Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/03/1994 Minutes - Adj. Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 3, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. in the Walnut Valley Unified School District's Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by C/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; David Liu, Senior Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 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. 91-5, 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 - M/Werner reported that this matter was continued from June 1, 1994 to provide opportunity for communication with the developers for additional information to assist the Council on aspects of the project that have not yet been reviewed in order to break the deadlock. C/Ansari stated that the top priority is to build a middle school; however, there is an overwhelming majority of residents who do not want the City to continue to be overdeveloped, whose concerns must also be represented. She stated that the City wants to construct the school in a timely fashion, but not without making a good decision for the District, builders and residents. She suggested that Mr. Arciero develop his property in a manner acceptable to the residents that would preserve the "country living" atmosphere. She stated that it seems that there are ways to move the dirt to be stockpiled that would have less impact on the area and the existing neighborhood, such as a conveyor system or a scraper. MPT/Harmony stated that discussion at the Planning Commission level was focused mostly on the property on Grand Ave. and lifting of map restrictions, and JUNE 3, 1994 PAGE 2 not the technical aspects of Alternative # 1 within Sandstone Canyon itself. He stated that the technical aspects of the project need more thorough public review to assure the proposal is a good project. MPT/Harmony displayed slides of the project site, the property owned by the various developers and the Homeowners Assn., the school site, existing homes and the canyon, which include the blue line stream and existing trees. He opined that Alternative #1 needs further review regarding environmental impacts, fiscal and financial impacts on the community and tax base, impacts to water resources and sewer capacity, problems regarding circulation and traffic, type of road improvements proposed, drainage and flood conditions and the type of infrastructures pro- posed. He further stated that the development is not compatible with the City's proposed General Plan, as it is being evolved in GPAC meetings, which calls for more open space and stresses country living atmosphere. He further stated that the proposed development outlined in Alternative #1 has not adequately protected the viewshed, has not taken into consideration local topographical con- ditions in violation of the Hillside Management Ordinance and is not reasonably compatible with adjacent development. He expressed his willingness to work with the developer to draft a reasonable development project that would allow transmittal of dirt from the school site. He suggested that appropriate engineers be hired to deter -mine what is feasible within the canyon and where the dirt can be moved. M/Werner asked if MPT/Harmony would be willing to con-sider removing a portion of the map restriction from a part of the RnP property, in exchange for a dedication of a substantial open space area, as outlined in Alternative A. MPT/Harmony stated that he would be willing to consider Alternative 11 if it proves that removing the restrictions would be beneficial to the public, though it is the least favorable option. He stated that the better consideration is working with Mr. Arciero, who has development rights on his property, with less restrictions. C/Papen pointed out that all the issues raised by MPT/Harmony were addressed in the EIR approved by the Planning Commission in July 1993. She stated that C/Ansari's suggestion to stockpile the dirt needs to also take into consideration the feasibility of the project, the timeline, the cost and cost effectiveness. She also pointed out that JUNE 3, 1994 PAGE 3 the District already awarded a contract to construct the school which must receive a notice to proceed within a certain time period or the contract is null. She noted that the District was promised that a decision would be made by the Council by May 31, 1994. She stated that the District already indicated that implementing the plan suggested by C/Ansari and MPT/ Harmony would require 30 days for the District to adopt and notice the City's EIR once certified, require a stockpiling grading plan and moving the dirt outside of the South Pointe Master Plan or Alternative #1 would take 18 weeks to implement. She stated that the District also indicated that the costs to move the dirt by truck trips, or the use of a conveyor system which also requires truck trips, or the use of a conveyor system which also requires landfill plus the fees, are not economically feasible. She pointed out that Alternative #1, as compared to the South Pointe Master Plan, removes 30 acres of commercial, 28 acres of park, reduces housing from 200 to about 130 and dedicates 72 acres of open space land to the City; however, in the proposal suggested by C/Ansari and MPT/Harmony, there is no dedication of land to the City, no park, no commercial, no public improvement or benefit and allows for only 75 homes instead of 200. She then read a letter from a student at South Pointe Middle School supporting Alternative #1 as a compromise to the issues. She suggested that the Council discuss the most appropriate location for the secondary road to the middle school. M/Werner stated that he had comments responding to issues and suggestions raised by MPT/Harmony; however, he would prefer to utilize the remaining time to obtain more information on the record from the proponents, and clarification from the District if it is acceptable, relative to their current time constraints with the contractor, to continue the matter to June 6, 1994. Dr. Hockwalt stated that they have exceeded the 30 -day time period to authorize construction to begin, and are now at the discretion of the contractor. He explained that, though there is no forfeiture penalty on the part of the District, the bid process will have to go through the State once again, which raises the concern of losing available funding. MPT/Harmony inquired of the District's exact remedies by going to court on the issue, and if the District has different avenues for relief if the JUNE 3, 1994 PAGE 4 Council is not able to agree on the issue. Dr. Hockwalt suggested that those issues may be more appropriately discussed in Closed Session. He stated that legal issues are to be considered if there is no other alternative. M/Werner, referring to a memo received in response to a question whether the District would supply written documentation verifying that the State Allocation Board had appropriated funding, read the District response confirming that the State Allocation Board appropriated $7,879,361.60. He then inquired if Mr. Patel would like an opportunity to address the Council. RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 11:09 a.m. RECONVENE: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 11:26 a.m. 2.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2 (CONT'D.) - Mr. Patel described the location of his property and his proposed project relative to the South Pointe Master Plan. He expressed opposition to the through street, but would support an emergency access road. He stated that his project would be a benefit to the City by providing additional property tax, would take care of the existing drainage problems, save existing oak trees and provide homes on large lots. He noted that residents have not expressed any major concerns regarding his project. He stated that he will not be available to answer questions next week because he will be out of town; therefore, he requested some action on his project. In response to M/Werner, Mr. Patel stated that his property is map restricted to 1 unit per lot, which was placed prior to incorporation. He stated that he is requesting to subdivide his 3 lots into 21 lots for his development. He noted that the restriction on his property does not say that he is unable to subdivide his property. ICA/Montgomery stated that the current map permits only 3 residences; though he could subdivide his property upon approval of the City. MPT/Harmony asked if Mr. Patel must abide by the Homeowner's Assn.'s CC&R's. ICA/Montgomery stated that the City does not enforce private CC&R's and that CC&R's are not an element of the Council's consideration under the law. JUNE 3, 1994 PAGE 5 Following discussion, the Council agreed to continue the meeting when it is adjourned to June 6, 1994 at 6:00 p.m at the AQMD. C/Papen addressed the following issues regarding the SASAK property: removing map restrictions for one property but not another would be inappropriate; no improvements are offered to the City for lifting of the map restrictions; the number of units should be reduced to be more consistent with the neighborhoods; there should be an offer of dedication of land for a neighborhood mini park if map restrictions are lifted; Morning Sun should be open if the full project is approved; and if the project is reduced, a long cul-de-sac would be acceptable, to include a fire access to Morning Sun. Mr. Patel stated that his 7 -acre property was originally designed for 35 units, but he reduced the number to 21 units. He pointed out that a neighborhood mini park would be a nuisance to the community on Morning Sun Dr., because there is only one access. He stated that he intends to provide a quality project. C/Ansari expressed the following concerns: the property is map restricted; his proposal has the backyards facing Morning Sun Dr.; the usable pad size of the units in the proposal is not consistent with the existing neighborhood; and Mr. Patel"s proposal should be separated from the District's plan to stand on its own merits. M/Werner suggested that the Council address Mr. Patel's proposal after resolution has been reached on the larger projects, if agreeable with Mr. Patel. Mr. Patel concurred to have his project considered after resolution of the other projects. He stated that he is available on June 15, 1994 for further discussion. He concurred that his project could stand separate from the other major projects. C/Papen requested reconsideration of certifying the EIR so the District can take necessary actions. MPT/Harmony expressed concern that there may need to be additional mitigation measures provided in the EIR for the new projects that were not considered when the EIR was drafted. C/Ansari expressed support of withholding certification of the EIR until the June 6, 1994 JUNE 3, 1994 PAGE 6 meeting. C/Papen pointed out that certification of the EIR only shows that the CEQA process has been followed, and indicating that there has been discussion on the alternatives. Peter Lewendowski, Director of Planning for U1traSystems, explained that certification of the EIR, including preparation and posting with the Council Recorder of a Notice of Determination, commences a 30 -day time period in which legal challenges to the adequacy of the EIR can be issued with the court. He stated that certification of the EIR is a distinct action from any conditional approval or denial of the South Pointe project or any of its components, and can occur in isolation of other actions on the project. He stated that the Notice of Determination starts the 30 -day process and allows the District, as a responsible agency, to certify the EIR for that component of the project. In response to M/Werner, Mr. Lewendowski stated that it is unrealistic under CEQA that each of those alternatives proposed, and yet to be proposed, have to be addressed. He stated that, as a general statement, if a development project is approved to a lower magnitude or intensity than the project analyzed in the EIR, the Council can make a determination that it would produce an increment- ally lower impact than identified in the EIR. In response to MPT/Harmony, Mr. Lewendowski stated that Alternative #1 is addressed in the Response to Comment Volume III of the EIR, which includes an analysis of. that project and it environmental impacts. He stated that the Council needs to make a determination whether that analysis adequately addresses the impacts, and if it is determined that it does, then the EIR can be certified, and if there are deficiencies, it can be addressed for further analysis. In response to C/Ansari, Mr. Lewendowski stated that if the environmental analysis continues to be a faithful analysis of that component, no further augementation would be necessary on the part of the District or other responsible agencies that may "1 have to issue discretionary approvals under this project. MPT/Harmony stated that since there have not been adequate answers to the issues pending, he is not ready to approve certification. JUNE 3, 1994 PAGE 7 C/Ansari expressed concern that if the issues regarding the road through Brea Canyon Rd., as proposed in Alternative #1, have been adequately addressed. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the traffic analysis presented in the original draft EIR assumed that the road was a through roadway both from Larkstone Dr. to Brea Canyon Rd. with a second through road from Morning Sun to Brea Canyon Rd.; therefore, the analysis presented in the document is based upon the supposition of a through road. He stated that if the road is modified significantly, then it must be determined whether the analysis continues to be sufficient for informed decision making. C/Papen moved, M/Werner seconded to continue the meeting to Monday, June 6, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium. C/Papen moved, M/Werner seconded to certify the EIR in its entirety. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Papen, NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. 4. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 12:09 P.M. to Monday, June 6, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California. /cam L DABY7ItGES&, city Clerk ATTEST: Mayor