Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/1995 Minutes - Special Jt. Meeting2 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:47 p.m. at the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Papen. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Wemer and Mayor Papen. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad, Vice -Chairman Huff and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Meyer was excused. Also Present: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Leonard Hempel, Special Legal Counsel; George Wentz, City Engineer; Michael Myers, Consultant Engineer; Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director; and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. OLD BUSINESS: 2.1 CERTIFICATION OF MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 91-2 AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850, LOCATED EASTERLY OF STEEPLECHASE LANE AND SOUTH OF WINDMILL DRIVE ACJACENT TO THE PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS 'THE COUNTRY"- M/Papen introduced Leonard Hempel, Rutan & Tucker, Special Legal Counsel, and asked him to discuss the reason for the joint meeting. She stated that staff would make a presentation regarding the project and lawsuit settlement. The meeting will be turned over to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation, after which the Council will discuss the project. Mr. Hempel stated that it had been approximately one year since litigation between D.B. Assoc. (DBA) and the City concluded with a settlement agreement. Part of the settlement involved the Council adopting a motion to reconsider a denial of VTTM No. 47850 which occurred in November, 1992. The denial was a result of the failure to present geotechnical data responding to 24 points at issue. The Planning Commission previously approved the map and because the City recognized there would be updated data with respect to geotechnical and environmental information in the new EIR, the settlement included a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the Council. Although a public hearing is not required, the P!anning Commissioners are being asked for their comments based on the new information. At the conclusion of the April 6, 1995 Page 2 Council public hearing, the Council will determine whether to approve, deny, modify, or request additional data on the map. The agreement did not obligate the Council beyond following the State Subdivision Map Act, and City Codes and Ordinances in reconsideration of the map. In response to M/Papen, Mr. Hempel stated that there is no conflict of interest with M/Papen and C/Miller sitting in judgement of this project. M/Papen and C/Miller were added as defendants in the initial lawsuit. Demurrers were filed on behalf of Papen and Miller which were sustained without leave to amend. The settlement did not resolve that issue and DBA was free to appeal the dismissal of Papen and Miller from the lawsuit. Although they initially appealed, they later dropped the appeal, thereby making the decision of the trail court final, dismissing Papen and Miller. There is no restriction and no conflict relating from that litigation. In response to MPT/Werner, Mr. Hempel indicated that the project was considered under Ordinance No. 4, not under the General Plan. --. The settlement specifically envisioned that the Council would have the right to consider the project based upon the General Plan currently under consideration pursuant to the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) extension of time. He stated that the Council should be considering this project under what they believe the ultimate General Plan designation will be for this property. The project will be vested under the terms of approval and at the time of final map approval. Technically, there is no General Plan under which the project will be vested, but the Council will be making findings that the project is not inconsistent with the proposed General Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum asked the extent of the current Planning Commission's involvement in the review process since a previously - seated Planning Commission had approved the project. Mr. Hempel responded that the Planning Commission was not being asked to re -approve the project or go through the detail of the conditions. Upon request by the Planning Commissian, the, Council may grant the Commission additional opportunity to consider the project. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that no current Planning Commissioners were members of the Commission when the project was approved and they do not have specific knowledge of the details. April 6, 1995 Page 3 Mr. Hempel responded that, at the time the settlement agreement was entered into, it was not known that a year would be required to process the additional data and there would be a different Planning Commission. Council will determine the outcome of the project. Legally, the Planning Commission approved the project and the addition of the joint meeting was to give the current Commission the opportunity to review the updated data. Responding to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that the developer had paid all costs associated with reconsideration of VTTM No. 47850. He further reported that the project began in November, 1989 with a submittal to the City's acting planning staff at L.A. County. VTM No. 47850 was a component of a three tract submittal that was given to the City. The three tracts, 47850, 47851 and 48487, comprise a total of approximately 160 acres within the southwest portion of The Country Estates" generally adjacent to Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane, and Hawkwood Road and Bent Twig Lane, and totalled about 120 dwelling units. In November, 1991 the Planning Commission reviewed the project and recommended its approval. The Council reviewed the project in early 1992 and in May, 1992, approved VTTMs 47851 and 48487 and certified that portion of the Master EIR. Map 47850 received further review in May and June 1992, and again in November and