HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/22/1995MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
! MAY 22, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:18 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice Chairman
Huff.
ROLL CALL_
Present: Commissioners: Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice
Chairman Huff, Commissioners Meyer, Schad and
Huff.
Also Present: Associate Planner Robert -Searcy; Assistant
Planner Ann Lungu; Consultant Attorney Robert
Owen; Consultant Engineer Mike Meyer; and
Recording Secretary Carol Dennis.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Mark Hopper, 1125 Grubstake Drive, stated he represents the
Evangelical Free Church. With respect to the minutes of May,
8, 1995, he asked that they be amended to reflect the spirit
of the meeting. He requested that on Page 20, Paragraph 10,
line 4, the word "prohibits" be amended to read "which does
not include" development at this time. He further requested
that the statement in the Draft Resolution be amended
accordingly.
C/Fong stated he believes Mr. Hopper is correct with his
wording, because his understanding of the matter is that the
Planning Commission does not intend to prohibit any
development on the knoll. He said as a Commissioner he can
make that change.
C/Schad stated he concurs with C/Fong.
Wilbur Smith, Diamond Bar citizen wanted to know what the
Planning Commission had recommended to the City Council
regarding the General Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum responded that
the Planning Commission version of the Draft General Plan was
distributed to the public at the time of its approval. This
version was sent to the City ,Council for' their deliberation.
The Planning Commission is required by Government Code to
review areas of the General Plan that were not discussed.
These areas were referred to the Planning Commission by the
City Council; the Planning Commission held a public hearing
May 22, 1995
Page 2 Planning Commission
and discussion; the results were submitted back to Cit
Council with recommendations from the Planning Commission.
The specifics are included in the Planning Commission minute
for public consumption.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
I
1. Minutes of May 8, 1995.
C/Fong stated the wording on Page 14 is incorrect. He
asked that "eliminated" be stricken and the sentence be
revised to read as follows: "C/Fong recommended that t 'e
shear key be reviewed and modified as appropriate on Lots
3, 4 and 5 to save the oak grove in view of favorable
geological conditions indicated on the current geological
map." He indicated this is what he intended to say an
rd
what it says on Page 14 is wrong; technically, it is
incorrect. With respect to the third paragraph, Page 14,
he asked that the following words be added to the end of
the sentence to clarify what he meant: for unobstructed
view of the canyon areas from planned streets so that the
sentence reads: "C/Fong recommended that the lots be
staggered and that spaces be left between the lots for
unobstructed view of the canyon areas from planned
streets."
C/Meyer stated he has a problem with adding verbiage of
what should have been said and the way it is thought to
be at this time. The minutes are suppose to be an
abbreviated action type, of minutes that reflect what
occurred at the meeting. He indicated he has no problem
changing C/Fongs statement to "modified" rather than
"eliminated" because he believes that is what C/Fong
said. He stated he does not concur with adding
clarification to paragraph 3.
C/Fong stated he did mention for unobstructed views in
canyon areas but it is not reflected in the sentence.
C/Meyer responded that this was not in accordance with
his recollection.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated he agrees with C/Meyer that the
minutes should reflect what was said and what occurred.
He suggested that the' minutes be tabled and that the
recording secretary review the tape to determine if the
minutes accurately 'reflect what was said.
C/Fong stated that with respect to Mr. Hopper's comments,
he believes the minutes are incorrect. He doesn't
believe the Commission meant to prohibit development on
the grassy knoll. He indicated he remembers that
development on the grassy knoll was to be deferred at
this time.
t k
May 22, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he believes the minutes
accurately portray what the motion was and what the
Commission voted on. He indicated the recording
secretary could also review this area of the tape. The
minutes have to speak for themselves.
C/Meyer stated the minutes reflect the true content of
the motion. He reiterated that his intent was to
prohibit development on the grassy knoll.
A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to
table the approval of the Planning Commission minutes for
May 8, 1995 to the June 12, 1995 meeting. The motion was
approved 4-1 with the following roll call:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong,
Chair/Flamenbaum
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Resolution No. 95-06: A resolution of the Planning
^'I Commission of the City of Diamond Bar approving
Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1, Development Review No.
