HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/2006 Minutes - Regular MeetingCITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
DECEMBER 19, 2006
STUDY SESSION: M/Tye called the Study Session to order at
5:45 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Chang, Herrera, Zirbes
(telephonically), MPT/Tanaka and Mayor Tye.
Also Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle,
Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works
Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance
Director; Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ken Desforges, IS
Director; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Ryan
McLean, Senior Management Analyst; Alfredo Estevez, IS Technician, and
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk.
0. DISCUSSION OF ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
SMA/McLean stated that in May 2006 City Council approved an extension
of the IVHS contract that resulted in a significant annual net cost increase
to the General Fund from $82,463 to $102,008, an annual increase of
$19,545. He proposed options that would generate an additional $24,000
to cover the increase.
M/Tye asked why D.B. did not license cats.
Bill Harford, Executive Director of IVHS responded that some cities license
cats and some don't. However, the Society now handles more cats than
dogs at the shelter. IVHS would highly recommend licensing cats
because the State mandates care for dogs and not cats. It appears that
the State does not intend to adopt regulations for cats and cities are
beginning to come on board to adopt the same standards for cats as for
dogs.
MPT/Tanaka said he would like to see fees for cats included because if
the City adopted fees for cats the Council may not have to increase other
fees.
Mr. Harford explained that in cities where regulations for cats have been
adopted the first year was used for educational purposes and so far the
program has been very successful. To date, funds received from licensing
cats are placed in escrow accounts waiting for the Cities to decide how
they will use the money.
Following discussion, Council agreed to consider licensing cats and
directed staff to provide information to the Council as to the amount of
increase that would be needed.
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
ON. DISCUSSION OF PRE -ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH AERA
ENERGY
ACM/Doyle reported that included in tonight's agenda was consideration
of a pre -annexation agreement between the City and Aera Energy LLC.
The agreement lays out a lengthy process toward possible annexation of
the Aera property. The agreement is merely a formalization of an
agreement to work together to proceed and includes a guarantee that the
Developer will reimburse the City for costs associated with the process.
The agreement is for a period of five years from the effective date and
identifies a number of areas where the City has worked with the Developer
to make certain that both entities are in agreement with the process such
as addressing affordable and workforce housing within the City's limits;
possibility of requiring green construction techniques; that the vesting
rights lasting 25 years would be subject to CEQA review, etc. The City
and Aera are agreeing in principle that if the project moves forward, the
land is entitled and if the Developer proceeds with development, the
Developer may use a public financing instrument; agreeing in principle
that whatever is determined through this process the Developer would
have the right to assign/transfer those rights to a third party builder. The
Counties of Los Angeles and Orange have been the lead agencies
working with Aera and the Developer has told the City he is interested in
being annexed into the City of D.B. and would like to proceed with the
process and pay for the costs associated therewith.
C/Herrera said she had not heard comments about this proposal from D.B.
residents.
C/Chang said he was concerned about the timing and wondered if the
lead agencies were aware that this subject was being discussed tonight.
CM/DeStefano said that staff had been in discussions for quite some time
with Los Angeles County on the issue of whether or not the project would
move forward and be annexed into the City of D.B. Los Angeles County
and the Supervisor's office are aware of the City's activities. Last week a
copy of the staff report was transmitted to the Supervisor's office and the
Supervisor is indicating it may not have been sufficient time for the office
to respond or distribute the information. Tonight's action is a result of a
process that the City has undertaken over many months at different levels
within Los Angeles County.
ACM/Doyle stated that if Council approves the agreement there will be
ample opportunity for public participation throughout the process and the
City would commit to welcoming comments from neighboring communities
and stakeholders as the process unfolds.
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
1
George Basey, Aera Energy, said he took exception with some of the comments
made by the previous speaker. Aera and the City and City's legal counsel spent
many months working together on this agreement and the City reserves
discretionary rights of approval on the proposed project. He said that Aera was
excited to work with the City on the proposal and that was the spirit with which
the agreement was presented this evening.
C/Herrera referred to the termination section of the agreement and wondered
about the validity of Mr. Permaul's comments.
ACM/Doyle stated that either party may terminate the agreement with 10 -days
written notice.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City
Council, M/Tye adjourned the Study Session at 6:10 p.m.
rf U
TOMMYE CRIBBINS, City Clerk
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Lawrence G. Permaul, Senior Counsel,
Colantuono & Levin, representing the Hillside Open Space Education Coalition,
an organization of neighboring cities (Brea, LaHabra, LaHabra Heights, Whittier)
Hacienda Heights Improvement Association and Rowland Heights Community
Coordinating Counsel, said that the Hillside Open Space Education Coalition only
recently learned about tonight's agenda item and did not believe his firm had
been granted sufficient time to address the issues. Some of the information
being considered was not made available online in terms of the exhibits to the
agreement and so forth. His firm is interested in providing public input. He
presented a letter outlining the Coalition's concerns. Further, his firm believes
there is no need for moving forward with this agreement at this time. Rather, the
City should move forward with an EIR, which his firm believes is absolutely
necessary in accordance with CEQA. Although the agreement has been referred
to as a "steering" instrument, it creates contractual rights that are not necessarily
spelled out in the agreement. The agreement is not specific and eliminates the
City's ability to impose mitigation measures by limiting it to the CEQA analysis.
He said he was curious about the timing of the agenda item because it did not
seem to be in the spirit of the due process requirements of open government.
Despite the short notice one can see that there is already substantial organized
opposition to moving forward with the agreement. He believed that the
agreement favored the Developer and not the City and not its neighboring
communities. He asked Council for additional time to vent all of the public
issues.
1
George Basey, Aera Energy, said he took exception with some of the comments
made by the previous speaker. Aera and the City and City's legal counsel spent
many months working together on this agreement and the City reserves
discretionary rights of approval on the proposed project. He said that Aera was
excited to work with the City on the proposal and that was the spirit with which
the agreement was presented this evening.
C/Herrera referred to the termination section of the agreement and wondered
about the validity of Mr. Permaul's comments.
ACM/Doyle stated that either party may terminate the agreement with 10 -days
written notice.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City
Council, M/Tye adjourned the Study Session at 6:10 p.m.
rf U
TOMMYE CRIBBINS, City Clerk
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 16th day of Tannary
2007.
STEVE TY ayor
1
1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
DECEMBER 19, 2006
CLOSED SESSION: 5:15 p.m., Room CC -8
Public Comments on Closed Session Agenda:
► Government Code Section 54956.9(a) — Pending Litigation — Two cases
1) People of the State of California v. Ratan Hospitality, LLS (Scribbles)
Case No. BC351925
2) Diamond Bar v. Southern California Edison
LACSCC — No. BC351266
Closed Session adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
STUDY SESSION: 5:45 p.m., Room CC -8
► Discussion of Animal Control Services
► Discussion of Pre -Annexation Agreement with Aera Energy
Study Session adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Tye called the Regular City Council
meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium,
21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
CA/Jenkins reported that the City Council began with a Closed Session during
which one item of threatened litigation was added to the agenda. There were no
comments on the Closed Session agenda and Council took no reportable actions.
