Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/02/1994
C it NJ C1 coult AGENDA Monday, May 2, 1994 7:00 P.M. Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Mayor Gary H. Werner Mayor Pro Tem Clair W. Harmony Council Member Eileen R. Ansari Council Member Phyllis E. Papen Council Member Gary G. Miller City Manager Terrence L. Belanger Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery City Clerk Lynda Burgess Copies of staff reports, or other written documentation relating to agenda items, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 860-2489 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Council Chambers. The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. Appendix C ALTERNATIVE C SUMMARY PROJECTIONS --TABLE Cl ' �rL��is�vititL�rti.�'��X�r�XiS�'�It��IR�CpCI�SC�=«s�;tte=....,.r•..yr Jai 111F it R eG r'NJ'�.Gir.�.ZS'L.iyM ♦ w O . N r . . . y . . r . w . . w r « R o • a e le t 1i o y a w e e e e e e m c � off 1 ;t ■ ■ 2$@ � � � � "! 4�:22f ■-■-©■-■ � � ������� �■��a���� I @ ■®2®^--■---■■-■_®■ ■-■--■--■§ � � - �� �: � ■-__®~-®■---■a-;-■ 2-�--s--■a.� 2 - �i s| ■-a---®■®--s■-�-■ ■-#-®_'-©■ § 2 � � ��� | ■-§®^-®■®--s■-§-■ ■-■--s-®■■ ■ - s| --®■---■■-!-■ �-�--■-®=e § = s s� � _ _--®■--®■■-;®■ ■-■--■--■■ & § s _� | _ ; ---■---s■-;-■ �-■--■-®■■ ■ ■ � a i ■-§®---■---s■-§-■ �-■-®��®«e ■ @ � @ ■®2®^--■---■■-■_®■ ■-■--■--■§ � � - �� �: � ■-__®~-®■---■a-;-■ 2-�--s--■a.� 2 - �i s| ■_§_®-®■---■■-�-■ ■-■-®s--■§ ■ ■ " ■| � ■-§®^-®■®--s■-§-■ ■-■--s-®■■ ■ ■ � - s| ■-�---®■®-®■■-�-■ ■-$--■--■■ ■ $ � � � ��� _����l� � 2 ■ � � � ' j � � } � ---------■■=sass=s■■■■■■■a■■■■�■„ q■,■■■;■■■$��■s■■■■,,,:,'• E§E■■■■$■■■■■eaa■■aaa■a■■e■■#■■■■■■■*■■■■■■s■&■$■&■■ � ■ �� E ■�t � | I , its | � • ■ ■ � � ■_______k_$ §_____�__■ ■ �I� &-�� c ■ & ® ________ ■ �! - - - __________ � x■ @_ , ( � ■ # � ■_________$ ■ §_____■__■ ���I � �■ �j m � $ : � - - ■ $_, ■ _■___ ; � I . : _ _ a ■ _ ■ a _ _ _ � . I � , s �■ ' : E ■ _ ■ a _ a too'. _ I - I � . & _ a ■ , a ■__e. I | r ® - - ■ ■ ® � ■®®- . | �' t ■ � _ i I � | � - � k k � � e § ■ a _ _ _ - 1 ; ■ a___ |� , ; ; ■ � _ # a . a a , _ _ � |f (. a � ; Q k ■ _ ■ a . a too*. | @ k � E ; _ _ a @ . a � , . _ � � ■ � � � jr i s • ' � X � .. I ~ _ I .•. i • . � A � � I S r I r 3 ••.• r x 1 1.6 :X1G7tRRR!!!!!:i 7SS=lSZ3SR�G�C APPendix D CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1992.93 BUDGET ANALYSIS Y i P !i �i t I _"'^•�Q..sir:.'i'�.'=isSM, �7di:�w:xa*q-dire%s'.r..psi.s**aXX**am49S'isias= 2:t �d�=Y=VM=`s��6�#��ii�ixs�su:raga:aas>«�eaasaix�xxx�acxxstL>Rfstct F zIFi T Y Y J N L L • • r • r A • O e e t j :sj � � 3333 =ss�� 3333 ( ••• Oman 490000 ' 333 falls 33!33 lip I 3J13 ~ N •j 11,11 t w x� w Appendix E LIST OF CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OFFICIALS CONTACTED James DeStefano Community Development Director Don Hemsley Superintendent of Parks & Maintenance Linda G. Ma Magnuson Accounting Manager Bob Rose Director, Department P rnnent of Community Services George A. Wentz, P.E. Interim City Engineer MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF TUB CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 MPT/Papen called the 2186inE. 1, CALL TO ORDER: . in the AQMD Auditorium, to order at 7:00 p•mCalifornia. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by MPT/Papen. Pa en, Mayor Pro Tem Pap en, CALL:bg and MacBride. Councilman Werner Councilmen Fors P.M. M/Miller was excused from arrived atdue0to a perceived potential conflict of attending interest. City Belanger, Manager; Also present were Terrence L. James Curley III, Assistant City Attorney; William P. P George DeStefano, Community Development Di ectBr; S, City Wentz, Interim City Engineer and Ly ndaClerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING! VESTING 2,1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1AND 2; CNDITIONAL USE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. ERMIT NO. PERMIT NO. 92No. 92-8% -8 AND OAK TREECONDITIONAL USE VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT PERMIT NO. 91-5 T, AND OAK TREEE PERMIT NO. 91-2i ER TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NOTREE2PERMIT NO.53 AND D92I9NATH USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SOUTH POINTE MASTECDD DeStefano presented a brief REPORT NO. 92-1 overview Of hestot Stillustra h P utilizing sl ointe athe rarea nand the represents specif is location of each Oftheproposed a omprehensive projects. The project ing effort for one of the remaining land use plannwhich is large undeveloped properties in the City RnP owned by the following five land owners= Tentative owner of 78 acres (VestingInc.', Development, , owner of 45 Tract 71407); Arciero and Sons, SASAK Vesting acres (Vesting Tentative Tract 3240i Tentative Corporation, owner of 7 acres ( owner of 13.5 S Tract 51253); the City of D.B., Walnut Unified chool Dis and the trict, who acres; oximately 3o acres within the center occupies appr o arti of the site. He introduced the fpcipate in individuals retained by the City ttop Interim the review of this Plan: George Wentz, Hard Strozier, Project Manager, City Engineer; y Peter Lewendowski, the Planning Associates; U1traSystems, for preparation of the EIR• The plan proposes a sdub71 acrensiteatoeaccommodate primarily undevelope commercial, the phased development of residential, gegq s91Tnbaa apo0 aqy •HIg agq UTggTM pauTequoo aie S94TS aqq go gOea ao; pagonpuoo Ajoquanul aaay NeO aqq 3o sTTPgap aqy •aoueuTpIO aqq UTygTM pauTequoo pTogsaJgq MnUITUTM OTseq aqq paaoxa gegq sa814 Neo 30 Tenomaa aqq asneo ITTM gaea asneoaq goaCoad goea 10; apo0 Aquno0 Aq paaTnbea ST gTMzad aaay NPO aqL 'HIR aqq UTggTM paz�Teue uaaq seg buTpeab 3o SMJaq UT quamdoTanap aqq go goedT aqy •ape2b SOT paaoxa gegq sagTs aneq TTP Aagq asneoaq sdQX goeay antgequay asagq 3o goea 109 dno a saaTnbaa 80UPUTp�p quaarabeueN apTsITTH s,AgTO aqy '4T�19d aajy 3ce0 up pup dno 'OOUPUTpaO quau'abeueH apTsITTH a SUTegUOo '4uaUjaa.1bV quaMdojanaa a UTe4U00 qou saop goTgM 'Tesodoad XVSVS aqy 'gTMzad aaay xe0 up pup dn0 'aOueuTPaO quamabeueN apTsITTH a :buTMOTT01 aqq buT4PIOdjOOUT quamaazbv quamdoTanaa aqq a03 Tenojdde pagsanbaj aneq ggoq goaCoad duH aqq pup goaCoad oaaToav aqy 'Oqa 'UOTgequauxajdMT 'aoueTTdmoo 'bUTUITq 3o SMJaq UT S9T* d ggoq oq squamgTMUIoo Pup saoueansse apTAoad oq SUOTgTpuoo pup smaaq burpTnoad saTouabe agenTid pue OTTgnd uaaMgaq goe�quOO buTuueTd pueT a ace goTgM 'squamaaabe quauidoTanap go asn aqq aaTnbea siagsueaq gong •aangnj aqq Jog uaagged asn pueT aaggaq e ageaJO oq saTgTqua OATJ aqq uaaMgaq siagsue-14 3o AgaTaen e ageaaO oq paseja aq gsnm SaUTT Agaadoad aqq 'ueTd 194sVH aqq gsTjdm000e oq Japao UI •POJP ea0e TLT aqq dOTanap oq AgTO aqq X03 AgTungjoddo anbTun a sT 'goeoadds buTuueTd asn pueT anTsuagaadt�oo a buTquasajdaa 'goaCojd ueTd aagsRK aqq gegq pagaodea aH •eaae TeTOa9umoo aqq aoj sasn pueT pagsabbns aoj AgTO agq oq paquesead eaq aneq sueTd OT3TOads oN -paAeTdsTp sOTgdeab aqq uo paquasajdaa pup gaodea 33egs aqq UT p84POTPUT se goaCoad goea 3o squeuoduioo OT3Toads aqq pagTaosap uagq aH •anejoua gegq a03 pageajo uaaq aneq gegq spaepuegs aqq oq aUagpe gsnm pup OAPIOua OT3Toads e'UTggTM pageaodaoOUT sT deN aATgequay buTgsaA gOeg •eTJagTJO pule spaepuegs quamdojanap 3o qas OT 3TOads e seg aAPTOua gOea 'ssaooad ueTd aagSeN aqq gbnougq Pup SOAPTOue 8AT3 04UT do uaxoaq sT goaCoad aqy •eaae 94RTP9UrMT aqq UT s�agSAs quaUlenojd T AgTTTgn pue UOTgejnoJTO go aagmnu a UT sasn pueT agq agepOUIMOOOe pue poTaad aeaA uaq a aanO padoTanap aq oq pasodoad sT qT •TOOgOS aTppTH aquTOd ugnog quauemjad a 90 UOTgonagsuoo aoj pasodoid sajoe TC buTUTeaa aqq ggTM :sasn 9AT40e Pup aATssed ggoq ggTM agTs Named OT' Tgnd poogaogqbTaU a jo3 pasodoid ace saaOP 8Z :quauidOTanap 9OT390 TeTOaaUrMoo aoj pasodoad saaoe O£ ATageUITxoadde !samoq ATTme3 aTbuTs 90 uOTgonagsuoo jol pasodoad eav sajoe ZS AIagP TxozddV •sasn TOOgOs pup coeds uado 'Njed Z aOvd C66T 'VT H3gN3yd3S MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 1• CALL TO ORDER: MPT/Papen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by MPT/Papen. 2. ROLL CALL: Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing and MacBride. Councilman Werner arrived at 7:05 p.m. M/Miller was excused from attending due to a perceived potential conflict of interest. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, William P. Curley IIICity Manager; , Assistant Cit y Attorney; DeStefano, Community Development Director; Georgeames Wentz, Interim City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 91-2; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - CDD/DeStefano presented a brief overview of the South Pointe Master Plan, utilizing slides to illustrate the area and the specific location of each of the proposed projects. The project represents a comprehensive land use planning effort for one of the remaining large undeveloped properties in the City which is owned by the following five land owners: RnP Development, owner of 78 acres (Vesting Tentative Tract 71407); Arciero and Sons, Inc., owner of 45 acres (Vesting Tentative Tract 32400); SASAK Corporation, owner of 7 acres (Vesting Tentative Tract 51253); the City of D.B., owner of 13.5 acres; and the Walnut Unified School District, who occupies approximately 30 acres within the center of the site. He introduced the following individuals retained by the City to participate in the review of this Plan: George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Hardy Strozier, Project Manager, the Planning Associates; Peter Lewendowski, U1traSystems, for preparation of the EIR. The plan proposes a subdivision of an existing primarily undeveloped 171 acre site to accommodate the phased development of residential, commercial, a utq-4TM pauTeVOO a o0 941 'aja 4agvnpuoO Aaoquanul 4vgq sajinba.z P 0 uvea lOj P aug uTggTM a.ze sa4TS auq 3 axil•aOuvuTPj0 aazl x20 944 3° sToesap4 unuTuTM OT a4-4T Mauv�a pauTequOO jvc) 30 Tenoutaa auq asne� TTazTnba� geuq saa.a4 x �( uno0 q P asneOaq 409coad 4Oea j03•aapo auq uTggTM paaXTeuo Tutaad aaa1 x20 941 uawdoTanap 114 3 14994 se4 buTpe.zb 30 saavxaaq T-4244 SagTs anew TT2 goedulT lu 941 '9P2ab %OOepS, aATgequal asa44aa°sZTTH auq asneoaq sdvK 4 uautabeuvw P. zo3 dn0 a sealabaa aOueu plo gPue dII0 '9OueuTpzO • gTut�ad aaal x uoo ' -4uautaa�b�d s,tTgiO 941 a TsTTTH a suTeg esodoad queutabeueyl P . Ou scop uvTgM ' T uautdoTanaQ a uTequoO 4 up pue df10 'a vueuTpzO 4 Tutaad aaal x20 buT4ezodzOOuT S�iS 9111 q :buTMoZTO� 944 eAOzdde 4uauzabeuvW OPTS - a uaadoj9A9Q ago 'Oj T quautaaabv 4 Oa Co zd dui 9114 Pue 4Oa Coed ' aoueT TciutoO pagsanbal ane11 4-40ct -4 e ua�atdutT TututoO o.zaTOJUv 941 .0-49 ' uOTg 4 04 squaut4 . '5 30 smjz uT saT4�4 SUOTgTpuoO pue sutza4 pue saoueznsse OPT] ggvn ad pue OTT gncl uaaM-4aq 6uTpTno.zd saTOuabe a-4 g aze 11OTuM 'squauzaa.zbv d u2T a TTnbaz s.T9jsue.z4 gveTquoO buZuueT Po asn 944 �a4-4aq -4uautdoTanap ; ed asn pue, gonS • aingn3 aq-4 l; qq u99mgaq saag 419 a0 V ageaao 04 saT-4Tqua ans auq snuz sauTT 1CgzadoUd �-4 e agvaao 011 Passu usTtdutoOOe o4 jap.zo uI aTzen zagsvW auq ueTd •ease aaoe ILT a4-4 doTanap 04 X410 oeoadde buTuueTd a4g �o� 1Cgiungaoddo anbTun 2 ST �uasaadea 'g0aCozd asn pu2T anTsuagajdutov a burg •ease TeTO,TaurMOO �a4sew eqq 4244 Pagzodal OH A410 auq 04 ueTd aug X03 sasn pu2T pagsab n5 '0; •PaAeldsTP ane4 sueT' OT-;Toads aodaa 33egs paguasajd aaq uO paguasazdaa Pue 0 squauodutoO sOTgdeab a4g OaCoad gOea 3. auq UT pageOTpuT se g 49'44 aH •9AVIOu9 4244 TOads aq4 PagT�Osap uegs aqq 04 a.za4Pe OT3. ane4 -4244 sPzep a e�od10OuT zo3 pageazO uaagvua OT3TOads a uTugTM P g burg •eTJagTao gsnut pue aneT a ua1 sad gOe3 ST dvW anT44 anaP 3o gas Oz;Toads e pue spzEpuegs quamdO1 z_ !w 944 gbnoaI14 seg aneTOua 4Oea ssaOold weld 194 sT gogCoad 9111 pue SeAvloua 9AT3 c Su do LET sutagsAs quautano.zdutT 1C4TTTgn 9144 • eaiv ageTPaunut ago o �aqutnu a UT sasn adolanaP pue uOTg2TnvaTO 3 e rano P agePO oO02 pue pOTaad avaA u94 aquTod 44noS asodO�d =T gT 'T0O4OS 91PPT14 a�Oe T� aq 04 P o uoT4vnagsuOO X03 pasodozd sd 14-40q queueutaad e 3 :sasn anT4oe pue 9A'ssasod0rd buTuTentaa 911-4 44TH O0 zoggbTau a X03 P 4q• nd P 4 eTOTaututoO a Ts xaed OTTq uautdoT aOT330 T TM aze sa�Oe 8Z 4 a vMTxozdd2 'sautog AZTute3 Z0; pasodoad saJOe suoOT� I pasodoad a.ze saa3v Z8 9T Ts 3o uoTgOna4 oogI pue aOeds uado 'xjed �TageuuTxozddV • sasn T 30'dd C66T 'VT Z HgSY131d3S SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 3 all of the removed oak trees be replaced at a minimum 2:1 ratio. A summary of those replacement processes and a table illustrating the various sizes proposed -are contained within the suggested list of conditions. Peter Lewendowski, Director of Planning for the Environmental Services Division of Ultra Systems, stated that his firm contracted with the City to prepare an independent environmental assessment of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the construction and development of the south Pointe Master Plan project. He explained that CEQA requires governmental agencies who have authority over particular projects to include an analysis of the project's impacts upon the environment. The city conducted an initial- study for this project and concluded that the project implementation had the potential to result in significant impacts upon the environment. Based upon that conclusion, the City directed the preparation of an EIR. The intent of CEQA is to provide an environmental basis for the decision making process and to insure public access to the decision makers so as to insure a full disclosure of the project's potential impacts, potential alternatives that may produce lesser impacts and to identify and develop mitigation measures which might further reduce the impacts identified in the analysis and brought forward through public testimony. The Planning Commission, at their final hearing on May 24, 1993, recommended certification'of the'tIR as well as adoption of the Mitigation monitoring Reporting Program, Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The following topical issues were addressed in the EIR: a geotechnical report; traffic studies; hydrology studies; biological assessment; noise and air quality studies. In addition to those independent studies, the following relevant documents were reviewed: the Final EIR on the City's General Plan; the Master Environmental Assessment and the Final EIR prepared by the Walnut Valley Unified School District for the South Point Middle School project. Mr. Lewendowski reported that the following project alternatives and mitigation measures were considered in compliance with CEQA: no project; project developed in full compliance with General Plan and zoning policies; a reduction -in project SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 4 size, deleting one or more of the individual property owners; as project designed by which residential development.was clustered in outlying areas; a maximum development; and Vesting Tentative Tract 51253 in isolation. Based on the assessment of those project alternatives, the EIR concluded that the "no project" alternative would be. environmentally superior to the proposed action and that the "clustered development alternative" would also be environmentally superior. In addition to the Response to Comment document and the Technical Appendix document, companions to the draft EIR, as detailed Springtime survey was conducted to assess the existence of three potentially recurring plant species. The survey concluded that the three species examineddid not exist on the project site. The Technical Appendix also brought forth the change in status of the California Gnatcatcher, recently elevated to a threatened status. He then explained that the Final EIR contains all the information derived from dialogue, the draft EIR and information that materialized through further analysis based upon public testimony. The EIR attempts to represent a non -biased, professional, technical opinion of the project's impacts to assist the decision makers to make a well-balanced, informed decision. The City can request further analysis as may be required. If the assisting environmental record is sufficient, the City must then certify the environmental analysis before taking action on a proposed project. In certifying the EIR, the City is not further obligated- to -t•ake any particular action on the proposed project. The following three documents are presented that currently comprise the EIR: the Draft EIR: the Response to Comment and the Technical Appendix. If the Council elects to open the Public Hearing this evening and solicit additional oral and written testimony, the City will be required to prepare an additional Response to Comment document. CDD/DeStefano reported that the packet prepared for the City Council and the public incorporates the staff report, the executive summaries of the EIR process and Planning Commission's actions, staff reports and minutes of each meeting, all Resolutions that the Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council for consideration, maps of the project sites, copies of the legal notice provided for the Public Hearings and all of the documents outlined by Mr. Lewendowski. He stated that the legal notice for the Hearing was mailed and SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 5 published over 30 days prior to this meeting. Notices were mailed to all property owners resident within 500 feetof the project's boundaries. In addition, several hundred interested parties on the city's mailing list also received notices. There have also been several newspaper articles in both the Bulletin and the Tribune describing this proposal. Jan Dabney, Senior Consultant for RnP and Arciero & Sons, Inc., explained that Mr. Forrester and Mr. Arciero could not attend this meeting due to unavoidable circumstances. It was believed that the meeting was to be a staff presentation addressing the environmental considerations for the project. He requested that the developers be allowed to save their presentation for the Master Plan and the development consideration until the next meeting. James Budke stated that he, too was to give a presentation at this meeting. prepared suggested that it would be more a g' He p the developers made presentations atotheasameftime since all projects are related. MPT/Papers stated that Public Hearing comments will focus on the EIR and discussion on the Development Agreements and the Master Plan will be held next meeting. the that C/Werner suggested that since it was anticipated alongthe withdevelopers andwould that theggiving a EIR was notstotbelon discussed at this meeting, meeting. perhaps it would be appropriate to hold all discussion until the next MPT/Papen stated that since all the necessary information had been provided, there is no reason why the Council cannot proceed with opening the Public Hearing on the EIR and receive public testimony at this time. C/Werner, noting that it was indicated in the staff report that Vesting Tract Map 51407 prop to supersede provisions of Tract Maps 32576andses 35742, inquired if staff provided notification to the benefactors of the previous subdivision as required by the subdivision map Act, when provisions of a previous subdivision are modified. ACA/Curley explained that staff believes that the City's notification procedures were accurate. However, the procedure will be verified and if it SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 6 was not done accurately, renoticing will be recommended. C/MacBride expressed support of proceeding with the Public Hearing on the EIR. MPT/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Joyce Hill, 1836 Shaded Wood Rd., expressed opposition to the project as currently proposed. She stated that many citizens desire the remaining canyons and wilderness areas to remain. People who purchased homes in the Sandstone Canyon area were told that the property would remain open space. The Council needs to consider other possibilities for the area with less damage to the environment, such as a museum, trails, an observatory, etc. As elected officials, the Council should do everything possible to protect. the citizens. Michael Shay, 1042 Capen Ave., stated that D.B. does not need more shopping centers, commercial office space, supermarkets, a new park and 200 new homes, particularly at a time when people can't sell their current homes. The project would only compound the problems currently plaguing California such as crime, pollution, etc. The Council needs to support the desires of the citizens. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado Ln., stated that the property owned by RnP, which incorporates nearly half of the entire project, has been set aside as unbuildable open space, and designated as a future park. Approving this project would result in rejecting the principle of density transfer which guarantees open space and low density for the benefit of the public for the public good. If the Council aggregates these public guarantees and gives up map restrictions placed by the•County, which are still in effect, then, at a minimum, the council should hold a General Plan hearing to amend the Plan accordingly. He expressed concern that no financial due diligence has been required. He asked if the City has looked into the cost benefits and risks involved. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., stated that the project would increase noise, pollution, traffic and crime. since 97% of the canyon would be destroyed, it would be impossible to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. The project is in direct violation of General Plan guidelines.. He expressed concern regarding the destruction of SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 7 vegetation and wildlife and the replanting of vegetation destroyed. Peter Lewendowski, in response to some comments made by Mr. Schad, made the ll the following comments; a detailed noise stud owing which found that the existin y was conducted within established Ci although project imt g noand that, ise environment is plementationawill increase noise levels within the instance will noise level°bcexceededlbehO existing s e City standards; yond t project site, in springtimeandeotherveys seasoOf nsthe have been conducted and it the plants on the prois believed that all and none are either have been identified rare, protected or endangered. Hardy Strozier stated that each resolution under the Resource Management provides Management project replanting of them of seed collectioPlan n and within Sandstone Canyon, as plant type count revegetation. Y as well as a plan for C/Werner requested further elaboration regarding noise impacts relating to the project. Mr. Lewendowski explained that topographies were considered in completing the nois attempting to assess e stud firm assumed the a worst-case scenario In Mitigation. absence of hillsides as his conditions for was determined that the Potential Project site both existing residences ands onethe were within established Cit removal of the barriers y standards. The traffic and construction-related haveo have the tion Of Project Ic Potential to increase noise levels site thecestablecepdor locations UP to 20 dba; however, There is a detailed will not be exceeded. the OEIR identifyingnoise study on Page 4-139 of noise impacts six receptors. In assessing but in 2 single -hour dba, in 2 criteria is not in but in CNEL; therefore, a single hour dba reading is not available. noise readings are averaged in a The 24-hour period. Oscar Law, 21511 Pathfinder Rd. the increase in traffic on Brea Canyon out that create a noise levelwill barrier is removed in excess of 95 dba once the than a smoke alarm which would be a higher level The increased traffichwillhalson 85 dba level. as Pollution. The citizens do increase not want more SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 8 development but rather a retention of what is left cf D.B.'s country living. The Council needs to respond to the citizens who elected them. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the traffic study on - Page 4-73 in the EIR identified, at buildout, that the total project increase in traffic will be 13,320 vehicles for all phases of the project. Only approximately 50% of all project -generated traffic will travel on Brea Canyon Rd., or approximately 6,660 per day, not the 15,000 identified by Mr. Law. The environmental analysis, as presented on Page 4-146 of the EIR, identifies both existing and future conditions at the six receptor locations identified. The noisiest part of the project site, which is directly adjacent to Brea Canyon Rd. in the area where there is no intervening topography, has a current CNEL of 74.8 and a projected CNEL of 75.7 at project buildout in the year 2002. The highest noise increase on the project, which is identified to be in the vicinity of Larkstone, has a current CNEL of 42 and a projected CNEL of 62.6 at project buildout in the year 2002, which is less than the 65 CNEL standard adopted by the City. In regard to the issue of air quality impacts, a number of criteria pollutants that will exceed AQMD standards have been identified in the EIR. However, any project development generating 500 vehicle trips per day, even perhaps a southwest museum, would be deemed significant and any grading activity which resulted in fugitive dust emissions would, in all likelihood, exceed established standards. Dr. Joe Gorman, 1333 Mountain, Claremont, asked if the issue at hand for discussion is the DEIR or 1992 or the Final EIR. Mr. Lewendowski explained that the title of the document before the Council is the DEIR. The, Council has not taken any action to certify that document; therefore, CEQA finds the document under review as the Draft document until it is certified. Dr. Gorman expressed concern that the proposal has been piece-mealed. Since the project has not been coordinated, it is difficult to assess noise impacts and the overall environmental impacts of the treatment of Sandstone Canyon. He pointed out that cougar tracks have been identified in the canyon. He then noted that the project, for some reason, has been cloaked as the South Pointe Master Plan when in actuality, it should be the SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 9 Sandstone Canyon Project. Mr. Lewendowski stated that, in conducting the environmental assessment, the criteria is clearly in accordance with the methodology identified by AQMD. Furthermore, a technical study in the Technical Appendix, to determine the presence of mountain lions on the project site, concluded that, because of the isolated nature of the project site, it is inconclusive to conclude definitely whether the site functions as part of a wildlife corridor. In response to Dr. Gorman's inquiry regarding notification, he explained that there is a statutory requirement that ten days prior to certifying the final EIR, the document or the responses to all comments will be provided to governmental agencies who have provided comments. Paul Parmentier, 20404 Tam O'Shanter, Walnut, stated that he felt that the proposed project of over 100 homes would have a significant impact on the existing neighborhood. He questioned whether the Council would consider the change from rural to urban as an insignificant impact. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the traffic study included an assessment of traffic impacts upon Tam O'Shanter and other streets in the project area. Though there is a potential that traffic will increase on those roadways, based upon traffic diversion from the construction of the collector street linking those residential areas with Brea Canyon Rd., all streets analyzed will not result in an increase in LOS standards of those roadways beyond established City standards. Max Maxwell, referring to a letter submitted by Kevin Thomas of Pacific Southwest Biological service regarding a study of mountain lions by Dr. Beier, which can be found as an addendum letter in the EIR, stated that Dr. Beier, responding to a letter written by Mr. Maxwell dated April 9, 1993 inquiring into the accuracy of the information provided by Mr. Thomas, stated that no extensive tracking was done west of the 57 freeway but only east of the 57. He pointed out that the EIR, which concluded that there had been a study made showing that there are no cougars west of the 57 freeway, is inaccurate. He stated that he would like the letter included in the record. He expressed opposition to the project and felt that the project is being misrepresented. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the survey conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, which is SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 10 a very reputable biological company, and the on- site investigation done by his firm's in-house biologist and other consulting biologists participating in this project, did not identify the existence of tracks on-site. It was concluded that, although mountain lions may occupy this site for limited time periods, the site is not conducive to long term habitation, nor asa wildlife corridor. CEQA indicates that disagreement among experts is quite understandable in any sort of environmental analysis. Elizabeth Hodges, 1604 Morning Sun, Walnut, expressed opposition to the entire project; specifically, the connection of Street "A1' to Morning Sun Ave., which is located in County area. The Response to Comment document includes statements from the following individuals opposing the connection: Frank Menessee, L.A. County Department of Regional Planning, Impact Analysis Section; Todd Chavers, Chairman of the City's Traffic & Transportation Commission; John Beke, Commission on.the City's Traffic & Transportation Commission and Carl Blum, Assistant Deputy Director of L.A. County Department of Public Works, Planning Division; Richard Anderola, Deputy Superintendent, Walnut Valley Unified School District, Administrative Services; and comments from the Planning Commission and residents in the area. No developer has the right to adversely impact existing communities especially to the magnitude created by this project. Jay Nelson, Traffic Engineer, Linspot, Law & Greenspan, stated that the traffic study concluded that the increase in traffic on morning sun would be minimal. The majority of the project traffic is expected to ingress and egress the project from Brea Canyon Rd. The traffic volume near the connection on those cul-de-sacs would substantially increase but within the capacity of those streets as they are currently designed. William Gross, 21637 Highbluff Rd., stated that since the City is a proponent of the,project, the Council is not qualified to objectively determine the best interest of the City. He questioned whether the City would have the ability to make sure the project meets the standards. He then expressed the following concerns: the Council indicated a few months back that hillsides are important; yet the project proposes to throw a hillside into a canyon; density criteria and open space criteria is being changed for the project; if this project meets City standards, yet raises SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 11 noise levels unreasonably, then it is the responsibility of the Council to change the standards based upon what is best for the City; the current noise standards in D.B. are deafeningly loud; the current traffic conditions in the City are bumper -to -bumper during peak hours; the current standard for air quality in the City is unhealthful smog; and the citizens voted for incorporation in order to raise our standards to excellence. He stated that the consultants have an opportunity to refute comments made by citizens; however, citizens do not have an opportunity to refute those responses and it becomes one person's word pitted against another's. He expressed the following additional concerns: there' is no project manager and no mention in the EIR as to what would.occur if this project is not completed by one of the components; there are no answers as to who is RnP and there is no financial due diligence requested. Mr. Lewendowski stated that CEQA allows the applicant to also be the lead agency. U1traSystems acted independently in assessing the project -related impacts and was not influenced by the applicant. Economic considerations are not required under CEQA and the EIR does not include an economic assessment of the project impacts and no cost benefit analysis was conducted. In regard to the City's standards, he stated that those standards are, for most instances, compatible and consistent with the standards adopted by other agencies and are neither -over -demanding nor excessively lax. In regard to the concern if specific aspects of the project are not completed, he stated that this is not an EIR issue; however, it is assumed that.the Development Agreement will place adequate safeguards for project implementation. MPT/Papen indicated that a financial analysis of the project is scheduled to be discussed at the next meeting. Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch, expressed opposition to the project, the one-time destruction of the canyon, holding the South Pointe Middle School as hostage, the removal of trees and the impropriety of the City being involved in the development. She asked if the 21 - acre area proposed for park use includes the park land promised the City by Arciero as a fine for cutting down the oak trees near the water tower. The Council needs to weigh the benefits to the City. SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 12 Mr. Lewendowski stated that the EIR identifies, as mitigation measures for removal of trees, compliance with the oak.tree Ordinance and other mitigation measures concerning replacement of the trees. The EIR concludes that the impacts upon oak trees would be deemed significant. C/Werner inquired if any of the -trees are conducive for relocation so that when the site has been graded, the area cari have some resemblance to what was there before with a mature tree setting. Mr. Lewendowski explained that the EIR does not specifically address the issue of relocation, but does quantify the number of trees that should be replanted in compliance with the oak tree Ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended approximately 24 trees currently identified for relocation. The arborist indicated that oak tree relocation is a very difficult and expensive process with questionable results. Ann Flesher, 20647 Larkstone Dr., pointed but that Larkstone Dr. currently has traffic problems that _ need mitigation. The street should not be designed as a thoroughfare, as indicated, since the situation, as it currently exists, already exceeds standards for how the street was designed. originally, the plan was to make Larkstone Dr. an emergency access only. She questioned how a straight thoroughfare from Brea Canyon Rd. directly through Larkstone Dr. emptying onto Lemon and Colima could be a benefit to the project. She then expressed support of the project as a unified approach to --=solve various needs. Jay Nelson explained that the project is intended to create a new access from the school to Brea Canyon Rd. so that bus traffic and the majority of the traffic to and from the school can go directly to Brea Canyon Rd. without passing a residential neighborhood. It is also possible to make Larkstone Dr. a turn -around point. George Barrett, 1884 Shaded Wood Rd., stated that he was under the impression that the South Pointe Middle School would be built with or without this project. He questioned how the Planning Commission approved a project that is 1/3 incomplete and how the City Council can consider an -incomplete plan in regard to the park and the commercial center. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the Walnut Valley Unified school District's FEIR indicates that the SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 13 soil material identified on the site which requires relocation will be deposited in the South Pointe Project site. Relative to the aspect of the phasing of the project, he explained that there are aspects of this project that have not been precisely defined at this stage. In order to complete the environmental assessment, certain sets of assumptions were made concerning some of the development characteristics, primarily of the commercial site. As that site progresses, further environmental review will be necessary. C/Werner asked if the Master Plan presented is an optional step chosen by the developers or a mandatory step. He also inquired if each of the developers can proceed individually without the Master Plan or if there is something in the.City,s regulations that mandates that a Master Plan precede any discretionary approval. Mr. Lewendowski stated that there are a number of individual property owners who are attempting to pursue development concurrently. Each of those projects could proceed under their own merits, recognizing some intertwining aspects in terms of land exchanges and the effects of one development on another piece of property. Whether the projects advance as a series of individual applications or occurs under the umbrella of a Master Plan, under CEQA, the environmental assessment must look at each of the project components to evaluate their cumulative impacts. The Development Agreement would provide the implementing mechanisms to assure project phasing.' Mason Wind, 1389 S. Lemon Ave:, a recent graduate of the University of Colorado, stated that he used to hike through Sandstone Canyon and he knows there are deer, rabbits and other wildlife. One cannot measure the option of a park for the replacement of the canyon. Children need a place to explore and adventure. He questioned how this project would benefit the children and raise standards of living. Mr. Lewendowski stated that part of the environmental review record is a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which delineates the benefits of the project. Art Fritz, 26635 Larkstone Dr., stated that it is extremely difficult to get out of one's driveway because of the traffic on Larkstone Dr. The SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 14 General Plan discusses an objective of maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and discourage through traffic. He pointed out that if the school is to be constructed regardless of this Master Plan, there are two options for the dirt on the site: to dump it into the canyon or haul it out. Hauling out the dirt would require about 28,000 truck loads and Larkstone Dr. was not designed for such.activity. Terry Birrell, 1528 S. Gold Canyon Dr., pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended certification of the EIR after the recision of the 1992 General Plan and the adoption of the 1993 General Plan, which is inconsistent with Section 65.360 of the Planning & Zoning Law. Perhaps the EIR, as well as the Master Plan, should go back to the Planning Commission for their reconsideration in accordance with the 1993 General Plan, when it is adopted. She expressed concern for the impacts that cannot be mitigated and the impacts to the area. She questioned the appropriateness of considering -this Master Plan project when there is no 1993 General Plan in place. ACA/Curley stated that the authority under which the Planning Commission considered the South Pointe Project is currently in litigation regarding the applicability of Ordinance No. 4 and it would not be appropriate to discuss the issue at this time. RECESS: MPT/Papen recessed the meeting at 9:45 p.m. RECONVENE-: MPT/Papen reconvened the meeting at 10:04 p.m. -- Barbara Beach-Courchesne expressed concern that public comment is being permitted when the public has not yet received a full presentation. She questioned why public comment is limited to five minutes during a Public Hearing, denying the public their rights to adequately address this EIR. She then made the following comments and inquiries: what happened to the money placed in escrow to guarantee the removal of the dirt to build South Pointe Middle School; how can the project be mitigated and established in the event of seismic activity, as indicated in the EIR; John Gutwein, the County Planning liaison for D.B. when Arciero illegally cut down oak trees, stated that replacing the oak trees with saplings is not advisable because of environmental conditions and because it would take nearly 50 years to benefit D.B.; though the Gnatcatcher is best detected in the months of January through March, the SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 15 consultants did their study August through September; Page 4-143 of the EIR indicates that there are no significant impacts in terms of noise when the window is closed; the citizens should determine public policy; the Department of Fish & Game has written a letter disagreeing with the findings of the EIR, yet it is not included in the document; the project does not meet the vision of the General Plan in the areas of retention of rural and country living, community character, preservation of open space and reduction of traffic impacts; and the land is presently map restricted with a prohibition on building and should remain so. Mr. Lewendowski stated that independent studies conducted both for the Water District and the individual applicants concluded that, from a geotechnical perspective, the project could be developed to satisfy existing design standards. In regard to the oak trees, the current oak tree Ordinance requires a certain size tree to.be provided as mitigation. In regard to the California Gnatcatcher, the existing established protocol for that species allows surveys to be conducted for 12 months of the year. The project biologists conducted the surveys in full accordance with established protocol for that species and concluded that the Gnatcatcher does not exist on that site. In regard to noise impacts, no noise standards will be exceeded by project implementation. He pointed out that they have attempted to eliminate personal judgment from the conclusions presented in the EIR and have deferred to public policy documents, as established by the -City and other appropriate agencies as the threshold criteria. The letter from the California Fish & Game is included in the Response to Comment document as well as a letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior raising similar issues. Stan King, 1304 Rapid View Dr., noted that C/Werner is the only Councilmember that appears to show any concern for citizens, issues. The removal of 700 oak trees is a travesty. He pointed out that the residents on Larkstone Dr. were also once told that there would not be any traffic problems resulting from the school and now those same people are before the Council pleading for relief. The Council should be able to understand why the citizens want to keep the area as is. Jeff Nelson, 23051 Rio Lobos, commented on the SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 16 importance of meeting in a City Hall belonging to D.B. with a more personal atmosphere. The Council needs to respond to the public's desire to retain open land and encourage only acceptable growth. Technical standards are not nearly as important as the standards of the public. He then noted that most recommendations made recommend that a project go 'forwa-d. Ken Anderson, noting a discrepancy in the actual percentage of traffic to utilize Brea Canyon Rd., inquired of the actual number of vehicle trips projected. He pointed out that a 20 dba actually translates into a 100% increase in noise. Jay Nelson stated that 80% of the project traffic will come out of Brea Canyon; however, in any one location, whether north of the project access or south of the project, the maximum amount of traffic on Brea Canyon is 40%. John Anderson, 1896 Shaded Wood Road., stated that Brock developers assured him when buying his property that the surrounding property would remain as open space. Brock developers would have developed that remaining property; however, because of the density factor, the County of L.A. did not permit them to do so. He questioned why all of the Councilmembers are not making inquiries regarding the EIR. MPTJPapen explained that the Council usually holds their comments to receive input from the public first. - Tom Van Winkle noted that the proposed project will gridlock traffic in the surrounding areas. It appears that this project is pretty much a done deal. The Council needs to take the citizens' issues into consideration. Norman Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills, President of the Pathfiomeowne s Assn., stated that the HOA opposes and objects to the misrepresentation of J.C. Dabney using our land to enhance his open area. He made the following comments: L.A. County restricted the land to open space and future park land; there will actually be over 2,000 trees removed; why are 24-hour average decibel levels used when most use hourly decibel readings; since the streets around South Pointe School were never engineered to carry heavy school buses and the increase in traffic, the city should replacemente funds to mitigate destruction oflt he early rep local streets SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 17 in D.B. and L.A. communities and the homeowners are still trying to find out who is responsible. He then requested to see the letter from the Department of the Interior that is supposed to be in the Response to Comment document. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the two letters referenced can be respectively found -under section 5.2, commencing with comments 61, on Page 5-41, and under Section 5.3, commencing with comments 76, on Page 5-57. In regard to the number of trees removed, he explained that the only trees surveyed are oak trees and only those that met a certain height standard as delineated in the oak tree ordinance.. James Roberts, 829 Silver Fir Road, inquired how the project can be considered without a Tentative Tract Map from RnP. CDD/DeStefano stated that the maps for each of the specific projects, as well as a composite map, were contained within each of the Council packets and all packets made available to the public. The issue of map restrictions will be addressed at subsequent meetings. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., asked why Pathfinder Rd. and Golden Springs have not been addressed in regard to further traffic impacts from the development. He questioned the accuracy of the noise level projections. Mr. Lewendowski stated that state -of -the heart computer technology is utilized in completing all studies and it is believed that all conclusions are accurate based upon the assumptions utilized. Jay Nelson stated that the traffic study addresses all the traffic impacts on Golden Springs, Pathfinder Road and other key roadways in the study areas. Since it was known that the Pathfinder Bridge widening project was to occur, it is accounted for in the traffic studies. Irving Gassowitz, 1644 Chapel Hill Dr., stated that the residents on Chapel Hill do not want signs and sidewalks as is being proposed. Furthermore, the golf course area will also be affected. He stated that he is resentful of the problems being created by the City. Chuck Bowler, Morning Sun, stated that Walnut Leaf and Colima will be very much affected by traffic coming through the area. he inquired why SASAK is SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 18 being allowed to build on that property when L.A. County denied building permits about ten years ago. Jay Nelson stated that less than 15 cars were forecasted for the a.m. peak hours on Walnut Leaf with 16 to 20 cars during the p.m. peak hours on Walnut Leaf for.both phase one and phase two projects, and about 30 cars in the peak hours, each direction, on Colima Road during peak hours. CDD/DeStefano stated that SASAK Tract Map 51253 contains a building restriction similar to the larger adjacent tract proposed by RnP, which is a restriction allowing only one unit per lot. There is also a'flood hazard area on the SASAK property. As a product of the resubdivision of the property, those restrictions would be erased. C/Werner requested staff to investigate why SASAK was restricted to 1DU/AC. Jay Nelson, in response to an inquiry regarding Colima Road, stated that the existing traffic volume on Colima Road are significant enough that the addition of the amount of traffic added by the project traffic would not change the existing condition significantly. Hearing no further testimony offered, MPT/Papen closed the Public Hearing. C/Werner stated that there are many issues needing further consideration. Perhaps once the developers have made their presentations, there will be a better understanding of the project based upon their intent and what they are willing to commit to. He then requested staff to address the following issues: the actual peak and ambient noise levels; the history of the land use restrictions on the SASAK properties and the RnP property and if there are legal implications to changing those restrictions; the General Plan recognizes that the City does not have adequate noise standards and relies on CEQA guidelines to give a better sense of what are proper noise standards; how many trees to be removed are indigenous trees to have value to the City; the inclusion of the HOA property on the map should be addressed; and it would be helpful to get the information from the L.A. County Animal Control Department as to the amount of calls received siting bobcats. He suggested that the Council continue the meeting out to the site so that the Council can hear the noise for themselves and get SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 19 a better feel for the project. He suggested that the Public Hearing be continued to allow the public to address any further environmental issues, particularly when it was indicated that this meeting was to be a presentation meeting. MPT/Papen stated that the purpose of this discussion was to decide it the EIR is adequate to certify as an information document. The law provides for a reasonable professional difference of opinion, thus the question is if there is enough scientific information within the document for the Council to make a decision. Certifying the EIR does not mean that the project will be approved. She concurred to continue the Public Hearing to September 28,1993, allowing Mr. and Mrs. Courchesne to speak first since they did not receive a full.report. She directed staff to draft two Resolutions --one to certify the EIR and one to reject the.EIR. Following discussion on the certification of the EIR, a financial analysis of the project has been scheduled. C/Forbing stated that he had visited the site numerous times during the last eight years and a visit to the site is unnecessary. MPT/Papen agreed that a visit to the site was unnecessary, particularly since she and C/MacBride attended the field trip with the Planning Commission toured by Mr. Schad. In response to C/Werner's inquiry regarding the economic report, she explained that she scheduled a consultant to attend the next meeting to make a presentation. Hardy Strozier stated that the City commissioned a cost revenue/cost benefit study reviewed by the Planning Commission. MPT/Papen requested that the consultant be present at the next public meeting in order to review the study with the City Council. C/Werner asked if it would be acceptable to the owners of the project site if he entered the site before the next meeting to review the material. Jan Dabney, speaking for the owners of the property, indicated that he would have no problem with escorting C/Werner and members of staff to visit the site. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride announced that the City's library services have been cut in half. The Friends of the Library will conduct a meeting on.September 22, SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 20 1993 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the Community Room at the Library to discuss ways to support and assist the Library. 4. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, MPT/ Papen continued the Public Hearing to September 28, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. Ly a Burgess, City Clerk ATTEST: Mayor MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: MPT/Papers called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: I The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Pro Tem Papen. ROLL CALL:. Councilmen Forbing, Werner and Mayor Pro Tem Papen. C/MacBride was absent (excused). Mayor Miller excused himself from the meeting in order to avoid the appearance of any potential conflict of interest. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; William P. Curley, III, Assistant City Attorney; James DeStef ano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 91-2; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE .PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - MPT/Papen stated that public testimony on the EIR was received at the September 14, 1993 meeting and continued to this evening and re -opened the Public Hearing. C/Werner suggested that, due to the outcome of the court's review of the referendum filed on the General Plan, the Council's proceedings would not be to the benefit of either the development team or the community. Motion was made by C/Werner to adjourn the meeting because of the decision- rendered by the court relating to the referendum of the General Plan. Motion died for lack of second. CA/Curley stated that, according to the Clerk of the Court, the tentative ruling had been made final and there was notice that a final judgment was rendered. MPT/Papen suggested that the Council convene to Closed Session under the Brown Act's litigation SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 PAGE 2 provisions. 3. CLOSED SESSION: MPT/Papen adjourned the meeting to a Closed Session regarding Litigation., Government Code Section 54956.9, at 7:10 p.m. 4. RECONVENE: MPT/Papen reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. ACA/Curley announced that no reportable action had been taken during the Closed Session. 5. ADJOURNMENT: MPT/Papen continued the Public Hearing to October 5, 1993.at 7:00 p.m. L DA BURGESS, City Clerk ATTEST: 4 L/ mayor OCTOBER 5, 1993 PAGE 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-3; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - M/Miller excused himself from discussion of this item due to a potential conflict of interest. CA/Arczynski stated that it is staff's recommenda- tion that the public hearing be continued to November 16, 1993. C/Forbing opened the Public Hearing. Horace Schmidtke, 1635 Morning Sun, expressed opposition to allowing the project to access Morning Sun because it would increase traffic, endangering the children and pedestrians. Max Maxwell. submitted a 21 -page letter written by Don Schad to the City Council. He suggested that the developers be asked to make a full presentation at the next scheduled Public Hearing. Also, the issue of the EIR needs to be further addressed, as does the letter from the Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Kim, 1704 Morning Sun, presented pictures illustrating how poorly the subject property is being maintained by the property owners, which has damaged his drains and eroded his rear slope. The developers have not yet repaired the damage. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Rd., consultant for RnP, stated that,- as a good neighbor policy, an emergency repair was done on the drain to protect the subdivision against the historical sheet flows that run across the property. The ditch, and the sole maintenance belongs to Mr. Kim, according to recorded documents and the recorded maintenance agreement. He requested to see the pictures, and verify the date taken, when those pictures are submitted to the City Clerk. C/Forbing continued the Public Hearing to November 16, 1993. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Cont'd.) Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that it is the desire of the citizens of D.B. to control growth, to maintain the country living atmosphere and to seek traffic congestion mitigation without signi- ficant effects on the environment. The Council needs to listen to and respond to the will of the people. Three NOVEMBER 16, 1993 PAGE 6 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7.1 APPROVED WARRANT REGISTER - dated November 16, 1993 in the amount of $305,036.75. 7.2 APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of October 11, 1993 - Received & filed. 7.3 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Scott Lovell, October 25, 1993 and referred the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 7.4 APPROVED CITY OF DIAMOND BAR V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL, LEGAL SERVICES CHANGE. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as matters can be heard. 8.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-3; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - Continued from October -5, 1993. M/Miller abstained from discussion of this item due to a potential conflict of interest. CDD/DeStefano reported that all three of the developers, through written correspondence to the City, have indicated their interest in a continuance of the hearing to January 4, 1994. Mr. Dabney, representing Mr. Arciero, Mr. Forrestor and Mr. Budke, representing Mr. Patel, indicated their desire to provide an opportunity for the new members of the City Council to review all of the documents completed to date before bringing the project back for a full public discussion. He recommended that the Council continue the Public Hearing to the meeting of January 4, 1994. MPT/Papen opened the Public Hearing. MPT/Papen pointed out that the City Council has performed the following activities in regard to finding sources of revenue for, or preservation of, environmentally sensitive areas: the formation of SEATAC; the invitation of the Secretary of National Resources, Douglas Wheeler, for an aerial tour of Tonner Canyon, and a walking tour of Sandstone Canyon; and letters to Mr. Wheeler, Senator Frank Hill, and Assemblyman Paul Horcher. She requested NOVEMBER 16, 1993 PAGE 7 0 that the letter from Senator Frank Hill, which responded to the Council's request for funding for preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, be submitted into the EIR record. The letter basically stated that there was no money available at this time.for such projects. C/Werner moved, C/MacBride seconded to continue the Public Hearing to January 4, 1994. Motion carried 4 - 0 with M/Miller abstaining. OLD BUSINESS: 9.1 APPOINTMENT OF TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER - MPT/Papen recommended the appointment of Mrs. Lu Esposito to the Traffic & Transportation Commission. With consensus of Council, MPT/Papen's appointment of Mrs. Lu Esposito was ratified. 9.2 QUARTERLY BUDGET ADJUSTMENT AND RESOLUTION NO. 90-45G: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SETTING FORTH PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES, SICK LEAVE, VACATIONS, LEAVES OF ABSENCES, AND OTHER REGULATIONS - CM/Belanger stated that the purpose of the budget document is to ratify decisions made by the City Council since the City adopted the fiscal year 1993-94 municipal budget. The only change is to revise the salary resolution for additional part time positions previously approved by the City Council over the past 4 months. He recommended that the City Council approve the -quarterly budget amendment for Fat=1993-94 and adopt Resolution No. 90-45G setting forth salaries and benefits for City Personnel. MPT/Papen inquired if the 3% or 4% salary increase included in the budget proposal, but not authorized by the City Council, is still in reserve or is being allocated. CM/Belanger stated that the salary ranges have not been changed to reflect any such increases since it was not authorized by the City Council at that time. C/MacBride moved, C/Forbing seconded to approve the quarterly budget amendment for FY 1993-94 and adopt Resolution No. 90-45G: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SETTING FORTH PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES, SICK LEAVE, VACATIONS, LEAVES OF ABSENCES, AND OTHER REGULATIONS. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: JANUARY 4, 1994 PAGE 9 Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. (C/ Papen abstained from voting on this matter.) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE .TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8 AND- OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-3; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - continued from November 16, 1993. CM/Belanger reported that, as a result of. the City's action to rescind the General Plan, the City is without basis for decision-making regarding the City's long-term physical development. He recommended that the project be tabled until the adoption of a new General Plan. .M/Werner opened the Public Hearing. Max Maxwell suggested that the agenda include an easier to understand summary of all proposed projects. With no further testimony offered, M/Werner closed the Public Hearing. MPT/Harmony moved, C/Ansari seconded to table the South Pointe Master Plan project until adoption of the General Plan and direct the City Attorney to identify the public's and City's legal rights as they relate to issues such as map restrictions. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, MPT/Harmony, M/Werner NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Papen ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller 6.2 CONSIDERATION OF RECISSION OF AB939 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE - The City's integrated waste management activities are funded through assessment of an AB 939 Administrative Fee of $0.35 per household per month, $6.00 per commercial account per month and $40.00 pre -containerized unit per month. Based on last year's figures, the City projects to raise approximately $78,000 in revenues this fiscal year to offset anticipated costs of administering the solid waste permit system and integrated waste management programs. On December 14, 1993, the City Council directed staff to evaluate the reasonableness and effectiveness of this fee. the Manning �issociaEes Jonathan Petke,Inc. Hardy M. Strozler, Inc. 3151 AIRWAY AVENUE, SUITE R•1 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 TELEPHONE: (714) 556.5200 TELECOPIER: (714) 556.3905 OCTOBER 12, 1992 SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1. Project Description 2. Schedule for Completion of Master Plan Zoning/EIR- December 1992/January 1993 3. Alternative Land Use Concepts a. Alternative 1: 8 -acre active park, 15 -acre city plus 15 -acre private commercial, Larkstone through access. b. Alternative 2: 8 -acre active park; 20 -acre Private Commercial Center and 10 -acre city commercial and no through access via Larkstone. C. Alternative 3. 10 -acre active park site plus 15/15 -acre commercial center, no Larkstone through access. d. Alternative 4: 10 -acre active park, 15/15 - acre commercial center, no Larkstone through access, reverse school layout to place school and city active play areas together to total 20 - acres public park/play fields. The proposed project includes the following land use within a project area encompassing 171+ acres: 1• 30+ Walnut acre school site (site and facilities constpartially graded only). constructed on graded portion 2. Grading on the eastern portion of the existing South Pointe school site to accommodate new school facilities (this activity has been previously reviewed and approved with a?'.. State and School District ;rrmits approved in,- a certified EIR. 3. 40+ acre Arciero single family residential tract No- 32400 (vacant site) for 93 lots. 4. 48+ acre R -N -P single family residential vesting tract No. 51407 (vacant site) for 92 lots. 5• 31+ acre commercial site (vacant site) with 10 -15 acres of the commercial site to be transferred to City. 6. City by Rnp2+ acre ark site (vacant) to be dedicated to 7. A transfer of 2 acres of land from City to School District for South school purposes. Pointe 8. An acquisition by the Cit District y of 4+ acres of Water land to be included in -the residential and commercial component of the Master Plan. 9. A transfer or vacation of 6 acres of City owned Right -of -Way to be used for residential and commercial purposes. 10':- The extension of Larkstone Drive from South Point - school to Brea Canyon Road and a new through connection from Morning Sun Avenue to Brea Canyon Road via the Larkstone Drive extension. The proposed project entitlements Developmenshall entail a t Agreement, a Zone Change a Master Development Plan and a Conditional Use Permit for hillside management. COMMERCIAL Alternative 1 Bldg. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Total: 14.32 Ac. 7. 8 9. 10. 11. notal: 13.5 Ac_ Land Use Office Office Office Office Office Office Comm/Retail Comm/Retail Comm/Retail Comm/Retail Comm/Retail ROP - ARCIERO DIAMOND BAR S.F./Bld. Park Re 0* 15,480 S.F. 39 35,400 S.F. 89 23,538 S.F. 59 569458 S.F. (Portion 2- 141 2 -Story 28,229 SF) 501651 S.F. (Portion 126 2 -story 25,325 SF) 22 14o S.F. 55 203 667 S.F. 509 30,096 S.F. 120 23,400 S.F. 94 51,684 S.F. 207 109000 S.F. 40 20.60q S.F. 82 ------------ 135789 S.F. 543 own *Parking Standards (used per City of Diamond Bar Planning Department) - Office COMM/Retail = S.F. 1/250 S.F. COMMERCIAL Alternative 2 Bldg. No Land Use S.F./Bldg. S.F. Park Req.* 1. Office 469686 S.F. (Portion 211 Subtotal: 125,045 2-3tory 19,661 SF) 312 2. Office 36,964 S.F. 2 -story 92 g Comm/Retail 83,510 18,48.2 SF S.F. 334 Subtotal• 83,650 S.F. 303 Total: 18.5 Ac 208,555 S.F. 646 3. Comm/Ret it 46,809 S.F. '37 Total• 9.32 Ac 130,459 S.F. 490 4. Office 36,150 S.F. 90 5. Office 32,775 S.F. (Portion 82 2-3tory 12,800 SF) 6. Office 22,910 S.F. 57 7 Office 33,210 S.F. 83 Subtotal: 125,045 S.F. 312 g Comm/Retail 83,510 S.F. 334 Total: 18.5 Ac 208,555 S.F. 646 SITE TOTAL: Office 208,695 S.F. Comm/Retail 130,319 S.F. *Parking Standards (Used per City of Diamond Bar Planni 3 Department) - Office = 1/400 S.F. - Comm/Retail = 1/250 S.F. 1 SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN CITY Of DIAMOND BAR ALTERNATIVE 1 romp s9olwT tln.�.t•I °9:.iJ.om •e.n .e t sols 0Y119nP tus ¢. M ON �IW�IM : u K 0! ROMK9G 9 pill 109 0.0. •J.91 9C. Oil pOI04[0 Clli p910 do 0101•ltOxO U• Mro K. ,•• 37.t1 k. r. ! .Yil. 00Mi4i u. w• IIRut lJw•!6 tF Ia.t tc. THE PLANNING ASSOCIATES SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN CITY Of DIAMOND BAR ALTERNATIVE 2 � a iia».o0i �a iu �h4C1�EMi 1 nlEl of Du. .. i C. w[I co.rucu- [*f. a.cc °c"cs ttnowo m: coruanaa umf v. THE PLANNING ASOC p,Ef[ SkPW faRDu t.r r a S31V13oSSV JNINNVId 3Hl n. e, .r[ awowvia �o w� Al.. 'r a[A IIOK»}TMilNiuy]O4HY >y may. IW.[ fxOf f py)I�I. r r.'[CI vi.. UlfOY. l.l0a V 3AI1VNtl311V ave ONOWVIO !o Al1J Ndld 1I31SVW 31NIOd H1f1OS S31VIDOSSV ONINNV W 3141 ']Y [Cn 'if l�RO[ l]Il10 3171�Y1w110] YiY Yn01[YIO f0 LLi] 'T [la I[Ynx' VNY ��Y �• IOOa'�+Y W��{{ ']i itla TY 4 laaYY • iWf iwal]r• 'fY It Oa cYOf Y OYIIY '� •C1 iil ♦lYt 1]]I'OYY liiOa C 3AILVNU31'IV WV9 ONOWVIO 40 Al1J NVId 1131SVW 31NIOd H1f10S SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN CITY OF DIAMOND BAP COMMERCIAL -AND USE AREA SOUTH POINTE MIDDLE SCHOOL 30 6 ACRES PARK SITE 21 8 ACRES GENERAL RESIDENTIAL/OPENSINGLE FAMILY • •a� UNIFIEDWALNUT VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - EMENT INC ARCIER• a SONS SOUTH ' SCHOOL Ito it +T".:. � ice' 'AW C'1��'1� �►'�'�`�-�`� *,,.... t �/;�,�r i � �_.. f - �. �' � � R "` -.-�� " ate_" �'tc is �1; � i1ia�-_ • CONSULTANTS IL '..vGItvEEF =UFP'F'�Ir!; ECVIFr T:u_r1-1.1 �.CN-ULTA PITS !'AI fl;ii E=' ROBER- BEIPI, WILLI6h1 FF'CS'. 