95-1, and Negative Declaration No. 95-1 which is a
request to construct a two story sanctuary structure with
a cellar and install two temporary modular classroom
units and repealing Conditional Use Permit No. 1634(1)
for a church facility located at 3255 South Diamond Bar
Boulevard (Tract 33417, Lot'19).
VC/Huff recused himself from this agenda item and left
the dais.
A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by
Chair/Flamenbaum to adopt Resolution No. 95-06.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated his understanding of the
government code is that the word "prohibit" or words to
that effect do not preclude an applicant from applying
for a new and/or revised Conditional Use Permit at a
later date. AP/Searcy concurred that under Title 22, the
Conditional Use Permit addresses bringing back projects
that are substantially different from a project for which
the Commission has, taken action. Chair/Flamenbaum
continued that it was the intent of the Planning
Commission to absolutely deny building on the grassy
knoll at this time. Pursuant to funding available to the
applicant, there was no idea as to when such building
might occur. The Commission did not believe it was in
the City's best interest to approve a structure that
would appreciably impact the surrounding community
without knowing more about it. The Commission was
May 22, 1995
Page 4 Planning Commission
concerned with the issue of parking,- as well as the
improvements scheduled for Brea Canyon Road and Diamond
Bar Boulevard. If and when the applicant wishes to make
new or revised application the Planning Commission will
then make the appropriate determinations.
Responding to. Mr. Hopper, C/Meyer stated it was his
intent to prohibit development on the grassy knoll as an
entitlement of the Conditional Use Permit, to eliminate
the prohibition against spires on buildings on the site,
and to eliminate the time constraints relative to evening
meetings. At issue with building on the grassy knoll is
that the designs are not in keeping with good land use
standards. There was testimony indicating the grassy
knoll is a habitat of endangered species which the
environmental review did not reflect. In addition, there
was testimony indicating that.the knoll is an historical
site. He further stated that there should be no mistake
that his recommendation for the preparation of this
resolution was to prohibit development on the grassy
knoll. As the Planning Commission has reviewed and
modified conditions placed on the property by' Los Angeles
County he indicated he would expect future Planning
Commissions to consider the information provided by the
applicant for future development on the grassy knoll. He
stated.that it was his intent that if the applicant
wished to develop the grassy knoll area, an amendment
would be made to. the Conditional Use,'Permit for
consideration by the Planning Commission and the City
Council at a future date. The plans that we're submitted
by the applicant have significant impacts on the
surrounding development.
Mr. Hopper responded to Chair/Flamenbaum that he would
need to go to his board of directors for direction on
whether to continue with the matter or withdraw the
application. He requested a continuance.
AP/Searcy admonished the applicant to be aware that this
application was brought before the Planning Commission in
order to lift a condition of approval that terminated the
Conditional'Use Pernit in November, 1995. If action is
not taken by that time, the CUP will terminate and no
additional development under that Conditional Use Permit
would be permitted. In addition, no action taken by the
Planning Commission relieves the due process procedure
that is provided under the code. Due process for
requesting any change at an additional time is always
present. It is not precluded by any element of this
Resolution.
Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, Mr. Hopper stated that
the Resolution should be adopted if it is understood by
May 22, 1995 Page 5 Planning Commission
the City that the applicant has the right to return to
the Planning Commission with an amended plan for the
unused portion of land. AP/Searcy stated that this is
guaranteed under Title 22. In addition, comments put
forth this evening are recorded in the meeting minutes
and become a matter of public record.
The motion to approve Resolution No. 95-06 was approved
4-1 with the following roll call:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
M e y e r
,
Chair/Flamenbaum,
Schad, Fong
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
VC/Huff
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
VC/Huff returned to the dais.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit
No. 92-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. TPM No. 23382
(pursuant to Code Section 21.24) is a request to
subdivide a 2.55 gross acre parcel into four residential
lots ranging from .55 acres to .90 acres. The tentative
map also includes the following: Conditional Use Permit
No. 92-1 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56.21,5 and the
Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992)) which is
required to protect resources contained in a significant
ecological area and for hillside management in areas
where grades are in excess of ten percent; and Oak Tree
Permit No. 95-2 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56, Part 16)
which is required to preserve and protect an existing oak
tree.
