Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/9/1994MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAY 9, 1994 I CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:25 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 Commissioner Schad. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk; Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong Mayor Werner; Mayor Pro Tem Harmony; Council Members: Papen and Ansari. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Seracy; Assistant Planner Ann Lunqu; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; and City Clerk �- Lynda Burgess Absent:, Council Member Miller due to a potential conflict of interest MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, expressed concern that he was unable to obtain information he requested regarding the project. He also expressed concern that these joint meetings create confusion among the public regarding items that will be discussed. He then suggested that staff be directed to make a brief presentation, allowing the public more of an opportunity to speak. CONSENT CALENDAR - None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING/City Council and Planning Commission Joint Meeting Chair/Meyer explained that the City Council and the Planning Commission is conducting a joint public hearing in order to expedite the review process of the South Pointe project at the request of the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD), which is under a tight time frame in terms of funding and construction of the South Pointe Middle School. He stated that the Planning Commission had made a recommendation to the City Council last year May 9, 1994 Page 2 regarding the entitlements surrounding the South Pointe Master Plan; however, alternatives to the project have been presented to the City after that recommendation was forwarded to the City Council, which now requires review from the Planning'Commission. He then relinquished the gavel to M/Werner to continue on with the joint public hearing. 1. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8; AND OAR TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAR 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 M/Werner explained that the joint meeting this evening is a study session of the City Council and the Planning Commission and not a public hearing due to a defective noticing process, as was explained at the last joint study session of May 3, 1994. He stated that the Planning Commission will be conducting a public hearing on this item at their regular meeting of May 23, 1994, and the City Council ,will be conducting their public hearings on this item beginning on May 31, 1994. He then requested the minutes of both study sessions of May 3, 1994 and May 9, 1994 be incorporated into the public hearing record as an information document on the South Pointe project. C/Flamenbaum suggested the following sixth alternative to the, project for purposes of discussion: 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. He then inquired if an open space; easement has been recorded on the project site. i ICA/Montgomery explained that there are no open space r easements but rather building restrictions called "open space dedications". MPT/Harmony suggested a seventh alternative of issuing only a, grading permit for the construction of the middle school. CM/Belanger stated that staff will provide a report regarding the feasibility of alternative seven for the City Council's consideration in their deliberation. C/Flamenbaum inquired what standards are utilized in determining the benefits of removing deed restrictions on properties. I May 9, 1994 Page 3 CM/Belanger stated that the Government Code section 51093 sets forth the standards in terms of the findings the City would have to make to abandon an open space easement. M/Werner noted that the response from staff, as well as the staff report, includes reference to an open space easement yet staff indicated that there isn't an open space easement but rather an open space dedication. ICA/Montgomery explained that the subdivision maps recorded for the property on Grand Avenue include open space easements. M/Werner opened the meeting and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Christine McPeak, residing at 21131 East Lariat Court, Walnut, the Vice President for the Board of Trustees for the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVU5D), expressed support for the immediate construction of the South Pointe Middle School. Carolyn Elfelt, President of the South Pointe Community Club, expressed support for the immediate construction of the South Pointe Middle School, meeting the standards of the community. Diane Singer, residing at 20881 E. Quail Run Dr., expressed �opposition to allowing any development in sandstone Canyon which destroys the wildlife and the natural habitat. She pointed out that Diamond Bar cannot sustain any more retail business. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, requested his statement to be placed verbatim for the public record. He requested a copy of the title search showing the property owner of the RnP property. He then requested the following documents be made of public record on the South Pointe project: - the memorandum from Rutan & Tucker to the City Council dated March 1, 1994 regarding the public record issues concerning C/Miller's conflict of interest in the South Pointe Master Plan; the memorandum from ICA/Montgomery dated February 18, 1994 to Leonard Hemple; the letter dated February 1, 1994 from Markman, Arczynski, Hansen & King to ICA/Montgomery regarding correspondence of January 6, 1994; the memorandum dated January 6, 1994 from ICA/Montgomery to the City Council; a FAX dated January 5, 1994 from C/Papen to ICA/Montgomery regarding attorney/client privileges of Council Members; the letter dated September 24, 1993 to Markman, Arczynski, Hansen & King from Max Maxwell; and the request letter dated August 10, 1993 and September 9, 1993 from Max Maxwell. He then requested information regarding the events that led to the sale of the Water District property to the City prior to the conception of the South Pointe Master Plan. He questioned why the Grand Avenue project is being presented at this time, particularly when there are building restrictions. He then referred to the following information which is of public May 9, 1994 Page 4 RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. RECONVENED: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 9:47 p.m. David Capestro, residing at 1652 S. Longview, expressed opposition to the proposed development involving parcels #1` and #61 off of Grand Avenue. x W Anne Flesher, residing at 20647 Larkstone Drive, expressed support of the construction of the Middle School using Alternative #1, as well as mitigating the traffic problems on record: the letter from Jan Dabney dated October 10, 1990; the project history from October of 1990 to present; and the j letter dated November 15, 1991 from Jan Dabney. He expressed opposition to the development of either properties indicated in the alternatives of the South Pointe project, but allowing the construction'of the Middle School by getting a temporary borrow permit for the Arciero property to get the dirt off of the school site. M/Werner pointed out that the "conflict of interest" indicated by Mr. Maxwell in regards to C/Miller should be reflected in the record as "alleged" conflict of interest. Barbara Beach-Courschesne stated that, in April 1994, RnP applied for an application for the development of a single family residential development on lots 11 and 161. CDD/DeStefano, utilizing the overhead, showed the parcel map's that will be the subject of the Planning Commission's debate and deliberation on May 23, 1994, which merges two lots on Grand Ave. owned by RnP Development Incorporated, and a slide:, showing an aerial of the site. Barbara Beach-Courschesne requested that her statement be included verbatim for public record. Noting that the City may' not approve discretionary land use projects if it is not' consistent with the future adopted General'Plan, she pointed out that GPAC, with developers voting, has already recommended to have the General Plan state that map and deed restrictions will be honored and enforced. She expressed opposition to the proposals, noting that the developers are trying to push the project through, based on WVUSD needs, before the new General Plan can hinder them. She expressed support of they construction of the Middle School, but not at the expense of the quality of life for the residents in the area and at the expense of the destruction of the Sandstone Canyon. She then read many of the responses, in the Response to Comments section of the EIR, which responded to concerns to the proposed South Pointe Middle School. She noted that there are many flaws, and a lack of completeness in the EIR, and that the negative aspects of this project far out weigh the positive aspects. RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. RECONVENED: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 9:47 p.m. David Capestro, residing at 1652 S. Longview, expressed opposition to the proposed development involving parcels #1` and #61 off of Grand Avenue. x W Anne Flesher, residing at 20647 Larkstone Drive, expressed support of the construction of the Middle School using Alternative #1, as well as mitigating the traffic problems on 7_I May 9, 1994 Page 5 Larkstone Drive, resulting from the temporary school facilities, by providing another access road. She expressed concern with CjSchad's participation in the deliberation, considering his involvement the last few years opposing the project. Karen Capestro, residing at 1652 Longview Drive, expressed opposition to the proposed development involving parcels 11 and #61 off of Grand Avenue. Michael Long, residing at 1648 Longview Drive, stated that he bought his property because he was told the property behind him had building restrictions. Thomas Cooper, residing at 1552 Summitridge, expressed concern with traffic circulation with the development of parcel 11 and #61 off of Grand Avenue and its effect to the surrounding neighborhoods and property values. Harish Singh, residing at 24343 Rimford Place, questioned the real benefits to developing the 72 acres off of Grand Avenue. Gordon Guber, residing at 24303 Rimford Place, stated that the property behind his home has building restrictions and should not be developed. James Hickey, residing at 24320 Rimford Place, expressed opposition to the proposed plan. Theresa Guber, residing at 24303 Rimford Place, expressed opposition to the removal of building restrictions and allowing development in an area already impacted by traffic. Haji Dayala, residing at 24324 Knoll Court, stated that the real estate disclosure transfer statement indicates that lots #1 and 161 are restricted open space. He expressed opposition to the development of lots #1 and #61. Joseph Shu, residing at 1820 Derringer Lane, expressed opposition to the development of lots #1 and 161. Mike Abeyta, residing at 1656 Longview Drive, expressed opposition to the development off of Grand Avenue; however, he stated that all the pros and cons of the entire proposal should be properly reviewed. Stephen Nice, residing on Rising Star Drive, suggested that the -issue regarding map restrictions should be placed on the ballot, along with the General Plan, to determine if map restrictions should be lifted or not. George Barrett, residing at 1884 Shaded Wood Road, pointed out that the proposed development off of Grand Avenue have, encouraged even more residents in the City to express their May 9, 1994 Page 6 opposition to further development in the City. He expressed_ opposition to the proposals. Frank Dursa, residing at 2533 Harmony Hill Drive, expressed opposition to the proposals and any development because it will destroy the -City. Rochelle Abeyta, residing at 1656 Longview Drive, stated that the issues of the South Pointe project and the development of parcels #1 and #61 should be considered separately. There being no one else wishing to speak, M/Werner closed the meeting and returned the matter to the City Council and Planning Commission. M/Werner returned the meeting to Chair/Meyer. Chair/Meyer reminded the audience that the next Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for May 23, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:40 p.m. I Respectfully, J,es DeStefano Secretary Attest: r k.., f;h.ru.�.' yi { ,� z A �, b Y h .x'