HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/1998 Minutes - Regular MeetingCITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
OFF-SITE PARKING
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order
at 5:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Room CC -8, 21865
E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Chang and Mayor Herrera. Council Member Huff was absent.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, Diamond Bar City Manager; Michael
Jenkins, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy
Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson,
Communications & Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance
Director; Lynda Burgess, City Clerk; Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the City Manager;
Anne Haraksin, Administrative Assistant; Rose Manela, Assistant Civil Engineer;
Steve Tamaya, Communications & Marketing Coordinator; Captain Richard
Martinez, Walnut Sheriffs Department; Lt. Dave Stothers, Walnut Sheriffs
Department, and Deputy Tim Perkins, Walnut Sheriffs Department.
CM/Belanger stated that Council took action on 5 of the 6 motions that were
presented by the Off -Site Parking Task Force as follows:
Motion #1 - Increase enforcement of parking regulations.
Motion #2 - Institute a public information/public education campaign.
Motion #3 - Parking ticket enforcement.
Motion #4 - Not approved.
Motion #5 - Consider dispensation/permit program for parking unattached trailers
and boats on City streets for a period of 24 hours.
Motion #6 - Consideration of "No Parking" on street sweeping days.
Suggested measures for implementation of each of the approved motions had been
proposed by staff and should be considered at a regular Council meeting should
Council wish to adopt any of the measures.
Motion #1 discussion: In response to C/Ansari's question about the difference
in cost for the Sheriffs Parking Control Officer and the Public Service Officer,
CM/Belanger explained that the Public Services Officer position is more costly
because it would be a non-L.A. County position which would provide for 1 1/2
persons and a vehicle. The L.A. County Parking Control Officer position (1 person)
is a fixed item cost.
In response to C/O'Connor, CM/Belanger indicated that D.B. currently has 2
Community Service Officers (CSO).
Lt. Dave Stothers explained the CSO duties in response to C/O'Connor's request.
CSOs issue approximately 100 citations per month.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2
In response to MPT/Chang, Lt. Stothers reported that Option #1 could impact other
Sheriff Personnel depending upon whether 1 CSO would be able to handle the
report volume.
C/O'Connor asked how many crime reports are taken daily on an average basis.
CM/Belanger responded that staff will provide this information.
C/Ansari asked if authorizing citation authority for the City's Code Enforcement
Officer would compensate for a CSO. She also asked if staff has checked with
other cities who have CSOs and how many citations are written.
CM/Belanger responded that staff does not recommend a position unless that
position, to a significant extent, supports itself. Currently, the City receives an
amount of money in parking revenues. Parking offenses are non -criminal and does
not require police officers or Sheriffs officers to issue citations. All revenue related
to parking citations goes into the City's General Fund through an administrative
process. If Council proposes to add personnel to issue parking citations, the
expectation is that revenue will be added to the system in order to support the
additional personnel.
In responses to Clyde Hennessee, CM/Belanger stated that any position (volunteer
or employee of the City) is the City's responsibility with respect to potential liability
claims.
Motion #2 discussion: No Comments.
Motion #3 discussion: C/O'Connor did not believe it is necessary for the City
to be given such detailed information. Time of day, date, location address and
purpose of the citation is all the data that is needed.
CM/Belanger explained that it is an expanded data collection and analysis.
Questions asked by the task force members during their discussions are included
in the analysis. Council needs to determine what additional information might be
required to conduct additional analysis.
In response to M/Herrera, CM/Belanger explained that a document accompanying
the citation pad could be checkmarked by categories. An individual or service
could be engaged to record the data. Reviewing hours of tape recordings may not
be an effective use of resources.
In response to C/O'Connor, Lt. Stothers stated that the Sheriffs Department
supervisors periodically review reports. A civilian prepares reports using data from
the logs.
C/Ansari liked the idea of a simple check list that includes all of the categories to
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 3
be used for data reporting.
Motion #5 discussion: MPT/Chang asked if the annual permit would allow for
an unattached trailer or boat to be parked on the City's streets.
CM/Belanger responded that an unattached item would be subject to a temporary
permit.
M/Herrera asked for explanation of the "Preferential Parking" program.
DDPW/Liu responded that Division 6 of the Municipal Code provides for
Preferential Parking.
In response to MPT/Chang, DDPW/Liu indicated that the permit application
includes information regarding current use of the residential garage area. Prior to
issuance of the parking permit, staff will verify the parking conditions. In the event
of a violation, the permit will not be issued.
CM/Belanger stated that parking restrictions that currently affect property owners
in D.B. are limited in number and location. Residents primarily affected are those
in the vicinity of Evergreen Elementary and D.B. High School due to limited street
parking restrictions, the purpose of which is to keep students from parking in the
residential neighborhood. As a result, residents are also restricted from street
parking. A permit system would provide for residents who live in limited areas to
park in the street at any time and not be subject to citation.
In response to Mr. Hennessee, CM/Belanger explained that cities which have
overnight parking restrictions generally will grant parking permits in those areas
where there is inadequate garage space as a result of construction. The proposed
draft will need to be modified to reflect the state of restrictions that exist in this
community.
CM/Belanger recommended that the Parking Ordinance provide for posting of areas
where special situations exist (he cited the example of motorhomes used for
business purposes, not tagged commercial and parked on City streets).
In response to C/O'Connor, CM/Belanger stated that parking regulations take effect
the day they are posted and there is no grandfathering.
Motion #6 discussion: CM/Belanger responded to Clyde Hennessee that street
sweeping restriction signage will be limited to a specified time.
In response to MPT/Chang, CM/Belanger stated that if a street sweeping restriction
is implemented, Council will need to determine a fixed amount for the parking fine.
General City Council Discussion and direction to staff:
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 4
Motion #1: C/Ansari asked staff to determine which option is more cost effective
with respect to employing a Public Service Officer.
MPT/Chang asked staff to obtain more input from the Sheriffs Department with
respect to Options #1, 2, 4 and 5.
Motion #2: No discussion.
Motion #3: MPT/Chang asked staff to obtain more input from the Sheriffs
Department regarding Option #2.
C/Ansari asked staff to provide examples of forms used by other cities.
Motion #5: CM/Belanger confirmed to M/Herrera that all options will be expanded
upon by staff for further discussion.
Motion #6: M/Herrera asked staff to provide information regarding what a
proposed Ordinance might look like.
In response to M/Herrera, CM/Belanger recommended that staff provide the
requested information for a Council Study Session on October 20, 1998. Packets
will be provided to Council Members a week in advance of the session. Staff will
research the minutes of the Task Force meetings to be certain that all questions
and concerns are addressed.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, Mayor Herrera
adjourned the Study Session at 6:21 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
f ;
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
1. CLOSED SESSION: None
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order
at 6:42 p.m. in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Assembly Member Sally Havice
INVOCATION: Dr. James Price, Diamond Canyon
Christian Church.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Jenkins,
City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; George Wentz, City
Engineer; David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works; Bob Rose, Community
Services Director; Mike Nelson, Communications & Marketing Director; Linda
Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Presented Certificate of Recognition to Assembly Member Sally
Havice for her efforts toward stopping Senate Bill 2010.
3.2 Presented Certificates of Recognition to D.B. Little League Senior
Division for becoming "Senior Division Little League World Series
Champions."
RECESS: M/Herrera recessed the meeting at 7:12 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Herrera reconvened the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
3.3 COMMUNITY RECOGNITIONS:
Presented Certificate of Recognition to Karen Escarcega for her civic -
mindedness in maintaining public areas.
3.4 Proclaimed September 19, 1998 as "Coastal Cleanup Day."
3.5 Proclaimed September 14-19, 1998 as "Pollution Prevention Week."
M/Herrera thanked the Dodger organization for hosting the D.B. Little
League team at the Thursday, September 24 Dodger game. 1500 tickets are
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2
available to family and friends of the Team at half price.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dr. Lawrence Rhodes reminded everyone
to take special precautions during the current heat wave and to conserve
energy whenever possible.
Jeff Koontz, Chamber of Commerce Interim Director, announced a
Candidates' Forum at 6:00 p.m. on October 13 at SCAQMD. A Business
Exposition will be held on October 24 in the Kmart Parking Lot. The
September 17 Chamber Mixer will be held at Kellogg West. "Diamond Bar
Where the Action Is" will return to Cable TV next Tuesday. A Business
Mixer will be held on September 24 at the Ontario Airport.
Lydia Plunk spoke about questioning the accuracy of political flyers that are
prepared by anonymous sources. She reminded everyone that flyers placed
in mail boxes do not conform to postal regulations nor do they conform to
FPPC regulations.
Clyde Hennessee agreed with Mrs. Plunk's comments regarding the flyer.
Sandy Erickson indicated that she had several questions regarding the
SunCal project.
CA/Jenkins reminded everyone that the Public Hearing for the SunCal
project was closed at the last meeting. No further testimony can be taken at
this time. The Public Hearing can only be re -opened if it is properly noticed.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - September 7, 1998 - City Offices will be
closed. Will reopen Tuesday, September 8, 1998.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - September 8, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.,
SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - September 10,
1998 - 7:00 p.m., SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley
Dr.
5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 15, 1998 - 6:30 p.m.,
SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 DEDICATION OF MEMORIAL TO OSCAR LAW - September 15,
1998 - 10:00 a.m., Heritage Park, 2900 Brea Canyon Rd.
5.6 RECOGNITION DINNER HONORING LITTLE LEAGUE, 1998
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 3
SENIOR DIVISION WORLD CHAMPIONS - Sunday, September 20,
1998 - 5:30 p.m. - D.B. Country Club - Tickets $10.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by C/O'Connor, seconded by C/Ansari, to
approve the Consent Calendar. 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 - Special Meeting/Workshop of August 18,
1998 - as submitted.
6.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated September 1, 1998 in the
amount of $470,811.78.
6.3 RECEIVED AND APPROVED TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of
July, 1998.
6.4 EXONERATED CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF GRADING BOND
(FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE, LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR 2720
SHADOW CANYON - in the amount of $9,234 posted with the City on
December 2, 1996 and directed the City Clerk to notify the Owner and
Surety of this action.
6.5 REDUCED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT BONDS (FAITHFUL
PERFORMANCE AND LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR TRACT NO.
47850 (DIAMOND BAR WEST PARTNERS) - (a) Bond No. 418853S
- Grading Bond in the amount of $3,192.558, reduced to $1,596,279;
(b) Bond No. 418854S - Sewer/Street S.D. in the amount of
$1,365,892, reduced to $682,946; (c) Bond No. 418855S - Domestic
Water in the amount of $416,803.20, reduced to $208,401.60; (d)
Bond No. 418857S - Monumentation in the amount of $8,500,
reduced to $4,250; and (e) directed the City Clerk to notify the
Principal and Surety of these actions.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
7.1 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-1, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 95-
2 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2.