Applicant: Hunsaker and Associate Inc., 10179 Hunnekens
Street, San Diego, CA 92121
Property Owner: Warren Dolezal, 4251 South Higuera
Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Property Address: 3000 block (North side) of
Steeplechase Lane between Hawkwood Road and Wagon Train
Lane, Diamond Bar
Lex Williman, Planning Director, Hunsaker and Associates,
Inc., stated the purpose of the starter pads is to meet
the intent of the Hillside Management Ordinance. He
pointed out a clarification of proposed development
standards, Exhibit "B", for Parcel Map No. 23382. A 40
foot rear building setback is proposed for each lot. The
May 22, 1995
Page 6 Planning Commission
intent is to have the units step down the pad to overcome
the massing issue. The maximum massing is 35 feet.
Condition #17, relating to the cul-de-sac extension off
of Hawkwood Road'is an issue for the applicant. There is
no opposition to putting in the knuckle and the
appropriate improvements. However, the applicant does
oppose having the cul-de-sac with the knuckle. We would
ask that the Planning Commission approve, as an option:
the knuckle; eliminate the standard cul-de-sac; include
-a turn -around with a gated private driveway access; an
retain the required emergency access to the Las Brisag
Condominium project.
Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, Mr. Willi.man stated
Hawkwood Road specifically' services four units. The
concern is that a public facility is being built in a
private area since Steeplechase Lane at Hawkwood Road
becomes "The Country Estates". Since "The Country
Estates" is a gated community, this junction was intended
to be gated for emergency access purposes only and not to
provide public access. There are some technical concerns
with this approach. As a result of a profile for
Steeplechase Lane, a water line was installed on Hawkwood
Road with a turn into.Steeplechase Lane to Wagon Train
Lane. The Hawkwood Road grade up from Steeplechase Lane
is approximate ly'l2 percent. A typical maximum grade for
a cul-de-sac is 5 percent and he indicated his firm likes
to design to a maximum of 2 or 3 percent. In order to
accommodate a cul-de-sac, a severe cut would have to be
made at the end of Hawkwood Road to lower the grade. The
applicant's approach would,be' to use materials for the
gate similar to the existing main gate for "The Country
Estates" and used for emergency access only and not for
through traffic. In, accordance with the wishes of the
residents, there will be no public access to "The Country
Estates". The applicant feels a public access at this
location would be very inappropriate.
Responding to C/Meyer, CE/Myers stated he reviewed the
proposed modifications to the street improvements. A
specific condition of approval by the Planning Commission
of Vesting Tentative Map No. 47850, which is located
across Hawkwood Road from the subject property, stated
that Steeplechase Lane shall be knuckled and Hawkwood
Road shall be cul-de-saced to City standards. Staff and
the applicant have made this an issue in order to have
the issue clarified by the City Council. The condition
in VTM No. 47850 does not say "to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer". In his opinion, it is a stark and
clearly worded condition. Therefore, he indicated he is
interested in clarification at this point in time. In
this instance, no property frontage will be taken.
Typical backing distance for firefighting vehicles is 150
10�, 1 t a
it , � P_.
May 22, 1995
. .. .., —•� - ..•� - ..._ -„x.x b rvHw�4 w.x4x. 4.w4a�rU nJri
Page 7 , Planning Commission
feet. Since there is an emergency connection provided
between the knuckle and the cul-de-sac, the emergency
turn around factor is addressed. The second drawing
provided by the applicant shows a bull nose on the end of
the existing 40 foot roadway. This does not provide an
easy turn around for even a compact car. The current
Hawkwood Road public right-of-way is 64 feet. Perhaps a
larger bull nose could be constructed. The City's
Engineering staff would accept either alternative and has
no objection other than it is contrary to the condition
on VTM No. 47850 and the City's standards for cul-de-
sacs. He stated his understanding that the applicants
for this project and for VTM No. 47850 are in agreement
with respect to this issue.