8 i:OL .. B'CCC�.CAL ,FR\ICES �RCNITF�TS SCHOOL "ISTHICT City of Diamond oar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report I. SUMMARY/INTRODUCTION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3 REPORT DATE: January 21, 1993 MEETING DATE: January 25, 1993 CASE/FILE NUMBER: A) South Pointe Master Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 92081040 B) General Plan Amendment C) Development Agreement D) Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 (Arciero) E) Tentative Tract 51253 (Patel) F) Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 (RnP) G) Hillside Management Ordinance Conditional Use Permit H) Oak Tree Removal Permit APPLICATION REQUEST: Land development request consisting of Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 involving the subdivision of 47.4 acres into 93 parcels (91 single-family residential lots, 7,200 sq. ft. min. lot size and 2 commercial lots), Tentative Tract 52253 involving the subdivision of lots 46, 47 and 48 of Tract 32576 consisting of 6.7 acres up to 26 parcels (all single- family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), vesting Tentative Tract 51407 involving the subdivision of lot 53 of Tract 35742 and lots 46, 47, 48 and 49 of Tract 32576 consisting of 90.8 acres into 87 parcels (up to 90 single- family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size, 1 open space lot and 3 commercial lots), a development agreement containing a master plan and zone change, a general plan amendment to redesignate the Water District Parcel P.P., conditional use permit relative to hillside grading, oak tree removal permit and review of an environmental impact report. PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located in the south- wester6-area of the City of Diamond Bar, encompassing an area o -f approximately 171+ acres. The project site, which is comprised of a number of existing parcels and ownership interests, can be generally described as being situated westerly of the Orange (SR -57) Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly of the corporate boundaries of the City (and Tract No. 27141), northerly of Pathfinder: Road and the existing residential area (i.e., Tract No. 32576) obtaining vehicular access from the roadway and southerly of South Pointe Middle School and existing residential and vacant properties located southerly of Colima Road. PROPERTY OWNERS: Walnut Valley Unified School District, _'ty of Diamond Bar, RnP Development I :., Arciero and Sons Inc., and Amrut Patel. APPLICANTS: (1) RnP Development, Inc., 151 Juanita Avenue, Glendora, CA 91740 (2) Arciero and Sons, Inc., 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th St., Upland, CA 91785 (4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste. 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PUBLIC NOTICES The notice of preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was distributed on August 19, 1992. The NOP comment period was 30 days in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The South Pointe Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and comment between November 30, 1992 and January 18, 1993. A notice of public hearing was mailed to approximately 1,100 property owners adjacent to the site, on January 14, 1993. Additionally, a notice of this Public Hearing was published in the San. Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Newspapers on January 15, 1993. II. BACKGROUND/PURPOSE The South Pointe Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement a concurrently filed Tentative Tract Maps represent a comprehensi land planning effort on approximately 171 acres of primarily u_ eveloped land in the City of Diamond Bar. The South Pointe Master Plan identifies the phased development and subsequent use of the land for residential, recreatio, 1, - commercial/office, open space and educational purposes. 'e 2 project site has been divided into five distinct planning areas (or enclaves). For each enclave, project specific development standards have been established. These enclaves reflect the primary land use (e.g. residential, commercial, open space, school, public facilities, park) which will occupy that geographic sub -area. As proposed, project implementation will result in: (1) the execution of a development agreement(s) between the City of Diamond Bar and the project applicant(s); (2) the adoption of a master plan (i.e., South Pointe Master Plan), encompassing the project site and containing project -specific development standards for future uses; (3) the creation of a residential subdivision allowing for the development of up to 91 single- family detached dwelling units on approximately 40+ acres (i.e., Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400); (4) the approval of a vesting tentative map (i.e., Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407) authorizing the development of up to 90 single-family detached residential units on a 41.3+ acre component of the project site; (5) the establishment of up to 26 lot single-family detached residential subdivision on approximately 6.7+ acres; (6) dedication and subsequent development of a 20+ acre neighborhood park site; and (7) creation of a number of commercial parcels totaling approximately 31+ acres. Upon recordation of the final maps, a portion of the commercial acreage will be conveyed to the City of Diamond Bar for its subsequent use or disposition. Similarly, the proposed park site will be conveyed to the City and subsequently developed and maintained as a public park in accordance with the terms of the proposed development agreement(s). To accommodate the proposed land uses, a number of circulation system improvements have been identified. These improvements include: (1) the creation of a number of new local streets internal to the project site; -(2) the extension of Larkstone Drive for emergency vehicles only at South Pointe Middle School and the development of "A' Street between Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon'Road; (4) improvements to Brea Canyon Road along that segment contiguous with the project site; and (5) a number of off-site street and intersection improvements designed to mitigate both project and anticipated cumulative traffic demands. It is presently the intent of the project applicants to convey the future local and collector streets internal to the project site to the City of Diamond Bar who will be responsible for the maintenance of those public rights-of-way. 3 A number of public actions will be required to assemble the project site as presently proposed. These actions include, but may not be limited to: (1) transfer of an undeveloped parcel of land of approximately 3 acres (i.e., Larkstone Park) :from the City of Diamond Bar to the walnut Valley Unified School District for inclusion within South Pointe Middle School; (2) conveyance of an area of approximately 2 acres (located southerly of Larkstone Drive) from the Walnut Valley School District to the City; (3) conveyance of that residual 2+ acre site to one (i.:., RnP Development, Inc.) or all of the project applic .ts as i trade for other acreage on-site to be conveyed to the pity; (4) transfer or vacation of 6+ acres of City -owned right-of-way located along Brea Canyon Road to the project applicant(s) to be subsequently utilized for residential and/or commercial purposes; and (5) acquisition by the City of 4+ acres of existing Walnut Valley water District land and subsequent conveyance of that site to the project applicant(s) to be included as part of the residential and/or commercial component of the project. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq) and the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 21, Los Angeles County Code) approval of a tentative tract map(s) and vesting tentative tract map will be required for project implementation. Other discretionary City approvals include: (1) approval of a development agreement(s) involving the City, the project applicants and other parties in interest; (2) approval of the South Pointe Master Plan; (3) approval of a General Plan Amendment and (4) approval of a Conditional Use ?ermit(s), as authorized under the City's Hillside Management Ordinance, and Oak Tre Permits. In addition, a number of other discretionary actions are anticipated from other Responsible Agencies having jurisdiction by law over specific aspects of the project. Those permits and approvals may include, but may -not be limited to: (1) applicable construction, storm water and National Pollution Discharge Elimination. System (NPDES) permits from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and/or California Regional Water Quality Control Board; (2) acceptance of real property by the Walnut Valley Unified School District and conveyance of real property, by the Walnut Valley Water District; (3) acceptance of real property by the City and conveyance of real property by the City; (4) Sectior 401 Water Quality Certification(s) from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; (6) Section 1601 - 1607 Agreement fedm the California Department of Fish and Game (7) Section 404 Permit(s) from the United States Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers, and (8) annexation of the project site to the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD). 4 Individual components of the application package are discussed in Section III (Application Analysis). Included within Section III is an analysis of the different alternatives considered for the project site. Including alternatives associated with South Pointe Middle School and removal of surplus soil. The EIR prepared for the school site assumed disposal of soil within Sandstone Canyon and Enclave 3. III. APPLICATION ANALYSIS A. South Pointe Master Plan The South Pointe Master Plan represents a comprehensive land use planning approach designed to provide a mixed use neighborhood comprised of residential, open space/park and commercial/office land uses which blend with the adjacent built environment and coincide with the natural resource values currently associated with the project site. The Master Plan is a superior land planning tool when considered opposite the piecemeal approach associated with traditional land planning efforts typical of multiple ownership parcels. The Master Plan weaves five private and public parcels with different ownership into a land use strategy which provides for a full range of land uses and therefore a balanced neighborhood. Section B describes each enclave and corresponding project contained within the Master Plan. B. Enclave/Project Description Enclave 1 is situated on the west side of the master plan study area. This enclave is comprised of single family residential lots and consists of 109 parcels on 48 acres. Minimum lot sizes are 8,000 square feet, and minimum pad sizes are 6,900 square feet. The residences will be maximum of two-story in height, each unit will have a 2 -car garage. Enclave 1 is comprised of two separate Vesting/Tentative Tracts 51407 and 51253. Each residential unit will have a minimum 2 -car garage. The neighborhoods in this enclave are compatible with the existing style and type of urban development adjacent to -the project. _ Enclave 2 is situated in the northern portion of South Pointe and is the site of' South Pointe Middle School. This enclave is 32 acres in size, allowable uses are limited to public school purposes. Development standards for this enclave shall be determined through School District Site Plan Review but are 5 required to reflect neighborhood character. Completion of Street "A" with an emergency access connection to Larkstone Drive will provide an alternative access to the school site. Enclave 3 is situated in the northeastern portion of the master plan study area. This enclave is similar to Enclave 1 in that it is comprised of single family homes with similar development standards._ Minimum Lot size in this enclave is limited to 7,200 square feet with a 6,000 square foot minimum pad size. Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 is located in this enclave. Given proximity to the SR -57 Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, a backyard fence and combination noise wall will be constructed along the eastern boundary parallel to the SR -57 Freeway. Enclave 4 represents the commercial/office development area. This enclave is strategically located along Brea Canyon Road near the Pathfinder Road exit on the 57 Freeway. Development of commercial uses at this strategic location is supportive of General Plan objectives which encourage business development which take advantage of freeway visibility. Furthermore, this enclave is located at the main entrance into the South Pointe. community (Street 'A" at Brea Canyon Road). A maximum of 290,000 square feet of commercial square footage is permitted. Maximum building height is limited to 50 feet. Master Plan development standards include ample building setbacks, sign control, landscaping of setback areas and parking lots and standards for trash enclosures, screening of mechanical equipment and limitations on exterior lighting. Design standards wer- aimed at providing compatibility with the adjacent residential a clave. Enclave 5 is the centerpiece of the Master Plan. This enclave consists of twenty acres of park/open space which serves not only as a focal point but weaves the individual enclaves into a cohesive planned community. Enclave 5 will be limited to park and open space uses which serve not only future residents of Enclaves 1 and 3 but residents throughout Diamond Bar given the exceedance of Enclaves 1 and 3 park dedication requirements. C. Project Phasing As presoatly proposed, the project will be developed in a phased manner ostsr a projected ten-year period. This phasing concept is based upon both existing market characteristics, the existing lack of formal_ development plans for the project's non- residential Components (e.g., formal park plan, commercial site plan) and the resulting public ownership of a portion of the resulting commercial site. 6 Under the proposed development plan, all of the residential dwelling units (i.e., 200 units), one-half of the commercial/office use (i.e., 145,000 square feet) and -the park site will be completed within a projected five-year period. Phase I has been further divided into three separate components. These components include: o Phase IA (Enclave 3) includes approximately 91 single-family homes (i.e., Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400) that will have primary access from Brea Canyon Road. o phase IB (Enclave 1) includes approximately 109 single- family homes (i.e., Vesting Tentative Tract No. 51407 and Tentative Tract 51253) that will be located southwest of South Pointe Middle School. Six homes will be located along Larkstone Drive, with vehicular access to the remaining homes provided by way of the local streets constructed as part of the project. Primary access to the project will be via Brea Canyon Road, with secondary access provided through the adjoining residential neighborhood to Colima Road. The project includes the construction of a new collector road - "A" that will tie into both Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon Road. o Phase IC (Enclave 4) includes the commercial component of the project and is located along Brea Canyon Road, between Enclave 3 and "A" Street. Access to the retail uses will be provided from the new project roadway and one driveway on Brea Canyon Road. The exact location of the access point(s) is (are) not known at this time and will be determined when the site plan(s) for that use is developed. The remaining 145,000 square feet of commercial/office use (i.e., Phase II) is projected to be completed within a term of approximately ten years. D. Development Agreement In 1979 the California legislature added Article 2.5 to the Governm*nt Code. Article 2.5 provides municipalities with the ability to enter into a development agreement with any property owner. In adding Article 2.5 to the Government Code the Legislature found that the lack of certainty in the 1pproval of development projects was resulting in - the waste of resources, M` escalating -the cost of housing and other _development and discouraging investment and commitment in long term planning. 7 Development agreements provide assurance to the applicant that upon project approval, the applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and conditions of approval in force at the time of execution of the agreement. A development agreement shall specify the duratic of the agreement, the permitted uses of the prope-ty, density/intensity of use, maximum building height and size and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. The agreement may provide that construction shall commence within a specified time, in^'.uding "he identification of phases. Simply, the development agreemen- >stabl.shes the terms and conditions by which development ... proceed and provides the applicant assurances based on the applicant's commitment to timing and compliance with the terms and conditions. E. Land Trades/Transfer or Development Rights Assemblage of the project site will require several actions: (1) transfer of a 3+ acre undeveloped parcel (Larkstone Park) from the City of Diamond Bar to the Walnut Valley Unified School District; (2) conveyance of an area of approximately 2 acres (located southerly of Larkstone Drive) from the chool District to the City; (3) conveyance of the 2+ acre parcel to RnP Development; (4) conveyance of parkland (Enclave 5) from RnP Development to the City (5) vacation of 6+ acres of City -owned Brea Canyon Road right-of-way to project applicants for residential/commercial purposes and (6) acquisition by the City of 4+ acres of existing Walnut Valley Water District land and subsequent conveyance to the project a-ilicants for residential/commercial purposes. The City may 3o pursue the acquisition or trade of the 3+ acres hilltop ani at the end of Larkstone Drive from the School District for park purposes. In addition, the City will receive 10+ acres of commercial property per the terms of the development agreement from RnP. If the City permits a transfer of development rights (TDR) to another site then the commercial dedication can be increased to 15 acres once entitlement is obtained at the TDR receiving site. F. Compliance with Hillside Ordinance The City of Diamond Bar's adopted .Hills.ide Management Ordinance contains several 'sections which provide guidelines and standards for evaluating hillside development projects. The following analysis focuses on those sections of the ordinance wnich set specific guidelines or standards. 8 Section 1 Purpose The South Pointe Master Plan is consistent with the purpose statement of the Hillside Management Ordinance in that:" The location of Enclave 5 (Park/Open Space) is situated in a manner that it preserves views to the hillside area, concentrates the development enclaves (Enclaves 1-4) in those areas with the least environmental impact, ut.ilization of Enclave 5 for parks/open space preserves where possible the natural topography and significant swales. The Master Plan contains hillside development standards (Section VI) which provide direction and encourage sensitivity hillside grading. The project EIR assessed the environmental impacts of the project. The open space design of the plan coupled with project mitigation measures provides an environmental equilibrium relative to native vegetation, geology, slopes and drainage patterns. The combination of hillside development standards and land planning provide a correlation between the intensity of development with the steepness of the terrain. The plan includes an effective circulation pattern. Sections 2-5 The proposed Master Plan would uses appropriate to a hillside the General Plan and a maximum whereby development constraints (reference project EIR). Section 10 permit a project which introduces setting, density consistent with number of residential units (200) have been eliminated or mitigated The proposed project includes grading techniques which minimize grading in portions of the project. Limited portions of the project include conventional grading, however, the plan compensates by incorporating extensive open space and significant use of green belts. Section 11 The proj*ct grading plan illustrates slope design which includes rounding of ridgeline cuts, concave canyon fills and rounding of transition edges where appropriate. Grading design with these elements is especially prevalent within Enclave 5 transition areas which border Enclaves 1. and 3. The South Pointe Master Plan (Section VI) includes hillside development standards which are complimentary to the standards and guidelines contained within the City's Hillside Management Ordinance. 9 development standards and land planning provide a correlation between the intensity of development with the steepness of the terrain. The plan includes an effective circulation pattern. Sections 2-5 The proposed Master Plan would permit a project which introduces uses appropriate to a hillside setting, density consistent with the General Plan and a maximum number of residential units (200) whereby development constraints have been eliminated or mitigated (reference project EIR). Section 10 The proposed project includes grading techniques which minimize grading in portions of the project. Limited portions of the project include conventional grading, however, the plan compensates by incorporating extensive open space and significant use of green belts. Section 11 The project grading plan illustrates slope design which includes rounding of ridgeline cuts, concave canyon fills and rounding of transition edges where appropriate. Grading design with these elements is especially prevalent within Enclave 5 transition areas which border Enclaves 1 and 3. The South Pointe Master Plan development standards which are and guidelines contained within Ordinance. G. Sales Tax Revenue (Section VI) includes hillside complimentary to the standards the City's Hillside Management The project as proposed includes approximately 290,000 square feet of commercial/office development within Enclave 4. Depending on the mix of uses within Enclave 4 the resultant sales tax revenue received by the City can vary. Three coMercial/office land use mix scenarios were developed to demonstrate the range of sales tax revenue. SCENARIO LAND USi 6QUARE FOOTAGE ;ANNUAL Rt;IANUE 1. Commercial (1001) 290,000 $791,700 2. 508 Commercial/508 Office 145,000 each use $376,283 3. Office (908)/Commercial (108) 261,000 Office $ 88,662 39,000 Commercial 10 G. Sales Tax Revenue The project as proposed includes feet of commercial/office developmentlmaWethln�90,Q-00 square Enclave 4. Depending on the mix of uses within Enclave 4 the resultant sales tax revenue received by the City can vary. Three commercial/office land use mix scenarios were developed to demonstrate the range of sales tax revenue. SCENARIO LAND USE SQUARE FOOTAGE ANNUAL REVENUE 1. Commercial (100$) 290,000 $791,700 2• 508 Commercial/508 Office 145,000 each use $376,283 3. Office (908)/Commercial (108 261,000 Office $ 88,662 39,000 Commercial Scenario 1 assumes 1008 development with commercial uses. It was assumed that the commercial uses would function similar to a neighborhood center (upper decile), given the site's proximity to residential neighborhoods and visibility from the 57 Freeway. Scenario 1 sales tax revenue was estimated at foot.* Scenario 2 assumed a 5273.98 per square 5 Office uses. Sales tax revenue was assumed at 100,000 for the commercial t between uacommercial sqre footage square square feet (neighborhood center) 45,000 feet as convenience center/office support square foot).* Scenario 3 assumed a dmi ($227.34 per environment with a 108 convenience commercial office support. Obviously the greater amount of squarfootag commercial uses results in higher ann alerevenueseto the devoteCity. d to demands will Market drive the land use mix for Enclave 4. However, given visibility from the 57 Freeway and accessibility from surrounding residential neighborhoods, it is reasonable to assume that a fair percentage of the square footage will be devoted to neighborhood and convenience commercial uses. The site's proximity to the Pathfinder Road on and off ram Potential for freeway-orientatedp provides site regional commercial. During Plan review of the commercial/office parcels it may be prudent to evaluate the proposed land use mix. +. In addition to saps tax revenue, the ;City of Daiittirid Br ill own 10-15 acres of land within Enclave 4 and receive additional property tax associated with increased structure and land values. As property owner the City will receive substantial revenues upon the sale of land or negotiation of land leases. Commercial Property prices currently average about $10.00 per square foot or 11 $435,600.00 per acre. Ten acres of commercial property would sell for approximately $4.3 million dollars. If the City choose to lease the land, City revenues would be approximately 8-108 of land value annually, or $430,000.00. This value does not consider a 5 -year escalator associated with long term leases. H. Alternatives Considered The project EIR analyzed a range of project alternatives including alternative site plans (Cr- 7ept Plans 1-4) which considered design options for the p.. je to a full range of land use/development alternate. -es as discussed in Chapter 6 of the EIR. * Source Urban Land institute, Urban Decision Systems 12 EIR Land Use/Development Alternatives The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126(d)) require that in addition to the project, a reasonable range of altern&tives to the pending action (which could feasibly attain the basic. objectives of the project) be evaluated. The consideration of a "no project" alternative is required by statute as one of the alternatives which require analysis. The first of these "no project" alternatives assumes that the project area is retained in its existing condition and that no development of that area would be anticipated to occur at this time. The second scenario (i.e., development in accordance with existing plans and policies) acknowledges that site intensification may occur over time in accordance with applicable public policy (i.e., no discretionary approvals are issued upon the project site). In addition to the two "no project" alternatives identified above, four other project options were analyzed including a reduced project size (e.g., deletion of that area comprising Tentative Tract No. 51253), an alternative site plan incorporating cluster development, development of only that area comprising Tentative Tract No. 51253 and a more intense development alternative (i.e., reduction of the proposed park site 'and a corresponding increase in residential and non- residential development). No Project Alternative The Master Environmental Assessment contains a number of policies supporting the preservation of existing undeveloped land within the City for both their aesthetic and biological value. In reference to those policies, "Sandstone Canyon' (which includes a portion of the project site)' is identified as an area of potential preservation. in conformance with those policies the "no project" (i.e., no development) alternative assumes that the project site would be retained as undeveloped land. Under this alternative, development rights to the project would be conve"d (through either public acquisition or implementation of a transfer of development rights). Without public intervention and ;i -n recognition of existing market • forces, there is little likelihbdd that -the, s-ite •would be retained in its existing condition. The proximity of adjoining residential and commercial land uses, the ready availability of existing infrastructure improvements and the land use policies contained in both the City of Diamond Bar General Plan and Zoning ordinance all positively influence the site's subsequent urbanization. Based upon these factors, the "no project" option should not be considered a feasible alternative without public and/or private participation. 13 General Plan Authority Alternativ The project site includes a number of Ge::_�ral Plan designations, including Planned Development (Low Density Residential)--, Planned Development (Low -Density Residential, Park, Open Space, General Commercial), School, Park and Water (Facility). In accordance with those 'designations and corresponding public policies, allowable land uses and densities for the subject property were defined. Development of the project site in accordance with the land use policies presented in the General Plan wou-d authorize the intensification of the project area to a greater extent than that proposed under the South Pointe Master Plan. Hillside Management Ordinance Alternative The City's Hillside Management Ordinance imposes specific standards upon those areas subject to the jurisdiction of that ordinance. Based upon the methodology outlined under the Hillside Management Ordinance, of the 139+ acres (excluding the existing South Pointe Middle School site) contained within this project area, an estimated 98.2+ acres must be retained for active and/or passive recreational use. Under this alternative (and in accordance with th_ provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance), an estimated 130 dwelling units cin be developed on-site. Alternative Site Plan - Cluster Development Under this alternative, development is restricted to those areas of the site which would produce the least impact to Sandstone Canyon. Development is proposed only along Brea Canyon Road (in the vicinity of the Walnut Valley Water District site) and in the western area of the site. Under the cluster development concept Enclave 1 consisted of 5,000 square foot postage stamp lots, Enclave 3 contained attached townhomes (14-20 dwelling units per acre) with extensive use of retaining walls and Enclave 4 consisted of 2.5 acres of commercial land uses. Preservation of Sandstone Canyon through thi-&- land use concep• introduces high density residential development patterns whic.. are not consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods and educes the commercial development potential of land with free,.ay visibility to a minimum, thereby not fulfilling City objectives associated with increasing employment opportunities and the sales tax revenue base. 14 Maximum Development Alternative Under - this alternative the project site is further intensified through both the introduction of additional single-family detached dwelling units and by further expanding the acreage allocated for commercial/office uses. A total of 220 residential units and an estimated 302,960 square feet of non-residential use would be developed under this option. Tentative Tract No. 51253 Alternatives A separate tentative tract map (i.e., Tentative Tract No. 51253) has been filed on that 6.87+ acre property location in the northwestern corner of the project site. Development alternatives for this site were analyzed in the EIR. Summary of EIR Alternatives Compared to Project Alternative In selecting between project alternatives, there is not a single solution which minimizes environmental impacts and maximizes public benefits for each of the topical issues addressed under this environmental analysis. For example, while the "no project" (preservation) alternative minimizes or avoids many of the adverse environmental effects, that alternative requires the development of alternative solutions to remove and dispose of the surplus soil presently stockpiled on the South Pointe Middle School site, reduces job opportunities as encouraged under the Growth Management Plan (SCAG, February 1989) and may inhibit the City's goal to expand active recreational opportunities throughout the community. In addition, the "no project" alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and would require the adoption of a General Plan amendment identifying the site as permanent open space. In accordance with Section 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines, alternatives which provide a reduction in project density should only be considered if there does not exist another mitigation measure or measures which will provide a comparable level of mitigation. Referencing those guidelines, "with respect to the project which includes housing development, the public agency shall not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that .there is another feasible specific mitigat!Dn measure available that- vtill rproyide. a comparable level of mitigation". 15 Concept Plan Alternatives Concept Plan No. 1 Concept Plan No. 1 includes the development of roadway linkages between Larkstone Drive and Brea Canyon Road and Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon Road as proposed in the South Pointe Master Plan. Access between Enclaves 3 and 4 is provided by a stubbed street. Under this concept plan, a conceptual park plan is provided. The park is approximately 8 acres in size and could accommodate several baseball fields and public parking. Concept Plan No. 2 The linkage between Larkstone Drive r the oposed inte ial roadway connecting Morning Sun Avenue i Brt: Canyon Road was modified to accommodate only emergenvy access. A turnout (illustrated by a loop road) is provided from the proposed collector road to facilitate drop-off and/or pick-up of students attending the South Pointe Middle School. The commercial site plan is modified to reflect two primary points of ingress and egress (including additional emergency access from Tentative Tract No. 32400), allowing vehicular access from both Brea Canyon Road and the proposed internal collector road. Commercial uses are situated within the quadrants formed by that access with additic^al circulation provided by a peripheral driveway. Concept Plan No. 3 Under this concept plan, no directi vehicular linkage is provided between Larkstone Drive and Brea Canyon Road (although access continues to exist between Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon Road,). Vehicular access to the school site is, however, provided from Brea Canyon Road by way of a local collector street. That collector provides access to a cul-de-sac adjoining South Pointe Middle School, offering ingress/egress to on-site parking and drop-off/pick-up opportunities for school-age children. The cul- de-sac further services a single centralized parking area for the proposed park site. In order to create alarge arep fear organized recreational activities, the -,.lignment for the collector ,street is. ,re=arienter in a southerly direction. The 3+ acre urid ,eloped schoolhilltoc at the end of Larkstone Drive is added to the park for a tot-_ of 10-11 acre pa -.k site. In relocating that roadway, a larger playing field can t provided. In addition, Collector 'A' provides ample on-str 4t parking opportunities for park users. 