Following Council questions of staff, M/Herrera opened the Public
Hearing.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 4
Kurt Nelson, representing D.B. Associates and as President of the
Estates at Crystal Ridge Homeowners Assn., asked Council to clarify
the map with respect to access to the proposed Dolezal development.
Warren Dolezal stated that the clarification regarding the
development's access was made by a judge in Trial Court. He stated
that he continues to work with The Country Estates to obtain
annexation and asked for an extension of time to resolve the issue.
In response to C/O'Connor, Mr. Dolezal stated that, for the second
time, he applied to The Country Estates Homeowners Assn,.for
annexation on April 4, 1998. Their response was that the map must
first be finalized. He explained how it was determined that the large
oak tree would have to be removed in order to mitigate the ancient
landslide.
In response to C/Ansari, Mr. Dolezal stated the project is not
landlocked at this time, Access had been determined by the court via
Steeplechase Lane.
C/Huff stated that at the time he served on the Planning Commission,
it was represented that the project was a part of the TADCO
agreement. He asked if it is true that the project is not a part of the
TADCO agreement.
Mr. Dolezal responded that the TADCO agreement has different
things and refers to adjacent/adjoining property to The Country
Estates. He said they were not notified that there was any suit from
The Country Estates against D.B. Development Company at that time
so they were essentially left out by D.B. Development Company with
respect to anything contained within the TADCO agreement.
However, the street that the proposed project has full access to is a
part of the TADCO agreement.
MPT/Chang asked Mr. Dolezal if the access was to be via Hawkwood
Rd. in 1995 when the map was approved by the City.
Mr. Dolezal indicated that the representation since 1976 was that
access was available through Steeplechase Lane as well as through
The Country Estates and the development consisted of multiple lots.
Kurt Nelson stated that if the map is extended, his homeowner's
association is anxious to learn where the access point is to get from
either of The Country Estates gates to the point of exercise of the
implied easement should it withstand any appeal.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998
PAGE 5
Dave Kersey, 23403 E. Wagon Trail Rd., asked how the oak tree
replacement policy was determined.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the Planning Commission was
concerned about the loss of the massive oak tree. The Commission
felt that a 20:1, 36" box tree replacement would be appropriate in this
case.
Mr. Kersey suggested that the City determine a standard formula for
tree replacement.
There being no further testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the Public
Hearing.
Following discussion C/Huff moved, C/Ansari seconded, to direct staff
to come back with a resolution of denial of the extension until the
applicant can demonstrate access to his property through The
Country Estates. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT
8. OLD BUSINESS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
8.1 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).
The following is verbatim discussion of the Diamond Hills Ranch
Partnership SunCal project:
M/Herrera: "First, Mr. Jenkins, if you would clarify for us again the
parameters regarding additional public input."
CA/Jenkins: "Thank you, Mayor. As I indicated earlier, the Public
Hearing on this item has been closed. Council has heard a
considerable amount of testimony at two previous Council meetings
and at the last meeting, closed the hearing. As a consequence,
under the generally understood rules governing the approval of or the
consideration of quasi-judicial matters such as these permits, the
Council can no longer accept any testimony. If the Council has a very
specific factual question it needs to ask either staff or the applicant
for purposes of clarification in order to better understand something,
the Council can certainly ask the question. But it is no longer
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 6
appropriate for the Council to receive any further testimony unless, as
I indicated earlier, the Council wished to renotice and reopen the
hearing for another evening."
M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. So now it comes to the
Council to deliberate amongst ourselves and I guess to ask questions
of clarification. Okay. We'll start off with Mr. Huff."
C/Huff: "Thank you, Mayor. First I would like - part of the problem
when we hold these meetings over a series of dates is the advantage
is it's not rammed, the disadvantage is you lose some continuity. And
there are people that are not familiar with what the development
process is in town. When somebody has an application and when
they're looking to buy land or when they bought land and they come
to the City Hall, what is the procedure that takes a parcel from
wanting to purchase it to getting a Tract Map from the City to develop.
Could you or staff just give us a brief little overview of that process."
CM/Belanger: "Well, as far as the purchase of land is concerned
that's a private decision and we don't, as a rule, advise for or against
the purchase of property. As far as the processing of land use
entitlements, and that's what you have before you this evening is a
request for a land use entitlement, there is an established procedure
in the City's Zoning Ordinance - Development Code, if you will - which
includes the Subdivision Map Act and there are specific procedures
that are set forth for requesting entitlements under both the
Development Code and the Subdivision Map Act. When an applicant
is deemed to have complied with the requirements so that an
application is deemed to be complete, the process is begun, an
environmental consultant is retained to provide the Environmental
Impact Report - the Developer pays for or the applicant pays for the
cost of that consultant. The City retains the consultant. The
consultant works for the City, works at the direction of the City,
answers to the City. The purpose of that is to keep the environmental
analysis as independent as possible and as objective as possible.
Engineering consultants are retained by the City to provide
Engineering Plan Checking and other engineering activities to
oversee the applicant's engineer. The City retains a geologist to
oversee and review the applicant's geotechnical engineers and soils
engineers. When the Environmental Impact Report is at a point
where it can be set for Public Hearing and the actual Map itself is
deemed to have complied through the evaluation by the various
consultants it is set for Public Hearing at the Planning Commission
level. And for as many Public Hearings as it takes to get this matter
through the public, the Planning Commission will either recommend
approval of a series of actions and you have several of those before
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 7
you this evening, or they'll recommend a denial of the applicant's
application. When it comes to the City Council, again, it's set for
Public Hearing. Public testimony is taken for as much time as the
Council deems appropriate. Public Hearings are closed and the
matter comes to the City Council for deliberation."
C/Huff: "Okay. Thank you for that. So early in the process, basically
an applicant would come to you and say what do you have, what
guidelines do we need to follow within this City and you show them
the General Plan or the Development Code or whatever these
different documents are and they march off and consult with their
attorneys and consultants and come up with a plan."
CM/Belanger: "Basically, they review the General Plan, they are
advised to review the General Plan, and all of their land use policies
related to what they are asking for in the way of entitlements and get
an understanding of those areas that they may have questions about.
Staff will provide information and guidance on how to proceed with
that. So any questions they have however, that have to do with their
rights, they are advised to seek their private counsel."
C/Huff: "Okay. Thank you. There's a lot of misinformation floating
around the community. Some of this I've fielded in phone calls, some
that has been mentioned from the podium, in flyers and there have
been letters. So I'd just like to ask a few questions. First of all, could
someone point out on the overhead or if we could zoom in on one of
the maps, a picture of the map and the portion of the parcel that is
being recommended to develop for the 130 homes that's before us.
And for those of you who have been through this, please bear with
me. We want to give some context to it."
CM/Belanger: "Ann, will you outline the 339 acre site that we've
discussed. Ok. And now will you outline the site that is the subject
of this applicant's subdivision request. That's approximately 65
acres. The balance of that site that you see inside those yellow
lines, as a requirement of the City's General Plan must be dedicated
for Open Space. And to anticipate your next question, all of that land
is owned by the applicant."
C/Huff: "And additionally, there's another parcel that you can't see
there. A non-contiguous piece"?
CM/Belanger: "Ann, if you could, find Pantera Park and then right to
the east of that up there where the water tanks are there is
approximately an 80 acre site. Approximately 90 acres of land
running along the eastern border is a parcel of land also owned by
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 8
the applicant which is otherwise referred to as Parcel 9."
C/Huff: "Ok. And that is also, according to the General Plan, to be
dedicated to Open Space?"
CM/Belanger: "According to this application, it's dedicated for Open
Space."
C/Huff: "Ok. Thank you. If someone could point out where
Sycamore Canyon, Upper Sycamore Canyon is on this because I've
heard comments this is going to be filled in. I would like to look at
that in perspective to the project."
CM/Belanger: "Ok. On the southern border of the site through - and
you can see the coloration there, that's the northward facing slope
and that's the heavily vegetated area of what is commonly referred to
as Upper Sycamore Canyon and there's a reason why we call it
Upper Sycamore Canyon, because there's a lower Sycamore Canyon
there which is the City Park. That area is not a part of this project and
the staffs recommendation has been consistently that it should not,
under any circumstance, be a part of this project."
C/Huff: "Yet there is some information going around that it's going to
fill the canyon and people are assuming it's Sycamore Canyon. I just
wanted to clarify that. It's been said that Diamond Ranch is going to
be used to - we can take that off. That's what I needed for
perspective - but it's been said that there's going to be dynamite used
to level this property or assist in the grading. What's your answer to
that?"
CM/Belanger: "I understand that dynamite has been specifically
excluded, but I'll defer to the City Engineer."
CE/Wentz: "There's a condition written to that effect."
CM/Belanger: "Dynamite will not be used and I'm going to presume
no other kind of explosive just in case..."
C/Huff: "Does the City own any of the parcel we just showed?"
CM/Belanger: "All the parcels showed are owned by Diamond Hills
Ranch Partners/SunCal Development Incorporated. None of the land
that are the subject of this entitlement application is owned by the City
of D. B."
C/Huff: "Is the City selling or wanting to sell any of our land or open
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 9
space land?"
CM/Belanger: "We don't own it - we can't sell it."
C/Huff: "Ok. Because that's also a comment that's been made. It's
been said the developer can't build unless the City Council says yes.
Does the property owner have the right to build homes on their
property?"
CM/Belanger: "Yes and no."
C/Huff: "Ok. And the reason being that they have....."
CM/Belanger: "Well, let me explain that because..."
C/Huff: "Oh, please do."
CM/Belanger: "47 acres of this parcel, otherwise known as Parcel 6
is, I guess, another way of saying, is unencumbered or unburdened
by any restrictions. The balance of the property, and I won't go
through the numbers, but the balance of the property that you - that
we just showed you, is encumbered by a restriction that was set forth
in the Map several years ago. That restriction dedicates to the City
of D.B. - at that time it was the County of L.A. or its successor in
interest, the City of D.B. - the right to prohibit the construction of
residential buildings. That's the restriction about which we're talking.
So when you say do they have a right to build, in essence they have
a right to build subject to the discretion of the City Council on their 47
acres and they don't have a right to build without the City Council
relinquishing its right to prohibit the construction of residential
buildings on the portions of two parcels that are a part of this
application - Parcel 7 and Parcel 5."
C/Huff: "Ok. So they have clear right to build on some, they have
conditional rights on other, condition upon our approval or lifting of
these restrictions."
CM/Belanger: "Well, they have rights that are subject to the
discretion of the City Council on all of the property."
C/Huff: "Okay. But some is a lot clearer than others."
CM/Belanger: "That's correct."
C/Huff: "Just like I have the right to build a single family dwelling unit
but I have to have a permit before the City that meets everything."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 10
CM/Belanger: "Correct. And the City Council can exercise its
discretion under the General Plan, the Subdivision Act and the
Development Code in relationship to the project that an applicant
provides before you. And the reason that I make this distinction,
there isn't an unlimited right to anything. All rights are somewhat
limited by the City Council's exercise of its descretion under the
General Plan, the Subdivision Map and the Development Codes that
specifically applies a 47. To the others, there is a police power that
has been reserved to the City in relationship to the prohibition of the
construction of residential buildings. And that is a right that you have
to specifically relinquish an order for a right to arise on that parcel of
land - those parcels of land."
