Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/31/1994 Minutes - Adj. Regular Meeting1. W MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAY 31, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Werner called the meeting to order at 7:00 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 Council Member Ansari. ROLL CALL: Mayor Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony, Council Members Ansari and Papen. Council Member Miller was absent (due to a potential conflict of interest). 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2.1 PARCEL MAP NO. 24031 - CM/Belanger reported that the applicant requested a merger of Lot 1 of Tract No. 31479 and Lot 61 of Tract 42557 to create a single parcel totaling 68.10 acres and removal of the right to restrict construction of residential buildings. He stated that the Planning Commission, at their May 23, 1994 Public Hearing, recommended that the Council deny Parcel Map No. 24031. M/Werner opened the Public Hearing. Jan Dabney, land development consultant representing Mr. Forrister, 671 Brea Canyon Rd., explained that the application was presented to the Council to facilitate an alternate consideration to the original South Pointe Master Plan. In response to C/Papen, Mr. Dabney stated that approximately 9 units could be built on the next acreage of Lots 1 & 61, which reflects the density transfer that already occurred; however, the applicant requested to construct one unit with the intent of having map restrictions removed and both parcels merged, allowing the applicant to come back at a later time with another project application. In response to C/Ansari, Mr. Dabney explained that the access road is predicated on the density; therefore, if one unit is granted on the property, access would most likely be from Summitridge, but if the property were eventually allowed to be developed at nine units or above, the access road would come through The Country Estates, if so allowed. MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 2 In response to MPT/Harmony, Mr. Dabney stated that there had never been a plan submitted for the parcels, but rather a conceptual drawing prepared after Mr. Forrister bought the property to determine the maximum available yield of the parcel which was presented to the Board of The Country Estates for comment. CM/Belanger, in response to M/Werner, stated that the Public Hearing on both items could be held at the same time, if so desired, with the caveat that the two projects are not connected in any substantive fashion regarding environmental issues. Max Maxwell, 300 Bent Twig In., inquired if the City pays for landscape maintenance of lots 1 & 61. He noted that the developer has every intention of developing the property once the restrictions are lifted. Gordon Guber, 24303 Rimford P1., in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation, stated that there is no benefit to the community in removing the restrictions. Karen Capestro, 1652 S. Longview, expressed concern regarding potential environmental impacts to the community resulting from any proposal. She submitted a petition with 112 signatures supporting the existing land restrictions, to be attached to the petition with 73 signatures presented to the Planning Commission previously. Harry Wang asked the Council to listen to the community and deny the application. Michael Long, 1646 Longview Dr., expressed opposition to the application because of potential environmental impacts. David Capestro, 1652 S. Longview Dr., in opposition to the application, expressed concern that the City is becoming overdeveloped. Michael Ferry, 24300 Knoll Ct., expressed support of the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the application. He stated that Brock and Transamerica told homeowners at the time of purchase that the restricted area would remain an ongoing greenbelt. He stated that the City does not need more development in an area already significantly impacted by traffic. Cart Shin, 2160 Indian Creek Rd., expressed MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 3 opposition to the application. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., referring to a letter from the Office of Planning and Research (OPR), stated that it was her impression that the City cannot initiate, accept, process or approve General Plan amendments during the period of the exten-sion allowed for the General Plan. She expressed opposi-tion to lifting restrictions of map and building on any parcel. Nick Anis, 1125 Branford Ct., stated that the desire and need to build a South Pointe Middle School should not be accomplished at the sacrifice of other sections of the City, nor should the school be sacrificed by not approving the South Pointe Master Plan. Benjamin Quong, 1539 Summitridge Dr., stated that D.B. became a City to gain control of development. He stated that the City needs to stop catering to outside interests and begin representing the community. Dianne Singer, 20881 E. Quail Run, expressed concern that the developers are attempting to hold the City hostage if development does not occur. She stated that the City needs to look after the interests of the community, not the developers, as well as protect the wildlife and vegetation. Ken Anderson, referring to literature regarding coccidiodimicoccess valley fever, stated that the City needs to be aware of the health issues involved. He noted that residents want a school but not at the expense of the community. With