HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/1995 Minutes - Special Meeting2.
3.
4.
5.
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MAY 17, 1995
CALL TO ORDER: M/Papen called the meeting to order at
6:38 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of
Allegiance by C/Miller.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Harmony, Miller, Mayor
Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen. Council Member Ansari was excused.
Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher,
Assistant City Manager, Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; George Wentz, City
Engineer, James DeStefano, Community Development Director; Bob Rose,
Community Services Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
COUNCIL COMMENTS:
Taken on May 16, 1995.
Taken on May 16, 1995.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 CITY -ON-LINE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - May 17,
1995 - 7:00 p.m., Heritage Community Center, 2900 S., Brea Canyon
Rd.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION May 22, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING (GENERAL PLAN) - May 23, 1995 - 6:30
p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 PARKS & RECREATION CGIv1MISSION - May 25, 1995 - 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 MEMORIAL HOLIDAY - May 29, 1995 - In observance City Offices
will be closed. Will reopen Tuesday, May 30, 1995.
5.6 CITY COUNCiUSTAFF WORK SESSION (BUDGET) - May 30, 1995
- 2:00 - 5:00 p.m., AQMD, Room CC2, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - June 6, 1995 - 6:30 p.m., AQ.AD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.7 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION CO?AXSSION -June 8, 1995 - 6:30
p.m., AdfAD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
C/Ansari arrived at 6:58 p.m.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Ansari requested that the April 18, 1995
Minutes be corrected on Page Two as follows: She advised that the
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 2 —
Gonzalves Firm stayed neutral until March 31, 1995 when the firm took sides
with the City of Industry. She stated that everyone was surprised because
there was no previous indication that Gonzalves and Sons would not remain
impartial."
C/Miller moved, MPT/Werner seconded to approve the Consent Calendar.
With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony, Miller, MPT/Werner,
M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of April 18, 1995 - as
amended.
6.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated May 16, 1995 in the
amount of $378,371.75.
6.3 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Big 0 Tires/Patti
Schoe on April 21, 1995 - Referred matter for further action to Carl
Warren & Company, the City's Risk Manager.
6.4 APPROVED NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD/ REHABILITATION PROJECT BETWEEN GRAND
AVENUE AND BREA CANYON ROAD - Accepted work performed by
Griffith Company and authorized the City Clerk to file the Notice of
Completion and release any retention amounts.
6.5 AWARDED DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT FOR LEFT -TURN
SIGNAL PHASES AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF GOLDEN SPRINGS
DRIVE AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, GOLDEN SPRINGS
DRIVE AND BREA CANYON ROAD, AND DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD AND MOUNTAIN LAUREL WAY - Awarded a contract
for left -tum signal phase design services to DKS Associates in an
amount dot -to -exceed $8,600.
6.6 EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITH LANTERMAN
DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL WEED/LITTER
ABATEMENT - Approved extension of the contract for supplemental
week and litter abatement services with Lanterman Developmental
Center in the total amount of $16,483 for FY 1995/96.
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 3
6.7 AUTHORIZED ADDITIOUAL EXpEPDITURES FOR GENERAL PLAN
SERVICES -Authorized additional $15,000 toward completion of the
General Plan.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 CERTIFICATION OF 1`1ASTER ENVIZONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NO. 91 2 AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 47850, LOCATED EASTERLY OF STEEPLECHASE LANE AND
SOUTH OF WINDMILL DR. ADJACENT TO THE PRIVATE GATED
COMMUNITY KNOWN AS THE "THE COUNTRY"- At the request of
applicant, continued to June 6, 1995.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.3 UPDATE ON INVESTIGATION OF FIRE ON GREAT BEND -
CM/Belanger summarized a report prepared by the ''ire Department
and indicated that the time frame de3cribed at the May 2, 1995
Council meeting was essentially correct based on all information
gathered from police and fire agencies. He further reported that Chief
Lc,ddmd had discussed the fire with the tenant occupying the house
at the time of the fire.
Martha Bruske, 600 So. Great Bend, reported on the sequence of
events occurring at the time of the fire and expressed concem with
clean up of this property. Further, she requested a report from fire
and police agencies evidencing the "911" calls.
Building & Safety Director Tarango stats) that the City requested the
owners' insurance company to provide a temporary fence, a fireplace
strap in order to protect the neighbors north of the property and clean
up of the property and they have complied with the first two requests.
The tenant had personal items that needed to. be picked up prior to
property clean up. The insurance company planned to contact the
tenants as soon as possible to pick up personal items so the clean up
could begin.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., requested that the City give
residents more information in regard to city events.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., felt unsafe in
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 4 —
her home because of the mistakes of the fire and police agencies.
Terry Birrell asked residents to support the City Council, the fire
victims and the police/fire agencies and requested a summary of the
hour-long conversation between Chief Lockhart and the tenant and
that the summary be made available to the public. She was
concerned regarding the time lag in the fire department's response.
She suggested that staff look at building codes and possible electrical
problems as well as review othsr fire situations for response times.
Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., commended both the Sheriff and
the Fire Departments on always performing well and responding
quickly to emergencies.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., requested that staff notify residents
that their homes may contain aluminum wiring which should be —
inspected or replaced.
MPT/Werner agreed with Mr. Calkins' comments and supported
police, fire and rescue agents. He felt that it is the Council's
responsibility to direct staff to cause certain actions as enumerated
in staffs report. He questioned the "911" computer clock running five
minutes' fast and the fire department's response time. He then asked
the Council to direct staff or the Mayor to prepare a letter for the
Sheriffs department and California Highway Patrol regarding these
issues. Further, he expressed concern regarding the length of time
taken to clean up the property and requested that staff determine the
normal response time.
i
C/Harmonystated that the 8 -minute response time was too long. He
commented on the "real" time kept on the "911 " computer clock and
advised that the conversations between the police department and
the residents could be made available for public review. He asked
staff to look into firms to provide aluminum wire testing to residents.
C/Ansari suggested that staff include a "health and safety" check for
homeowners in the quarterly newsletter.
CM/Belanger indicated that for the June issue of the Windmill, there
will be an article and tear out with suggestions and helpful hints in
order 1:6, detect aluminum wiring. City staff and the insurance
company,have been sensitive to the needs of the fire victims to give
ii
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 5
them as much time as possible to recover their belongings.
8. OLD BUSINESS
8.1 (A) RESOLUTION NO. 95-21: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE
ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
NO. 92081040) AND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
51253, TO DEVELOP A 21 UNIT SUBDIVISION, LOCATED EAST
OF MORNING SUN AVENUE AND NORTH OF PATHFINDER
ROAD, IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA AND MAK,'NG FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
(B) RESOLUTION NO. 95-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AN
ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH.
NO. 92081040) AND APPROVAL OF HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12 AND OAK TREE PERMIT
92-9, ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 51253, LOCATED EAST OF MORNING SUN
AVENUE AND NORTH OF PATHFINDER ROAD IN DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
At the request of: M/Papen, Robert Lane, Field Operations Supervisor
for the Gas Col reported that they had monitored the damage to
Morning Sun Ave. causcd by the landslide on a daily basis for the
past three weeks. There is no leakage in the gas line and no danger
to the gas lines. The Gas Co. will start to excavate the main on May
18, 1995 to make it available for an emergency. He indicated that he
would provide a'24 -hour emergency number to staff.
M/Papen advised that Sasak and the Walnut Unified School District
discussed this issue with staff and that the school district board had
been in contact with their engineers to move forward to take
necessary action. She also stated that Sasak engineers will be out
on the site on 05/18/95 with a bac':hoe to create test pits. Sasak
indicated that if land forms are : hallow, they will complete the
remedial work but not fix the pro5lcm; however, thay will continue to
monitor it on a daily basis. She asked staff to contact the Federal
Emergency Management Ar,,,en.y for some type of relief for the
property owners.
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 6
CM/Belanger reported that Supervisor Dana's office and County
Public Works staff had been contacted and that City engineering staff
will meet with the County Public Works staff to discuss strategies that
the City and the County may pursue in regard to this issue.
In regard to the tentative map, M/Papen stated that staff provided an
amendment, Exhibit C dated 06/16/95, correcting the number of oak
trees on page 5, paragraph 10 as well as a memo from Mike Myers
to the City Attorney indicating conditions discussed at the previous
meeting.
In response to M/Papen, CA/Jenkins advised that once the public has
been heard and public testimony closed on a tentative tract map
issue, the Brown Act does not compel the matter to be re -opened. He
suggested that staff give an update status report to answer any
questions and that the focus should be on approving the tentative —
tract map, not the hillslide.
C/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to deny the project.
i
CE/Wentz introduced language to be considered for a motion. He
suggested that Council require the property owner to further bond for
the work that he is agreeing to perform at the front end and that bond
would ruin concurrent with the City's discussions of when all of the
work would be completed so that the time frame on this particular
bond would come due at the end of the repair period the two parties
agreed to. He advised if this is the case, the City would be in a
position, if the applicant did not complete the work, to receive the
funds to complete the work. He advised that staff supported the
conditions with the exception of a short sentence referring to the map
being null and void. He suggested adding owner agrees at owners
sole expense...." and' final execution of this resolution be conditioned
on the .applicant posting security with the City in the amount of
$1,000,000 to gunrcnte3 performance of the above specified work in
the time frame : pocified... He also advised that the paragraph
identified as "the expending of $25,000 dollars to abate the
immediate hazards..." clso be included in the conditions paragraph. —
In response to M/Punen, CE/Wentz advised that the $1,000,000 bond
would be' released at such time as the grading work is completed,
particularly for th3 landslide.
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 7
M/Papen asked if the $25,000 to expedite abatement of the
immediate hazards would be handled through an escrow account.
CE/Wentz stated that the original plan was for the $25,000 to be
placed in an escrow account.
M/Papen moved, MPT/Werner to adopt the Resolutions including
the three Condition paragraphs as additional conditions of approval
along with the revisions to Exhibit C.
Jan Dabney, Sasak Property Manager, advised that the owner was
not present for agreement.
In response to, C/Harmony, CA/Jenkins advised that under
Parliamentary Rules of Procedure, a motion to amend and a
substitute motion are generally similar and are treated the same. He
stated that the motion to amend or the substitute motion are allowed
as long as they pertain to the subject matter of the original motion.
In this case, the motion ir,, in effect, a substitute motion because
passage of the motion would render the original motion moot.
C/Harmony asked if the Council approves the development project
contingent upon the developer resolving his problems, what's the
relationship between the upper slope and the other property owners.
CA/Jenkins 2dvised that there would be no relationship.
C/Harmony expressed concern that the Council cou!d approve the
development project when it affads adjacent property owners and the
school district.
CM/Belanger c&ised that th3 conditions recited by the City Engineer
indicate that the property owner must prove, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and our geotechnical consultants, that the project can
in fact be accomplished in a safe fashion.
C/Harmony expressed concern in not hearing any expert°se advise to
determine the cause of the .l ldslide cnd the amount ^f money to
remediate -the problem instoa. of rso, siring the hillside. He asked
how much the $25,000 would bu the City if tt.e r'aveloper stops the
work.
MAY 17, 1995 1 PAGE 8
CMIBel ,anger agreed with C/Harmony in that the problem needs to be
determined and addressed before any remedial repair is completed
for the t)me being.
CE/Wentz assured the Council that it is the intent of the applicant to
insure that actions taken at the site and other recommended actions
are based upon sound criteria, field data and field testing. The intent
of the paragraph relating to the $25,000 was in response to a good
faith gesture from the applicant and in an effort to resolve any minor
problems or some immediate needs to assure that action was initiated
promptly.
C/Harmony argued against the motion due to the financial
implications and giving the applicant an economic incentive. He
advised that he would like to reword his motion to deny the project
without prejudice which would allow the applicant to resubmit his
project ,once all of the engineering information is completed. He
requesstpd that the motion be separated from the declaration of public
nuisance and that it include Sasak and all adjacent properties
affected by the hillside.
MPT/Werner suggested adding the following wording to the current
conditions "to the extent that the reconnaissance information or
remediation efforts reveal that an unsafe geologic or soils condition
emanates from properties or a source beyond the scope and limits
herein, the owner may request and the city will provide its best efforts
to foster a coordinated multilurisdiction or multi -property owner
resolution."
CM/Belanger explained that the statement had the effect of informing
and providing certain comfortto the property owner in terms of
confronting a situation under which he has no actual control. He
didn't feel that thi.; was a condition to be included for a tentative map.
CA/Jenkins agreed with CMJBelanger's comments in that the City
would want to impose conditions on the applicant and not on the City
and it does not belong in the Resolution. —
C/Ansarii reiterated the sho would like these two issues separated
because she did not feel the 21 lots would fit on this land and that the
project ,does not fit in the neighborhood.
MAY 17, 1995 1 PAGE 9
M/Papen asked if the applicant agreed to the revised conditions.
Mr. Dabney asked for clarification of the final clause which states
"final execution of the resolution, etc. and the $1,000,000 bonding."
CA/Jenkins answered that the applicant would put up a surety bond
to guarantee remediation of the slide and that would be required with
a time schedule established by the City Engineer for remediation of
the slide and if this was not remediatod within that period of time by
the applicant, the City could call the bond and compel the surety
company to either perform the necessary work or pay the amount of
money from the 'bond necessary to do so.
Mr. Dabney stated that this puts the owner in an unusual position
which makes him accountable for the entire circumstance and
_ whether or not he can abate that problem. He also stated that the
secondary consideration is the abatement of the problem from the
applicants circumstance—and does the bond exceed the actual value
of the property. The applicant has offered to go out to the site with
his geotechnical advisors to investigate the site to try and rectify this
problem immediately, upon receiving that information from the site,
funding $25,000 to abate whatever the applicant can to resolve and
save the street for the people that are in the immediate area. He
expressed concern regarding there being no indication of a time line
and advised that the $1,000,0000 would be a hardship on the
applicant and requested that it be reduced to $250,000.
RECESS: M/Papenrecessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Papen'reconvened the meeting at 8:34 p.m.
At the request of MPT/Werner, CE/Wentz indicated that the following
paragraph is intended to replace the $1,000,000 performance bond
paragraph: 'The applicant shall, upon approval herein, immediately
commence to remediate the adverse soils and geotechnical aspects
of the site. Within 30 days V. this approval, the applicant shall submit
to the City Engineer, for his review and approval, a reconnaissance
study prepared by a licensed and certified engineer/geologist
providing a plan of remediation of the unsafe soil and geologic
conditions. Within 60 days of the approval herein, the applicant shall
post a surety bond in a form acceptable to the City Attorney to cover
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 10
the cost plus 20% for the remediation efforts conditioned and
attributable to the property."
CA/Jenkins stated that this condition was unorthodox in the sense
that the City is attempting to use the subdivision map as a vehicle for
accomplishing a short term objective on the property. If some aspect
of this were to fail, he wasn't sure what the implications would be;
however,' he had no objections to the concept underlying the
language.
In response to MPT/Werner, CA/Jenkins advised that a Closed
Session would not be appropriate unless there had been an explicit
threat of. litigation against the City and not unless the Council is
contemplating initiating litigation.
M/Papen stated that in a previous meeting, she moved to approve _
this tentative map with 18 or.19 homes. She directed a question to
C/Ans*i if she would consider this project if the number of homes
was at 18 or 19.
C/Ansari',stated that she would like the developer to do the grading
within his; property line, build a fair number of homes, approximately
14 or 15 ,homes, on his property and to conform to the neighborhood.
C/Miller stated that the developer should be requested to put up a
non-refundable $250,000 bond within 7 days of approval that the
work will be completed and in 60 days, that bond is substituted by the
actual cost of improvements plus the 20%.
Mr. Patel egreed to place a $250,000 bond (non-refundable) within 7
days of approval and within 60 days, the bond will be replaced with
the full amount of the necessary repairs plus 20%.
At the request of WPapen, CE/Wentz read the following Conditions:
No. 67 "Owner agrees at owner's sole cost and expense that owner
will make all investigations, analyses, recommendations and reports
as required by the City Engineer concerning all geotechnical aspects
of this site along with a preparation of all plans and specifications
necessdry for the remedy of all adverse geological and soils aspects
of the site. All reports, plans and specifications shall be submitted to
the City Engineer for review and approval. All approvals and permits
shall be, obtained and all earth work -and other construction necessary
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 11
shall be performed to make this property safe from landslides,
settlements, slippage and all other geological and soils conditions
and to cause this property to not pose any danger or hazard to nor
have any adverse effect in the adjacent properties. All work shall be
performed in a time frame and to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer." No. 68 "Final execution of this resolution is conditioned
on the applicant posting surety with the City in the amount of
$250,000 within 7 days of this City Council approval to guarantee
performance of the above specified work in the time frame specified.
No. 69 'The applicant shall, upon approval herein, immediately
commence to remediate the adverse soils and geotechnical aspects
of the site. Within 30 days of this approval, the applicant shall submit
to the City Engineer for his review and approval, a reconnaissance
study prepared by a licensed and certified engineer/geologist
acceptable to the City of Dimond Bar providing a plan for
— remediation of the unsafe ro:! end geologic conditions. Within 60
days of the approval herein, the applicant shall post a surety bond in
a form acceptable to the City Attorney to cover the costs plus 20°x6 of
the remedial efforts iden`_;,ied and -attributable to this property." Add
'This bond would replace the earlier X250,000 bond."
C/Miller asked if these conditions guarantee that the work will move
expeditiously and that damcged area will be repaired and made safe.
CE/Wentz advised that within 60 days, we will be assured that we
would have bonds sufficient to cover the'-xtent of work that has been
identified in the plan. prepared.
C/Miller asked when will mitigation commence to stop the damage
that is occurring presently and if th3re is any work that can be done
now prior to the 45 days; and i,3 the 45 ea; s expeditious.
CE/Wentz reported that mitigation will commence no sooner than 45
days. He also advised that this hillslide should not be touched until
it it certain what the cause is: He stated that the 45 days is
reasonable; however, he advised that hR will be encouraging the
applicant to accelerate that to the extent possible so that time frame
is not exceeded.
C/Miller requested that the abbye statements be added to the
conditions.
In response to fWPapen, CE/Wentz proposed Condition No. 70 "Final
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 12
.i
execution, of this resolution is conditioned on the applicant expending
$25,000 ; to abate the immediate hazards on the property in
accordance with the recommendations of a professional geologist and
registered soils engineer retained by the applicant and with the final
approval of the City Engineer.
CA/Jenkiris suggested an addition to Condition No. 69 'The Mayor
shall not be authorized to execute this resolution and the approval of
this tentative tract map shall not be considered final unless this
condition shall have been satisfied."
M/Papen asked CA/Jenkins to identify the paragraphs that would
condition whether or not the Mayor would be authorized to sign the
documents.
CA/Jenkins advised paragraphs 68, 69 and 70.
M/Papen'asked Mr. Patel if he agreed with the new conditions.
Mr. Pat6l'stated that he agreed.
C/Harmony asked if the applicant could comply with these conditions
on a financial level.
MPT/Werner asked if the additional changes to the conditions warrant
a re -opening of public comments.
CA/Jenkins advisxt that it is the Council's decision; however, the law
does not compel the Council to re -open the public hearing because
the project remains the same.
Responding to C/Harmony, MPT/Wemer stated that, whatever Mr.
Patel's financial condition, he is the owner of the property and the
conditions on the property will cause a financial impairment on his
property.', . He .felt it was appropriate to bring a conclusion to Mr.
Patel's four-year long effort for approval of the project.
CEAlVentz,read the complete conditions as follows: No. 67 "Owner
agrees !at owner's sole cost and expense that owner will make all
investigations, analyses, recommendations and reports as required
by the City Engineer concerning all geotechnical aspects of this site
along with a preparation of all plans and specifications necessary for
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 13
the remedy of all adverse geological and soils aspects of the site. All
reports, plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for review and approval. All approvals and permits shall be
obtained and all earth work and other construction necessary shall be
performed to make this property safe from landslides, settlements,
slippage and all other geological and soils conditions to cause this
property to not pose any danger or hazard to nor have any adverse
effect in the adjacent properties. All work shall be performed in a time
frame and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." No. 68 "Final
execution of this resolution is conditioned on the applicant posting
security with the City in the amount of $250,000 within 7 days of City
Council approval. This is to guarantge performance of the above
specified work in the time frame specified. The Mayor shall not be
authorized to execute this Resolution and the tentative tract map shall
not be deemed approved unle3s this condition is satisfied. NA. 69
'The applicant shall, upon approvcl here`n, immediately commence
to remediate the adverse soils and geotechnical aspacts of the site.
Within 30 dayz of this approval, the applicant shall submit to the City
Engineer for his review Pad epproval, a( reconnaissance study
prepared by a licensed rnd certfie I enginoer/geologist acceptable
to the City of Diamond Bar provid6o a plan for remediation of the
unsafe soil and geologic conditions. Within 60 days of the approval
herein, the applicant shall post a surety bond in a form acceptable to
the City Attorney to cover th3 coct3 pluj 20% of the remedial efforts
identified and ct;ributable to this prgpertu." 'The Mayor shall not be
authorized to exccula this Resolution'and'the tentative tract map shall
snot bez deomed approved unless this condition is satisfied. No. 70
Final execution of this ro.olution IS, conditioned on the applicant
expending $25,000 to abato the immediate hazards on the property
in accordance with the recommendations of a professional geologist
and registered foils enjine r retained by the applicant and with the
final approval of. the City :n�ir,3er. h�-tA3yor shall not be
authorized to ex8cute tti;s ..^.Krolu`ial and ;ti3 ten'ative tract map shall
not b3 deemed approved udec3 this co.idltion i:,satisfied."
M/Papen moved, MPTM =fer seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO.95-21: A I;ESOLUT O`I O T� :E I,IT' COU"CIL OF THE CITY
OF DIA.YOND BAR AF-ROVIi:%'a THE- ADDENDUM TO FINAL
ENVIRO�'MEN AL IM'AyT REPORTSCH h0. 92081040) AN,
APPROVi$L OF TENTA'1Vc, TPA''' -4.4- 1'0. 51253, TO DEVELOP
F,, 21 UNIT %UBDIV;SION LOCA. :r .:A6T QF MORNING SUN
AVENUE AND RORT;,:4'r R .THF! 'DECR RC;AD, 71 DIAMOND BAR,
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 14 —
CALIFORNIA AND ti".%IQNG FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF and
RESOLUTION NO. 95-22: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH. NO. 92081040)
AND APPROVAL OF HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 1NO. 92-12 AND OAK TREE PERMIT 92-9, ASSOCIATED
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
51253, LOCATED EAST OF MORNING SUN AVENUE AND NORTH
OF PATHFINDER ROAD IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND
.MAKING FINDINGS INSUPPORT THEREOF. Motion carried by the
following'Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Wemer, M/Papen
NOES: COUNCIL fAEfA3ERS - Ansari, Harmony
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
8.2 KoODIFICATION OF THE Dj.D:CATED RIGHT TO PROHIBIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS' WITHIN A
PORTION OF LOT 1, TRACT NO. 31479 - CE/Wentz reported that
this matter would usually only be before the City Engineer; however,
there i� an issue related to th3 current prohibition of construction
across the entire parcel of th3 sxirting Lot 1, Parcel C. He stated that
Parcel 'C butts up to Lod(-3pole Rd. within 'The Country." The
applicant; proposed that tho ie^triction of construction on the existing
Lot 1 (larber portimi of Parcel C) b3 lifted to construct one home on
any part'of the newly -created ?arcel C. He stated that the intent
would be to take access from Lodgepole Rd. and it would be up to the
applicant for the appropriate access to the site. Existing easements
and other restrictions across the property would remain in place
unlQcc the applicant t-oked. to have certain easements relocated or
modified. The i.- ue before tho Council is whether or not the Council
believes the current proKbition :)f any construction across that larger
parcel should in fact be modified.
M/Papen asked 1_113t Lrca is the area where the applicant is
requesting permiz-vion to build one house and what area would have
restrictiops for no rc:.id )nti l rroperty.
ACE/Mic6ael Mayers identified Lot 7 fronting Lodgepole. He advised
thst the applicant is propoc:n0 to modify the prohibition on Lot 1 and
chat the remaining portions of Lot 1 will remain as the "no building"
prohibition.
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 15
In response to M/Papen, ACE/Meyers stated that the approximate
depth for the two areas behind Longview and Knoll Ct. is 100'.
MPT/Werner insisted that the buffer be no less then 100' on the
remainder of the'parcel and requested more information on the house
and accessories.
C/Ansari stated that the Council discussed this property's
development in the past. She expressed concern over honesty from
the developer and requested a scheduled meeting to announce the
proposed lot adjustments to the surrounding property owners.
Responding to C/HFrmony, CE/Wentz advised that he is unsure of
the owners' motivations other then having the option of placing a
residence on any part of the newly created lot as opposed to the
current Lot 7. Further, the current structure was condemned due to
local soils probl@ms and it is unknown if the property owner can
rebuild on that site. Parcel A is separated on the map because it will
remain a buffer.
ACE/Meyers stated that Parcel A con;:ists of a portion of all of Lot 61
which also has residential building restriction rights dedicated. The
remaining portion of Parel 1, which is combined to make this new
Parcel A, is ani easement that is dec;ica.ed to LAD 39.
Responding to C/H,,rmpny, CE/Wcntt stated that the engineering
staff has not received any ether applications. The only proposal
which has been received for this projcA includes the lot line
adjustment.
M/Papen advised that tho. Council revised the land usage in the
General Plan which would make anything proposed previously not
buildable. She asked staff to discuss the land use designation in the
General Plan.
RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Papen;reconvsn.d the m:3t:nq at 9:38 p.M.
CDD/DeStefano' exp'.;ined the t the p, opsrty is associated with a tract
of homes approved in the lite 1970's by the County and developed
in the late 1970's and early 80's. THs property is zoned RPD
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 16 --
i
20,000�p which is a creative planned development type zone. The
zoning has not changed on this property as a result of the Council's
General flan deliberations. The Council has tentatively established
a rural residential land use classification for Lot 7 (small piece), Lot
1 (large piece) and Lot 61 (small piece adjacent to Summit Ridge and
Grand Axe.). There is a 7.5 acre strip behind the homes (north of Lot
1) that Council has designated as open space. The only application
before the City was for the parcel map which covered Lots 61 and 1
and was'designed to remove some of the property restrictions that
exist and to merge those properties into one. Open space is
approximately 7 1/2 acres. Lot A is the buffer for the homes to the
north.
C/Harmony asked staff to describe how the General Plan Advisory
Committee treated this property.
CDD/DeStefano responded that GPAC looked at the City's 20 sq. mi.
and designated a number of properties that contained various map or
deed restrictions as open space. This particular property, Lot 1 and
61, was. designated by the GPAC as open space. This was based on
their recommendation that all properties with this type of restriction be
designated as open space.
In responses to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano explained that open
space designated propArties have a description of "areas designated
as open space provide recreational opportunities, preservation of
scenic and environmental values, protection of resources, water
reclamation and conservation, protection of public safety and
preservation of animal life. This designation also includes lands
which may have been restricted to open space by map restriction,
deed/designation, condition end/or restriction or by an open space
easement pursuant to GC Soction 51070. This designation carries
with it a maximum development potential of one single family unit per
existing I`parcel un,oss construction was pre0ously restricted or
prohibitei on such -properties by the County of Los Angeles."
MPT/Wetw clarified that the owner is requesting to merge Lot 7 and
a portiop of Lot 1 into one parcel which would reduce the original four
lots into three. He LIso commented that the house on Lodgepole
would be demolished on one of those lots and proposing to
reconstruct one residential house in a location better suited for the
size of the property.
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 17
CA/Jenkins stated`that the restriction gives the right to the City to
prohibit the construction of any residential building on the site.
MPT/Werner asked if the "one residential structure" wording was
added, what guarantees dogs the City have to assure that is the end
of it and there are no more requests, rights or opportunities.
CDD/DeStefano advised that there is no guarantee. He advised that
by modifying the restrictions so that they remain on the property
covenant or restriction.
MPT/Werner asked if "any use beyond one residential dwelling unit"
wording could be subject to a vote of a certain area or community.
CA/Jenkins indicated that a future property owner could challenge it.
C/Ansari interpreted the restrictions that almost anything else
(stables, tennis courts, etc.) could be built on that property but
residential buildings were restricted. '
CMIBelanger explained that if Council denied the request, then there
will be a right to build a single dwelling unit where the current lot
exists on Lodgepole. On Lofi#1, cny other kind of use that is allowed
in a residential zone, except for a residential structure, can be
constructed. If Council modified the building restriction, then what
would be permitted would be the location of a single family residence
anywhere within that larger area. Regarding the right to prohibit
construction of residential buildings, there is also a reciprocal
statement which is to permit the building of residential buildings. The
restriction that would remain, if Council did not modify the language
on the newly -created parcel, would permit construction of accessory
uses or any other similar use on that portion of the property. It just
would not allow construction of a singly -family residence. That
restricted area is connected to an area that does allow for
construction of a residential house. Under the City's zoning
ordinance, there: :must be a single-family residence before accessory
uses are constructed.
,, M/Papen asked if the Council could leave the building restrictions on
the property and transfer the right to build to on that one acre to
another acre within the parcel.
,I
MAY 17 ,1995 995 PAGE 18
CM/Belanger advised it is. the Council's prerogative to prohibit
residential building. He stated that the restricted area can be
anywhere on the property.
Charles Williams stated that he was against development of this
property and asked that the restriction not be removed. He asked
what the residents in the City would be getting in return for this
development.
Teresa Guber, 24303 Rimford PI., asked how the construction of one
house on that street would benefit the City; how can the residents
stop the''' Council from approving the project at this time so that
residents"in the area can be notified; how to block C/Miller from voting
on the project because he had a prior interest.
Mike Long, 1648 Longview, aCked why is there such a hung on this --
project.'
Randy 56hue, Rimford PI., asked what type of ownership transfers
have occurred in this project and what the intentions are for this lot.
David Capestro, 1652 Longview, reminded the Council that the
Planning Commission recommended no building on this lot and that
the Council itself voted against it previously.
Gordan Guber,, 24303 Rimford PI., opposed removing map
restrictions on Lots 1 and 61.
Wilbur;; Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., commented that
alternative that these residents have is by going to court.
Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., stated that he does not want to see
any building on this lot. He shared a map indicating map restrictions
for Lot 1.
the only
Lee Chen, 1531 Summit Ridge Dr., advised that her neighbors and
her family bought their homes in this neighborhood because of its
quiet 2nd safety. She stated that she did not want to see any
construction on this property and asked that a public hearing be held
so that all residents in the area can be notified before a decision is
made.
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 19
Calvin Lin, Lodgepole, eXpressed concern over building on this
Property because development would rein the "country living" and
increase traffic problems.
Dr. Radnigy, 24155 Lodgepole, stated t.Whe is opposed to building
on the property. '
Robert Brodney, 24316 Knoll Ct., requested C/M.iller to abstain from
voting on this matter. He expressed concern over the many
unanswered questions surrounding this property and asked Council
and staff to loo'c into the matter further before voting on it.
Juan Matos, 1551 Summit Ridge, lives directly across from the
proposed road and is totally opposed to building on this property.
Don Schad, 1824 Shaue%: Wood Rd., requested that Council pay
attention to GPAC w` -6n th iy � i'ed unani, nously to keep the property
restricted from building. _
Terry Birrell concurred w;th th3 prev;ous speakers that this property
not be develop d and ed•,isad that ;: property contains designated
open space for puN'c he"Ith Pnd -afety reasons relating to soil
condit ^3 Md that th3 i, �it. Ih a flood hazard area.
Barbara Beach-Courchesna., 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., reminded
Council that both the PlanniV Corr.nisVicr,and the Council said no
to developmert on this !arid in the pdCt. Why should it be changed
now.
Karen Capestro, 1652 Dr., ct ited that she and her
neighbors do nrt want the building rea, icticn lifted.
James Siecke, 2--;M3 R:rr;:ord PI., dupported his neighbors and
opposed development cf th:s pro -party.
Sue Pang, 24336 Rimford PI.; opposed the project.
Emma Chow requested the Council to vote no and leave the land
restricted.
Autsku Akita, 243DO Rimford PI., ata;ed that she was opposed to
development of the pro-
perty.
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 20
I
JosephShu, 1820 Derringer Ln., advised that he has filed a letter
with the City Manager's office to oppose the building on this property.
Steven Chang, 1531 Summit Ridge Dr., opposed any building on this
property.
Chin Wan, 15337 Summit Ridge, strongly opposed any building on
this property.
Mel Tan, 1537 Summit Ridge Dr., concurred with all of the other
residents in that no building on this property be allowed. He asked
that if this proposal passes, who will be compensating current home
owners for depreciation of their homes.
Ruth and George Barrett, 1884 Shaded Wood Rd., strongly opposed
development of this land due to the map restrictions.
Elizabeth Ui, 24316 Rimford PI., also opposed development of this
property.
Responding to geridents' cen,�ems, CM/Belanger advised that,
currently, there is no development proposal for a house or a
subdivision on this pr9perty. A public hearing would be held before
development -could tQAke place. This is a request to modify the
wording on the mar) in tha manner previous discussed. Regarding
the variance process, requires public hearing at the Planning
Commission level with specific findings and a public hearing at the
City Ccuncil level.
In response to the question one per lot to more than one per lot,
CDD/DeStefano erprain9d t iat that issue cannot be completed
through;. varience; it fcqu:res discussion of the map restrictions upon
the property and a process to raview the proposal of at least two lots
with p4blic hearings before the Planning Commission and City
Council. -
CE/Wentc advised ftct iri rcq rd to Lot 28, the City has not received
any formal requests of any property transfers or easement matters.
In the response to questions of why is a lot line adjustment needed,
he advised that from stsfrs point of view, as long as the application
complies with the requirements of the subdivision map act, staff is
bound !o process that application through the appropriate reviews
MAY 17, 1995
PAGE 21
and findings. Regarding roads on the north end of Parcel C, there
are no prescribed or intended road easements and all restrictions
currently remain in place.
In response to ANPapen, CA/Jenkins confirmed that the issue was not
a public hearing issue and when the matter is addressed at the next
meeting, it can be shall be addressed by the Council only, if they so
desire. Council concurred.
Jan Dabney, Project Manager, advised that he would like to hold his
comments until the May 23, 1995 City Council meeting.
C/Ansari moved, C/Harmony seconded to notice this matter as a
public hearing. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony,
MPT/Werner
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS - M/Papen
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS - Werner
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL MEMBERS - t !.:Iler
MATTERS CONTINUED TO IV -AY 23,1995:
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 AWARD OF PROJECT KiAr!AGE-MEi 1T SERVICES TO RJM
DESIGN GROUP FOR THE MAPLE HILL PARK RETROFIT
PROJECT.
9.2 CITY ENTRANCE SIGNS.
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 1A/Paper appointed MPT/Werner and
M/Papen to participate on an Ad Hoc Commit'.ee for Animal Control.
11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to
conduct, M/Papen adjourned th4 meeti. in st 11:34 p.m. to May 23, 1995 at
6:30 p.m.
0
LYNDA E city !"erk
i
MAY 17, 1995 PAGE 22 +'
ATTEST: D
�"4G.
Mayor