HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/1998 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AUGUST 18, 1998
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order
at 4:09 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member O'Connor
INVOCATION: Reverend Dennis Stuve, Mt. Calvary
Lutheran Church
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera
Also Present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Amanda Susskind,
Assistant City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; George
Wentz, Director of Public Works; David Liu, Deputy Director of Public
Works; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson,
Communications & Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance
Manager and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Business of the Month:
3.1.2 Presented City Tile to Frank Piermarini, owner of Piermarini
Construction.
3.1.2 Presented City Tile to Specialty Equipment Market Association
(SEMA). Deputy Mark St. Amant thanked SEMA for its efforts
in getting donations for repair of the Crime Prevention
Bureau's Ford Aerostar Van.
3.2 Presented Special Recognition Tile to Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the
City Manager, for her assistance in rescuing the parents of Assistant
City Attorney Amanda Susskind on May 14, 1998 during an
automobile accident.
3.3 INTRODUCED NEW DIAMOND BAR TEAM LEADER FROM
WALNUT SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - Lt. Stothers introduced Tim
Perkins.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Clyde Hennessee expressed frustration
that the Century Communications Preview Channel often runs outdated and
incorrect information. Services that were promised to cable users have not
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 2
been implemented.
Mary Hall, representing the Chamber of Commerce, announced that the
Chamber's next Business Expo on Saturday, October 24, 1998 from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Kmart Shopping Center parking lot. She stated that
flyers had been sent to members of the business community and over 1000
members of the community are expected to participate.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - August 25, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 DIAMOND BAR NIGHT AT THE QUAKES - August 26, 1998 - Bus
Pickup - 5:15 p.m. in front of City Hall - 7:15 p.m., Quakes Stadium.
5.3 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - August 27, 1998- 7:00
p.m., SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 1, 1998 - 6:30 p.m.,
SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - City offices will be closed Monday,
September 7, 1998 in observance of Labor Day. Offices will reopen
Tuesday, September 8, 1998.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by C/Huff, seconded by C/Ansari,
to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 6.4. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES:
6.1.1 Special Meeting of July 30, 1998 - As submitted.
6.1.2 Study Session of August 4, 1998 - As submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of August 4, 1998 - As submitted.
6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES:
6.2.1 Regular Meeting of April 23, 1998.
6.2.2 Regular Meeting of May 28, 1998.
6.2.3 Regular Meeting of June 25, 1998.
6.3 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER dated August 18, 1998 in the
amount of $531,116.07.
6.5 APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH J. MICHAEL HULS,
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 3
R.E.A., TO RESEARCH AND REPORT ON THE SOLID WASTE
STANDARDS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS - Authorized the
Mayor to execute an amendment in an amount not -to -exceed $5,000.
6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-49: A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
ADVANCE AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER 9 WITH
THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY = to fund the
appraisal and economic cost/benefit analysis of Lot 2 located within
the Gateway Corporate Center in the amount of $12,000.
6.7 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH BONTERRA CONSULTING REGARDING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR PROPOSED VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267 (VTTM NO. 52267 - SUN CAL)
- in the amount of $3,950.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.4 AWARD OF CONTRACT TO THE CITY OF BREA FOR
RECREATION SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
In response to C/O'Connor, CM/Belanger explained that the amount
of the insurance premium would not be changed even if the word
"sole" was removed from Section 8(b).
CSD/Rose indicated to C/O'Connor that bids received from local
vendors for purchasing can be broken into categories.
M/Herrera expressed concern about language within the contract that
does not clearly state that the contract may be cancelled at each one
year anniversary of the three year term.
CMBelanger stated that if the contract is not approved by September
1, D.B. will be without a recreation services provider as of September
2, 1998.
Following discussion of contract wording, C/Ansari moved,
MPT/Chang seconded, to approve the contract as amended to read:
'This agreement or any program or service provided hereunder may
be terminated at any time by either party by giving a written notice of
termination to the other party at least 90 days prior to the termination
specified in said notice" and the deletion of "sole" on Page 6 under
Item B. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AUGUST 18, 1998
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
7. OLD BUSINESS:
PAGE 4
COUNCIL MEMBERS -
COUNCIL MEMBERS -
COUNCIL MEMBERS -
Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
None
None
7.1 SECOND READING - ORDINANCE NO. 26B (1989): AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AND THE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
MPT/Chang moved, C/Ansari seconded, to approve second reading
by title only, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 26B(1989).
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
7.2 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03(1998): AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING
CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE 8 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE,
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 11 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE.
Martha Bruske urged that the County Code not be amended and
instead, enforced as written, because it appears that the City's
changes would make things easier for the business community.
Clyde Hennessee said he had observed unhealthy conditions in local
restaurants and believed that the City should not set aside health
considerations.
C/O'Connor, C/Ansari and MPT/Chang explained that the Council's
only adjustment is to allow businesses to request a reinspection in a
shorter amount of time, which does not constitute relaxation of the
health code.
In response to M/Herrera, DCM/DeStefano explained that D.B.'s
proposed Health Code includes the following items that the L.A.
County Health Code does not include: 1) Posting of the letter grade
card within Sof the food establishment's front door and plainly visible
AUGUST 18, 1998
PAGE 5
to patrons, and 2) shortening of the reinspection time period.
C/O'Connor moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to approve second
reading by title only, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No.
3(1998). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
8. NEW BUSINESS:
0
PUBLIC HEARING:
COUNCIL MEMBERS -
COUNCIL MEMBERS -
COUNCIL MEMBERS -
None
Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
None
None
9.1 RESOLUTION NO. 98-50: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FINDING THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP
LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089.
M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing.
There being no testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the Public
Hearing.
C/O'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 98-49
declaring the City to be in conformance with the Congestion
Management Program. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
C/Ansari stated that on Friday, August 7, she attended a "People in
Government" meeting concerning the regional transportation plan. It is
anticipated that the Federal Government will release $68,000,000 for
improvement to the SR57/60 interchange. She asked that CM/Belanger look
into the matter. She reported on the September 27, 1998 opening of the
new Ontario Airport terminals. She further stated that she and C/O'Connor
recently attended a Contract Cities meeting. She indicated that she had
expressed to SCAG her concern that the ports of Long Beach and L.A. are
AUGUST 18, 1998
PAGE 6
not open 24-hrs/day, seven days a week which may affect the planning of
truck routes and truck lanes through the Alameda Corridor. She attended
the Library reopening and reported that the Senior Citizens have extended
an invitation to all Council Members to attend their Luau on Thursday,
August 20 at 11:30 a.m.
MPT/Chang said that the senior citizens are very concerned about a senior
center. He reportedly told them that a Senior Center, combined with a
Community Center is a high priority goal for Council. He further stated that
the senior citizens have asked if it is possible to expand the current facility.
He spoke about the meeting he, CM/Belanger and CMD/Nelson held with
Regal Theater personnel. Further meetings are scheduled for next week.
He attended the Library reopening, which he believed was a very good joint
effort between the City, L.A. County and Friends of the Library. He extended
a special thank you to the Chinese Association and Chinese School for
donating in excess of 400 books to the library.
M/Herrera spoke about the Council Members attending the rededication of
the Library, which was well attended by community members as well as
Supervisor Knabe and Assemblyman Gary Miller. It was a wonderful project
on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency, the County and Friends of the
Library. The project was well received by the public. She has extended an
invitation to Assembly Member Sally Havis to attend the September 1
Council Meeting in order to honor her with a City Tile in gratitude for all of
her fine efforts in opposing S.B. 2010. Assembly Member Havice has
accepted the City's invitation.
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Ansari announced that she has established her headquarters for her
Congressional campaign, indicated that she will be very busy and begged
the Council's indulgence.
C/O'Connor congratulated the D.B. Senior Little League team, which is
competing in the second round of the Senior Little League World Series.
Final games will be held on Saturday and the Council will honor the team on
September 1. She thanked the many volunteers who have contributed to the
group's success.
MPT/Chang also congratulated the D.B. Senior Little League team and
congratulated staff on the Concerts in the Park series and the quality of the
performers. The final concert was held last Wednesday. Each concert
enjoyed about 800 to 1000 attendees who appeared to enjoy the
performances.
M/Herrera reminded Council that the Contract Cities barbecue would be held
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 7
the next day at the Pitchess Detention Center. The bus leaves at 4:00 p.m.
She commended staff for the wonderful Concerts in the Park series. She
stated that "Alturas" was outstanding. She said that many residents who
attended the series commented that it was a wonderful opportunity for the
community to come together and rebuild community spirit and camaraderie.
Everyone she spoke with stated that all of the groups that participated in this
year's series were very good.
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 5:20 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 5:27 p.m.
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 5:27 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 6:44 p.m.
9. PUBLIC HEARING/WORKSHOP:
9.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING/WORKSHOP - VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 98-03, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 98-01 AND ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-02 (SCH 97031005).
Following presentation by staff and representatives from the City's
EIR consultant, Bonterra Consulting, the Public Hearing was
reopened by M/Herrera.
Don Gravdahl: "Madam Mayor, Council Members. Last Thursday or
Friday we had delivered to our door about four pounds of paper and
I went through this as well as I could and after looking at the various
projects that were outlined in that packet, I still favor what I saw on
the 7th of July's meeting - the 130 project site. I think that would be
a good one for the City. It appears to be something that the
homeowners will enjoy living in. It is off of the street and I think it
could do an excellent job. However, I have a caveat. As I recall, if
this project were to go forward the builder was going to deed the
balance of the land to the City as open space and in addition, give the
City $250,000 for whatever - recreation services or whatever for the
benefit of the community. And very frankly, that evening I think I
made a statement of getting all you can from the builder. This
evening, I would like to quantify what I didn't quantify that evening.
