HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1995 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 6, 1995
1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Papen called the meeting to order at
6:35 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 Mayor Papen.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Anted, Harmony,
Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen.
Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Frank Usher,
Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; George Wentz,
City Engineer; Bob Rose, Community Services Director, James
DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Nice, Deputy
City Clerk.
2. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS,
ETC.:
2.1 OUTSTANDING CROSSING GUARD OF THE YEAR - M/Papen
presented Mrs. Snedeker, All City Management, with a Certificate
of Recognition.
2.2 CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION TO WINNERS OF THE 20TH
ANNUAL DIAMOND BAR JR. WOMEN'S CLUB SPELLING BEE -
M/Papen presented Annie Nguyen, Third Grade, Golden Springs
Elementary School; Victor Yu, Fourth Grade, Quail Elementary
School; and Maryanne Ramirez, Third Grade, Neil Armstrong
Elementary School with Certificates of Recognition.
Christine Miller, President of Diamond Bar Jr. Women's Club,
reported on the history and the events of the Women's Club. She
thanked Mr. Fred Scalzo for his support and participation in the
Spelling Bee.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Don Gravdahl asked that if the General
Plan is placed on the ballet, how do voters get the General Plan, what is
the cost of getting the General Plan out to voters and how are the voters
educated on the variation of the two plans. He also asked what kind of
business development is planned for the City.
Red Calkins, 240 Eagle Nest Dr., stated that the Council and residents
should work together. He expressed opposition to City -On -Line.
Fred Scalzo, Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Council, City
Management, the Chamber and local businesses have worked well
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 2
together for a long time. Before new business developments occur, the
City needs to concentrate on filling the current vacancies and enhancing
business in D.B.
Oscar Law, 2150 Pathfinder, commented how wonderful it was to work on
the GPAC committee with other citizens and expressed frustration on how
the GPAC committee's suggestions for the General Plan were either
changed, unused or ignored. He asked the Council to reconsider what
the GPAC put together and to go along with what the citizens want.
Martha Bruske, 600 So. Great Bend, asked the Council to work together
with the citizens. She updated the Council on the fire damaged home on
So. Great Bend Dr.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., asked what kind of geotechnical tests
are being completed by the City in regard to the Morning Sun incident.
He suggested that the time allotted for public comment on agenda items
be changed to 10 minutes.
Nick Anis commented on the publicity of the landslide on Morning Sun Dr.
and the money being spent by D.B. for Rowland Height residents. He
asked if the City can spend additional money to clarify the truths about
the General Plan.
In response to Public Comments, CM/Belanger advised that the cost of
placing a General Plan on the ballot will be very expensive. Further, the
General Plan does not propose any new or additional commercial space;
however, existing commercial space still exists. With regard to Morning
Sun, he explained that a lot of geotechnical analyses are being taken on
Morning Sun by Woodward Clyde, geologist. The Mine and Geology
Geologist of the State and the U.S.G.S. Geologist of the Federal
Government have both indicated that the cause of the landslide is related
to the storms of'the past winter.
In regard to the fire damaged residence on Great Bend, ACM/Usher
advised that a supplemsrf memorandum had been provided updating
conditions of the fire. As of this date, the property was closed and
secured with a temporary construction fence and tha chimney is secure.
The debris has also been removed from the property and the parked car
remains on the property beh`.nd the fence. The vehicl3 has not been —
removed because of litiCation betwecn the former. resident and the
property owner. Staff has stayed in touch with the resident regarding
removal of the vehicic r r.d advised that -if the vehicle is not removed from
the premises by June 15, 1995, then the City will begin a formal
abatement procedure. Partial demolition and reconstruction of the
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 3
building are still be considered by the property owner and their insurance
carrier. Regarding the wire issue, he reported that the property did have
aluminum wiring and the contributory cause of the fire was unique to the
property. Staff will provide advisory information regarding inspection and
maintenance of such wiring in local publications and in the City
newsletter. With regard to the response from "911 ", he opined that, at
the time of day of the fire, the response time was good. 1:40 seconds
from receipt of the first call to "911" to the simultaneous fire dispatch was
necessary for transmission and resource identification. 61/2 minutes
from fire dispatch to the arrival of the first fire unit was very good.
Further, setting of the "911" clock was an error which has been corrected;
however, with the correction, the total response time was 8 minutes. A
copy of the "911" or fire dispatch tapes can be obtained at City Hall.
In response to C/Harmony, CM/Belanger reported that $8,500 had been
thus far on the landslide at Morning Sun. He advised that staff will be
coming back to Council with a request for more funds.
-- In response to the residential fire on Great Bend, MPT/Werner asked
ACM/Usher what his bases of measurements were in regard to his
opinion of the response time being good.
ACM/Usher clarified that this fire occurred in the early morning and the
first call to "911" was received at a few seconds before 5:12 a.m., the fire
personnel who were called out that morning were asleep. He stated that,
from the time their bell rang until the arrival of the first unit on the scene,
was 6 1/2 minutes. He explained the sequence of events in the 61 /2
minute time frame was that personnel had to wake up, get dressed, check
the hydrant maps before leaving the station, get special equipment, get to
the units and drive to the scene of the fire.
M/Papen announced that she was advised this afternoon that the
residents of Morning Sun were allowed to return to their residences and
that FEMA representatives will be out next week to complete inspections
to assess the damage and to process claims.
With the consensus of Council, the agenda was suspended at 7:30 p.m.
for Public Hearing.
— 7. PUBLIC HEARING:
7.1 CERTIFICATION OF MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 91-2 AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 47850, LOCATED EASTERLY OF
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 4
STEEPLECHASE LANE AND SOUTH OF WINDMILL DR.
ADJACENT TO THE PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY WINDMILL
DR. ADJACENT TO THE PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY
KNOWN AS'7H-- COUNTRY"- CM/Belanger reported that this
matter returns to #ie Council from a Public Hearing held on April 6,
1995 at which time the City Council referred this project to the
PlanninglCommission and asked the Commission to provide a
review and comment on the project. The Planning Commission
completed its review and made recommendations to the Council for
further discussion.
CDD/DeStefano reported that this is a 57 -unit project on 73 acres
in which all of the lots start off a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. to 2
acres in lot size. The average lot size for the project is 1.1 acres
per dwelling unit with a 10,000 sq. ft. flat pad area. The Planning
Commission outlined several concerns regarding environmental
impact and sheer keys supporting some of the lots proposed. The
Commission forwarded all of its comments and recommended to
Council that all of the conditions be adopted as outlined by staff.
In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano advised that issues with
"The Coyntry" regarding annexation and fees are still open and
that there have been ongoing discussions as late as today's date
between representa-tives of JCC and Mr. Gardner, General
Manager of 'The Country".
In response to MPT/Wemer, CDD/DeStefano displayed the map
that indicated three zones on the property at present as an R-
18,000 zone, R-1-20,000 and an A-22 zone. While focusing on the
graphic, he reported that the property adjacent to Steeplechase is
zoned R i1-8,000 and consists of approximately 1/4 of this site; the
bulk of this site is zoned R-1-20,000 and there is a small portion of
the site that is designated A-2-2 indicating agriculture, which also
allows for residential uses. The graphic being displayed is a
general depiction of the boundaries of the zones across the
Project. The blue line indicates the zone boundary and the yellow
line indicFtes the boundaries of the proposed project. Properties
surrounding the proposed project have zoning on the north of R-1-
8,000, west R-1-9,000 (9,000 sq. ft. lots) and R-1-20,000, south is
the Boy Scout property zoned A-2-2, east is zoned R-1-20,000.
The proposal is to construct 57 units on 73 acres which provides
for an overall density of 1 unit for every 1.19 acres.
In response to MPT/Wemer, CDD/DeStefano stated that, since
1992, the General Plan has designated this property as 1 unit per
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 5
acre and is consistent with the early General Plan as well as the
most recent version. The project is also consistent with the majority
of the strategies, goals and objectives outlined in the General Plan.
The Vesting Tentative Map was received and deemed complete for
processing back in 1989 which reserves some rights if the project
were to be processed today.
MPT/Werner stated that several years prior, geology issues
caused this project from going forth. He asked if the City Engineer
and city geologist are satisfied that the project can be safely
developed.
CCE/Myers stated that given the recommendations contained in
the reports which have been reviewed and approved, the City
Engineer is satisfied with the safety issues for this development as
well as for adjacent and future property owners.
MPT/Werner asked if staff will be completing a run through on the
significant environmental impacts and the overriding
considerations that Council needs to consider.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the EIR was first prepared in the
early 1990's, 2 of the 3 tracts of that master EIR were approved
and that portionof the EIR was certified in the middle of 1992.
With the resumption of the project in the middle of 1994, the City
went through and reprocessed the EIR, updated the data contained
within the reports specifically focusing on changes that have been
made to State or Federal statute with respect to things like air
quality but also dealing with changes that have occurred in the
biological conditions on-site. The review resulting in some
changes to the mitigation measures proposed for the project and
an abatement of overriding considerations necessary for 1
environmental issue that cannot be mitigated through actions,
conditions and measures. The 1 area that cannot be brought down
to a level of insignificance is air quality. This project exceeded the
threshold when it came to emissions as a result of construction
activities and those could not be brought down to a level of
insignificance meeting the statutes and requirements of the AQMD
and; therefore, the statement of overriding considerations is
proposed again only for air quality. With respect to very specific
issues dealing with the B?oda Study, Significant Ecological Area
issues or Find'.ngs of Fact or mitigation measures, he
recommended that reports be heard from the City's environmental
consultant, Tom Smith from Michael Brandman & Assoc.
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 6
i
MPT/Werner asked about a letter received by the City Manager
from the developer advising that they would help in developing
community centers.
CM/Belanger adtir3d that the representatives from this project
communicated with the City their willingness to explore the
possibility of participating in the construction of a community
building. The dollar amount would be approximately $100,000 per
Quimby requirements.
M/Papen declared the Public Hearing open.
Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., stated that the EIR still contains
a contradictory .tatynent regarding ground water. He asked that
an independent perty research the ground water to determine if
this water table will cause problems as in Morning Sun.
Martha Bruske, 600 S. Great Bend, stated that she did not oppose
the project but expressed concern for funds being traded with the
City. She asked how developers trade with the City "Quimby
Funds." She also czkcd if the community center would be built on
the developers' property or another City property.
In response to Martha Bruske, CM/Belanger advised that proposed
location for the community center had been identified as Summit
Ridge Park. He al ised thst Summit Ridge is approximately 26
acres, some of %tech is undevsloped. He stated that the site of the
community center would not effect sny existing housing. In regard
to "Quimby Fundi", CM/Relanger explained that "Quimby" is the
name of the individ-.-al who sponsored the legislation that required
developers to provide either park land acreage and/or if the
acreage was not going to result in any meaningful dedication of
land, then in lieu of acreage an amount of mon3y based on a
formula that would be utilized for acquisition and/or development of
recreational fEcilitiej.
MPT/Werner hatee thwt ther3 has been no decision on a
communky center in a ce-tsin park. However, it is required that
when the developer donate "Quimby Funds" for a community
center, it;needs to tis in ,- reasonable radius to benefit the —
developers residents.
Barbara Bcacli-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., did not
oppose the project or the "Quimby" donation of the community
center but a;;pressed concern regarding Grand Ave. and traffic
M
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 7
affecting existing residents.
With no further testimony offered, WPapen closed the Public
Hearing.
C/Harmony asked staff to address the ground water issue, water
pressure, the cohesion and the internal friction elements.
C/Ansari asked staff to also answer if the ground water would
effect the land slide area in the central canyon area.
In response to C/Harmony and C/Ansari regarding ground water,
CCE/Myers advised that, in the reporting, there were some
localized perched ground waters identified and some ground water
in the canyon bottoms; however, there was no ground water
encountered in Harrington's investigations that would affect or in
any way degrade the suitability of the site as its being proposed to
be developed. Regarding Wilbur Smith's concerns, he stated that
Leighton's summary review specifically states that ground water
would not have any negative effect on the development of this site.
There are some technical aspects of water—pore pressure, ground
water and somatic differences that could be addressed by a
geologist.
Wilbur Smith stated that he specifically questioned reference 1 on
Page 11 which states, "Ground water was not encountered in any
of the exploratory drilling sites drilled on this site" and on Plate
C11, C45, C47, and C48, reference 5,' volume 2, it shows the
presence of ground water.
David Smith, Leighton Assoc., explained that there was ground
water encountered in the excavations; however in 3 of the cases,
they were described as perched ground water emanating from a
small fracture of perched ground water, which is significantly
different than a static ground water table. The effect of ground
water on slopes can have two effects: 1) lubricating effect on the
plane in question whereby weakening the material and causing the
plane to weaken; 2) causing a buoyant effect and weakening the
overall strength of material. In no case, was static ground water
-- encountered during the review of this project. He explained the
differences between the Morning Sun landslide and what would
cause a landslide at TTM 47850.
MPT/Werner reconfirmed that in paragraph I, there was no static
ground water encountered but there was perched ground water
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 8
observed.
David Smith explained that static water is a continuous level of
ground water that is there all of the time as opposed to seepage
that may come from the surface and get perched in a fracture.
MPT/Wemer asked staff for a written clarification by the project
engineer!
C/Ansari asked what dates the core drillings were completed.
CCE/Myers advised that core drillings were completed in 1992 with
additional work completed in 1994 subsequent to Leighton's review
of previous geotechnical work.
C/Ansari asked if the rains in the last two years would have an
immediate change on the perched water level report completed in
1992. Further, would the rains have an effect on the central
canyon landslide.
CCE/Myers reported that the landslide will be removed during this
development.
RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
RECONVENED: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:29 p.m.
Kurt Nelson, representing Diamond Bar Assoc., Applicant,
indicated that they have not found any static water.
In response to MPT/Werner, Mr. Nelson advised that per the
Association, since the grading drainage patterns and the
vegetation of the slopes with native genetically -driven material is
crucial to this project, the declaration requires that if someone is
going to alter the grading or the vegetation in any meaningful way,
he has to get both the approval of the homeowners association
board of directory or their designated committee and the City.
MPT/Werner also asked if all of the lots being established here
capable of supporting swimming pools and tennis courts and are —
there any restrictive lots.
Mr. Nelson stated that many of the lots will support tennis courts
and all of the lots will support a swimming pool. These amenities
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 9
depend upon a number of variables of the particular size and
configuration of the lots. Further, all of the lighting has to be
environmentally responsible and directed away from
environmentally -sensitive areas where it is thought that native
animals would be living. He stated that per The Country's
CCBR's, they preclude and prohibit anything that is a nuisance.
In response to C/Ansari, Mr. Nelson reported that, regarding the
annexation, a meeting has been set with the entire Board of
Directors of The Country and that the developer is willing to annex
this phase as well as Phase I lots.
M/Papen stated that, per the April 1995 Joint Meeting with the
Planning Commission and the Council, two Commissioners and
M/Papen requested that there be modifications to the design of the
project as to retain some kind of country effect within the project
itself. She stated that she has seen no report or discussion of this
and asked where the information is.
CDD/DeStefano advised that, during that meeting, the developer
responded to that question by indicating their understanding of the
ground rules for purposes of reviewing the project and indicated
their displeasure with reducing the number of dwelling units on the
sites significantly beyond that which was proposed. Further, there
has not been any proposal to significantly reduce the number of
dwelling units proposed on this site.
CM/Belanger recalled that the developer stated that essentially
they were going to continue with their proposal of 57 units and, for
a variety of reasons, they were not interested in providing
alternatives. It was not a specific direction by the Council that the
developer provide alternatives.
M/Papen stated that, as she looks at the previous project in The
Country, it shows that all of the vegetation and trees were removed
for the development and that Ridgeline Rd. does not look like The
Country. She asked for Council consensus in directing staff to
make a determination that the impact on the canyons would be
reduced if there were fewer homes built.
C/Ansari asked lif the conditions and requirements can be changed
from one tract to another.
MPT/Werner indicated that the conditions should be revised to
state that the applicant has previously offered information about
JUNE 6, 1995 rAGE 10
the amount of grading necessary for remediation before the project
can be approved. He asked the Council to think about this project
after the fact whr,n ill c the vegetation is grown and the trees are
large and not to loo::. t it immediately after it is graded, because it
won't look life Tits Ccx!ntry. He asked to see better supporting
findings for the overriding considerations.
C/Ansari advised that the has problems with filling in canyons and
blueline strcams; ha*w/er this project is owned by a private citizen
who does not have map restrictions, deed restrictions or other
restrictions on it. South Pointe was map and deed restricted and
there is no comparison. In response to M/Papen regarding public
benefit, MPT/Womer stated that first, it needs to be identified if
there is a significant environmental impact and that there are some
overriding considerations and maybe in that, a public benefit will be
arrived.
M/Papen, asked how building in SEA15, filling two canyons and
affecting a blueline stream is justified when the entire issue of the —
General Plan referendums called for no development and to "save
Tonner Canyon."
C/Ansari iadvised that she never said to preclude development of
all private land; however, she will protect land that is restricted.
M/Papen asked staff if the standard footage of 60 ft. for the cul-de-
sac homes was being complied with.
MPT/Werner asked =bout the amount of grading necessary to
enter the site for development.
Mr. Nelson clarified that project alternatives are within the EIR
,identifying what impacts would be significantly lessened if you had
100 lots versus 50, 40 or 14. The original EIR only states that if
you had the least amount of homes considered, there would not be
a sign cant reduction in the amount of remedial grading necessary
to stabilize the site. He reminded Council that the developer
redesigned the tract to be compatible with the Hillside Ordinance,
that theyidid not have to legally accept it. They re -engineered the
tract and they are at less than half of what the entitled zoning —
would give them. The fill slopes will look tremendous after it is all
planted. ,Even though 500 trees will be taken out, 2,000 ( 4 to 1)
will go back in from native seed stock at an incredible expense.
In regard to Page 2, No. 6, at the end of the paragraph, M/Papen
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 11
asked to add the words "in terms of lot size use. and other factors."
This wording is verbatim out of the letter from The Country Estates.
In regard to the June 6, 1995 interim memo regarding the Draft
Conditions for VTM, Item 20, MPT/Werner asked about the pro rata
share of what and to whom.
CDD/DeStefano explained that when this project was first
contemplated along with several other in the backside of The
Country, a study was established for an assessment of the bioda
community in the greater significant ecological area and there were
2 or 3 projects proposed in the same area. Each of these projects
were to be assigned their pro rata share of the study, which cost a
little less than $10,000. The City has been reimbursed for those
funds as projects have been approved.
MPT/Werner asked that this item be more specific in who is getting
paid for these pro rata shares.
In regard to Item 31, M/Papen identified 4 to 5 lots in the cul-de-
sac area which do not have a 60' frontage and asked if staff has
determined the number of lots that would be eliminated to meet this
requirement.
CDD/DeStefano advised that the condition does not presume that
any lots would be eliminated as a result of the condition. The
condition presumes that several of those, lots identified would have
lot line adjustments or would have corrections prior to final map
recordation that would insure that a 60' front property line frontage
be established.
M/Papen asked that staff explain Page 3, Resolution of Approval,
C, and the 53 homes to be developed.
CDD/DeStefano responded that the number 53 was a
typographical error and that the application was for 57 lots.
In regard to condition No. 34, MPT/Werner asked if this was a
condition requested by the firs department for a contribution of
$10,000 to the County Fire Department in lieu of providing an
alternative location for the helicopter pad on site.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the developer agreed to make a
$10,000 contribution to assist the County Fire Department in 1992
in establishing a more permanent helicopter pad site east of
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 12
Pantera Park. The condition still remains.
MPT/Wemer Suggested that a contribution of $10,000 be made to
the County Fire Department or the City for fire protection and if the
Fire Department does not need funds for the helicopter pad, then
the City would have the option to use those funds for fire protection
enhancement to the property and the area.
In regard to Exhibit C-1, Page 6, condition No. 29, M/Papen asked
that this be modified by adding before the word "pavement",
"rubberized asphalt concrete..."
C/Ansari stated that she did not agree with the effectiveness of
rubberized asphalt concrete.
M/Papen pointed out that 2 other rubberized asphalt concrete
projects were approved by Council and that it is a way for the
community to recycle.
C/Harmony stated that rubberized asphalt has a tendency to creep
and that he would not approve of its use until it has proven itself
over time.
MPT/Werner suggested that the rubberized option be left at the
engineer's dicccretion.
In regard; to a memo from CCE/Myers dated March 27, 1992,
M/Papen',asked if the 12 subdivision conditions were incorporated
into Exhibits C and C-1.
CDD/DeStefano F-dvised that the March 27, 1992 memo was
provided for information only and was an attachment to Planning
Commission recomm9nded conditions stemming from their 1992
discussion. The City Engineer provided Council with a March 28,
1995 memorandurn restating those conditions and indicating
corrections and modifications that current engineering review
would currently require for those conditions.
M/Papen reiterated that Exhibit C-1 is a new document that
replaces the March 27, 1992 conditions. She stated that 5 —
conditions in a memo dated March 29 need to be added to Exhibit
C-1.
In regard ;o Condition 2, MPT/Werner asked that a land use
reversion clause be added to the end of the "pump station" clause
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 13
to include, "if the use of Lot A is no longer deemed to be necessary
or utilized for pump station purposes, it shall remain open space.
Special Legal Counsel Robert Owen advised that this reversion
can be done.
C/Harmony asked if this lot was big enough for another pad if the
pump station was not going to be developed.
MPT/Werner advised that this lot does not have a configuration
that a residence would fit on.
In regard to Condition 3, MPT/Werner commented that Lots 13 and
16 could consume the remainder parcel, but not Lot 15 unless the
lines were adjusted.
CCE/Myers advised that this was being left open to allow the
adjustment of lines proportionately to any of those three parcels.
In regard to Condition 4, M/Papen asked that a condition be added
stating, "that no construction equipment or related construction
traffic shall be permitted to enter the site from Hawkwood Drive."
In regard to Condition 5, WPapen read the following recommended
condition "As reclaimed water supply is not currently available,
subdivider shall; agree to design and construct to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and the Walnut Valley Water District, main and
service lines capable of delivering reclaimed water to all portions of
the subdivision and the system shall be designed to permit switch
over of non-domestic services on each lot at such time a reclaimed
water supply is available to the subdivision. Security shall be
posted to guarantee the performance of this agreement.
Subdividers shall install, prior to approval of final grading, a portion
of the system consisting of main and service lines capable of
delivering reclaimed water to those portions of the subdivision for
which the homeowners association is responsible for irrigation
and/or landscape maintenance. This portion installed shall provide
for switch over from domestic service to reclaimed service at such
time as is available." She advised that the applicant agreed to this
condition.
MPT/Werner asked if this condition is consistent with previous
approvals.
CCE/Myers advised that it is consistent regarding reclaimed water
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 14
where reclaimed water is not presently available.
In regard to staffs memo dated March 31, 1995, M/Papen asked
that this condition be added Exhibit C-1.
With no objection from the applicant and with consensus of
Council, the above six items will be added to Exhibit C-1
Conditions.
With regard to the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
MPT/Werner asked that the discussion that Mr. Nelson offered in
terms of the grading be included in the appropriate location.
CM/Belanger advised that the "Quimby Act" ordinance can be
changed by attempting to create language that reflects the overture
made by the property owner or come back with a mutual agreement
regarding creating a different kind of recreational contribution to
the City.
In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano advised that the
annexation issue is on page 4, condition number 22 of the June 6,
1995 memorandum.
M/Papen stated that she was not satisfied with Tract 47851
because the developer and The Country Estates cannot come to
an agreement on annexation fees. She would like to see, before
final map, that an annexation agreement is reached either through
negotiation for the whole tract with the applicant or a mandatory
buy in as each lot is sold, before approving the Final Map.
C/Harmony commented that the City has no place in interjecting its
will on a private enterprise legal negotiation.
C/Ansari asked that the statement of going into arbitration
according to the TadCo agreement be included in the annexation
agreement.
MPT/Werner commented on the statement in the last tentative tract
map and 'asked- for this to be consistent with those conditions.
In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano reported that Condition
No. 22 on pane 4 it: consistent with Mr. Yeh's.
M/Papen,' stated that the language indicates: 'The owner shall be
required to annox if all fees assessed by The Country Estates do
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 15
not exceed Tract 47722." She asked when the requirement of
annexation is due.
CDD/DeStefano advised that the condition does not have a due
date.
MPT/Werner stated that the condition has to be satisfied at the
time of recordation.
CDD/DeStefano advised that the above statement should be added
to the condition and that this application must be filed prior
recordation of the map. As a public entity, the City does not have
control of the actual annexation.
MPT/Werner suggested that wording be placed in the Resolution
body as one of the findings stating "that it is represented to be the
owner's/ applicant's intent to be annexed into."The Country
Association."
M/Papen advised that she would like to see a confirmation that the
Council expects the annexation to occur.
CDD/DeStefano recommended adding, at the beginning of the
condition, "prior to final map recordation, the owner shall make a
bonafide application to the Diamond Bar Country Estates
Association to annex the subdivision to that association."
MPT/Werner asked what happens if, at the time of recordation, the
developers have not actually annexed.
CDD/DeStefano advised that the reworded condition would only
ensure that the bonafide application was submitted to The Country
Estates and does not ensure that annexation will take place
because that is left to resolution between the private parties.
MPT/Werner asked for an assessment on whether or not the fees
are such that they would satisfy the second sentence of that
condition and who would enforce that condition.
-- M/Papen askedvhat if the City collected the annexation of fees
equal to the amount assessed to Tract 47722 per lot.
Kurt Nelson explained that applications can be made for any
amount; however, it is not guaranteed that the requisite 2/3 of The
Country residents will agree with the application. He did not feel
JUNE 6, 1996 PAGE 16
that the City should be involved in the annexation issue.
M/Papen'asked staff if they would go along with MPT/Werner by
changing the conditions to enforce the annexation.
Mr. Owen advised that there is no way to enforce the annexation
once the City has approved the final map. He introduced a revised
proposal for Item 22 to state as follows, "Prior to approval of the
final map, the owner shall make a bonafide application to the
Diamond Bar Country Estates Associates to annex the subdivision
to that association. The owner shall be required to agree to annex
upon recordation of the final map if all fees assessed by the
Diamond Bar Country Estates Association do not exceed the fees
assessed per lot for annexation to the Diamond Bar Country
Estates Association for Tract Number 47722." If the association
does not 'agree, the developer has fulfilled that condition.
Council agreed to amend item 22 as stated by Mr. Owen.
In response to M/Pepen, CM/Belanger advised that the City must
first identify if, in fact, the developer's heavy equipment caused
street damage and if so, staff would contact the developer.
CCE/Meyers stated that there are no conditions related to repairing
City streets unless staff knows who caused the damage. With
respect to private streets, there are no conditions proposed and
whether or not such conditions can be created, there needs to be
some thought for it.
CM/Belanger advised that the damage to the streets are unrelated
to this map and the issue had already been raised relating to the
previous `map. The streets are private and the matter needs to be
discussed between the two property owners.
i
M/Paper; requested staff to write a letter to The Country Estates
stating the above in response to the letter Council received.
C/Ansari tasked if adjustments could be made on the frontage for
the cul-de-sac homes.
CM/Belanger advised that the condition is worded in such a way
that if they cannot make the 60', the developer either comes back
and asks for relief of the condition or they lose the lot.
Kurt Nelson agreed with the above and indicated that the
i
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 17
developer will adhere to those conditions.
In response to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano reported that there is
a 17 -page document within the materials that were provided to
Council describing in detail the Findings of Fact and support for the
findings for the significant environmental effects of the tract. He
stated that it also incorporates the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, spgcifically dealing with the air quality issue that
Council discussed. It also describes the impact of PM10
emissions, illustrates the facts in support of the findings for the
Overriding Considerations and lists the specific Overriding
Consideration findings. The only environmental impact that
cannot be brought down to appropriate levels is the air quality
impact, all other concerns are felt to be brought to acceptable
environmental standards through the conditions and the mitigation
measures as outlined in all of the documents.
MPT/Werner reiterated that the significant environmental impact
caused by grading will be mitigated to acceptable levels by
preventing erosion, posting a security bond, posting an
improvement bond, limiting the time of grading activity, providing a
staging area for; the equipment as well as gopher suppression. He
felt that these measures were not significant enough to justify
approval causing significant impacts on grading.
Tom Smith, Michael Brandman & Assoc., explained that, under
CEQA, the only time there has to be a Statement of Overriding
Considerations is if there are residual impacts that remain
significant after mitigation has been attached. Further, the project
complies with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance and
through the Conditions of Approvals.
In response to MPT/Werner, Tom Smith advised that 715,000
cubic yards are being moved and balanced on-site.
MPT/Werner stated that he was told on numerous occasions that in
order to gain access to the site, there needs to be significant
remediation which will cause a significant amount of grading to
occur and this needs to be stated in the record.
Tom Smith advised that this kind of statement is in the Draft EIR
and he will incorporate it.
MPT/Werner stated that he wants to make sure that the record
states clearly that in approving this project, the City will have a
JUNE 6, 1995 PACE 1S
significant impact on grading and one of the reasons for that is, as
soon as it enters the site for the purpose of development, there is
need for a significant amount of grading for remediation purposes.
The Council is remediating this project to help make an ancient
landslide safe.
With consensus of Council, approval was given for additional
language regarding movement of the dirt for grading on the ancient
landslide, ancient landslide remediation and include this in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations.
In response to MPT/Papen, Tom Smith advised that there have
been no penalties ever assessed to a jurisdiction for exceeding the
PM10 threshold.
M/Papen asked how does the City meet clean air act requirements
if the City is contributing to the pollution and we are out of
compliance right now. _
Tom Smith explaincd that the region spends a lot of money on air
quality management planning. The conditions in this region are
such that naturally there i.; dust here that make it very difficult for
standard$ to be met and the interpretation that's been placed on
Southern' California is if you make your best attempts and you go
the extra,mile to making sure that the measures get into projects,
that's the, best that can bo done.
In response to NPTNVeraer, Tom Smith explained that for
significarit impacts, whic. , `re PM10, NOX and ROG, every
mitigation measure that is in the Conditions is taken from the Air
Quality Management handbook.
CM/Belanger reported that the only item requiring revision would
be creating language su3gested to the mitigation monitoring report -
what are'the significant findings within the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Others would include modification of Condition 4,
Page 2 to includc Ian0ua3e for an in -lieu condition related to the
Quimby Act. He proposed the following language "In the
alternative, the epploc:..t end the City, by mutual agreement, may
engage in inkind development or funding of recreational facilities in —
lieu of Section 21.24.340. If such proposed agreement fails,
Section 21.243.40 shall control."
MPT/Werner moved, C/I i3rmony seconded to adopt Resolution
No. 95- entitled: A R` -SOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 19
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO
A FINAL MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH
NO. 90010861) AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 47850, TO DEVELOP A 57 UNIT SUBDIVISION,
LOCATED IN NORTHERN TONNER CANYON, WITHIN
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA NO. 15, SOUTHERLY AND
EASTERLY OF !STEEPLECHASE LANE AND WAGON TRAIN
LANE, IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF as amended by Council in the Conditions
of Approval, incorporating those changes that have been stated in
the record and addition to the Statement of Overriding
Considerations including the statement made by Mr. Nelson.
M/Papen offered a substitute motion that the number of homes be
reduced to 34. Motion failed for lack of a second.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony,
MPT/Werner
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - M/Papen
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.5 VOUCHER REGISTER - C/Harmony stated that the bill in the
amount of $12.1,1 to First Interstate Bank had already been paid
and asked that it be removed from the Warrant Register.
CA/Jenkins advised that the Richards, Watson & Gershon invoice
reflects review of contract forms and revision of the taxicab
ordinance.
CM/Belanger advised that the bill to First Interstate needs to be
paid; however, it will be reimbursed to the City.
M/Papen moved, MPT/Werner second to approve the Voucher
Register dated June 6, 1995 in the amount of $748,295.02.
C/Harmony amended the motion to deduct payment of the
Richards, Watson $ Gershon bill until further analysis and a report
back to Council: Amended motion failed due to lack of a second.
C/Ansari amended the motion to approve the Richards, Watson, &
Gershon bill less $3,500 until further explanation is received. With
the following Roll Call vote, motion failed:
JUNE 6, 1995
PAGE 20
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner, M/Papen
ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
f
M/Papen moved, MPT/Werner seconded to approve the Voucher
Register dated June 6, 1995 in the amount of $748,295.02. With
the following Roll Call vote, motion failed:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner, M/Papen
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
MPT/Werner moved to adjourn the meeting due to the lateness of
the hour.
The remaining Agenda Items were continued to the June 12, 1995 Special City
Council meeting.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. COUNCIL COMMENTS
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS
5.1 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - June 8, 1995 -
6:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - June 12, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - June 20, 1995 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
S. CONSENT CALENDAR
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6.1.1 Regular Meeting of May 23, 1995
6.1.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 9, 1995
6.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular
Meeting of March 23, 1995.
6.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.3.1 Regular Meeting of March 9, 1995
6.3.2 Special Meeting of March 30, 1995
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 21
6.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.4.1 Regular Meeting of March 27, 1995
6.4.2 Regular Meeting of April 10, 1995
6.4.3 Regular Meeting of April 24, 1995
6.5 VOUCHER REGISTER - dated June 6, 1995 in the amount of
$748,295.02.
6.6 TREASURER'S REPORT - April, 1995.
6.7 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Phil Rini May 12, 1995.
6.8 NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
SIDEWALKS ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD
6.9 (A) GRAND AVENUE STREET REHABILITATION, TRAFFIC
SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION AND INTERSECTION
MODIFICATION PROJECT BETWEEN GOLDEN SPRINGS
DRIVE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE.
(B) CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION/INSPECTION
SERVICES FOR GRAND AVENUE REHABILITATION.
(C) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING A GRANT
OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED
FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND THE DEDICATION OF THE
RIGHT TO RESTRICT DIRECT VEHICULAR INGRESS
AND EGRESS THERETO FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY.
6.10 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS
AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PARK SITE LANDSCAPE
IMPROVEMENTS (A) SYCAMORE CANYON PARK; (B)
STARSHINE PARK; (C) HERITAGE PARK IN THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BARS AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS.
6.11 (A) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 38; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND
COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING
MAINTENANCE WIT41N SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 22
YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A
HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON.
(B) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 39; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND
COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING
MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR
HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON.
(C) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
TOE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND —
HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
NO. 41; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND
COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING
MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A
HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON.
6.12 EXTENSION OF BUS SHELTERS CONTRACT
6.13 AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
8. OLD BUSINESS
8.1 APPOINTMENT OF DELEGATES AND/OR ALTERNATES -
Wildlife Corridor Conservancy Joint Powers and Southern
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (SCJPIA).
8.2 REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO —
RENEWAL OF THE CITY'S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE.
9. NEW BUSINESS:
JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 23
9.1 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO UNEXPIRED TERM
OF FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER.
9.2 ORDINANCE NO. XX (1995) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND
ENACTING A NEW CODE FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR;
PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES
NOT INCLUDED THEREIN; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE
VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF
AMENDING SUCH CODE; AND PROVIDING WHEN SUCH CODE
AND THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Deputy Luter, Walnut Valley Sheriff,
announced the Walnut Station Open House on June 10, 1995, 10:00 a.m.
to 3:00 p.m.
M/Papen requested a Closed Session with the Sheriffs Department
regarding contract negotiations and other matters pertaining to the
Council.
11. ADJOURNMENT: With Council consensus, at 10:50 p.m.,
the meeting was continued to June 12, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. at a location to
be determined.
TOMMYE Nom,
Deputy City Wien:
ATTEST:
q1!?-W711NZ4W4