The Closed Session ended at approximately 5:35 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MPT/Tanaka led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Monsignor James Loughnane, St. Denis Catholic
Church gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Herrera, Zirbes
(telephonically), Mayor Pro Tem Tanaka and Mayor Tye.
Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle,
Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; Bob Rose, Community
Services Director; Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Linda
Magnuson, Finance Director; Ken Desforges, IS Director; Ryan McLean, Senior
Management Analyst; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Asst. Engineer;
Alfredo Estevez, IS Tech; and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk.
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 The City Council presented Certificates of Recognition to students
from Chaparral, Lorbeer, South Pointe and Suzanne Middle Schools
who participated in the Friends of the Library second annual "Read
Together Challenge" held on November 2, 2006.
Marney Shay, Friends of the Library announced that two schools won
the Challenge this year, South Pointe Middle School being one, who
would receive a plaque similar to the perpetual plaque that will be
placed at the D.B. Library.
1.2 M/Tye presented Certificates of Recognition to the players and
coaches of the Destroyers" Baseball Team for being the Champions
of the Cooperstown Youth Baseball Hall of Fame Championship
Tournament.
NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.3 M/Tye presented Sharon Oliver with a Certificate Plaque to Target
#2179 located at 747 Grand Ave. as New Business of the Month for
December 2006 and displayed a slide presentation.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.1 Los Angeles County Fire Chief Nieto thanked the City Council for
purchasing a Thermal Imagine Unit for his Department. Capt. Green
explained that the $15,000 camera detects heated objects such as a
body in a building and can locate hidden fires in attics and walls. The
unit can also be used to detect individuals trapped in vehicles in
dense vegetation. Capt. Green thanked the City Council for
purchasing the equipment and said it would be a valuable tool for the
Department to help save lives.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Nef Cortez, President, Regional Chamber of Commerce presented a
Certificate of Recognition and congratulations to M/Tye. He stated that the
Regional Chamber of Commerce San Gabriel Valley extends its commitment
to the City Council Members to work together toward economic prosperity for
the City and its residents.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
1
1
1
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 3
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
CITY COUNCIL
5.1 Water Conservation — December 16-20, 2006 - Maintenance of the
Weymouth Water Treatment Plant.
5.2 Christmas Holiday — December 25 — 26, 2006 — City offices will be
closed Monday, December 25 and Tuesday, December 26, 2006 in
observance of the Christmas Holiday. City offices will re -open
Wednesday, December 27, 2006 at 7:30 a.m.
5.3 Holiday Tree Curbside Collection Program — December 26, 2006 —
January 12, 2007 — Trees free of decorations may be left at the curb
on regular trash pick up day for free pickup during this period.
5.4 New Year's Holiday — January 1, 2007 — City Offices will be closed
Monday, January 1, 2007 in observance of the New Year's Holiday.
City Offices will re -open Tuesday, January 2, 2007 at 7:30 a.m.
5.5 City Council Meeting — January 2, 2007 — The City Council meeting
for January 2, 2007 will be adjourned to January 16, 2007.
5.6 Planning Commission Meeting — January 9, 2007 — 7:00 p.m.
AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Herrera moved, C/Chang seconded to approve
the Consent Calendar as presented.
Motion carried by the following Roll
Call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Chang, Herrera, Zirbes,
MPT/Tanaka, M/Tye
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
None
6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
6.1.1 Study Session of December 5, 2006 —as Submitted
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of December 5, 2006 — as Submitted.
6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.2.1 Workshop of October 24, 2006
6.2.2 Regular Meeting of October 24, 2006
6.2.3 Regular Meeting of November 14, 2006
6.2.4 Regular Meeting of November 28, 2006
6.3 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — containing checks dated November
30, 2006 through December 13, 2006 for a total amount of
$762,001.42.
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
6.4 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2006-77: RECITING THE FACT OF
THE STATEWIDE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON
NOVEMER 7, 2006 AND DECLARING THE RESULT AND SUCH
OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
6.5 APPROVED NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR SLURRY SEAL/CHIP
SEAL AREA 2 PROJECT TO AMERICAN SOUTH ASPHALT, INC.
6.6 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO.4 FOR A CONTRACT EXTENSION
THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2007 WITH HIRSCH & ASSOCIATES
FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AND AN INCREASE OF THE
CONTRACT BY $6,370 FOR THE SYCAMORE CANYON PARK
PHASE III IMPROVEMENTS.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 (a) CONSIDERATION OF SOUTH POINTE WEST FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) NO. 2005-01 (SCH
NO. 111118) AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, PURSUANT
TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTS
OF A 99 -UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, A
PUBLIC PARK AND OPEN SPACE AREAS ON 34.52 ACRES OF
LAND, LOCATED ON PROPERTY SOUTH OF LARKSTONE DRIVE,
EAST OF MORNING SUN AVENUE, WEST OF BREA CANYON
ROAD AND NORTHWEST OF PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD (RELATED
FILES: GPA 2005-01, ZC 2006-03, DA 2005-01, SP 2005-01 VTTM
063623, CUP 2005-05, DR 2005-27 AND TP 2005-06).
(b) CONSIDERATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
2005-01, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2006-03, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT 2005-01, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2005-01, VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 0623623, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 2005-01, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-27 AND TREE
PERMIT NO. 2005-06, PURSUANT TO THE SUBDIVISION MAP
ACT, CITY'S SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (TITLE 21) AND
DEVELOPMENT CODE (TITLE 22, SECTIONS 22.22, 22.38, 22.48,
22.58, 22.60, 22.70 AND 22.62). THE PROPOSED PROJECT
CONSISTS OF A 99 -UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSE, A PUBLIC PARK
AND OPEN SPACE AREAS ON APPROXIMATELY 34.52 ACRES,
LOCATED ON PROPERTY SOUTH OF LARKSTONE DRIVE, WEST
OF MORNING SUN AVENUE, WEST OF BREA CANYON ROAD
AND NORTHWEST OF PEACEFUL HILLS ROAD (RELATED FILE:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 2005-05).
CDD/Fong presented a staff report along with a power point
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
presentation outlining the project.
CM/DeStefano stated that South Point LLC presented the proposal to
the City. He stated that South Pointe West LLC and the Walnut
Valley Unified School District are co-owners of the 34- acre project
site. Upon conclusion of this matter by Council, would cause the sale
of the property from the School District to South Pointe West LLC.
One of the benefits to the City contained in the Development
Agreement is a $1.5 million contribution to the City of D. B. which staff
is recommending be placed in a specific fund for use as traffic
mitigation fees. In addition a component of the contribution permits
the release of property restrictions and calls for the completion of
Larkstone Park. The Developer has not agreed to the terms of the
Development Agreement. Should the Developer agree to the terms
this evening staff would recommend that the City Council take some
action on this matter; however, should the Developer not agree staff
would recommend that the entitlement package be moved to a future
meeting such as January 16, 2007 and if appropriate, take action only
on the Environmental Impact Report.
