The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/02/1994 Minutes - Special MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DECE14BER 2, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Werner called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m., in the Conference Room of City Hall, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony and Mayor Werner. Council Members Papen and Miller were absent. Also present were Terrence Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Interim City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; Michael Meyers and David Liu, Engineering; and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk. 2. OLD BUSINESS: 2.1 RESOLUTION NO. 94-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 92-1, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8 FOR A 94 LOT SUBDIVISION GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF BREA CANYON ROAD, NORTH OF PATHFINDER ROAD, EAST OF MORNING SUN AVENUE AND SOUTH OF LARKSTONE DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - CM/Belanger reported that. the meeting was called in order to discuss Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 as a result of the interpretation of Government Code Section 65950 pertaining to a requirement to either approve or disapprove a land use action after the certification of an Environmental Impact Report relating to that land use action. He explained that the Code provides for 6 months wherein action must be taken in regard to Tentative Tract Map 51407, Development Agreement No.,92=1, Use Permit No. 92-8, Oak Tree Permit 92-8 from June 3, 1994. At that time, Council certified the Environmental Impact Report related to the project known as the South Pointe Master Plan, which this map was a part of the Master Plan. Staff's opinion is that the 6 -month period commenced on June 3 and, therefore, December 2, 1994 would be the last day to make a determination. If Council fails to take an action on this map, under the Streamlining Act, the application would automatically come into being as a matter of law. He recommended that the application be denied based on the fact that, at the present time, the Council is not in a position to approve or deny the project without the acquiescence of the School District, the current owner of the property, for granting an extension of DECEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE 2 time. ICA/Montgomery explained that, due to the 6 -month time frame and the fact that it will expire on December 3, the Council needs to act on the matter. He further stated that the School District had been contacted to see if they would be willing to withdrawal their proposal and they indicated they were not- at this time. Staff met with School District officials today to discuss granting a 90 -day extension, so that Council and the District could negotiate; however, personnel available at the District did not have authority to make a decision. He recommended that the Council take the action framed by the Community Development Director based on the fact that the current application is in conflict with the draft General Plan adopted by the Planning Commission and sent to the Office of Planning and Research. MPT/Harmony asked the City Attorney to explain the concept of "without prejudice" versus flat out denial. ICA/Montgomery explained that "without prejudice" does not prohibit the School District from reapplying at some time in the future. CDD/DeStefano stated that the Environmental Impact Report is an open issue, there is an existing Environmental Impact Report that has been certified; however, there are probably a number of components and analyses within the document that will be useful. It is likely that a supplement or subsequent environmental impact report would be needed to augment the document already certified. ICA/Montgomery stated that if the Council does not feel that it is likely that the application would be granted, and do not want to offer encouragement where encouragement is not warranted, the words "without prejudice" can be stricken, and the action would be final. M/Werner asked staff that since this is a different owner than the one that filed the application, how could the new owner expect a tract map approval with a school where housing was to be. CM/Belanger stated that the property in question does not have a school under construction. The DECEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE 3 property ownership that existed prior to the acquisition of the RnP property was not combined in any form, the school is being built on a separate piece of property. ICA/Montgomery stated that it is presumed that the application is now owned by the School District; however, it is not known for sure, there could be an agreement between the previous owner and the School District. That is another reason to take action today. In response to C/Ansari, Clay Chaput stated that he was unaware of when the School District received the letter from Mr. Montgomery dated November 15, 1994. CM/Belanger explained that the City Attorney sent a letter to the School District dated November 15, 1994 inquiring into the District's intentions relating to the application. Mr. Chaput stated that the District has not responded to the letter since the Board had not had an opportunity to discuss it. Clayton Parker, WVUSD Attorney, stated that the School District owns the property, which means it owns all rights to the property. He further stated that it was his opinion that City staff ignored the Government Code, specifically Sections 66452.2 and 66452.4, and that it was his feeling that as an operation of law, the map had been approved. He further stated that he discussed this with both Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Belanger this morning at their meeting. Also, this is a land use proposed decision and without notice of public hearing, the Council cannot, by special meeting, take action on this matter. with regard to the District taking no action, this had not been before the Board, and he advised Mr. Chaput that he has no power to enter into any discussion about extending the time. The Board will not meet until next week. C/Ansari asked if the School Board could have called a special meeting to discuss the matter. Mr. Parker stated that the time statute had not been brought up until yesterday and the Board could not have met prior to this meeting. He went on to state that they were unaware of the time frame, as DECEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE 4 it was not indicated in the letter of November 15. C/Ansari stated that she was concerned because the School District has asked for zoning changes to plan development on property that has map restrictions on it. MPT/Harmony stated that the Council approved the Arciero project within a week or two of the School District's purchase of the property and that that was a mitigating factor in getting the $8 million. Mr. Parker stated that Mr. Arciero is not in any position to move his dirt; however, the School District is complete with the dirt moved, which would not have happened if they had waited for Mr. Arciero. MPT/Harmony stated that the whole process from the time the School District came to the City and asked for expeditious treatment was approximately 6 to 8 weeks. Mrs. Lee Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., spoke in i^ favor of denying Development Agreement 92-1. Max Maxwell supported denial of the Development Agreement and asked if the School District own the rights to the property. M/Werner stated that Mr. Parker indicated that the School District owns all the rights. The following persons spoke in favor of adoption of the Resolution denying Development Agreement 92-1: Lydia Plunk Don Schad Frank Dursa George Barrett Oscar Law Terry Birrell Mr. Chaput stated that he is not authorized by the School Board to seek approval of the application nor is he authorized to extend any time limits on it. He and Mr. Parker were present to question the validity of the meeting. Further, they are not asking for Council approval of the map. I M/Werner announced that two residents --Maria Oliva DECEMBER 2, 1994 PAGE 5 and Diane Singer --called the City to express support for denial of the Development Agreement. C/Ansari moved, MPT/Harmony seconded to adopt Resolution No. 94-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 92-1, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8 FOR A 94 LOT SUBDIVISION GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF BREA CANYON ROAD, NORTH OF PATHFINDER ROAD, EAST OF MORNING SUN AVENUE AND SOUTH OF LARKSTONE DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen, Miller 3. ADJOURNMENT: conduct, M/Werner With no further business to adjourned the mee;aMYE at 4:4.5 p.m. A. CRIBBINS, Deputy City Clerk