Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/27/1997MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 27, 1997 � CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865- East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Community Development Director DeStefano. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and Commissioners, Fong, Goldenberg and McManus. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano, Senior Planner Catherine Johnson, Assistant Planner Ann Lungu, Assistant City Attorney Robin Harris and Consultant Felise Acosta. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Clyde Hennessey said the Planning Commissioners did the right thing by voting the way they did during the last meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of May 13, 1997. C/McManus made a motion, seconded by C/Fong, to approve the minutes of May 13, 1997 as presented. The motion was approved 5-0. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Review of Fiscal Year 97-98 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for conformity with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the Government Code. AstP/Lungu presented the staff report. C/Goldenberg asked if the 1995/1996 projects included in the list have been funded or are to be funded in 1997/1998. CDD/DeStefano responded that some projects are fully funded but not yet completed, several are multi-year projects and carried forward. All projects listed are funded. MAY 27, 1997 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION i! Iy C/Goldenberg asked if the current 1997/1998 Fiscal Year budget totals include dollars for funded projects. CDD/DeStefano responded that the budget follows proj cts carried forward from prior years. C/Fong asked if projects Lan be added to the list. CDD/DeStefano responded that projects have been developed by the Public Works and Community Services staff. The Commission may comment on the list and suggest projects for the Council's consideration. C/Fong suggested the following items be considered for addition to the CIP list: Seepage problems on Cold Springs Lane between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Arby Lane and replacement of deteriorating wrought iron fencing along Diamond Bar Boulevard between Brea Canyon Road and ^` Cold Springs Lane. r CDD/DeStefano responded that with respect to the wrought iron fencing, an issue previously raised by C/Goldenberg, that the walls reside on private property and therefore cannot be included in the City's CIP inventory. The City is researching a means by which it can assure the wall's~ proper maintenance throughout the community. CDD/DeStefano suggested that if the Commission wishes to do so, it may recommend that the City Council appropriate funds within the proposed Capital Improvement Project budget for a seepage study in the Cold Springs Lane area. C/Goldenberg asked for ownership clarification of Item No. 26, Park IN Ride. CDD/DeStefano responded that the property is owned by CalTrans. Diamond Bar is participating in the construction effort through the use of funding provided to the City. VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded to approve the Resolution finding General Plan conformity of the Fiscal Year 1997/98 Capital Improvement Program. The motion was carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS:- VC/Schad, McManus, Fong, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 2. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MODIFYING THE PRELIMINARY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MAY 27, 1997 Page 3"_ PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT AREA TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM THE PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA. CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report. C/Fong requested explanation of the basis for recommending deletion of area from the SunCal property. ACA/Hall responded that legal counsel referred with the consultants and staff for the Redevelopment Agency. Although the properties were originally included in the project area, it was determined that inclusion would no longer be necessary to further the purposes of the Redevelopment Plan. Redevelopment Law allows improvements to be made to parks that benefit the project area. It is not required to keep the parks inside the project area in order to complete park improvements. C/McManus asked if Grand Avenue going up to Summit Ridge Park is proposed to be excluded. CDD/DeStefano responded that the only -portion of Grand i Avenue east of Diamond Bar Boulevard excluded is the portion immediately adjacent to commercial area to Cleghorn Drive. VC/Schad asked if pocket parks are included in the project area. CDD/DeStefano responded that the pocket parks have never been included in the project area. VC/Schad asked if Pantera Park will be included. CDD/DeStefano responded that Pantera Park will not be included. C/Goldenberg asked for verification that with the modifications made to the revitalization area, there are only two residential homes contained in the project area. CDD/DeStefano confirmed C/Goldenberg's statement that only two homes located in non-residential zones are included in the project area. _ C/Fong asked how the Redevelopment Plan would be effected r if the recommended properties