Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/13/1994 Minutes - Adj. Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 13, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 5:00 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 M/Werner. ROLL CALL: Mayor Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony, Council Members Ansari and Papen. Councilman Miller was excused due to A potential conflict of Interest. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher, Asst. City Manager; 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. 91-51, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 91-2; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND 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 - C/Ansari stated that information needed was to be received by her on Friday; however, Mr. Arciero contacted her on Friday to say that he wouldn't be able to meet with her and Mr. Dabney until Saturday and that the information wouldn't be ready until Saturday night. She further stated that she did not receive the information until 1:30 today and at that time she met with Mr. Arciero. and that, due to her inability to review the information thoroughly, she felt she would not be able to make an informed decision. M/Werner stated that there is a South Pointe Master Plan Wildlife Corridor Biological Assessment previously submitted, which is a supplement to the Environmental Impact Report to address concerns raised regarding the existence of a wildlife corridor. The report is available for review and Council Members had the report since Friday. He further stated that he received several letters from the School District, one from Mr. David Fallis, Supervisor, North Area, addressed to Mr. Clay Chaput, clarifying what might have been a misunderstanding regarding Mr. Fernando's letter to Mr. Nice, asking for some updates on funding for the South Pointe Middle School. The letter states that "if the district fails to proceed with the JUNE 13, 1994 PAGE 2 execution of the construction contract, the following may occur: first, the State Allocation Board could vote to rescind the construction apportionment; second, the District could be authorized to rebid the project with no increase in the allowance and would have to fund any increased costs." If they were to lose their contract and go out for a new bid, and if those bids come in at a higher cost, and the rebid project could exceed the allowance by more than 10%, which is a State stand- ard, the project would no longer be in compliance with the provisions of the Education Code and, therefore, the bid would not be acceptable. So, the letter was offered as clarification. He further stated that each of the Council Members received a copy of it. He stated that he had received a 4 page letter from Martha Bruske raising several issues, which every Council Member also received. He stated that all correspondence received would be part of the public hearing record. He indicated that the Public Hearing had been closed for the last two weeks, and since then, the Council had been deliberating on the South Pointe project and its individual components over the course of the last few weeks. He then asked for an update from the developers so all Council Members can have a complete understanding of additional alternative analyses in order to make a final decision. MPT/Harmony stated that he had just received the package that C/Ansari referred to and had not yet been able to review it. C/Papen asked C/Ansari if she would enumerate the five different proposals that she asked the developers to review and consider as additional alternatives to the project; and whether C/Ansari now had all the information she needed to make a decision. M/Werner stated that the Council received a lot of public testimony on the project along with additional written correspondence and telephone conversations. He asked if the Council had any objections to allowing or disallowing further testimony at this time. MPT/Harmony stated that he felt that, due to the .__. Council going through more plans, more testimony should be allowed. But before taking more testimony, the developers should speak, so those ideas can be responded to. Frank Arciero Jr., Arciero & Sons, apologized for JUNE 13, 1994 PAGE 3 not having reduced plans of all the alternatives. He stated that he met with C/Ansari last week to try and develop alternatives to the plan that were generated through concerns that she had as well as the homeowners had. After the meeting on Monday, he instructed Mr. Dabney to start researching the alternatives. Unfortunately, between Tuesday and 7:00 a.m. this morning, it has taken that long to research the information properly so that what is presented is in its true and informative fashion. He further stated that one of the alternatives that C/Ansari wanted to explore was to try and confine all of the development onto the existing property that Arciero & Sons currently owns and that she wanted to stay out of the canyon (development only on the easterly portion of the property), 12 acres. On a map, Mr. Arciero showed what he was talking about in regard to an alternative. He stated that Brea Canyon Rd. would be an access into the parcel. The pad would be graded to 780, leaving 12.4 acres of flat, graded, useable land. Their basis was to go down to the streambed, stay 40 ft. out of the streambed, take a point and start a 2-1 fill slope up to the project, then do the grading and try to get an access road up to accommodate whatever would be developed up in the other area. In response to M/Werner, Mr. Arciero stated that the streambed itself is approximately 660 contour, but goes down to about 640 --about 140 ft. of elevation difference. There would be approximately 528,000 yds. of dirt to be cut -filled. He further indicated that they would go to an upscale condo type concept. It would be high density, small units; however, it's questionable whether or not that would work economically. M/Werner asked if it would be about the same as the Grand Ave. apartments. Mr. Arciero stated that it would be approximately 1100 to 1200 sq. ft. maximum. He further stated that it does not give other access to the school district, in regard to alleviating the traffic congestion. He further discussed Alternative No. 1 and indicated that this was an alternate in regard to the road access to the school site and subdivision using Alternate No. 1 as the number of units or close to the number of units that would be developed on that part of the RnP property. They tried to stay out of the streambed area, and just do a crossing with an arch culvert pipe. The entrance would come up on a 12% grade to the top of the hill, then transcend down the hill and into the canyon. This would change to a 15% grade on the JUNE 13, 1994 PAGE 4 transition down into the bottom of the canyon, and then coming from the canyon back up to the school site. He then showed the cut and fill areas. In the fill areas, it would be 1.5-1 fill slope, which is a little steeper, to try and make it work, staying out of the streambed area; however it has not been looked at by his soils or geologist. The fill slope would be 100 to 110 ft. in elevation on the slope. The cut slope would be approximately 60 ft., plus or minus. In response to M/Werner's inquiry into how much dirt the road would displace, Mr. Arciero asked that Mr. Dabney answer the question of dirt and tree displacement. He further stated that he had asked Mr. Dabney to come up with an alternative from the property that the City currently owns, to take the road straight across to the school site. However, he told Mr. Dabney to stop after 3 hrs. of working on it. He went on to state that in Alternative No. 1, an arch culvert , 9.42' high, was proposed to allow pedestrians, horses and other animals through it, with a sidewalk on one side only. There would be a 2' flat area and either a cut or fill would begin. The area picked has the least amount of trees. C/Ansari asked if the road considered is still going through the Pathfinder Homeowner's Assn. property and Mr. Arciero stated that it did. Mr. Arciero showed Alternative No. 1 on the map and stated that they propose lifting the restriction on 62 acres, with the total number of acres being 72. M/Werner stated that he had been told that the homes that are being proposed will back up directly to existing Pathfinder Homeowner's Assn. lots. Mr. Arciero stated that they would not, and that the closest lot to an existing residence is 230' from the backyard to the proposed back yard. In response to C/Ansari's request to review the roadways, M/Werner asked if staff had had an opportunity to review the plans submitted by Mr. Arciero this afternoon and/or Alternative 1. CM/Belanger stated that as far as the roadway is concerned, staff had reviewed it; however, there may be a difference in assumptions made in review of this project in terms of the amount of earth being proposed to be moved. Staff analysis indicates a larger quantity of earth than Mr. Dabney's indicates that is going to be moved in JUNE 13, 1994 PAGE 5 Alternative No. 1, that may be as a result of assumptions. Mr. Dabney stated that a road can be built at any grade requested anywhere in the world, it's just whether or not you really want it the way it ends up being. C/Ansari stated that she would like time for staff to review the Alternatives and review the information given today. She stated that she felt that staff had not been given enough time to review it. C/Papen stated that she felt that staff does not need time to review the additional alternatives of roadways going through the Arciero property. It's obvious that a school will be built at the top of the hill and a road needs to be constructed that has the least amount of curves, the least high slopes, the least amount of fill, the least amount of grade work and the least amount of slopes. Every Alternative proposed, other than No. 1, has grades in excess of 12%. Buses will go up those slopes, billowing out smoke trying to get up the grade which would cause more pollution. She further stated that, in her opinion, the questions have been answered. Is it possible, maybe, does it meet the City standards, no. If it doesn't meet the standards that we have for normal development in the community why go further, spending staff time and taxpayer's dollars pursuing alternatives that don't meet our standards. After review of the alternatives, No. 1, with possibly one modifica- tion, is really the alternative that will do a couple of things: solve the school's problem and allow them to start construction on the site on a relatively short amount of time; not impact the blue line stream, saving 72 acres of a canyon and the road to the school will have the least grade and the least amount of earth work through the canyon to reach the school's property. She suggested that staff align the road on the subject property and not invade the Homeowners' open space, but that the road be on the subject property itself and approve Alternative No. 1 with that modification. MPT/Harmony stated that in regard to the Homeowner's Assn., there should be some effort on the part of the developers if they're going to pursue RnP to talk directly with the Pathfinder's Homeowner's Assn. They had implied property rights as to viewshed and expecta-tions when they bought their property, which was set aside by the County JUNE 13, 1994 PAGE 6 as open space, and they expected that it would remain open. He further stated that he knows that the Homeowner's Assn. had hired an attorney and plan to bring suit. He further stated that he would like to see some consideration on the project that was originally planned by the school district; he would also like to see the Homeowner's Assn. come back after talking with the developers on the project; and he would also like to see people in the audience speak on what has been discussed tonight and continue the Hearing. M/Werner asked the President of the Homeowner's Assn. if, in fact, an attorney had been retained. Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that her husband is the President and confirmed that an attorney had been retained for a possible lawsuit. C/Ansari stated that it is a fact that the reason why they're at this meeting is due to a land use problem. Older trees discussed are on the RnP property. The Columbus Tree is on the RnP property. The Homeowner's Assn. is planning to sue -- RnP and the City if Alternate No. 1 is planned tonight. This can hold up the school being built. Arciero has a blue line stream. Arciero has no restrictions on his property. There are deed and map restrictions on the RnP property. We have turned down parcels 1 and 61 attempting to lift map restrictions off of property and yet do not wish to lift restrictions from the RnP property. She stated that she had been trying to work with Mr. Arciero to get the school built. The road goes through the Pathfinder's Homeowner's Assn. and is unacceptable and finally, it is one area that needs to be worked on and even staff has not had the opportunity to look at these plans and address them clearly. She further stated that she would not vote on anything unless staff had looked it over thoroughly. M/Werner stated that even though the information was received today, and the fact that staff had not had time to review it, he will take it at face value. He stated that it is important to understand that hillside property is being discussed and usually there is one best way to cut a road in hillside property and that's to follow the terrain and avoid the hillsides as much as possible. The roadway that goes into Option 1 appears to be the most environmentally -sensitive approach, from a grading stand -point, to get access to the development area and school. It preserves the canyon and provides a secondary access to the JUNE 13, 1994 PAGE 7 school. It gives the City, in exchange for lift- ing map restrictions on 62 acres on RnP property, 72 acres of Arciero property and the remainder of RnP property as public open space. It also puts the development part of the property onto a portion of the property that has the least significant environmental impact. Further, he explained that he felt Option 1 was the best option, with amendments: 1) no through street; 2) the roadway to be located entirely on the RnP property. Following further discussion, M/Werner asked both the applicant and the School District if there would be a problem in continuing the matter until June 15, 1994, so staff could provide the information necessary for C/Ansari to make a informed decision. CM/Belanger stated that staff would be able to respond to the information submitted today. Mr. Arciero stated that he would consent to a continuance until 9:00 on June 15 and asked that he have the opportunity to review the information that staff develops so that he is sure that everyone is thinking along the same lines. Dr. Hockwalt stated that he would also agree to the continuance; however, he reminded the Council that the School Board meets on Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. Following discussion, C/Ansari moved, MPT/Harmony seconded to continue the matter to 5:00 p.m. on June 15, 1994 at the Heritage Park Community Center. Motion carried 4 to 0. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. 4. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Werner adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 15, 1994 at the Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Rd. L NDA BtMdIESS, City Clerk ATTFCT-