Our community is, shall we say, somewhat disconnected. There's
been parts added to it when it was incorporated. It has spread out
into several areas. We have two different school districts that are tied
in geographically in the City and everything else. What we need, I
feel, is a large community building - one that is a multi-purpose
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 8
building, one that is used for the general public and the City of
Diamond Bar. In addition to the $250,000 1 feel that going from 50
lots which is obviously what the builder would get on Lot 6 without
doing any other grading or anything else, and going to 130 lots, the
difference in the lot situation, if you were to approve the larger
project, behooves that builder to build that building in addition to this
project. Now, I believe there is part of this project, or part of that
vacant land that is laying along Diamond Bar Boulevard; there is a
part of it that goes off from Grand Avenue and in the general area of
Shotgun, in that area, where either one of those sites would not
impact a residential neighborhood for putting a building in of that size
and to have local neighborhoods use that building. And that's my
caveat for putting together a 130 unit site. I thank you."
Bob Schwartz, 24038 Highcrest Drive: "Good evening, and I want to
thank you very much for letting me address you in this forum. I've
had an opportunity to look over the plans briefly in the last couple of
days, and it certainly shows that the developer has looked at some
alternates, going from 130 homes, and also showing that he's looked
at a 53 home, 120 home and a 113 home type of development. But
it doesn't necessarily say that while he's taken the effort to do that,
that that is the best that can be done for that kind of a development.
I live off of Highcrest right now and obviously, I like to see whatever -
I'm not against the development of that land on Lot 6. What I want to
see is I want to see the best development that can go in there that's
going to be reflective of what's beneficial to the City that's not going
to be tearing up the hillsides and the slopes, that's not going to cause
traffic impacts. The things that really concern me are, you know,
obviously noise issues, safety issues, sliding issues. What I'm asking
of you is to say, listen ... as a developer, limit yourself to Lot 6 which
is your right to build on. But let's not trade away the other kinds of
things that we've got for a mere $250,000 and to take on the
additional liabilities that we take as a City when they donate that kind
of land to us because then it becomes our responsibility. Some of the
issues they're talking about, well, we're looking at a 14 degree, a 14
percent grade on the new development. And Highcrest, er, Goldrush,
is, as he says, about a 14 percent grade. That's really steep. That's
really nothing to be overly proud of. If you lived off of that street
which I don't, but you notice that cars going up that street have to
really rev their engines to get there. It's steep, it's noisy. There's no
way that once these guys have put the development in that it's not
going to be a daily type thing. Just the normal traffic going up that
kind of grade is loud. There's no way you can avoid that. Anytime
you have a steep slope, that's the way it is. I'd like to see the City
look at this in terms of acting like this is be good businessmen. Be
smart and be wise and judicious in the negotiations that you
undertake. Obviously, that you have a negotiation that you're going
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 9
on. The builder has offered a certain amount of money and a certain
piece of land. That land is worth certainly a lot more than the quarter
of a million dollars and we ought to be entitled to it. But we ought to
look at it in terms of we have Lot 6 - let's build within Lot 6 and do the
best that you can within that. The layout of that map that shows the
placement of the water towers and all those. other homes, I mean,
there's other opportunities to be able to grade and there's other
choices that they can make. It's just that they ought to be staying
within the confines of that. One of the things that's true when you
have very, very steep manufactured slopes is, it's very difficult to
landscape. If you go on hills like Goldrush, you'll notice that
homeowners have a difficult time trying to maintain any kind of a
landscape on a steep hill. And that's because manufactured hills
have landscaping which is typically not native to it and as a result, it
doesn't stick. There may be a couple of seasons that it will be there
but that's about it. We don't need to have slopes that steep and I
think that they can design around that. Anyway, I want to thank you
very much. That was all I had."
Sam Saffari: Mrs. Mayor, member of the City Council. I'd like to ask
before I start. Is this the workshop part of this meeting because are
we still limited with the five minutes and what is the difference
between the workshop and what we normally do on a City Council
meeting?
M/Herrera: "The workshop part of it is that we are taking additional
greater time to ask questions and review information but yes, you're
still limited to five minutes."
Sam Saffari: "Okay. Thank you. My name is Sam Safarri. I reside
at 24075 Highcrest. I'm an 11 year resident of Diamond Bar. I'm
making five very quick points since I have five minutes. The General
Plan requires the owner of this land to give up 75 percent of this land
when they build this land. Therefore, when the developer dedicates
this land to the City of Diamond Bar they are following the rule, they
are not doing us a favor. And when they do so, two things occur:
One, the City of Diamond Bar takes over the burden of liability and
tax, fire hazard, and too, the assessment district, which, when making
the main consideration for the future of this situation, when your costs
increase for upkeep of that land, you cannot arbitrarily increase it -
you have to go to a vote of the people and that's going to become a
very big problem. So therefore, the developer is actually should
thank us for taking this land off of their hand and they should pay us,
really, for taking this land off of their hand. They are not doing us a
favor - we are doing them a favor. That's very important to remember.
My second point is, the $250,000 the builder is giving us for
developing 133 homes is short by $4,750,000 for the Lot 6 and
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 10
getting out of Lot 6. If you take any number for a good land in
Diamond Bar and multiply the number of acres they are getting out of
Lot 6 the 133 original plan, they should pay us $5,000,000, not
$250,000 as a City. My third point is, the builder and, in particular,
Todd Kurtin, has mentioned to me and my wife and we pointedly
asked him, if you are forced to build on Lot 6, would you? He said
"no". And builder's engineer who is also in attendance today and he's
on audio and video tape last City Council told you that he, if it was to
be developed only on Lot 6 he will not wanting to build it. So there is
something here already against building in Lot 6 from both the
developer and his engineer. My fourth point is, most of the responses
from the City staff, City Attorneys and Council has always been to
answer the residents without taking any consideration which one of
our points are correct. What basically we hear and see on your
papers coming back to us is the staff and your Council telling us why
this project should go through as the builder wants it and not why the
people of Diamond Bar are right. So sometimes I believe the people
of Diamond Bar should be considered and their points should be
considered by the City staff in their writing and when they present this
to you that why we may be right and the builder may be wrong. My
fifth point and last point is that directly relates to my last point is, the
City Council of Diamond Bar and its members are not judges. As
Council Member Huff mentioned in the last meeting which he
compared you to them - to a judge. If there are two groups such as
the builder and such as us, the residents who are worried about this
project come before you and give you options that are legal and
within parameters, we believe that you who are the City of Diamond
Bar Council Members, your decisions should favor us, the Diamond
Bar residents. When everything is equal, the balance should favor
toward us. And when they do so, it is then you are the ones who
have been voted into office by us because you're looking after our
interest, not a company who is in business for profit and is not part of
Diamond Bar, is not a resident of Diamond Bar and has no dealings
in Diamond Bar and the minute that they finish and they reap their
benefits, they're out of here. So the people who are watching us in
their homes right now - there are many peoples I found out that they
do. And many of these peoples do watch because they did vote for
you. They would like you to hear them. That's why I brought a six
inch thick 2,000 - and it's in your hands - petitions of these people
who are sitting at home watching and listening to this. This is going
to effect them. This is in the heart of the City of Diamond Bar and
they will all see and remember what you vote for. Thank you very
much."
George Davidson: "Madam Mayor, Council Members. Please don't
start the clock. I'm going to open up some maps. (Pause) Okay.
Sorry about that. First of all I want to say that I appreciate the
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 11
opportunity for this format today. I understand that it's suppose to be
interactive. Is that correct?"
M/Herrera: "Well, it's interactive in the sense that we are going to
continue to take public comment, but it is also interactive in the sense
that this is now the time for the Council to ask back and forth
questions, not the public ask back and forth questions."
George Davidson: "Just wanted a clarification. My concern with this
plan as you all know, and I've spoken with everybody now, my
concern has always been with this plan to get the best development
for Diamond Bar, what would be the best development. I haven't
wavered in that. And the concerns that we had before was to get a
development within Lot 6 and a proposal has been submitted to you
all and I do appreciate the fact that the City got copies out to many of
the concerned citizens. Really. I mean, that was great. But I have
some concerns regarding this development again. I just want the best
possible development. And looking at this particular development, it
just seems that there might have been, there's some differences.
First question that I do have, and I don't know if I can get this
answered now, but it says here, a geotechnical setback line. I never
saw this before on any other development proposal and I don't know
what that is. Why wasn't it on any of the other plans and what does
it mean. Is there any way I can get an answer?"
M/Herrera: "Well, I think Mr. DeStefano referenced that, that you
can't really go where your fingers are. You can't go above that point
without involving the whole area way up above the boundary line
that's going into the other lot. You can't do something with just the
top section, you've got to involve the whole greater area and I believe
that's what Mr. DeStefano said."
George Davidson: "Okay. The questions that I have concerning this
plan are, and again, looking at the plan I want to see a good
development within Lot 6. 1 know that many of the Council Members
said they were concerned to get a realistic plan. And it seems as
though maybe a different mindset was being used and I'll give you an
example if you can zoom in on this plan here. Here's the original
proposal before you. You notice, for instance, the water tank here on
this particular proposal is way down here in the lower right hand
corner. It's not obstructing any views or anything like that. I have
concern why in this particular proposal the water tank is smack in the
middle. Is this the water tank that sits above the ground? If it sits
above the ground, wouldn't that impede many of the views here for
the houses that are within this particular development proposal?
Also, 1 notice that there's only 53 houses and I'm curious to know, is
that the maximum amount of houses that SunCal can develop within
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 12
Lot 6? 1 don't know that, but I'd like to know if this is the best possible
development proposal before them."
M/Herrera: "Well, and that goes back to what Mr. DeStefano said
earlier. At the top portion you can't develop the top corner without
involving the greater corner that's outside of the line and I think
probably the same thing goes for the bottom portion. And you've got
to involve the grading and stabilization in the entire area so you're
going outside of Lot 6, then."
George Davidson: "Right. I just wanted the clarification, though, that
this would be the absolute best plan...
M/Herrera: "Yes."