December 1992, and was subsequently denied. The Council denied the Map without prejudice and encouraged the developer to respond to outstanding issues and again present the project. As a result of litigation, the settlement agreement was concluded about one year ago and discussions ensued regarding the type of project presentation and environmental documentation needed for resubmission to the City. As a part of reconsideration of this project, the City held a widely publicized workshop on Saturday, March 11, 1995 from 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. City staff, the City's consultants, development representatives and members of the community participated in an information session. This was not a posted public hearing. Kurt Nelson, D.B. Assoc., 3480 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, stated that VTTM 47850 is part of approximately 280 acres known as 'The Back Country" which was intended as a third phase of development in "The Country Estates" by Transamerica Development, now D. B. Assoc. In the mid 1980's, through an agreement with 'The Country Estates", these back country parcels obtained access rights for development and these rights have been exercised with the Phase I development of Tract 47851. Negotiations continue with 'The Country Estates" to effect full annexation. D.B. Assoc. has a homeowners association with CC&R's to implement the special conditions of approval which April 6, 1995 Page 4 were a part of Phase I and which will certainly be a part of Phase 11. Full annexation will retain the declaration of CC&R's so that all of the conditions of approval that the City's staff, consultants and the Council visit on this project will be carried out. D. B. Assoc. has given careful consideration to the 24 questions posed by Leighton & Assoc. concerning the geologic stability of the project. Phase II will incorporate the balancing of grading and re -vegetation used in Phase 1 Lex Williman, Planning Director, Hunsaker & Associates, 10179 Huntington Street, San Diego, stated that this project was originally submitted to the County. When the City incorporated, it changed some of the rules. The Council adopted a Hillside Management Ordinance, the County's Oak Tree Ordinance and the SEA #15 boundaries. In addition, the City created a Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) which reviewed this project. He indicated that his firm became involved in the project as a result of the Hillside Management Ordinance. His firm's task was to specifically recreate the project so that it met the Hillside Management Ordinance criteria. He believed this had been accomplished. This project has been reviewed by SEATAC on four occasions, and has been through five Planning Commission hearings and five or six Council hearings. The project is accessible from Steeplechase Ln. and Hawkwood Rd. Tonner Canyon and the Boy Scout properties are to the south of the project and Tract No. 47851 and No. 48487 are to the east of the project on the opposite ridge. His firm employed a combination of contour and land form grading techniques to the project. Balance was achieved by considering the underlying topography, the geotechnical conditions, the consideration of the General Plan, SEATAC input and the Hillside Ordinance. In areas where shear keys must be created, slopes similar to Tract No. 47851 .are proposed to combine with the natural species. In addition, fill areas are proposed for the canyon to shore up some geotechnical instability in the slopes. There will be no construction in these areas. Land form grading will be used for the grading to create a natural look of the horizontal and vertical contours. The Uniform Building Code requires terraces and down drains which are hidden with berms and landscaping to preserve the natural look. In addition, all of the concrete required to meet the conditions of approval will be in earth tones in concert with the landscaping. He indicated that these issues have been addressed because the City's staff and City Council held the developers to a higher degree of standards than other cities. The 73 acre site proposes 57 lots. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet and the average lot size is about 1.3 acres. The minimum pad size is 10,000 square feet and the average is about 14,300 square April 6, 1995 Page 5 feet. This conforms to the current Draft General Plan. The average density is .75 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The underlying zoning is R-1-8000 and R-1-20,000. This project adheres to the R-1-20,000 throughout the site. There is a gate at Steeplechase Lane and Hawkwood Road. In addition, there is an emergency access to the north through the Las Brisas condominium project that connects to Hawkwood Rd. and provides secondary access to the condominiums. It is intended that this access will remain and it will be gated for emergency purposes only. The architecture of the gate will be enhanced with a combination of brick and wrought iron to conform to the front entrance gates for "The Country Estates". Don Harrington, Harrington Geotechnical, 1938 North Batavia St., Ste. N, Orange, stated that there were 13 exploratory borings drilled 120 feet deep, 40 test pits 15 feet deep and approximately 1400 lineal feet of trench excavated with a bulldozer. All of these excavations were logged by the project geologist and samples were taken. The — weak link at this project is a thin layer of clay that was originally identified as bentonite. The material was tested in the Harrington Geotechnical laboratory, as well as the laboratory of another consultant and unusually high strength parameters were obtained. A sample was sent to the Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources in New Mexico for analysis. It was determined that the material was smectite which is a coarser grained stronger material than bentonite. Realizing that there may be some uncertainties in sampling and testing, based upon discussions with D.B. Assoc. and the Leighton & Associates, the strength parameters were lowered by approximately 30%. The remedial