AP/Searcy, responding to C/Meyer, indicated the residents
within a 500 foot radius were notified of this project
and public hearing.
In response to C/Meyer, CE/Myers stated, there have been
no traffic problems in this area. In his opinion, the
r� second alternative presented by the applicant is
functional. The road'ending could be marked "no -outlet”
to avoid inconvenience for drivers unfamiliar with the
area. The conditions of approval for this project
provide construction 'oto the satisfaction of the City
Engineer".
Responding to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated the cul-de-sac
issue was addressed by the public and City staff during
public hearings for VTM No. 47850. The condition was
written because no viable alternative had been presented.
The residents were opposed to an oversized area which
might attract non-residents using the location for
parking and other purposes.
Chair/Flamenbaum proposed the cul-de-sac be placed at the
end of Hawkwood Road and that the radius be increased by
10 feet. CE/Myers responded the applicant is proposing
a 20 foot radius and, because he has 60 feet of right-of-
way, the radius could be increased by 29 feet. He
indicated he would like to see the condition "to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer" with the clarification
that it does not have to be to the City's standards.
Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CE/Myers stated the cul-
de-sac and knuckle roadways are separated by 10 feet of
parkway.
In response to C/Huff, CE/Myers stated the 20 foot
setback begins at the 60 foot limit. In addition, there
will be a 12 foot setback from the paving.-
May 22, 1995
Page 8 Planning Commission
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the -.public hearing re -opened
Wilbur Smith asked where the gate will be placed on
Hawkwood Road. He asked if the City intends to keep the
gate locked to through traffic and .accommodate only
emergency vehicles, to which AP/Searcy, responded that was
the intent. He wanted to know if, a geotechnical
evaluation had been completed for this project with
respect to i,its impact on the Las Brisas Condominium
complex. He stated he does, not feel it is appropriate to
approve this project when the' City is one week from
approving a General Plan.: He�cited 'a portion of the
General Plan which states that lots should be one acre.
He wanted to know why Project 47850 has one acre lots and
this project has one-half acre lots, both of which are
inconsistent with the General Plan. He requested to know
what grading problems will be encountered for this
project.
Responding to Mr. Smith, CE/Myers stated he has no
knowledge of earth movement in the Las Brisas Condominium
complex area. This project has preliminary geotechnical
analysis and reports which have been reviewed and
approved by the City's Consultant Geologist. The
preliminary report will be expanded based upon the final
proposed grading and construction plans.
In response to Mr. Smith, AP/Searcy stated this project
is consistent with the Draft General Pian and conforms to
the density allowed by the zoning.
Max Maxwell, a Diamond Bar resident, stated he is
concerned about the lighting of the cul-de-sac area and,
its impact on the residences at lower elevations. He
suggested a deep bore hole for testing. He requested to
know what the tree preservation program will be for this
site. He further stated this project should go before
the City Council. He asked if the project is in the SEA
15.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed.
Lex williman, responding to Mr. Smith and Mr. Maxwell,
stated the applicant is concerned about additional work
in the Hawkwood Road area that might interfere with
existing .property right-of-ways. He indicated the
geologist for this project was the on-site geologist for
Las Brisas Condominium complex. The applicant states that
he is unaware of any land slippage issues with the Las
Brisas condo complex. The report prepared for this
project is more detailed than the usual preliminary
report because of the geotechnical issues associated with
this City. A buttress fill at the base of this project
,..