16 Under this concept access between commercial land uses (Enclave 4) and park lands is enhanced. In addition, Enclaves 4 and 5 (commercial and open space) are visually and physically linked through reduction in grade differential. Concept Plan 3 provides increased pedestrian safety by providing improved access between commercial structures and supporting vehicular parking areas. Pedestrians do not have to cross collector road "A" while moving between the commercial and park enclaves. Concept Plan No. 4 Under this concept plan, the internal collector road (i.e., Street "A") connecting Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon Road has been realigned in a northerly direction to position the eastern segment of that roadway between Enclave No. 3 (i.e., Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400) and Enclave No. 4 (i.e., commercial/office use). This layout may increase traffic noise due to street grade, for Enclave 3 residences which back-up to Collector "A". This design concept increases both the physical separation between those residential and non-residential uses and increases the park acreage potentially usable for active and/or passive recreational pursuits. By limiting street frontage in the vicinity of the proposed park site, vehicular access opportunities to that future park area may, however, be reduced. In addition, this street layout tends to isolate the park/open space acreage as opposed to making the parkland the center of the South Pointe community. School Site Alternatives Implementation of the proposed development will require landform alternations affecting most of the project area and including a portion of the existing South Pointe Middle School site. Fill materials for Enclave 3 will be derived in part from the existing school site which adjoins the project. In recognition of this proposed off-site grading, the area encompassing the South Pointe Middle School (i.e., approximately 32 acres) has been inclded in the 'total master plan area'. This component of the proposed grading plan was previously addresped id the Final Envirdnmental Impact Report for- the Walnut. Valley Unified School District School Site. In dbscribing the proposed school site project, the referenced environmental document indicated that the school project 'consists of a 30.64 acre school site which will involve 997,000 cubic yards of - grading, and adjacent TT (Tentative Tract No.) 32400 and 800,000 17 cubic yards of grading. The dirt from the hills of the school site will be pushed east into the valley which lies in between the school site and the tract". That environmental assessment further states: "The (South Pointe Middle School) project will be constructed by typical hillside grading operations (i.e., the excavation of hilltops and filling in of depressions in areas proposed for development). (In this case however, the grading pattern is more dramatic, because of the steep h._lls and deep valleys.) The alteration of this particular landform will involve a total of 1.8 million cubic yards of grading for the entire project area (school site plus Tentative Tract No. 32400 tract). This entails 997,000 cubic yards for the school, and about 800,000 cubic yards for the tract. The maximum depth of fill is estimated at 100 feet". "The easterly adjacent fill disposal site will receive excess soil materials derived from the school site grading. Compacted fill materials derived from the school site grading (sic). Compacted fill materials will be placed within the major north to south trending natural drainage course in thickness varying up to 60+ feet. A 2:1 fill slope is also proposed at the southerly end of the canyon to a height of up to 80+ feet. Grading is not planned at the present time in peripheral areas located beyond the canyon. Tentative Tract (No.) 32400 is ultimately proposed within the fill disposal. area". No Project (South Pointe Middle School) If a "no project" alternative is selected for th site then an alternative plan would be required to dispose of the surplus (stockpiled) soil presently on the South Pointe Middle School site. As proposed, as part of the project, the stockpiled soil will be used within the project boundaries. Under a 'no project" alternative the surplus soil would require off-site exportation to an approved depository. In addition, depositing the soil at an alternative site could require an addendum or supplement to the South Pointe Middle School FEIR prepared by the Walnut Valley Unified School District. The additional time to prepare the rev" #ed EIR _(si.L"Okenths) and cost would be borne by the School • - 0LAtri(;.Jt ,g+ -fir y i The need for additional' environmental.,analysis under a "no project" alternative is based on a substant.al increase in construction related environmental impacts associated with removal of the stockpiled dirt. 18 If the stockpiled dirt were disposed of at a sanitary landfill it would impact landfill capacity. In addition, the transportation of the soil to the landfill or alternative development site would require 25,640 truck trips (average disposal truck can hold 31.2 cubic yards). If disposal occurred over a one year period and you consider that construction activity occurs only during weekdays, then one could anticipate approximately 150 truck trips to occur each day for a year. These trucks would emit noise and air pollutants traveling back and forth from the disposal site. If the trucks used local residential streets then adjacent residential neighborhoods would be impacted. If a haul road was created through the project site there would be an increase in PM10 emissions. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. Background Public Resource Code 21000 et seq imposes specific statutory and procedural requirements upon "discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies". That statute, more generally referred to as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), indicates that public agencies must prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) when it is determined that the proposed action "may have a significant effect on the environment". Based upon the submittal of formal applications and payment of fees by a number of property owners (i.e., Arciero & Sons, Inc., RnP Development, Inc., Sasak Corporation) to amend the City of Diamond Bar General Plan to authorize the development of a mixed- use project on a 171 + acre site within the City, the City caused to be prepared an Initial Study for the purpose of conducting a preliminary assessment of the potential environmental effects of both the approval and the subsequent development and habitation of the project area in accordance with those applications. The Initial Study concluded that the project had the potential to produce significant adverse environmental impacts upon a number of topical environmental issues and concluded that an EIR should be prepaaad to more thoroughly address the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of those actions. As a- result of that preliminary cotii:3usi$ii an� as required under the Guidelines for the Implementation Of the 'California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines), the City prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) indicating the City's intent to prepare (or cause to be prepared) an EIR for the project and transmitted that NOP to those public agencies required to receive notice and to those individuals who formally 14 requested notification. Receipt of the NOP by the State Office of Planning and Research, acting in its capacity as State Clearinghouse, commenced a 30 -day comment period during which public agencies submitted comments to the City addressing issues warranting inclusion in the environmental ana',sis. Subsequent to the conclusion of that commen period, the City released the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the So_ -h Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040 (Draft EIR) analyzing project's potential impacts and containing that informatn required under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. �n conjunction with the Draft EIR, a Notice of Completion (NOC) was disseminated in a manner as required by law. Receipt of the Draft EIR and NOC by the State Clearinghouse initiated a 45 -day comment period for both governmental agencies and the general public concerning the adequacy of that environmental analysis. To facilitate public review of the Draft EIR, the City published a notice in a newspaper of general circulation, notified adjoining property owners and posted the project site. Based upon those actions, the State review period concluded on January 14, 1993 and the public comment period concluded on January 18, 1993. Based upon written comments received during that review period, the City (acting through its environmental consultant) is currently in the process of preparing a -raft Response to Comments document, providing a technical response to each of those written inquiries. That Response to Comment document will be returned to the Planning Commission subsequent to the closure of the Commission's public hearing(s) on the project's environmental documentation. The Draft EIR, Response to Comments and such other documents as deemed appropriate by the City, constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed project. Prior to taking action on the project, the Ay must certify the Final EIR, make appropriate Findings as -equired by statute, state in writing the specific reasons to support its actions when such actions will allow the occurrence of significant environm*ntal effects (i.e., Statement of Overriding Considerations) and adopt a Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program. to ensure the incorporation of those mitigation measures identified in the Finil EIR and make condi'tior)s• df project approval. Should thb City elect to deny 'a project,. no- ' certification is required by statute; however, should the -City determine that the Final EIR adequately addresses potential project -related impacts, actions upon the environmental document can be undertaken independently of actions on the proposed project. B. Summary of Significant Impacts Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR will reduce many of the identified project: related environmental impacts to a level which is not significant. However, unavoidable adverse air quality and traffic impacts will continue to remain after the application of mitigation measures. These impacts relate predominately to cumulative development activities anticipated to occur within the project area and will occur notwithstanding whether the City elects to adopt the South Pointe Master Plan. Environmental impacts found to be significant are listed below: o Air Quality. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in the generation of either short-term (i.e., construction -related) or long-term air quality impacts. As a result, the project, when examined in isolation of other development activities anticipated to occur during the buildout term of the project, will not produce a significant air quality impact. However, in recognition of cumulative development activities in conjunction with the existing "non -attainment" status of the South Coast Air Basin, cumulative air quality impacts have been determined to be significant. o Traffic/Circulation. Based upon cumulative development activities, in combination with ambient traffic volume projections, a number of project area intersections are anticipated to experience a deterioration in their existing service levels. Although identified roadway improvements will minimize many of those identified impacts, select intersections will exhibit LOS E or LOS F level of service conditions. If the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the development package, then it will be necessary for the City Council to adopt Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations outlining the factors associated with the decision. C. Development Within Sandstone Canyon While no significant biological resources have been identified within the p;oj ect site pursuant to State and federal law, the General Plan Master Environmental Assessment identifies Sandstone Canyon as a "site of local concern", indicating that the site would be "considered for preservation'. Based upon this reference, the ultimate disposition of this site (e.g., development vs. preservation) constitutes an area of potential controversy. 21 Although not developed as a policy document, the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) represents a companion document to both the City of Diamond Bar General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report developed for that planning document. Referenc'_ng the MEA, "this document provides comprehensive informat.on regarding the physical, social and economic elements influencing the planning of Diamond Bar. This information is intended as baseline data for the General Plan program". Only limited direct references to the project site are provided in the MEA. In its discussion of the process of prioritizing existing open space resources for potential preservation, the document includes the following project area reference: "The various building constraints and/or environmental resources of each area must be weighed relative to each other including the owner's right to develop some portion of the property. The City may wish to consider the following areas (among others) within its boundaries for potential preservation: slopes and/or canyons west of the (SR-) 57 Freeway, both north and south of Pathfinder (Road): east and south of South Pointe Intermediate School (Sandstone Canyon)". The Master Environmental Assessment has identified the proposed project site, particularly Sandstone Canyon, as a potential wildlife corridor to nearby Puente Hills. Although the site may (at one time) have been a wildlife corridor, extensive development currently surrounding the site has essentially established an effective barrier making the site an isolated, fragmented system where an existing viable corridor seems highly unlikely. No conclusive data, documentation or justification exists to support the supposition that the site is an active wildlife corridor. As indicated in the MEA, "the major issues facing the City regarding biological resources deal with possible preservation of natural areas (canyons, hillsides, etc.) within the City versus development potential". As indicated in the alternatives section, a 100$ preservation option would require purchase of the project site. The site is valued at over 10 million dollars (excluding Tentative Tract 51253). Given the lack of public Jun4s for 'open space acquisitbion-.and the., land owners right under 'current General Plan designations,--the- South Pointe Master Plan represents a prudent land use plan, which provides parkland and open space resources. In addition, Enclaves 4 and 5 will maximize development alternatives associated with proximity to regional transportation facilities (SR -57) and planned expansion of public facilities (South Pointe Middle School) . D. Oak Tree and Native Vegetation Removal The majority of the vegetation on the site is Inland Sage scrub and Coast Live Oak Woodland. The sage scrub and some mixed chaparral is found on the slopes of the property. The oak woodlands are associated with the canyon bottoms and side channels. In accordance with City requirements an oak tree inventory was conducted. In total, 835 Coast Live Oak Trees over 3 inches or more in diameter at a five foot height were located on the project site. Ninety-two percent or 768 of the 835 oak trees will be removed as a result of proposed grading activities on-site. In accordance with the Oak Tree Permit Ordinance, the oak trees which will be removed from the site will be replaced as identified in the ordinance at a rate of 2:1. 1,536 replacement oak trees will be placed both on-site in accordance with the landscape plan and off-site in accordance with a replacement plan acceptable both to the applicant and the City. The EIR contains mitigation measures (Section 4.4.3) which require a project landscape palette emphasizing drought tolerant and native plant species thereby off -setting the loss of native vegetation. The EIR concluded that although project implementation will result in the removal of on-site vegetation and given that the site does not contain any endangered plant or animal species, elimination of the existing vegetation will not significantly affect regional biological resources. E. Blue -Line Streams There presently exist two drainage courses on the project site which are illustrated as blue—line streams on the 7.5 minute United States Geological Survey Yorba Linda Quadrangle. All or a portion of these drainages are subject to the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (under Sections 1601-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code) and United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act). California Fish and Game Codes 1601-1607 establish the need for an -'agreement• for any proj49t which will direct,. obstruct or change the natural flow or bed, channel or "bank of any stream designated by the Department of Fish and Game in which there is at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or which benefit can be derived. 23 iZ •s4Oedwr 4aalozd aas-;;o dTag. YTTM RQTgM s�utwaeoadcT dt*M0vdi; - pue UO -E , $za�vT aznsu-L••T.64 saan'seadi v0t�e6T;�tI�?- aye q�T•;Tubz's aq of p940aCo2d aze suOT4SftI84uT eazfor �oaTas :IE s;oedm-r pa�eTaz-oez� aeTIeTmmno 'suo?snTduoo asag; vodn paseq •aova4uas snonaazd aq; UT P91;?4uOPT su01go68304uT 044 4e sTanaT OT;;ezq ajge;dsooeun uT ;Tnsaz pTnoM q:IM016.OT;;ez; JusTgwe IDOE02d sT44 4no441M zo 44Tm :IEq4 zagmamaz o; ;ve:120dmt sT :I •sdweli LS -HS punogq;zoK/PEoH 39puT;44ed (9) pue :anTia sbuTzdS uapTo9/PeoH encTTcD/peoS ledme uo�LuEO eazg (5) i 09-8S punoq;seg/peo-d eml*(£) :anuanV uomaZ/peo�i emTTo, (Z) t;;04n0 UOAUe0 eazg/peog ewTTOD (T) :svoT7:7�9sz8:JuT 6uTMoTTo; a:i; '4e poTzed Need auo 49e9T :Ip buTinp 3 SO'_ = :)3 SO'7 ;o s:Iseoazo; (SO'I) OOTnzaS ;o TanarI uT -4Tnsai TTTm 0Z zea.j aql gbnozg4 paTapow se 'AITUTOTn ;oaCozd aqq UT zn000 oq ',,,a,4edioTauv ggmOIS O4ua?gmV •suc �Oasza�uT pane 9oaCozd ;: zagwnu a �e 'eTza�Tzo pT0458l44 Q SO►I a puoAaq 'sTanaT ao?nzas E �stxa ;o voT�ezoTza4ap a ut 4Tnsaz o; pazedToTaue ale s4oedmt F=:.pTaz-o?33P1� (szo�oe; y.4Moz6 ;ua?gwe pule saj;TnT�Oe ;OaCozd pagetaz '•a•T) an?4eTnwno 14.70^46U�LEMpeoz s,eaze aye 4ovdwt AT4ue3T;Tv6Ts 4ov TTTM uOI4p4uawaTdwT ;oaCozd 46no4;TV e Pup sTsATeue uoT;oaszaqut •luawssesse ioedwT anTIeTnwno '(�uawu6Tsse pue UOT4ngtz*sTp oT;;E1; Pup 4seo920; uo?as:auab OT;;ez.4 uo paseq) uoTipnTena ;oedwt buTIseOazo; OT;;ez4 'bu?segd 4oaCozd papnTouT pup elep auno* OT;;ezI buT;s?xa uo paseq sem Apn;s OT;;ez; aqy •?II3 4OaCozB aq� 30 �uawdoTanap gITM uoT;ounCuoO vt paaaTdwoo sem Apngs OT;;Ez; V aoH zapu?;q;ed PUe Peog ew?To0 'peog uodue0 eazg apnTOuT a;Ts 4oaCozd aq; 6u?4295 sApmpeoz TeOOT dax •Aemaaij (09 -US) euowod ay4 pue Aemaaz3 (LS -US) 96uezp aye Aq paptnozd ST a -41S -4OaCozd ay; 0; ssaooe TevoTbag UOT;eTnOzTO/UOT;e4zodsuezy •3 'U014EOTTdde T09T/$0t ayq gIjm palTnbaz sanTonu aq TT?M upTd UOT�pbTZTw a U0,44 'sanTen 4eaTgey ;o ssoT ay; - Te?za4ew TTT; ;o 4uawaoeTd aye ;I •;uawaazbe L091-TO91 autluanTq waa U0t a UTe4go asnw ;ueoTTdde aye 941s-uo sweazjs y�?m Te?za;pw TTT; 6uToeTd o,4 zoTzd 'azo3azays •sa4eas 'pa4Tup ay; ;o zaaeM z0/pup aoznosaz a3TTPT?M e uIz04a Op PUT ue Be pasn air swe924s auTT-enTq saoup4swnozTO yioq ;S pagTun 8141 ;o S.79-4em o�UT TeTla;pw TTT; .70 Pa6pazp 30 a6ze s p aye ale -^bas ;Twzad tot sza9UT6U3 ;o sdzo0 aqq asTMaNTZ G. Air Quality The first echelon in the air quality impact analysis consists of comparing project -induced air pollutant emissions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) New Source Review (NSR) threshold values. The NSR threshold values have been developed by the SCAQMD as an indices to determine the significance of a project. A project capable of producing daily emissions of one or more of these criteria pollutants at or beyond these NSR threshold values is considered significant. The NSR threshold values are identified in the following table. SCAQMD NSR THRESHOLD VALUES Air Pollutant Carbon Monoxide Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Oxides Particulates (PM) Reactive Organic Gases Lead Threshold Values (lbs/day) 550 150 100 150 75 3 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District Total Construction -Related Emissions. When the total daily exhaust emissions from the construction equipment are added to the estimated fugitive dust emissions, only one of the SCAQMD NSR threshold values (i.e., nitrogen oxides) would be exceeded, as shown in the following table. The amount of nitrogen oxides emissions is more than seven times the SCAQMD's NSR value; therefore, NO emissions represent a potentially significant short-term air quality impact. Impacts based on NSR threshold levels for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, particulates and reactive hydrocarbons would not be considered significant (i.e., do not exceed NSR threshold criteria). TOTAL CONSTRUCTION -RELATED EMISSIONS Air Pollutant Carbon Monoxide Reactive Hydrocarbons Nitrogen Oxides Sulfur Oxides Particulates (PM) Source: Ultrasystems Emissions (lbs/day) 25 SCAQMD Fugitive NSR Threshold Exhaust Dust Total (lbs/day) 292 -- 292 550 52.1 -- 52.1 75 785 -- 785 100 81.5 -- 81.5 150 62.3 55 117 150 25 Long-term Emissions. Long-term impacts associated with the proposed project consist of emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources include off- site generation of electricity, as weal as on-site use"of natural gas for space heating and water heating. Mobile sources refer to motor vehicle traffic generated from uses within the proposed project. Total Build -out Emissions (Long-term). Total daily build -out emissions are given in the following table titled Total Daily Build -out Emissions. These long-term emissions include those from both stationary sources (i.e., natural gas consumption and electrical generation) and mobile (i.e., motor vehicle) sources. As shown in the table, the total daily emissions associated with the build -out of the proposed project were determined to range from 1.5 pounds per day of sulfur oxides to 603 pounds per day of carbon monoxide. Project Significance. The SCAQMD has suggested general NSR threshold values for air pollutant emissions as a means of, assessing the potential significance of a proposed project's emissions upon ambient air quality. It should be noted that according to the SCAQMD's Air Quality Handbook for Preparing Environmental Impact Reports, the NSR threshold values are to be considered as suggestions only. The original intent of the SCAQMD NSR threshold values was to provide guidelines for stationary sources. Subsequently, the SCAQMD requested that total project emissions (mobile and stationary) be compared to the NSR threshold values in order to generally determine the significance of project emissions. This analysis utilized the NSR threshold values as the criteria to determine the potential significance of the air pollutant emissions associated with the build -out of the proposed project. In the table ti ;d Comparison of Total Build -out Emissions with SCAQMD NSR Thees :.Ld Values, the NSR threshold values are compared to the estimated total build -out emissions. As shown in the table, emissions of carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides would exceed their respective NSR threshold values. These emissions, primarily associated with the vehicular traffic, would be considered to have a potentially significant adverse impact. 26 COMPARISON OF TOTAL BUILD -OUT EMISSIONS WITH SCAQMD NSR THRESHOLD VALUES Total Project Emissions ThresSCAQMD hold Values Air Pollutant (lbs/da ) (lbs/da ) Carbon Monoxide 603 550 Reactive Hydrocarbons 57.3 75 Nitrogen oxides 325 100 Sulfur Oxides 1.5 150 Particulates (PM) 69.7 150 Source: Ultrasystems During construction operations, projected nitrogen oxide emissions are anticipated to exceed established SCAQMD threshold criteria for significance. Long-term emissions for both carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides, due predominantly to motor vehicle traffic generated by the proposed project, are expected to have a significant impact on regional air quality according to the SCAQMD's New Source methodology. H. Noise The only appreciable existing noise sources affecting the project area is motor vehicle traffic noise associated with the Orange (SR -57) Freeway and Brea Canyon Road. The impact of these noise sources on the project site were modeled as a result of the noise analysis conducted for the EIR. All existing residential land uses proximate to and in the vicinity of the proposed project will experience noise levels within acceptable ranges as identified in the City's General Plan Noise Element. To minimize noise levels in the vicinity of SR -57, noise attenuation will be required for future residential uses located in proximity to the Freeway. Based upon the EIR noise analysis, construction of a noise barrier of a minimum height of 8 feet (solid masonry wall, earthern berm or combination of both) will need to b* placed along the rear of Lots 34 through 42 of Tract 32400. Construction of the noise barrier as described will effectively mitigate noise to levels consistent with the City's noise guidelines. 27 I. Parkland/Open Space Currently, the City of Diamond Bar has approximately 11 acre of developed parkland per thousand residents within its jurisdictions, based on a total 59.4 acres of developed parkland and a resident population of 55,500 individuals. With the development of those existing and planned facilities identified above, total park acreage would increase to 134.9 ac_ as. At build -out, with the development of these parks and based on a projected population of 75,000 individuals the park -to -population ratio would increase to 1'.8 acres of park area per thousand residents. This ratio falls below park dedication requirements of 3 acres per thousand individuals as outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance and National Parks and Recreation Association recommendations of 5 acres per 1,000 individuals. Based upon Los Angeles County standards of 3 acres, the City would need a total of 225 acres of public parkland to support a projected population of 75,000 residents. When comparing this standard with projected park acreage within the City, a shortfall of 90 acres can be identified. Provision of additional parkland beyond those levels anticipated to result from development - related exactions can only be accommodated through the active efforts of the City. In order to increase park acreage within the City, a draft Master Plan of Parks is being developed and scheduled for completion in November 1993. Under this plan, future park dedication requirements of 5 acres per thousand population may be proposed to alleviate this current shortfall of park space. Under the proposed development plan, Larkstone Park (undeveloped) would be conveyed by the City to the Walnut valley Unified School District. In exchange, the School District would convey an area of approximately.2 acres (located southerly of Larkstone Drive) to the City of Diamond Sar. The City would subsequently convey the newly acquired residual parcel to the project applicant (i.e., RnP Development, Inc.) or applicants who would develop replacement park acreage elsewhere within the project boundaries. As a component of the project, the project applicants propose to dedicate (in accordance with the terms of a proposed development agreement and develop a 20+ acre park. The park/open space _dedication included as part of. the South Pointe Master Plap far, + exceeds `existing arr& ".p.roposed par -k dedication.. regirirement's therefore representing a net benefit to the City,. In addition to the 20 -ac-: park dedi. on, the project includes several open space addit.ons. Two space areas in the east and the west of the project will be tained by the Home Owners 28 Association. The open space areas will provide for the protection of natural resource values and will total approximately 35 acres. South Pointe Middle School (Ejiclave 2) consists of 32 acres, of which half will be devoted to active open space uses. Total Park/Open Space acreage within the South Pointe Master Plan will approximate 91 acres. J. Aesthetics The project site is presently vacantpnd contains only limited physical improvements except for past grading activities in the northern end of the project site where extensive disturbance has already occurred within Sandstone Canyon associated with Vesting Tentative Tract 32400. As discussed under item B the majority of the site is currently covered by natural vegetation. Sandstone Canyon contains a dense vegetation cover including a significant number of oak trees. According to the Visual Resource Analysis contained in the EIR, the site's existing botanical resources constitutes the site's most significant aesthetic values. Development of the project will require landform alterations to create building pads and accommodate roads. Grading plans denote the removal of existing ridgelines and filling of low-lying areas. In order to illustrate proposed changes in site topography a number of section drawings were developed pursuant to the City's Interim Hillside Management Ordinance and are contained within the project EIR. The areas of maximum cut and fill fall within the boundaries of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400. The maximum cut identified therein will occur in that area of the abandoned Walnut Valley water District tank site and is estimated to be approximately 97 feet. The maximum fill will occur in the area of Sandstone Canyon and will be approximately 75 feet. Project implementation will further result in the elimination of the existing soil stockpile now evident in proximity to the South Pointe Middle School. The projected maximum cut in the area of that borrow site is approximately 70 feet. .lm&lementation of project grading plans will both alter existing • ;Y: 's'it� topography and change the perception of the site as perceived by off-site observers. Motorists traveling along Brea Canyon Road are offered only .a• limited vier ol" the 'psdject site.,., with the majority of the site -obscured by intervening slope areas. In the vicinity of the commercial site grading activities will result in the removal of those slope areas and allow a greater view of the interior of the project. To a lesser extent existing residential observers within a .number of adjoining 29 4 tracts (e.g., Tract Nos. 27141 and 30893) may be afforded a greater view of the site when intervening slope aLreas are eliminated or reduced. Residential observers located along Peaceful Hills Road and Shaded Wood Road will experience the most perceptible visual impacts. The elevation and orientation of those homes provides many observers with an unobstructed view of the property. Upon implementation, that view will change from a predominantly open space perspective td#that more characteristic of urban area. Through the creation of a 20+ acre park site in the �uthern area of the property and 71+ acres of op(�n space t)ughout the balance of project site, visual impacts as p_ aived from adjoining residential areas (along Peaceful Sills Rt.-: and Shaded Wood Road) will be partially mitigated. In addition, the introduction of landscape elements on-site (including the implementation of both a street tree planting program and landscape program for the site's manufactured slope area) will result in the provision of design elements which will further minimize impacts associated with the removal of existing site vegetation and provide compatibility with adjacent urban development patterns. R. General Plan Consistency Appendix A of the South Pointe Master Plan provides an explanation of project consistency with the Goals and Objectives of the various elements of the City of Diamond Bar General Plan. Please reference Appendix A for this analysis. V. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS A. Incorporation of Comments Section 15044 of the State CEQA Guidelines grants any person or entity authority to submit comments to the Lead Agency concerning the environmental effects of a proposed project subject to CEQA. All written comments received in response to the noticing and distribution of the Draft EIR and which are r-.eived during .the Not re bt Completion review period (and any ex nsions authorized by the City) Mill be included and addressed.:n the Response to Comments document. -. All written comments received in-respons.e to tkii'di-esemrnation•_ot the Draft EIR and publication of the Notice of Completion and received by the City as of the date of the preparation of this staff report have been included in Attachment A (Written Correspondence) of this document. 