grading design and stability calculations were based upon these lower values and a safety factor of 1.5 as required by code. Twenty four items of concern regarding the project were compiled by Leighton & Assoc. These items were reviewed and answered to the satisfaction of the consultant. Craig Weber, Consulting Landscape Architect, D.B. Assoc., 790 Redondo Ave., Long Beach, stated that his firm has been involved in this project since 1989 and they have conducted a thorough investigation of Tract No. 47850, as well as Tract No. 47851. The initial studies that took place in 1989 and 1990 resulted in a detailed analysis of the site and its vegetation which assisted in the development of criteria for mitigation. He indicated the primary structure of this site is a combination of oak and walnut woodlands. The primary tree, walnut, dominates the site at a ratio of four to one over the oak tree. In spite of considerable gradingf the site, approximately 240 oak and walnut trees will be retained. As a esult April 6, 1995 Page 6 of grading, approximately 540 walnut trees and 23 oak trees will be removed from the site. The oaks will be mitigated at a ratio of four to one, and the walnuts will be mitigated at a ratio of two to one as determined by Michael Brandman & Assoc. The developer will be responsible for on-site planting of 85 oak trees and 1,096 walnut trees, all of which will be irrigated and monitored for a period of five years. Sycamore, willow and pine trees will be planted in the central portion of the development, and the surrounding slopes will be mitigated with pure native vegetation. All of the proposed material will be generated from seeds and/or cuttings from the on-site gene pool. He referred the Council members and Commissioners to the westerly canyon area of the site which will receive a significant portion of hillside runoff into Tonner Canyon. He stated a series of water management basins are being developed to insure the water quality following a format currently being developed by the Center for Regenerative Studies, Cal -Poly Pomona. He indicated that D. B. Assoc. will monitor the growth and development of all proposed site vegetation for a period of five years with an annual inspection and monitoring program. David Smith, Leighton & Associates, stated his firm is the Geotechnical Consultant for the City hired to review the geotechnical aspects of Tract No. 47850. The review began in 1992 with a submittal of the developers' geotechnical investigation and grading plan review which was prepared by Harrington & Assc--. As a result of that review, Leighton & Assoc. issued a review sheet which recommended that the project not be approved until 24 specific comments were addressed. Since that time, Harrington & Associates has responded to the review comments which, in many cases, generated additional review comments. Through the review process involving several meetings between City's staff, the developer and his consultants, as well as Leighton & Assoc., all 24 of the original geotechnical review comments have been adequately addressed at this phase. He further stated that it is important to continue the review through the grading and construction phases to verify that the original geotechnical interpretation continues to be accurate. Tom Smith, Michael Brandman & Associates, 17310 Redhill, Irvine stated that Tract 47850 was originally evaluated in an EIR that address three tracts: 47850, 47851 and 48487. The EIR was certified for Tract No. 47851 and No. 48487. In the intervening two years since the EIR was filed, regulations have changed with special regard to biological resources on the site. In addition, there were changes in the air quality regulations that required re -analysis to meet current standards. As a result, in October, 1994, the City initiated a second April 6, 1995 Page 7 environmental review process for Tract No. 47850. In order that information compiled in the previous EIR, the City and Michael Brandman & Assoc. determined that there were three primary issues that the revised Draft EIR should address. These were the geological factors, the biological resources and the air quality impacts of construction. All other issues that were analyzed in the 1992 EIR were determined to have been adequately addressed in that document and did not need to be re -analyzed. All impacts evaluated in the revised Draft EIR were found to be mitigated to a level that was not significant after mitigation was applied with the exception of construction dust on the environment. South Coast Air Quality Management set a standard of PM10 and because of the low standards set for dust emissions from construction, that impact cannot be mitigated through normal construction techniques of watering, etc. Therefore, Council will be required to make a statement of overriding considerations should the Council decide to approve this project. The revised Draft EIR was released for public review in February, 1995, and the review period ended on March 15, 1995. During the review period, written comments were received from two public agencies, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and Caltrans, from three members of the community and from the applicant. Responses to these letters have been included in the document entitled "Response to Comments Received on Draft Environmental Impact Report". He further stated that, as required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a mitigation monitoring program has been prepared which lists all of the mitigation measures from the revised Draft and from the 1992 EIR that are recommended for incorporation into the project to mitigate the impacts of its development. CDD/DeStefano stated that the overall proposed land use for this project is Single Family Residential, 57 units on 73 acres. The lot sizes range from about 3/4 acre to over 5 acres with the average lot size in excess of an acre. Average pad sizes are in excess of 14,300 square feet with a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The overall land use of the project is substantially the same as that