Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/1994 Minutes - Adj. Regular Meeting1. 2. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 15, 1994 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Werner called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m. in the Heritage Park Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Werner. ROLL CALL: Mayor Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony, Councilmembers Ansari and Papen. Councilmember 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; Robert Searcy, Associate Planner; David Liu, Senior Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8; 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 PERMIT NO. 91-2; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINT MASTER PLAN - Continued from June 13, 1994. M/Werner stated that, on specific requests, the Council asked the developer, school developer and members of the public to address particular questions and that was the extent of the public input. He advised that this meetings objective was for the Council to deliberate on issues assoc- iated with the South Pointe Master Plan. C/Ansari expressed concern about closing the Public Hearing for the reason that some of the public may have additional information that may need to be heard by the Council. C/Papen stated that there should be no reason for re -opening the Public Hearing. M/Werner agreed with C/Papen to keep the Public Hearing closed. MPT/Harmony asked the City Attorney if the Council needed to give notice to re -open the Public Hearing. ICA/Montgomery advised that per the Brown Act, April 1994 Amendment, if any new information is available and not already discussed, the public would have the right to comment on the new JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 2 information. C/Papen expressed concern about re -opening the Public Hearing because it may delay decisions. ICA/Montgomery reiterated that the Public Hearing only needs to be re -opened if there is a new discussion of topic. He read Brown Act Section 54954.3: "The agenda need not provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the legislative body of any item that has already been considered by the Council." M/Werner advised that concerns were raised about going over the Homeowners' Assn. property. Jan Dabney, consultant for the project owners, advised that he reviewed C/Ansari's concerns and stated that it was the same approach that any engineer or developer would take regarding the fact that the road goes down to the canyon and across the slide. He advised that is the preferred location for the road and explained that he would excavate the slide area down to the cause of the -- slide--approximately 501. The slide that exists, down -hill from the property, is of no meaning. He would repack the material to its natural grade and drill, excavate or do whatever is necessary to satisfy the Council. Regarding the RNP property, he stated that he would submit a sketch for Council's consideration. He further stated that the proposed access to the properties of the Pathfinder Homeowner's Assn. had been relocated and that there is a 70' access to the grade coming off of the street rising from Brea Canyon at 6% grade and then into an 8% grade as it comes up to the school district. By relocating the access, the height is increased. This proposal raises about 47'. C/Ansari expressed concern with the landslide problem. M/Werner advised of the proposal from RMA for an additional $108,000 worth of drilling on the project. He stated that one of the concerns is, at what point does the City address the additional research at the time of the commercial and park developments. He also stated that in the previous Master Plan, commercial developers proposed that it was uncommon in the area to have a landslide. The question still remains valid and the City needs a response regarding the landslide area. JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 3 CM/Belanger advised that landslides are dealt with by having special studies conducted. C/Ansari questioned what type of wall, i.e., brick, cinder or block, would hold back soil from the blueline stream in the canyon area, if needed. Mr. Arciero advised that a retaining wall had not been considered and that there is no reason to describe a wall unless the City desires to have one constructed. M/Werner suggested that a retaining wall be discussed at a future date. CM/Belanger advised that the Council could come back and discuss any specific matters within those parameters. C/Papen advised that having the road recompacted to alleviate those conditions is a standard procedure. CM/Belanger expressed concern about the project and the road being built on the slide. He advised that this could cause continual problems for the City to maintain. Mr. Arciero clarified by stating that there are landslides A, B and C. Landslide A would affect some of the proposed housing units, specific lots. Landslide C is the one across the proposed roadway that doesn't include any residential units. Landslide B is half on and half off the RNP property and again doesn't affect any residential units. He also commented on PBA. There are two PBA technical issues and as a part of those, known as the LaPeter map, the Council approved two maps, 47851 and 45787. These maps required additional geotechnical evaluation as a condition of a tentative map in relationship to the two lots. In terms of how the Council