George Davidson: "Okay. We've taken the time - we've got
somebody here today from the Stevens Planning Group and one
other thing - we haven't really had a lot of time to review this. I'm
hoping that we're going to get some more time, maybe another
chance to discuss this like in the open forum that we're doing today.
But anyway, he'll speak later on. He might have some real good
feedback for us. A couple of other quick issues that I had regarding
the open space plan. In the response that City Attorney had given,
I noticed that the no time frame, the statement that there was no time
frame put on the open space plan and that was why that they didn't
feel they had to have an open space plan. I just would like to say that
it would make logical sense that you would want to develop an open
space plan before you actually destroyed some of that open space.
I mean, you don't build a house and then build the blue prints. So I
think logically, maybe we might want to consider that. And the last
thing that I wanted to reiterate that Mr. Saffari had brought up was the
$250,000. We're talking about the original plan of 130 acres, I mean
130 houses. That's 19 acres of prime land in Diamond Bar. What is
the fair market value for something like that. I believe it might be a
considerable arnount higher than $250,000."
A.J. Wilson, Pomona Unified School District: (Using an overhead
exhibit with copies to each City Council Member). "I'm A.J. Wilson
representing the Pomona Unified School District. And we are here
tonight just simply to try to make the point that as you continue your
work with the developer that we would hope that you would cooperate
with us in trying to require that the developer complete conversations
that they've had in the past with the district to work out mitigation of
potential school impacts. We know that here in Diamond Bar your
citizens and yourselves have been very, very active in supporting our
efforts to provide adequate school facilities. Mayor and Mrs.
O'Connor, you were very active in the last campaign that we had on
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 13
the Bond issue which was thankfully successful to the tune of 70
percent throughout the entire district which is the highest vote count
we've ever had in the history of the district as far as a Bond issue.
The problem that we're really faced with is that in spite of that
success, we continue to be faced with a limited level of State funding
and a structure of local government funding for schools that requires
truthfully, a partnership between City government and your school
districts. And the reason I say that is that with the State mandated
fee cap, the only way to make sure that there is full ultimate
mitigation, is for the cooperation of the cities where the districts are
located to require through your General Plan process that there be
mitigation for the remainder of the impacts. Because we were
successful on the Bond issue, there will be less impact fiscally than
there would have been otherwise. And we have said throughout our
work and I want to say to you that SunCal was kind enough to send
a representative for a number of months to a working group that we
had, so we certainly appreciate the fact that they have been a
development company that has shown a sensitivity to the importance
of educational facilities. The other issues you're going to be looking
at, obviously we're not involved in. It's a pleasure as an old City
Manager to sit in the back and hear a community concerned about
quality issues. I haven't always heard that when I sat in Mr.
Belanger's seat and it's nice to hear that Diamond Bar focuses on
those issues. But I guess our message is education needs to be on
the top of that list and we want to make sure even as we're
committing funds through the Pantera School construction and also
through Diamond Ranch High School which finally responds to a
need for secondary education that each developer throughout the
district have a fair share participation in that process where State and
local bond funds are insufficient to meet that need. I've simply
brought an old exhibit that we use to show you the problem of funding
and then I'll leave it in your hands and be happy to work with you and
your staff in greater detail because certainly this is not the time and
place to work out the specifics. What this exhibit tries to show is that
when we did a previous study in 1993 that the average cost per unit
throughout the Pomona Unified School District for educational
facilities was over $10,000. That presumes that each housing unit of
an average of 1700 square feet created .6 students per house.
Obviously that didn't mean that there were truncated kids, it meant
that that was an average throughout the district. With that
relationship and the existing fee at the time of $1.84 that has been
slightly incrementally increased, the fees actually produced by that
housing unit were $3,100, meaning that the gap was about $7,000.
Now State funding ends up, practically speaking, with a cap of 50
percent because you cannot be competitive for State funding beyond
the point of 50 percent. So we end up with a gap which we show here
at the bottom and that is, if we take the existing fee level of about
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 14
$3400, if we presume that the average amount of money that we have
been receiving from the State program is $2,200 - and in the past we
had shown some funds from South Garey Redevelopment Agreement
with the City of Pomona which unfortunately have been zeroed out,
but I adjusted the chart that you have to reflect an increase of
participation from the previously and recently passed Bond issue.
We still end up with a gap of about $6,800 which leaves us an
underfunded level per housing unit of about $3,500 which means that
we still need to capture approximately $2.00 per square foot. We're
not suggesting necessarily that be a fee, we're suggesting a way of
jointly participating with the development community in negotiating a
satisfactory approach to that and we're simply asking as you work on
this Tentative Map if you would reinforce to the SunCal company to
continue with us to see if we can't work out a satisfactory way to
address that gap that exists in financing. That's our testimony
tonight. Thank you very much."
Tom Windham: "Madam Mayor and Council Members. I'm here in
favor of the SunCal project and what I find troubling is that these
people already own this land and we have a lot of people here tonight
thinking that they should pay more money for this land. And
(dis)agree. I would like to see what the first gentleman said, I'd like
to see a town center meeting hall also, but is it fair to ask them to
build it? I don't think so. It seems like a lot of people are upset that
these gentlemen or this company might make a profit. I don't think
that we should be looking at that. I think what we should be looking
at is one, the tax dollars that are going to be generated by more
people coming here to Diamond Bar. I own a business in Diamond
Bar. I would sure like to see more people coming in and spending
more money at my place of business. 2, they've offered $250,000.
That might not seem like much, but eventually, in my experience, this
land is going to be built on. And if we send them off and don't allow
them to build and they don't build, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, maybe fifty
years down the road, somebody else is going to get this land and a
new Council Member, new Council people, new homeowners are
going to allow them to build and the City might not get anything out
of this project. 360 plus acres given to the City. From my
understanding and from my review of the records and things, they're
going to put some trails in it and everything, and I think that's
something that this City needs. It's the first time I've heard anybody
in this City get up and actually speak against open space. Every time
I've watched City Council meetings, everybody's talking about more
dedication of open space. It's a gated community. That means it
probably won't cost the City anything to maintain the roads and the
lighting and the hillsides and things that are inside the gate. I think
this is a great project. I speak in favor of it and thank you for this
time."
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 15
Thom Pruitt: "Good evening, Madam Mayor, City Council Members.
I also speak very much in favor of this project. I've had an opportunity
to speak with most of our civic leaders here in the City, City
administrators who are involved with analyzing this project. Also,
Council Members. I've also had an opportunity to meet on numerous
occasions with SunCal developers along with leaders of other
organizations here within the City who have particular concerns about
the open space and both passive and active recreational needs and
preferences of our citizens. I've had an opportunity to review much
of the documentation - pretty much all of it that's been presented and
prepared concerning this project. And, as it turns out, my own
personal determination is very much in line with the response that our
City Attorney has provided to the legal representatives of the people
involved with the organization called Raid??? The response from the
City Attorney is very specific to specific items raised in letters from the
Raid?? legal representatives item by item and very clearly, the project
as proposed by SunCal clearly is within the provisions of the General
Plan of the City of Diamond Bar and also the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan specifically referred to in the Land Use Element and the
Resource Management Element in Planning Area II of the Land Use
Element. In terms of the involvement of SunCal in the City, it has
been my direct experience to find out that this is not an organization
that's in and out of the City just trying to make a profit but in fact, is a
good friend of the City and for some time has been very much
involved with various organizations in a support role - very strong
support role. I won't go into the details of all of those activities, but
they are known to many of us within the City. I've met with, again as
I said, leaders of other organizations along with the SunCal people
and we have found them to be very definite and very responsible in
not only making commitments to become involved with the long and
short term needs of the residents of our City but they've backed up
those commitments in my experience one hundred percent. Thank
you very much."
Marty Torres: "Good Evening. My name is Marty Torres and I'm a
Diamond Bar resident. I live on Highcrest which is near the epicenter
of all of this that's going to happen. I just want to thank the Council
and the staff for all of the information. I appreciate that. That packet
that we received last week. That's great and in the spirit of full
disclosure it was just nice to be a part of the process. I just had a few
comments. One, on traffic, the discussion regarding that about the
significant threshold would not be exceeded but that doesn't mean
zero impact. And I think that's important because what impact is
significant depending on what assessment or what assumptions you
use. And the statement was mentioned that on Highcrest itself
there'd only be a 10 percent increase and that was thought not to be
very significant. But the issue with that is that you really have a
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 16
neighborhood there, and Diamond Bar is really infamous for cut -
through traffic, and although someone can get up here and say that
because it's a circuitous route you won't really find traffic movement
down to Diamond Bar, but the bottom line is it is circuitous and it is a
little bit longer, but if you're going 45 to 50 miles an house, I mean,
you can get there quickly. So you have to really look at the cost of
one, monitoring that and the cost of enforcement. I don't know if we
want to have our law enforcement people be traffic cops as opposed
to other activities in the City, although that would increase revenue I
would imagine. Another issue is the dust threshold. Although one of
the presenters said that 150 pounds a day is easy to exceed, you
know it's still a standard and I don't know if that's enough in anyone's
mind to stop a project. I mean, that's an opinion. And the health risks
are directly related - I would agree with that. You know, long term this
is going to be a three or four month grading project when all that dust
hits us. But again, the issue with that is that you have these
conditions and laws that people are well thought out based on grade
engineering assumptions, but who's going to monitor the stoppage of
that once you exceed the threshold. We're not really set up to do
that. I mean when the Santa Ana's blow, I'd like to know who's the
officer in charge of going out with a stop order on the project. You
know, that's never going to happen. That's just reality. And I'm sure
people are going to wet down the project and mitigate the dust, but
again, who's going to monitor that? I mean, we're just not set up to
do that. That's just something, again, that in the total scheme of
things I think it has to be considered. Whether it's enough it's a
knockout or not that's anyone's opinion. But I'm bringing up these two
points because in terms of my support for this project I think we I
support it as long as it's say, Lot 6 only. Because that's their legal
right. I support their legal right a hundred percent. If they make
money off it, great. That's the American way. But again, I think we
should give the developer what they legally have rights to. I don't
want them spilling over into other lots. Another reason I think for this
I'm a little concerned about the staging area and there's an issue of
Highcrest at the cul-de-sac - they call it the terminus - versus down
on Diamond Bar, but I understand the efficiency related with grading
from up high to down below. But the issue there is that you have a
neighborhood at the terminus of Highcrest. And if you use that as a
staging area - they say about 11 months time frame , and whether it's
10 months, 12 months, I think that's irrelevant. But just that area, you
have really a neighborhood there with children and families and
you're going to ruin the integrity of the neighborhood. And to me the
safety concerns of having children on bikes in that neighborhood far
overrides cars traversing Diamond Bar Boulevard because they would
be forced to have stop men and of course there's going to be traffic
flow problems down below, but you don't have families walking on
Diamond Bar Boulevard. You certainly don't have children
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 17
skateboarding, rollerblading. So to me, the traffic risks are much less
severe in terms of personal injury down on Diamond Bar Boulevard
than they would be having that heavy equipment in a residential area.
And that's something to consider. And to me, that's going to be the
cost of their project. They have to budget for that. That's just the cost
of doing business. Unfortunately the grading is an area of concern -
Goldrush - I feel sorry for our residents that live there. It's 14 percent.
14 percent is no great thing to brag about if it's your street. But
unfortunately, the project variations that were presented in that matrix
quote 14 percent in all of the different variations. I support a Lot 6
only project. Unfortunately, in the opinion of the people that
presented that matrix, that Lot 6 only has the greater proportion of a
14 percent grade. That's unfortunate, but if there's something that
can be done to mitigate that then that is great. But the bottom line is
that I support the builder in their efforts to build a beautiful plan on
what they have a legal right to do with Lot 6. And thank you for the
time."
Sandy Erickson: 'Thank you very much City Council Members. I, like
the rest of the people I guess who spoke at the last couple of
meetings received a package like this on like Thursday or Friday at
my home. And I've gone through it as best as I can. I would certainly
appreciate more time to look it over and to digest what I have here.
What I keyed in and concentrated on though, was the comparative
environmental evaluation that was.done by Bonterra Consulting. And
the one thing that caught my eye immediately out of this was their
own verbiage that says the Lot 6 alternative is more consistent with
the goals, objectives and strategies of the City of Diamond Bar
General Plan. Because of its compliance with applicable map
restrictions the Lot 6 alternative has been designed to be compatible
with surrounding areas, retains the majority of attractive permanent
open space by clustering the residences, is of the same density as
surrounding developments, limits grading and development activities
within the boundaries of Lot 6 and incorporates a mitigation program
to revegetate graded areas consistent with natural materials on the
project site. As I went through and I looked at this and I tried to keep
an open mind as to looking at the 130 versus containing it all in Lot
6 each and every aspect of the concerns of the citizens were
mitigated by wholly containing the project within Lot 6. Each and
every one of them. If you look at this, the grading is reduced by over
50 percent, traffic is reduced by over 50 percent, the dust particles
reduced by over 50 percent, simply by wholly containing it within the
Lot 6 perspective which is what the citizens have been up here saying
all along is present us something within Lot 6 and let us look at that.
Well, they finally have done it and now we see that if we were to take
and do a matrix and show side by side, what are the significant
benefits by allowing them to go out of Lot 6 versus containing them
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 18
within Lot 6. What is the significant benefit to the City by allowing
that? I couldn't see it. Not in this, anyway. And I'm sure if I did a
matrix and presented it to our 100,000 plus, however many citizens
we had and asked which of these would you rather see in your City,
they would probably say, well, contained within Lot 6 given the
parameters of going outside of Lot 6 and the resulting negative things
that happen by allowing them to go outside of Lot 6. And you've got
it too, so I don't need to go step by step, but you can see just how
much everything is mitigated by containing them within Lot 6 which is
their right. It's there right to build there. Whether or not what they
propose to us is the best they can do within Lot 6 1 don't know. I
haven't had an engineer look at it to say no, they could do this, they
could do that by reducing the lot to the 10,000 square foot size; they
could indeed build 70 homes, 75 homes, 90 homes, I don't know. It's
interesting that when we did adopt the 130 project it seemed as
though there were only about 40 houses that's built off into the
adjoining lots. There were about 90 homes contained within Lot 6.
And I understand the grading has something to do with also. But I
just don't know. I'm not an expert. And I would hope that you, as
stewards of our City would make them prove or maybe get a second
opinion as to whether or not this is the best design within wholly
contained within Lot 6. Is it? Do we take their word for it or do we get
a second opinion similar to what we do with a medical condition. We
go get a second opinion. Is this the best? Again, looking at it I didn't
see, I mean we're in order to lift the map restrictions I understand we
have to have significant benefit to the City. $250,000 to me is not a
significant benefit. Allowing them to build 53 houses or 70 houses is
not a significant benefit. The open land comes back to us if we want
it which is another decision you're going to have to make. Do we
really want it? Do we want the liability? Do we want the upkeep
costs that are entailed with it? Actually, we get more open space
deeded back to us if we want it with the project being wholly
contained within Lot 6. We get an additional, I don't know, 30 some
acres that come back to us. So as far as the issue of open space and
what we get and that being part of our General Plan, we get more by
containing them within Lot 6. So that to me is a plus to having it
contained. That's it. Thank you."
Ron Tehran: "Good evening Council Members, ladies and
gentlemen. One question. Some people that they come and say
good thing about this project they don't indicate their address. Is
there any exception between pro and con? Does it seem that they
follow the same rules that we have to follow. My name is Ron
Tehran, I live in 745 View Lane. I hear people that they come in and
talk about the project and they are for the project - they don't say their
address. Very unusual. As you can see and everybody indicated, we
have the plan for 53 lots - an alternative. As you can see, this is
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 19
much better, safer and less destructive than 130 unit; 50 percent less
grading instead of 1.8 million cubic yard only 900,000 cubic yard.
Still a big magnitude but at least cut in half; 50 percent less
destruction; 50 percent less pollution and dust; 50 percent less
contamination; 50 percent less destruction of valuable oak tree and
walnut tree that cannot be replaced, and habitat area with corridor
between Lot 5 and 7. As you can see there's a big portion that they
leave open. So this lot is not an island so there is an open space
passing through. By the 130 that they had only a little bit of space on
the top. This lot is very steep. Per hillside grading practices and
ordinance every two acre should be only one lot allowed to build.
They have about 40 acre divided by two - that should give them 20
lots for this type of hillside. If not, maybe 30. Only on the ridgeline.
Not super pad extended few hundred feet from each direction which
masquerading of super build of 8 million cubic yards. They talk about
ridgeline - building on ridgeline. This is a ridgeline. They're building
close to the ridgeline. The other proposed 130 unit, they are super
pad. They are not building on the ridgeline. Building on the ridgeline
is minimized grading to build the house on the pad. Not going a
couple hundred feet either direction is a super pad to build so many
houses. That's not building on the ridgeline. That's masquerading
super build. Council should decide whether $250,000 is significant
benefit to the City by allowing ??8 million cub yard of grading. The
residents, they have much more medical problem and cost than that.
Everyone know if you approve this project you are condemning
children, elderly and sick residents to suffer and pay a lot more
money than you call benefit $250,000. That would be nothing,
insignificant compared to the medical problem that everyone is going
to have and the cost associated with that. And the suffering. We
have you here to look for our welfare and safety - not some
entrepreneur money -making with good connections. As you have
seen, people with expertise that they live in the neighborhood beg
you not to approve this magnitude grading same as EIR document
recognizing that. If you approve, you are condemning the residents
with no choice beside the legal action. Now one question that the
staff indicated there is no emergency access or secondary access for
this proposal 50 units. I think that to solve they can have a paved
road graded to Highcrest for emergency access. That doesn't seem
to be a big problem to solve. They don't need to have a cul-de-sac.
They could have emergency road graded only for emergency vehicle.
That should not be any problem as far as this plan concerned. There
was another point brought up that there are residents next to
Diamond Bar Boulevard which they don't like. They can reduce that.
Eliminate this section. That would eliminate the residents next to
Diamond Bar Boulevard. This plan is good. We can work with it. But
it does not have any negative benefit. If they want to they can adjust
it to make it work. Is that the five minutes?"
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 20
M/Herrera: "Yes it is. But before you leave, the Council would like to
know if you have left with City staff, a copy of the deed you showed
us at the July 7 meeting. You put on the overhead a copy of the deed
restriction. Did you leave a copy with us?"
Ron Tehran: "No I didn't."
M/Herrera: "Can you do that today please?"
Ron Tehran: "I don't have a copy with me but I believe the City, your
staff have access to the same document that I have. They should be
able to find the same document."
M/Herrera: "Well, in the event that they can't, would you leave us a
copy please?"
Ron Tehran: "I can look for it."
M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that."
Kevin Johnson, Attorney with Johnson & McCarthy: "Good evening
Mayor, Members of the Council. Kevin Johnson with the firm of
Johnson & McCarthy, 550 West C Street, Suite 1150, San Diego,
California. I don't want to thank you for sending that big package of
materials to me. It was, frankly, a big pain to get and to go through.
No, actually, seriously I do appreciate the work and effort that's gone
into this in terms of looking into some of these issues that were raised
earlier and I know everybody's struggling to make the right decision.
want to comment initially on the Lot 6 only alternative. I was very
happy with the results of the last meeting when the Council said we
need to look at a Lot 6 only alternative and we need to look at it very
carefully. And I told my clients though, right afterward you'd better be
careful with that because what I've seen in the past happen before is
that the alternative is designed to fail. And I would respectfully submit
that this particular alternative that has been given to you has been
designed to fail. It in many respects stands out as I think a kind of a
brilliant strategic maneuver because you can say gee, we went to all
this effort to show that there be a 50 percent reduction here and a 50
percent reduction there, and a 60 percent reduction there, but
ultimately we think the Council's going to say but they're entitled to a
130 units and boy, we're going to have to give them something like
that so we can't take them down as low as 53 so obviously 53 goes
out the door. That would be how I read the strategy behind that
particular alternative. Now, hold that thought for a minute and let's
assume that the 53 units is the very best that they think they can get
without going through this massive grading and without going out
onto Lots 5 and 7. Now let's assume too that when they bought this
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 21
property they looked at it - that they surveyed it - that they saw that
there was a landslide in that area - they saw that there were going to
be problems but going beyond the basic building area that they've
outlined in the 53 unit objective. So then they went ahead and they
bought it with the understanding that there were constraints on that
property and they understood that the General Plan said that they
were suppose to build only with Lot 6. They paid 2.7 million dollars
as I understand for the land which works out to about $50,000 per lot.
50,000 by 53 by my calculations is about 2.7 million. Now land to
sale price ratios typically are in the 8 to 10 to one ratio so that if you
bought a piece of land for $50,000 a lot and you were going to sell it
at say 8 times that you'd market the home built on it for $400,000. So
they paid, under this scenario, $50,000 a lot. If they're going to
market the homes for $400,000 they are selling it then - the land and
the new home, right within that standard ratio of 8 to 1. That would
have been their expectation when they bought the property and they
planned to build. Now, enter the salesmanship and the politics.
We're going to parlay this investment. We want better than an 8 to
1 ratio. And I don't mean to be too sarcastic about this because the
profit motive and the plan and the goal to make more money and to
get a better deal is something that's out there and is what makes our
country great. But it's your job, and a very difficult one it is, to
balance the drive and the energy and the salesmanship of private
industry against the long-term interests of the City and its citizens.
Now, what they want you to do now is, they don't want you to say
build 53 homes here, they want you to say build 130. That takes the
ratio to about 20 to 1. Each lot at 130 lots is about $_20,000. Now
that's quite a deal. So that, I submit to you for purposes of
discussions, is a type of analysis and expectation that these people
would have when they buy this land and they come forward to you to
convince you that now they need to get 130 units on this particular
property. Getting that much benefit - if they can get it, it's great, more
power to them. But what is the price that the City is going to pay as
a result of giving them all of these extra units? You're going to set a
precedence of saying when we have land that is restricted and you
can't build on it you're going to tell the world and every future
developer that comes along that it's okay to come in and try to
convince us that we should give away this land to facilitate your
development. And trust me, it's going to happen. Once you lift deed
restrictions of land that is open space that's going to happen. And if
you don't give the same type of treatment to the next person who
comes along they're going to yell at you and they're going to say,
they're not going to yell at you but they may suggest to you forcefully
that how come you let this person do this and you don't let us do this.
And for those of you who have been around in the land use process
you know that those types of arguments do come up. You're treating
them differently than you're treating us. Why is that? They try and
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 22
put you on the defensive so that you go ahead and you give them the
vote that they want so that they get the increase in the land values.
Now going back to the 53 lot scenario, you'll hear from Mike Stevens
who is a very respected planner from the San Diego area and in
talking about the project with him - and I don't want to put words in his
mouth - but, it's my assessment that easily, they could go ahead and
they could get another 20 to 30 lots within number 6. So don't look
at 53 versus 130 or 53 versus 120 because if they really work at it in
terms of how they configure the lots and where they place them and
the size of the lots, what they do with the water tank where that line
is there that they show you up to the north where they say we can't
build beyond this, otherwise we're going to have to do all this grade
and fill. If they work at that they can add a number of additional lots
to this project and I would encourage you to ask Mr. Stevens about
that and how that might work. He will tell you that he hasn't had an
opportunity to study everything quite in depth but he has enough
experience to tell you that there are very logical avenues to pursue
here and how you could actually increase the number of lots there,
not have to do this horrendous unprecedented grading and create a
project which inherently long-term is going to be much safer and
much more of an asset to the citizens of Diamond Bar. Now there
was one point that I wanted to pick up on that was made by one of the
speakers earlier. They were sort of commenting generally about gee,
how come it is that we had all of these points that we made in our
letters and in our testimony and the City staff has come on and just
consistently knocked out every one of them. They've got an
argument or response to every one of them. I didn't see a single
concession like, well gee, the citizens have a good point or Mr.
Johnson had 20 bad points but he had one good one. And I would
submit to you that you need to think carefully about the fact that
respectfully I will say that staff is really in a very aggressive advocacy
mode here. I've seen a lot of City Councils, I've seen a lot of City
Attorneys, I've seen a lot of Planning staffs and they're being very
aggressive here in terms of advocating exactly the project that this
developer wants and that does not necessarily serve you well in
terms of your ability to sort through and deal with these things. I'm
sure they're doing their job as it has been outlined to them and they're
doing a very good job of being advocates for a project. But I would
respectfully submit that I don't think that's their job in this setting.
Their job should be to objectively look at things and give you the best
objective advise rather than trying to think up arguments to beat down
the position of the neighbors. Now. In that regard, I want to comment
just briefly on this General Plan issue. Some of you I believe were
involved in helping frame the General Plan for this City, some of you
were involved in amendments for this City. It was a very lengthy - I
didn't see it personally but I've seen General Plans, I've sat on
General Plan committee's myself - it's a very lengthy time consuming
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 23
process and everybody who was involved in that probably worked
much harder than they ever anticipated. The money that was put in
to create a document that was supposed to be the constitution for
land use for this City probably exceeded hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Now, ultimately, if you condense it into a nutshell in terms of
what you have been told by the City Attorney is, is that, forget about
all of that. We can construe this any way we want. And however we
do it the courts will uphold us because they give us tremendous
discretion in terms of how we choose to interpret this. Now. Is that
what you want to be the position of your General Plan? Just get a
lawyer, have them make an argument and we're going to go ahead
and decide it and we're going to do what we want to do. Now
interestingly from a consistency standpoint, the developer and staff
and the City Attorney will say well gee, they've got 130 units so we'll
give 'em 130 units. It's important. The General Plan says that. But
then we turn around and they look at language in the General Plan
which says that you shall develop the planning area in the context of
a specific plan consistent with the specific requirements of the
government code. And it sites the government code section and they
give you an interpretation which completely reads that language out
of the General Plan. That is the lack of objectivity that I want to point
out to you here. And I also want to point out to you that the State law
- nowhere in the State laws does it say that if there's specific
language that tells you what to do you then have the ability to read it
out of the General Plan because, you can think of policy arguments
suggesting that it's not appropriate. That's the bottom line of most of
the analysis that I see legally that's been put forward to you. They
come up with an argument oh well, we don't need to do a specific
plan because we've taken care of it anyway. Well, the admission is,
is that they didn't do a specific plan. Your General Plan says do it.
Now. If you want to change the General Plan, go ahead and change
the General Plan but don't read it out of existence. We're going and
coming here in terms of being consistent. And ultimately, and I like
to quote this. I had a fun time reading his biography, but Harry
Truman always talked about, you know, intellectual honesty. And if
you're consistent in how you look at this project and you look at each
issue and you look at the issue of what the General Plan says, you
know, 130 units versus maybe something less, what it says about
specific plans and the size of lots and things like that. If you're
consistent in terms of trying to objectively read the document, this
particular plan is inconsistent with your General Plan. As I've pointed
out in my letters and as the EIR consultants point out over and over
and over again, this project is inconsistent with your General Plan.
The only people saying this is consistent with your General Plan are
the developer and the staff. Outside consultants, your citizens, are
saying that's not the case. On a couple of quick concluding points,
I was raised in the West Covina area and watched it low along with
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 24
this whole Diamond Bar area over a number of years. I've watched
the air quality get a little bit better. I've watched less and less
greenery and open space be in existence anywhere in the area. And
I just want to note that, you know, you have an opportunity here to
make some good long-term decisions for your community; to really
look to say okay, we have to do what we can to protect our air quality.
Every extra car you know you put on the street as a result of giving an
extra bonus of units to a builder means more pollution, means less
health for people. Every extra day you add onto the grading, it means
less healthful conditions for children and people living in this
community. If you're a neighbor the difference between two months
of grading and four months of grading is pretty darn significant in
terms of noise, in terms of dust, in terms of your health impacts. They
say well, what's the difference between 1.8 million cubic yards versus
900(000) cubic yards - two months, four months, big deal - it's all
temporary. Ladies and gentlemen. If the City of Diamond Bar and
every city in this area has that same attitude it builds up and you have
an impact on everybody in this region. And you really need to look at
that issue in terms of how it's going to effect things. You've got to
have good reasons to give them all of these things that they're asking
which are far beyond what they expected reasonably when they
bought this property. Finally, you have no obligation to give them 130
units. You have no obligation to give them 120 units. They have, as
your own staff report does admit at one point, unless you deprive
them of all economic value of this land you are not taking their
property. And if you balance all of the factors you look at what your
City law says, your General Plan says, it doesn't make sense to give
them all these units. And I don't want to sort of buy into their strategy
of saying it's got to be 53 units because then it makes me and my
clients look like we're being extremists. But you can build within the
confines of Lot 6 and you can build more than 53 units. And if you
get a reputable engineer up here and you ask him under penalty of
perjury to say oh, no - we can't get any more than 53 units in there,
I don't think you're going to get anybody who's going to say that. So
I do encourage you on that subject to talk to Mr. Stevens. Do ask him
- I've found him to be - this is the first time I've had the privilege of
working with him - I've found him to be very knowledgeable - he
usually works for the developers side and knows the ins and outs of
these types of situations and I would submit that he will be able to
provide you with some very helpful information on this. Thank you
very much for your time and attention."
CIC/O'Connor: "Madam Mayor, may I ask Mr. Johnson a question on
my own time and I'll ask for a short response. Mr. Johnson, you refer
to a standard ratio of 8 to 1 for homes to sell. Where does that
standard ratio come from?"
