel Map; No. 24031, to run concurrent with the continued public comment' portion of the South Pointe Master Plan agenda item,, requesting that the public record appropriately reflect alll the comments made regarding the South Pointe Master Plan to be considered as part of the record for the Parcel Map No. 24031' public hearing. RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p,m. Chair/Meyer stated that the Planning Commission will accept concurrent testimony on the South Pointe project and Parcel; Map No. 24031. He then stated that the City received correspondence from Tamerica Products, Inc., dated May 9, 777"!', ., a - n �� �.: qq „a1 r , r, k,• n„- 211.041 I10 a1, "F � rsk sh May 23, 1994 Page 7 1994, regarding Parcel Map No. 24031, and from Michael Scott, dated May 12, 1994, regarding Parcel Map No. 24031. Barbara Beach-Courschesne, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, in opposition to Alternative No. 1, stated that the building restrictions on the'RnP property in the South Pointe site should remain as was promised to the residents, as should the building restriction on the RnP property on the Grand Avenue site. She pointed out that there are no overriding considerations to permit the lifting of the building restrictions, and there is a strong probability that the project will be detrimental and inconsistent to the future adopted General Plan since GPAC has recommended that deed and map restrictions be honored. She also pointed out that alternatives to the dirt removal may have to be considered since the Department of Fish and Game may not allow dirt to be dumped on the blue line stream on the westerly portion of tract 51407, regardless of what is indicated in the approved EIR. She then expressed opposition to Alternative No. 2 because there are no overriding considerations, and because the blue line stream would be destroyed on Arciero's property. She stated that Mr. Arciero should not be denied his building rights; however, it must be taken into consideration that his j property is environmentally sensitive. She expressed support E for Alternative No. 3. She then expressed opposition to .� Alternative No. 4, noting the multiple flaws in the EIR report, and to Alternative No. 5, suggesting that it is time 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. David Capestro expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24032. He noted that the proposed development would substantially impact traffic on Grand Avenue. He also pointed out developers do not give away acreage in return for less. Robert Broadny expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031 for the following reasons: the proposed development will increase traffic on Grand Avenue; the parcels have map restrictions; the developer purchased the property knowing the area was a green belt; the two proposals should not be linked together. He stated that the City Council and the Planning Commission should represent the interests of the residents, not the developers. Tricia Guber, residing at 24303 Rimford Place, expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031 for the following reasons: the parcels have building restrictions; the proposal will increase traffic and noise; and there has been enough May 23, 1994 Page 8 i,yy'r development in the City. She stated that the City Council and the Planning Commission should fully support the residents. Sue Peg, residing at 24336 Rimford Place, and Astko Takada,' residing at. 24300 Rimford Place, expressed- opposition to' Parcel Map No. 24031 for the same reasons expressed -by Mrs. Tricia Guber. Craig Summers, a resident, Hero Wen, residing on 24328 Rimford Place, and Gordon Guber, residing at 24303 -Rimford Place,, expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031 for the following reasons: the parcels have building restrictions which should not be lifted; the wildlife and open space should be preserved; there are no benefits to the residents if the restrictions are lifted; the development will increase traffic, noise,' litter, and pollution; the property was purchased- by a Council Member with the knowledge of the established restrictions to preserve and protect the open space, and sold to Mr. Forrestor who was fully aware of the), restrictions; and Diamond Bar became a -City to stop) -undesirable development. Terry Birrell, a resident, expressed opposition to the South l' Pointe Master Plan for the following reasons: it was approved', by the Planning Commission in 1993 in violation to planning and zoning law; the South Pointe Master Plan is inconsistent''° with the future adopted General Plan regarding open space' preservation and. the desire to maintain deed and map .restrictions; the EIR is deficient in identifying cumulative' impacts; there are no acceptable overriding considerations) since the housing density negatively impacts the community and), increases traffic; the community desires an aesthetically pleasing project that retains open space; the Lavandar Report does not include the assumptions the conclusions were based upon in regards to economic benefit, nor does it include such_' information such as the current vacancy rate in the City, the', cannibalization implicit in the projections, and the sales and' sales tax per square foot numbers; the financial status of the developers has not been properly investigated; the proposed' commercial site, owned by the City, may be subject tol landslides since it is fill; and there is no benefit to the) community -by lifting either map restricted property. Haji Dayala, residing on Knoll Court, a real estate broker, expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031. He stated that developing the parcels will decrease home values byl approximately 150. He then asked everyone in the audience to stand up and state, "I am sick and tired of being pushed around and I'm not going to take it anymore.-" It is noted that everyone in the audience, which appeared to be approximately 100 residents, stood up and repeated Mr., Dayala's statement. May 23, 1994 Page 9 Steve Nice, residing on Rising Star Drive, pointed out that over 4,000 people signed both referendums to rescind the General Plan in opposition to the position regarding open space and map restrictions. He suggested that the Planning Commission should listen to the people here tonight who are expressing what they desire for their City. He expressed support for allowing Mr. Arciero to develop in Sandstone Canyon since his property does not have map restrictions, as long as he develops in an environmentally sensitive manner. He asked what the WVUSD needs to do to get their EIR approved by the City in order to move the dirt and construct the school. Max Maxwell, reminding the Planning Commission of the number of recall signatures collected as well as the two successful referendums, suggested that the Planning Commission take no action on any of the alternatives and rescind their prior recommendation regarding the South Pointe Master Plan. He stated that the alternatives cut off' the cougar corridor restricting -migration, which is detrimental to the existence of cougars which often travel as far as 150 miles. He stated that it is Mr. Arciero's responsibility to move the dirt in a safe manner. He stated that Parcel Map No. 24031 should not be discussed until after the adoption of a General Plan. He expressed concern that his copy of the agenda packet did not include overriding considerations, and that he is having problem getting information from the City that he has requested. He suggested that nothing be approved this evening until a decision has been made regarding the ownership of the Parcel Map No. 24031 property todetermine if there is a potential conflict of interest. Charles Williams, residing on Rimford Place, opposed to Parcel Map No. 24031, stated that the parcels on Grand Avenue is an active wildlife area with a blue line stream that will require a permit from the Department of Fish and Game to develop. He stated that Jan Dabney indicated at a homeowners meeting that they have every -intent to develop the Grand Avenue parcels regardless of the outcome of the South Pointe Master Plan. He asked why staff was not directed to present a staff report after the recess, as had been indicated. He then suggested 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. AP/Searcy reported that the applicant, RnP Development, Inc., is requesting approval to merge two (2) existing parcels, Lot 1 of Tract No. 31479 and Lot 61 of Tract No. 42557 to one (1) parcel totaling 68.10 acres, located south of Grand Avenue, �Il l lulllll h, ��_ _ , ._ _�.. u..ti����.1� _r�� � uu i 1H INui�fl May 23, 1994 Page 10 west of Shotgun Lane and east of-Summitridge Drive and extends east to the San Bernardino County line, which would require the City's abandonment of currently held Open Space and Building Rights Restrictions on the newly created parcel.. He stated that 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 No. 1 of the South Pointe project:' He reviewed the merits of 'the project as outlined in the staff 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 building restrictions on the property. He noted that the property is' not ,open space, but has a one hundred (100) foot open space!, recorded easement to protect the view. He stated that the restriction on the property is for residential buildings; however, there are underlying uses for the property which the owner does intend to utilize, even if it is not for! residential development. He pointed out that the canyon; property is privately owned and will be fenced and utilized at the owners discretion. He stated that it is felt that the development of the South Pointe Master Plan allows for a more! expansive -use and community benefit by providing,a park and a passive open space; however, if the South Pointe Master Plan, is denied, there will be no parks and'the property will bel fenced off. He stated that the,property owners feel they have been misrepresented by.the community, and to have had to put up with the abuse for three years has been intolerable. He, stated that the developers are asking for their right, provided by law, to have consideration given to their application. j C/Flamenbaum asked what benefit the City would derive by removing the restrictions on the Grand Avenue site. 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. 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 land of lesser value, clarified that he had intended to point out that the City has an opportunity to acquire some land that is d ��� .. ,..i ..,. _...,.. .. A.. A •:�, ., .. �. A, ■ � �" A. A ll11 �!y �Im��I a LIA ye�y May 23, 1994 Page 11 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, 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 interfere with the existing blue line stream and oak trees on the westerly portion of the property. He suggested that the soil be moved from the South Pointe site 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 pians 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 900 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 for 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. It could not be utilized unless people are brought in by helicopter. k 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 that easterly portion of the property, thus preserving the j westerly portion of the property. He suggested that Mr. Arciero and the WVUSD keep an open mind on other ways to move the dirt, and consider developing the property by utilizing other procedures perhaps not yet thought about. He suggested that there be more engineering feasibility studies performed, May 23, 1994 Page 12 and that a contractor be contacted to see the various kinds of I a equipment available. Frank Arciero,. Jr. reiterated that he cannot develop the easterly portion of the property by accepting the dirt on the school site, nor can he afford to move the dirt off of the site. He explained that the cheapest estimate he has received to move the dirt by truck loads off of the property was over $1 million, and to convey it over to the easterly portion of the property first before removing it by trucks would be even more cost prohibitive. He stated that he would be willing to listen to any new ideas on how - to move the dirt, in a cost effective manner, to develop the -property. C/Fang stated that he is attempting to find a solution that ' accommodates the construction of the school, saves the canyon, and allows development. He suggested that he and Mr. Arciero discuss the issue at another time during a work session. 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. C/Fong stated that he met with Mr. Patel on May 16, 1994 to view his property. He pointed out that a blue line stream runs across Mr. Patel's property and that there are several oak trees along the stream. He stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Patel's property also has building restrictions allowing only 3 dwelling units; therefore, his proposal of 23 homes is inconsistent with the draft General Plan. Haji Dayala pointed out that $1- million to move the dirt is not an extreme expense when compared to the amount of homes to be constructed. He pointed out that the cost of the removal of the dirt can easily be added to the cost of -the homes, which would be about $5,000 per home. Max Maxwell expressed concern that Mr. Patel had indicated to him earlier in the evening that there were no restrictions on:' his property, when actual there is. 