C/Huff: "I would suggest to anybody that's tried to build a room
addition or deck or whatever, knows this City reserves rights to shape
things and have the last say. It's been said the project will generate
2,000 or more cars per day. What are the actual projections from the
traffic consultant?"
CM/Belanger: "I'll ask Mr. DeStefano to respond to that."
DCM/DeStefano: "It's approximately 1300 trips per day."
C/Huff: "It has been said the project will mean 1,000 less oak trees.
What's the actual impact to the site?"
CM/Belanger: "410 oak trees, 30 walnut trees, I believe is what the
EIR report indicates. Is that correct Mr. DeStefano?"
DCM/DeStefano: "Yes sir."
C/Huff: "And there was a question earlier about having a standard
policy. We do have a standard oak tree replacement and that ratio
is?"
DCM/DeStefano: "City Code prescribes a 2:1 replacement ratio. We
have approved projects over the years with replacement ratios
generally in the 3:1, 4:1 range."
C/Huff: "And in this one we did 4:1 didn't we on the oak trees
depending on the size?"
DCM/DeStefano: "Yes."
C/Huff: "And there's someone that spoke and I believe it was,
somebody spoke last time about a standard replacement ratio being
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 11
5 to 10:1 and that's you know, maybe in some very special areas but
it's not a standard replacement. Actually, 2:1 is the County's
replacement ratio and we typically do higher than that. So we have
410 that are impacted. We have a replacement ratio of 4:1 for that.
So we actually end up with more oak trees if you're taking a time -
expanded scenario, there will be more oak trees on this than there is
now. Is that right?"
CM/Belanger: "That's correct. There's a replacement ratio of 4:1 -
1,600."
C/Huff: "It's been said the project will take two years to grade. How
long is the grading period?"
CM/Belanger: "City Engineer indicates it's 6 months."
CE/Wentz: "6 to 12 months depending on the equipment that they
put out there. And certainly no more than 12."
C/Huff: "Ok. And it's certainly not 2 years, also. It's said it'll take 3
years in building. What's the actual - do we have an estimate on the
building time?"
CM/Belanger: "It's a little bit tougher but we can give you a point of
reference in relationship to a project on Brea Canyon Rd. They're in
Phase II at this point. They were in Phase II in the sales of their
homes before they put up their models. There appears to be a
demand, at least in the marketplace today, for these types of
products. It would be fair to say that it's not going to be 3 years, but
it would probably be difficult to say precisely the length of time, but if
you use that as a gauge because it is about the same size
subdivision, more like 18 months."
C/Huff: "Ok. And I'm not looking for a hard and fast, I'm just looking
for a ballpark figure. You know, in the course of the hearing and prior
to that - and I guess I should say for the record I have talked to the
residents, I've read additional letters and had comments. I've talked
to the applicant and that this has been a Public Hearing process, you
know, disclose that right now - in the process I've talked to a lot of
fine people in the community and I know you have concerns. And it's
unfortunate that there are people who'll put things out without a name
and use scare tactics to try to get you in here and get you angry at
what we're trying to do. You know, we're here representing you. We
may not always represent your exact idea, but that's our job and that's
hopefully what we're doing. But not just the people in the room here
or the neighbors to the project, but the whole community. And when
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 12
we wake up five years, 10 years down the road, whatever we do here
is something we need to be proud of after the emotion of the moment
has passed. And I just want to let you know that regardless of how I
come out of this process, that's how I look at this. Historically, and I
think we have so much data on this, I can't tell you. I got two big
things I'm hauling in tonight and it's easy to get bogged down in the
microscopic and so, for a moment, I'd like us to go back up to the
larger perspective because we have a Planning Commission that
looks at this thing in a more of a microscopic way from a planner's
eyes. And they did that. That's their job. The Planning Staff, as you
heard the process, works with the applicant up to the point it goes to
the Planning Commission then it hits the public comment. You come
in. You may or may not like how it's folded in but they react to that,
they exact things from the applicant and then it moves on up the
process. But the Planning Commission did go through that process.
And our job is perhaps to take a look at more of a simple level. Is it
a good project'for D.B. But that's a subjective thing. What's a good
project? What's a good project to a person on this side of the room
is a bad project to someone on that side of the room. And so we have
some standards that try to objectify that - the standards of the
General Plan, the Development Code that we've been working on,
oak tree replacement - those types of things are ways we try to
objectify and make what a standard type of project, what is a good
project. But that still comes down to as you keep hearing, a
significant benefit. When we are seeking to lift something, what is a
significant benefit if we're lifting a Map Restriction, what is a
significant benefit. That's a moving target. It varies. So I'd like to
give us a little bit of history about where this whole project came from.
Originally this thing started around 10 years ago from what I
understand. And the former owner was a company called Bramalea.
And the City was incorporating about that time. There were some
concerns that we were being overdeveloped, rampant development.
And when we sought to develop a General Plan the City came up with
the idea that you know, perhaps we should be seeking a significant
open space dedication. And so the owner of the property, Bramalee
at the time with the City, came up with the MOU that most of you have
heard about which sought to set aside 75 percent of the parcel as
dedicated open space to the City and for that consideration they
would be allowed to build 110 to 135 homes. The MOU went bye-bye
when the General Plan was finally adopted several years later. But
I was a part of the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) and at
that point in time, the significant benefit always was the land. We had
never had any project come before the City where we had had a
dedication of open space like that. The County would lift Map
Restrictions with seeming willy-nilly and that was part of the reason
that compelled us to become a City. So this project was one of the
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 13
first ones we had an opportunity to shape and the City Council at that
time - the City fathers if you will - felt that 75 percent was a significant
benefit. There was no monetary contribution. That was written into
the General Plan. The fear back then always was that the developer
would find a way to run around the intent of the MOU and that's what
we discussed in the General Plan - how do you keep these guys to it?
We tried to write language into the General Plan that's more difficult
to get around. And so the General Plan didn't have a minimum. It
didn't say 110 to 135 homes, it said up to 130 homes. And it had a
dedication of open space of a minimum of 75%, 1 believe is how it was
put, as well as a 2 acre pad parcel down at Goldrush and D.B. Blvd.
But the idea was to try to write it specifically so that there wouldn't be
a whole lot of wiggle room. And then Bramalee went bankrupt. So
there was some concern, I had conversations with one developer who
took a look at the parcel and said it didn't pencil out. There wasn't
much he could do with it. And then SunCal came to me and I
presume the other Council Members, and said, what is your
perspective on the City's General Plan related to this Planning Area
2 which is that property. And I said you know, I was on the General
Plan Advisory Committee when that thing was drafted, I followed it
through the process, I liked the intent - the MOU before that. If you
bring a project before the City consistent with that then you know, I'm
going to look more or less favorably on it, all things being equal. I
was pleased at the time there was somebody that was going to follow
the guidelines and not trying to do something else with the property.
So while our fear was that the developer would try to run and change
things, the opposite has happened. We have upped the anti. We
have decided, according to the public testimony that I heard last time,
that land's not a significant benefit, you know. We have that already.
We don't have that land already. We can look at it and some of us
trespass on it. I"m here to say I used to walk my dog and ride my bike
on it pretty regularly. But that doesn't mean it's ours. And whoever
owns it, even if it's a dedication of open space unless it's deeded to
the City, if they erect fences and put "No Trespassing" signs, we can
look at it but we don't have access to it. Part of the strategies in the
General Plan was to acquire open space resources. Other strategies
were developed to acquire them at reduced or no cost to the City.
This was always perceived as a good deal to the City as long as they
stayed out of the canyon bottom and we clustered the development
so that it made sense. There's a strategy in there as far as clustering
so that you're preserving sensitive resources. And you know, there
is impact. There's no question about that. 25% of the coastal - a, the
live oak trees there, are being removed. As was stated earlier,
they're being replaced at a 4:1 ratio. But you look at what is saved -
75% of the oak trees are being saved/preserved. And if this project
comes forward, then the City gets that land. And they get that. They
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 14
acquire the open space. You don't have a developer coming to us 5
years down the road saying'yeah, I understand you need this or that
and here's what we'd like to do for you to lift the restrictions on this
property.' To me, I've got to tell you, I know significant benefit is a
moving target and it's subjective, but that's significant to me. I want
to be able to say to my kids, this property belongs to the City. This is
ours to enjoy. We have a trail from Sycamore Canyon up to
Summitridge that you can hike and enjoy the wildlife and the riparian
area down below that's natural and undisturbed by developers
because we had the foresight to secure it for the City. I want to.tell
you the flip side of that. There is a project and that was referenced
also two weeks ago, commonly known as the Sandstone Canyon
project. I was like a lot of you, not really interested in City stuff until
I seryed on the General Plan Advisory Committee and became
fascinated with what was going on in this City. And one of the early
things that was going on was the negotiations over the South Point
Master Plan. There was a proposal to do one thing. There was a
group of residents who opposed that. There was a compromise
position that would have clustered the housing away from the canyon
bottom, save the canyon bottom with the exception of a road going to
South Point Middle School because they needed a secondary access
over there. Those of you who live over by South Point Middle School,
the impacted neighbors, wanted secondary access and so did most
of the community. But this would have deeded to the City 75 acres
of prime Sandstone Canyon bottom property to the City. But, there
was a line drawn in the sand - said no, we believe the developer
should have his rights. We are unwilling to lift map restrictions and
put these houses on another area where there were map restrictions
and save this part. And because of the inflexibility of the Council at
the time, not to point any fingers, but it was a 2-2 and a decision
couldn't be made, and so the default position was the developer could
just do what he could do on his property. And what you see now is a
canyon that is filled in. Nobody presumed that the school district
would buy the property with map restrictions and, you know, they
don't have to follow the same lines - they don't have to follow our
development guidelines. As long as they do something educationally
related it doesn't matter if it's open space, it doesn't matter if it's map
restricted, they have laws that supersede ours. So the lesson I
learned from that was just because you cannot imagine something
happening doesn't mean that it won't happen. And so I'd like to bring
it back down to what we're looking at. The question is, is this a good
plan. Again, I don't know if it's a great plan, but to me, it clusters the
houses away from D.B. Blvd. so people driving by are not looking at
another bank of houses on there with slopes that are not maintain,
but they are looking at an attractive area with a street that goes up to
the houses set back a ways. This is designed for minimum impact to
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 15
the community. Is it going to impact the neighbors? Sure it is, you
guys that live closest to it. We're told that there's no significant traffic
benefits, or significant traffic impacts and most of our problems are
regional. You know, we want to stop everything but our problems are
regional. D.B. Blvd. and Grand Ave. carry 32-33,000 cars per day.