xI JJ �tYI
i. Y ,I i� .+ i. A Fl���rY M g1 �l ..t �I..�,J �i'�i.�'I ��G ��.� ..,. x�1.��
May 22, 1995
Page 9' Planning Commission
4_ was created when Las Brisas was built. He indicated at
least two deep borings were completed on site and the
City's geotechnical consultant reviewed and approved the
preliminary report. One on-site oak tree will be
preserved. Because the City felt this project was in
close proximity to the SEA 15, this project went before
SEATAC for their approval. This project is on the
opposite side of the hill from the SEA 15. The drainage
basin is away from Tonner Canyon and the storm drain goes
toward the Las Brisas complex. This project will go to
City Council for approval. The project proposes to annex
to the "The Country Estates". Access will be provided
through "The Country Estates". No public access is
proposed through Hawkwood Road. The applicant believes
he is in conformance with the General Plan and the
current zoning. The lots for this site are much bigger
and the density is much less than what would be allowed
by the current zoning and the current General Plan. This
project attempts to conform to what is consistent with
products adjacent to Hawkwood Road and located within
"The Country Estates".
Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, AP/Searcy stated that
both resolutions require the approval of City Council in
order for the project to proceed.
In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, Mr. Williman stated the
client read the resolutions. His only concern is with
the condition relating to the road.
Mr. Williman, responding to VC/Huff, stated the City
controls the street lights. There are no street lights
proposed for this project. Regarding tennis courts,
standard conditions for site development plans states any
lighting must be directed away from adjoining neighbors.
The applicant will comply with this condition. AP/Searcy
stated the standard condition reads ,that a minimum of one
candle foot five feet from the surface of the tennis
court is required. Mr. Williman stated he does not feel
the lots are of sufficient size to accommodate tennis
courts. CE/Myers indicated the street lighting condition
is Engineering Condition #33. It provides only for a
street light at the end of Hawkwood Road. There are no
conditions for street lighting on Steeplechase Lane.
Responding to C/Fong, CE/Myers stated the current
geological report is preliminary and further studies will
be conducted. The report is complete at this point of
the project to establish, to a reasonable certainty, that
the development, as proposed, can proceed as proposed.
In the approval of detailed construction and grading
plans, the soils geotechnical engineers will conduct
additional studies, if necessary, to make additional
May 22, 1995 Page 10 Planning Commissioi
recommendations to match the detailed construction plans.
C/Fong stated the reports seem to be 'incomplete with
respect to geotechnical studies for this,project and he
agrees with Mr. Maxwell that deep borings were not done
for this project. In his opinion, the boring included in
the addendum by Crandall is very inadequate. It does not
show all of the geologic structure or details required
for this type of project. He strongly recommends that
detailed deep boring should be required for the City's
final plan, review for this tract. In addition, there
should be more details and analysis to demonstrate the
adequacy of the shear key located on the northwest
boundary adjacent to the Las Brisas development. Any
remedial grading stipulated by the City should be self -
supported for the development and be supported by any
additional investigation.
C/Meyer suggested that the"Buyer Awareness Package"
should contain the revised building standardslpresented
to the Planning Commission this evening.' "AP/Searcy
agreed the standards should be included and staff could
refer to the document during development review. C/Meyerr
further suggested the ,applicant's proposal to include
gate design standards similar to the existing 'entry gate
to "The Country Estates" should be included as la
condition of approval for the subdivision. He indicated
his support of the project if the City Engineer is
satisfied that the conditions contained in the
recommendations will accommodate the additional soils and
geological reports needed to be sensitive to potential
ground movement. With respect to the cul-de-sac, he
favors the alternative design submitted by the'applicant.
CE/Myers stated Engineering Condition #35 and the
Tentative Parcel Map provide for the alternative design
and, as written, states that it will be constructed "to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer''.
Responding to C/Fong, Mr. Williman stated asphalt is
proposed for surface improvement on Hawkwood Road. He
indicated he would be concerned about C/Fongs proposal to
use Grass -Crete on a 12 percent grade for safety reasons.
Only 20 feet will be asphalt and the remainder is
intended to be green area. The applicant intends to
continue the look of "The Country Estates".
VC/Huff stated he likes the appliant's cul-de-sac design.
Responding to VC/Huff, AstP/Lunge stated the minimum 1
setback is 20 feet. The resolution proposes five-foot
variations of the setbacks so that no two lots have the
same setback.