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 25
Mr. Johnson: 'You can ask Mr. Stevens about that. What it is, it's the
ratio of the land value to the sales price of the home."
C/O'Connor: "I understand that. But where does that standard ratio -
does that come from Realtors or does that come from development
world or where does that standard come from?"
Mr. Johnson: "My understanding is it's the general standard in the
building industry. The numbers change and can be different in
different circumstances."
C/O'Connor: "So we could contact the building industry to confirm
that standard ratio?"
Mr. Johnson: "I believe so."
Michael Stevens: "Thank you Honorable Mayor and Council
Members. I guess one of the benefits of coming last is that you hear
just about everyone hear just about everyone say some of the things
that you intend to say. But I'll try then to be somewhat in the role of
summarizing things that you've heard, some of the things that have
struck me. And I too, share Mr. Johnson's observation that I've
seldom heard such an eloquent and forceful presentation in favor of
a project by a staff. I've been in that role of staff. I've been in this
business for over 24 years on both sides. But I'm here to tell you that
everything is not all smooth with the documentation that I've seen.
And there's an awful lot of it. I believe that when you look at the facts
you'll make different conclusions about environmental impacts and
about your role in addressing those impacts. I won't go deeper into
the General Plan conformance but I did hear comments about specific
plans. They are authorized by State law and in my experience they
have different processing requirements, different findings, different
obligations by your Council and by developers. If your General Plan
truly does specify a specific plan for this property, it has not been
prepared. Regarding the sizes of the lots and the density I'm not
going to be presumptuous to tell you I can take a brief look at this
person's property and tell you I can redesign it better than his
professional team. They have done quite a job. They have provided
you with a lot of graphics, charts, comparisons, but, a couple of things
that I heard during especially Mr. DeStefano's presentation, struck
me. He mentioned that any grading on this site would be significant.
Any grading. Truly the quantities that we're talking about are more
than significant and I can base that on experience in a lot of
jurisdictions. But he went on to say that the larger lots, several of
them were on the periphery of the development. They abut cut
slopes and fill slopes. By definition then, don't those larger lots on
the outskirts of the development push these slopes out farther than
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 26
they would if the lots were the smaller size contemplated by the
General Plan and the zone? I think they clearly do. That to me is
one easy and logical step that could be taken to reduce not only the
quantity of the grading but its extent in area. I'm going to shotgun a
couple of other points and then get back to this grading issue. I did
hear mention about the traffic of 9.6 average daily trips per single
family dwelling and in my experience that's lower than the low end of
the range. It is in truth, closer to 10 to 12 for single family detached
homes. We are simply driving more and driving more places than
ever in the past in my experience and those numbers are going up
not down. Considerable discussion occurred tonight about a north
facing slope and a habitat of cost live oak woodlands. That, Mayor
and Council Members, is a significant environmental resource. One
that has diminished down to a few single digit percentiles of its
original distribution throughout Southern California. Everywhere that
we work as land use professionals, coast live oak woodlands are
treated with much greater care. Especially when they exhibit trees
with trunk sizes up to 48 inches. It take hundreds of years to
establish trees and a habitat of that significance. And north facing
slopes is of course, one of the rare sub -ecosystems that those trees
love. You can't replenish them. Especially at a 2:1 ratio. The
standard in this industry is 5 to 10:1. Please ask your staff for more
information on the oaks and the possibility of their survival. If visual
and aesthetic impacts are a significant unmitigable impact surely the
grading that causes them must also be determined significant and not
mitigable. We do not know if exceedance of Air Quality Management
District standards is a health risk. Why then do we have them? Why
are there Air Quality Management District standards if they can be
exceeded. You would be asked, in approving a project like this, to
make findings - not findings that pertain to air quality, not findings that
pertain to aesthetics, but findings of overriding benefits. That's purely
an apples to oranges analysis. That's an admission that the project,
as designed, cannot solve its environmental problems. The California
Environmental Quality Act sets up that quandary for you as decision -
makers. What type of overriding benefit findings can outweigh some
of these impact issues? You must decide. And I haven't even seen
the candidate findings to support that. Cumulative impacts as we've
heard mainly deal with the conversion of land use. But there's a
greater impact - cumulative - that will haunt this Council and it will be
in the form of other developers with mass grading projects, complete
cut and fill grading projects, be they balanced or unbalanced, and it
will be difficult to say no if they compare the measurements. We
have less than 1.8 million cubic yards. A staggering amount. We
have less than 500 foot planned view slope faces. Surely our project
deserves approval. And we're not asking for a General Plan
amendment or a de facto General Plan amendment. General Plan
amendments are a serious undertaking as you well know. You can
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 27
only do it several times a year. A different procedure altogether. I've
heard this likened to a General Plan amendment. My reading of your
General Plan supports that. If the gradient of these streets are so
gentle from 2 to 14 percent, why can't this project be designed to truly
be a natural landform project. The only thing natural I see is the
simulation of nature. If the terrain allows grades so gentle can't the
streets meandered somewhat to conform to the natural land form? I
find the answer somewhat in the fact that this is built atop an ancient
landslide. Landslides don't like to hold still. It takes heroic measures.
You must excavate down to, I saw 80 feet of depth. You must install
buttress structures, shear keys, all sorts of things. But when do those
get designed? Is it at the tentative stage? Are you the City Council
liable for any of these if they fail? I find that at the final plan, the final
improvement stage, the soils engineer makes detailed specifications -
soils mechanics; geotechnical reports; grading, paving, compaction
recommendations. Just the shrink -swell factor in soils can alter the
geometry of this grading to a point that you can't consider in
substantial conformance with the Tentative Map. It happens all of the
time. Especially when you're dealing with such terrific volumes of
material. The lots as you said are large. The alternate designs we've
seen are what I call sketch plans. They do not have the same level
of detail. They're not as reliable as a Tentative Tract Map. You've
seen a water tank that migrates within these various plans. The water
tank is not necessary for the service of this project. It's hydraulic
radiant isn't there. It's in the middle of the project. Some of the lots
are higher, some of the lots are lower. Those tanks are not for the
service of this project. They could serve some of the lots. I've heard
in testimony that they're not for the project at hand. But they're
tremendous space consumers. I saw elevations outside the
boundaries of this project where the tanks could be located in the
alternative. And that would reduce grading. It has to. The tanks are
huge. I've given you a bit of an overview of some of what I think are
the salient issues of the project. I'd like to invite your questions to
me. Especially regarding the CEQA issues. I'd like you to search the
testimony, both mine and the staffs and ask the proponent of the
project questions. Find out how other jurisdictions handle grading of
this quantity. There's almost 14,000 cubic yards of earth moved per
single home site in this project. That ladies and gentlemen is just too
much. It can be done better. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you."
Jack Gutowski: "My name is Jack Gutowski. I live at 1856 Kiowa
Crest Drive in Diamond Bar which is in the southern end of the City
far away from this project. And I've heard the people who live near
this project who spoke and are effected by the project. I would have
asked them to come in the past years when other projects were being
developed that were approved that have brought us to this point: The
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 28
destruction of Sandstone Canyon which for me when people ask me
if I live in Diamond Bar I'm almost embarrassed me riding down the
57 freeway what happened to that beautiful stretch of land that we
once had there. And I think that was a watershed kind of
development that makes this development look like peanuts. To call
this area Lot 6 an alternative plan, the 53 housing development, to
even call it an alternative lets people know there's something more at
work here. Because that's the only, according to our map restrictions
and whatever, the only project that would be allowable, and to call
that an alternative would let people know there's some kind of deal
already in with the staff. And to listen to Mr. DeStefano spend such
a great amount of time talking about the two main proposals and then
to talk about the 53 housing development in tones that were almost
of disappointment. There was almost a disappointment to his voice
when he was discussing those projects. You know, it should alarm
people in the community. I mean, if you ever wanted to see what
development is like in this community, go to City Hall and see that the
counters are meant for individuals like myself and other people in the
community and developers have access to this City like no one would
believe so that the people who bought this particular property
knowing that we had map restrictions and somehow bemoaning the
fact that they can't somehow lift those map restrictions and blaming
the rest of us I think is disingenuous on their part. And I really don't
have much faith in this City Council as it's constituted today to work
on behalf of the citizens of Diamond Bar. I think that our community
has been emasculated in the 10 or so years that we've been a City.
We incorporated because we wanted to get away from the County
and now the simple restrictions that the County had in place 10 years
ago we're talking about removing wholesalely because developers
want to give us a paltry $250,000 plus the responsibility of taking care
of property that they rightfully should take care of. It's kind of a
disgusting situation that we've been brought to in this particular City.
And I'm kind of ashamed because this is a beautiful community. And
we bought here because we loved the ridgelines, we loved the
hillsides. We all live in ridgelines at the bottoms and the tops of
canyons. And here you are destroying them. Plowing them over into
a big hole and calling that progress. I think it's disgusting and I'm
ashamed of all of us for letting it happen. Thank you."
Todd Kurtin spoke about his proposed project and addressed citizen's
concerns.
Lex Williman, Hunsaker & Associates, responded to resident's
concerns.
M/Herrera: "Does any Council have questions?"
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 29
C/Ansari: "Yeah. I have a question. I have a question mainly of
Todd Kurtin. He did mention the fact that legally he was entitled to
130 houses because of the Planning 2. 1 wrote it down when he said
that. It is a maximum that you are allowed in Planning but legally, you
could have one if we so say."
Todd Kurtin: "That's correct. You're correct. I'm not an attorney.
You're correct."
C/Ansari: "The other issue is that I believe that you said was about
the fact of other areas in Diamond Bar that you had built upon.
However, the other areas in Diamond Bar that you designed did not
have deed restrictions. Is that not so? Okay."
Todd Kurtin: "These don't have deed restrictions, these have map
restrictions."
C/Ansari: "Alright. Map restrictions then. But they did not have map
restrictions, the other properties that you designed. Okay. Thank
you.--
Todd
ou."
Todd Kurtin: "Since it came up, I'd just like to point out one more
thing that's on the matrix that Mr. Smith provided. It shows ... (outburst
from the audience) Is our time up? If our time's up, Madam Mayor..."
M/Herrera: "Excuse me, audience, but this is a dual process hearing
and this is the applicant. Go ahead, Mr. Kurtin."
C/Ansari: "Be careful."
Todd Kurtin: "On the comparison matrix, I'd just like to point out one
more fact - that we're asking to develop in Lot 5 and 7. This points
out that development will occur on approximately 1.18 acres of Lot 5
and 4.33 acres of Lot 7. So a total of 5 acres it says we're going
outside of Lot 6. 1 think to develop the highest and best plan for this
and just to exceed Lot 6 by 5 acres I think that's reasonable to get the
best plan possible. Thank you very much."
M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you Mr. Kurtin. Okay. Mrs. O'Connor, you
have a question."
C/O'Connor: "Mr. Williman, if you could come back up and put up
that chart that you had. I need a little bit more. You made the
comment that there will be a hundred foot, I'm not sure if you said fill
above the project. Could you explain that a little bit more."
Lex Williman: "Yes, I will. In order to maximize what little
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 30
developable area we do have, it's actually a combination cut and fill.
There is a horseshoe cut in this area to allow both the water tank to
occur and to get some lots in this area. This is the ridge right here.
It actually comes down like that."
C/O'Connor: "I guess my question, did you say that it will be a
hundred feet above the homes?"
Lex Williman: "Yes. Councilman O'Connor, this actually does show
it a little better. It's a colored map of the geotechnical constraints on
the site and the cuts and the fills. With this in order to get
developable area in here with this ridge right here and to get a water
tank site at the right elevation, we've created a cut in here. Now I
originally didn't do a fill in here but what I was told both here and
along these is because of the steep nature of the existing slopes that
they wanted to have what essentially is a buttress fill but it'll keep
mud flows and that sort of thing from coming down into these lots and
that we needed to go ahead and put a fill in there that is essentially
a 2:1 as opposed to something steeper."
C/O'Connor: "But you're saying it will be a hundred feet above the
homes. Is that what you said?"
Lex Williman: "Absolutely."
C/O'Connor: "Well how is that going to prevent mud flow coming
down off that hundred foot mountain?"
Lex Williman: "What you don't see, and the space is there, that there
will be benches - terraces. I didn't have a lot of time to do this, but..."
C/O'Connor: "Why do you have to have the hundred foot?"
Lex Williman: "I don't. But if I don't have that hundred foot basically,
everything in here goes away. I can't even get a road in there.
mean, that cut is to create this pad area. I was struggling to get
everything I possibly could in the little area that we had."
C/O'Connor: "I'm sorry. I guess I don't see this. You're cutting that,
but its still going to be a hundred feet above the homes down below."
Lex Williman: "Yes. There's... okay. Let me give you an example.
This pad right here is at 1,000. Lot 40. As you go up actually the top
of the peak right here is at an elevation of 1114 ... oops I take that
back. 1142. 1 can't read. So it's actually even higher. And again, I
mean it's not something I want to do but that's the existing
topography. And I can't get this road up any quicker. I'm already
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 31
coming up at 14 percent and flattening out through intersections but
I've got 14 percent here and 14 percent through here just to get up to
get a water tank site. And if I can't do this cut I can't get the water
tank in a cut area. I'm restricted over here. I mean these fills are
already pretty maxed out as far as staying within Lot 6 so I can't push
this over. It's very confining. I mean, I wish it was otherwise but it is
very confining."
C/Ansari: "I have another question to ask when you have a chance.
I have another question to ask. Is that a requirement - the water tank
for 53 houses?"
Lex Williman: "Yeah. The 1050, the Water District, and I'll be
truthful, I'm not sure of the exact status right at the moment. They
originally had two water tank sites on this. The 1200 was sort of an
option and they're doing their master plan as we speak but it's been
delayed somewhat. But the 1050 has been consistent from the very
beginning in early discussions with the water district and so we have
kept it in there from the very beginning. Obviously, it shows on the
proposed Tentative Map. And so, in terms of the alternatives we
didn't make the original assumption on the 120 that okay, if we take
it out maybe we can find an alternative location for it, but they would
prefer it to be within the subdivision because what they want to do, it's
a little technical, but they want to have their water lines running past
and through it because they want water circulating through these
things on a constant basis in order for the water quality - if the water
sits there too long it gets stagnant, it essentially stagnates - so they
want that the tank actually be within the subdivision."
C/Ansari: "The reason I'm asking this is I was just looking at the
houses that are on Diamond Bar Boulevard - one through five - and
if it didn't need the water tank I was thinking you said you could put
more houses if you didn't need that tank where 1050 is and I'm
thinking maybe some of those houses could be shifted that way and
not have them on Diamond Bar Boulevard."
Lex Williman: "Yeah. When I had looked at that I can get
approximately three to four lots where the 1050 tank is, is what I could
do."
C/Ansari: "Okay. And then you wouldn't have those houses on
Diamond Bar Boulevard."
Lex Williman: "Well, I'd still want those. You're already taking away.
Don't take any more. Yeah. Right now as far as we're concerned, the
water tank is a given for the Water District. Thank you very much."
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 32
M/Herrera: "Are there any other questions?"
C/Ansari: "I have my questions buried under here."
M/Herrera: "I know .... oh. Mr. Kurtin."
Todd Kurtin: "I just want to clarify that the Water District owns land
there right at this time so right where we have the water tank is where
they own land."
M/Herrera: "Oh. So that's why it's in that spot."
C/Ansari: "They own the land."
Todd Kurtin: "They own the land. We're negotiating with them, or
we're in discussions with them to move one off-site because right now
they don't need it. They only need one more tank for potable water.
Now they're doing their master plan over again. They don't need it for
that. They're looking at a reclaim system - water system right now.
And they don't think they need it but they're doing a study and we'll
find out in a couple of months if they need it and at what elevation.
But they own two sites on our property. So they have the right to
build on those locations at this time."
M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I know some of
us were wondering why was it in that spot. Mr. Belanger, a technical
question. The Council - I imagine each one of us, has a series of
questions that we would like now to ask. Would we close the public
hearing now then? And then the Council will get into the business of
analyzing and asking questions."
CM/Belanger: "If the City Council chooses to close the public hearing
they certainly can do so."
C/Ansari: "I had a lot of questions, still."
C/O'Connor: "I believe I need to make a statement for the record.
During the week following the July 7 public hearing I had discussions
with not only SunCal but also public members or citizens about this
project and also on July 21 1 took a physical tour of the area with
Deputy City Manager Jim DeStefano. Thank you."
M/Herrera: "Can I ask the City Attorney, do each of us need to
declare if we've had conversations?"
ACA/Susskind: "Yes. It's a good idea and just to add an answer to
the question you asked before about closing the public hearing it
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 33
would be a good idea to leave it open if you're going to have
questions of the applicant or any member of the public. If your
questions are directed at staff and consultants then it would be
appropriate to close."
M/Herrera: "Okay. Okay, first we'll get into declarations. Mr. Huff."
C/Huff: "I have talked to various residents of the community as well
as, the applicant and have been out to the site, so, just for the public
record."
M/Herrera: "I also have talked to the applicant but that was about a
year and a half ago. But I guess I could declare that and I've been
out to the site. Anybody else?"
C/Ansari: "I had requested of Mr. Kurtin to talk with him. I also a
month ago I also had relayed communication through Mr. DeStefano
but Mr. Kurtin has not returned any questions I had. And I had met
with citizens in the community to have questions asked of me. Thank
you.-
MPT/Chang: "I don't really think we have to declare this. Why are we
to declare whether we talked to Mr. Kurtin or not, but basically Mr.
Kurtin talked to me one time when I was running the campaign. And
that is it. But I think all of what we consider here is the benefits for
the community and of course, if meanwhile we can commit the
developer being benefited and also benefit the community, why not
we do that. But of course, our priority is the community's benefits. I
think that's what we consider here. Some of the residents here
saying they do not have the faith of the Council Members, I think it's
a little bit too far. I think we are here to try and consider the best
benefits for the community. Thank you."
M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you Mr. Chang. Then I guess we'll leave
the public hearing open then because I don't know if individual
Council have any question of any members of the audience or their
attorney. So just in case, I would..."
ACA/Susskind: 'Well, you could ask the Council if anybody does and
if they all say no then you could close the public hearing."
M/Herrera: "Oh. Thank you. Okay. Looking at the various questions
that each of us probably have, do any Council have any questions of
any members of the audience or of Mr. Johnson or of Michael
Stevens?"
C/Ansari: "Yes. I'd like to ask a question of Bonterra concerning a
AUGUST 18, 1998
PAGE 34
question that was raised about from the planner - I forgot his name."
M/Herrera: "Bonterra is our consultant."
C/Ansari: "I know."
M/Herrera: "We would want to get in the questions of the audience
first and then we're going to close the public hearing."
C/Ansari: "Well, the question I had was about the coastal oaks
Okay. Thank you. Okay."
C/O'Connor: "I'm not sure whether this falls into what we need to do
but there were a few statements made by citizens that I would like to
have clarified by staff. Now I'm not sure if that's part of the public
hearing process..."
ACA/Susskind: "No. If you're asking questions of staff - responses,
clarifications - whether it's staff or the City's consultants, you would
not need to leave the public hearing open. I was just suggesting that
if you had questions directly of audience members and the applicant
to make sure that their responses to your questions were in the
hearing record, you might want to keep that open."
M/Herrera: "It appears that we don't have questions of the audience
or of Mr. Johnson or of Michael Stevens and so....."
CM/Belanger: "Madam Mayor, do you have questions of the
applicant?"
M/Herrera: "Yes. Would that fall under the...."
CM/Belanger: "Yes, ma'am."
M/Herrera: "Okay. Council. Which questions do you have of the
applicant?"
C/Ansari: "One of the questions that the audience, the citizens kept
asking is the burden of taking over 85 percent of the property and the
cost of caring for that property for fire, safety, liability, for the City if
we take it over. I would like to ask the applicant, what is the cost for
the maintenance of those slopes now and your liability and you know,
the protection of that area per year you know, for fire protection, etc."
Todd Kurtin: "We have insurance on the property. I was talking to
my partner. We don't know off the top of our head, but this is just a
vacant land. We think our insurance on this property is about $5,000
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 35
to $6,000 a year. We have weed abatement that we are required to
do and that probably runs us and I would guesstimate again, a couple
thousand dollars. You know, this is basically natural open space.
There is not a lot of maintenance to this property."
C/Ansari: "Okay. Thank you."
M/Herrera: "Does anyone else have questions of the applicant?"
(Council conferring)
C/Huff: "I would like to ask the applicant - you presented different
plans to us. In the presentation you said that some of for illustrative
purposes only. We're buzzing up here trying to figure out if we
should be leaning toward one of the plans other than 130. And
maybe this is something staff answer, but what does that mean to
you, what does that mean to us. The City Attorney would like to
tackle that first, I think. No, now they're passing that back and forth."
ACA/Susskind: "No, we've got it. The application before you is for
130. The other alternatives that have been considered are for
hypothetical purposes, really. And if you want to consider another
alternative, it really needs to go back - it may need to go back to the
Planning Commission and may even possibly need to be submitted
as a new application."
C/Huff: "So just to clarify, then, we have the 130 that has gone
through the Planning Commission that has come to us. We either
accept it or you know, tweak it within the abilities that the applicant
will take it or deny it."
ACA/Susskind: "That's right."
C/Huff: "Okay. Thank you."
CM/Belanger: "We already sent it back to the Planning Commission.
You remanded to the Planning Commission to have them consider
something else."
C/Huff: "Okay".
M/Herrera: "Okay. So I think that probably concludes our questions
of the applicant and what remains then are questions of staff. And so
at 10:38 (p.m.) I will close the Public Hearing. And who wants to jump
in with their questions? Yes, Mr. Huff."
C/Huff: "You know, I'd like a clarification first because I did say, and
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 36
this is something the City Attorney can speak to, I made the comment
at the last meeting that we were not sitting up here as legislators like
we normally do but we were sitting here in a quasi-judicial mode.
One of the speakers tonight basically contested that. And I would
just, you know, maybe I'm wrong. If you could elucidate for us, you
know, what is our role here, I would appreciate that."
ACA/Susskind: "If you were to consider a General Plan amendment
or a Zoning Code amendment, that would be legislative even though
it might be done in the context of an application for a specific
development. But tonight you are sitting in judgement of a particular
development application that does not include a General Plan
amendment, does not include a Zone Code amendment. And so, as
such, it is simply a quasi judicial matter tonight."
C/Huff: "So do you see it as more or less judges here trying to decide
whether this is fair within the context of, you know, what is before us
in our laws and stuff. Having said that, most judges get an
opportunity to go to their chambers and deliberate a little bit before
they come out and we're looking at 20 minutes'til 11:00 (p.m.) when
we try to get out of here. For continuity on my part, I would prefer to
go back and synthesize this information and come up with some
intelligent questions because I have bits and pieces all over the
place. I'd be happy to move forward if that is the Council's wishes,
but my preference would be to be, now that we've closed the public
hearing, to go back and look over our stuff and come back with some
intelligent, hopefully, questions at the next time."
M/Herrera: "Okay. I anticipate that we will be scheduling this for
another date to continue conversation on it. I don't anticipate that we
would be able to synthesize everything tonight. We've been given a
lot of information and people in the audience have commented that
they haven't had many days to review all the new information. The
Council has had the same amount of very few days that you have had
and so we need a little bit of time to consider and contemplate, also.
There are just a couple of questions and clarification that I would like
to make. Mr. Marty Torres asked the question, who monitors the
shutdown when it's too windy? And I know that we're going to have
various environmental people monitoring different things..."
CM/Belanger: "Mr. DeStefano will tell you all about the mitigation
monitoring requirements."
DCM/DeStefano: "Mayor, Members of the Council. Should the
project be approved and the EIR certified, there would be an
accompanying document called a Mitigation Monitoring Plan. And in
order to implement that, the City would employ professional
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 37
consultants to deal with the variety of disciplines they have to
examine out in the field. There would be on-site monitors throughout
the duration of the project for various aspects. One of the issues
would be this whole concern over grading and the wind conditions
and so forth. There are conditions that are typically added to a
project like this that say that when the winds exceed a certain level
that the grading must cease. And if the City employed monitors, that
does happen. Projects have been slowed down, stopped, in this City
and others as a result of the weather. And we get reports on what the
weather conditions are so that as the contractor, so they know ahead
of time whether it's going to be a windy day and whether they ought
to show up or not. And using that example, that's how we monitor it
through the technical consultants that are employed that the
developer pays the City for. It is not a cost burdened by the City. It's
the price of doing business in the development field."
M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you."
C/O'Connor: "Is that person or monitoring done during each hour the
development is going on?"
DCM/DeStefano: "Yes. Particularly in the early stages because
there's more activity. The archaeologists are out there. The
paleontologists and so on."
C/O'Connor: "So there's always somebody there 10 hours a day or
however long the activity is going on?"
DCM/DeStefano: "In the initial stages of the development, yes.
Particularly during the grading. Beyond that there's less need for
those monitors and more frequent need for inspectors of the public
infrastructure or the dwelling units or whatever the stage of
development is."
C/O'Connor: "I want to follow up on a comment made by Mr. Torres
concerned about the staging area on Highcrest. Could you explain
just a little bit more exactly what that means and how far that staging
area would be from, let's say, the residents there on Highcrest, and
how much movement other than the workers coming in is there really
of heavy equipment."
PWD/Wentz: "Mayor and Members of Council: In relationship to the
staging area, that was discussed quite a bit at the Planning
Commission level as well and concern over proximity of where the
equipment would be housed if I can use that term, during
construction. And all staging really means is where does the
contractor keep his equipment overnight and when it is not operating
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 38
and where do they originate from as they continue their work. So
they do their work during the day, they move their equipment back
there during the end of the day and it's stored there. The workers
would come, for example, in the morning to get their equipment. They
do their repair work at that location. Those kinds of activities are
what typically take place in a staging area. The mission would be to
keep the staging area for the least amount of time necessary because
they can move that equipment to different locations on the site, if you
will, depending on how the project is being phased. They would give
that to us as part of the construction plan, as part of their grading
plan. So, our goal is to keep whatever staging area is proposed as
far away from residences as possible, as unseen as possible, and
with the least impact. The proposal is to move it up to Highridge
(Highcrest) because as someone stated earlier, it is best to work from
an upper elevation to a lower elevation when you're starting a project.
Starting it up down at Diamond Bar Boulevard for example, creates
some other kinds of problems in terms of having to drive up to the top
of the project every day, for example, for all of that equipment to start
working up there. It's less productive, potentially, from the developers
point of view and it might be more noisy. So we look at those kinds
of questions and when they propose their grading we'll look at staging
area and make those kinds of decisions in terms of the least impact
for the residents primarily."
C/O'Connor: "So we're not, talking about heavy equipment coming up
Goldrush and Highcrest on a daily basis. Once it gets there it's going
to stay there until the grading is finished or until the equipment is
done. So the traffic that we're talking about, once that equipment is
there, is going to be the workers and their trucks and cars coming up
there and parking for the day."
PWD/Wentz: "That's correct. It will be an initial time as you just
stated, when all of the equipment has to be moved to the site. We try
to restrict that and we try to make sure we know when that's going to
occur and try to coordinate that unless there's a specialized piece of
equipment that they need to bring in alone as the project goes, but it
certainly would not be routine, that's right."
C/O'Connor: "Thank you."
C/Ansari: "I think I'll have questions when I look over my notes as I
quickly wrote them down and I'd like to be able to write those
questions down and submit them to the staff that I have. Today I
think there were some speakers that were there that gave me some
thought in some other areas I hadn't thought about including the north
slope oaks. I'd like to ask questions on that. Thank you."
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 39
M/Herrera: "I would like to comment on what some of the speakers
said regarding the City staffs presentation regarding the proposed
project. When Mr. DeStefano began his presentation he stated that
he was delivering verbally what our City Attorney had prepared. And
what our City Attorney had prepared was a response to various
allegations made by Kevin Johnson who sent two letters to the City
saying that the City didn't have any legal rights to approve this
project. The City Council asked staff to look into these allegations
and prepare a response. The City Attorney did that and Mr.
DeStefano delivered that as part of his presentation. And so I think
the criticism that was expressed about his presentation was unfair
and unfounded. Does anybody else have any questions? Okay. I
think I'm going to adjourn this meeting then this evening and various
Council have expressed the desire to think about the statements that
were made tonight, all the testimony that was given, all the questions
that were asked. We would like the opportunity to evaluate all of this
information and we will bring this matter back at the next scheduled
Council meeting on September 1.
C/O'Connor: "Is September 1 going to give the Council enough time
to write their questions and staff enough time to respond? I mean I
really don't want to postpone it either, but is that going to give staff
enough time to respond to Council comments?"
CM/Belanger: "It'll depend at least in part, as to when we get them."
M/Herrera: "Let's aim for September 1. 1 don't have that many
questions of staff I don't think at this point. Let's aim for the first
meeting in September and if it appears that there are a lot of
questions from Council then we will defer it to the second meeting in
September. Thank you all for coming and have a good evening."
11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the City
Council, M/Herrera adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m.
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
ATTEST:
d444�/�
0-41�
Mayor