were not excluded. �W Felise Acosta responded that project area evaluation indicates that the SunCal area recommended for exclusion did not -meet the criteria for redevelopment. Staff, consultants and legal counsel feel the parks do not need MAY 27, 1997 Page.4 PLANNING COMMISSION to be included because findings can be made to provide for necessary improvements for redevelopment to enhance the community and enhance the project area without inclusion. Inclusion of the park properties could be misconstrued by the community. Ms. Acosta confirmed to -C/Goldenberg that if, in the future the SunCal property is developed, the property would generate tax increment that would flow to'the Redevelopment Agency. By deleting the property from'', the Project Area, revenues will not flow to the Redevelopment Agency because itis not included in the project. C/Goldenberg asked if all properties within the City would contribute to the Redevelopment Agency if the agency belcomesareality., Ms. Acosta responded to C/Goldenberg that only properties included within the boundaries of the project area would be able to generate tax increment revenue that would be allocated to the Redevelopment Agency. Tax increment from properties outside the project area continue to flow to taxing agencies as they have in the past. The financing base for the revitalization efforts is limited to the tax increment or increase in value, and ''I the resulting revenue from the increase in value from properties within the project boundaries that are allocated to the Redevelopment Agency. C/McManus asked if on the other hand redevelopment funds can flow only to those projects within the redevelopment area. Ms. Acosta confirmed C/McManus' statement with the exception of public improvements and public projects that are identified on the projects list. She stated her understanding that only businesses within the redevelopment area are eligible for redevelopment funds. ACA/Hall confirmed Ms. Acosta's statements. Public projects may be located inside or outside of a project area if they are of benefit to the project area. VC/Schad asked if the upper portion of Sycamore Canyon could fall under redevelopment and if funds could be used to extend the lower Sycamore Canyon trail under Diamond Bar Boulevard and into the upper areas of the Canyon. CDD/DeStefano stated the SunCal property is identified on Exhibit A map. The area contemplated for deletion from the project area is the SunCal property. The upper portion of the canyon is owned by SunCal and is part of SunCal's proposal to provide that acreage to the City in MAY 27, 1997 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION accordance with the adopted General Plan. The developer is proposing to build 130 homes on the ridgeline and that the balance of approximately 300 acres is to be given to the City of Diamond Bar for open space. He indicated that it is highly unlikely that redevelopment funds would be used for trail development. C/Goldenberg asked how the Arciero project differs from the SunCal property since they are both contemplated to be gated communities. CDD/DeStefano indicated the Arciero property and the school property have severe geotechnical problems. In addition, school access, improvements to Brea Canyon Road and other such activities are contemplated. These properties appear to require redevelopment to insure successful development. redevelopment funds. Even though these problems are Chair/Ruzicka asked for public testimony. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. C/Goldenberg stated his concerns regarding the rationale for eliminating the SunCal property and, at the same time, including the Arciero and school property. He is concerned that the Redevelopment Agency will lose sufficient tax increment dollars by eliminating the SunCal property. He stated he is not clear about the reasons for eliminating the SunCal property and not the Arciero and school property, and that Redevelopment monies will be spent correcting land slippage. He said it seems feasible that either both properties are eliminated or that both properties are left in the project area. Ms. Acosta responded that the recommendation before the Planning Commission stems from the requirements for Redevelopment Law. For example, documenting reasons for i, inclusion of individual properties within the project area boundaries. The recommendation to delete the SunCal property is based upon the fact that the consultants and staff initially believed the property could be included for "effective redevelopment", as opposed to' having specific characteristics of blighting, now believe that there is a much weaker case for inclusion than exclusion of the property. As a result, inclusion of the SunCal property may weaken the entire project area. With respect to the Arciero property, it was determined that d� because of the geotechnical problems the property should be included.. There is no relationship between the inclusion of this property and anticipated expenditure of redevelopment funds. Even though these problems are MAY 27, 1997 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISPION identified, redevelopment does have the potential to address the site's problems. That does not mean, however, that the Redevelopment Agency is required to, or will, 'expend redevelopment dollars to cure or to improve that particular piece of land. C/Goldenberg asked for Legal opinion as to why the Redevelopment Agency would include one tract and not the other tract. He suggested the Commission continue this item to June 12 for further consideration of the fats. VC/Schad asked if redevelopment funds could be used to acquire the Arciero property as part of an _open space Sandstone Canyon park. He suggested that the slide area west of South Point Middle'School be used by the City as a research and 'development area for replanting of vegetation. CDD/DeStefano stated that the City Council and Agency Board specifically requested the Planning Commission to consider the six areas contemplated for deletion from the revitalization project area. Discussion regarding any other portion of the proposed Redevelopment Plan may be useful but somewhat out of context with the charge before �^ the Commission. Consultants and legal staff believe it appropriate to delete the Suncal property from the proposed project Area and that it has characteristics that are uniquely different than the larger land mass that surrounds and includes the Arciero project and properties. The SunCal'property is an isolated piece which was contemplated'to'complete the circulation system for the area., The South Point Middle I School/Arciero property has geotechnical, drainage, landslide, and flood control problems. The opportunity'exists to implement the General Plan in that area that specifically discusses the opportunity for the school district property to be used as an open space park resource for the development of Larkstone Park. Within the Redevelopment Plan which the Planning Commission has,recommended for approval, a public improvements program is included which suggests signalization,'streetscape improvement, and completion of Larkstone Park in the area. VC/Schad moved, Chair/Ruzicka seconded, to adopt a Resolution modifying the preliminary Redevelopment Plan amending the boundaries of the Project Area excluding certain property from the proposed Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area. N C/Goldenberg reiterated his request for written legal opinion relating to the propriety or impropriety of retaining or excluding the SunCal property and ,the MAY 27, 1997 Page 76, PLANNING COMMISSION k� Arciero property. He said he is not prepared to vote on the matter at this time. CDD/DeStefano stated the inclusion or exclusion of the Arciero and SunCal properties are matters for consideration by the Citv Council and not the Planning Commission. ACA/Hall concurred with staff's recommendation to adopt the Resolution and that the matter was brought to the Planning Commission at the request of the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council. The matter will be returned to the City Council to determine that the boundaries of the Project Area are appropriate and that the conditions of redevelopment have been met. Addressing C/Goldenberg's concerns, ACA/Hall outlined the requirements for inclusion of properties under Redevelopment Law. Ms. Acosta responded to C/Goldenberg that the Agency was not able to demonstrate that the SunCal property has# depreciated in value. ACA/Hall explained to VC/Schad that with respect to the Arciero property, Redevelopment Law includes as a condition of blight, factors that prevent oz, substantially hinder the economically viable use of the property. CDD/DeStefano responding to C/Fong again spoke about the Arciero property. He indicated that Arciero has had difficulty receiving the required permits from Los Angeles County because the County wants assurance that the drainage problems will not impact the balance of the property. In essence, the County is asking the developer to mitigate problems that it did not mitigate during the 30 or 40 years of development in the area prior to the City's incorporation. These circumstances are unique to the City and that is why the property has been included in the project area. Chair/Ruzicka called for the question. The motion was carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Schad, F o n g, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: McManus l� ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING - None MAY 27, 1997 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION 0 PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. List of Planning Commission Projects for Fiscal fear 1997-1998 - Received and Filed. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/McManus referenced Mr. Hennessey's public comment and stated that Mr. Hennessey would not be privy to how he might 'vote on issues before the Commission and that he is certain that the same holds true for the balance of the Planning Commission. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: CDD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that on June 3, 1997,ithe City Council will review the Darrin Drive cellular site project and continue the discussion regarding a moratorium for wireless telecommunications facilities. .ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, VC/Schad moved; C/Fong seconded, to adjourn the meeting.Chair Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 8:45 / J g p.m. to June 10, 1997. Reppectfuliv Submitted, I James DeStefan Community Development Director Attest: J'o�� Ruzz C1Yairman