�� ,r�` I �
May 22, 1995
Page 11:,:. Planning Commission
Chair/Flamenbaum stated he feels the density is too dense
even though the proposed General Plan indicates that this
is an acceptable density. However, he also recognizes
this is a transition area. In principle, the applicant's
proposed cul-de-sac design is acceptable. However, he
feels the radius should be increased to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer to permit access by emergency
vehicles. He indicated he supports the City Engineer's
proposal that the gate structure should be similar to the
current entrance gates to "The Country Estates". The
building envelope should be added to the CC&R's. He
indicated he is troubled by the duplications in the
resolutions. He proposed that staff be directed to
prepare resolutions of approval, that the resolutions
relate to each other, and duplicate Conditions be
eliminated. In addition, both resolutions must be
approved simultaneously. He indicated he would like to
see one master resolution and one underlying resolution.
In his opinion, the geotechnical issues are adequately
addressed in the resolutions' requirement for the City to
receive final geotechnical reports to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer. He stated he has a philosophical
problem with conditional requirements that the applicant
join "The Country Estates". He further stated he has no
disagreement with requiring CC&R's to be similar to those
of "The Country Estates".
C/Meyer stated he has no problem with duplicating
resolutions since one speaks to a Conditional Use Permit
and the other speaks to approval of a Tentative Tract
Map. He suggested the Conditions be sequentially
numbered. These are recommendations to the City Council.
As an option, the Council could choose to deny the
subdivision and woD=ove the Conditional Use Permit.
Therefore, it may be more prudent to have the Conditions
spelled out individually. He indicated he agrees with
Chair/Flamenbaum that the applicant should not be
required to join "The Country Estates1l.' However, the
applicant has stated their intention to freely join "The
Country Estates" which he feels will be in their best
interest.
A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to
adopt the resolution recommending approval of Tentative
Parcel Map No. 23382 as amended. The motion was approved
5-0 with the following roll call:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong,
V C/ H u f f,
Chair/Flamenbaum
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONERS: None
May 22, 1995 Page 12 Planning Commission
A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to
adopt the Resolution recommending approval of the
Hillside Management and Significant Ecological Area
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-
2, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 9-2, as
amended, The motion was approved 5-0 with the following
roll call:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong,
V C/ H u f f,
Chair/Flamenbaum
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:. None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
NEW BUSINESS - None
OLD BUSINESS - N'one
INFORMATIONAL,ITEMS - None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
C/Schad stated, for the record, that with respect to the May
8, 1995 Planning Commission meeting reference to the Tonner
Canyon Wilderness Conservancy, his response to VC/Huff should
have been that the Conservancy has a set of bylaws, two
directors and three officers.
VC/Huff recommended that the Commission take local and
regional field trips to review sites under development and
sites being considered for future development in an effort to
recommend improved development. In particular, he indicated
he would like to visit the proposed high school site.
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested the visit could be coordinated with
staff's recommendations for access to the site.
Chair/Flamenbaum cautioned the Commission members that they
should not speculate with respect to the cause of the
landslide affecting the Morning Sun Avenue residents. He
further stated that if the Commissioners are approached by the
press they should respond as private citizens and not speak
for the City and the Planning Commission. He reminded the
Commissioners that any speculation or comment could bring the
City into litigation.
Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CE/Myers presented the
Commission with a schedule of events and occurrences from the
onset of the landslide May 19, 1995. He indicated the
property owners have had geotechnical engineers on site since
early Friday afternoon. As a preventative measure to further
damage, earth movement began on Sunday, May 21. Although the
property is privately owned, the City continues to monitor the
.,.a,...,_.,.,� *{
May 22, 1995 Page 13=4 Planning Commission
progress on an ongoing basis. The City of Diamond Bar and Los
Angeles County have declared a local state of emergency
enabling funding to flow to private property owners to assist
in the defraying of costs for remedying the situation. He
stated further updates will be forwarded to Commissioners as
requested.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
ADJOURNMENT:
Chairman Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05
p.m.
Respectfully Sub 'tied,
L�ert Searcy
Associate Planner
Attest:
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman