Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/28/1992 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JANUARY 28, 1992 1. CALL TO ORDER: MPT/Papen called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers, AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by MPT/Papen. ROLL CALL: Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing, Miller and Werner. M/Kim was excused. Also present were Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Director of Community Development; Sid Mousavi, Public Works Director/City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS: C/Miller stated that staff removed newsstands which were placed in front of the Post Office due to pornographic contents of the materials. The City will continue to remove this type of material i throughout the City. I 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Al Rumpilla, 23958 Golden Springs Dr., on behalf of the Gadfly Assn., stated that out of the 30 people originally appointed to GPAC, there are only 8 active members with an average of 5 present at any one meeting. He suggested that the City Council appoint additional members. In addition, public participation is very minimal. CA/Arczynski stated that this matter was discussed by the Council approximately one year ago at which time several replacements were appointed. It was agreed that no new members would be appointed after that date so that all members would have equal knowledge of the status of the Plan. Public hearings will soon be held before the Planning Commission and the public is welcome to comment at that time. C/Werner stated that the GPAC meetings are open to the public and encouraged those who want to give input to attend those meetings. Ron King, 520 S. Camaritas, spoke in opposition to the apartment construction on Grand Ave. and expressed a desire that future projects such as this not be approved until after ! adoption of the General Plan. i I Larry D. Boothe, 3839 Castle Rock Rd., asked that the 300 ft. public hearing notification area be increased to 1000 ft. and that future notices be addressed to "occupant" rather than residents so that all interested parties may be notified. He JANUARY 28, 1992 PAGE 2 expressed a desire to see the City move forward on oak tree preservation. CA/Arczynski explained that, regarding the matter of addressing notices to "occupant," state law prescribes how the notices are to be addressed. With respect to oak trees, the County Ordinance was adopted by the City and is currently in place. Staff is in the process of upgrading restrictions contained in the County Code. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., reported that he had submitted a draft comprehensive tree ordinance for Council consideration, without which, developers are allowed too much freedom. He asked about the status of his proposal. In addition, he indicated that no further development should be allowed to proceed without the General Plan being in effect. CM/van Nort stated that the Council had adopted rules and regulations governing ordinance processing and that the draft tree ordinance will be discussed at a study session on March 10, 1992. 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC BEARING: 4.1 TENTATIVE TRACTS 47850, 47851 AND 48487 - Continued from January 21, 1992. CDD/DeStefano again reviewed the proposed projects submitted by Dr. Al LaPeter and Diamond Bar Associates. In response to C/Werner's question, CDD/DeStefano stated that the project was submitted to the City in late 1989 and an EIR was requested by the Acting Planning Director in 1990. The EIR was prepared and the notice of preparation distributed to approximately a dozen local and state agencies in May of 1990, soliciting comments that should be incorporated within the document. In August 1990, the first EIR was received from the developers' consultant for City review and submitted for public review. In October 1990, the Council created the Significant Ecological Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) who reviewed the EIR and some of the specifics related to the project in terms of their biological impact between October and April of 1991. As a result of comments generated by SEATAC, the project was amended and changes were incorporated as mitigation measures within the EIR. MPT/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Cliff Mukai, 3215 Bent Twig Ln. asked if the City knows ^! if the developer is financially sound, source of funding and, what is the expected ratio of total costs per property to the construction costs and how the City would be affected if the developer goes bankrupt. JANUARY 28, 1992 PAGE 3 Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., presented overheads and written comments and spoke on the issues of liability; biological, environmental and geological impacts and financial concerns. Jack Rech, 2447 Alamo Heights, spoke in favor of the project. Kathy Meyers, 3025-B Las Brisas Ln., President, Las Brisas Homeowner's Assn., stated that 30 petitions were delivered to the City indicating member opposition to any attempt to provide primary or secondary public access to or through their private, gated community. She further indicated that she felt that a General Plan should be in place prior to approval of the 160 acre development. MPT/Papen confirmed that the City had received the petitions. Robert M. Kelsey, 3001 "A" Las Brisas Ln., stated that he had not received a Notice, was concerned about a possible easement along Sugarpine, and felt that nothing should be approved until the General Plan is adopted. ^! C/Werner stated that the easement or public road proposed was rejected by the Planning Commission and that the Council was not in support of the road either. He recommended that the Council, at the close of the hearing, go on record to clearly state whether or not this issue is alive or dead. Lillian Blaschke, 2950 Malaga, reported that she had three degrees in biological science and specialized in cellular biology. She indicated that she would be happy to assist in any further environmental investigations and that she was opposed to the use of Sugarpine as an access or public road. Nancy Dougherty, 3010 La Paz "D", stated that she is against the proposed development and easement and expressed a desire to see an oak tree preservation ordinance put in place. She also indicated that she had read the Boyle Engineering report indicating that the City requested resolution to access to Tonner Canyon through extension of Sugarpine and that she was concerned about current soil erosion and that the project might contribute to further erosion. The following persons spoke in favor of the project: Donald R. Sizemore, 23751 E. Goldrush Dr. John Phillips, 1003 Quiet Creek Ln. Richard and Charlene Goff, 3367 S. Falcon Ridge Rd. Michael Newhouse, 1405 Stardust Kevin Alden, 2727 Indian Creek JANUARY 28, 1992 RECESS: PAGE 4 Bill Palmer, 23422 Wagon Trail Louis Merola, 1457 S. Lemon Ave. John B. Luttrell, 1469 Rolling Knoll Rd. MPT/Papen recessed the meeting at 7:35 p.m. RECONVENE: MPT/Papen reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. John Pringle, 6055 E. Washington, Los Angeles, attorney representing the Diamond Bar County Estates Assn., stated that the Board of Directors reviewed the original proposal and modifications and supports the project. The following persons also spoke in favor of the project: John Murphy, 171 N. Rock River Dr. Frank Lozano, 680 Shady P1. Ken Demaret, 22136 Steeplechase Dr. Marc W. Hawkins, 2618 Broken Feather Ln. Mark Skaar, 1431 S. Stonecrest P1. Sue Sisk, 1087 Flintlock, expressed concern over the process developers and related expenses experienced by developers before the public is ever aware that a project is proposed. Christine Drum, 3364 S. Falcon Ridge Rd., opposed the project due to her concerns about wildlife, vegetation, traffic and construction noise. Tom Van Winkel, 21103 Gerndahl St., stated that it appeared as though not everyone who should have been were noticed about the hearing and suggested that the General Plan be completed before any developments are approved. Cecil Mills stated that he had been in contact with homeowners directly impacted by this development and that there was no conspiracy to keep the project quiet. He presented copies of letters sent to homeowners and a resolution adopted by The County Homeowners' Assn. endorsing the project to the Council. The Boy Scout Council of the Los Angeles Area issued a letter in April 1990 indicating that they would have no problem with the project. CA/Arczynski reported that written responses had been received from D.J. King and Assoc. and Michael Brandon Assoc. regarding questions raised at the previous meeting. Said responses should be incorporated into the EIR. He reiterated that the notice process was properly followed as prescribed by State law. MPT/Papen requested that approval of grading permits take into consideration the nesting periods of migratory birds in that grading is proposed to take place in the summer. JANUARY 28, 1992 PAGE 5 Further, the EIR should include comments made by Michael Brandon & Associates regarding the potential presence of cougars in the area and clearly state that no roads or easements will be considered through Sugarpine from Diamond Bar Blvd. to Tonner Canyon. With Council concurrence, staff was directed to add MPT/Papen's comments to the EIR. RECESS: MPT/Papen recessed the meeting at 10:20 p.m. RECONVENE: MPT/Papen reconvened the meeting at 10:30 p.m. C/Miller requested that the following conditions be addressed in the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions: Tract #47850, #6 - Are the CC&Rs consistent with those of The Country; i.e. fencing requirements in front of houses, required landscaping front and rear, 40 ft. setbacks which are beyond the requirements of The Country, no floorplan repetition, etc. #7 - Urban pollution basins --how are they to be maintained and who will bear the costs? ^I #9 - Construction activities between 7 a.m. & 5 p.m. and hours for maintenance of heavy machinery --these should coincide with requirements established for The Country. #10 - Landscaping and irrigation --conform to The Country standards. #20 - Two "out parcels" --applicant and staff to handle as deed restrictions dedicated to the Homeowners' Assn., perpetually considered open space and the property of the Homeowners'. 121 - No mention of retaining walls --needs to be addressed. #22 - Phase boundaries --a specific phasing map is needed so that the City knows when each project will be graded, if it is a 10 or 12 -year period, how many graded each year. Provide a proposed building envelope on the cul-de-sac lots and the separations. Architectural control to break up massive structures with two-story walls contiguous to each other through the use of cantilevers, offsets, popouts, etc. Subdivision: #1 - Wording to the effect that the existing heliport pad will be relocated as required by the Fire Department. #10 - Detailed, on-site lighting plans --The Country does not have street lights --should this project be the same? JANUARY 28, 1992 PAGE 6 #2ld - Slope banks in excess of five feet --seed with native grass along with appropriate tree and shrub planting on the slopes. 123b - Gross stability of 150 foot high fill slopes and unstable slopes shall be redesigned and stabilized using slope reinforcement. Clarification as to what the geologist referred to for reinforcement --no gunite. #26 - "Public/private street" --change to "private streets." #36 - Permission from affected property owners prior to final map for easement on a blue line streambed-- determine the affects lack of permission by individuals will cause. 137 - Sewage pumps --who will maintain or will they be transferred to the County? #38 - Sewer line capacity --make sure that adequate capacity exists. #48 - Stop signs --any and all signs to conform to Country standards. #10 - 9 -mile radius to determine street names --stay within City limits to make sure there are no repetitions, but 9 -mile radius seems excessive. In addition, one map specified 9 -mile radius, other specified within City limits --should be consistent. #32 - Revocable easement --no longer exists. Address concerns regarding soil stability and layers of bettinite within the soils report. Determine impact fees to be charged against the project for off-site sidewalk improvements, signal improvements, etc. MPT/Papen requested the following conditions: 1. A staff report as to whether the entire slope will require rebuilding or if there is some other alternative. 2. She noted a recommendation from the Department of Water Resources to use reclaimed water for irrigation purposes and suggested that construction of a dual system be required. 3. The Walnut Valley Unified School District took exception to the applicant's response to question 12 and she requested a report from staff on this issue. JANUARY 28, 1992 PAGE 7 4. Require a minimum of 125 feet of frontage on the homes with straight frontage. Cul-de-sac radiuses are too small to provide adequate setbacks and driveways -- enlarge the radiuses approximately 60-65 feet. C/Werner requested conditions that address mitigation monitoring: 1. Section 3.7, provision 7A-1, biological resources -- provide that a mix of relocated and new trees be used for replacement of the California Live Oaks as well as the black walnuts. He requested specific information from the arborists as to the type of trees proposed. 2. Reclaimed water--EIR indicates desirability of using reclaimed water for conservation purposes; but no lines currently available. Will the developer be required to make provision for future reclaimed water hookup and should the developer be responsible for the cost of some of that water line? He requested additional recommendations from staff. C/Miller requested that staff address the issue of when reclaimed water will be available and how. He felt that 7-1 dry lines should be required for future hookup. C/Werner indicated that the EIR should contain a time frame for grading and revegetation on the site. In addition, he directed that the developer be prohibited from moving dirt off-site to eliminate exportation or importation by heavy trucks traveling through the City. C/Miller requested that the developer be restricted from parking construction and employee vehicles off-site. Judge Mills explained that they anticipated that Tract 47851 would be prepared in conjunction with Dr. LaPeter's tract which require dirt to be balanced between them. In addition, Dr. LaPeter's tract requires the sewer pump station to be constructed on one of the other tracts. C/Papen requested that: 1) reference to model home landscaping on Planning Commission Resolutions No. 91-23 #11 and No. 91-24 #10 should be deleted and a requirement included for front and rear landscaping prior to filing of Notices of Completion; 2) Item #11 on No. 91-24 calls for a radius of nine miles for determination of street names which is inconsistent with #11 on No. 91-23 and 3) gross -stability of 15o foot slope required by #24b be addressed prior to approval of the project. i Regarding Tract No. 48487, she expressed concern regard- ing impact of the grading on the vacant parcel not included in the project. JANUARY 28, 1992 PAGE 8 C/Miller pointed out that the issues he addressed were applicable to all three projects, not just 48750. C/Werner requested that condition #4 regarding Tract No. 47850 be further addressed by staff regarding approval of the mitigation monitoring program prior to development approval and leave whatever has to be based on more information until a future date prior to the grading permit. In response to C/Werner's question regarding costs for staff assistance on this project, CDD/DeStefano replied that not all of staff's costs are being covered due to the fact that the project was presented to the City under the old fee structure which was not cost-effective. Following further discussion, C/Miller moved, C/Werner seconded to continue the Public Hearing to March 3, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. Motion carried unanimously (M/Kim absent). 5. OLD BUSINESS: 5.1 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 1 (1992): AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 22.76 TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED, PERTAINING TO ADMISSION CHARGE PARTIES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES. C/Miller moved, C/Werner seconded to adopt Ordinance No. 1 (1992). With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCILMEN -Forbing, Miller, Werner, MPT/Papen NOES: COUNCILMEN - None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN - M/Kim 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-02: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 164.56 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE 1989 FOR ROADSIDE RECREATIONAL PROJECT - Admin. Asst. Kellee Fritzal reviewed the proposed uses of the grant funds available to cities under AB471 for Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation programs related to impacts of modifying existing transportation facilities or constructing new facilities. Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend Dr., asked that the Council take into consideration a facility for senior citizens and consider deleting the basketball court and utilizing the money for the building. JANUARY 28, 1992 PAGE 9 Donald Sizemore, 23751 E. Goldrush, Dr., asked about plans for sound walls along that section of the freeway. MPT/Papen stated that Council has been working on the sound wall issue, however, one of the problems is that the State continues to change the rules as to when you qualify. CM/Van Nort stated that as part of the HOV improvement program on the 57 freeway, the Council, as well as Supervisor Dana, and Senator Hill have gone on record- stating ecordstating that if the HOV project becomes a reality, sound walls would be constructed as a mitigated measure. Jack Italsky stated that sound walls are a prime target for graffiti and Council should take this into consideration. C/Forbing moved, C/Miller seconded to adopt Resolution No. 92-02 approving the application for grant funds for Roadside Recreational Project. Motion carried unanimously. 7. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, MPT/Papen adjourned the meeting at LYNDA bURGIF?45=, CML: City�62:erk ATTEST: MayorVy/