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. A resident pointed out that Diamond Bar became a City to control such development as the ones being proposed. He expressed concern that Mr. Forrestor has never constructed', homes before, and the City should be cautious considering he'' has no track record. He stated that many of the neighbors' IT_ , "I' „i4,fi r �I i7 �, of e""u r , �a , Y �"u p) i w May 23, 1994 Page 13 have expressed opposition to Mr. Patel' s. proposed development, 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. C/Flamenbaum,made the following comments: there seems to be a trade off of environmental damage from one area to another with Alternative No. 1; Alternative No. 1 would exacerbate traffic conditions in an area already highly impacted; there is no real public benefit to the City with removing the restrictions on'Parcel Map No. 24031; and there appears to be no real public benefit with Alternative No. 1 as compared to what is already offered'in conjunction with the South Pointe Master 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. C/Fong stated that, based upon what can be anticipated with the General Plan, there is to be no lifting of restrictions on open space; therefore, approving Parcel Map No. 24031 would be contrary to the draft General Plan.. VC/Plunk inquired if it is appropriate to assume that there will be absolutely no lifting of restrictions forever, if such as provision is indicated in the General Plan. ICA/Montgomery stated that if there is a vote of the people determining there will never be a lifting of restrictions, then the only way a restriction can be lifted is by another vote of the people. He stated that if the General Plan indicates that restrictions are not to be lifted, a City Council could amend the General Plan unless the General Plan went to ballot, 'then the lifting of restrictions would require a vote of the people. C/Fong expressed opposition to lifting current restrictions on Parcel Map No. 24031. Chair/Meyer mad '� the following comments: -since there is no General Plan, making the required findings of fact that the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan is impossible to do; Lot Nos.'11 & 61 were given restrictions for a purpose in terms of view preservation and open space enjoyment in regards to the Brock subdivision; and there appears to be no public benefit to lifting the restrictions. Moved by C/Flaihenbaum and seconded by VC/Plunk to adopt a resolution recommending denial of Parcel Map No. 24031, as amended by the 'Community Development Director. May 23, 1994 Page 14 CDD/DeStefano made the following amendments to the Resolution of Denial: change the heading on page 1 to read, " A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar Recommending to City Council Denial of Parcel Map No. 24031...11; replace the word "Director" with "Planning Commission" as indicated on page 2, subsection B.'2.; insert finding (i) on page 3 to read, "Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above referenced public hearing, and upon specific findings presented herein, the Planning Commission concludes that it cannot find conformity with Government Code Sections 51093 and 65874 regarding abandonment of the open space easement.";.and reword subsection 3. on page 4 to read, "Based upon ...this Commission herebyrecommends the City Council deny the application for Parcel Map No. 24031 and abandonment of the existing open space easements and building rights restrictions." The Motion•Carried 4-0-1 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk and Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Schad ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Meyer asked the Planning Commission to provide comments regarding the alternatives presented with the South Pointe Master Plan. C/Flamenbaum stated that the Planning Commission approved the -South Pointe Master Plan last year under the rules and laws in effect when it was first proposed to the City, and based upon the benefit received by the City from the project; however, it appears the current motivation of the City Council and the general public is to preserve as much of the canyon as possible. He stated that the City CounQil has the capabilities to preserve the vast majority of the canyon by', deeding a portion of its acreage to the public for the purpose of a secondary road on the north side of the canyon, thus preserving the southern portion of the canyon, and by reducing the density within the proposed tract maps. He then made the following comments: Alternative No. 1 is unacceptable as' indicated previously; Alternative No. 2 has no real benefit' because the canyon would be impacted once the dirt is moved, around; and there has not been any viable solution offered for the removal of the dirt. He pointed out that the original South Pointe Master Plan proposal contains all the parameters needed for the City Council to deliberate and approve the! project. VC/Plunk stated that, since the original approval last year, she now feels that the public benefit of lifting the' �. .- .. "5AI .. i �, G 9 H 3 w n y i.��.... �.. �: ..i.._`t 'la _. �.. ,.... I �._`�.-a_v"�,n, .r 41. �n...l�la ,� ��P �, r, �:-. y �_. �.diy May 23, 1994 Page 15 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 clevelopment.- 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, which 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 May 23, 1994 Page 16 original proposal. He expressed support for the Planning, Commission's original recommendation. Chair/Meyer noted that there. is consensus of the Planning Commission that Alternative No. 1 is not -a viable, recommendation based upon. the recommendation made on Parcel Map No. 24031, and that there is no consensus of the Planning Commission on the other alternatives. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Fong and carried unanimously to direct staff to provide a report for the City Council's review summarizing the Planning Commission's' comments made this evening. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Fong and carried unanimously, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:28 p.m. Respectful y i J es DeStefano Secretary Attest: 4chairm7