A lot of those come from Chino Hills. We- have to solve the cut
through problem. That particular area of D.B. Blvd. is not the heavily
impacted area of D.B. Blvd. It's heavy, but it's not as heavy as you
know, when you go south of Grand Ave. The Planning Commission
looked at this thing. I think they did a pretty good job. There are a
few things that I would like to see done to this after listening to the
public comment and what I would like to see done is have the lots
reduced to 10,000' - put the extra space into the homeowners
association. They can maintain the slopes. I think you'll probably
have a better looking product that way. I'd like to see the staging
area for the grading off of D.B. Blvd., not off of Highcrest. The
neighbors were very specific about that. I think that's something that
can be done. Certainly on the project over in Sandstone Canyon they
started right off of Brea Canyon Rd. And D.B. Blvd. is two lanes with
basically a third lane when you factor in the bike lane. So I think with
some cones it is possible to do that. I would like to see all of the
natural open space dedicated to the City, not just open space
dedicated to somebody but to the City. And I would also like to see
that two acre site at the corner of Goldrush and D.B. Blvd. deeded to
the City. I think that historically, the significant benefit was the land.
I understand many of you disagree with that. But historically, that's
my perspective on it. The property owner, to get. the Planning
Commission on board, agreed to $250,000 in addition to that
although that was not required in the original MOU. We're not
governed by the MOU now but that did go into the pot. And that's
basically where I'm at right now, folks."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Thank you Mr. Huff. Mrs. O'Connor, I think you
wanted to be next and then Mrs. Ansari. (sidebar) Oh, Mrs. Ansari."
C/Ansari: '"Yes. I just want to make a comment. I also served on that
General Plan Committee and I served as a Council Member at the
time. There were two of us that were representing the City, Mr.
Werner and myself. And when the General Plan went through the
planning the General Plan Committee and discussion was made on
this issue, the issue of concern was always map and deed restricted
properties and whether it was of sufficient benefit to the City whether
or not to lift them or not and there were concerns of the people, many
of them that were there, that they felt that they should be left on there
for a reason. They were put on there for a reason and let them stay.
So that was a large part of the discussion that came up. Before I get
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 16
into some of the questions, and I'd like some of the questions, the
answer, from Mrs. Erickson submitted this weekend a list of questions
to us and since we the public discussion is already closed, the Public
Hearing, 1 think it might be in the best interest because they did have
concerns that some of these questions be answered. But let me
digress a little bit to talk about Sandstone Canyon because the
comments came up about the canyon. The City on March 29, 1994
received a notice from the school board saying that they had to grade
the property by April 15 of 1994. So it was put on the agenda
because it was something or they would lose public funding. The
issue of this project came up. It was something that was being
bandied around for many years and it was stalled because there was
such a public outcry. One of the, the issue of one of the concerns I
had at the time was the road that was designed that was going
through the project. At that time•the road, having a geotech, having
a geologist look at the road, the road that was proposed by some of
the Council Members that wanted this road, they would have to dig up
to take the problem with the ancient landslides, they would have to
dig up 15 acres, I believe it was 15 acres if my mind, my memory, and
stockpile it, do the mitigation and then put the soils back and the dirt
back after mitigating them. And at that time I think the cost for that
roadway was 1 think $970,000. And which at that time I doubt if any
developer would be putting a road of that thing. What happened was,
we finally, because of the rush and because the land was purchased
by the school district, we had to come up with a project and the
project was agreed upon by some of us was to allow them to build on
their, a their property they had rights to. Let me say something very
clearly. I believe that builders, when they buy property, or
landowners, when they buy property, they have rights to build on the
property that has no restrictions on them. But whether or not those
restrictions are lifted is up to this Council to determine. And we have
been through a lot in this City concerning land use and open space
issues and map and deed restricted properties so we have to think
very carefully before we decide whether or not we're going to lift
those restrictions. So there may be two of us up here but each of us
have a different point of view because they're looking at it from a
different perspective. But I was there also. I was there looking at the
geotechnical aspects of the map trying to meet with the builders for
the Sandstone issue back and forth when that came up, so let me get
back to the issue. I'd like some of the questions, a this weekend I
received that was faxed over to me some questions that were sent
over by the Ericksons. And of questions they had. And I really would
like some of those questions to be asked since the Public Hearing
was closed and I think that they have a right to have some of these
answers made. One of the question was, the Hunsaker
representative challenged the opponents of this proposed project to
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 17
show him an alternative that would encompass more than the 53 lots.
We respectively submit exhibit i Hunsaker's own redefined design
and the answer to this challenge. Granted there is some remedial
grading taking place outside of Lot 6 with this design but hardly to the
extent of the 130 lot proposal. As far as the water tank, in the writeup
on the alternative it states the tank can be located elsewhere outside
Lot 6 if indeed it is actually required by the water district. This refined
design with very few modifications as indicated on the exhibit could
encompass up to a hundred lots and it eliminates many of the
concerns stated by the residents of D.B. including but not limited to."
M/Herrera: "Eileen, by reading all of that I believe you're entering
new testimony into..."
CM/Belanger: "I'm having trouble finding the question."
M/Herrera: "If maybe instead of reading it you could just phrase a
question."
CA/Jenkins: "I would go one step further. I don't believe we should
consider any written materials submitted after the closing of the
Public Hearing."
C/Ansari: "We shouldn't ask the questions?"
M/Herrera: "Well, we didn't notice that we were going to introduce
any additional material and the Public Hearing is closed. By your
reading that you are introducing new material."
C/Ansari: "These are questions that are very valid questions that
came up after..."
M/Herrera: "I know, but the Public Hearing is closed. If you could
maybe phrase some questions of your own..."
C/Ansari: 'The question I want to ask is about the water tank, alright.
Is the water tank necessary to be put there and could it possibly be
put on one of the deed restricted - map restricted properties?"
CM/Belanger: "I'll defer to George if he has a specific answer, but in
case of the Water District, they have indicated that they have a need
for tanks at specific elevations. Our past experience with the Water
District is that if they have an opportunity to have that tank
constructed by others, they will take advantage of that opportunity.
In the most recent example I can give you is that in the case of the
Subdivision Map on Brea Canyon Rd., the condition in the approval
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 18
was to provide onsite at the property line the ability to convert from
potable water to reclaimed water for common area landscaping,
irrigation. That was our condition. When it went to the Water
company, it came back with the requirement being placed upon the
developer to build the reclaimed waterline from somewhere to the
north to the property line and serve the property with reclaimed water.
Typically, if the Water District has an opportunity to have a land
developer build their facilities, then they will require that as a
condition. They do have 2 sites up there for the purpose of locating
water tanks. They are flexible in terms of where those water tanks
are located. In terms of situs, they are not flexible in terms of
elevation. You asked whether they could be located off Lot 6. The
answer to that question is that, in a certain sense, is that at the
discretion of the City Council, they're certainly not prohibited under
the restriction that exists on the property."
C/Ansari: "Because that could give them - move some homes up to
where the water tank would be. Alright. Another question is, tell me
more about the fault that's at the end of Highcrest. Land fault."
CM/Belanger: 'The geotechnical consultant appears not to be here.
That individual would have the best information on the nature and
extent of the faulting. I haven't the slightest idea. He was scheduled
to be here."
C/O'Connor: "Mrs. Ansari. Where in the documents does it talk
about a fault at the end of Highcrest, do you know?"
C/Ansari: "It came up at the last meeting, I believe. I read it in one
of the ones we had..."
CM/Belanger: "Mr. Hunsaker raised the issue of the fault in
discussion of the Lot 6 only alternative as a reason why they wouldn't
be able to construct at the upper end. 1 said Mr. Hunsaker? The
Hunsaker representative."
C/Ansari: "Ok. That's about it for now."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Thank you. Mrs. O'Connor."
C/O'Connor: "I have some questions related to comments made by
the citizens. What is the estimated selling price for these homes?"
CM/Belanger: "The applicant has indicated between $400,000 and
$500,000."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 19
C/O'Connor: "An issue was raised about the subject of maintaining
the landscaping on the steep manufactured slopes and the question
of non-native plants. Could you address that issue."
CM/Belanger: "I'll ask Mr. DeStefano to address that more
specifically but that would be a subject of the Mitigation Monitoring
Program. Mr. DeStefano, perhaps you can explain how that works."
DCM/DeStefano: "Mayor and Council Members. All of the slopes
within this property must be revegetated with species native to that
area. And that would include the homeowners association property.
We generally prohibit the use of non-native species, particularly
species that may be invasive and eventually overtake and kill the
native species that have been planted or that exist in the area. The
EIR discusses that issue. Should the project be approved a
Landscaping and Irrigation Plan would need to be submitted detailing
the species that are proposed. We would verify those as being
appropriate for the site. We would then verify in the field the
installation of those species and we would then monitor the growth of
those species for five years to insure that they are the appropriate
species and that they have been properly maintained and cared for
over that time period."
C/O'Connor: "What happens the 6th year? Can they turn the water
off and let it all die?"
DCM/DeStefano: "What happens after the 5th year is somewhat
determined by the conditions of the growth pattern over the 5 years,
the weather of those 5 years. In some cases, yes, the water may be
turned off and it go back to its natural state with the annual rainfall
that's received for that area. In some cases, the water may need to
stay on for another year or so. That would be determined by the
City's Environmental Consultant. It's going to be based upon the
conditions as we near that end and how the whole development has
been progressing, how the landscaping has been progressing."
O'Connor: "So it's the intent that after 5 years, the slopes that they
are going to be manufacturing would look as natural as possible as
it does now."
DCM/DeStefano: "That's the intent, yes."
O'Connor: "Mr. Huff alluded to the fact that he would like to see these
lots reduced to the maximum of 10,000 as stated in the General Plan.
Do we know what the effect there would be on the manufactured
slopes and the amount of homeowner association open space that
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 20
would be added if those lots were decreased?"
DCM/DeStefano: "We indicated to the Council at the last meeting
that most likely the larger lots, the above 10,000 sq. ft. lots, would be
reduced in size creating more homeowners association property. In
discussions with the developer's engineer, we've been informed that
an additional 6 acres of homeowners association property would be
created as a result of reducing the lot sizes to a maximum of 10,000'."
O'Connor: "An issue that was raised was, don't those larger lots on
the outskirts of the development push these slopes out farther than
they would if the lots were the smaller size? So if we were to stipulate
that they could be a maximum of 10(000), would that mean that some
of those manufactured slopes would then be smaller or moved closer
to the development so there would be less impact."
DCM/DeStefano: "The answer is yes, generally. However, the
impact would not be significantly reduced. We're talking about a very
small area on those perimeter slopes. But yes, there would be some
savings of natural slope area as a result of that."
O'Connor: "What is the benefit of the City owning the open space
versus a private owner?"
CM/Belanger: "The benefit of the City owning the dedicated open
space is that it is in public hands as opposed to private ownership.