With no comment from Council, M/Tye opened the Public Hearing.
Ramona Voge, 21022 Silver Cloud Dr., said that during her tenure at
South Pointe Middle School the issue of building on property adjacent
to the School was introduced. The primary concern at that time was
increased traffic. Members of the South Pointe Community Club
Board conducted informal observational surveys during student peak
drop-off and pickup hours and discovered that streets were congested
about 20 minutes during the morning and after school hours. The
conclusion was that this amount of increased traffic was insufficient to
negate the building of additional school structures or the sale of
property for residential development. Walnut Valley School District
parents continue to fight for School District funding. Most efforts with
the State have produced minimal and temporary results. This project
presents a unique opportunity to acquire funding for computer
technology through the sale of the School District property and to
assure that students will continue to be taught at a "state -of -the art"
level.
Carolyn Elfelt, 21199 Silver Cloud, a 25 -year resident and current
President of the Walnut Valley Unified School District, introduced
Board Members Larry Redinger, Nancy Lyon and Cindy Reese. D.B.
has established itself as a City with high quality schools that attract
parents and students to the area. State funding is based on an
antiquated formula that was conceived when this area was a ranch
and for that reason, the School District does not receive as much
money per student as do other districts. The District works very hard
to make up for the shortfall and this project would give the District an
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
opportunity for cash to be appropriately invested to provide on-going
funding that could be used to continue upgrading the school
computers.
John Corson thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their
courteous assistance in helping residents learn about the project. He
said he was concerned about traffic congestion and environmental
impacts that would spill onto portions of unincorporated Los Angeles
County (Morning Sun Ave. Shepherd Hills, Chapel Hills Dr. and Tam
O Shanter Dr). He presented Council with a petition signed by 40
residents living near the project who he said were very concerned
about the proposed access gate onto Morning Sun Ave. Contrary to
some presentations the EIR and its technical tendencies are, in his
opinion, incomplete and deficient with respect to traffic safety hazards
in unincorporated Los Angeles County. The streets mentioned have
no sidewalks, no stop signs and no measures commonly used to
separate vehicular and pedestrian traffic and were not designed to
accommodate traffic flow to the extent that would flow from such a
large project. The report and testimony tend to favor the D.B. side
and ignore the needs of the unincorporated side of the project and in
that respect, the report and testimony is wide open to challenge. He
hoped that the City Council would consider the impacts to the
unincorporated side because the area will again be victimized by the
discharge of traffic from the project as it was in the past by the
landslide. He asked the City Council to consider blocking the access
from the project onto Morning Sun Ave.
Phil Dudar, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works,
thanked CDD/Fong and ACM/Doyle for answering questions about
this project. He said he was present at the direction of Supervisor
Knabe to advocate for the residents of the Rowland Heights
community that reside just west of the project. Although the County is
very encouraged that the project will mitigate a landslide that has
been difficult and has impacted properties along Morning Sun Dr. and
depressed property values, the Department shares the concerns of
the residents regarding the impacts of the proposed project, the most
important being the traffic the project would generate and the impact it
would have on the residents and pedestrians of Rowland Heights.
The County believes these concerns are valid and respectfully
requests that the traffic flow be altered to lessen the impact by
restricting or limiting access onto Morning Sun Dr. toward Lemon Ave.
Larry Redinger, 23999 Gold Nugget Ave., a 30 -year resident and
Walnut Valley Unified School District Vice President, pointed out that
in spite of the fiduciary responsibility for the 15,000 students and
diminished revenues, he believed the proposed project would bring a
long -overdue and significant park to the City of D.B. Once the project
is completed the City will immediately receive a turnkey park, a
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
significant advantage to that portion of D.B. Additionally and more
importantly there will be road improvements on the northern end of
the site, improvements to drainage and, mitigation for the landslide
and runoff. He felt the project was positive for the students and the
community.
Kindon Chu, Tam O Shanter Dr. and Walnut Leaf said he was
opposed to the Morning Sun access due to the significant traffic
impact.
Amanda Owen, Attorney for the Pathfinder Community Association,
asked that on behalf of the Association, approval of the project be
postponed because a portion of the project lies within the Pathfinder
Community Assn. The portion is geographically detached from the
Association because the Walnut Valley parcel is between the three
parcels that were annexed into the Pathfinder Community Association
in 1981. The Developer has never contacted the Association to
discuss arrangements for the Association's participation.
Anyork Lee, 20545 Gemside Dr. felt that although the Project would
impact the area, it should move forward because it would benefit the
community. He believed the Council should support staff's
recommendation to approve the Project for the benefit of the
community and its students.
Gayle Esfahaniha said she moved to the area about 17 years ago
because of the beautiful open space. Her main concern was traffic
and the 300 additional vehicles coming down Morning Sun everyday.
If the School District is not being properly funded it sounds to her like
a separate issue that the District needs to address rather than move
to destroy the quality of life of the surrounding residents. In spite of
the fact the Developer and School District assures everyone that the
landslide potential will be fully mitigated she does not trust that the
area would withstand 99 new homes. She also took exception to the
types of homes being proposed and felt they were not appropriate for
D. B.
Elizabeth Kim, 1704 Morning Sun Ave. a 27 -year resident, said she
was concerned about land movement now, during and after
construction. She recently discovered that the brick in her two -foot
rear yard retaining wall was cracking and she feared that another
landslide would occur and that her home will again be threatened.
She was also concerned about loss of privacy and her view.
Sharon Bowler, a 32 -year resident of Morning Sun said she suffered
through the prior landslides and was not in favor of the Patel project
but was in favor of the proposed JCC project. If this project is not
approved the School Districtwill sell the propertyto another developer
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
and this project and developeroffers an opportunity for the Cityto get
a decent looking project. She believed JCC would fix the landslide
area and not build homes on unsafe land. She also loves the open
space, but would rather the land be made safe so that residents
would not have to worry about another landslide occurring. She
asked the City Council to approve the project and fast track the
grading. She said she was concerned about a gate backing up to
Mrs. Kim's property and would rather it be an emergency only gate.
Mike Collins, 1612 Morning Sun Ave, a 31 -year resident, showed
pictures of the area taken in 1995. He and his neighbors want a
developer that can fix the area and is in favor of the proposed project
with the exception of the access from Shepherd Hill. He believed this
proposal was a much better project than the Patel proposal.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd. a 23 -year
resident, planned to put most of her comments in writing. At the
November 28 Planning Commission meeting she made specific
requests for information and has not yet had a response to her
questions and concerns. She said she was opposed to acceptance of
the El because she believed it was incomplete and misleading. She
was also opposed to the development as inappropriate to the
adjacent residences. She has been to most of the meetings and
other than the School District has heard only three people speak
positively about the proposed development. The School District
presented fiduciary concerns and the taxpayers have already
generously accepted two bond issues in support of the School
District. She said there were funds available to school districts for
computer technology as a result of the Microsoft lawsuit settlement.
