The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRES 98-54CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 98-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-1, AND OAA TREE PERMIT NO. 95-2 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE 3,000 BLOCK (NORTH SIDE) OF STEEPLECHASE LANE, AT THE TERMINUS OF HAWKWOOD ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS. 1. The property owner/applicant, Warren Dolezal of The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, has filed an application for a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The request also includes an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit, to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 and to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The project site is located at the 3,000 Block (north side of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Road), Los Angeles County, California, as described above in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Extension of Time, Amended Oak Tree Permit, Amended Negative Declaration and Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be referred to as the "Applica- tion". 2. On June 20,-1995 the City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 95-36 and 95-37 approving the applicant's project. During project deliberations, the applicant represented to the Planning Commission and the City Council the retention and preservation of the existing mature oak tree. In addition the applicant represented the availability of project access through the gates of the private community known as "The Country Estates". 3. The City Council project approval was based on the applicant's representations that the oak tree would be preserved and protected and that access would be provided through "The Country Estates" via Steeplechase Lane and that the subject property was a part of the TADCO Agreement. 4. The approved project would subdivide a 2.55 acre parcel into four residential lots for the development of four custom single family residences ranging from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet. Lots vary in size from .55 to .90 acres. The proposal incorporated the retention of the existing multi -trunk oak tree located on Lot 3. The oak tree has a combined trunk circumference of 116 inches as 1 98-54 approval. Thus the project has no means of access. The applicant's lawsuit seeking an easement over Steeplechase Lane did not provide the necessary access nor did it delay the applicant either seeking access or processing the map. (b) The applicant's request for an extension of time includes a request for the removal of the existing oak tree which is required to be preserved and protected as a condition of the project's approval. Further investigation through the plan check process indicated that the tree was located in a different area of Lot 3 than initially represented by the applicant, and that due to the existence of a landslide area, appropriate mitigation measures would now require removal of the tree. Due to the oak tree's magnitude and good health, the City's land use policies encourage preservation and protection of the tree (Planning and Zoning Code Section 22.56.2050). As a result, the parcel map can and should be redesigned in a way that would preserve the tree. (c) Despite the automatic extension of time by the Subdivision Map Act Amendment, within this three year time period, the applicant has not pursued compliance with conditions of approval with due diligence. The following conditions of approval necessary for final map approval and/or map recordation have not been met: Resolution No. 95-36: A. (7) , (8) , (11) , (19) , and (20) ; B. (3) , (5) , (6) , (7) and (19) through (25) ; and Resolution No. 95-37: A. (7), (8), (11), (19) and (20) ; B. (3) , (5) , (6) , (7) and (19) through (25) . (d) Given the above changes in circumstances, further extension of the subject map is not warranted. The applicant should prepare and file a new map that addresses the foregoing unresolved concerns. 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the City Council hereby denies the Application. With the denial of the extension of time, Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 expire and all privileges granted and related to these entitlements expire. The City Clerk shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Warren Dolezal, The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, 4251 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. 98-54 measured 42 feet above the mean natural grade and a canopy diameter of 50 feet. 5. The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential -Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-1-3DU/Acre). It is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R -1- 8,000). R-1- 8,000). 6. Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north is the R-1-20,000 Zone and the Commercial - Recreational (C-R) Zone; to the south is the R-3-8,000 Zone; to the east is the R-1-20,000 Zone; and to the west is the R-1-9,000 Zone. 7. The City Council project approval would have expired on June 20, 1997. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66452.13) the project received an automatic one year extension of time. As a result, the project's approval expired June 20, 1998. The applicant submitted a written request for a one year extension of time, prior to the expiration of the map, as required by the Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code (the City's Subdivision Ordinance). 8. On September 1, 1998, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application at which testimony was received from interested parties, including the applicant. 9. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune_ and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on August 10, 1998. Seventy-one property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on August 5, 1998. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. This City Council hereby finds as follows: (a) Due to the Parcel Map's design, access through "The Country Estates" gates is necessary. As a result, participation in the TADCO agreement or annexation to the "The Country Estates" is necessary. The City Council approved the project on the basis of the applicant's representation that the project was a part of the TADCO Agreement. The City has since learned it is not. The applicant, approximately three years after the approval of the map, on May 6, 1998, submitted an application to "The Country Estates" for annexation, which has not received 2 98-54 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1998, BY THE City Council OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: �Aa 4W.A, Mayor I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15th day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang, M/Herrera None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MMEBERS: None ATTEST; Cit Clerk, City of Diamond Bar 4 98-54