As long as it remains in private ownership there is always the
possibility of the private owner coming to some future City Council
and requesting that the burdens on the property be removed. If the
City owns the property and the property is held with a reversion for
dedicated open space, that property will be open space in perpetuity."
C/O'Connor: "How can we make sure that that would be true, that it
would remain that way in perpetuity?"
CM/Belanger: "Well, to the extent that you can guarantee perpetuity
you could say so in the deed itself that the intent of the party deeding
the property to the City was to have the open space remain in
perpetuity. If for any reason the City in the future determined that
they wanted to dispose of it, the way to protect from that would be to
have a reverter on that deed where if that were even posited, the
property would revert to a third party, presumably a third party that
has, as their fundamental philosophical core, environmental
conservation or preservation. You can be pretty well certain that the
property is going to remain open space with those two levels of
protection."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 21
C/O'Connor: "Is that a stipulation that we would define in our
Resolution or Ordinance that that's what the deed would say?"
CM/Belanger: "In order to inform the property owner, in order to
inform the general public, it would probably be useful to, as
specifically as possible, delineate what it is that deed is going to say
and what its purpose is and if there are any reversions, who that third
party would be that that land would revert to."
C/O'Connor: "If staff could address the comment that was made that
none of the people's questions are considered and that none of the
questions that the citizens brought up are right. I can think I believe
on a couple of them it seems to me that citizens raised during the
Planning Commission time the question about the blasting and the
dynamiting. Now couldn't that be considered that they were right in
that regard and that we have now removed that clause from
consideration?"
CM/Belanger: "Certainly in the context of the Planning Commission
discussion where issues were raised and changes were made as a
result of commentary made by the public as the Planning Commission
deliberated on these conditions."
C/O'Connor: "Was the increased ratio of the tree replacements
based on comments made by the citizens concerned about the
removal of the oak trees?"
CM/Belanger: "I'll defer to Mr. DeStefano and our environmental
consultant."
DCM/DeStefano: "My recollection is that it grew out of a general
concern raised from the citizens speaking about the loss of those
trees, but it was more specific to the Planning Commissioners
discussing and coming up with concept."
C/O'Connor: "Can you think of other recommendations that citizens
made that were incorporated by the Planning Commission? I'm
putting you on the spot, but I think that it's apparent that the citizens
were and have been listened to and their ideas and thoughts have
been considered by the Planning Commission and thereby being
considered here by the City Council."
DCM/DeStefano: "2 that come to mind. First of all, the alternative
design that was developed for the Planning Commission showing all
of the units within the boundaries of Lot 6. Grading would have taken
place outside, but that was the so-called 120 unit alternative. And
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 22
secondly, in a little more detail, concerns were raised regarding the
view from afar of these homes - the perception that these homes
might be more widely seen than what was represented. And from that
conditions were modified including increasing setbacks to the rear
yards of the perimeter homes to try to insure that those homes were
further away from the edge of the pad and they would be, therefore,
less likely to be seen from particularly the people below if not from a
greater distance."
C/O'Connor: "Well, then I feel that questions that were raised by the
citizens have been considered and that not all of their questions were
considered "wrong" or "not considered". The issue was brought up
about the citizens or the City buying the property from SunCal. I
commented on that at one of the meetings, the fact that in the Parks
Master Plan we did have a 500 person random survey asking them -
and I have the exact figures, we asked if they would be willing to pay
$3.50 a month to acquiring parkland and park facilities. 42% of the
people said that they were extremely willing or willing to do that.
42%. We then asked a second question. Would you be willing to
pay $2 a month? And at that time it was 54% that said they would be
willing to do $2 a month. If this went to a vote for us to acquire - the
City of citizens to acquire this property, is it a simple majority or 2/3
requirement to access the value of the property to the tax payers? Do
we know?"
CM/Belanger: "Well, if it's a general obligation requirement which
means there would be an override to the property tax, that requires
a 2/3. As far as a benefit assessment district, I'll refer to Mike."
CA/Jenkins: "We couldn't do a Citywide Benefit Assessment District
I don't believe. I think it would have to be a special tax to support
some sort of a bond issue. A 2/3 vote would be required."
C/O'Connor: "So the fact that the citizens here in D.B., and again,
this was a random telephone survey that was done by a professional
company during the Parks Master Plan survey, and at $2 a month
54% were willing. At $3.50, 42% were willing. So, I think it would
become a very difficult issue for the 17,000 homeowners in D.B. to
decide that they wanted possibly hundreds of dollars assessed
against them on their taxes. A comment was made as to why the
citizens who spoke in favor of the project did not have to give their
addresses like the citizens who were against it and whether there was
favoritism being given. I believe that the citizens that spoke in favor
of the project have spoken many times before the City Council and
their address is on the record. Those new citizens who have come
before us who are here for the first time or possibly second or
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 23
whatever, their addresses might not necessarily be on the record. So
I believe that answers that question. Could staff address the
comment made about the rare sub -ecosystem of the north facing
slope and the coast live oak woodland. I believe that I had asked that
question and there will be, if this is approved, the Department of Fish
and Game or whoever it is will do an analysis of that?"
DCM/DeStefano: "I'm going to ask our Environmental Consultant,
Tom Smith, from Bontera to respond to that more specific question."
Tom Smith: "Councilwoman O'Connor and City Council. In one of
the documents that you have before you we give an answer to that
question and I'll just highlight it for the record and for the audience.
The environmental document indicates that the proposed project
would impact and result in the loss of 9.6 acres of coast live oak
woodland which is primarily on north facing slopes. And it's that loss
of coast live oak woodland that is reflected in the mitigation ratio of
the numbers of trees that we've talked about that varies depending on
the trunk diameters etc. The balance of property that is not part of
the proposed development area contains 38.7 of coast live oak
woodland. So there's approximately four times as many acres being
retained through the proposed project as there are being lost. And,
in addition, those acres that are being lost are being mitigated for at
various ratios that in effect will achieve an end result that there will be
more acres of coast live oak woodland after the project is approved
and mitigated than there exists today including both the developed
area and the undeveloped area."
C/O'Connor: "Thank you. Comment made at the July 7 Public
Hearing by James Anderson. He said'I feel, unfortunately, that the
Planning Commission which approved this perhaps doesn't live here
or are possibly thinking about moving.' There's a requirement to be
on the Planning Commission which is appointed - each of us Council
Members appoint a Planning Commissioner. A requirement is that
they are a resident of D.B. As far as the comment about them
possibly moving, well, we all have the right to move, and I'm not
aware at this time whether Planning Commissioners are planning to
move or not. Rosie Bern talked about 53,000 or 60,000 residents and
what is the latest figure? And I believe the latest figure is?"
CM/Belanger: "It's 56,659 but you could say about 57,000. But the
last the January 1, 1998 number was 56,659. Since that time, you
can presume that we have probably passed the 57,000 mark."
C/O'Connor: "And how is that determined?"
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 24
CM/Belanger: "That's determined by the State of California
population research unit and the HCD. Every year, we submit to the
State as of January 1 st the number of new buildings, the number of
buildings that have been taken down and we modify the number of
building types. There is a population ratio based on building types.
They do a simple mathematics problem. Population ratio times the
number of building types - they add all that up and they come up with
a number and every year they modify that. At this point they use the
1990 census as the benchmark. We were at about 54,900 in 1990,
so over an 8 -year period of time, that gives you an idea of the
population growth."
C/O'Connor: "She also stated that D.B. is only 3 miles long. How
long is D.B.?"
CM/Belanger: "It's about 5 miles or, maybe more to the point, it's 14
sq. mi."
C/O'Connor: "Sam Saffari said, quote 'this land that they give us,
there is no guarantee that the City Council will not use it for other
purposes.' I think we addressed that issue that we can put a
stipulation in the deed that it will be open space for recreational
facilities only for perpetuity."
CM/Belanger: "The General Plan requires that it be dedicated for
open space. It would require a change of the General Plan to change
that open space designation and that's the land use aspect of it. The
ownership of it relates to the deed and how the deed is held and for
what purpose it's held. If it's held in perpetuity for open space, that's
a pretty strong indication that's what it's going to remain."
C/O'Connor: "Randy Nayudu made the statement 'how many
members of the Planning Commission and how many members sitting
up there right now drive between Pathfinder and Grand Ave. between
5:00 p.m. and 5:30 every evening because I do and] would like to
see if you were really seeing the world from my perspective or are
you seeing it from the top of an ivory tower'. Well, I don't live in an
ivory tower. I live in a house just like the rest of us do. It's a modest
house in north D.B. Yes, I do live in north D.B., so I am not impacted
by the traffic in the south but I have driven that many times taking my
children to soccer practice in the south end. So, from my point of
view, no, I do not drive that portion on a daily basis from 5:00 to 5:30.
Ron Tehran showed us a copy of a Grant Deed that talked about a
deed restriction. So far I have not seen a copy of that and I'm
disappointed that he has not been willing to give a copy to the
Council. Therefore, I'm unable to put any credence to that document.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 25
Todd Kurtin from SunCal made the statement 'there is no discussion
in the General Plan which restricts the development to Lot 6.' Is that
a true statement?"
CM/Belanger: "In Planning Area 2, in which this property is located,
the Planning Area 2 indicates that up to 130 units can be approved,
that a minimum of 75 acres of the land within Planning Area 2 must
be dedicated for open space and that the lot sizes range between
6,000 and 10,000 square feet."
C/O'Connor: "So the General Plan does not restrict the development
to Lot 6."
CM/Belanger: 'The development beyond Lot 6 is at the discretion of
the City Council."
C/O'Connor: "A question was asked by Wendy Ann Goin 'We have
a hundred more kids coming into our schools. Where do we plan to
put them?' I know that we're not related to the school, but PUSD,
Pomona Unified School District, which is the district that these homes
would be in, is building Pantera Elementary School, which anticipates
taking those. My children attended Lorbeer Middle School. There
was at that time room. We had transfer students coming in and of
course, we do have the new Diamond Ranch High School which
certainly will have room for those students."
CM/Belanger: "Council Member O'Connor, Members of the Council,
if I might go back to your previous question about restrictions in the
General Plan. Burdens on property are not in the General Plan.
Burdens on property run with the property. There is a burden on that
property. It is a right that has been dedicated to the City of D.B. to
prohibit the construction of residential buildings. No, it's not in the
General Plan. Taking the restriction off that property and the process
related to that is in the General Plan, but that restriction runs with that
property regardless what the General Plan says. There are
restrictions on the property because of the burdens that were placed
on that property previously. General Plans don't do that."
C/O'Connor: "Is this a time to make a final statement or shall we go
through all of the questions and then make a final statement?"
M/Herrera: "I think maybe if we could hear comments from different
Council and then come back to those that want to make additional
comments like I think that..."
C/O'Connor: "I do have final closing comments to make."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 26
M/Herrera: "Ok. I would like to make some comments and a couple
of questions. The issue of moving the water tower, how many
additional houses or lots would that provide?"