30 APPENDIX A GENE ,AL PLAN CONSISTENCY B. Planning Commission Review Pursuant to Section 15025(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, where an advisory body such as a planning commission is required to make recommendation on a project to the decision-making body, the advisory body is required to review and consider the EIR in draft or final form. The Planning Commission's consideration of this environmental assessment is undertaken pursuant to this statutory obligation. As indicated under Section 15087(;, of the State CEQA Guidelines, public hearings may be conducted on the environmental documents, either in separate proceedings or in conjunction with other proceedings of the public agency. Although public hearings are encouraged, public hearings are not required as an element of the CEQA process. C. Planning Commission Comments On December 14, 1992, the City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission initiated its review of the Draft EIR as part of a noticed public meeting. At that meeting, individual Commissioners raised specific questions concerning that document and offered specific comments regarding information presented in that environmental assessment. It is the intent of City staff to prepare a formal response to each of the items raised at that meeting and to incorporate those responses as part of the Response to Comment document which will be developed at the close of the Commission's public hearing(s). That Response to Comment will then be returned to the Planning Commission for their consideration. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and invite public input on both the Draft EIR and the project. The Planning Commission should close the public hearing and dir*ct discussion among the Commissioners. Staff and consultants are available to respond to Commission questions. At the conclusion of the meeting the Commission should continue the hearing to February 8, 1993, at which time additional public input will be-taken'on .the Draft EIR and the project. 30a �; I. INTRODUCTION Each goal of the General Plan has been stated within the following text. After each goal statement is a discussion explaining project consistency with the objectives (includes strategies) which support goal obtainment. At the end of each discussion the reader will find a reference identifying the specific objective the written text addresses. 31 II. LAND USE GOALS GOAL 1 "Maintain a mix of land uses which enhance the quality of life of Diamond Bar residents, consistent with its desire to maintain its quality and distinctiveness as a planned community". The South Pointe Master Plan ("project") is consistent with the land use classification system established to guide the development of public and private lands through a planned community concept. The project site contains a number of distinct land use designations, including: school, planned development (low density residential, park, open space, general commercial), water and park. The design and relationship of the five project enclaves represents an innovative use of land resources, provides a means of coordinating the provision of services and facilities and addresses the unique needs of project area lands. (Objective 1.1) Enclaves 1 and 3 establish a system of identifiable and complimentary neighborhoods. Single family neighbor- hood enclave design discourages through traffic within residential neighborhoods. Enclave 5 (Open Space/park) provides for the protection of natural resources. (Objective 1.2) Enclave 3 (290,000 square feet of commercial/office) provides adequate land for retail and service commercial to meet local and community -wide needs. Development of Enclave 4 will minimize sales tax leakage, provides for business development which takes advantage of freeway visibility, supports the establishment of neighborhood serving retail and service uses,. and encourages employment generating uses. (Objective 1.3) Enclave 2 (School) provides 32 acres of land for educational purposes thereby meeting the needs of Diamond Bar residents. (Objective 1.4) Enclave 5 (Open Space/Park) provides 20+ acres of park land which will maintain --a feeling of open space within the South Pointe planning area. In addition, -71 acres of open space lands will -be provided at the school site and in hillside locations. (Objective 1.5) The South Pointe Master Plan provide for a series of integrated enclaves which provide cohesiveness between land uses and a greater level of community amenities (20+ acre park site) and therefore creates a more desirable living environment. (Objective 1.6) 32 Enclave 5 includes the provision of a 20+ acre open space/park component which will serve as a community social gathering place (recreational and organized sports activities). The South Pointe Master Plan includes a mixture of complementary development (residential, recreational, sales tax and employment generating) in an integrated manner. The residential neighborhoods in Enclaves 1 and 3 (residential) have been designed to discourage through traffic on local streets. (Objective 1.7) GOAL 2 Manage land use with respect to the location, density and intensity and quality of development in order to maintain consistency with the capabilities of the City and special districts to provide services and to achieve sustainable use of environmental and man-made resources. Review of the South Pointe Master Plan has included preparation of an EIR which addresses the project's relationship to sensitive environmental resources, - establishes mitigation measures which utilize feasible contemporary technologies to reduce impacts and was based on time -specific issue evaluation. (Objective 2.1) The South Pointe Master Plan consists of a series of enclaves providing land use types which are complimentary to adjacent development. The project consists of single family lots, middle school, parks/open. space and commercial office development which is reflective of the intensity and density of surrounding development and complementary to the site's proximity to the 57 Freeway. (Objective 2.2) The South Pointe Master Plan includes a Public Facilities Plan (Section II Master Plan Notes) which outlines consistency of the project with the availability and adequacy of public services and facilities. The project EIR Section 4.8 (Public Services and Facilities) addresses project impacts and provides the implementation of satisfactory mitigation measures including the payment of fair, -share cost of •public improvements.' *(Objective 2.3) GOAL 3 Maintain recognition within Diamond Bar and the surrounding region as being a community _ with a well planned and aesthetically pleasing physical environment. 33 The South Pointe Master Plan includes an open space/park enclave which will provide a visual reference point and open space linkage which highlights community identity. (Objective 3.1) The open space/park enclave provides for the preservation of hillside/open space landforms and vegetation and incorporates the recreational area as a central component of the residential neighborhoods. Landscaping, perimeter wall, sign and development standards have been incorporated into each enclave's development standards thereby insuring that new development yields a pleasant living, working or shopping environment through exemplary master plan design. (Objective 3.2) The provision of open space and park wand uses and hillside development standards within the South Pointe Master Plan ensures the protection of the visual quality and character of remaining natural areas. The provision of a grading plan and hillside fire safety standards ensures that hillside development will not create unsafe conditions. (Objective 3.3) GOAL 4 "Encourage long-term and regional perspectives in local land use decisions, but not at the expense of the quality of life for Diamond Bar residents The project EIR evaluated 9 considered pot, -ial impacts on neighboring jur fictions and r( anal service providers. The project NOP and Respo. a to Comments document was coordinated with interested local, regional, State and Federal agencies. (Objective 4.1) The project does not involve the annexation of any lauds therefore the project does not affect the strategies established in objective 4.2. 34 III. HOQSING GOALS GOAL 1 "The City should provide opportunities for development of housing suitable to meet the diverse needs of residents and to support healthy economic development The project will supply housing opportunities which meet the needs of residents and future residents which comprise the upper category of the. City's five year housing need. This category represents 43% of the City's housing needs. (Objective 1.1) GOAL 2 "Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community, regardless of age, race, ethnic background, national origin, religion, family size, sex, marital status, physical conditions or any other arbitrary factors". Development of the project site (vacant) will not affect the supply of existing low or moderate cost housing. (Objective 2.1) As a site specific development project which will provide new housing opportunities the project does not affect the implementation of Objectives 2.2 or 2.3. GOAL 3 Preservation and conservation of existing housing stock and maintenance of property values and residents, quality of life. The South Pointe Master Plan provides residential and open space/park development (exceeds City park dedication standards) which will compliment and enhance adjacent existing single family neighborhoods. (Objective 3.1) Goal 3 including Objectives 3.2 and 3.3 address the pr*a*rvation and enhancement of the existing housing stOCk. Given that this project will expand the housing stock on currently vacant land this project does not directly affect implementation of Goal 3 or Objectives 3.2 and 3.3. 35 IV. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS GOAL 1 "Create and maintain an open space system which will preserve scenic beauty, protect important biological resources, provide open space for outdoor recreation and the enjoyment of nature, conserve natural resources and protect public health and safety". The South Pointe Master Plan includes hillside development standards (Section VI) and project design components which require contour and land ;orm grading, provide that ridge lines and landscapir serve as a backdrop for development, provides for tt preservation and replacement of significant vegetation and incorporates viewshed opportunities. (Objectives 1.1 and 1.2) Enclave 5 includes the provision of a twenty acre open space/park component which exceeds City park dedication requirements. The project will significantly enhance recreational opportunities within the City by linking recreational opportunities at South Pointe Middle School and support the development of a system of greenbelts by integrating 71 acres of open space with adjacent development. (Objective 1.3) GOAL 2 "Identify limits support existing City of Diamond influence and ens wisely". on the resources needed to and future uses within the Bar and its sphere of are that resources are used If grey water becomes available the project proponent will consider using reclaimed water for landscape purposes. Residential and Office/Commercial buildings will be constructed according to the Uniform Building Code which incorporates numerous conservation standards. Project mitigation (EIR - Biological Resources) includes the provision of using native plantings for project landscaping requirements. Office/Commercial enclave development standards include,,- -standards which address parking lot landscaping thereby ' ensuring shading and reduction of heat g.ain.. (Objectives 2.1 and 2.2) South Pointe is a mixed use project which provides a land use pattern containing housing, recreational and employment opportunities within walking distance. (Objective 2.3) Objectives 2.4 and 2.5 require a coordinated approach at the governmental level and therefore do not contain project specific strategies. The Master Plan process with its companion EIR reinforces coordination amongst government agencies. 37 V. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY GOALS GOAL 1 "Create a secure public environment which minimizes potential loss of life and property damage, as well as social, economic or. environmental disruption resulting from natural and man-made disasters". A project grading plan has been completed. A component of the plan includes a geologic `easibility study which provides provisions to minimize the effects of ground shaking and other geologic ever 3. l site analysis of soils will be conducted aslrequired specific ylthe UBC. (Objective 1.1) The drainage study completed for the project concluded that existing facilities for the conveyance of storm waters are adequate, except at P.D 1467. The EIR mitigation measures and Master Plan Public Facilities Plan provide measures to improve drainage conveyance at P.D. 1467 so that all master plan of drainage requirements and Los Angeles County design parameters are satisfied prior to grading permit issuance. (Objective 1.2) The Master Plan Public Facilities Plan (Section II Notes) provides a wildland fire hazard component including measures to protect properties in wildland areas. (Objective 1.3) The project EIR addressed the provision of fire and Police protection and emergency services. The Public Services and Facilities chapter of the EIR provides a series of mitigation measures to ensure adequate provision of emergency services (see Sections 4.8.1 and 4.8.2 of the EIR). (Objectives 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6) Objectives 1.7 and 1.8 require City disaster planning and regional coordination. Implementation of this objective requires a citywide effort, therefore this specific development project will not affect implementation. M The project EIR addresses the relationst� p f ?A e specific development to -regional air.qua ity als and construction standards. Section 4.6.3 of the EIR identifies mitigation measures - which will be implemented to reduce project impacts on local and regional air quality. The master plan concept includes a mix of land uses thereby providing an opportunity to reduce reliance on the automobile for trip making. (Objective 1.9) 38 is Section 4.7 of the project EIR establishes the relationship of the project site with the area noise environment. The project includes construction of a noise barrier along lots 34 through 42 of TT32400 consistent with the site Specific noise study compatibility with General plan noise to ensure standards. (Objective 1.10) 39 VI. PHYSICAL MOBILITY GOALS (CIRCULATION) GOAL 1 "Enhance the environment of the City's street network. Work toward improving the problems presented by the intrusion of regionally oriented commuter traffic through the City and into residential neighborhoods. Consider programs to reinforce the regional transportation and circulation system to adequately accommodate regional needs'. The South Pointe Master Plan includes a street work designed to accommodate trips to and from the p_.)ject with access points which do not conflict with the capacity of local residential streets. In addition, traffic is reduced on local streets such as Larkstone and Lemon. (Objectives 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3) GOAL 2 Maximize the use of alternative transportation modes within and through the City to decrease reliance on single -passenger automobiles. The South Pointe project represents a mated -use development concept which maximizes .efficient the transportation system by providing for a full -e of land uses (residential, commercial/office, -ks, schools) and provides an opportunity for r�_;ced automobile trip making by future residents. (ObjE :.ive 2.1) The project includes a new through connection between Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon Road thereby maximizing connection of all areas within the City and County areas. (Objective 2.2) GOAL 3 'Maintain an Adequate Level of Serv'ce on Area Roadways'. The project EIR (Section 4.5) and the Master Plan Public Facilities Plan (Section II Notes) provide measures which ensure that adequate improvements will be made to area roadways and intersections to improve • the safety and efficiency of existing transportation ..,.. • facilities with the addition of project related traffic. (Objective 3.1) Roadway improvements will be funded by the applicant as identified in the EIR and tentative tract maps. (Objective 3.2). 40 GOAL 4 "Provide or Regulate the Provision of the Supply of Parking to Meet the Needs for Both Residents and Commercial Businesses". The project EIR (Section 4.6.3) identifies a series of mitigation measures including preferential parking for high occupancy vehicles which are designed to ensure compliance with trip reduction requirements. (Objective 4.1) Project development standards require parking consistent with city standards thereby ensuring adequate parking for all land uses. (Objective 4.2) 41 VII. P[TBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES GOALS GOAL 1 Provide adequate infrastructure facilities and public services to support development and planned growth. The South Pointe Master Plan includes within Section II (Notes), a Public Facilities Plan containing components addressing the provision of public services and facilities needed to support development.of 'he project site. Implementation of the Public Facilit— es Plan and mitigation measures contained within Section 4.8 Public Services and Facilities will ensure that adequate infrastructure systems are available to meet project demands. (Objective 1.1) Cost for infrastructure development will be '.3orne by the project proponent through existing fee _.ructures and conditions of project development. (Objective 1.2) The project includes 32 acres for school facility development within Enclave 2. (Objective 1.3) Objective 1.4 involves the provision of regional facilities which do not apply to this specific site development project; therefore implementation of this project will not affect obtainment of the strategies needed to fulfill Objective 1.4. GOAL 2 Achieve a fiscally solvent, financially stable community The project involves a velopment of 290,000 square feet of Commercial/Office se (Enclave 4). Development of Enclave 4 will promote the intensification of the sales tax generating potential of future commercial and office areas. A 508 commercial, 508 office development could be expected to generage $376,283.00 annually in sales tax revenue. In addition, the City will increase its financial worth by selling or ground leasing 10-15 acres of commercial property in Enclave 4. :)bjective 2.1) The project design encourages the.. cooperative- yse, bf facilities by_.locat. Enclave 5 (Open Space/p& ) adjacent to Enclave South Pointe Midale Schol This physical land use arrangement promotes effici- .y in the provision of public services and facilities. (Objectives 2.2 and 2.3)- 42 City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report I. SUMMARY/INTRODUCTION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3 REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1993 MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1993 CASE/FILE NUMBER: A) South Pointe Master Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 92081040 B) General Plan Amendment C)(3)Development Agreement(s) D) Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 (Arciero) E) Tentative Tract 51253 (Patel) F) Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 (RnP) G)(3)Hillside Management Ordinance Conditional Use Permit(s) H)(3)Oak Tree Removal Permit(s) APPLICATION REQUEST: Land development request consisting of Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 involving the subdivision of 47.4 acres into 93 parcels (91 single-family residential lots, 7,200 sq. ft. min. lot size and 2 commercial lots), Tentative Tract 51253 involving the subdivision of lots 46, 47 and 48 of Tract 32576 consisting of 6.7 acres up to 26 parcels (all single- family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 involving the subdivision of lot 53 of Tract 35742 and lots 46, 47, 4B and 49 of Tract 32576 consisting of 90.8 acres into 87 parcels (up to 90 single- family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size, 1 open space lot and 3 commercial lots), three (3) development agreements containing a master plan, a general plan amendment to redesignate the Water District Parcel P.D., three (3) conditional use permits relative to hillside grading, three (3) oak tree removal permits and review of an environmental impact report. PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located in-the-It _P ' wesiern area of the City of Di.am4Vd Bar r encompassing an area of approximately 171+ acres. The project site, which is comprised of a number of existing parcels and ownership interests, can be generally described as being situated westerly of the Orange (SR -57) Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly of the corporate boundaries of the City (and Tract No. 27141), northerly of Pathfinder Road and 1 PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICANTS: (1) I. (2) (3) (4) the existing residential area (i.e., Tract No. 32576) obtaining vehicular access from the roadway and southerly of South Pointe Middle School and existing residential and vacant properties located southerly of Colima Road. Walnut Valley Unified School District Of Diamond Bar, RnP Development Inc. ' City, and Sons Inc., and Amrut Patel. Arciero RnP Development, Inc., Glendora, CA 91740 Arciero and Sons, Inc., Anaheim, CA 92807 Sasak Corporation, 858 91785 City Of D• 151 Juanita Avenue, 950 North T. zin, W. 9th St., Upland, CA lamond Bar, 21660 E. Cop le 17Fsy Dr., Ste. 100, Diamond Bar, CA 9 BACKGROUND/PURPOSE This Staff Report is an Staff Re ort Addendum to the South Pointe Master Plan P prepared for the January 25, 1993, Planning Commission meeting. This Addendum Staff Report provides the framework for the February g, 1993, ublicthe Staff Report Addendum is consideration omfetic The focus eof February 8th meeting and as a guidebook for materrialsedurpresented to the Planning Commission. II. SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RE ORT (DEIR) Section IV of the January 25th Staff Report consists of a summary Of the South Pointe Master Plan DEIR. eight chapters and an appendices. The DEIR is divided into describes and analyzes s. Chapter 4 of the DEIR The subject categories Potential project environmental impacts. earth, water, biologicaly Chapter 4 include land use, air quality, resources, transportation/circulation, archaeolo noise, public services and facilities, 9Y/paleontology and aesthetics. category the text in Chapter 4 includes a dFor each bject iscussionurelative to project setting, project impacts and recommended mitigation measures. Table 2 (pages 2-28 through Your attention. g 2-47) from the DEIR is directed to impacts and mitigation meas�reSes a summary of environmental comprehensive a This Table displays the within the approach taken to environmental impact analysis DEIR and the range of provided. recommended mitigation measures 2 Environmental Impact Reports are designed as informational documents. The Planning Commission can recommend City Council certification of the information within the. DEIR as adequate for analyzing the potential project environmental impacts independent of development project resolutions, Items B-H of the case/file numbers. The 45 -day DEIR public comment period closed on January 18, 1993. Staff will provide a review of the comments received during the public comment period and an overview of initial responses at the February 22nd meeting. III. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) One part of the South Pointe application package involves a GPA to redesignate the Water District parcel to planned development. An analysis of General Plan consistency is provided as Appendix A of the January 25, 1993 Staff Report. Appendix A discusses project relationship to each goal of the General Plan. Through this exercise, consistency with the General Plan is clearl identified. y IV. TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS Three tentative tract maps have been filed for subdividing the project site into residential, commercial and open space/park parcels. Section III of the January 25th Staff Report (Application Analysis) provides a summary of the intensity and type of development proposed with each tentative tract. V. HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) Three Conditional Use Permits for Hillside Management are included within the application package. The impact of project hillside grading was analyzed in the DEIR in Sections 4.2 Earth Resources and 4.10 Aesthetics. Section III F of the January 25th Staff Report addresses how the project grading plan complies with the Hillside Management Ordinance. VI. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Staff will brief the Commission on status and return draft agreements your February 22, 1993 meeting. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS the Development Agreement to the Planning Commission for A. Receive additional public input on the adequacy of the DEIR. B. Close the public hearing relative to DEIR comments. 3 C. Staff will review the setting, impact and mitigation sections of the EIR with the Commission. D. Continue consideration of the project and project public hearing to February 22, 1993. E. If time permits, Staff will begin the review of the other discretionary items noted as Se::tions III -VI of this Staff Report. 4 City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report I . SUNIMARY,/ INTRODUCTION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6 REPORT DATE: February 18, 1993, Revised February 191 1993 MEETING DATE: February 22, 1993 CASE/FILE NUMBER: A) South Pointe Master Plan Environmental impact Report, State Clearingho:ise No. 92081040 B) General Plan Amendment C)(3)Development Agreement(s) D) Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 (Areiero) E) Tentative Tract 51253 (Patel) F) Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 (RnP) G)(3)Hillsi.de Management Ordinance Conditional Use Permit(s) H) (3)Oak Tree Removal Fermit(S) APPLICATION REQUEST: Land development request consisting of Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 involving the subdivision of 47.4 acres into 93 parcels (91 single-family residential lots, 7,200 sq. ft, min. lot size and 2 commercial lots), Tentative Tract 51253 involving the subdivision of lots 46, 47 and 48 of Tract 32576 consisting of 6.7 acres up to 26 parcels (all single- family residential jots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 involving the subdivision of lot 53 of Tract 35742 and lots 46, 47, 48 and 49 of Tract 32576 consisting of 90.8 acres into 87 parcels (up to 90 single- family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size, 1 open space lot and 3 commercial lots), three (3) development agreements containing a master plan, a general plan amendment to redesignate the water District Parcel P.D., three (3) conditional use permits relative to hillside grading, three (3) oak tree removal permits and review of an environmental impact report. PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located in the south- western area of the City of Diamond Bar, encompassing an area of approximately 171+ acres. The project site, which is comprised of a number of existing parcels and ownership interests, can be generally described as 1 being situated westeriv of the Orange (SR -57) Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly of the corporate boundaries of the City (and Tract No. 27141), northerly of Pathfinder Road and the existing residential area (i.e., Tract No. 32576) obtaining vehicular access from the roadway and southerly of South Pointe Middle School and existing residential and vacant properties !coated southerly of Colima Road. PROPERTY OWNERS: Walnut Valley Unified School District, City of Diamond Bar, Rn? Development Inc., Arciero and Sons Inc., and Amrut Patel. APPLICANTS: (1) RnP Development, Inc., 4439 Rhodelia Drive, Claremor.t,_CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Sons, Inc., 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 ;ti. 9th St., Upland, CA 91785 (4) City of Diamond Ear, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste. 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I. BACKGROUND/PURPOSE This Staff Rs.pert, represents the second Addendum to the South Pointe master Plan staff Report prepared for the January 25, 1993 Planning commission rr.eeting. This second Addendum Staff Report provides the framework for the February 22, 1993 public meeting. The focus of the second Addendum Staf° Reporc is consideration of procedures for the February 22 meeting 'including an explanation of the Draft EIR notices and public hearings held to date. II. DRAFT EIR PUBLIC NOTICES AND HEARINGS The South Pointe Master Plan environmental review process has met all requirements as laid forth by the California Environmental Quality Act relative to public notices and hearings. The public review and participation process involved the following steps: A. The Notice of preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was distributed on August 19, 1992. The NOP comment period was 30 days in accordance with CEQA guidelines. B. The south Pointe Master Plan Draft Env:ronmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and comment between November 30, 1992 and January 18, 1993. 2 C. A notice of public hearing was mailed to approximately 1,100 property owners adjacent to the site, on January 14, 1993. Additionally, a notice of this Public Hearing was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the inland Valley Daily Bulletin Newspapers on January 15, 1993. D. Public hearings were held on January 25 and February 8, 1993 whereby the Planning Commission received verbal testimony regarding the adequacy and content of the DEIR. As a final action at the February 6th public hearing, the Planning Commission closed the puh,lic hearing relative to the adequacy of the DEIR and continued the hearing to February 22nd for Planning Commission dis-cussion. During the public review period written and verbal comments were received from residents and Manning Commissioners. Staff has provided responses to comments raised by Commissioners in the body of the February 6th Staff Report and during Staff presen- tations at both the January 25th and February 8th hearings. Staff has drafted responses to comments received during the public review period from residents and interested governmental agencies. Staff will provide the Planning Commission with an overview or tha Response to Comments package at the February 22nd meeting. Prior to Planning Commission action on the DEIR the response to co-mments document will be made available to the public. As the final decision -maker, the City Council is required to consider the adequacy of the responses prior to certification of the DEIR as adequate. III. PLANNING COWAIISSION OPTIONS The Planning Commission has several options available relative to the adequacy of the DEIR. The Planning Commission's options are as follows; A. Determine that the DEIR and supporting documents do not adequately address the environmental impacts of the project and recommend that the City Council not certify the DEIR as adequate and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution. B. Request additional information from Staff relative to range of environmental topics covered in the DEIR and continue consideration of the DEIR until the additional information is made available. 3 C. Determine that the DEIR and supporting documents do adequately address the environmental impacts of the project and recommend that the City Council certify the DEIR as adequate and direct Staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution. IV. ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS Assuming the Planning Commission determines that the EIR is adequate, the Planning Commission may then move forward with consideration of the following entitlement actions; A. General ?1an Amendment (GPA) one part of the South Pointe applicahion package involves a GPA to redesignate the Water District parcel to planned development. An analysis of General Plan consiatenoy is provided as Appendix A of the „anuary 25, 1993 Staff Report. Appendix A discusses project relationship to each goal of the general Plan. through this exercise, consistency with the General Plan is clearly identified. B. Tentative Tract flaps Three tentative tract maps have been filed for subdividing the project site into residential, commercial and open space/park parcels. Section III of the January 25th Staff Report (APP.ication Analysis) provides a summary of the intensity sild type of development proposed with each tentative tract. C. Hillside Management ordinance Conditional Use permit (CU?) and Oak Tree Removal Permits Three Conditional Use Permits for hillside Management and Oak Tree Removal Permits are included within the application package. The impact of project hillside grading was analyzed in the DEIR in Sections 4.2 Earth Resources and 4.10 Aesthetics. Section III F of the January 25th Staff Report addresses how the project grading plan complies with the hillside Management ordinance. These CUP's and Jak Tree Permits will be incorporated within the three (3) proposed Development Agreements. D. Development Agreements Staff will brief the Commission on the Development Agreement status and retutn draft agreements to the Planning Commission for subsequent meetings. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Open the February 22nd meeting far Planning Commission discussion. B. Request Staff to provide an overview of the Response to Comments package at the February 22nd meeting. C. Establish a list of Planning Commission request for additional information. D. Continue review and consideration of the DEIR and supporting documents until Staff can provide the Gdd:.tional information requested or certify Draft EIR as complete. E. Move forward to consideration of project 2ntit-lements and allow Staff to present an overview of the project design issues. F. open public hearing on the requested entitlements. - G. Continue public hearing on the requested entitlements. V. PREPARED BY: Hardy M. Strozier, AIC? Special Project Consultant Attachment: Response to Comments on DEIR dated February 18, 1993 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 1993 CONTINUATION OF FEBRUARY 22, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report I. SUMMARY/INTRODUCTION AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 5 REPORT DATE: March 15, 1993 MEETING DATE: March 22, 1993 CASE/FILE NUMBER; A) South Pointe Master Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 92081040 B) General Plan Amendment C) (3) Development Agreement (s) D) vesting Tentative Tract 32400 (Arciero) E) Tentative Tract 51253 (Patel) F) vesting Tentative Tract 51407 (RNP) G)(3)Hillside Management Ordinance Conditional Use Permit(s) H)(3)Oak Tree Removal Permit(s) APPLICATION REQUEST: A General plan Land use Element Amendment to re -designate the 4+ acre (former) Water District from Public Facility (PF) to Planned Development (p D). Land development request consisting of vesting Tentative Tract 32400 involving the subdivision of 47.4 acres into 93 parcels (91 single-familot residential lots, 71200 sq. ft. min, size and 2 commercial lots), Tentative Tract 51253 involving the subdivision of lots 46, 47 and 4B of Tract 32576parcels consisting of 6.7 acres up to 26 (all single-family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 involving the subdivision of lot 53 of Tract 35742 and lots 46, 47, 48 and 49 of Tract 32576 consisting of 90.8 acres into 87 parcels (up to 90 single-family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size, 1 open space lot and 3 commercial lots), three (3) development agreements containing a master plan, three (3) conditional use permits relative to hillside grading, three (3) oak tree removal permits and review of an environmental impact rep PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located in the south- western area of the City'of Diamond Bar, encompassing an area of approximately 1714- acres. 71+acres. The project Site, whits is cownership of a number of exisr described as interests, can be generally being situated westerly of the Orange (SR -57) Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly of the corporate boundaries of the City (and Tract No. 27141), northerly of Pathfinder -Road and the existing residential area (i.e., Tract No. 32576) obtaining vehicular access from the roadway and southerly of South Pointe Middle School and existing residential and vacant properties located southerly of Colima Road. PROPERTY OWNERS: Walnut Valley Unified School District, City of Diamond'Bar, RnP Development Inc., Arciero and Sons Inc., and Amrut Patel. APPLICANTS: (1) RNP Development, Inc., 4439 Rhodelia Drive, Claremont, CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Sons, Inc., 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th St., Upland, CA 91785 (4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste, 100► Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I. BACKGROUND/PURPOSE This Staff Report represents the third Addendum to the South Pointe master Pla- Staff Report prepared for she January 25, It Planning Commissi3n meeting. This third Adde.dum Staff.Report provides the framework for the March 22, 1993 public meeting. The focus of the third Addendum Staff Report is the continued Staff presentation of the project elements. II. PUBLIC NOTICES AND HEARINGS The South Pointe Master Plan environmental review process has met all requirements as set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act relative to public notices and hearings. The public review and participation process involved the following steps: A. The notice of preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was distributed on August 19, 1992. The NOP comment period was 30 days in accordance with CEQA guidelines. B. The South Pointe Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and comment between November 30, 1992 and January 18, 1993. C. A notice of public hearing was mailed to approximately 1,100 property owners adjacent to the site, on January 14, 1993. Additionally, A notice Of the Public Hearing process was 2 published in the San Gabriel Valley,Tribune and the Inland valley Daily Bulletin Newspapers on January 15, 1993. D. Study sessions were held on October 26, 1992 and December 14, 1992 including a project site tour. E. Public hearings were held on January 25 and February 9, 1993 whereby the Planning Commission received verbal testimony regarding the adequacy and content of the DEIR. As a final action at the February 8th public hearing, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing relative to the adequacy of the DEIR and continued the hearing to February 22nd for Planning Commission discussion. During the February 22nd hearing the Planning Commission determined that the DEIR does adequately address the environmental impacts of the project and directed Staff to prepare the appropriate Draft Resolution$ recommending that the City Council certify the EIR document. F. A public Hearing was held on February 25th in which the substantive project of the South Pointe master Plan was reviewed with the assistance of a Staff -prepared slide presentation. The public hearing was continued to March. 22nd to continue the Staff presentation. III. ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS The Planning Commission is recommended to continue to review and Consider the following entitlement actions: A. General Plan Amendment (GPA) The South Pointe application package involves a GPA to redesignate the 4+ acre former Water District parcel from Public Facility (PF) to Planned Development (PD). An analysis of General plan consistency is provided as Appendix A of the January 25, 1993 Staff Report. Appendix A discusses project relationship to each goal of the General Plan. The City of Diamond Bar has purchased the former water District parcel to include in the residential/commercial components of the South Pointe Master Plan. These 4 -acres and other easements will be traded to Arciero and some, Inc., and RNP in exchange for 10 - 15 acres of commercial property. In order to effectuate the land transfer, the General Plan re -designation from PF to PD is required. 3 B. Tentative Tract Maps Three tentative tract maps have been moiled for subdividing the project site into residential, commercial and open space/park parcels. Section III of the January 25th Staff Report (Application Analysis) provides a summary of the intensity and type of development proposed with each tentative tract. C. Hillside Management Ordinance Conditional Use permit (CUP) and Oak Tree Removal Permits Three Conditional Use Permits for Hillside Management and Oak Tree Removal Permits are included within the application package. The impact of project -?llside grading was analyzed in the DEIR in Section_- .2 Earth Resources and 4.10 Aesthetics. Section IIS of the January 25th Staff Report addresses how the ;::oject grading plan complies with the Hillside Management Ordinance. These CUP's and Oak Tree Permits will be incorporated within the three (3) proposed Development Agreements, D. Development Agreements Staff will brief the Commission on the Development Agreement statue and return draft agreements to the Planning Commission for subsequent meetings. The Development Agreement will contain the Mar.er Plan found as Attachment 8 to your January 25t.i Staff Reports The Development Agreement is utilized as a single "contract" document to incorporate the Master Plan, Hillside management regulations and Oak Tree Permit. The Development Agreement is adopted by ordinance and is substantially equivalent to the Specific Plan zoning process. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Re -open the Public Hearing March 22nd and receive a continued Staff presentation on the elements of the proposed project. The Staff will provide a continued presentation on the project element layersr 1. The General Plan policies 2. The South Pointe Master Plan 3. The Tentative Tract Maps 4. The Hillside Grading Ordinance 5. Oak Tree Removal Permits 6, The Development Agreements 4 V. The Planning Commission is directed, to the January 25, 1993 Staff Report for background information on each of the aforenentioned elements. B. The Planning Commission is requested to invite the three developers to present their respective projects within the proposed South Pointe Master Plan area. Two of the developers, RNP and Sasak, have prepared Alternative Tentative Tract Maps, These Naps are enclosed for your review. The two developers should review the changes with the Commission. C► Re -open the hearing for public comments. D. Continue the public hearing and direct Staff to: 1. Continue the discussion and review of the project elements and/or 2. Direct Staff to prepare documents for the approval or denial of the proposed project. PREPARED BY: Hardy M. Strozier, AICD Special Project Consultant ATTACHM-NTS: 1. Planning Commission. Staff Report dated January 25, 1993 2. Revised Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 (Sasak) dated March 10, 1993 3. Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 31407 (RNP) dated February 1, 1993. 5 SASAKCORPORATION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT A DEVELOPMENT (a .U)x T. 1!�. �5 Corporate Office: P.O. Box 1153, 858 W. 9th Street, Upland, CA 91785-1153 (714) 981-6449 Fax: (714) 985-7520 Branch Office: 3420 Lindell, St. Louis, MO 63103 (314) 371-6700 Fax: (314) 534-1088 March 14, 1993 Mr. James Destefano, Community Development Director City of Diamond Bar 21660 Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CR 91765 Re: Submission of Tentative Tract Map #51523 Dear Mr. DeStefano: I am submitting herewith the revised Tentative Tract Map #51523. This revised map has been prepared by Mr. Jim Budke, who I have recently retained on the recommendation of Mr. Jan Dabney. In preparing this revised map, Mr. Budke has been directed to provide adequate emergency access to the adjoining RAP parcel so as to satisfy the objective of the City prepared "Master Plan," In addition, I instructed Mr. Budke to design the grading in common with the RNP parcel to maximise the benefit to both projects in the most equitable design. The attached map provides for the subdivision of my ownership into 23 parcels. I trust you will agree that this design adequately achieves the objectives of the Master Plan and properly addresses the common grading and access issues for the RNP parcel. I am requesting that this revised map be processed for approval in the most expeditious manner possible. I recognize that the Master Plan and EIR are still in process. however, it seems to me that my project is totally consistent with the Master Plan, and does not raise the critical environmental issues that are associated with the major part of the Master Plan Project. If need be, I would suggest your office prepare a Negative Declaration for this project to allow for the expeditious processing. if at all possible, I would like to avoid any delays that are likely to be caused by issues associated with the reminder of the Master Plan. Please advise if any additional information is required of me so that this matter can be processed immediately. Sincerely, Amrut Patel President RP/bvb CITY OF D1A.MOti-D BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-7427 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION Record owner(s) applicant Nams Patel, Amrut N. 5 Sita A. Sasak Corp. (lost rims first) Address 2280 O'Mally Ave P.O. Box 1153 City Upland, Calif. Upland, Calif. Case# Filed Fee $ Receipt By applicant's Agent Budke Design Service 5 Wrigley Irvine, Calif. Zip_ 91786 91785-1153 92718 Phone( ) (90% 981-6449 (714)581-6997 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures Of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) CONSZNT: Z consent to the submission of the application accompanying this request. S Date March 12, 1993 CZltTZFZCATION: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my lrnovledr Printed Name James J. Budke (1ppl(eant or Agent) Signed (Appl cDateMarch 12. 1993 ant or Awn) Location Tract 32576, Lots 46, 47 & 48 (street or tract am tot ) between Morning Sun Ave. and Brea Canyon Rd. (street) (Street) Zoning RPD 10,000 - 6 U Me( Previous Cases South Pointe Master Plan Present Use ats)ite Vacant Use applied for Single family residential, RPD 8,000 Walnut Valley Domestic Nater Source Water District Company/District Method of Sewage Disposal L.A. Co. San. Dist. Sanitation District 21 Grading of Lots by applicant? YES X NO Amount !45,760 C.Y. (Show necessary grading design on-site plan or tent. map) LEGAL 03SC UPTION (All ownership comprising the proposed lots/project) If petitioning for sone change, attach legal description of exterior boundaries of area subject to the change.) Lots 46, 47 6 48 of Tract No. 32576 in the city of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, per map recorded in Book 927, pages 28 to 31. Project Site: 6.7 Acres Tentative Nap Number Gross Area Lots: Existing 3 Proposed 23 Area devoted to : Structures 5.4 Acres Open Space 0 Residential project 6.7 Acres and 2 Greas Area Me. of floors Proposed Density 3.43 (Gross) Units/Acre 51253 Number and types of Units S.F. detached, 1 6 2 story, 2,000-2,800 S. F. homes Residential Parking:Type Required Open 46 Covered 46 Provided 73 46 Total 92 119 Staff Use Project No. ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE ------------------ A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner); Project Representative: Sasak Corvoration James J. Budke NAlSE Budke Design Service P.O. Box 1153 5 Wrigley NAME ADDRESS Upland, CA. 91785-1153 ADDRESS Irvine, CA. 92718 (909) 981-6449 (714) 581-6997 PHONE PHONE 1. Action requested and project description: Zone change & tent. map for development of 23 S.F. lots on 6.7 acres, vacant land 2. Street location of project: Easterly side of Morning Sun Ave. 3a. Present use of site: Vacant 3b. Previous use of site or structures: Graziaa no structures 4. Please list all previous cases (if any) project: ZSIAZtd to this Tract 32576 and South Pointe Master Plan 5. Other related permit/approvals r Specify type and granti nq agency equirad. . L.A. County Sanitation District -Sever, L.A. County Flood Control - Storm Drain, Walnut Valley District- Water 6• Are you planninq future phases of this project? Y N If yes, explain: 7. Project Area: Covered by structures, paving: 92,800 S. Landscaping: 199,052 S.F. Open space: 0 S. F. Total Area: 291,852 s. F. 8• Number of floors: 2 9. Present zoning: RPD 10,000 - 6 U 10. water and sewer service: Public Domestic Water Sewers Does service exist at site? N y N y If Yes, do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project RDS all other approved projects? N y N y If domestic water or public sewers are not availab. how will these services be provided? _ Residential projects: 11. Number and type of units: 23 S.F.D. 12. Schools: What school district(s) serves the property? Walnut Unified Are existinq school facilities adequate to meet project needs? T!8%% NO If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? 102 -Residential projects: 13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) D.N.A. 14. Number and floor area of buildings: 15. Number of employees and shifts: 16. Maximum employees per shift: 17. Operatinq hours: 18. Identify any: End products Waste products Means of disposal 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES NO If yes, explain 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES NO If yes, explain 21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on-site. 22. will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES NO If you, explain 1. 2. B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Environmental Setting --Project Site a. Existing use/structures Currently vacant, no structures. b. Topography/slopes Mc-' ately steep ridge trending N./S with portion of small canyon on easterly side. *c. Vegetation Grassland, inland sage scrub & oak woodland. *d. Animals Four species of lizards, several bird species, and small mammals including rabbit, skunk, rats S mice. *e. Watercourses A small watercourse it 'pts the nor`heasterly corn of Lot 48. f. Cultural/historical resources Other Environaental Settinq -- Surroundinq Area a. Existinq uses structures (types densit is): Feist S F homes to the west orh_; to the east & south. b. Topography/pealo s Gentle hills to the south and east, manmade features dropping to the north and west. *c. Vegetation Grassland, mixed chaparral, inland sage scrub and oak vwdland exist to the east & south. *d. Miuls Lizards, birds, coyotes, rabbits, raccoons, skunks, rats and mice exist to the eas' i south. *e. Watercourses Sandstone Canyon watercourse flows northerly, several hundred feet to the east. f. cultural/historical resources None , 9. other 3• Are there any major trees On the site including oak trees? YES X NO If Yee, type and number: There area roximatel 53 mature coast live oaks associated with the canyon bottom. 4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc. be changed through project development?: YES X NO If Yes, explain: The natural watercourse at the northeasterly corner will be filled. A on-site storm drain system will carry storm runoff to the existing system. 5. Grading: Will the project require grading? YES X NO If Yes, how many cubic yards? 145,760 C.Y. ± Will it be balanced on site? YES NO R If not balanced, where will dirt be deposited? -Approximately 58,000 C.y. will in so fill on e RNP site directly east 6• Ars there any identifiable landslides or other Major geolfillogic hazards on the property (including MacoMpacted YES NO X If yes, explain: ?• is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with Moderately dense vegetation)? YES R No Distance to nearest fire station: Approximately 1 mi. Fire Srat on No 119 8. Noise: Existing noise sources at site: None Noise to be generated by project: Short term construction. Fumes: Odors generated by project: None Could toxic fumes be generated? Car emissions 9. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used? Construction methods per current U.B.C.- and city design standards. CERTTFICATT_ON: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. March Date ature For: Budke Design Service S71RDiMS OF RECORD AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ss. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR I, Amrut N. Patel declare under penalty of perjury that all easements of record, [as shown on Preliminary Title Report No. Dated furnished this office by (company) are shown on the tentative map No. 51253 and that if the easements are blanket or indeterminate in nature that a statement to that effect has been placed on the tentative map. The purpose and ownership of all easements are also stated. Executed at Upland California, this 12th day of March 19 93 ON%01 /ltidlvidorfOAdividor'a p4m NOTE: The w N d*t portion of tM Nfidavit in bracket is optional and my be bletad. CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST AFFIDAVIT ZONING CASs NO STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGEL=S CITY OF DIAMOND am I, , declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Section 2015.3 Of t • Code of Civil Procedure, that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons who are shown on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles as owners of the subject property and as owning property within a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the exterior boundaries of property legally described as: executed at California, this day of , 19 signature OAK Tess sTATmm T The subject property contains no oak trees. The subject property contains one or mors oak trees, however the applicant anticipates that no activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer driplins of any oak tree. X j The subject property contains one or more oak trees and the applicant states that activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (S) feet of the outer driplins of any oak tree. an oak Tree Permit has been or will be applied for prior to any activity taking place on the property. —� March 12, 1993 (Appiiasntis sisnsture) oats) (To be completed by applicant) a0aeral =aformatioas Date riled: March 12, 1993 Pertinent Permits/Applications: Subdivision Application - T.T. 51253 Project Information, 1• Name, Address and Phone Number of Project sponsor: Sasak Corporation Upland, CA. 91785-1153 (909) 981-6449 2. Name, Address and Phone Number of Kay Contact Person(a)s Amrut Patel James J. Budke 858 W. 9th Street 5 Wrigley Upland. CA. 91785 (909) 981-6449 Irvine, CA. 92718 (714) 581-6997 3. Project Address: Mar I Ave. Diamond Bar 4. Project Assessors ,lock and Parcel Nwfter(s)s 7 - -001 002 6 003 S. Other Identification (other recorded/sap locatjon intorsat.,on)s Tract 32576, Lots 46, 47, 48 6-A- Does the project require any of the following actions by the City: variances Conditional use parnits Zone Changes General Plan Amendments YIS 0 R X 6-5• List and describe any other related standards, Permits and other public approvals relevant to this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: t, L.A. County Sanitation District- Sewer, 1 District- Storm Drain 7. Land us* Desivwtioass Adopted General Plan Designation: Adopted Zoning: Community Plan DesiQnatian: e. Sub is on�intoi 23 S F t detacjhed lots, 8,000 S.F. minimum lot size. ------------ Prosect Description 9-A. site Dimensions and gross The site contains two reci els, 494' x 400' and 250' x 377' 9-3. Legal Description of the projects necessary)(attach copy to rh3a fora If Lots 46, 47 b 48 of Tract 32576 per map recorded in Book 927, pages 28 to 31. Official Records, Los Angeles Countv 10. Project Detail Attach a separate Pags this projects Of descriptive data for each ho using type included in A. Number of Housing Units b b. Floor area by t y tom• C.d. Hous market rt (stori (stories) for each type. d average square -footage). e' 'ng market market a (,G"raphic f. Describe all •miss price or estimate i market recreation amenities proposed (for example,market rents. q• minimum lotsiiz��nt' eaeon use facilit facilities, h' maximum lot size. (Net lot Not lot area, not including Right -of -Way), i• average lot size. (Net lot area, not including J. Number of lots which do not meet not including Right_°! -Way), 11. Describe meet City Standards. Right -Of -Way). public or private utilit ands. r other facilities which exist on the surface en Project site. Y easements, utility lines, structures --�2e or below the surface of the relat12• associated Projects: (Projects or ed to this project, ies potential d,Potential projects which Project): South Pointe oPrnts which require Master Plan are dire :ly caplet non 13. Describe an Time Frans) Y anticipated Phasing for this All one Kase Projects (Number of Units h 14. attach one copy of each of 't ho. followings a• Prel b. Preliminary soils rt C. Drain"age�ud logic 2nvsstigation. d. ToPographic Ma e• Tract � P highlighting any existing Ott and p, parcel Map, or Plot Plan clearly of 23% or more. and area of fills all residential ssin�� each area of f. Photographs areas with slopes 251 or more Pada (if known), gets ogast) showing the site from dilf north,rssovth�ea9 points and Pboeogsfe showing north, south . west) from the site. vistas (ies, ENVIRDIVIENTAL INFORMATION FORK TENTATIVE TRACT 51253 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE: 10. a. Housing type not determined b. Floor area will range from 1900 S.F. to 2800 S.F. c. Two stories d. Insufficient data e. Not yet established f. Not yet established g. Minimum lot size: 8,000 S.F. h. Maximum lot size: 16,700 S.F. i. Average lot size: 10,200 S.F. J. One. Are the followiaq items applicable to the (Discuss below all items which apply to this pr god Project itsadda fectr sheets as necessary) 15. Gradings Maximum depth of excavation: 41' maximum depth of fi:.'! 49' Quantity of soil moved: 145,760 _---.60 cubic yards. Will there be an on sits balance of cut and fill?: No from thheds Describe any change in the appearance of the site resulting freiewshproject as proposed. The existing north/south ridge will be lowered an can on at the northeast corner will be filled to slichrl., of Morning Sun Ave. and the ve the At. aescribe how the pro will the proposed project blandd ed into andwill fit into its surroundin • relate to the rise, scale, style, and characterexistinofnthe existing surrounding development?) neighborhood? now will it Thin_ a{te will fearer^e In#.. _-A 4 -- ----���•.��3 a ox1matelY the same size as morning Sun. Great care has been taken to blend this site into outh Pointe Master Plan. 18. Describe any alteration of the for changes in surface or existing drainage patterns, or po al flow of an ground water quality or quantity. result of this project? or intermittent surface/subsurface te=ec�will ;3 systema, or of p�ject? ?= will there be any injection wells change as a quality?) hes facilities which may affect surface or Subsurface water Existing flow will be replaced with a storm drain system. D,,.= to development, sur-fa ct will be increased but will still drain to the existing facilitt ies in vlace 19. Describe may low -term noise result of this project= and/or vibration which MY Occur as a indirectly cause the (amu construction will this project directly or that exists nowt) generation of noise and or vibration greater than any Since the site is currently vacant, long term noise will be increased, zrimarily from motor vehicles. • 20. Describe any residential construction proposed on filled land (is: identify the lot number of each structure proposed to be built of filled land). A11 or ortions of Lots 1 through 8, and 12 through 15 will be on filled land. 21. Do any significant trees exist on the project site now? Describe the effect this project will have on them. is: Oak and Walnut trees are considered significant. Describe whether the proposed project cause removal of any of these trees). will disturb or Th -is oroiect will cause the removal of 53 coast live oak trees which are Invared in the small canyon adiacent to the easterly tract boundary. 22. Is the project sits located in a national, state, regional or locally designated area of historical, environmental or other significance. If so describe. (ie: is the site an area designated as a hillside management area, significant ecological area, significant mineral resource area, et This site is art of the Hillside Management area, as wellc�as containing numerous significant oak trees. Ravironmeatal Setting: 23. Describe the environmental setting (synopsis) of the project site. This narrative shall include a description of the soil stability, slopes, drainage, scenic quality, plants, and animals which may exist on the site now, and any existing structures and the existing lard use of the project site. This vacant 6.7 acre site is comprised of a natural ridge line trendina nor .h/south with a shallow moderately steep canyon adjacent and easterly, the ridge is covered with annual grassland, while the canyon contains oak woodland and inland sage scrub There are no structures on the site. Soils are stable with natural drains * flowing north to a storm drain inlet. Birds, lizards, snakes, rodents, rabbits, coyotes, skunks and raccoons have been spotted on or near the site. Generally, the ridge precludes viewing this site from Morning Sun Ave. Existing houses to the north would have a more enhanced view of the canyons looking southerly into the site. 24. Describe the surrounding properties (synopsis). This narrative shall Include a description of the soil stability, slopes, drainage, scenic quality, plants, and animals which may exist. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (single-family, multi- family, density, commercial, professional, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set -back, etc.) in the adjacent surrounding area. The area west and north is developed into single family, 1 & 2 sto7ry homes with Lots 75-85' wide and 20' setbacks. South and east, the acreage is vacant. Topography contains north/south trending ridges and canyons. The ridges generally are covered with sage scrub and the canyons contain chaparral and oak woodland. Certification: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for initial environmental evaluation of the proposed project. All information is to the best of my knowledge, belief and ability to determine factual, true, correct and complete. Date: March 12, 1993 signatures ��• To Budke Design Service completion of this form is required to begin revtev of a project. Information within this form and the required attached materials will assist the City in determin"g whether a Myative Declaration may be granted, whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration any be granted, or vhether Environmental Impact Report shall be required. ��SJE ONLY 1• Mandatory findings of significance? a. Doss the proposed project have the Onv,Potintial to degrade the quality of the habitat of a fish substoriwildlif wially ildlife the cause a fish or wildlife pecies, drop below self sustaining to threaten to eliminate or silevels' reduce a plant or animal gnificantly the number or restrict the ran ity, reduce or endangered range of a rare important examplestofrtan�lor eliminate California history or majorPeriods of _ prehistory? b• Does the proposed project have the Potential to achieve short-term, e disadvantage of long-term, to th goals? environmental C. Does the proposed which are individually lliimitb impacts cumulatively considerable? d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings' either directly or indirectly? DISCOS/IOM Ot sMVI3t030jMBy XMVArIOII: (Attach marrativa) DaTuImTIOM: On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that the proposed On project COULD NOT have a significant effect o NEGATIVg Da�RATION rill be Prepared. and a Prepared. --- I find that although the significant effect on the On ied n project could have a not be a significant effect in ris c there will the aitigation measures described ionctthse attached shut have been incorporated into the C.ATBD NEGATTVg D Proposed Project. A KITI p BARED. SC�RATION WILL BE I find that the proposed project KAY have a significant effect on the anvironsient, and an WI AL 1XPACT REPORT is required. Date: ' Signature: Title: For the C ty o D aeon Bar, Ca orn a CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Case 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 Filed (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 Fee -5676$427L5. 00 ane.�r y TRk:E MUM APpI,ICATION ROCS _ g , _ Record Owner(s) Name Amrut N. Applicant - Patel Sasak Corp. James Jp. Bud a Agent (last n� first) Budke Address 2280 0 .* 11 Ave . Budke Desi Service P 0 11 City Upland, CA. 5 Wri le Upland, CA. Irvine, CA. Zip 91785 91785-1153 Phone(909)981-6449 92718 (909) 981-6449 (714) 581-6997 OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION Signed (A << recorded owners) Date_z�/0(1, �j 3 TAT -��zz�sltS3�l�Y�J 1 = Printed Name James J. Budke --, (APP�'cm or Apentj Signed [// � � tic er AWt) b" ' Date March 12, 1993 Location .e. address or of pro ty in general description of location) and legal description Question: (use additional sheet, as necessary) Morning Sun Ave., Lots 46, 47 6 48 of Trart. 79c,7c Pages 28-31 O.R.Lo, Ange How many oak trees will be cut, removed, les County r map recorded in relocated or damaged? 53 How many oak tees will remain 0 Will trees to be removed be replaced? Yes Proposed size, type, location (indicated on site H Yes, indicate the Per City requirements, located on ma or s �es °d mule for planting. Are trees to be relocated? No and his qualifications for doing this, 1f' Yes, identify who will move them OA[ TREE PERlIIT APPLICATION TENTATIVE TRACT 51253 BURDEN OF PROOF, RESPONSE: B. The trees proposed for removal are in a canyon which will be filled. A storm drain system will be provided to mitigate run-off. C -la. Due to the location of the trees, and the physical constraints of the site, 9 lots of the 23 proposed could not be developed if the trees are not removed. Such a loss of lots would preclude economic development of the site. OAS TREE STATEMENT ( ] The subject property contains no oak trees. [ ] The subject property contains one or more oak trees, however the applicant anticipates that no activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak tree. I x ] The subject property contains one or more oak trees and the applicant states that activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak tree. an Oak Tree Permit has been or will be applied for prior to any activity taking place on the property. - (AW(icant's Signature) March 12, 1993 (Date) (To be completed by applicant) General Information: Dat• tiled: Pertinent Permits/Applications' March 12, 1993 Subdivision Application - T.T. 51253 Project Information' 1. Name, Address and Phone Number of Project sponsor' Sasak Corporation P.O. Box 1153 . Upland, CA. 91785-1153 (909) 981-6449 2. Name, Address and Phone Number of Key Contact Person(s): James J. Budke Amrut Patel RIJa+-a nomas., carvi ce 858 W. 9th Street 5 Wrigley Upland, CA. 91785 (909) 981-6449 Irvine, CA. 92718 (714) 581-6997 3. Project Address: Morning Sun Ave Diamond Bar 4. Project Assessor's Block and Parcel Number(s): 8765 005-001, 002 b 003 S. other Identification (other recorded/sap location !nlorsatl*n)s Tract 32576, Lots 46, 47, 48 6-A. Does the project require any of the following actions by the City: Y22 no Variances x Conditional gas Permits X Zone Charge: x General Plan AsisnI nt: x 6-H. List and describe any other related standards, permits and other public approvals relevant to this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: City Oak Tree Permit, L.A. County Sanitation District- Sewer, L.A. County Flood Control District- Storm Drain 7. Land go* Designations: Adopted General Plan Designations PD Adopted Zoning: RPD 10.000 - 6U Community Plan Designation: RPD 10.000 - 6U 8. Pie sod specific use of sit*: Subdivision into 23 S.F. detached lots, 8,000 S.F. minimum lot size. Project Description 9-A. Site Dimensions and Gross Area: The site contains two rectangular parcels, 494' x 400' and 250' x 377' for a total area of 6.7 acres. 9-3. Legal Description of the Projects (attach copy to tUs fors If necessary) Lots 46, 47 b 48 of Tract 32576 per map recorded in Book 927, pages 28 to 31, Official Records, Los Angeles County 10. Project Detail Chia attach & se separate page of descriptive data for each housing type included in a. 'Nu�bar of b. a Area busing Units by t C. Number of Y type (minimae �' d• Housing floor (stories) * maximym� and •. gotimatb market targeted (d for each type. average square footage). f• Describe al"r� •alas price raphia profile). recreation amenities pries or proposed (losxad market rants. mum lot six.. ( omimon uaa lacilities0i landscaping, h. Kin c i. Maximum lot sisa. (Nee lot area, not includintrials, ate.), 11vsaga lot size. (fit lot area, not including Night-of•waY)• J Number of (Nat lot area, not including Night -of -way). lots which do not mast City stand il. Describe � Night-o!•Nay). or other Public or private utilit ands. Project Sit•iliti•s which axial ,utility the surfaceutility lines omenta below or bstructures surface of the el Associated Projectsr (Pro • related to this project, i•s j cts o o! this potential Project):_ SOUth v,.f_-- - Potential ter Plan 13. Done r� any anticipated Time Trams) All one _phase r potential projects which are directly developments which raquirs completion Phasing for this project= (Number Of Units i ld • Nttach one copy of each of the folloa. prelwings b• Preliminary Soils Report c• Dra'"naryGeologic in�resti d. ine" Study, gation. •. roDo4raphic Nap highlighting Napo or plot Tract cut a" iaeh area Of fill e$ Planicl arlr Ste! o! each 3S• os more. !. PhoMany was with 81090all residential unit pads (ifarea of not' 'showing the aiteafsommdowe. )mown), not' wee"eh m" Pointe and �a (its north different • South . east, west) from the sitee.�s s n4 �iStaa (Loss ENVIRONKMAL INFORMATION FORM TENTATIVE TRACT 51253 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE: 10. a. Housing type not determined b. Floor area will range from 1900 S.F. to 2800 S.F. c. Two stories d. Insufficient data e. Not yet established f. Not yet established g. Minimum lot size: 8,000 S.F. h. Maximum lot size: 16,700 S.F. i. Average lot size: 10,200 S.F. J. One. Are the following items applicable to the proposed project or its effects? (Discuss below all items which apply to this project: attach additional Moots an necessary) 13. Grading: Maximum depth of excavation: 41 Maximum depth of fill: 49' Quantity of soil moved: 145.760 cubic yards. Will there be an on site balance of cut and fill?: No 16. Viewshed: Describe any change in the appearance of the site resultinq from the project as proposed. The existing north/south ridge will be lowered an average of 20', and the small canyon at the northeast corner will be filled to slightly above the existina pads at the terminus of Morning Sun Ave 17. Describe how the proposed project will fit into its surroundings (le: will the proposed project blond into and existing neighborhood? Mow will it revel• to the miss, •vale, style, and character of the existing surrounding development?) This site will s..ture lots and structures approximately the same size as existing on Morning Sun. Great care has been taken to blend this site into the future South Pointe Master Plan is. Describe any alteration of the existing drainage patterns, or potential for changes in surface or ground water quality or quantity. (ie: will the flow of any thimanents or Lnt0ZMittent surface/subsurface water change result of thi• projectT lbw?: will there be any injection wells pica systems, or other facilities which may affect surface or subsurface water quality?) will be re with a storm drain system. Due to development. surface quantity will be increased, but will still drain to the existing _facilities in place. 19. Describe any long-term noise and/or vibration which may occur as a result of this projects (atter construction will this project directly or indirectly cauel the generation of noise and or vibrationgreater than any that ezists now?) Since the site is currently vacant, long term noise will be increased, primarily from motor vehicles. ial construction 20. Describe any residentuction Prod to besed on fbuilt olilled ntilled identity the lot number of each structure propose land). All or portions of Lots 1 through 8, and 12 through 15 will beon filled land. 21. Do any significant trees exist on the project site now? Describe the effect this project will have on them. (is: Oak and Walnut trees ct aledistuzb or considered significant. Describe whether the propo sed cause removal of any of these trees). val of 53 coast live oak trees which Thin Rrmil,will cause the onra— boated in the SffiAll Canyon adjacent to the easterly tract boundary. 22. regional or Is the project historical, environmental orother n�esLgnLficance locally designated 00 designated areaealof of as a hillside describe. (le: is the site an area designated resource area�ne� management area, significant ecological area, sign t This site is art of the Hillside Management area, as well s containing numerous significant oak trees. mviroameatal getting' This 23. Describe the environmental setting (synopsis) of the project site. drainage, narrative shall include a description of the soil stability, he now• and Y scenic quality, plants, and aniaals whiff may exist of the project site. existing structures and the existing This vacant 6.7 acre site is comprised of a natural ridge line / h a shallow moderately steep canyon adjacent and Prandint eas_terlv. the ridge is covered with annual grassland, while the canyon contains O&k woodland and inland same scrub. There are no structures on the site. Soils are stable with natural drainage flowing north to a storm drain tag, skunks and raccoons inlet. Birds, lizards, snakes, rodents, rabbits, coyo have been spotted on or near the site. Generally, the ridge precludes viewing this site from Morning Sun Ave. Existing houses to the north would have a more enhanced view of the canyons looking southerly into the site. 24. Describe the surrounding include a descriptions properties (synopsis). This narrative Mall plants, of the soil stability, sl and animals which may exist. Zndicat• 10"0, drains (residential, Commercial, etc. drainage, sCenic quality, family, done it ). intensity of 1 YPt o! land use (height, lronta, c�ercial, professional and use (sin43e-luil gt, set -back, etc.n the adjacent etc.), and seal* Of development area west and north is developed into single su rounding area. with Lots 75-85' wide and 20 g family' 1 6 2 story homes ' setbacks. South and east vacant. To o rah contains north/south trends the acreage is are covered with sa cnaparral and oak woodland. Cartification, ng ridges and canyons. The scrub and the canyons contain Z hereby certify that the Statements furnished above exhibits present the data evaluation of the propound information t.required fori„itialten.i=ohed knowledge, belief and ability tocdeterminAll entacctyal° true, to the best of my complete. correct and Date, March 12, 1993 1 ' Signatures �' Y"a' For j ` Budke Desitin Service vOAV-Zetsoa of thst torte se dee lA th.ie tore and the gUiredr"WJXed to bep� ,tasty o! a e��g whether a M Alred at 'Robed Me ortals f a JP Joc . ratomatjon lvtgattw Deolarat�oa �Tg 1ve Otalarattee the C1ty in shall be rt4�+ssed. bO graAted, or uhe� _�raAted. whether a Mitigated lroAMtatal zopect deport i. V ie r go still !`11tl1tiiliitl1111titlll11ji1 � H 6��� o®®�c�om mo i• �:'/ -+ � .y�G�• ;� '•r'�yj/ . � +.�' I '! .ice � %%. COL, Q sir'%/�.• . , •'• r \ i '' is •+�f��. ;� ' ♦� 1 �%i Win. �.•'`•.�• T. • � t� • �, � � .► � + . tai. � �• `�l� • Z l -' ..._.. � �... 1. Mandatory Findings of Significance? a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered Plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? C. DOes the proposed pro ect which are individually limited pacts abut cumulatively considerable? d• Does the project pose environmental effects. which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: (Attach Narrative) DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL, BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: Signature: Title: For the City of D amond Bar, Cal forma I. SUMMARf,INTRODJCTION AGENDA ITEi•1 PJUMBER: 3 REPORT DATE: April 5, 1993 MEETING DATE: April 12, 1993 CASE/FILE NUMBER: A) South City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report Pointe Master Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 92081040 B) General Plan Amendment C)(3)Development Agreement(s) D) Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 (Arciero) E) Tentative Tract 51253 (Patel) F) Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 (RNP) G)(3)Hillside Management Ordinance Conditional Use Permit(s) H)(3)Oak Tree Removal Permit(s) APPLICATION REQUEST: A General Plan Land use Element Amendment to re -designate the 4+ acre (former) Water District from Public Facility (PF) to Planned Development (PD). Land development request consisting of Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 involving the subdivision of 47.4 acres into 93 parcels (91 single-family residential lots, 7,200 sq. ft. min. lot size and 2 commercial lots), Tentative Tract 51253 involving the subdivision of lots 46, 47 and 48 of Tract 32576 consisting of 6.7 acres up to 26 parcels (all single-family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 involving the subdivision of lot 53 of Tract 35742 and lots 46, 47, 48 and 49 of Tract 32576 consisting of 90.8 acres into 87 parcels (up to 90 single-family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size, 1 open space lot and 3 commercial lots), three (3) development agreements containing a master plan, three (3) conditional use permits relative to hillside grading, three (3) oak tree removal permits and review of an environmental impact report. PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located in the south- western area of the City of Diamond Bar, encompassing an area of approximately 171+ acres. The project site, which is comprised of a number of existing parcels and ownership interests, can be generally described as 1 being situated westerly of the Orange (SR -57) Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly of the corporate boundaries of the City (and Tract No. 27141), northerly of Pathfinder Road and the existing residential area (i.e., Tract No. 32576) obtaining vehicular access from the roadway and southerly of South Pointe Middle School and existing residential and vacant properties located southerly of Colima Road. PROPERTY OWNERS: Walnut Valley Unified School District, City of Diamond Bar, RnP Development Inc., Arciero and Sons Inc., and Amrut Patel. APPLICANTS: (1) RNP Development, Inc., 4439 Rhodelia Drive, Claremont, CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Sons, Inc., 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th St., Upland, CA 91785 (4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste. 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I. BACKGROUND/PURPOSE This Staff Report represents the fourth Addendum to the South Pointe master Plan Staff Report prepared for the January 25, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. This fourth Addendum Staff Report provides the framework for the April 12, 1993 public meeting. The focus of the fourth Addendum Staff Report is the continued Staff presentation of the project elements and the beginning of Planning Commission consideration of the project entitlements. II. PUBLIC NOTICES AND HEARINGS The South Pointe Master Plan environmental review process has met all requirements as set forth by the California Environmental Quality Act relative to public notices and hearings. The public review and participation process involved the following steps: A. The notice of preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was distributed on August 19, 1992. The NOP comment period was 30 days in accordance with CEQA guidelines. B. The South Pointe Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and comment between November 30, 1992 and January 18, 1993. 2 C. A notice of public hearing was mailed to approximately 1,100 property owners adjacent to the site, on January 14, 1993. Additionally, a notice of the Public Hearing process was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Newspapers on January 15, 1993. D. Study sessions were held on October 26, 1992 and December 14, 1992 including a project site tour. E. Public hearings were held on January 25 and February 8, 1993 whereby the Planning Commission received verbal testimony regarding the adequacy and content of the DEIR. As a final action at the February 8th public hearing, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing relative to the adequacy of the DEIR and continued the hearing to February 22nd for Planning Commission discussion. During the February 22nd hearing the Planning Commission determined that the DEIR does adequately address the environmental impacts of the project and directed Staff to prepare the appropriate Draft Resolutions recommending that the City -- Council certify the EIR document. F. A Public Hearing was held on February 25th in which the substantive project of the South Pointe Master Plan was reviewed with -the assistance of a Staff -prepared slide presentation. The public hearing was continued to March 22nd to continue the Staff presentation. G. A Public Hearing was held on March 22, 1993 and public testimony was taken. Direction to Staff was given to return to the Planning Commission with responses to Planning Commission questions. These questions and responses are found in Attachment A of this Staff Report. The meeting was continued to April 12, 1993. III. ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS The Planning Commission is recommended to continue to review and consider the following entitlement actions; A. General Plan Amendment (GPA) The South Pointe application package involves a GPA tc redesignate the 4+ acre former Water District parcel from Public Facil-fty (PF) to Planned Development (PD). An analysis of General Plan consistency is provided as Appendix A of the January 25, 1993 Staff Report. Appendix A discusses project relationship to each goal 3 of the General Plan. The City of Diamond Bar has purchased the former water District parcel to include in the residential/commercial components of the South Pointe Master Plan. These 4 -acres and other easements will be traded to Arciero and Sons, Inc., and RNP in exchange for 10 - 15 acres of commercial property. In order to effectuate the land transfer, the General Plan re -designation from PF to PD is required. B. Tentative Tract Maps Three tentative tract maps have been filed for subdividing the project site into residential, commercial and open space/park parcels. Section III of the January 25th Staff Report (Application Analysis) provides a summary of the intensity and type of development proposed with each tentative tract. C. Hillside Management Ordinance Conditional Use permit (CUP) and Oak Tree Removal Permits Three Conditional Use Permits for Hillside Management and Oak Tree Removal Permits are included within the application package. The impact of project hillside grading was analyzed in the DEIR in Sections 4.2 Earth Resources and 4.10 Aesthetics. Section III F of the January 25th Staff Report addresses how the project grading plan complies with the Hillside Management Ordinance. These CUP's and Oak Tree Permits will be incorporated within the three (3) proposed Development Agreements. D. Development Agreements Staff will brief the Commission on the Development Agreement status and return draft agreements to the Planning Commission for subsequent meetings. The Development Agreement will contain the Master Plan found as Attachment B to your January 25th Staff Report. The Development Agreement is utilized as a single "contract" document to incorporate the Master Plan, Hillside management regulations and Oak Tree Permit. The Development Agreement is adopted by ordinance and is substantially equivalent to the Specific Plan zoning process. 4 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION A. Re -open the Public Hearing on April 12, 1993 and receive a continued Staff presentation on the elements of the proposed project. The Staff will provide a continued presentation on the project element layers: 1. The General Plan policies 2. The South Pointe Master Plan 3. The Tentative Tract Maps 4. The Hillside Grading Ordinance 5. Oak Tree Removal Permits 6. The Development Agreements The Planning Commission is directed to the January 25, 1993 Staff Report for background information on each of the aforementioned elements. B. The Planning Commission is requested to invite the three developers to present their respective projects within the proposed South Pointe Master Plan area. Two of the developers, RNP and Sasak, have prepared Alternative Tentative Tract Maps. These Maps were included in your March 22 Staff Report. The two developers should review the changes with the Commission. C. Re -open the hearing for public comments. D. Close the public hearing and direct Staff to instruct the Planning Commission on the recommended approach to consider the project entitlement actions. The following Staff recommendations are made to the Planning Commission to assist in the decision-making process: 1. Staff Recommendations for Project. Entitlement Considerations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission first consider the General Plan Amendment. There are two issues that the Planning Commission must consider within the context of the General Plan. a. The first issue for the Planning Commission to consider is whether the P.D. or Planned Development designation is appropriate for the project area. The Planning Commission is reminded that the 4+ acre former Water District property is not now within the jurisdiction of the Water District. The property was purchased by the City of Diamond Bar when the property was declared excess by the Water District. The remaining South Pointe project area is entirely General Planned, P.D. or Planned Development with specific land use designations of Low Density Residential 3 Du/Ac, Park, open Space and Commercial. b. The second General Plan issue area that must be dealt with is whether the proposed project, the South Pointe Master plan, is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission utilize the following procedures to consider the above two General Plan issues. The Planning Commission, under direction of the Chairman, should initiate a "straw vote" on each of the above issue areas. The Planning Commission should direct the staff to prepare resolutions to implement the Planning Commission straw vote direction. The staff will bring back the resolutions for formal adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting. To further direct the Planning Commission on the General Plan consistency issue, the Planning Commission should ascertain if any Planning Commissioner has a concern with a particular General Plan goal and/or policy. ng Commission should next itemize the General Plan Goals and Policies of specific commissioner(s) concern and discuss each Goal/Policy one at a time, reaching consensus on whether the "project" is or is not consistent with the Goal and Policy. Following the "straw vote" on each Goal/Policy oconcern, the Planning Commission should direct staff toprepare appropriate resolutions to implement the Planning Commission direction. In summary, the Planning Commission should direct staff through the following course of action: Pointe Master Plan is consistent goal and/or policy. 1, Ascertain if the South with the General Plan 2. If consistent, direct staff accordingly to prepare the appropriate project approval resolutions. are 3. If inconsistent, either oirCommissionect staff tconsideration, or amended goal or policy f -T 4. Direct the staff to prepare a Resolution of project denial based on inconsistencies with the General Plan. If the Planning Commission finds that Wthe erSouth P rota Master Plan is consistent with the proposed P.D. re-designation and that the Master Plan thensthe consisteit with the General Plan goals and policies, Commission should move to consideration of the South Point Master Plan elements. If the Planning Commission determines that the project is inconsistent with any of the above General Plan issue areas, the Planning Commission may wish to refer the matter to the City Council with a recommendation of project The Planning Commission may also wish to consider the South Pointe Master Plan "project" and make the necessary adjustments to the Master Plan inorder o,intiron a Planning Commission's opinion, bring the project mance under the General Plan. The Planning Commission may wish to inquire of the project applicants; RNP, Arciero and Sasak, if the type of changes contemplated by the Planning Commission in drbeo bring the project into General plan conformity, acceptable to the applicants. If the private applicants indicate that the Planning Commission's proposed Master Plan changes are inconsistent with the private applicants objectives and the private projects would not be built, the Planning Commissecommendaion tiondirect projectmatter the City denial. Council with a r The Staff recommends to the Planning Commission the approval of the General Plan Amendment from PF to PD. The al of stafffinalso recommends to the Planning Commission app rov of consistency between the South Pointe MasPleaseer arefer toe adopted City of Diamond Bar General plan. endix A General the Staff Report of January 25, 1993, App Plan Consistency (Rep ommi If the Planning Commission nCmoves ioncshouldrreviewouth point the Master Plan, the Plann g commends various elements fstthe Mvote asterplan. beconducted sonftheefollowing the same consensus topical element areas: 1. Circulation 2. Land use 3. Development standards and 4. Grading 7 The Planning Commission Chairman should in Master Plan topical element if vire modifications. as to each A discussion and Straw Planning Commissioner has on each modification proposed nntilraw vote should be been considered. Followin the taken areas 9 considerationaofathe have the Planning Commission should direct the the topical prepare the appropriate approval resolutions thewitstaff o modifications. without If the Planning Commission finds Master Plan, the Planningagainst the South prepare the a Commission should direct stafftorecommends tothe ppropriate denial resolutions. The Staff Pointe Master Planpasnning Commission approval of the Poi Staff Presented by Staff in the January Report Attachment B. Y 25, Following consideration of the South Pointe Master Plan t Planning Commission is directed to consider each of the three (3) Tentative � he Planning Tract maps. Staff recommends that the q Commission consider each Tentative Tract map separately; Arciero Draft Resolutions for approval and then Sasak. Staff has Resolutions will be approval for each subdivision,Prepared _ subsequent meeting alonurned to the Planning These Planning g with Staff occommendationsS1OThet a q Commission is directed to focus upon two (2) Tentative Map issue areas. 1. Does the Tentative Tract map implement the South Pointe Master Plan; and, 2• Are the proposed conditions appropriate implementation of Tentative Tract m . assure the Tentative Tract map. The Planning Commission should reach consensus on each Tentative Tract map i3sue area before moving to consideration of the final entitlement area, the South Pointe Development Agreements. The final action before the Planning Commission is consideration of the Development Agreement. the approach suggested on the above issues, the Planning to the Commission is directed to seek consensus on each of the three Development Agreements. Commission To assist the Planning in the contexteoDeitsoessentment ialeement elementSould be considered 1• The land trades and dedications between the develo ers (RNP/Arciero) and the City of Diamond Bar. p 8 Of Develop ment Rights to RNP 2. The Transfer oval of the South Pointe Master Plan. 3 ApprConditional Use 4. Approval of the Hillside Grading permit. he Oak Tree Removal Permit - Approval of tThese 5' ment Agreements. re ared Draft De velopeturned to the Planning Staff hmenp Agreements will be along with Staff Develop a subsequent meeting Commission at of and recommendations. ent requests all the entitle Commission with Following consideration to the Planning by the staff will return for final action issues, implementing resolutions the formal imp planning Commission. Hardy M. Strozier, AICP PREPARED BY: Special project Consultant V. O 10 C0 RESPONSE TO PLANNINGCOMMISSION MARCH22,99NTS 3 ATTACHMENT B MEYER MEMORANDUM DATED STREET "A"r DIAMOND BAR MASTER PLAN C 1993 D BUDKE MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 24, REF: DAVID MEYER & BRUCE FLAMENBAUM E J.C.D. LETTER COMMENTS RVTCESF INC. LETTER H BIOLOGICAL H25, .993 FROM F PACIFIC SOiNTHOMAS DATED MARC TO 14R . KEVIN KEITH W• MERKEL 9 ATTACHMENT A RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: The following information is prepared in response to various planning Commission comments thaublic meetinreceived hearings. In Commission p g past eight Planning Commission gets benefit of a order to insure that the Planning providing the directed response to their comments, Staff isswith a response to statement by the Planning Commissioner along In some cases, the detailed response may the specific question. previous be found in one ofaffseveral will summa�izenthe responsestorthe planning staff Reports . St Commission question and reference the previous detailed response to that question. roach utilized by Staff is to review thePlanning questions The app z b date and provide the appropriate Commission meeting y Commissioner. and responses by the individual planning pla ning Commission Meeting of October 26, 1992 Chairman Flamenbaum: Chairman Flamenbaum inquired of the location and the size of 1. road? the proposed secondary Res onse: CDD/DeStefano stated that the proposed secondary road would likely become a resederalll acrosstfromor tChuckreet -e- y to the cul -de - located off Brea CathenRNPRoad area and heading Cheese, traversing sac at the end of Larkstone Drive. as opposed 2. Chairman Flamenbaum inquireceif there ls together,e other benefits o to the City to tie all the par separately considering the South Pointe Middle school project in the Arciero development? to the Res onse: CDD/DeStefan explained that ishthatnthet tsllthe Clt--tying all the parcels ether (such as the streets, systems would be looped tog resolving the proposed storm drains and the water lines) resolving recreational park space land use patternatternsat eand msite planning. needs, grading p uired why the school's improvements have to be encumbered 3. Inq by the rest of this project? Respn3e: Staff explained that the schools' EIR School contemplates the Arcit ero project. If Walnut Valley District were to change the South Pointe Middle School project another EIR would be required which would further delay the construction of the South Pointe Middle School and probably increase cost of construction. Furthermore, the various water systems needed to serve the school, come through the Arciero and RNP properties. Also a secondary circulation system that would access the school appears to be a viable circulation alternative to provide a more direct and safe circulation route to the South Pointe Middle School from its service area south of the School site. vice Chairman McBride: 1. Inquired how much of the "Blue Line" stream would be preserved with this development project? Response: Jan Dabney stated that in this proposal the Blue Line stream that runs to the canyon would be entirely filled in. In addition it should be noted that the Blue Line stream located on the Patel property will also be entirely filled in with the proposed project. Jan Dabney went on to indicate that of the 27 -acre park site, 15 acres of the park site would be set aside in its natural setting and include additional plantings of the development area and transferred into that setting. The intent was to insure that the open space area proposed to be developed and transferred to the City would be adjacent to and include the two areas that currently belong to a Home owners Association so there is a means for mitigation of any animal life. Planning Commissioner Meyer: 1. Inquired if this project would comply with the concept in the Hillside Management Ordinance? Response: Jan Dabney noted that the project has many grades that exceed 108. With land form grading, a lot of yardage must be moved to preserve as much as the existing features as possible, yet still yield enough density to warrant the additional cost of grading. It is Staff's evaluation of the South Pointe Tentative Tract Maps that they do not conform specifically to the percent slope and percent left in open space parameters outlined in the Code. The Hillside Grading Ordinance has, however, provisions for deviating from the Code through a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed South Pointe Tentative Tract Maps have Conditional Use Permits before the Planning Commission for their review and consideration. The South Pointe Master Plan and Tentative Tract Maps do contain contour grading concepts that are called out within the 2 Hillside Grading Ordinance. Any Final Tract Maps would be judged against the Hillside Grading Ordinance contour and land form grading concepts contained within the document. Planning Commission Meeting of December 14, 1992 Commissioner Meyer: 1. Requested further elaboration on the analysis and the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and alternate land uses of the site? Response_: Peter Lewandowski explained that CEQA requires that in addition to tri project, a reasonable range of alternate land uses an- alternate designs be identified that are designed to minimize, avoid or mitigate the impacts identified in the project. Six separate project alternatives have been analyzed and are designed to provide a comparative analysis, relative to the impacts produced by the proposed project. The alternative analysis is found in Chapter 6 of the DEIR for the South Pointe Master Plan. Peter Lewandowski then reviewed each of the project alternatives as presented in the DEIR as well as the impacts and the mitigation measures identified for each alternative. One of the alternatives that should be of particular importance to the Planning Commission, based on previous Commission questions, is the cluster alternative found on Page 6-18 of the EIR. Under this alternative a significant portion of canyon the site, approximately 95%, this retained as open space with development located on the site's peripheral areas. Chairman Flamenbaum: 1. Concurring with Commissioner Meyers' request, Chairman Flamenbaum suggested that the consultants review the General Plan land use sections 1.2.4 on page I-11, in Section 3.3 on I-19, and Resource Management Section 1.1 and 1.2, on pages III -8, in conjunction to their response? Response: Staff in their January 25, 1993 Staff Report provided an Appendix A General Plan Consistency Evaluation for the Planning Commission's review. Each goal of the General Plan was stated within the Staff Report text. After each goal statement there was a discussion explaining the project's consistency or inconsistency with the objectives, including strategies, which support the goal attainment. At the end of each discussion in the Staff Report, the Planning Commission found a reference identifying the specific objective the written text addresses. Each of Chairman 3 2. 