wishes to approach the geotechnical information prior to a decision, he advised that the City could either allow the information be brought as a result of the tentative map process in responding to conditions of the map, which is not approved until those issues are resolved, or the City can ask the developer to resolve those issues before being willing to approve the map. In the case of PBA, both of those procedures were followed by the map being approved and the geotechnical information and detail came back subsequent to approval, in the case of some of the soils issues which were identified in preliminary reports and the opposite occurred which said that the City must do a more detailed JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 4 geotechnical analysis before approving maps. ACE/Liu advised that the current information they have for this particular project is a preliminary study and they need to see additional information. M/Werner reiterated that soil and geotechnical studies are preliminary and it's up to the Council whether they want more specific information or whether it's sufficient to require that level to be built at the time prior to the coordination of the maps or anytime in between. C/Papen asked which is more damaging to the canyon, the south end or north end. C/Werner also questioned if there had been any close encounters concerning landslides. Mr. Arciero answered that they had had close encounters. He also advised that he looked into a couple of the proposals: (1) a roadway coming from the south, about where the gas plant on Brea Canyon Rd. would come across and run parallel to the creek bed and across the creek bed at just about the RnP and Arciero's property line. Earth movement needed would be approx. 500,000 cubic yards and would result in a culvert up over the stream in order to protect the streambed of approximately 165'; (2) a roadway just north of the area known as the water district site, which represents about 600,000 cubic feet of cut and fill in order to create the roadbed that allows for the span of the canyon and maintains acceptable road angles. This would result in a 300' culvert over the creek bed because there isn't enough distance between Brea Canyon Rd. and the school property to get the road angles --the road bed up has to be built up to reduce the slant of the road. Regarding which access, northerly or southerly, would do the least damage to the canyon, he stated that it depends on what is considered damage to the canyon. The access off of Brea Canyon Rd. has hardly any trees between the ridgeline and the school district property. He advised that this is a large open area, but it does create a huge division between the north and south portions of the canyon because the roadbed will be up in the air and fairly large at the base. The base of the roadway would be 100' in the air. C/Papen expressed concern about the measurements of the roadway built up so high. C/Ansari advised that she asked three independent civil engineers and gave them different scenarios to come up with where the roadways should go in the JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 5 canyon. She advised that these engineers suggested bridging the blue -line stream which would be approximately 250' long, approximately 30' wide and the rain water would run off into the canyon stream. She advised that because the bridge would be 30' wide, this road could be used for school traffic, fire and police service. C/Papen expressed concern about the 36,000 cubic yards of dirt to be moved. She also commented on why the City should use school and transportation funds to build the 30' road. She felt that the Council should agree to move the least amount of dirt in the canyon and that would be the alternative that would save the trees, etc. M/Werner advised that after talking with the developer and asking for a more serious plan for development of the canyon, the developer proposed that if housing were reduced to 60%, traffic impact would be reduced, there would be no commercial development, the blueline stream preserved and the significant movement of dirt would be eliminated or substantially reduced. He advised that the road alternative that C/Ansari proposed cuts through the ridgeline that people indicated "don't cut down our hill because it's going to cause noise from the freeway." C/Ansari suggested that the Council immediately give Arciero a grading permit to move dirt onto the property, that filling the stream should be avoided by bridging it, that the City apply for temporary permits from Fish & Game and Army Corps of Engineers to bridge the stream, that the City not fill the canyon and that the City allow filling an area away from the stream and start building when negotiations for the best project takes place. MPT/Harmony expressed support for C/Ansari's approach and advised that on September 16, 1993, Arciero & Sons, Walnut School District and First Title Company executd an agreement regarding the property being built. Arciero sold property to the school district known as the South Pointe Middle School site in 1988 and a condition of sale was that Arciero was to perform grading on that site including placing of soil on the remaining Arciero prop-erty in accordance with the grading described in the Environmental Impact Report approved by the district. That's the property east of the school site. He also stated that placement on the surplus property is des-cribed in the EIR as follows: build the total site, easterly adjacent build site will receive excessive soil materials derived from JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 6 the school site grading. Compacted build materials will be placed within the major north to south grading, natural grading. Arciero has not at this time completed that grading and Walnut School District has gone so far as to guarantee that they will loan him the money to do it. Walnut School District agreed to fund up to $1,150,000 for grading and disposal of dirt onto Arciero's property to be accomplished under this agreement by Arciero. It doesn't impact anyone's property rights, environmental oak trees, impact slide areas. He then stated that the County approved the Pathfinder Assn,. the County Regional Planning Commission said okay to allow a higher density on this open space, but there is land surrounding the entire development program that will remain open space, 70 acres owned by RNP. The County guaranteed that there would always be this open space. They wrote on the maps "no building." Brock had title to the land and the developer came along and bought it for pennies. This land was valued at $9.00. The tax collector said it had no value and no money to collect on it. He advised that if the school district property is built on, the City will still have 70 acres of preserved open space. He recommended that the school district issue a grading permit, put it on the east side of the blueline stream and invite Mr. Arciero to come back with a fully, well thought out, well engin- eered, well geologically -structured plan with city consultants, Planning Commission review, Council review and all the technical support for a quality project. The City can issue a grading permit and invite the developer to come back with a plan that is verifiable, that is real. MPT/Harmony moved and C/Ansari seconded to allow the developer to revise his plan as to where the dirt will be moved, issue a grading permit to Arciero and the School District so that the dirt can be placed on the eastern side of the blueline stream. C/Papen questioned the difference in timeline and moving the dirt proposed by C/Ansari and MPT/Harmony. Mr. Chaput advised that he would get the details from the School District as soon as possible. He also advised that disposal of the dirt in the canyon, as proposed by the EIR, is not entirely to _ the east of the blueline stream; in fact, it infringes upon the blueline stream. The dirt will be a disruption to that canyon area. He stated that they cannot dispose of the dirt without the r -- JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 7 proper permit from Fish & Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. He also advised that the permits might take from 3 to 8 months to obtain. If there is an opportunity to dispose of the dirt on the RNP site, it can be done much quicker than that, if there is no infringement on any blueline stream. C/Ansari asked staff whether by bridging the blueline stream and using scrapers to move the dirt, could a temporary permit be immediately obtained from Fish & Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. CM/Belanger advised that if there is temporary crossing of the stream, if it is intended to inundate the stream at some future time, the school district will still be required to get a permit from Fish & Game. If the dirt is going to be moved across the stream with no permanent impact, then permits can be documented in a shorter time frame. MPT/Harmony stated that Mr. Liu indicated that this motion is not to go with this agreement and the EIR developed at that time was modified so that we stay out of the blueline stream. He further indicated that the idea was that everyone preserve the stream along the hillside and the trees that are on the westerly part of the canyon. The hillside can take the dirt, some of the dirt can be moved out by truck and there are other alternatives and options, but the major portion of that dirt should not be stored there. C/Papen asked if Mr. Arciero could move the dirt onto RnP property while the application was submitted for the blueline stream and how soon could that 400,000 cubic area dirt be moved onto RNP property. She also stated that the alternative issue proposed by MPT/Harmony and C/Ansari does not address the issue of the road but would cost the School District millions of dollars and delay the project 4-5 months compared to proposal 1 and the construction could start now. M/Werner advised that the proposal is now on the floor for a workable way for the school to begin construction. ,r,, Mr. Chaput advised that, in his opinion, it does not provide what is needed in order to get the school moving. He further stated that he doesn't speak for the school board and advised that he didn't know exactly what the school board would do. JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 8 ;It Mr. Arciero advised that the papers were in conjunction with the tentative map filed with the City in 1989 or 1990 and that if the Council approved the plan now, then he would go along with the proposal, but he cannot afford to move the dirt onto his property and stockpile it because there is not enough room without damaging and encroaching on the streambed. Most of the property being discussed has an open space designation and there are 2 open space lots that indicate deed restriction, not open space. For whatever reason the County had, they didn't tell anyone that the deed restricted property was going to be open space. In response to C/Papen, Mr. Arciero advised that if Alternative No. 1 was approved., assuming that the project started today, he would construct his options, design the grading plans, go to the City for review for a grading permit, clear and gut the area, including the dirt. In a matter of a week, he would have equipment on the job moving and it would take another three weeks to move the 400,000 yards of dirt. He advised that the job would take at least 5-1/2 - 6 weeks from today. In regard to the alternative MPT/Harmony was questioning, he had not had an opportunity to research going to Fish., Game and the Army Corps of Engineers to acqu' e their permit and to do a crossing of the spr'.g bed. He advised that as long as he crosses `e streambed, they will want to see detailed pla' . This will take at least 4-5 weeks or longer to design the crossing, submit the plans, go back and forth for review process and ultimately try to get a permit. MPT/Harmony stated that RnP properties and also the properties on Grand Ave. are preserved from building on them under different sets of laws. People who bought the homes, saw the maps, knew that the land was restricted for no building. It must be dedicated as park space. It was open space and the homeowner bought with that under -standing. He advised that Arciero and the School District signed the agreement knowing that there was a new ordinance requiring hillside grading, not to build on top of hills. He stated that Arciero signed the agreement with the school district when the hillside ordinance was in effect, establishing criteria on how hillsides are developed. Mr. Arciero advised that his map was filed before the City's ordinance was in place. C/Papen stated that the Council cannot pass a new JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 9 ordinance and then impose it on somebody who already filed a map. She advised that the ordinance had been in place only 6 months and the maps have been with the City for more than 3 years. ICA/Montgomery advised that if the Council approved the map as it was presented, then anything subsequent to it would not have an effect on it. He also advised that on a modified map, the developer has the election to either agree to a modified map or stick by his guns and have it not fall under the ordinance. M/Werner asked if the Council could approve the grading plan but not approve the tract map. ICA/Montgomery stated that the grading plan states that he cannot grade something that wasn't approved. M/Werner stated that the Council could approve or deny the entire map. Mr. Arciero advised that he didn't want to be stuck with that dirt on his property knowing that the Council could change their mind later about moving the dirt. In response to MPT/Harmony regarding the difference between the former tract map and the master plan map, ICA/Montgomery advised that he didn't know the relationships of the two maps. There could be 2 tract maps pending on a property. The City could approve one and deny the other or incorporate another map as an alternative or a modification. CE/Wentz advised that the first tentative map is the one submitted prior to Incorporation for approximately 88 units. The tentative map relates to South Pointe which has approximately 90 residential lots with some commercial acreage in that particular map. The first map differs because it was anticipated that the project would be built on its own and; therefore, it would be graded from the property line and the view from south to north would essentially manufacture a slope with some elevation and on top which would be homes running completely across the canyon. Essentially, that Tap proposes to kill the canyon. The Master Plan incorporated over the Master Plan area grading proposals would have been the property grade so there would be no steep or obvious slope looking south and north. He advised that the plan does not access the school like the earlier map. JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 10 M/Werner advised that open space is nothing more than visual open space; it is still privately -owned land, so it should not be noted as meaning open space, which would mean access by the public. MPT/Harmony stated that by running a highway through the canyon, having building restrictions with Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. and, moving toward the Arciero property, the grading is allowed. MPT/Harmony moved and C/Ansari seconded to issue Arciero and the School District a grading permit for the dirt to be placed on the eastern side of the blueline stream. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Papen, M/Werner ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - Miller C/Papen advised that the Council asked the people of the community to show proof that they paid extra for their property so that they would be guaranteed that the canyon would not be developed. She did not understand how houses constructed 100-150' below those of members of the Pathfinders Homeowners Assn. would infringe on their privacy. The nearest neighbor would be at least 9 stories below them. The School District needs to start construction now. She also advised that there is not sufficient water pressure up there and a water line installed which could cost in excess of $150,000. There is tremendous public benefit in removing the map restriction with the reduced number of houses and bringing the road from Brea Canyon. C/Papen moved, M/Werner seconded that Arciero and RNP combine their property, donating the 72 -acre canyon to the City, being allowed to build 107 to 115 homes on the RnP property and construction of the road to Brea Canyon. C/Ansari commented on the wonderful development project in Sandstone Canyon commercial area where the City could get $1.1 million in tax revenue. She stated that during the last election, some candidates ran on land issues regarding map restrictions and South Pointe School being built. This project is a land issue. The school is another issue. She commented on asking Arciero to scale down his project. She advised that she had a definite problem with the map restriction. C/Papen advised that she was not the one who made JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 11 the motion to remove map restrictions on lots 1 and 61. She also advised that she would not accept a substandard street. There is a benefit to removing map restrictions on this piece of property that do not apply to lots 1 and 61, there are eight million reasons for removing the map restrictions and that is for construction of the South Pointe Middle School. MPT/Harmony stated that he wanted to resolve the problem for the school district to move forward. He further stated that the school should have never been put on the top of a hill with no access road. The district does not like the old plan either, but they are trying to do the best they can. A simple motion is needed for the grading permit. C/Ansari advised that the road over the stream is special because this is a special circumstance. She questioned if it was unusual to have a road this size. She commented on the Council agreeing on the grading permit to move the dirt. CE/Liu did not believe that the City had any roads like that, maybe in the Country and maybe residential streets, but not access roads. Mr. Arciero advised that he tried to be fair and had exhausted all avenues. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Papen, M/Werner NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - Miller RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 7:55 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 8:10 p.m. 2.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Cont'd.) - ICA/Montgomery advised that nobody is really sure of the map status and if it's considered a final application. Mr. Arciero stated that he would agree to a continuance but it's going to be a short continuance. He also advised that he wanted a decision to be reached within the next week. Further, he an amendment to the map to go into a South Pointe Master Plan. M/Werner directed staff to research the issue and report back at the next meeting. JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 12 C/Ansari requested that the Council get the agenda information before the next meeting so they can review it in a timely fashion. ICA/Montgomery suggested that, for the record, preserve the developer's challenge without prejudice so that he is not caught up in a subsequent delay if the Council continues the matter again. He advised that the developer asked for a speedy decision and that he is entitled to it. In response to M/Werner, ICA/Montgomery advised that the RnP property should be discussed at the same time. Regarding the SASAK property, Mr. Patel requested that a letter be included in Alternative No. 2 which was submitted to the Planning Commission. AP/Searcy advised that it was separate from Alternative No. 2 to be held for review at a different time. The Planning Commission accepted the letter, reviewed it and basically said that they would not include it as a part of the review of the Arciero/RnP alternative. They will look at it separately. C/Papen asked if any road connected to these homes for emergency vehicles. She advised that if Alternative No. 1 has no development with RnP, there is no road construction to the school or to Brea Canyon. Mr. Fuller expressed concern about the property being developed in his neighborhood with a through street from Morning Sun to Brea Canyon. He advised that there has never been any problems in his neighborhood and the neighbors do not want to see any because of this development. M/Werner advised that it would be taken under consideration. MPT/Harmony questioned the commercial plan and the requirement of public vote. He asked for an opinion of how this kind of map compares to the other type of map. Regarding map restrictions, ICA/Montgomery advised that when they were dedicated, the County prohibited construction of residential structures on the property. It is not known whether County planners ever thought that there would be any building on that property or not. Environmental JUNE 15, 1994 PAGE 13 concerns weren't quite as strong. As it sits today, no residential structures are allowed on the maps, which means if the General Plan does not allow commercial or industrial use, then it is an "open space dedication." As the City Manager pointed out, there is a restriction to one unit per parcel, which is a different type of restriction, but it's still a restriction which needs amendment. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None. 4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Werner adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. to June 21, 1994 at 6:00 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. LYNDA BtW-,7B-SS, . C' ty Clerk