CM/Belanger: "That's hard to know unless we know what you are
going to approve. If you're presuming the application as submitted...."
M/Herrera: "Yes. Well, that's what's before us."
CM/Belanger: "I can't answer that question for you. I don't know that
that analysis has been done."
M/Herrera: "I thought that question had been asked. Maybe Mr.
Kurtin could step forward."
DCM/DeStefano: "Mayor and Council Members. I might be able to
answer that question for you. You saw a 120 unit alternative that did
not incorporate the water tank and you received testimony from staff,
and I believe also the developer, that to incorporation of the water
tank would result in the loss of approximately 10 dwelling units. You
later saw I believe, a 113 unit proposal that had the water tank
located within it. So, somewhere in that range subject to the ingenuity
of the designer, would reveal, I'm going to say, approximately 10.
And then the other aspect is if the water tank is located elsewhere off
this site at the district's prescribed 1050 elevation, that will require a
pad to be created and a roadway to get to and from that water tank to
be created. One of the opportunities that this project creates for the
water District is the incorporation of all of that within the street
network for this development."
M/Herrera: "Ok. So it isn't just a simple matter of putting it
somewhere else. There's other consideration - the height, the
elevation and access to it. Ok. We've heard a little bit about map
restrictions, deed restrictions and some reference made to Ron
Tehran's so-called deed restriction that he displayed. Did staff run a
title search on the property?"
CM/Belanger: "I don't believe staff ran a title search, but I'll defer to
Mr. DeStefano as to the title report that is in the possession of the
Planning Staff related to this project."
DCM/DeStefano: "We received an updated title report from the
developer and anticipating your next question, the document that was
shown to us by one of the speakers is not reflected anywhere in that
title report."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 27
M/Herrera: "A lot of the residents brought up some excellent points,
some excellent questions and I believe caused a great deal of
thought process amongst the Council. A lot of the residents
requested and admonished Council to do various things. So I'm
going to briefly run through some of the points made, questions
asked. Bob Schwartz at the August 18 meeting stated he is not
against the development of the land on Lot 6 but he would like to see
the Council approve the best development - 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 impact. We already have heard that
the developer has building rights on Lot 6 so slopes will be torn up,
there will be some traffic. There's no way of getting around it. The
developer has property rights. We've considered briefly various
modifications of the project - downsizing - which results in primarily
14 percent grades and Mr. Schwartz states that roads such as that
are steep, they're noisy, the cars going up you can hear them revving
the engine, and he'd like to see the City look at this in the terms of
acting like this as if we are good businessmen. He's asking us to be
smart and wise and judicious in our negotiations regarding this
project. Now there are some things that cannot be mitigated and the
things that can't be mitigated and the restrictions that the applicant is
asking to be lifted, there's significant benefit considerations. Various
individuals have talked about what they consider significant benefit.
A couple of Council Members have commented about significant
benefit. Everybody I guess has kind of a different concept or an idea
of what is significant benefit. But I think the ultimate charge to the
Council is to negotiate the best project, the best development, and
the best deal. Sam Saffari on August 18 said'you who are the D.B.
City Council Members, your decisions should favor us, the D.B.
residents. When everything is equal the balance should favor us.'
We sit here representing you but we don't just represent a
neighborhood, we represent the entire City. And it's our duty and our
obligation to try and make the best decision that best benefits the
entire City and we are very carefully, I believe, trying to do that. Mr.
George Davidson. His concern has always been to get the best
development for D.B. and I believe that's what we're trying to do.
There were other individuals that were in favor of the project. Many
others expressed concern about the dust. If you have the project
that's in front of us, you have dust. If you have a modified downsized
version, you have dust. So that's going to remain. The noise, you've
got it either way with whichever size the project. Traffic - we've been
told that 40 percent of the traffic in this City is regional traffic. Is the
City attempting to do anything about that? The City has worked very
hard in the past several years to gain funding for D.B. for the High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes that are now on the 60 fwy. and the
57 fwy. They're going to be constructed on the 60 fwy. That should
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 28
greatly alleviate a lot of the traffic. Mr. Huff is Chairman of the Four
Corners Transportation Committee and he is attempting to arrive at
some mitigating relief regionally because there is a lot of Orange
County traffic that's coming to San Bernardino County that's cutting
through D.B. There isn't any control that D.B. has on that, but we are
working with other agencies, other cities, that recognize that there is
a big traffic problem. I think I'm going to stop with my comments and
let Mr. Chang."
MPT/Chang: "Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do not have questions.
Most of the questions have been asked. We have had two Public
Hearings so I think basically, most of the questions have been asked
and answers been delivered as well. I have had numerous
discussions with staff so basically I think it is pretty much understood
so I don't have any further questions."
M/Herrera: "Well, then we can get into final comments then. Mr.
Chang, do you want to start?"
MPT/Chang: "Ok. Thank you Madam Mayor. Before I make
comments on this project, something I would like to say about my
feelings about the City of D.B. and also as a Council Member what is
my basic concept and what is my goal to work for this City. Basically,
I think we all love D.B. I too, love D.B. as well. I plan to live here and
to live here for many years to come. The reason we love D.B. is, I
think, the quality of life is one of the major attractions to us. Open
space is also a major factor of quality of life. Far the City of D.B. with
a total area of 15 sq. mi. - roughly 14 and 1/2 to 15 sq. mi. - with a
population of around 57,000 people, this is a good sized City.
Comparing to other cities that many of the cities they have smaller
size than ours but they do have a much bigger population that we
have. So apparently, the quality of life is very clear to us. That's why
we selected the City of D.B. So, basically this is what I feel about the
City of D.B. in terms of this project. And in terms of my goal and also
Council's goal and the basic concept, as a representative of the
people, I always believe the City of D.B. is supposed to have very
slow growth. We do not want to have a fast growth situation for
Diamond Bar because we want to enjoy our quality of life. That's my
basic concept for the development of the City of D.B. My goal as the
Council Members representing you and I believe as other Council
Members, our goals are pretty simple. We just want to improve the
existing quality of life that we have in the City of D.B. right now. Not
try to injure it, not try to downgrade it. So that means that we would
like to basically trying very hard to resolve the traffic problem that we
have right now. Also we would like to improve the business and
economic conditions in town. We all know that we have serious
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 29
vacancy problems in town. So thirdly, we would like to go for a
community center including senior center/youth center and to have a
better library and maybe with a civic center all together so we can
bring the community together to enjoy the programs that we have.
Fourthly, we would like to keep as much open space that we want and
that we have. So I think these are the goals that Council are striving
for and for the best benefit of the City of D.B. Beyond that, so with
this in mind, then I have several concerns about this project in front
of us tonight. The proposed project requests lifting of map
restrictions. To me, I think the lifting of map restrictions is very
serious and also a major subject to our City. Personally, I feel that we
should try to avoid it unless we really need to do so. Lifting the map
restriction certainly we understand that we need a significant benefit
to the City. And in terms of this project, in terms of this case, the 2
factors of significant benefit that we're talking about over here as you
all know is the dedication of the open space 260 acres to the City and
also a cash donation of $250,000 to the City. I think in terms of
impact of this project in the long run to the City, both from the lifting
of map restrictions and both from the physical impact again in the
long run to the City versus of the contributions that we talk about over
here it seems to me not quite significant to me and probably not quite
significant to most of the people in D.B. Especially, the project we
talk about we have 45 to 48 houses laying on Lot 5 and Lot 7. Those
need to have the map restriction lifted. For those of houses to be
built for actual needed and with the map restriction, I personally think
this is not quite a significant benefit to the City. So therefore, 1 find a
hard time to approve a project as it is proposed tonight here.
However, I do respect the property right which the applicant has a
right to build on Lot 6, that we cannot deprive, that we cannot prohibit
him or them to build on Lot 6. So with that in mind, I'm willing to
consider another map, sorry another map again, but I'm willing to
consider a map to allow the applicant to build about 70 to 80 houses
on Lot 6 with a quality project to match the neighborhood property
value, to keep every lot remaining to requirements of 10,000 sq. ft.
And also, I would like to see, to allow the applicant to do the
necessary grading on Lot 5 and Lot 7. Again, necessary grading.
With the contingency of dedicating the deed of the open space to the
57,000 people in the City of D.B. So therefore, if Madam Mayor will
entertain a motion later on, I would like to make this motion as
mentioned and ask City staff to negotiate with the applicant and come
up with a new proposal to resubmit to the Planning Commission for
review. By doing so, we do not have to face the problem of setting a
bad precedent for the future in terms of map restriction lifting and we
will be able to mitigate the impact, the environment impact to the very
minimum and bearable degree. Besides that, I think that will give us
a possibility that, to the City of D.B., people to have the control of 260
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 30
acres of open space in the future, not just now, so we can resolve the
problem once and for all. On the other hand, we also can have the
property right duly respected and applicant can still hopefully, I
believe, still make some profit out of this project. So, hopefully, by
doing so, this project can be a win-win situation to all of us here: And
these are my comments. Thank you."
M/Herrera: "Thank you, Mr. Chang. Mrs. O'Connor."
C/O'Connor: "I beg your indulgence. I'm going to read what I have
prepared only because I want to make sure that I get it all said and I
won't stumble over some of those big words that I had problems with
earlier. First of all, I'd like to address the flyer that was presented
earlier. I had nothing to do with that even though my picture and
phone number and fax number and everything was on there. During
the past two City Council elections in November 95 and 97 and the
special election we held in March of 96 concerning the General Plan,
the questions which always keep coming up were growth, no growth
and the preservation of open space. It goes without saying that
whenever a developer proposes to build homes in D.B., the idea must
be thoughtfully and carefully reviewed with a great amount of public
input. Whenever such a proposal includes waiving of map
restrictions the most thorough scrutiny is demanded. After years of
being bombarded from one extreme or another - pro growth or no
growth, it has been rewarding to be involved with a spirited intelligent
discussion on the SunCal project. I have reviewed all of the written
and oral material to the best of my ability. This has been an
exhaustive procedure. I have carefully listened to all audio tapes for
all of the Planning Commission Public Hearing meetings. I took
diligent notes of those tapes carefully considering all comments
presented. I have carefully reviewed the verbatim minutes of our City
Council Public Hearings. Sound decision-making only suffers from
extreme points of view and misinformation. This is why the true facts
need to be studied and understood by everyone. I have been very
disappointed with the continuous amount of misinformation and fear
tactics that have been circulated around the community about this
project. Decisions must be based on truth, not misinformation. I am
extremely frustrated but not surprised that there are still citizens in
our community that knowingly continue to intentionally mislead as
many of you as they can about this project. I know that many of you
must share in that frustration. Any information either written or oral
that is done anonymously is a sure sign that the anonymous person
is not proud of what he or she is doing. If you are proud of what you
are doing then you are willing to put your name to it. Therefore, let
me make it perfectly clear that I do not and will not put any credence
to any anonymous written or oral communication and neither should
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 31
any of you. To accept anything else is lowering your own standards.
I am not willing to do that. The SunCal project has proven to be very
challenging. As a long time resident, I believe strongly in D.B.'s
unique quality of life, which some people call country living. Even the
concept of country living itself has no clear cut definition. We have
heard many arguments how the project as approved by the Planning
Commission is contrary to country living because it will displace
hundreds of oak trees and increase traffic among other things.
However, this project does conform with other ideas of country living
such as larger lot sizes and more distance between them, such as
keeping homes off of D.B. Blvd. In fact, the lower density of this
project is more consistent with the City's single family residential
character and it has been stated that it will increase neighboring
values for the very people opposed to it. Lifting map restrictions for
this project should never be an easy thing to do. It is a difficult and
agonizing decision. Our own General Plan says that map restrictions
should only be lifted in exchange for significant benefits which effect
the entire community. This brings up the question that has been
consistently asked - what is the significant benefit? We have heard
that the dedication of at least 75%t of the land owned by SunCal to
the City of D.B. is a significant benefit. It has also been stated that
the intent during the development of the General Plan was that the
donation of 75% of the open space was considered a significant
benefit. My question is, why was that never specified in the General
Plan itself. Also, SunCal has added the donation of $250,000 to our
Parks & Facilities account. In my mind, SunCal bought this property
knowing that 75% of the land was to be dedicated as open space.
SunCal continuously refers to the MOU. The MOU states that this
land is to be dedicated to the City of D.B. and they knew that when
they bought the property. As far as I'm concerned, the land is not part
of the significant benefit because that was already a requirement.
SunCal has not offered enough significant benefit for me to lift map
restrictions for this project. I would like to ask staff to have further
negotiations with SunCal and see if further negotiations will lead to
further benefit. I would like to see some of our goals in our Parks
Master Plan moving forward. The Parks Master Plan includes a trails
system going through this property connecting Sycamore Canyon and
Summitridge Park. The total trails program in our Parks Master Plan
has a cost of approximately $1.4 million. The number one priority in
one of my campaign issues was the development of a community
center. I believe that SunCal can help us in that goal. I'm not asking
SunCal to pay for everything - that would not be fair. But I believe
that further negotiations might bring us closer to those goals for the
benefit of the entire community. The SunCal project has been
subjected to exhaustive review. There have been numerous Public
Hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. We have
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 32
listened to everyone who has sought to express their opinion on this
issue. I have been impressed with the input and I do thank each and
every one of you for coming here, for your phone calls and your
faxes. As a Council Member it is very important to me to be
accessible to the public. That is why I've mentioned many times to
please call me if you have any questions and my phone number is in
the phone book. I would, however, that I do have a new FAX number.
I know that many of you had trouble faxing to me because it was a
personal line that we had to turn on the FAX machine to receive it.
My new FAX number which will be on new business cards when they
are developed is 612-0740. 1 realize that I will never make everyone
happy regardless of how I vote. As I stated during my campaign last
year I have great respect for property rights. Most of us are property
owners. A property owner has a legal, constitutional and earned right
to develop his or her land. SunCal does have the legal right to build
on Lot 6. That is a given. We cannot deny that right. What we must
decide is, what is the best possible development. I truly believe that
SunCal considers this 130 home development is the best possible
development for this property and that is why they are presenting it.
However, I have the following concerns about this project: 1) the
General Plan requires a Specific Plan; 2) the General Plan requires
the lot sizes be between 6,000 and 10,000 sq. ft. I would like this to
be an additional condition that is negotiated with the developer.
have deep concerns about the long-term stability of the cut and fill
that will be necessary for this development. My own neighborhood
built 33 years ago had a serious landslide last February affecting 5
homes. The homeowners are now faced with a possible $100,000 bill
to repair this landslide. Lot 6 is the only unrestricted property. As I
stated earlier, I do not feel that the significant benefit offered by
SunCal is enough for me to lift the map restrictions on Lot 5 and 7."
M/Herrera: "Thank you, Mrs. O'Connor. I would like to ask the
applicant a question. May I do that?"
CM/Belanger: "You're the Mayor."
M/Herrera: "Mr. Kurtin."
Todd Kurtin: "Yes, Madam Mayor."
M/Herrera: "There have been many comments regarding significant
benefit."
Todd Kurtin: "Yes."
M/Herrera: "Would you be willing to meet with staff and renegotiate
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 33
significant benefit?"
Todd Kurtin: "Yes, we would. When we originally discussed the
significant benefit, we had less than 24 hours to discuss this. We are
more than willing to do so."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Thank you. Mr. Huff., would you like to make
comments?"
C/Huff: "Ok. Let me restate some of the things I've said before. Is
this a good project? When I was Mayor I had put on our City Council
Agenda packets on the front a short version of our Vision Statement
because I wanted to keep this foremost in our minds. This was
something that was developed in the General Plan, it's specified
there. It gives you a broad outline of what we're trying to do as we
plan and chart the future of the City. The Vision Statement says
shortly, to retain country living character. Does this project do that?
It's the first project that comes before the City that sets aside actually
over 80 percent as open space. I think that sets aside and helps
retain the country living character we're looking for. The second thing
is preserve open space resources. Does it do that? In fact, it
dedicates to the City significant open space resources helping us to
implement some of the plans we have within the General Plan to get
open space. Reduce regional traffic impacts. As Mayor Herrera
mentioned, we are working on that in parallel matters. Obviously you
can't reduce regional impacts with a housing development here. On
the other hand, the Environmental Impact Study shows. that of all the
alternatives that we have, none of them have a significant impact. Do
they have an impact? Yes. Are they significant in their terms? No.
The significant impacts we have in this community come from a
regional nature of having two freeways come through us and most
particularly, Grand Ave. connecting into Chino Hills and the areas to
the east there. To promote viable commercial activity. Does this help
promote that? Well, we had a speaker last time talk about how he
has a struggling business in town and he welcomes the opportunity
to have more people shopping there. You could say more on that but
it works in that direction. The next one is provide well-maintained
housing. Is this a well-maintained project? I submit that these homes
will provide a neighborhood that many people will want to move into.
There's a neighborhood now selling right next to the freeway that
people are buying faster than they're built. This is a much higher
quality product in my estimation because it's set back away from the
busy D.B. Blvd. It has copious open space around it. It has as
opposed to some of the other alternatives looked at, flatter streets.
It doesn't have the collector streets like we see on Summitridge Dr. or
Birdseye Dr. or Goldrush where you find people accelerating both up
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 34
and accelerating down. It has more of, as you look at the picture, the
sweeping type of streets that limit how long they go. The last thing is
to create nurturing community environment. Of the projects that can
be built there, does this do that? My answer is yes. So I see that
within my own reasoning, this is consistent with the General Plan's
mission, the Vision Statement. There was a- comment that one of the
other Council Members wanted to send this back to the Planning
Commission. I don't think that is a good thing to do. I think we have
this before us. We accept it or we reject it. Basically, the applicant
has said that he is willing to negotiate and if it was to go to the
Planning Commission, they basically have to say yes, they're willing
to do that. Because we're here to either accept, to slightly tweak the
concessions or deny. But something I said earlier I'd like to restate.
Just because you cannot envision something being done on this
property doesn't mean that it can't be done on this property. We keep
making a big deal about the unfettered development rights on Lot 6.
They brought to us a product that was consistent with the General
Plan. In fact, one of the other Council Members talked about the
General Plan requiring a Specific Plan. I submit to you that when this
was drafted, as the attorney said, this was considered specifically
written. Anything a Specific Plan would address is already addressed
in the dialogue on Planning Area 2. It's very specific. 75% open
space. It says up to 130 homes. These folks did that and then some.
They added to it elements that we've put into the design of other
tracts most recently approved in the City that have native vegetation
put back on there. So when you look at this project five or ten years
down the road when it starts to develop - the trees and vegetation
start to develop - it looks more natural. And that blends into the
country living character for what we're looking for for the community.
So I do see this as a good project. But there is the question about the
significant benefit. There again, that seems to be a moving line. And
it's difficult for us as a Council to negotiate that. We have five
different ideas. I support the idea of sending it back to the staff. I'm
pleased the applicant is willing to look at that and I support that. I
would like to..it takes a significant benefit to lift map restrictions. I just
want to restate that from my perspective and those members, I talked
to a couple of Council Members that were on the Council before this
was constructed. They always looked at this as a significant benefit -
the land. But having said that, let's look at the other things that it
does. The private streets are going to save City maintenance. While
that may not be a big deal because it's incorporated in a gated
community that's not an ongoing maintenance for us. You have
approximately $750,000 going to the Pomona School District which
is going to benefit D.B. children. They're building the elementary
school up there now. So while that doesn't come to the City, it does
come to the community and the community and the community is what
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 35
we're looking for here. That is a community benefit. They're doing
curbs and gutters along Grand Ave. up Steep . Canyon so they're
adding amenities there that we haven't really talked about a whole lot.
This new housing will enhance the local market. While neighbors are
looking at it and thinking of the negative impacts, the positive impacts
are there will be comp values of houses that are starting in the $400-
500,000 range area. And that will benefit most of the houses that are
nearby when you want to resell your houses. It provides the City with
the opportunity, and this is the part that I keep hammering on, to
preserve 360 acres of prime open space property that has hillside
and canyons, oak trees, grasses, wildlife habitat, opportunities for
hiking, bird and wildlife observations, exploring and educating our
children. It provides neighbors with ironclad assurance, particularly
if we put in the reversion clause that we've talked about, that this
property will only be used for public open space purposes. This
cannot be assured if it is private property and I want to stress that. It
enhances the City holdings in open space and public purpose
properties. This further implements the General Plan. I've talked
about that. But we've actually secured, through this project if
adopted, open space for the City. We've only talked about that in the
past and that's important. It establishes a very strong open space
precedent for future development. 10 years from now, when we look
back on this, we'll use it as a standard of measurement for future
development. That's a good precedent. It's not one we have now.
This is the first. And it'll be a tough model to duplicate with close to
85% of this site remaining with open space. I think you know I've
probably said enough on this. I support the idea of it going back to
the staff for the applicant andr the staff to work out what works for the
other Council Members as a significant benefit. I think I've articulated
for you where I'm at on this. I would like to restate the things I've said
before. I think staff got those already as far as I'd like to see the
grading off of D.B. Blvd. as opposed to the top side and those things
that I said in that context."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Thank you, Mr. Huff. I think each of us wants to
make the best decision possible and to lift map restrictions, we need
some very compelling good reasons why we're going to do that - why
we're going to approve that. Compelling reasons that are going to
benefit the entire community of D.B. from one end to the other end.
I don't think we are looking at the entire picture yet right now. I think
there is more information to come in the nature of additional
significant benefits. I've asked the applicant if he would be willing
and he is willing and so I think there's more consideration for the
Council to look at and I would like to see that before the Council
makes a final vote on this project. Mrs. Ansari."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 36
C/Ansari: "In wisdom when land designation had map or deed
restrictions put on them many times these lands were geotechnically
unstable or for different reasons. Tonight I had concerns because
would have liked to ask the geotechnical expert some questions
concerning the fault and the landslides on that property. When -we lift
map or when we lift deed restrictions we set a precedent. And
concerns I have, I have concerns about lifting map or deed
restrictions that whether or not is in the best interest of the community
or the City of D.B. or our citizens. I believe the builder has a right to
build on his property which is Lot 6 that has no deed restrictions on
it. Whether he builds 53, 70 or 80, that is to be (de)termined. I
believe he would still be able to build a good project versus building
or moving around 900,000 cubic feet of dirt or whether he moves 1.8
million cubic feet of dirt, I think there is a difference and I think it's
significant. The other issue is that we have gone through hell over
the last few years. We've had referendums. We've had General Plan
Amendment concerns. And one of the thing that has always said was
the concern of open space. Granted he is willing to turn over 75% of
his land or 85% to open space. That's in the General Plan. It has
always been as a designation of open space whether it's under the
owners auspices or whether it's under the City's it's still open space.
The other issue is that if the community, if the community would like
and think its a significant benefit to lift the deed restrictions - on this
one it's map restrictions, then I think the community should decide.
And maybe this should be put on the ballot. The issue we have, we
had 2,000 people sign the petition against this project. Now maybe
they were misinformed, they were coerced into signing it, but the
issue remains 2,000 people expressed concerns. I have not received
one phone call from anyone that said that they felt that this was a
good project that they wanted to see it. Where are those people
calling me? So my concerns are is that if we wish to lift the deed
restrictions, then there should be significant benefit to the people in
the community. And if we as a Council think that we're getting the
best deal from the builder, then maybe we should put it on the ballot
and let the people decide. And the people in their wisdom usually
selects the right thing. Now when we put the General Plan on the
ballot because we had so many complaints and so many
referendums, the General Plan that was finally adopted I agreed to
because we came to a consensus. And yet every time we went to a
lot line adjustment it didn't have to go to a vote of the people. And I
was for the General Plan and I so expressed myself. And the people
in their wisdom chose what they felt was right for the community. And
the flack went away - it went away. So maybe we need to do that if
we're going to lift the restrictions on this people and people should
look carefully. But as far as I'm concerned right now, they're entitled
to build on Lot 6. Thank you."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 37
M/Herrera: "Thank you, Mrs. Ansari. Mr. Huff."
C/Huff: 'There's a lot I could say in response to that but I think at this
point there has been at least several who have expressed an interest
to renegotiate the significant benefit on this and I'd like to introduce
a motion that we send this back to staff to negotiate with the applicant
on this, to bring back to us at the next meeting for consideration of
this project with a more clearly defined and significant benefit to the
City incorporating into this proposal the various things that you have
heard us talk about and hopefully, we can bring something back we
can vote on next time."
M/Herrera: "Ok. There's a motion. I'll second that motion. Log your
votes, please."
C/O'Connor: "I have a clarification I need. When Mr. Huff made the
motion, he said 'as well as other things that have been discussed.'
Does that include asking them to come back with a design of lots
between 6,000 and 10,000 sq. ft. If it doesn't, I'd like to offer that as
an amendment."
C/Huff: "Yes. That was part of my comments earlier on which I would
anticipate would be folded in there. I got a nod from the City Manager
so..."
C/Ansari: "Madam, Mayor, does that include an expanded amount of
development on Lot 67"
M/Herrera: "Yes. What the motion is, is regarding the application
that is in front of us which is 130 homes. That's what we're voting
on."
C/O'Connor: "Well, we're voting to have a negotiation done to add
significant benefit and to provide a new design with 6,000 to 10,000
square' lots."
M/Herrera: "Correct. But it's on the 130 home proposal."
C/Ansari: "It's not just on Lot 6."
M/Herrera: "Correct. It's not just on Lot 6. Legally, what we have in
front of us to vote for is the proposal of 130 homes. To change the
proposal to downsize it would probably require it to start from the
original point of process. Would that be correct? It would have to
start at the Planning Commission again if it were downsized."
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 38
CM/Belanger: "The application is the applicants request of you for
some land use entitlements and you have his application before you.
If you were to remand it to the Planning Commission to consider a
different type of design, an acquiescence on the part of the property
owner would be required to do that. Because he has a choice to ask
you to vote on his plan as submit or to acquiesce to your sending it
back and having to basically start again at the Planning Commission
level."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Mr. Huff. Would you clarify your motion a little bit
better."
C/Huff: "What needs to be clarified."
M/Herrera: "We're renegotiating. Is it on the project currently
submitted or..."
C/Huff: "It's on the 130 Parcel Map with a modification to the Map as
specified before, bringing the lot size down to conformity with the
General Plan, the maximum being 10,000 sq. ft. and I believe that
was the only change to the Map itself. The other things came as far
as significant benefit. In staging, that's more of a procedure thing,
where you're going to stage the grading, the grading to be staged at
D.B. Blvd. as opposed to Highcrest. I believe that was, I would have
to look back on my notes, but that was the significant part of what I
was concerned with. And staff, I would just like to look at those things
that are outside of the Map to work with the applicant to bring back to
us basically the things that they can agree on of the comments we've
had and we either decide to accept or reject it."
M/Herrera: "And so basically, we're asking for additional information."
C/Huff: "It's not really additional information. Well, it's information in
that there is a more clearly defined significant benefit. The applicant
has also had benefit of hearing a lot of public testimony and hearing
us deliberate and hear where our cursive points are. So with that, it
is presumed that he is going to work with the staff and they will find
a common point that they can bring to us. Whether or not we accept
that or not is another decision."
M/Herrera: "Right. And so that decision will be, well, the, I guess the
new offering, I guess the new significant benefit will be brought to the
September 15 Council meeting then and Council can vote at that
time."
C/Huff: "It begs the question, is there enough time for that to be
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 39
worked out."
CWBelanger: "Presumably, certainly in the area of negotiating some
level of benefit. What I don't know is whether the redesigned Map
can be done in that period of time and I would have to ask the
Hunsaker representative whether they can turn that around in that
period of time. If I understand the reason for a new Map being drawn
to take into account the 6,000-10,000 sq. ft. lots is that there be some
shrinkage of the development area. So I can't answer that. Lex
Williman could probably best answer that question whether two
weeks is enough time to do that."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Mr. Kurtin or one of your representatives. Can you
respond? Is two weeks an adequate amount of time or...?"
Todd Kurtin: "Yes. The answer is Yes. Yes, we will have the Map
modified within two weeks. We even have a diagram to that time of
it. We just need to clean it up."
M/Herrera: "Ok. Thank you. So that can be brought back then for
the September 15 Council meeting. Ok. We have a motion and a
second. Log your votes, please. And the motion passes three YESes
with Mr. Chang and Mrs. Ansari voting NO. So staff will meet with
the applicant and renegotiate significant benefit. Ok. And we will be
taking this up again on September 15."
8.2 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE
SUBCOMMITTEE.
C/Ansari moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to appoint C/O'Connor to the
Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority with C/Huff to serve as
alternate. 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
M/Herrera designated C/O'Connor and MPT/Chang to serve on the
Finance Subcommittee.
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF OFFICE
FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT FROM OFFICE DEPOT IN AN
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 40
AMOUNT NOT -TO- EXCEED $15,000.
C/Ansari moved, C/Huff seconded, to authorize purchase of office
furniture and equipment from Office Depot in an amount not -to -
exceed $15,000. 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
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING: M/Herrera recessed the meeting at
11:14 p.m. to open the Redevelopment Agency Meeting.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: M/Herrera reconvened the City
Council meeting at 11:14 p.m.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COUNCIL MEMBER
COMMENTS:
C/Ansari stated that last week, she and MPT/Chang attended a Brahma
Foundation meeting at D.B. High School. She spoke about her concerns
regarding the lack of up to date computer equipment at the high school
computer lab. She urged any citizen who has access to computers and
would be willing to assist in acquiring updated equipment to please volunteer
their services. She attended a Regional Air Quality Meeting in Ontario.
MPT/Chang echoed C/Ansari's concerns regarding advanced computer
equipment facilities at D.B. High School. He encouraged concerned citizens
to assist the local high schools. He, C/O'Connor and M/Herrera travelled to
Orlando, Florida to lend their support to the D.B. Senior Little League team.
He commended C/O'Connor and M/Herrera for their extraordinary dedication
and support of the City's youth. Council members attended the Economic
and Redevelopment Seminar in Monterey.
C/O'Connor asked the community to be involved with both school districts
in order to update their computer labs. She asked that with the opening of
school, parents exercise caution and courtesy around the schools.
CM/Belanger responded to C/O'Connor that the signage and striping
contemplated in the School Traffic Study had been completed at the school
sites. Diamond Crest Lane is paved.
C/O'Connor said that she received a call from a concerned parent who
spoke about the lack of direction for movement of traffic on Diamond Crest
Lane.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 41
DCWDeStefano stated that Diamond Crest Lane construction is completed.
However, the block wall has not been completed and therefore, there is no
direct connection from the end of Diamond Crest Lane to the school because
of construction equipment, materials, etc. He said that as of Monday the
street was not yet being used.
C/O'Connor asked staff to determine when the street will be open. She
asked if the D.B. Blvd. rehabilitation job had been completed. She
commended the City for completing the project in record time and exercising
good control of the process. She stated that the expanded Park -N -Ride at
the SR 57/60 is open and she encouraged residents to carpool. She spoke
about her experience and pleasure at being able to attend the Senior Little
League's final games in Orlando, Florida. She commended the students,
parents and coaches for their contribution to the community. She and
MPT/Chang attended a joint subcommittee meeting with Pomona Unified
School District Board Members for purposes of discussing joint agreements,
lights at Lorbeer and possible joint activities with Diamond Ranch High
School.
C/Huff spoke about attending the Economic Redevelopment and League of
California Cities retreat.
DDPW/Liu responded to C/Huff that, yesterday, the orange signs were
installed to announce the commencement of construction for the traffic
signals at Montefino Ave. at D.B. Blvd. and Quail Summit Dr. at D.B. Blvd.
The contractor is scheduled to begin construction on Wednesday,
September 2. The delay resulted from the contractor's need to complete
existing contracts for other cities. The contract period is specified to be 90
calendar days.
CM/Belanger stated that right-of-way work will be done during off-peak
hours. No lane closures are anticipated during the 5 -day peak hour periods.
In response to C/Huff, CM/Belanger announced that the Antenna Task Force
would meet on Wednesday, September 9, 1998 in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Auditorium at 6:30 p.m.
M/Herrera congratulated the D.B. Senior Little League. They bring great
pride, honor and integrity to the community.
11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Herrera
adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. in memory of former Chamber of
Commerce President Gordon Vihlen.
SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 42
LYND/iA BURGESS, dity Clerk
ATTEST: