Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/1994 Minutes - Jt. Meeting with Planning Commission'MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAY 2, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 7:07 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 Mayor Werner. ROLL CALL: Mayor Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony, Council Members Ansari and Papen. C/Miller excused himself from participation due to a potential conflict of interest. Planning Commission Chairman Meyer, Vice Chairman Plunk and Commissioners Schad and Fong. C/Flamenbaum arrived at 7:10 p.m. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Assistant City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 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. 91-50, 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 - M/Werner asked if there were any conflict of interest issues involving any member of the City Council or Planning Commission that would preclude them from participating in discussion of this issue. ICA/Montgomery stated that he was unaware of any issues involving a conflict of interest with any member of the Council or Planning Commission. He then noted that C/ Miller voluntarily excluded himself from the hearings due to a potential conflict of interest, and that a concern regarding C/Schad had been appropriately responded to by staff. C/Papen expressed concern that C/Schad, who resides within 300 ft. of the property, is not considered to have a conflict of interest and is participating in the deliberations. ICA/Montgomery explained, that, pursuant to Regulation 18702.3, adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission under the authority of Government Code 87103, a Commissioner residing MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 2 within 300 ft. of the property is presumed to have a disqualifying interest in real property unless there is no financial affect on his property. He stated that, according to an independent appraisal obtained by staff to determine whether or not there would be an effect on the property, it was found that there is no measurable positive or negative change in the market value of the subject residence if this project or its alternatives are implemented because of the subject's substantial distance in elevation above the proposed project area. M/Werner stated that a student requested to speak prior to presentations made by staff and developers. M/Werner opened the Public Hearing. Jacob Ellis, 21329 Lasso Dr., a student at South Pointe Middle School, expressed support for construction of South Pointe Middle School as soon as possible, but not if the natural habitat of Sandstone Canyon would be sacrificed. In response to MPT/Harmony, Mr. Ellis stated that he obtained 108 signatures from students on a petition protesting the destruction of the canyon. Carolyn Kim, student at South Pointe Middle School, requested that a permanent school be constructed as soon as possible. Richard Eide inquired if the discussion would include the property in the back part of The Country. M/Werner stated that the notification process was defec-tive and that there would be no discussion focusing on the property in the back part m fete The Country. He asked staff to explain why P notification procedure was not conducted. CM/Belanger explained that staff mailed notices for the Hearing on the South Pointe Master Plan, and all related documents, within the required 21 day notice of publication and the 21 day mailing to all property owners located within 500 ft. within the subject proposal, but inadvertently failed to properly notify 300 residents; therefore, the Council is unable to deliberate or make a decision this evening related to matters on the agenda. He recommended that, following testimony, the Council adjourn the meeting to Wednesday, May 25, 1994 at 7:00 p.m., and that the Planning Commission adjourn MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 3 its meeting to its regularly scheduled meeting of May 23, 1994, which would allow sufficient time to cure the mailing notice defect. C/Papen noted that the mailing notice also did not include notification that the Council would be considering the Grand Ave. property as one of the alternatives; therefore, there should not be any discussion on that alternative this evening. CM/Belanger explained that the defective notice relates to the South Pointe Master Plan, not to the parcel map on lots No.l and 61, which was properly noticed for a Public Hearing by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1994 and recommended for a City Council Public Hearing on May 25, 1994 to consider the parcel map as part of the continua- tion of this particular matter. He stated that since there was a proper published notice, individuals can give testimony this evening for the record; however, the City Council and the Planning Commission should not engage in any deliberation in relationship to the projects until after the appropriate public notice has been given and the meeting relating to that notice has been held. M/Werner indicated that the issues associated with the alternative projects are separate issues and will be discussed at subsequent Planning Commission and Council meetings. ICA/Montgomery concurred that, as long as no decisions are rendered this evening, it is appropriate for the Council to allow presentations from the developers, accept testimony from the audience, questions of clarification from members of the Planning Commission and City Council and to consider impacts of cumulative developments in the City. VC/Plunk inquired if it is appropriate to discuss the cumulative effects of the proposal without a General Plan. ICA/Montgomery explained that the cumulative effects can be discussed at anytime because land uses must be balanced against other land uses. He stated that since OPR granted an extension of time for the General Plan, the Council cannot refuse to hear the developers' application and must make a finding based upon the General Plan to be adopted. Chair/Meyer requested staff, during their presentation, to explain why the Planning Commission had been invited in joint session with the Council, given the fact that the Planning MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 4 Commission already made a recommendation on all of these entitlements for the Council's deliberation. VC/Plunk questioned the appropriateness of ICA/Montgomery representing the City, given his involvement with several lawsuits regarding this issue. She also expressed concern over the Planning Commission deliberating on a project they already reviewed and provided recommendations. ICA/Montgomery stated that both the FPPC and the State Bar have found no conflict with his involvement on this issue. MPT/Harmony requested future notices of the Planning Commission and the Council to include the back part of The Country off of Grand Ave. so all issues can be discussed in the same context. He also requested that a notice of interest be sent to residents on Fern Hollow to advise them of the South Pointe Master Plan proposal. In response to C/Schad's inquiry, CM/Belanger stated that all action taken under ordinance No. 4 and recommendations made by the Planning Commission are valid under the previous analysis done in relationship to Ordinance No. 4. He stated that the extension letter from OPR provides for the Council to hear vesting tentative maps that existed prior to the date of the issuance of the extension letter. Chair/Meyer noted that the Planning Commission concurred in continuing the Public Hearing to its regularly -scheduled meeting of May 23, 1994. M/Werner stated that the Council would close their portion of the Public Hearing and renotice a new Public Hearing to a date around the end of May/beginning of June, depending upon when the AQMD Auditorium is available. He then requested staff to provide a staff presentation. CDD/DeStefano reported that the South Pointe Master Plan is a project proposed to guide the development of about 171 acres within the South Pointe Middle School/Sandstone Canyon area, which is owned by the following five entities: the City; Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD); Arciero & Sons, Inc.; RnP Development, Inc. and Sasak Corp. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space, approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park and construction of a middle school. He stated that the Planning MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 5 Commission began review of the project in late 1992 and recommended Council approval; however, guidelines of Ordinance No. 4, which the City was operating under in 1993, prohibited completion of the South Pointe Master Plan project and many of its components at Council level. He stated that the Council tabled the project in January 1994 and since that time, the developers, in response to input from the community, have submitted alternative proposals for consideration along with the project of record, which is now before the Council. He reported that the WVUSD, which is in jeopardy of losing $8 million of capital funds and has construction contract considerations, recently asked the City for assistance to begin construction of the permanent middle school facilities, which requires the removal of about 400,000 cubic yards of dirt from the school site. He explained that the purpose of the Planning Commission's participation is to allow them to receive a presentation regarding any proposed modification to the project, and to take any possible subsequent action as directed by the Council, and/or any other actions necessary to move the project forward and come to a decision. He then reviewed the specific development proposal of record, as outlined in the staff report and reported that alternative proposals to the project of record are designed to encourage preservation of the Sandstone Canyon area for open space purposes. The alternatives are: Alternative One, listed in the staff report as a North/South Canyon Preservation, is a concept trading Arciero & Son's property for the westerly 35 acres of the RnP Development property near Morning Sun Dr., to develop a 103 home project, incorporating a new road access from Brea Canyon Rd., to the middle school. Alternative Two, is listed as an East/West Canyon Preservation, considering preserving the east/west canyon by only permitting the development of the Arciero tract and site; however, this development would affect the blueline stream, which must be permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game. Alternative Three is a "no project" alternative, requiring off-site transport of the excess dirt from the School District's property, which may require an addendum or supplement to the WVUSD's certified EIR. Alternative Four would be to certify the EIR, deny the project or specific components of the project presented. Alternative Five would be to continue the discussion of the Master Plan for either further environmental analysis and/or investigation of additional alternatives. MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 6 In response to MPT/Harmony, CDD/DeStefano explained that the transport of the dirt off the school site is an alternative to moving the dirt into one of the adjacent canyons. He stated that it is staff's opinion that the previously certified EIR did not facilitate or incorporate the removal of the dirt via the local streets and. would therefore require an addendum or supplement to that document in order to achieve that environmental certification. He stated that staff does not have information regarding the agreement with the WVUSD and Arciero & Sons. MPT/Harmony pointed out that it seems that WVUSD had agreed with Arciero & Sons to locate the dirt onto Arciero's property. M/Werner stated that not only was there concern with moving the dirt off-site over the existing roads, but there was also concern expressed, during testimony on preparation of the District's EIR, about dumping the dirt into the canyon. In response to C/Flamenbaum, CDD/DeStefano explained that Exhibit G in the staff report is Alternative One to Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407, illustrating the 103 homes on the westerly portion of RnP's holdings. He stated that Exhibit H is the 1991 version of Tentative Tract Map No. 32400, which was provided only as an informational document. He then displayed exhibits, included in the staff report, reviewing each alternative proposal. C/Flamenbaum noted that Alternative Two would require a lot of earth movement off-site. He also noted that the City loses the commercial development and the park with Alternatives One and Two. C/Schad noted that the map on Exhibit 1 indicates that the road off of Brea Canyon would bisect a corner of the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. (HOA) property. Chair/Meyer questioned why the EIR would have to be modified to expend additional deliberation for the transport of the dirt when the EIR should include the Planning Commission's discussion in the Response to Comment which determined that items such as inadequate roads for truck traffic and opposition from the surrounding land uses, could not be mitigated to a level of non -significance. CDD/DeStefano explained that staff believes the MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 7 WVUSD would need to amend their existing certified EIR approved in 1989 in order to accomodate the option of moving the dirt via trucks down the adjacent streets, not the City's EIR currently being processed and before the Council. Chair/Meyer pointed out that even though the WVUSD's EIR is deficient in its discussion about off-site transport, the City's EIR fully discusses the issue; therefore, as long as the City's EIR is certified, the discussion can be incorporated by reference into the WVUSD's EIR. M/Werner requested clarification regarding how the blueline stream would be affected by Alternative One and Two. CDD/DeStefano explained that the road to the school site would cross the blueline stream, in both the proposal of record and Alternative One, thus requiring permits from the Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. In Alternatives One and Two, the dirt from the school site would be relocated into the canyon, thus immediately affecting the blueline stream. C/Papen, noting that the staff report does not include a map for Alternative Two, requested staff to outline it on one of the other maps, specifying if there is a proposed road from Brea Canyon. CDD/DeStefano stated that Alternative Two, which preserves the east/west canyon area, does not include a road within that project from Brea Canyon Road through the neighborhood to support the subdivision itself. C/Schad suggested that a dirt haul road through the low part of the hill between Arciero's property and Brea Canyon Road, coming out just north of the high pressure gas pumping plant, would not impact the blueline stream. RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m. 2.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 92-1 & 92-1 - Frank Arciero Jr., principal of Arciero & Sons, Inc., expressed concern that C/Schad may have a conflict of interest regarding -. this issue since the Pathfinder HOA, of which C/Schad is a member, expressed concern at previous public hearings that they would lose value in their homes if this project was ever developed. He then requested a copy of the information presented to MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 8 the State Bar and the FPPC that led to the determination that ICA/Montgomery did not have a conflict of interest in the matter. He also requested clarification as to what issues the Planning Commission would be addressing during their May 23, 1994 meeting. M/Werner explained that the Planning Commission is being asked to consider options that weren't available to them for consideration when they first reviewed the project. ICA/Montgomery explained that the FPPC provided a written response to C/Ansari before she took office. He stated that C/Papen and C/Plunk requested that the State Bar give their opinion; therefore, he does not know what was submitted. He stated that the applicants are welcome to have their attorneys point out where a ruling is wrong and request further investigation. M/Werner pointed out that it is typically the responsibility of a Commissioner and/or Councilmember to make the determination if any conflict of interest exists. ICA/Montgomery reiterated that the letter of record from the independent appraiser selected by staff indicates that the proposals will not impact the market either way. He stated that there is a procedure whereby if the applicants wish to challenge C/Schad, the appropriate legal action can be filed to attempt to have him disqualified. Mr. Arciero gave a brief history on the purchase of the property, and applicants for development of that property prior to incorporation that led to the sale of the property to the School District. He stated that the intent of the sale to the District and the balance of the property was always for development purposes, which was supported by the County Supervisor at that time and covered in the District's EIR. He stated that First American Title Company, which controlled the funds to pay the subcontractors, requiring both approval from him and the WVUSD, never held a completion or grading bond to guarantee that any work would be completed by a certain date. In regard to the issue that three oak trees were damaged in the course of the grading operation of the school, he explained that an agreement was made that he would either seed the park or pay $3,000 to $5,000 in restitution. In regard to the property that was owned by the Water Company, he explained that Mr. Beiderman indicated that the site on Brea Canyon MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 9 Cut-off was available but it would have to be offered to another agency first. Since there was no response made to the letter sent by the Water Co., they entered into an agreement to purchase the property for the same price paid by the Water Co. for the property off of Pathfinder Rd. and Brea Canyon Cut-off, contingent upon the approval of the subdivision; however, in 1992, the Water Co. informed him that the property was being sold to the City and was no longer available. In regard to the proposal of record, he stated that he was contacted by the City to participate in a meeting to consider Master Planning the entire property that would be appropriate and benefit the community. He stated that he concurred with the Master Plan concept. He then pointed out that in order to accomplish Alternative One, approximately six months would be needed to obtain permits from the Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers, which is a time frame that may not be suitable to the District. In response to M/Werner, Mr. Arciero stated that his offer of restitution for removing the oak trees, or to seed or plant trees in the park still holds if still desired by the City. He also stated that he may not have mentioned to the School District the time involved in obtaining permits from the Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers because he assumed the project of record, which would not have impacted that blueline stream, was to be approved. He then pointed out that the requirements to obtain a permit from the Department of Fish and Game is becoming more restrictive in recent times. C/Schad inquired if the road at the low part of the hill between Arciero's property and Brea Canyon Rd. that was used during the process of grading the South Pointe site, could not be utilized to remove the dirt. Mr. Arciero stated that, to his knowledge, there is no road down that hill, nor are there culverts of appropriate size to accomodate trucks. He stated that in order to utilize that area, there would need to be mass grading to accommodate those trucks to be able to get up and down those hills. In response to VC/Plunk, he explained that he and WVUSD entered into a joint escrow account with First American Title Company to pay subcontractors for grading the property from funds included in the purchase price. He explained that the alternative proposals were drafted to respond to concerns of MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 10 the community, thus providing the community an opportunity to acquire the property and keep it in perpetuity; however, the South Pointe Master Plan is the preferred proposal and has not been withdrawn. C/Papen requested that Mr. Arciero indicate when he could begin construction for the proposal of record. Mr. Arciero stated that, as long as the blueline stream is not impacted, he could start grading within a week, depending upon the City's timeframe to issue a grading permit, if he had an agreement from the City that the development would be approved. C/Schad suggested that a majority of the dirt could be used to raise the elevation of the two playgrounds a few feet. Mr. Arciero pointed out that it takes 1,600 cubic yards of dirt to raise an acre of land one foot; _ therefore, one can quickly surmise that it would not be feasible to raise the playground utilizing 400,000 cubic yards of dirt. C/Fong stated that, to his calculations, the entire school site would have to be raised only 8 feet, utilizing the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt, with only 16 feet of land use lost around the perimeter. He suggested that the School District address this option, or other options that would reduce the amount of excavation or off-site export by modifying the grading and building layout of the school. Mr. Arciero pointed out that many problems arise with raising the property, such as access to the school from the existing street, the loss of land, the building of slopes, etc. He also pointed out that changing the existing building location and layouts would require the School District to go through a whole new process with the State, thus jeopardizing their funding. C/Flamenbaum suggested that it may be more appropriate if only Alternatives One and Two were addressed this evening, given that the Planning Commission already reviewed the entire South Pointe Master Plan in great depth. He stated that the Council could have subsequent meetings to review the South Pointe Master Plan to address questions of concern without Planning Commission participation. MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 11 M/Werner stated that the Council wants to ensure that the Planning Commission has considered the options available as being discussed by the developer and determine if the Planning Commission would want to reconsider the first recommendation, and/or supplement the recommendation with contingency plans, or not give reconsideration to the original recommendation. Chair/Meyer noted that, if the majority of the Planning Commission desires to reconsider its original recommendation, the entire project, at the discretion of the Planning Commission, is open for deliberation. C/Papen painted out that the Council has not voted to reject the Planning Commission's recommendation, nor instructed them to reconsider it. She questioned _how Alternatives One and Two were included in the agenda when they were never part of the Master Plan. She stated that there is no reason why the Planning Commission should have to consider the two alternatives, except for the determination made by ICA/Montgomery that the restrictions on two of the properties require an abandonment of an open space easement. M/Werner stated that the Council, by law, must consider all reasonable alternatives available before rendering a decision on the Planning Commission's recommendation. VC/Plunk expressed concern that, given the timeframe involved with the School District, the Planning Commission would not be able to adequately consider the alternatives, and perhaps reconsider the original decision. In response to C/Schad, Mr. Arciero stated that the project would be about 80 ft. above Rapid View when completed. Chair/Meyer suggested that each developer be asked to present an overview of their project and that specific questions from the Planning Commission and Council be written down and submitted to staff to be responded to by the developers before the May 23 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Both the Planning Commission and City Council concurred. Dwight Forrister, owner of RnP Development, resident of Austin, Texas, stated that he purchased RnP Development from C/Miller in 1991. He stated MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 12 that he is available to answer any questions; however, Jan Dabney, his representative, could more appropriately answer any technical questions or concerns. Mr. Dabney, a local development consultant representing Mr. Patel, Mr. Forrister and Mr. Arciero, though sympathetic to the Planning Commissioners who reviewed the project in depth, pointed out that the applicants have been waiting patiently for many years for their project to be heard before the Council. He then gave a brief history of the proposal, beginning with the first presentation before staff and Council Members in January 1991, in which the developers asked the Council for direction, fully disclosing the desire to have map restrictions removed in order to develop the property providing community benefit and finishing with the proposal and alternatives presented today. Mr. Dabney explained that M/Werner recently suggested that the project may not be suitable in today's atmosphere due to the issues surrounding the referendums, recall and environmental considerations placed before the Council; therefore, the question at hand is whether the City desires economic development or passive set aside areas. He stated that, of the five alternatives presented this evening, the South Pointe Master Plan and Alternative One are the two proposals preferred and reviewed by the developers. He then reviewed the merits of Alternative One and the environmental impacts to the canyon. He also reviewed Mr. Arciero's original proposal and the conditions existing in Alternative Two. He stated that the Council needs to address whether or not they will allow the developers and the school district to proceed. He noted that the school still not being built is an indication that something needs to be resolved on this issue. C/Flamenbaum stated that it seems that Alternative One is suggesting to trade the environmental damage in one area for the environmental damage in another. Mr. Dabney stated that the specific 68 acres off of Grand Ave. does not have many of the issues professed to be associated with the South Pointe Master Plan. He pointed out that the property does not have a Walnut or Oak Tree Grove that would be impacted upon development, it already has a high pressure gas line through the middle of the project, a fence separating the two counties and MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 13 the only existing use on the property now are numerous meandering riding trails. C/Flamenbaum inquired how much dirt would be moved for development of the Grand Ave. property. He noted that the footprint of the road would cut into ancient landslides. Mr. Dabney stated that the road is a low profile cross section road and geotechnical consultants would have to address the issue of ancient landslides to the satisfaction of the City. He stated that there is a substantial decrease in the amount of dirt that would be moved for the Grand Ave. project compared to the approximate 4.5 million yards of earthwork that would have been done in the South Pointe Master Plan. C/Flamenbaum expressed concern that Alternative Two suggests putting the dirt in the canyon, and if the dirt goes into the canyon, the canyon would be dead as a viable ecological entity. C/Papen inquired what the economic benefit would be to the City with the Master Plan and what would be lost with Alternative One. Mr. Dabney stated that the direct revenue indicated in the Dale/Lavander Report indicated an excess of $700,000 a year from sales taxes, the value of the commercial property would have been approximately $5 million paid to the City, the park would have been constructed and paid for by the developer, the improvement of the road to the School District would have been constructed at a sum of $500,000 and there would have been improvements to Brea Canyon Rd. and all of the adjacent neighborhoods. He stated that the total amount of benefits to the City from the original plan would have totaled over $7 million to the community, with approximately $700,000 to $800,000 ongoing in sales tax revenue for the life of the project. He stated that the School District would have received $1.2 million in school fees from the residential development, plus 80,000 cubic yards of dirt would have been removed, at no cost to the school, enhancing their playing fields next to the park. Mr. Dabney, in response to VC/Plunk, noted that several of the alternatives eliminate both Mr. Forrister and Mr. Sasak from development. He stated that the Sasak property, in Alternative One, would be allowed to be developed under the guidelines of the original Master Plan; however, in Alternative Two, he would not be allowed to MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 14 develop, which would result in a lawsuit against the City. VC/Plunk suggested that the relative environmental importance of one area over another be addressed at the next hearing. She also inquired if any of the properties have deed or CC&R restrictions. Mr. Dabney, noting that the only environmental concern over the last three years had been with the RnP canyon, stated that it now appears the canyon, in the alternatives being presented, has no environmental significance; therefore, it would appear that the original Master Plan must be satisfactory. He stated that there are several restrictive clauses on the RnP property in regard to the South Pointe Master Plan, a one unit per lot restriction on Mr. Patel's property and a residential building restriction on the RnP property in The Country. VC/Plunk inquired if there are any concerns on the propriety or questions of fairness of any of the persons involved from the City in regard to this project. Mr. Dabney expressed concern with ICA/Montgomery's involvement in this proposal considering that, prior to becoming the City Attorney, he had 17 legal actions naming their project and he was involved specifically against land development in the City. MPT/Harmony inquired if there are any specific benefits to the Grand Ave. properties for giving up the open space guarantees to allow development and remove map restrictions. Mr. Dabney stated that, though their preference is with the South Pointe Master Plan, they would agree to set aside Sandstone Canyon at the desires of the community at large. He stated that the developers are giving the City in fee 72 acres of Sandstone Canyon in exchange for moving the development to the Grand Ave. property, which would be substantially less dense and with less environ- mental impact; therefore, this should be enough benefit to the City. MPT/Harmony inquired why the Fern Hollow project, which is across the 57 freeway from the Arciero project, was briefly referenced in his memorandum. Mr. Dabney explained that when the proposal was first presented by M/Werner, there needed to be MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 15 consideration for the owners of these projects to entertain such an offer, particularly since they had already spent $1 million in engineering and processing to arrive at the Master Plan desired by the previous Council. He stated that since Mr. Arciero has an interest in that property on Fern Hollow and has been attempting to get some direction on that project for five years, that property was offhandedly mentioned in the memorandum; however, it is not tied to this project in any fashion, and is just another ownership like lot #1 and 161 of the RnP property. In response to C/Schad, Mr. Dabney stated that the alternate road, which was moved to accommodate Pathfinder's HOA, would be somewhat visible from existing homes. He stated that the finished surface of the road, which will be 22 ft. above the flow line of the canyon, is a regular residential improved paved section with two lanes, parking capability and a bicycle lane, having one sidewalk from the commercial area up to the school district property. He explained that the intent was to provide the minimum scar on the property while providing the maximum service to the community. C/Ansari stated that it was her understanding that the economic benefit referenced in the Dale/Lavandar report referred to benefits received after the tenth year. Mr. Dabney concurred that the report was referring to a ten-year buildout; however, there was a developer in San Pedro willing to buy the entire commercial development to develop the property immediately estimating 80% of the entire project up and generating money within the first year and a half. Dr. Ron Hockwalt, Superintendent, WVUSD, requested that the City fast track the necessary action to allow Arciero & Sons to receive a grading permit to move the earth off the site so the District can begin construction of the school by mid-May 1994. He stated that the State approved the bid accepted by the District with Berry Construction Co., and construction of the school must begin immediately or the entire process will move toward default, requiring the bid process to be repeated which would set the timeline back another year and a half. He stated that they are always in danger of losing up to $8 million from the State in the set aside monies to be rebated to the District after construction of the school. MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 16 MPT/Harmony, noting that the School District had not yet prepared maps, plans or specifications in December 1993, inquired why the plans are now being presented at this last minute putting the City in a difficult position. Dr. Hockwalt stated that the School District has been consistent with following the timeline shared with the City several months ago that indicated the construction timeline and the financial timeline. M/Werner inquired why the District is coming to the City to fast track the project when they can proceed in other ways. Dr. Hockwalt stated that since he has been Superintendent, the intent has always been to work with the City, rather than the court system, to get the school built. C/Fong expressed concern that the District would consider destroying wildlife to build the school. He suggested that the school take a more positive approach with the 400,000 cubic yards and look for alternatives to reduce the amount of export by modifying building plans, thus reducing the impacts. Dr. Hockwalt stated that they would have looked at such options and the results indicate that spreading the dirt over the entire site would elevate the site far beyond what could accommodate the present plan. He stated that such an option would require large retaining walls around two sides of the site, which would exceed funding capacity, and would require the school site to be split into two different levels, requiring new plans and specifications that would have to go through the whole State process. He stated that the dirt in the canyon was clearly spelled out as part of the EIR completed in 1989. C/Fong stated that it should be the responsibility of the State and the School District to accommodate that alternative. He stated that the City should not have to solely bear the responsibility of accommodating the deadline set by the State and the School District. — C/Papen stated that the City would lose $6.5 million in improvements to the City with Alternative One and the School would dose $1.5 million in development fees and is in jeopardy of losing school revenue. MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 17 C/Papen moved to approve the South Pointe Master Plan as forwarded to the Council by the Planning Commission. MPT/Harmony stated that the Council is unable to take action this evening because 300 residents were not properly notified. C/Papen stated that she was under the impression that the 300 residents not notified live in the Grand Ave. area; otherwise, if they lived in the South Pointe area adjacent to the property, then the whole meeting would be in violation of the Brown Act. CM/Belanger, in response to M/Werner, stated that the notice is ineffective because it did not go to the requisite parcels within 500 ft. M/Werner stated that the issue of the notification defect had already been discussed and the motion made by C/Papen was invalid. C/Flamenbaum moved, C/Schad seconded to establish a study session for the regularly -scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of May 9, 1994 and to continue the Public Hearing to the Regularly -scheduled Planning Commission meeting of May 23, 1994. Motion carried unanimously. CM/Belanger, in response to M/Werner, stated that it would be appropriate for the Council to direct the Commission to consider the alternatives presented this evening. MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to direct the Planning Commission to consider the alternatives, with direction to staff to include the open space easement abandonment issue in the Public Hearing notices. C/Papen inquired if the direction to the Planning Commission is to consider abandoning the open space easement, as has been decided by ICA/Montgomery. M/Werner clarified that the direction of the motion was to make certain that all the prerequisite issues that are statutorily required are included irk the notice. MPT/Harmony concurred that his motion was to direct the Planning Commission to consider all alternatives, with direction to staff to properly notice the Public Hearing, making certain that all the prerequisite issues that are statutorily required are included in the notice. With the MAY 2, 1994 PAGE 18 following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, Ansari, MPT/ Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller M/Werner, in response to an inquiry made by an audience member, stated that the Planning Commission will consider all alternatives. He stated that there will be a new notice sent for Council meetings. C/Papen suggested that the Council continue the meeting to Monday, May 16, 1994, instead of the end of May to a date to be determined, to review the proposal and allow public testimony. M/Werner suggested that it may be more appropriate if the Council attend the Planning Commission meeting scheduled May 9, 1994 for a joint study session, thus allowing the public to address both bodies with issues of concern, rather than creating confusion by having study sessions alternately. MPT/Harmony expressed concern with conducting a series of workshop meetings and asking the public to provide testimony, when proper legal notice procedures had not been followed, thus excluding many who should have received mailed notices. Chair/Meyer stated that the Council is welcomed to join the Planning Commission at any time. Following discussion, M/Werner noted that there is a consensus to continue the joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session to a Joint Study Session on May 9, 1994. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None given. 4. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk ATTES Y ayor