which was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1991 and the City Council in 1992. The project is generally consistent with the General Plan as it existed in 1992 and as it exists in its present form. It is consistent with the zoning in place on the site and with the caliber of homes within'The Country Estates", the immediate neighbor to the proposed project. Homes that will be created on a product of this nature range in size from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, are generally two stories, generally provide substantial private amenities such as pools, tennis courts and other types of recreational facilities. The project not only incorporates the Vesting Tentative Map and related issues under April 6, 1995 Page 8 discussion, it also involves, as a result of City and County standards, a Conditional Use Permit for hillside grading requiring the use of land form grading techniques and for the mitigation of the loss of oak trees. The grading for the proposed site comprises about 780,000 cubic yards of earth. He recommended that the joint session receive public testimony, receive Planning Commission commentary and for the Council to continue deliberation and direct staff appropriately. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:02 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. M/Papen declared the Public Hearing open. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., referred the Council to his letter addressed to the City and requested it be made a part of the record. In addition, he requested that answers to questions in his letter be addressed by the Council and made a part of the final record. He cited the following reasons he opposed approval of VTTM 47850: The developers' technical documentation identified the cause of past and potential future landslides due to a combination of smectite soil layers and ground water/pore water pressure and the documents confirmed the presence of both items within the tract boundaries; the documents do not include groundwater or pore pressure in the Factor of Safety calculations which indicate the stability of the slopes; County Code requires Factors of Safety of 1.5 or greater. These documents report Factors of Safety of 1.5051, 1.5093, 1.5011, 1.5133 based on normal conditions. These values should exceed the County requirement by a greater amount to allow for errors in the computational process. Also, calculations should be made based upon abnormal conditions such as adverse weather (50-100 year rain seasons), uncertainties in geologic parameters, human deficiencies in workmanship, etc.; and the report contains conflicting statements. The test states "groundwater was not encountered in any exploratory borings drilled on the site...", whereas the figures and tables show the presence of ground water. Because of these contradictions, the truthfulness of these reports is questionable. Don Greely, 22635 Ridge Line Rd., President of 'The Country Estates" association, stated the association had been involved with this project since 1988. Seven years after D.B. Assoc. requested full annexation, this has not been accomplished. On behalf of the association, he asked the Council to consider proposing a condition that, as per the Council Minutes dated November 15, 1994, full April 6, 1995 Page 9 annexation would be agreed to be involved parties prior to any further deliberation with regard to this project. In addition, if annexation does not occur, the developer will provide facilities such as club house, tennis courts and pools for their community use. He indicated that without annexation, the homeowners of Tract No. 47850 are not entitled to the privileges of "The Country Estates." He further stated that although he had previously been in favor of this project, he is now opposed to the project. The developer placed a burden upon "The Country Estates" by using and damaging the paved roadways which have not been repaired. He asked that the developer make the necessary repairs immediately. In addition, the association anticipates there will be additional damage and requests a cash fund be established by the developer in advance for repair of streets. Responding to M/Papen, Mr. Greely stated that in the event of full annexation of the development, "The Country Estates" will build a larger club house, a larger pool and additional tennis courts to accommodate the additional homeowners. The current facilities are not adequate to accommodate the new development. In response to MPT/Werner, Mr. Greely indicated the association is looking for a similar condition to that imposed on the Jerry Yeh project for annexation with an associated fee. M/Papen referred to a letter submitted by David Araujo dated March 11, 1995 wherein he stated that although he previously opposed the project, after attending the Saturday meeting in March he is now in favor of the project. Martha Bruske, 600 South Great Bend Dr., stated the 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing started about 6:40. The people in favor of the project had sufficient time to discuss their views and the only person who was timed and interrupted was Mr. Wilbur Smith who lives in the area. In response to Mrs. Bruske, M/Papen stated she gave Mr. Smith eight minutes to speak and he took nine minutes which is nearly double the usual time allocated for speaking during a Public Hearing. . Jack Healy asked that the City Attorney address the potential liability to D.B. Assoc., the City, JCC Developers and Leighton Assoc. with respect to slippage of the property. In addition, he asked whether D. B. Assoc. had publ:�hed any safety factors for the proposed lots. He asked for discussion of the problem of burrowing animals which could cause seepage into the smectite, and what impact the lack of pest control in Tonner Canyon might have on this project since Tract April 6, 1995 Page 10 No. 47850 borders 3500 acres of the Canyon. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. M/Papen turned the meeting over to Planning Commission Chair Flamenbaum. A motion was made by VC/Huff that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council return this project to the Commission as an agenda item for consideration. Comm./Schad did not feel it necessary to pursue the project further. Comm./Fong stated that it is up to the Council to determine if they wish to send the project back to the Planning Commission for review. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he had limited knowledge of the project and felt it might be in the best interest of the City to send the --- project back to the Planning Commission for review. C/Ansari felt the wishes of the Planning Commission should be honored. She indicated she had several questions as a result of issues raised during the public hearing and felt the project should be returned to the Planning Commission for recommendations. Responding to C/Harmony, Mr. Hempel read the following provision pertaining to the joint session from the settlement agreement with the developer. "After conducting the joint session, or any continuance of the joint session meeting, VTM 47850 shall be referred to the City Council to take action on the re -consideration. Upon such reconsideration, the Council shall exercise that degree of discretion permitted the Council by state statutes and local ordinances pertaining to approval of a subdivision tract map. Further, the Council shall consider approval of VTM 47850 under the recently obtained extension of the deadline for adopting a General Plan issued by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research." Mr. Hempel explained that agreement does not state anything about a referral back to the Planning Commission, but the agreement does say the Council shall exercise a degree of discretion permitted to Council by state statute. State statute permits referral back to the Planning Commission, if in the Council's judgement, there is significant new information that the Planning Commission could assist in commenting on. He further stated that, in his opinion, the Council has the right to return the item to the Commission even though the agreement does not specifically April 6, 1995 Page 11 address the issue. He suggested that with the time constraints, the Council could obtain the consent of the applicant and, in the event of referral to the Planning Commission, provide the applicant with a time line of events. C/Ansari expressed concern about whether the questions can be adequately addressed during the joint session with responses from the City's Engineering staff as to whether these are viable conclusions from the applicant's consultants. She requested further clarification regarding safety factors of 1.5 and water seepage. Mr. Hempel responded to M/Papen that the meeting could be split with the Council's portion continued to a later time and Planning Commission's portion continued to the April 10 Commission meeting. C/Miller suggested that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 24 giving them adequate time to receive and review the pertinent materials. He requested the geotechnical investigation and recommended scheduling the item for the first Council meeting in May. M/Papen stated that the joint session would be used as an information and question gathering session. The Planning Commission will review the project at its April 24 meeting and return their recommendations to the Council for deliberation at the first Council meeting in May. She asked Planning Commissioners for their questions. Chair/Flamenbaum asked if it is necessary to fill in the canyon on the west side of the map if new houses are built on lots 20 through 28. How far to the west could a house be built if a fill did not occur on the west side. What if the map was split and houses were built only on the east side of the map and not on the west side of the map. Aside from the CC&R's, what assurances does the City have that the natural flora and fauna will not be impacted by future residents. The booklet "Home Buyers Awareness Package" indicates that homeowners should be warned and should not put in certain potentially invasive plant species (Page 3), but what assurances are there that they will comply and what is the City's recourse if they do not comply. Will there be a mitigation/monitoring program and if so, who will maintain and pay for the program. Does the new Draft EIR consider the impact of the two adjacent projects and, subsequent to the initial EIR, the Jerry Yeh project was approved. What is the impact upon this tract as a result of that project approval. Regarding Volume I of the Draft EIR, Page 42-3, Mitigation Measures for Air April 6, 1995 Page 12 Quality, he asked if these were the same measures used for other recently completed projects and what were the results. He further stated that, throughout the EIR, there is no mention of cougars or bobcats; however, the video concluded with a shot of a sleepy cougar. Where was the picture taken and why was it in the video if there are no cougars. Are all of the animals pictured in the video at the isite. The EIR makes mention of numerous animals but it also avoids a number of animals. Is this area a part of a wildlife corridor. The EIR states that this is a secondary corridor but it does not talk about the project's impact to the secondary corridor. Additionally, inasmuch as the other tract maps are not considered in the EIR, what is the impact of the other improvements upon the site. Are the setbacks the same for each lot on the site. If not, how do they vary, how much do they vary, do they vary side to side, and if they are varied or not varied, does it have any significant impact in the EIR with regard to aesthetics and geology. Page 4-15 of the EIR discusses mammals, raccoons are not mentioned. The EIR does not mention bobcat. Bobcat is mentioned in the supplement. On Page 4-17, the EIR talks about mule deer and how there is no impact to the mule deer; however, it talks- about the fact that this is a loss of a bedding area. He stated he would .like to see an SEA #15 overlay on the project. He indicated the EIR is not specific with regard to the SEA #15. He referred to the five year