no further testimony offered, M/Werner closed the Public Hearing. ICA/Montgomery, in response to comments made, stated that any developer always has the right to sue a City at any time; however, zoning and General Plan uses are usually upheld by the courts. He explained that restrictions were placed on certain lots as a condition of approval of the tract map whereby the developer agreed to permanent restrictions against building residences on the lot. In order for the City to release those rights, the City must first refer the matter to the Planning Commission for its recommendation and then a finding must be made at the Council level that no public purpose would be served by keeping the land open space, that the abandonment is consistent with the local General Plan and that it is consistent with other open space restrictions. He stated that MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 4 the restrictions do not prevent the developer from putting a different use, other than residential, on the property. M/Werner requested examples of the type of public purpose that might be served keeping the land open space. ICA/Montgomery stated that section 51084 indicates that the preservation of the land as open space is in the best interest of the City if the land is essentially unimproved, and if retained in its natural state, has scenic value to the public, or it is valuable as a water shed or as a wildlife preserve, or if the land will add to the amenities of living in a neighboring urbanized area, or help preserve the rural character of the area in which the land is located. Mr. Dabney clarified that the application does not request removal of the open space easement from this property and that they are aware that lot 61 has an underlying restriction and falls under a landscape and lighting district. He pointed out that the property has gone through a density transfer consideration; however, they never intended to develop that portion of the property for residential consideration. In response to neighborhood concerns, they would entertain a reduction in density and view shed analysis to accommodate those specific residences. C/Papen suggested that anyone who has a copy of Transamerica's agreement dedicating the property open space should submit it to staff because the City is unable to find such written documentation. She explained that without that dedication, the Council must consider the application. CM/Belanger stated that staff will bring back to the Council, at the June 7, 1994 meeting, a Resolution of Denial placed on the Consent Calendar. C/Papen moved, C/Ansari seconded to sustain the Planning Commission's decision and deny parcel Map No. 24031. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 2.2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 5 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 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 - CM/Belanger briefly reviewed the application as outlined in the staff report. He stated that the Planning Commission recently conducted Public Hearings on Alternatives 1 & 2 provided in the South Pointe Master Plan. In response to Mrs. Courchesne's previous inquiry, he explained that the conditions outlined in the extension granted by OPR do not apply to applications initiated prior to the effective date of the extension. Frank Arciero, Jr., Arciero & Sons, stated that he bought his property zoned R-1 with no restrictions and it appears the City may have down -zoned his property. He suggested that the Council retain a third party unbiased land use attorney to outline the rights of property owners of land not restricted in the City. ICA/Montgomery clarified that the developer's representative has yet to provide any legal authority for a lawsuit. Jan Dabney, the developer's representative, stated that the developers do not desire to impact the City in any legal way. He asked that the innuendos and misrepresentations made by the public not enter into the Council's judgement on the quality of the project, but that the Council look at the true benefit offered to the community. He stated that issues surrounding the school need to be resolved and the project reviewed accordingly. He clarified that no density transfer occurred on this property, and that the County refused their offer of dedication for a park. MPT/Harmony asked if Mr. Arciero had applied for an Army Corps of Engineers or a Fish and Game permit, needed because the original Master Plan project filled the blue line stream. Mr. Dabney explained that, in order to apply for a permit, the limits of the project must be defined, which requires an approved project. MPT/Harmony noted that the restrictions on the 70 acres of RnP property within the South Pointe Master Plan were significant enough to reduce the MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 6 property tax to only 0 - $9 per parcel per year. Mr. Dabney requested that the City substantiate the property tax amount because weed abatement on the property alone exceed $7,000 annually. MPT/Harmony noted that approval of the Brock development project for the Pathfinder homes specifically set aside land for no development, which is similar to a density transfer. Mr. Dabney stated that the recordation of the final map set aside a 15 acre parcel on the east side, and a 21 acre parcel on the west side of the Pathfinder Homeowner's Assn. for open space consideration in order to meet the density requirements for the development, which was 