Will Clarke, 20881 Starshine, on behalf of the Pathfinder
Homeowners Assn. respectfully asked the City Council to delay its
decision until several issues could be resolved and dialogue could
take place between the Pathfinder Association Board of Directors and
the Developer because there were questions about the project and
specifically about Lots 46 through 48 that fall under the jurisdiction of
the Pathfinder Homeowners Association.
Jack Moore, 1736 Chapel Heights, Rowland Heights, opposed the
project and questioned whether there would be another landslide due
to the natural creek at the bottom of the gully. He also complained
about the traffic congestion and wondered what the residents would
do in the event of emergency evacuation.
Patty Ondara, 1738 Morning Sun Ave., Rowland Heights said she was
very concerned about the traffic on her street and appreciated her
neighbors speaking out about the problem. She asked the City
Council to reconsider the Morning Sun Ave. access.
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
Kurt Nelson, on behalf of the applicant JCCL South Point West,
thanked staff for a thorough presentation. He said that this was a
difficult project to balance out because the Developer was charged
with achieving a certain level of density while addressing the market
demand and making the project reasonably compatible with D.B. in
general and the surrounding residential community. His company has
built a number of projects in D.B. over the years and believes very
firmly that the local market desires detached homes with private yards
however modest they might be. On first blush the price of the
WVUSD and Patel property dictated attached condominiums to obtain
density. Through a lot of hard work and by clustering and
concentrating detached homes along the private street of the
development, 16 -acres is preserved for open space in perpetuity and
the project achieves a sufficient number of homes for the project to be
economically feasible. By preserving contour grading in accordance
with the intent of the City's Hillside Ordinance and concentrating
homes in their proposed location it enhances and promotes a
conventional residential feel. This is not a "San Francisco" type
project. In fact, D.B. is no longer limited to ranch style R-1 one-story
dwellings. He said he would prefer that those types of dwellings were
feasible but they are not and if those were the only type of homes
made available only multi -millionaires could afford to purchase in D.B.
The project allows the Developer to build a beautiful public park that
the City has sought for a number of years and the School District will
realize badly needed revenue for its students. The fact is that four
geotechnical firms that examined the slide area, conducted borings,
set readings, etc. Everyone knows how to fix the slide but it has not
been fixed because no one has spent the money necessary to
adequately fix the problem. JCCL will not build on the site until the
Morning Sun landslide is fully remedied. There was some confusion
generated by a flyer that indicated only one gate on the Rowland
Heights side on Morning Sun and that is not true. The Project design
dictates that vehicles will primarily orient toward the Larkstone main
gate and out to Lemon to get to the freeway. Solid estimates indicate
that only about 30 percent of the project traffic would flow over the
Rowland Heights neighborhood secondary gate even if left at full
ingress/egress for residents only. Far from ignoring or shorting the
residential neighborhoods in the Shepherd Hills and Morning Sun and
Tam O Shanter Dr. areas the response to comment on the EIR and
specifically the initial draft of the traffic report, the study was
augmented in June 2006 with a special section to address the
impacts upon those very residential streets and it details that those
streets presently carry traffic far below their design capacity and that
they are Level Service A in their segments and will remain so when
the project is completed. He explained that the projected 300 daily
vehicle traffic count is the total number of vehicle trips projected in the
areas over a 24-hour period. What matters is how many more cars
will drive through the neighborhood and during morning hours one
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
more car will drive through the neighborhood at peak hours about
every two minutes. That may seem like a lot of cars but in terms of
level of service and traffic, one car going by every minute or two that
was not there before does not constitute a danger to life and limb. He
said he understood the concerns and respected the comments.
However, the number of vehicles that will traverse the area over time
do not equate to injury to pedestrians. Even though the Developer did
not want sidewalks inside the gated community there will be
sidewalks. JCC built in "The Country Estates" forten years and there
are no sidewalks in that community. JCCL agreed to staff's
recommendation to include a sidewalk on one side of the street and
there will be a sidewalk on the south side of Larkstone paralleling the
park. If the applicant can change the Morning Sun/Shepherd Hill gate
to egress only without overburdening traffic conditions on the other
side and be good neighbors by doing so and if it is the City's pleasure
to do so, the Developer will agree to do so. Additionally, if he were
the individual who told Mrs. Kim she could own the small corner of
property she wanted to own, he would make certain that she got the
small square of land. Mr. Nelson said that Amanda Owen called him
today. He said he was very familiar with the CC&R's for the
Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. because he reviewed them with
respect to the School District property some time ago. It was news to
him that the three parcels referred to as the Patel pieces were thusly
encumbered because he knows that the School District property that
lies closer to the existing Pathfinder homes was disencumbered
sometime ago and it seemed totally illogical to him that the even more
distant property would remain encumbered. He read the CC&R's
before coming to tonight's meeting and found no problems with
restrictions on use for commercial activity. The project CC&R's will
mirror the Pathfinder Assn. CC&R's in that respect. He did not know
if the Pathfinder Assn. had architectural review rights but vowed to be
fair in dealing with the Association. He said he was entirely
comfortable that this project would meet the intent and language of
architectural review if the three pieces were subject to their review.
Mr. Nelson said he believed the EIR was well done and thorough. He
said he was proud of the EIR with respect to biological impacts. His
understanding is that with respect to any statements of overriding
considerations, the biological impact is cumulative and that this
project, however small has absolutely no significant impact on
biological resources. One-tenth of one acre of affected water flow
across the site will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Department
of Fish and Game. When the project is completed and all of the crib
wall slope areas grow in with drought tolerant landscape it will look
beautiful and many birds including migratory birds will return to the
site. Mr. Nelson said he concurred with the conditions and asked that
the Council move forward with staff's recommendation for approval.
He asked for time to review the final language of the Development
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
Agreement. He said he had no problem with the aggregate numbers
of special and direct benefit and would appreciate additional time to
review details of when and how. He said he was totally comfortable
with the fairness of the City Council and staff. He respectfully
requested approval of Certification of the EIR, Map, Conditional Use
Permit and move consideration of the Development Agreement to the
next City Council meeting.
C/Chang asked Mr. Nelson if he would agree to make the Morning
Sun gate as an "emergency" gate only.
Mr. Nelson responded that it was his understanding from talking with
Supervisor Knabe's office his engineers and staff, making that gate an
"emergency only" gate would result in bad traffic engineering for an
impact that does not exist. Mr. Nelson said that more benefit would
be derived from making the gate an "exit only" gate for the project
residents without unduly burdening the residents on the other side
near the main gate. He said he would defer to staff and the traffic
engineer for advice on the matter.
C/Chang asked if Mr. Nelson was open to resolving land issues with
the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn.
Mr. Nelson responded that if it were an encumbrance the Developer
would be civilly bound to do so.
Mr. Nelson explained to C/Chang how the condition for the sidewalk
within the project area would be realized. Mr. Nelson reiterated to
C/Chang that he would remedy the landslide.
C/Herrera asked CM/DeStefano if the Pathfinder Homeowner Assn.
as an issue that would have to be resolved prior to approving the
resolutions before the Council.
CM/DeStefano responded that it was not.
CM/DeStefano responded to M/Tye that staff could support an
approach to conditioning the project to make the Morning Sun gate an
"exit only" gate and incorporate the provision within the CC&R's along
with a provision to install programmable gates that would restrict the
use of the access point. The Developer has indicated a desire for an
"exit only' gate and staff would prefer that compromise to complete
restrictions to Morning Sun that would place an unnecessary burden
on Lemon Ave. at Golden Springs Dr. CM/DeStefano responded to
M/Tye that CC&R's are private contractual relationships between the
association and the members thereof and that the overwhelming
majority of city governments do not engage in enforcement of private
contracts between private parties. With respect to Mrs. Beach-
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL
Courchesne's request for information that was not provided he is not
personally aware of what requests were made in order to determine
whether an answer was provided.
C/Herrera moved, MPT/Tanaka seconded, to Adopt Resolution No.
2006-78 certifying the Environmental Impact Report. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Herrera,
es,
Tye
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
C/Herrera moved, C/Tanaka seconded to continue the Public Hearing
on Items a) through f) to January 16, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. Motion
carried b the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Herrera,
es,
M/Tye
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS:
ORGANIZATION DELEGATE ALTERNATE
California Contract Cities Association
Foothill Transit Board
Four -Corners Transportation Policy Group
Greater L.A. County Vector Control District
Joint Powers Insurance Authority
L.A. County Sanitation District No. 21
L.A. County City SelectionCommittee
League of CA Cities — L.A. County Division
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Southern California Assn. Of Governments (SCAG)
Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority
Tye
Herrera
Herrera
Audrey Hamilton
Zi rbes
Tye
Tye
Tanaka
Herrera
Chang
Tanaka
Herrera/Zirbes
Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority (WCCA) Tanaka
Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority Advisory Davis
STANDING COMMITTEES
D.B. Community Foundation Tye
Chang
Tye
Zi rbes
Tye
Zi rbes
Tanaka
Tye
Tye
Tanaka
Chang
Tye
Chang
Herrick
LIAISON
Chamber of Commerce Tanaka
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 13
PUSD/City Tanaka
CITY COUNCIL
Senior Citizen Tanaka
AD HOC COMMITTEES
Sphere of Influence/Annexation Herrera
Zirbes
WVUSD/City Herrera
City Council Goals/City Manager Evaluation
Tye
Tanaka
presented by M/Tye. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
Economic Development
Zirbes
Chang
Industry East Development Advisory Committee
Herrera
Zirbes
Legislative
Herrera
Tanaka
Library Task Force
Zirbes
Chang
Neighborhood Improvement
Zirbes
Chang
LIAISON
Chamber of Commerce Tanaka
Chang
PUSD/City Tanaka
Chang
Senior Citizen Tanaka
Herrera
Sphere of Influence/Annexation Herrera
Zirbes
WVUSD/City Herrera
Tye
C/Herrera moved, MPT/Tanaka seconded to approve the appointments
as
presented by M/Tye. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Herrera, Zirbes,
MPT/Tanaka, M/Tye
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
8.2 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-82: APPROVING A PLANNING AND
PRE -ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR, CALIFORNIA AND AERA ENERGY LLC.
CM/DeStefano stated that this agreement would provide for consideration of
annexing a vacant 2000 -acre property generally located between the
boundaries of the City of D.B., unincorporated area of Rowland Heights and
the Orange County/Los Angeles County line.
ACM/Doyle reported that the item before Council is a planning and pre-
annexation agreement between the City and Aera Energy LLC, aka the
developer. Aera (formerly Shell Oil) owns approximately 3000 acres south of
the City that has been used as a working oil field for the last 100 years. The
oil field is coming to the end of its life schedule and the property owner is
considering a development project for the site. The proposed project
includes a variety of residential housing products, commercial properties,
parkland, considerable open space, a new fire station and a new K through 8
School. As a result of discussions between the City and the developer there
is now a mutual desire to annex a portion of the proposed development
project into the City and for the developer to process a portion of the project
through the City for entitlement purposes. The document before the Council
tonight for which staff is recommending approval is a resolution authorizing
the City to enter into a pre -annexation agreement with Aera. The agreement
represents a formal roadmap for the City and developer to proceed through
an entitlement process and ultimately for the City to consider annexing a
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL
portion of that project with the remaining acres to be processed by LA and
Orange Counties. He emphasized that this agreement does not commit the
City to any approvals of the project or any discretionary approvals that the
Council holds within its power. This is merely an agreement for the City to
proceed through a lengthy process that would include numerous
opportunities for public participation and comment on various aspects of the
proposed project and the elements contained therein. The City welcomes all
public participation from D.B. as well as from its neighboring community of
Rowland Heights. In addition to the aforementioned, the agreement
guarantees that the developer will reimburse the City for all costs associated
with proceeding through this lengthy process. If Council approved the
agreement tonight the City will commence to develop and Environmental
Impact Report including all CEQA required public participation; General Plan
Amendment including all required public hearings before the Planning
Commission and/or City Council; development of a Specific Plan; creation of
a Master Tentative Tract Map; and, negotiating a development agreement
between the City and the developer. Ultimately, the City would need to
develop a property tax sharing agreement with the County of Los Angeles
and file the appropriate LAFCO applications for what ultimately would be
annexation. This pre -annexation agreement includes the following elements:
The term of the agreement is for five years; this pre -annexation
development agreement puts the developer on notice that the City has
concerns that will need to be addressed throughout the process, one of
which is to make sure that the project's fair -share of affordable housing
(workforce, senior or other such housing) is built within the City limits. The
developer may encumber the property with public financing mechanisms
such as Community Facilities Districts or
Landscaping infrastructure a and/ Lighting
Assessment Districts to help pay
r the
maintenance and long-term care of the medians, landscape or other types of
landscape amenities that are ultimately put in place.
ACM/Doyle explained that the developer has the ability to terminate the
agreement within 10 days of notice to the City and would be required to pay
any costs associated with the process up to the point of providing notice.
The City does not have that type of discretionary termination clause.
However, the City has all of its discretionary approvals within its rights. As
such, the
City
may rlterminate agreement s
no onany of he discetionary permitsor approas that the devoper seek
George Basey, Vice President, Aera Energy LLC, made a power point
presentation outlining the proposed project area. He commended staff for
working over the past years to prepare the planning and pre -annexation
agreement. The proposed project is approximately 3000 acres with the
SR57 running along the easterly portion of the property. Harbor Blvd. and
Fullerton Rd. confines the property on the west boundary and the SR60 is to
the north. Ninety percent of the property is in Los Angeles County and 10
percent lies in Orange County. A portion of the property east of the SR57
(300 acres) lies within D.B.'s Sphere of Influence, along with some area
1
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL
south of the City. Aera remains committed to ensuring that more than half of
its land will be set-aside as permanent open space at no cost to the
taxpayers. In addition, about 700 acres is dedicated to an unimpeded open
space linkage through the property to facilitate wildlife movement to off-site
protected lands. A maximum of 3600 residential units are proposed for the
entire property. Ingress for the eastern portion is proposed from the Brea
Canyon Rd. inter -change area and Tonner Canyon Interchange area in
Orange County. Minor road connections are also proposed from Harbor
Blvd. and Berry St. in Orange County. No roads are proposed to connect
through the property. Furthermore, there are no public road connections
being proposed from the property north to Pathfinder Rd. Aera is excited to
work with D.B. toward the ongoing planning of a portion of the property
subject to the agreement before the Council tonight. Aera respectfully
requests the Council's approval of the Planning and Pre -Annexation
Agreement and remain committed in efforts to reach out to all of the other
stakeholders willing to work and dialogue with Aera.
C/Herrera asked for clarification about roads being proposed from the project
into LaHabra Heights.
Mr. Basey responded that no roads were proposed to go from the project into
LaHabra Heights and pointed to an area proposed to accommodate a total of
75 residential units that would take access onto Harbor Blvd., an area that is
outside of the D.B. planning area and under the purview of Los Angeles
County.
C/Herrera asked if any part of the D.B. proposal included roads leading into
the City of LaHabra.
Mr. Basey responded "no."
C/Herrera asked if there were any roads that would lead into Rowland
Heights.
Mr. Basey responded "no."
C/Herrera asked if there were any roads that would lead into Brea.
Mr. Basey responded "no."
M/Tye asked Mr. Basey to again display the graphic that showed a road
leading west on Brea Canyon Rd. into Brea.
Mr. Basey explained that the project area stops at the County line and those
connections would be on the Orange County side.
In response to CM/DeStefano Mr. Basey displayed an aerial photograph that
defined the area that was the subject of the Planning Agreement before the
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL
Council. The area is roughly 1940 acres of the 3000 acres and the balance
would remain with Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
M/Tye asked for public comments.
Robert Lewis, 2231 No. 8 Fullerton Rd. and Vice President of the Rowland
Heights Water District said that statements he makes tonight are his own and
are not to be construed as opinions offered by the Rowland Heights Water
District. Mr. Lewis said he was disappointed because Aera had stressed that
it was "committed to building a new community that will balance the interests,
desires, needs of the environment, our neighbors, local officials and our
future community residents. Nothing short of this will do." The fact that there
is now a Planning and Pre -Annexation Agreement is, in his opinion, an
attempt to indicate that perhaps the
process closed after
years of discussing a very good project. Rowland Heights is also interested
in controlling its future and suggested that D.B. think bigger and bolder and
annex Rowland Heights into D.B. in its entirety which would render D.B. one
of the 10 largest cities in the County of Los Angeles and greatly enhance its
fiscal base and resources to address its traffic problems, its environmental
needs, housing needs and all other common problems. Aera is offering to
pay the cost of the planning and annexation. What he is suggesting is that
instead of adopting this agreement go back to staff and request a discussion
of annexing the entire revenue -rich community service district introducing
economy of scale and unifying communities into one City staff with one
agenda and one direction to move forward to address all problems in the
regional area of the San Gabriel Valley.
Lawrence Permaul, Senior Counsel, Colantuono & Levin, representing the
Hillside Open Space Education Coalition (HOSEC), an organization of
neighboring cities and communities including Brea, LaHabra, LaHabra
Heights and Whittier as well as the Hacienda Heights Improvement
Association and the Rowland Heights Community Coordinating Counsel
stated that HOSEC is dedicated to the preservation of open space in the
hillside areas bordering Los Angeles and Orange Counties in order to
safeguard the environment, maintain high quality of life and reduce traffic
congestion. Mr. Permaul said he provided CA/Jenkins with a letter that more
thoroughly explained the position of HOSEC. HOSEC believes that the
annexation of the Aera property to D.B. for development of thousands of
homes and hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial and
institutional uses in an environmentally sensitive and visually prominent
hillside area is of grave concern. HOSEC learned of this agenda item within
the last few days and does not believe there has been adequate time for
interested stakeholders to review the information and properly respond.
Some of the exhibits that were represented to be attached to the agreement
were not available online and were not available in the short period of time
HOSEC had to review the information. These concerns have been echoed
by Supervisor Don Knabe's office and despite the fact that there has been
little time to review the information and respond accordingly there seems to
1
1
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PAGE 17
CITY COUNCIL
be organized opposition to the particular agreement that is before the
Council tonight. He believed that if Council were to postpone decision on the
agreement and seek additional public input it would find many concerns
among constituents and stakeholders.
Dickie Simmons, representing Supervisor Knabe, said he earlier this evening
presented each Council Member with a copy of a letter that the Supervisor
respectfully requested he read tonight to wit: "The Aera project has
generated much concern and conversation over the past few years on plans
to develop properties known as the Shell properties in the southeastern
portion of Los Angeles County. Although conceptual plans have been
discussed there still has not been any definitive plan presented for public
review and comment. I know that your city has previously expressed a
desire to explore the possibility of annexation of the Aera properties to the
City of Diamond Bar and that this pre -annexation agreement is on tonight's
agenda. I must say that I am very disappointed with the notice and timing of
this agenda item. My office did not receive notice until after the item had
been formally placed on the agenda. I would have appreciated the
opportunity to reach out to my constituents to make sure that they were
aware of the item, particularly the week before Christmas. As you move
forward with your plans I would like to respectfully request that this Council
do everything in its power to ensure the timely and thorough notification of
these processes as you proceed, that they do not circumvent our residents of
Rowland Heights, Hacienda Heights and surrounding communities, and that
adequate notice and opportunity to discuss in open forums are made
available to one and all so that there is a complete airing of the Aera project
during each stage of the annexation entitlement process. My position on
land development remains as clear tonight as it has for years - there must be
a clear balance between construction and development and the preservation
of the very few large tracts of open space that we have left in this part of the
County. Any project that would call that balance into question including the
development of the Aera land needs thorough examination before
proceeding. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Don Knabe."
Lynn Evancamp, Rowland Heights, said she did not have a clear picture of
where the traffic would flow as a result of the project and that Rowland
Heights residents are concerned about traffic.
CMIDeStefano responded to speaker Evancamp's concerns about traffic,
that as D.B. understands the project through concept drawings shown this
evening, the road network shown in the drawing indicates that all of the traffic
flowing to and from the site would come from Brea Canyon Rd. and
obviously, Brea Canyon Rd. as it sits today would not be sufficient to handle
that level of traffic and would appear that improvements would be necessary
for Brea Canyon Rd. Staff has not seen environmental material that the
developer has created. Those documents are part of the next steps within
the environmental documents and staff presumes the documentation would
contain sufficient traffic studies to understand any and all impacts and
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL
proposed mitigation measures.
Mr. Basey stated that a lot of the details and information would be
forthcoming during the planning process. In general, the concept would
focus circulation from the project primarily onto Brea Canyon Rd. The
Environmental Impact Report will examine the existing conditions of the
roadway, layer in the proposed traffic volumes from the project, identify
levels of impact and identify the packages of mitigations which the project
would need toerearl� some
oY p°hi�rut his
comments were regarding P�ontsofngress/egesstotesite
CA/Jenkins responded to questions and comments made by the attorney
representing HOSEC. (Verbatim) Mr. Doyle In his preliminary comments
was exactly right in describing this agreement as a "roadmap." It is in fact
nothing more than a path, a process. And, in particular, it does not approve
anything. if you approve this agreement and you do nothing else there will
be no development of any kind - there will be no change in the physical
environment. And it is for that reason that it is my view that this is not a
project within the meaning of CEQA and that this agreement is specifically
exempt from the requirements of CEQA. However, note that each and every
discretionary decision that would have to be made once we go down the path
contemplated in this process would be a project within the meaning of CEQA
and hence, obviously, we're going to have to comply with CEQA and we're
going to have to do it earlier rather than later. And I think our Supervisor
Knabe should be satisfied to know that each and every step of the way we
will be obligated to give full notice to conduct public hearings at which all
members of the public and all interested parties will have the opportunity to
participate. In effect we have a property owner who owns a piece of property
outside our boundaries and who has a proposed project. He has come to us
and said would you consider taking our land and our project into your City
and our response by way of this agreement is simply said, we will consider it.
We won't guarantee anything but will consider it — we want you to pay the
majority of our costs in considering it — we may deny it — we may not go very
far into the process but we will consider it. As we consider it we will of
course comply with CEQA. In that regard I just want to point the City Council
to Section 6.05 of the agreement, which appears on Page 13 and is — the
heading of which is "Nature of Commitment." And this paragraph says that
this agreement represents the City's commitment only to plan, review and
consider the Phase 1 Approvals, the Phase 2 Approvals, and the Phase 3
Approvals - collectively, the "Project Approvals." Nothing in this agreement is
or should be construed to be a covenant, promise or commitment by
al or
City or
any agency, board or commission of the City to grant any project approval
or
to enter into the development agreement on any p
conditions. Nothing herein can be deemed a covenant, promise or
commitment by Developer, or its successors in interest, to annex the Aera
Project Area, or any part thereof, or to construct any Project Improvements
on the Project Area. The purpose of this agreement is merely to set forth the
Parties' understanding regarding the manner in which the Parties intend to
1
1
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL
proceed with cooperative efforts to provide a planning and processing
framework in furtherance of the Project, reserving final discretion and
approval of the Project Approvals to the Diamond Bar City Council, subject to
environmental review in accord with CEQA." And that paragraph 6.05 really
says it all very succinctly.
Some portions of the letter from the attorneys for HOSEC simply reflect the
author's opinion about the merits of the agreement and this opinion is
expressed in isolation, in a vacuum without the benefit of having sat down
with the representatives of Aera overthe course of what must be two orthree
months of serious negotiations in a process where there was give and take.
While it is very nice that someone comes along Monday morning and says
well, if I had done it I would have done it differently. Well, that's fine but
that's not what we have here so choices have been made along the way. In
other respects the letter really grossly misrepresents the agreement and
mischaracterizes many of its terms. And since this is really my only public
opportunity to comment on that I would just like to take a few more moments
if you'll indulge me just to pointed out a couple of those mischaracterizations
which I think are really pretty egregious under the circumstances. For
example, on Page 2 the first bullet point says that the agreement does not
discuss alternatives. Well, this is not an EIR. It will be an EIR and it will
discuss alternatives to the project — it has to discuss alternatives to the
project. That's not the purpose of this agreement. Second, it says the
agreement attempts to specify mitigation measures for the project. No, it
doesn't. The letter states that Section 4.03 commits the City to requiring no
mitigations beyond those stated in the article. This is a misreading of
Section 4.03. If we turn to Section 4.03 we'll see it refers only to "public
facilities" — public facility mitigations. It says nothing about mitigations of the
project itself. The next bullet point on Page 2 says Section 4.08 appears to
pre -commit you to waive the requirements of your grading and other
ordinances. Well, it doesn't appear to do that at all. In fact, if you read
Section 4.08 it says that some aspects of the project may be inconsistent
with the City's grading ordinance and other ordinances and as part of the
project applications the applicant may ask the City Council to amend some of
its ordinances and the City Council will consider it. What does that mean? It
means you'll consider it and you'll either say yes or no within your absolute
discretion and nothing can bind your discretion. There is nothing in 4.08 that
appears to pre -commit you to waive the requirements of your grading
ordinance and frankly I don't know why that sentence appears in this letter at
all.
On Page 3 the letter states the agreement gives the developer too much
control over the EIR. This is entirely the author's opinion. What is
contemplated here as far as the preparation and review of EIR provides that
the City will give its complete independent review of the EIR, which is what
CEQA requires and is a perfectly acceptable and perfectly lawful
methodology for the review and certification of an EIR. There is absolutely
nothing inappropriate about it.
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL
On Page 4 the first bullet point makes reference to the "assignment"
indicating that the paragraph allowing for assignment would allow the
developer to take all the benefit of this deal. This is a complete
misstatement. There is no "deal" involved here. Once again, this
agreement provides for a process — it doesn't make a "deal." Any
development agreement that is negotiated with this developer, if we even
get that far, will have a much different type of assignment clause. For
purposes of a pre -annexation agreement nothing further or more
elaborate than what is included in this agreement is necessary
inuse
we have reserved the right to exercise our discretion at any pointe
process if we determine not to go forward with any of the discretionary
approvals. Consequently, if this developer is to assign it to another
developer it's not nearly the concern it would be if we had negotiated a
"development agreement" that accorded the developer true vested rights.
Then we would want to have more say over an assignment. The third
bullet point regarding public debt is very misleadingly worded. As Mr.
Doyle indicated, there is a possibility that this developer would want to
have a Mello -Roos District all over the property. The reference to "public
debt" contains an inference that somehow our general public will be
saddled with some new debt when in fact a typical Mello -Roos District of
the kind contemplated, a Community Facilities District, would merely place
debt on the parcels within the project only and no place else. The fourth
bullet point on Page 4 criticizes the agreement for giving the developer
complete control over the phasing of the project. I would represent to you
that every private project and every development agreement that is
approved gives the developer control over phasing. After all, it's the
developer's project. The whole point of a development agreement is to
allow the developer to phase a project over time based on market
conditions, financing and other considerations. Furthermore, nothing in
this agreement sets forth what the terms of the ultimate development
agreement in this regard are going to be. The last bullet point on Page 4
states that Section 4.10.7 limits Diamond Bar's power to condition build
out of the project to protect the health and safety of the community.
challenge you to read Section 4.10.7 and come to that same conclusion.
On Page 5 the author references Section 6.03(c) requiring the City to
indemnify the developer for any negligence by the City in the entitlement
process. Again, I would urge you to read Section 6.03(c), which is a
standard indemnification requirement that simply says virtually the opposite —
,.except for the negligence or willful misconduct of the City the developer
must defend and indemnify the City from and against any and all damages,
etc. etc." What does that mean? It means that the developer is obligated to
defend and indemnify the City with regard to any liability except for liability
created by the City's negligence. That's a standard provision in most
agreements. Nothing in Section 6.03(c) says anything about negligence in
the entitlement process. Frankly, I'm not aware of what type of negligence
might arise in an entitlement process. I'm not sure why that criticism is even
in the letter.
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PAGE 21
CITY COUNCIL
In conclusion I don't believe that the protests made by HOSEC and its
attorneys has merit. I don't believe that this agreement is project within the
meaning of CEQA. I think the comments are mistaken, erroneous or reflect
a mischaracterization of the agreement or reflect simply the author's
disagreement with various points that were negotiated during the negotiation
process.
I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Council may have about this.
M/Tye agreed with CA/Jenkins.
MPT/Tanaka said he was confident with staff's reports and interpretation by
the City's legal counsel that all the Council was approving at this point was a
process, and that there would be ample opportunity for public input and for
comments from interested stakeholders. He was also comfortable that there
would be no financial impact to the City.
C/Herrera agreed with MPT/Tanaka's comments and said that for some
individuals to claim they were caught unaware and did not know about the
Aera project was quite unreasonable since for the 11 years she has served
on this City Council people have talked about the Aera development.
HOSEC was created two years ago by a coalition of cities that wanted to stop
the development that everyone knew was coming.
C/Herrera moved, C/Chang seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2006-79
Approving a Planning and Pre -Annexation Agreement between the City of
Diamond Bar, California and Aera Energy LLC. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Herrera, MPT/Tanaka,
M/Tye
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zirbes
9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
C/Chang thanked residents for their input this evening and encouraged them
to participate in public meetings as often as possible. Last week the City
recognized and thanked its Senior Volunteers for assisting the City and
helping to deter crime. He thanked staff for the wonderful community Snow
Fest event. He and other Council Members attended the Senior's Christmas
party. Yesterday the Council held a special economic development meeting
to discuss ways in which various sites could be used to help revitalize the
City's economy. He wished everyone Happy Holidays and a very Happy,
Healthy and Prosperous 2007.
DECEMBER 19, 2006 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL
C/Herrera stated that Council Members attend many community events in
the City and that the City's staff and City Council look very careful at all
issues that come before the City as to how they could benefit the residents of
D.B. Council and staff have no interest in making decisions that may hurt the
residents and the City, and always have the best interest of the community at
hand and heart. Opportunities come with annexing the Aera property. A
resident asked where all of the cars would go. Most individuals travel to their
jobs and a great majority of people work in Orange County. Many are
attempting to find affordable housing and the State of California is pressing
California cities to plan for some affordable housing. The City of Industry
has 85,000 jobs and very little housing so most live in other areas. So, there
are all kinds of opportunities for the City and the region to reduce traffic if the
workforce can live closer to their places of employment and perhaps travel
via MTA or Foothill Transit and she has recently spoken to these agencies
about such workforce movement possibilities. There will be numerous public
hearings on all these issues and there will be ample opportunity for all
residents and stakeholders to participate in the process. She wished
everyone safe holidays and a Merry Christmas.
MPT/Tanaka thanked residents who watch the meetings on cable and come
before the City Council to express their concerns and feelings about projects
and issues that concern the City. He and C/Herrera attended the installation
of officers for the Korean -American Federation of Eastern Los Angeles. He
and his colleagues attended the Volunteer Patrol recognition with Lt. Maxey
presiding. He attended the Tri -Counties Association of Realtors Installation
and Recognition luncheon. C/Tanaka further stated that he attended the
Breakfast with Senator Margett. He thanked staff and especially the
Community Services staff for an excellent Snow Fest event and thanked
Allison Meyer for coordinating the holiday craft fair at the Diamond Bar
Center. The Diamond Bar Performing Arts had a fundraising dinner at the
Diamond Bar Center and congratulated the Diamond Bar High School
students. Industry held a Manufacturer's Counsel Christmas luncheon for
which the Citrus College Singers provided the Christmas program. Armstrong
Elementary School held a Christmas program for the first and second
graders; The D.B. Seniors put on a very well attended Christmas luncheon
with the largest ever participation. The San Gabriel Valley Chamber held its
Christmas mixer and co -hosted the United States Marine Corps Toys for
Tots Drive. He attended the Pantera Park batting cages meeting and that
several residents participated. He visited both Tiny Tots programs during
Santa Claus visits at Heritage Park and Pantera. The Diamond Ranch High
School Band, Orchestra and Choir held a Breakfast Santa fundraiser this
past weekend which was very well attended. There was entertainment
throughout the morning with the musical programs. He thanked all of the
students from D.B.H.S. who participated in tonight's meeting. He and his
wife Wanda wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a happy and healthy
New Year.
1
1
u
DECEMBER 19, 2006
PAGE 23
CITY COUNCIL
M/Tye said that the students who remained for the entire City Council
meeting tonight should receive double class credit. He said he appreciated
C/Herrera's comments because the Council is charged with listening and
considering all aspects of an issue and must respond to the wishes of the
residents who are the eyes and ears of the City. He asked that residents not
be fooled into thinking that their Council and staff would be violating
community wishes and policies. The goal of this City is to make the
community better and it was very disappointing to hear that many residents
received mailings from unnamed individuals who sent out unsigned letters
containing false and misleading information about the D. B. Golf Course.
He said that residents could reach City Council members or staff member
and make their concerns known and have their questions and concerns
addressed and not fall victim to dishonest rhetoric designed to cause
dissention within the community.
M/Tye congratulated CSD/Rose and his staff on the Snow Fest event and
transforming Pantera Park into a winter wonderland! He announced that
D.B. resident Ryan Smith (No. 28) would be playing for the Florida Gators.
His family has lived in D.B. for 20 years. Ryan attended Golden Springs
Elementary and Lorbeer Middle School, played soccer and Little League
Baseball in the City. Lance and Marlene Smith would also like everyone
know that their daughter Megan who cheered for Ryan during his years in
D.B. is attending Clark Atlanta University in Atlanta.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Tye adjourned the
regular City Council meeting at 10:10 p.m. to January 16, 2007 in memory of staff
memberAl Rumsey's son and in honor of the men and women serving their country
who are away from their friends, families and homes during this holiday season.
TOMMY CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved thisl6th day of January , 2007.
—2
ST , AY R