monitoring of tree growth by the developer and wants to know what occurs at the end of the monitoring period. Is the City then responsible for their care and maintenance and is the City going to monitor and pay for their care. What is the impact upon those trees and other native species caused by the runoff from the resident's lawns and washing of cars. Are there any blue line streams in the area. He further stated he noticed Schabarum Trail is on the site. Who maintains the trail and what is the impact of the trail upon the hillsides that are being modified. On Page A-22, the EIR says that no wildlife movement was studied and in another section it states that there is a wildlife corridor. These statements are in conflict. If a study is not conducted, how can the report determine there is no wildlife corridor. On Page A-25, the EIR states that the Catalina Mariposa Lily may be present. Is it or isn't it? If there was a detailed study conducted, he stated he would like to know if such things exist and what the impact might be. He further asked about the impact to the City and to the homeowners if the project does not annex to "The Country Estates". Does the City have any obligation to provide for private homeowners or private residential communities to improve their lot. EIR Volume II, Appendix E-1, #3, states that the addition of berms to prevent water from spilling over the face of the slope is important. He asked how the berms are going to be maintained. The EIR discusses erecting walls and that the April 6, 1995 Page 13 drainage should be back to the street. In D.B., a wall of six feet or less does not require a permit. How does the City know the walls are being built and what is the impact when the walls are built. Although the EIR indicates no trees shall be planted on the hillsides, the map shows that trees will be planted on the hillsides. What about slope maintenance areas and are the hillsides being planted or are they not being planted. He asked for an explanation of boring vermin and their impact on the site. With regard to the damaged streets in "The Country Estates", he stated that those are private streets and it is a private matter between the developer and owner of the streets. If the streets are open to public access, then the Council could make a recommendation in support of street repair. VC/Huff expressed concern with the amount of dirt that will be rearranged at the site and the goal to maintain a natural look within that context. The proposed site appears to contain meticulously placed plantings rather than the irregular appearance of a natural site. Although the site proposes to have blended hues of concrete, he indicated he does not recall that this is a part of the current projects. He suggested placing rocks on the site with trees around them for a more natural appearance. With respect to traffic and circulation, according to the revised Draft EIR Volume I, there is no impact. He objected to the proposal of the restriping of D. B. Blvd. to three lanes. C/Fong commented that there is no statement or recommendation in the EIR regarding post construction fill sediment. In addition, he stated that he visited the site and the canyon fill on the west side is for stability. He proposed that a portion of the fill be eliminated and replaced with a shear key along the west side of the project for lots 21 through 26. He indicated he liked Chair/Flamenbaum's suggestion of reducing the number of units and avoiding the fill altogether. He suggested that a condition of approval should be that "a detailed geological mapping and measurement shall be performed during site excavation to confirm the geologic conditions assumed in design and if conditions encountered in the field during construction are different from the conditions during design analysis, that appropriate reanalysis be conducted and that the City Engineer and geotechnical engineer and consultant review the analysis for approval." In addition he suggested that a condition for approval of issuance of a building permit should be that "an as -built geotechnical grading plan showing all limits of engineered fill, compaction tests, stabilization fills, subterranean location and actual geological conditions obtained during site construction and excavation be submitted for review and approval by the City geotechnical consultants. The plan should also April 6, 1995 Page 14 show the elevation of final bottom of excavated areas and shear keys, as well as any required and proven building setbacks as dictated by the geotechnical condition observed during construction." He asked if Harrington re -calculated safety factors for fill slopes (back cuts for stabilization fill using the lower strength parameter) when re- calculating the stability analysis required by Leighton & Assoc. He felt that there was confusion between smectite and bentonite in the report. He believed that bentonite is a clay soil formed from the weathering of volcanic ash and containing a large amount of clay mineral called montmorillonite, which is also called smectite, therefore, montmorillonite and smectite are the same thing. The EIR and the response to the geotechnical questions indicate that the soil is not bentonite but smectite and infers that smectite is a coarser grained material with higher strength. He stated that this may be true for the sample taken in the test which contained greater amounts of stronger constituents; however, in general, the strength of smectite could be much lower if the constituents are weaker. He pointed out that pure smectite is one of the weakest soil materials in existence. He suggested that the vertical down drains be imbedded or buried in a trench under the final graded surface so that they would not be visible. He asked for the basis for the strength of C150 pounds per square foot and 50 degrees. He requested to know the strength parameter used in the adjacent Diamond Ridge tract and wanted to know if Leighton & Assoc. and the developer of Tract 47850 had looked at reports for Diamond Ridge to see if the parameters might be applicable to Tract 47850. He believed that, with proper setbacks and by reducing the number of lots to 37, the grading could be significantly reduced which would minimize the impact to existing vegetation and environment. MPT/Werner was concerned that there is a very generalized discussion of zoning in the EIR and no map showing the zoning as it overlays the site. Currently, three zone categories overlay on the site. These are R-1-8,000, R-1-20,000 and A-2. The A-2 runs co- terminously with the 5 -acre reserved parcel designated NAP (not a part of this project). However, the R-1-8,000 and R-1-20,000 overlay the remainder of the property that is subject to the tract map. The current Draft General Plan designates this entire property (Tract 47850) as RR (Rural Residential) which equates to 1 unit per acre density. The overall project meets this requirement. He requested y more specifics on where the zoning falls and where the lot sizes fall in relation to the zoning. Lot sizes range from 20,000 sq. ft. to more than an acre which net down to 15,246 sq. ft. It exceeds the minimum 8,000 sq. ft. lot size, but falls under the 20,000 sq. ft. lot size if it is in that zone. A zoning overlay would address this question. A April 6, 1995 Page 15 number of lots in the development are proposed to be less than one acre and average about 1/2 acre. He stated that CDD/DeStefano had advised him that lot averaging is permitted under the City's zoning code. He asked to see the wording of the ordinance that enables the lot averaging to occur. He felt he had a gap of understanding between the conditions for approval for Tract Map No. 47851 and what is currently pending for the approval of Tract Map No. 47850. Among the issues that the Council relied upon in denial of this project 1 1/2 years ago was objections from at least one property owner to the grading that was proposed to extend beyond the boundaries of the project. He asked what had been done to resolve this issue. He stated it would be helpful to have the Council minutes of previous meetings involving denial of Tract Map No. 47850 so that the issues can be specifically addressed by staff and the developer in order to demonstrate how they have been resolved. He asked that responses to the issues raised by Mr. Smith be presented to Council. C/Miller stated he does not have the geotechnical report and would -- like a copy in order to formulate his questions which he will put in writing and forward to staff for their response. C/Ansari requested to know why the same amount of grading would be necessary for the project if 15 or 57 homes were placed on this site. She requested written responses to Mr. Smith's questions. She expressed concern about the project because of the amount of movement of dirt, the shear keys and the amount of smectite on the property and what will happen in 10 to 15 years with torrential rains and earth movement She further stated she would like to see fewer houses built on this site. C/Harmony stated the project was denied for geotechnical aspects. He indicated he respects Comm./Fong's comments and that he expects a complete and ft -11 report back to the Council so that, in layman's terms, there is full understanding of Mr. Smith's concerns. He asked for interpretation of the arbitration provision in the Transamerica agreement (TADCO) with "The Country Estates" association as it relates to this project. M/Papen stated that she had reviewed the 31 pages of conditions of approval and did not find a provision for the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation or rubberized asphalt and asked if these are now City standards and no longer need to be specified in the conditions of approval. She wanted to be certain that they are included in this project. She expressed concern about the lack of good faith in the annexation to 'The Country Estates." Annexation April 6, 1995 Page 16 was not written into Tract 47851; however, during public hearings, it was made very clear by the applicant that it was their intention to annex to "The Country Estates." During 7 years of discussion, the annexation has not happened and the buyers awareness package does not indicate a likelihood of this occurring. She requested that a condition of annexation be included in the conditions of approval with removal of the statement that the developer wou!d not have to annex unless the fees were in excess of those applied to Tract No. 47722. She believed the Council listened to the developer and took them at their word that there would be full annexation and they are selling the previously approved tract without having annexed and the lack of good faith to the Council is apparent. She stated the following items should be audited for possible changes in Tract No. 47850: 1) The footprint of the home on the pad. On Tract 47851, the minimum side yard setbacks were changed from 10' to 20', 2) The buyer awareness package contains no home diagrams, 3) wildlife and the City's liability; 4) drainage; 5) When does the developer's 5 -yr. tree maintenance program begin. In previous discussions, one of the alternatives in the EIR was that approximately 15 homes would be built on the northeast corner. Several Commissioners and Council members have asked questions about eliminating the grading on the west side while still allowing the development. She stated she had been told there had not been sufficient soils and grading analysis to make such a determination. She was concerned that an alternative,:" in the EIR states that 15 homes will be built on the northeast section," however, if the soil cannot withstand this construction, is the alternative valid. Land form grading techniques being considered apply to the outside of the project with the pads on a plateau. It appears that this is a giant development surrounded 50 ft. below by a wildlife corridor, oak and walnut trees. There is nothing in the specific project that retains the appearance of country. In her opinion, there should be created hills and berms to create a natural corridor to run through the entire project. She indicated that if Lots 47 and 48 were removed, there would be a natural corridor running the length of the project and if lot 24 was removed, the corridor could be extended west, and if a lot was removed from lot 7 to 13, perhaps a "country atmosphere" could be created within the project. MPT/Werner requested that the builder recommend regulations as part of the development code on the RR designated lands to address the building envelope concerns. Responding to M/Papen, Kurt Nelson stated that the developer would be agreeable to the project being returned to the Planning Commission April 24. Further, questions currently raised by Mr. April 6, 1995 Page 17 Smith were virtually the same questions raised by him on March 11, which should have been answered at that time. He referred the Council and Commission to the written answers given to Mr. Smith's March 11 questions. He indicated that he, Jack Cameron, and Dan Buffington had several meetings with a subcommittee of "The Country Estates," of which Mr. Greely was a member. 'The Country Estates" indicated they were fearful that they might not be able to get the requisite percentage of roads required by their declaration to allow the project to annex. Despite the fact that, as a result of the TADCO agreement, a settlement of approximately $300,000 was paid by D.B. Assoc. (formerly known as Transamerica Developers) to "The Country Estates" to settle the issue of impact upon the recreational facilities of 'The Country Estates". In addition to the lump sum cash payment, a per lot access fee of $3,000 would be paid at the time the lots were developed. There is a covenant that runs with the land and binds every resident in 'The Country Estates" to the contract. "The Country Estates" has canceled at least two scheduled meetings regarding annexation. Annexation would generate approximately $800,000 of funds earmarked to enhance "The Country Estates" facilities. Regarding the alleged street damage, Mr. Nelson stated he had suggested retaining a third party paving expert to determine if there had been any damage. Services of a mutually agreed upon third party were retained and a report was presented to "The Country Estates". He stated 'The Country Estates" rejected the offer of recompense. He further stated he was willing to double and triple the amount to get the annexation done at a fair price. He stressed that D.B. Assoc. had acted in good faith and did not believe the project should be required to annex to 'The Country Estates" even though they believe it is a good option for the project. If annexation does not occur, there is an arbitration clause contained in the TADCO legal settlement that runs with the land. The City has no legal responsibility to enforce annex-ation. He offered to meet with Comm./Fong, Leighton & Assoc. and Harrington Geotechnical prior to the Planning Commission's April 24 meeting to answer questions concerning geotechnical matters. He believed that there is a condition for approval wh'ch addresses reclaimed water, and he is not certain about rubberized asphalt. Regarding the footprints and mansionization, even though annexation had not taken place, there is a good faith review process in place with "The Country Estates" architectural committee. He stated, to his knowledge, a committee review had been conducted for each house prior to submission to the City's Community Development Department for its review. He further stated that, in his opinion, the idea of elimination of some lots to create a more natural corridor is a good one and could have been considered 21/2 years ago; however, the current project conforms to April 6, 1995 Page 18 the Council requirements set forth 2 1/2 years ago for this design alternative. The number of lots is fewer than is allowed by the zoning and the current proposed General Plan. As stated in the Master EIR and the recent update revision, fewer lots would not significantly reduce the amount of grading needed to reach an adequate factor of safety set forth by the Council. Smectite is the on-site material, but the design criteria (the parameters of shear strength, etc.) were for materials of lesser strength more in keeping with the bentonite. The safety factors were derived with strength parameters more conservative than industry standards because at 1.50 strength, it is 1 1/2 times stronger than the minimum necessary. Responding to Mr. Hempel, CM/Belanger stated that the Planning Commission would consider the matter April 24 and, presuming the Commission could reach consensus that evening, he suggested May 16 for Council consideration. A motion was made by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Ansari to refer Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration on April 24, 1995 and continue the matter to May 16, 1995 for Council. Motion was carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner, Ansari, Harmony, Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CM/Belanger responded that the Government Code provides for the Council to refer such matters back to the Planning Commission for their comments. The Commission has up to 45 days to make their comments or by a certain date, if directed by the Council. Further response from the Council indicated that the project is being returned to the Planning Commission for review and open to comments with respect to any and all issues. M/Papen stated the applicants' agreement for continuance of the project as stated in the prior motion. It was moved by Comm./Schad and seconded by VC/Huff to continue the meeting to April 24, 1995 for purposes of commenting on the project. This is not a public hearing. Motion carried 4-0 by the following Roll Call vote: April 6, 1995 Page 19 AYES: COMMISSIONERS - Schad, VC/Huff, Fong, Chair/ Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS - None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS - Meyer 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 5. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was continued to April 24, 1995 for the Planning Commission and May 16, 1995 for the City Counci! af 10:22p. m. LYNDA B RCE,.S, City Clerk ATTEST: Mayor