1 du/10,000 sq. ft. lot or 6 du/ac for a clustered development. He stated that County statutes and codes in place at the time of Cityhood and back in 1981, are the codes that should be referred to. RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS NOS. 92-1 AND 2 (Cont'd.) - Dr. Hockwalt, Superintendent, Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD), stated that the District needs the cooperation of the City in order to get the necessary permits to move approximately 400,000 cubic yards of dirt off the site to construct the middle school. Marlene Ministeri, Principal, South Pointe Middle School, asked the Council to take the necessary actions to construct the middle school. Suzanne Lewis, 1055 Capen Street, expressed support for the project in order to construct the school. Oscar Law expressed opposition to the project for the following reasons: the noise level would exceed 90 decibels; unmitigated traffic impacts and increase in air pollution above State criteria. He suggested that the Council consider the proposal suggested by Mr. Schad to build a road to remove the dirt. Marsha Pace, 3584 Hawkwood, pointed out that the District cannot afford to lose State funds. Don Schad made the following comments: the school should be built but not at the sacrifice of the canyon; the dirt should be placed on the Arciero property, with consideration given to using a MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 7 conveyor system to remove the dirt; consideration must be given to Lyme disease; the canyon is part of the Pathfinders Homeownerfs Assn.; the EIR is incomplete and the canyon is perfect for education. Ann Flescher, 20647 Larkstone Dr., expressed support of the project for the following reasons: the District cannot afford to lose needed State funds; an additional access is needed to the school site to relieve current traffic conditions on Larkstone; and Alternative One preserves Sandstone Canyon and the integrity of the neighborhood. Joyce Hill, 1836 Shaded Wood Rd., made the following comments: the project increases traffic, noise and air pollution, which is already a significant problem throughout the community; the school should be built but not at the sacrifice of the canyon; and children benefit in learning science in natural settings. John Forbing made the following comments: most nature groups do not consider preserving small �- canyons surrounded on three sides because there is no access; any road built to access the school will change the environmental make-up of the canyon; there are currently thousands more trees in the City than there was when it was a ranch, indicating that development does not necessarily destroy the natural integrity of the area; the proposal approved by the Planning Commission offers a 28 acre park that would be filled with trees and include playing fields; the Master Plan project would benefit the City financially from the commercial area; the Master Plan would improve traffic conditions; the District would receive $1.2 million in fees from the homes to be built and the benefits received from the Master Plan far outweigh the benefits of leaving the land as is. Barbara Beach-Courchesne made the following comments: the City should concentrate on obtaining revenue from current commercial centers in the City, of which most have a vacancy problem; and map restrictions should not be removed. George Barrett, 1884 Shaded Wood Rd., questioned how the proposal could be considered without an approved General Plan. He stated that the school should be built, but the community does not desire over development and the majority indicated opposition to any large development. Yung Kim expressed support for construction of the middle school but not with the development MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 8 proposal, which should be considered as a separate issue. He presented photos of the condition of his property showing drainage problems resulting from RnP and Patel's property. Jennifer Irikawa, Falcon Ridge Rd., expressed support of the South Pointe Master Plan, which benefits the entire City. She pointed out that if the District loses its funding, the silent community will be in an uproar resulting in a divided City, litigation and most likely a new Council. She stated that a compromise must be achieved. Gary Ihrig, 2110 Running Branch Rd., expressed support of the construction of the middle school. Jenny Eastmen, 20839 Gold Run Dr., a student, in support of the construction of the school, stated that since it was acceptable to cut trees and affect wildlife to construct existing homes, then it should be acceptable to do the same to construct a school. Michael Lowe, 1124 Cleghorn, expressed support for the South Pointe Master Plan for the following reasons: if wildlife inhabits the canyon then it is not safe for children; a park area would benefit the entire City and a school is needed. Max Maxwell objected to discussing the school when it is not on the agenda or included in the project proposal. He further stated that removal of the dirt is Mr. Arciero's responsibility and an offer has been made to accept the dirt; the issue regarding the purchase of the Water property needs to be resolved and the canyon needs to be preserved. David Capestro expressed support for construction of the school but not the development proposal. He inquired if the lifting of restrictions on the RnP property in the South Pointe area lifts the restrictions on the RnP's property on Grand Ave. Clay Chaput, Asst. Superintendent for Fiscal & Facilities Mgmt., WVUSD, asked the Council to at least approve the EIR to accommodate the dumping of dirt on the RnP property as outlined in Alternative One. Terry Birrell pointed out that since all of the alternative proposals were introduced after January 31, 1994, consideration or adoption of any of those alternatives would be in violation of the General MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 9 Plan extension as stated in Government Code Section 65361. She stated that GPAC already voted to preserve map restrictions; the development of the RnP property would therefore interfere with the future General Plan. She pointed out that the Development Agreement would be void should the Council favorably act upon this proposal in which one of the Council Members, an officer of the City, gains financially. ICA/Montgomery confirmed that if the perceived conflict of interest involving C/Miller was substantiated, then the Development Agreement would be void. C/Papen pointed out that the FPPC indicated that there is no conflict of interest involving C/Miller and this issue. She suggested that anyone with further evidence should go through the appropriate process. Ms. Birrell stated that the RnP subdivision application and the 1992 & 1993 draft EIR indicate that the applicant's address was that of C/Miller's father-in-law; C/Miller's father-in-law owns the contractor's license for G. Miller Development Co.; the President of South Pointe Middle School Community Club is employed by Caroline Pacific, which is owned by C/Miller; that Mr. Forrister is not knowledgeable of his own project and must defer questions to someone else; and since C/Miller voted twice on the Master Plan, he has influenced the record with respect to the Master Plan, which would lift map restrictions. CM/Belanger, in response to comments made, stated that the South Pointe Master Plan is not a Specific Plan as defined by G.C. Section 65450; the purpose of the Master Plan is to evaluate three separate maps being submitted at the same time in order to coordinate the development; the Alternatives presented are reductions of the same projects and are not new projects; in order for G.C. Section 1090 to take effect, it would have to be shown that C/Miller does have a current interest in the property; there is nothing in the Master Plan that would lift the restrictions on the Grand Ave. property. C/Papen referring to the Wildlife Corridor Study, requested staff to explain the impediments currently existing to wildlife in Sandstone Canyon. Jack Easten, President of Tierra Madre Consultants, 1159 Ayala Ave., Riverside, a consultant biologist, MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 10 displayed a map of the project site and made the following comments: there are no impediments to wildlife movement within the site itself; the site is relatively isolated from larger areas of natural open space; it is not a major wildlife corridor in the region; a wide ranging predator, such as a mountain lion, would require open space of a 15 mile radius; the project site itself, including the 2 HOA parcels, totals 200 acres, which is a minimal value to a mountain lion given the overall range covered by the species; and bobcats, cougar and gray fox could use the site. Mr. Dabney, in response to Mr. Capestro's comment, clarified that he had not intended to infer that the two projects, South Pointe Master Plan and the Grand Ave. proposal, were the same issue regarding the removal of map restrictions but rather that they had to follow the same process to request removal of restrictions. ICA/Montgomery, in response to inquires made by the Council, stated that if the Council decided to approve the District's request, that part of the EIR could be certified. He stated that the Council can consider the South Pointe Master plan, the developer's Alternatives and the District's Alternative. C/Papen moved, M/Werner seconded to sustain the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the EIR and the South Pointe Master Plan. C/Papen pointed out the following: Sandstone Canyon rates fifth in the list of open space areas with environmental qualities; the only area of undeveloped land with freeway frontage is in the Brea Canyon area; the South Pointe Master Plan would bring new commercial revenues to the community and approval of the Master Plan means school grading could start construction within five days. M/Werner stated the following: the South Pointe Master Plan has significant environmental impacts; noise and traffic impacts can't be mitigated; the City currently has too much vacant commercial properties; and there are no overriding considerations needed to grant approval. M/Werner withdrew his second to the motion. Motion died for lack of a second. M/Werner expressed his opinion that Alternative One MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 11 causes the least significant environmental impacts of all options available and proposes half the density; however, the Grand Ave. proposal included is out of the question since it was denied. He asked if the proponents would find Alternative One as an acceptable compromise only in terms of the South Pointe area. Mr. Dabney stated that Mr. Forrister and Mr. Arciero would be amenable to Alternative One with the caveat that the property to be dedicated not be developed for some time. C/Papen requested that the SASAK property be reviewed separately, and that there be discussion regarding the through road. M/Werner moved, C/Papen seconded to support Alternative One, as revised, with the caveat that there be a determination of adequacy of the EIR and the final terms of conditions be worked out at a future meeting. C/Papen noted that the following actions would occur if the revised Alternative One is approved: grading on the school site could begin immediately; the road would be constructed on RnP property from the school site to Brea Canyon Rd.; there would be no need for condemnation proceedings; Sandstone Canyon would be preserved as it parallels Brea Canyon; 88% of the Oak trees would be saved and no heritage trees would be removed; no transfer density to the Grand Ave. property; the improvements on Brea Canyon Rd. from Road A would be limited to south to Pathfinder Rd. with a traffic signal at the intersection; 72 acres of Sandstone Canyon is dedicated to the City in exchange for development rights of no more than 115 homes; and an entrance monument to the area should be included. She pointed out that the proposal calls for no development on the Arciero property, transferring those development rights and removing map restrictions on the RnP property. She suggested that any cougars or bobcats in the canyon should perhaps be tranquilized and relocated since they would endanger the public. MPT/Harmony expressed concern with Alternative One because, though it preserves open space and has the least environmental impacts, there are significant effects resulting from the roadway to be built through the canyon on the other side of the RnP property. He questioned the benefits of lifting the map restrictions on either' parcel of the RnP property when the solution was negotiated a long MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 12 time ago by the School District with Arciero. C/Ansari, in support of Alternative Two, expressed her opinion that the map restrictions, which were placed for a purpose, should not be removed. She stated that the District should be given a grading permit to begin construction, that Arciero should be allowed to build on his property and that the dirt should be removed. She stated that though Sandstone Canyon is not one of the more sig- nificant canyons, it is an important educational tool for children and should be preserved. She expressed support for preserving all map restricted areas in the City. M/Werner read excerpts of a letter to the editor written by Mr. Schad May 1, 1989 opposing the School District's decision to construct a school at the current site. He questioned why C/Ansari would allow Mr. Arciero to build on his property by filling the canyon. He stated that the restrictions on the RnP property were placed not so much for the environmental value but as a result of development negotiations that occurred with the County. He stated that the Council has the opportunity to review both properties and extract the portions of the property that has environmental value. C/Papen pointed out that the District would not be able to begin grading this week because Mr. Arciero needs permits from the Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineering because of the blue line stream. MPT/Harmony stated that the open space on Arciero's property could be looked at as temporary stockpiling and/or moving in developing the Master Plan if Alternative Two is approved. Motion failed 2-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to direct staff to review and approve a grading stockpiling permit in compliance with the Hillside Maintenance Ordinance to allow the District to begin grading. MPT/Harmony suggested that the dirt be placed across the Arciero property or stockpiled on the Arciero property, without impacting the trees. M/Werner pointed out that removing the dirt is a process that would take many years, thus delaying MAY 31, 1994 PAGE 13 construction of the school. C/Ansari moved, MPT/Harmony seconded to offer a substitute motion to grant the School District a grading permit and approve Alternative Two. MPT/Harmony requested a brief description of what is accomplished by Alternative Two. Mr. Arciero stated that Alternative Two proposed that all the fill go on to his property, destroying the entire canyon. He questioned the appropriateness of making a motion to approve an Alternative not properly researched. He stated that he has no place to move the dirt so the grading permit is of no value. MPT/Harmony withdrew his second to the substitute motion. ICA/Montgomery stated that if there is a consensus to issue a permit, the supplement to the EIR, which is to export surplus soil material, would be certified. Mr. Arciero, in response to C/Ansari, stated that had he not convinced his father four years ago to stop removing the dirt to work with the City to develop a Master Plan, the dirt would have been removed and the canyon filled. Motion failed 2-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, M/Werner ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller M/Werner moved, C/Ansari seconded to continue the meeting to June 1, 1994 at 9:30 a.m. at the Walnut Valley Unified School District Board Meeting Room. Motion carried unanimously. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. 4. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. to June 1, 1994 at 9:30 a.m. at the Walnut Valley Unified School District Board Meeting Room, 880 S. Lemon Avenue, Diamond Bar, California. LYNDA BMGZSS, City Clerk ATTEST: or