3. Flamenbaum's suggested General Plan policies was reviewed within the context of that Staff Report. In addition, Don Schad, in a letter dated January 19, 1993 to the Planning Commission raised many General Plan policy issues in his lengthy discussion. The response to comments on the DEIR presented responses to each of Don Schad's comments, including responses to questions raised relative to General Plan policies. The Planning Commission is directed to pages 5-62 through pages 5-103 for the comment and responses to Mr. Schad's questions regarding General Plan policies and project consistency with those policies. Staff found project consistency in all General Plan areas. The EIR should also include a discussion regarding the im acts of moving the dirt, both within the project area and P off the project area. Response: The response to comments in the DEIR, page D-19, evaluated the export of soil from the project site specifically with regard to the 400,000 yards of surplus soil now present on the South Pointe Middle School site. Exporting the dirt from the project site, according to the DEIR response to comments, would require a total of 25,640 truck trips. All vehicles would travel an estimated 102,500 miles in the local area's roadway network and would require approximately eighteen weeks or 4 1/2 months to complete removal activities. other indirect costs associated with the earth moving would be the damage and reconstruction to local city streets required by the 25,640 truck trips. The cost to prepare the DEIR Amendment to allow a different alternative to the removal of the dirt than that previously analyzed in School District's DEIR could be substantial. Requested information regarding the impacts of any increase in noise to both the surrounding community and remaining wild life in the area. Response: Chapter Iv. 4.7 page 4-134 of the DEIR through page 4-149 evaluated noise and its impact on the surrounding existing residential community as well as the proposed tentative tract projects that would be on site if the project was approved. The DEIR concludes that there is no significant adverse noise impact. With project build -out, noise factors will be well within the General Plan guidelines for the City of Diamond Bar. The impact on remaining wild life in the area should be no different than what exists today in the surrounding area. The more important impact to existing wild life in the area would be the filling of the majority of'the remaining Sandstone Canyon area which would displace a majority of existing wild life. Commissioner Meyer: 1. Commissioner Meyer requested that more information be provided as to how it was concluded that going from a rural or a non -urbanized use to urbanize use is a non-significant impact. Response: Page D-4 through D-9 responded to this question in some level of detail in the response to comments in the DEIR report. Essentially the City's Genera Plan has indicated an urbanized use for the subject property. The City Council has made the policy determination that the project will urbanize according to a Planned Development or Master Plan approach. There is nothing within the CEQA statute, with a specific reference towards Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, that would guide Staff to draw a conclusion that going from an undeveloped to a developed urbanized use is by itself a significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated under CEQA. Furthermore, the City's General Plan, which identified an urban use for the subject property, had a full EIR and master environmental assessment associated with it that provided full mitigation and overriding considerations. Commissioner Li: 1. Requested information regarding the exact dollar amount for future fiscal benefits to the City of Diamond Bar. Response: The Staff prepared a estimated revenue projection for the subject project that is contained in the January 25, 1993, Staff Report found on page 10, 11 and 12. The Staff evaluation noted that the City would be expected to accrue annual revenues between $376,000 to $790,000 per year for commercial development. In addition, the City would acquire ten acres of commercial property which would sell for approximately $4.3 million on the open market. The Planning Staff is currently directing the preparation of a more detailed economic study by the Levander Company which should be available at the next Planning Commission meeting. 2. How was it determined that 465 new jobs would be created in the City with the South Pointe project? Response: The Staff responded to Mr. Li during the Staff meeting that job projections were based upon industry standards for commercial and office uses. A more detailed analysis was provided in the Response to Comments on the DEIR found on D-9 through D-11. 5 3. Further elaboration was requested as to why the off-site analysis of traffic resulted in one conclusion while the on- site traffic analysis resulted in a separate conclusion. Response: During the public meeting Staff explained that the development of additional collector roads on the project site primarily connecting Morning Sun and Brea Canyon Road enhances internal circulation impacts. However, the external circulation to the South Pointe project, in combination with other projects in the Diamond Bar area, further impact arterial roadways in the proximity of the project. The Response to Comments in the DEIR on page D-11 went on to indicate that on-site and off-site traffic impacts are two separate issues. The addition of A Street will improve access to the existing South Pointe Middle School and facilitate east -west traffic movement through the site. However, the project will add traffic on the surrounding street system and contribute to a regional traffic cumulative impact. It should be noted that the DEIR recommends traffic mitigation measures that Staff will include as conditions to the project. Commissioner Grothe: 1. Inquired if other vegetation or trees have been quantified, beside oak trees? Response: Only the oak trees were quantified because the City's Oak Tree Ordinance directs Staff to identify and mitigate the loss of that one tree species. However, the acreage for each of the seven vegetation species identified on site were quantified. No other State, Federal or locally significant tree species were identified on site. See further response on pages D-11-12 of the Draft EIR Response to Comments. 2. Requested that an alternate project be considered that eliminates one of the major residential developments. Response: The Cluster Alternative found on page 6-18 of the Draft EIR eliminates all of Tract 31407 and Tract 32400 residential units and commercial that is proposed in the riparian area of Sandstone Canyon. This alternative is substantially equivalent to the alternative proposed by Commissioner Grothe. See further response to this comment on pages D-115-16 of the Draft EIR Response to Comments. C: Commissioner McBride: relationship 1. Requested more informatio on ibledevel pmentshlortotal south Pointe project to posset a feeling of what s potentials for development, so as to g happening beyond the confines of this particular mass proposal. er of Response: The Draft EIR identeXled a Pectedntoboccur inthe projects which are reasonably jects were analyzed in Draft EIR project area. These pro D-17-19. The analysis concluded Response to Comments 35 new housing units and 815,352 sq. that an estimated 6.235 ark can be anticipated based on ft. of commercial/business p Of existing and future land use policies. The inhthemEIRtfor the new city-wide development was analy City of Diamond Bar General Plan. 2. Requested a cross section analysis to illustrate the proportion of density of the impact of the fill upon the canyon. . D-19 noted that E2sjonse: The EIR Response to Comments p9 the ro ect the "EIR contained seven e1ro cross iconstted tortheoughPlannpng] site. These sections were scaled format. Commission in a 1 Planning Commission meetingJanuar 15, 1993 Chairman Flamenbaum: 1, Requested a of any roads discussion of the in this project pros and cons to Rapid View of the openings and to Larkstone? cluded a Res onset The EIR menbaumpsncommentsse to mmeThesents nresponsesrareonse to Chairman Fla the response indicates that found on page D-27. Briefly,to there currently is an Mormm�gtto Sun Avenuee aAcfuture the from proposed project u. an easement connection to Larkstone Drive would oul reqSchool District through the School District's property. officials have agreed with South rovidedPointe Larkstoneresidents Drive. through access will not be p Flood control facilities Furtherare steepeslopesosouth of Rapid View ntly lcated at theen o Rapid View Drive. ro ect almost Drive make connection to the South Pointe p J impossible. connect with Larkstone Drive If "A" Street was re -aligned to instead of Morning Sun Avenue, project traffic forecast of use on Morning Sun AvenueAvenue This lchange d be hwould increaseifted to p.m. Drive and Lemon he east peak hour ICU onColioaORo(0•90 tom0.91vatut ColimaRoad/Lemon bound SR -60 ramps Y Avenue and 1.00 to 1.01 at Colima Road/Eastbound SR -60 anticipated at the other key ramps), with no change nne intersections. The co Sun Avenue Srtreet tLarkstone salsoexpectedto Drive instead of Morning h traffic to cut through increase the potential for through the residential neighborhood. ro osed connection to Rapid View Drive would only Thep P homes proposed with provide secondary access to the ninety Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 and not tVieweDrive coulde rst Of the also Pointe project. A connection to Rap peak hour by-pass some traffic attempting to avoid congestion at the Colima Road/Golden Springs/Brea Canyon Road intersections. Project access to Rapid View Drive -locate 30 a.m. peak hour trips and 40 re would potentially ect driveway on Brea p.m. peak hour trips from the pro j Canyon Road to Colima Road via Rapid View Drive. secondary access to Rapid View Drive is not In summary, the carrying considered a requirement necessitated by or inadequacies capacity of the proposed Tentative Tract Map The proposed Tract of the surrounding circulation system. 8 32400 has provided adequate secondary emergency access southerly to the proposed commercial site. The Tracts propose full access point on Brea Canyon Road provides ample traffic accessibility onto an arterial highway with safe intersection characteristics. 1. Additional full access point would be required, either through Morning Sun Avenue or Larkstone Drive. 2. Requested information on the accuracy of the project's tree count. Response: All trees meeting the criteria outlined in the Oak Tree Ordinance for the City of Diamond Bar have been tabulated. The individual oak tree reports are identified in the Draft EIR. The full reports with detailed tree counts are on file with the City of Diamond Bar Planning Department. 3. The Draft EIR's reference to the absence of amphibians in the project area should be re-examined. Response: The Draft EIR Response to Comments on page 0-28 noted that areas along the main drainage course where surface water was present were searched for amphibians, such as the California Chorus Frog. This small frog is often found in niches and crevices in rocky creek beds. The California Chorus Frog is expected to occur or have occurred on the project site. Many frog populations have locally disappeared or have declined in Southern California in recent years. Another amphibian which is expected to occur on site is the Western Toad. Several species of salamanders may be present on the site, including the California Newt, the Garden Slender Salamander and the Black -bellied Slender Salamander., The details of these amphibian reports may be found in the biological reports which are on file in the City of Diamond Bar Planning Department. 4. The environmental analysis should elaborate upon existing South Coast Air Quality Management District air quality standards and their meanings in practical terms. Response: Existing Federal and State air quality standards are discussed on pages 4-107 - 4-110 of the DEIR and are tabulated on pages 4-108 and 4-109 in Table 13 of the DEIR. More detailed responses to this question are found in the DEIR Response to Comments page D-28. 5. Provide a more detailed analysis as to why Concept #4 found on page 2-21 of the DEIR is good or bad and how Concept #4 compares to Concept #3 found on page 2-19 of the DEIR. 9 Response: Concept #4 includes a relocation of street A from Brea Canyon Road westerly to a point just south of Larkstone. Concept #4 provides an increase in the physical separation between the residential and non-residential uses and potentially increases the park acreage usable for active and/or passive recreational pursuits. The relocation of Street "A" may require additional grading within Tract 32400 and the adjacent commercial area proposed for transfer to the City of Diamond Bar, thus reducing the potential acreage dedication to the City. The location of Street "A" adjacent to the proposed residential area will cause additional noise impacts to the proposed residential units backing upon Street "A". The Planning Commission should note that Street "A" in this location would cause a significant elevation gradient between Brea Canyon Road and the South Pointe Middle School. The buses traversing this street would cause significant noise impacts on the adjacent residential areas in both their acceleration and deceleration modes. Street "A" located next to the residential area does provide a separation of the commercial and residential land uses. However, this separation or buffer can be handled in a different design concept as illustrated in Concept Plan 3. The relocation of Street "A" from the park frontage to the area noted in Concept #4 would reduce the vehicular accessibility to the proposed community park site. Concept Plan #3 provides a perimeter collector road, Street "A", that provides parking and pedestrian access to the entire length of the proposed community park site. Relocation of Street "A" to the area noted in Concept #4 would reduce the access to proposed community park site or require an additional road network to access the park site. Commissioner Plunk: 1. Requested an analysis of the additional cost and benefit, if any, if the dirt would be moved to another canyon. Res onse: The DEIR Response to Comments page D-25 provided a etas ed response to this question. In summary, the additional cost for the off-site removal of soil is estimated to be between $1.6 - $2 million. There would be additional indirect costs for soil removal based upon the cost to prepare additional environmental documents to analyze the impacts of this alternative. There will be costs to remediate the damage to local City of Diamond Bar streets caused by the introduction of the thousands of truck trips on local city streets. Additional analysis of this question was provided in DEIR Response to Comments pages D- 10 25 and D-26 including an analysis of the temporary dirt road required to remove the surplus soil via Brea Canyon Road. 2. Requested an analysis of the relative safety of slippage occurring on cut and fill and on land left in its natural state? Response: The DEIR Response to Environmental Comments on page D-26 and noted D-27 responded to this question. Response that on Figure 13 (Geological Map - Vesting Tentative Tract #51407) and Figure 14 (Geological Map - Tentative Tract #32400) in the Draft EIR, a number of land slide areas have been identified on the project site. Although the majority of these unstable slope areas are internal to that site, a land slide has been plotted in proximity to Black Hawk Drive and Larkstone Drive. Failure to mitigate that existing condition could affect off-site properties. All unstable soil conditions will require remedial work and be subject to detailed soils and geology engineering studies, recommendations and monitoring to insure the safety of future residents. Existing geologic conditions that could be termed unsafe exist in the natural state within the sides of Sandstone Canyon today. Such conditions can be found by referring to the aforementioned geologic maps on both Tentative Tract Maps in the DEIR. Commissioner Grothe: 1• Expressed his concern that the EIR indicates practically everything in the Canyon to be non-significant. In concluding for in -significance, the DEIR may be under estimating the potential impacts of the project on the site's biological resources. Response: The DEIR Response to Comments on page D-24 provided a response to Commissioner Grothe. While the DEIR concludes that impacts from the site's biotic resources will be adverse, mitigation measures identified in that document and augmented by the Response to Comments will minimize those impacts to a level which is deemed by the Environmental Consultant to be less than significant. The Environmental Consultant found no biotic resources which are deemed to be sensitive, rare or endangered by either the State or Federal Government or by the local City of Diamond Bar ordinances. The only area that the Consultant deemed to be of local significance was the Oak Tree population within Sandstone Canyon. While the Oak Tree population is deemed to be locally significant, the City of Diamond Bar City Council has adopted an ordinance which allows a mitigation 2 3. program to be undertaken which reduces locally significant oaks to a level which impact Pact than the is less than • Requested further information re circulation plan. This includedgarding a :7,3re the project's circulation a further detailed analysis includin impacts within thelaviron e ton o congestion in theg a discussion environmental project area. of existing traffic Res--AORSeO This question was the Response to responded to on Peak Comments of the DEIR. Table page D-25 of Hour Level of Service Summary) and Peak Hour Level 8 (Near Term Peakexistingof Service Summar Table 9 (Long Term and future levels of servicen the DEIR indicate area intersections. Also (LOS) at ke Comments #11 found on Please see the Response ytotudy Response to Comments forge 5-9 through 5-11 of the information additional traffic DEIR concerning the proposed related Requested further information protect. regarding noise and view including project's impacts the exact placement of w information concerning section drawings shouldpbeprovosed dwellin provided, g units. Additional Response: 25 dicatedhe project EIR's Response to Comments aesthetic pthat the project's potentialnoiseandn page D- im acts are identified and 34 through 4-148 and pages 4- evaluated on the DEIR. Additional section drawinh 4-218 respecthrougtage fully in contained on page 4-216 in the DEIR have been augment those response to Vice Chairman McBride' been included in 1992. The sections provided s comments December 14, more locations of the the Planning dwelling exact placement ofg Commission include 9 units. the proposed Commissioner Meyer! 1• Requested some empirical anal Consultant, relative to the oysis, provided b Morning Sun Avenue pening of Streety a Traffic concerningthat includes some additionalwdatao the traffic issues brought up by the Commission? Res once: DEIR Response that during to Comments on page D-22 indicated approximately the morning and evening peak hours, pproximately I30 trips each direction, are anticipated on Morning Sun Avenue forecast du rin with considerably lower traffic volumes ion the off-peak periods. This traffic includes the redistrrint traffic and of some existing local residential South Pointe Middle School traffic to Morning 12 Sun Avenue, in addition to the anticipatedproject traffic at build-out for the South Pointe Master Plan. Master Plan is expected to decrease the amount ofhSouthposed Pointe Middle School traffic travelling through the Lemon Avenue, Willowbud Drive neighborhood by more than 400 trips during the morning peak hour. Walnut Valley Unified School District officials have indicated that approximately 75% of the students attending the South Pointe Middle School live south or west of the School. A South Pointe Middle School school attendance boundary map is provided for your review. These students south of the school would access the School from Brea Canyon Road via '"A" Street with the completion of the project. Roughly 100 school related trips are forecast to use Morning Sun Avenue with the revised school access. 2• Additional data was requested relative to how the grading would occur and additional data was requested that would Mitigate impacts relative to grading such as the issue of the migration of wildlife. Response: Specific responses to the question was provided in DEIR Response to Comments page D-23 and D-24. Mitigation measures designed to address geotechnical, hydrologic and biologic issues associated with grading are detailed on page D-23. A detailed phasing plan that would indicate the exact methods, timing and phasing of grading would be required with the submittal of the first final Tract Map. The City will require all necessary bonding for public improvements and bonding to secure the completion of grading once started. 13 Planning Commission Meeting of February 8, 1993 Chairman Flamenbaum: 1. Requested that the EIR address the following: Further discussion identifying the ways to minimize of moving 9.3 million cubic yards of dirt as well as the actual moving of the dirt. Response: The impacts of the proposed grading activities have been addressed as part of the evaluation of each of the topical issues analyzed in the DEIR. All reasonable mitigation measures available to minimize project related grading impacts have been included in the DEIR. Responses. to alternate haul routes and off-site deposition of South Pointe Middle School's stockpiled soil has been previously responded to. Alternate grading approaches to the ones proposed as part of the project have been analyzed in the DEIR in the alternatives analysis including total preservation of Sandstone Canyon. Please see response to comments on the DEIR page D-33. 2. The Draft EIR should address an alternative to the removal of a majority of oak trees on site that would result in the preservation of those trees in place? Response: The Response to Comments to the DEIR on page D-33 notes that the DEIR includes both an evaluation of the no project alternative on pages 6-2 through 6-6 and the cluster development pages 6-18 through 6-23. Implementation of either of these project alternatives including the alternate site option discussed under Response to Comment #67 found on page 5-46 of the Response to Comments of the DEIR would minimize potential impacts on the site's existing oak tree resources and would result in the preservation of over 90% of the existing oak trees on site. 3. The DEIR should further evaluate the impacts associated with the removal of the oak trees and the elimination of the existing water course which has been identified as mostly run-off within the project area? Response: The Response to Comments to the DEIR, page D-33 notes that the project's potential effects on both oak trees and existing water courses on site have been addressed as part of the biotic, hydrologic and aesthetic evaluation included in the DEIR and Response to Comments. All reasonable mitigation measures available to minimize project related impacts have been included therein. It should be further pointed out that the preservation of the riparian area, including the existing stream, has been evaluated as part of the project related alternatives. 14 Commissioner .Me er 1• Requested that the DEIR address an alternative concept t constructing the South Pointe Middle School without the rest Of the elements on the Master Plan. p o Res`se: This question was analyzed in the Response to Comments of the DEIR on page D-29, both the Final EIR for Walnut Valle The response notes that school site and the Draft EIR for Y Unified School District have evaluated the potential impacts uassociatedth Pointe Mwithrthean finalization of the grading plan for School site and the deposition of South Pointe Middle within Sandstone Canyon. surplus soil material comments includes a discussion doftthe �anticipatedsimtacts associated with the transport of surplus soil material from the South Pointe Middle School site to an approved office depository by means of the existin concepts and costs to implement the developmentlocaltofythem Pointe Middle SchooSouth l without the other elements of the South Pointe Master Plan were analyzed in previous responses to Commissioners Flamenbaum and Plunk December 14, 1992 and Januar questions raised on Y 25, 1993. 2. Further elaboration is requested on the items of unavoidab adverse impacts, which are air le circulation, specifically in regardlto�mitigationffic nmeasures that could be implemented to address those three topical areas? le --sponse: . This question was responded to on page D-29 of traffEcRrelatedse to impactsmwills. Since both air quality cumulative development activitieslwhichnue oarela, itreasonablyst based and anticipated to occur in the reasonably Possible to'mitigate those projecttenvironmentalwillnot effects to a level which is not significant. environmental analysis, the Cit ofE Diamond Bar should to this continue to participate with the SouthCoast Management District and other County andStatelr Quality Transportation Planning Agencies in developing regional solutions to these issues. The Planning Commission is directed to the mitigation measures related to traffic and air quality impacts and to those to these impacts that are found inrthesr conditions related opocon of development on each of the three proposedsed tentativeltract maps. 15 3. The traffic analysis show be expanded to address the opening of Morning Sun Avenue, to include both the empirical data that assesses the impacts of the potential traffic into that existing development and mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts, as well as address the issues of no sidewalks, alternate designs of the intersection, and/or elimination of the intersection. Response: The Response to Comments in the DEIR evaluated this question by Commissioner Meyer. These responses can be found in Response to Comments #11, 18 and 75 in the Response to Comments to the DEIR. In summary, traffic volumes are projected to increase with the connection of A Street to Morning Sun Avenue. However, these volumes are not expected to exceed the typical traffic volumes found on local residential streets. Right-of-way exists in the Morning Sun area to provide a residential sidewalk system. 4. Elaborate as to why Rapid View Drive, a collector street is disregarded as an alternative and is not put together in some sort of on-site circulation system? respResponse: The Response to Comments in the DEIR, page D-30, onded to this question. Briefly, a project connection to Rapid View Drive would only provide secondary access to the 90 homes proposed within Vesting Tentative Tract #32400 and not the rest of the South Pointe Master Plan project area. A connection to Rapid View Drive could also attract some by-pass traffic attempting to avoid peak hour congestion at Colima Road/Golden Springs/Brea Canyon Road intersection. Project access to Rapid View Drive would potentially relocate 30 a.m. peak hour project trips and 40 P.m. peak hour trips from the project driveway on Brea Canyon Road to Colima Road via Rapid View Drive. The proposed Vesting Tract #32400 has provided a secondary access point, emergency access only, to the southerly commercial area. 5. Recognizing the amount of dirt to be removed on site, have adequate mitigation measures been developed to reduce potential impacts to a level which is not significant? Additional mitigation measures, including migration trails for wildlife should be considered. Res onse: All reasonable mitigation measures available to minimize potential project related impacts have been included in this environmental analysis as mitigation measures. 16 6. Since small wildlife, such as snakes and rodents will move out of the canyon during grading and probably move into the habitat of existing dwellings, the method to control this activity should be addressed? Response: Other than through the development and implementation of a trapping program, no additional mitigation measures have been identified. The effectiveness of a trapping and transplant program would have limited environmental benefit. 7. There should be further elaboration as to what the grading controls will be to insure that incremental grading on the project site is coordinated amongst the three property owners. Response: The City of Diamond Bar will require that prior to the approval of the first final tract map that a grading phasing plan be approved by the city engineer prior to the issuance of the first grading permit. City approval will also require that all plans and bonding for on- and off-site public improvements will have been made prior to the issuance of the first grading permit. 7. The circulation issues regarding the cross-section for Brea Canyon Road should be examined by the traffic engineers; there is no provision for the cross-section for Brea Canyon Road for sidewalks or any pedestrian type of controls. Response: Response to this question was found in pg. D-31 in the Response to Comments in the DEIR. The proposed cross-section of Brea Canyon Road is adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipated demands. Brea Canyon Road as contemplated would be constructed pursuant to the City of Diamond Bar standards for a secondary roadway as noted in Table B-6, City of Diamond Bar Classification System in the City of Diamond Bar General Plan. For further evaluation of this question, please see the 3rd paragraph on page 4-99 of the Draft EIR and the first paragraph on page D-31 in the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. 8. The Circulation Analysis at Colima Road/Brea Canyon Road which identified that the signals to the west and the signals for the on and off ramps to the freeway need to work in tandem with the phasing for that intersection, should be expanded to address the various types of improvements. 17 Response: Some of the recommended intersection improvements may require modifications to the existing traffic signals. The California Department of Transportation specifically controls the operation of signals at the Freeway on and off ramps. However, to the extent possible, the city should coordinate the operation of adjacent traffic signals to improve traffic flow in the area and minimize traffic delays. 9. Address the responsibility this project would have to the impacts on the various intersections and street sections? Response: As indicated in the Draft EIR pgs. 4-101 through 4-103, the project applicants shall be responsible for contributing a fair share to all identified transportation improvements as determined by the City Engineer. The improvements to these circulation and intersection systems are found in the Draft EIR and the related improvements and exactions would occur with the approval of the final tract maps. 10. Address the type of technical judgment, with respect to this project being used to mitigate the issue of air quality to an acceptable level, understanding that it is impossible to mitigate to a level of insignificance. Response: The determination of project related impacts on air quality are based upon information provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as contained in the publication entitled, Air Quality Handbook for Preparing Reports, revised April 1987. Mitigation measures associated with air quality impacts are found in the Draft EIR, pages 4-131 through 4-133. Commissioner Li: 1. The pre- development and post development hydrologic calculations should be re-examined to insure compliance with appropriate engineering standards. Response: The Draft Environmental Impact Report has been amended through the Response to Comments, to include a requirement for additional studies which evaluate the potential inadequacy of the off-site storm drain system. The provision of on-site retention or the provision for re- routing off-site flows to another storm drain areas having sufficient capacity to handle the runoff from the proposed project site area have been added as project mitigation measures. 18 2. The issue of public safety should be explored relative to unstable slope conditions that exist within the project area? Response: Response to comments on page D-32 notes that development of the project site will be made in accordance with sound engineering practices. In the recommendations of the project, specific geo-technical studies are incorporated into the Draft EIR that will mitigate potential geologic, geo-technical and seismic hazards to a level which is not deemed to be significant. It should be noted that the Draft EIR points out that there are existing unstable soil and geologic conditions on-site existing today. Remedial engineering work will be required as part of project site development to eliminate these geotechnical conditions. Commissioner Grothe: 1. The traffic study should address the project's proposed on- site circulation system, specifically the problem of cut through traffic resulting from the opening of a number of existing streets. Response: The issue of cut -through traffic by opening up Morning Sun, Larkstone Drive, and Rapid view have been discussed in response to comments #11, 18 and 75 in the Response to Comments to the Draft EIR. 2. The sphere of potential project impacts may warrant expansion to insure that all project -related impacts are considered, including any needed signals. Response: The South Pointe Master Plan's potential impact on the adjacent circulation system, including existing signalization, has been included in the Draft EIR Traffic and Circulation evaluation. All reasonable mitigation measures have been included as mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. These mitigation measures reasonably assess the level of impact to the existing circulation system in intersections that may be caused by the proposed South Pointe Master Plan Projects. 3. Since the project is similar to all other past development in Diamond Bar, there needs to be more creativity in its planning with effort expended to possibly the canyon, including more creativity in grading alternatives with the South Pointe Middle School site. 19 Response: The Draft EIR has responded to this issue through the evaluation of a number of alternate project concepts. One concept, referred to as The Cluster Development, would permit the preservation of the entire sandstone canyon area. This alternative would necessitate the off-site transportation of the stockpiled South Pointe Middle School soil. 4. The finalization of the South Pointe Middle School project should be addressed as a separate alternative. The finalization of the South Pointe Middle School without the inclusion of any other components of the South Pointe Master Plan has been evaluated in previous responses to Commissioners Meyer and Plunk. This response evaluated the relative cost to transport the excess soil off-site to the Sandstone Canyon area. 20 RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONER DAVID MEYER, DATED MARCH 22, 1993 ENTITLED "SOUTHPOINTE MASTER PLAN AND ASSOCIATED TRACT MAPS, ETC In the March 22, 1993 memorandum Commissioner David Meyer requested additional information concerning the following items. Each item will be identified, along with its response. Commissioner Meyer's memo is included as Attachment B. 1. FAR An economic analysis that describes the probable financial results of implementing the project as proposed. Response: The January 25, 1993 Staff Report on pages 10 and 11 provided a sales tax revenue evaluation of the proposed commercial/office development. The staff evaluation, based on consultation with outside financial experts, indicated that the proposed sales tax revenue at project build- outwould be between $377,00 to $792,000 per year. In addition, the city ownership of 10-15 acres of commercial land within enclave 4, would have an approximate value of between $4.3 to $6.5 million dollars. If the city chose to lease the land, city revenues would be approximately $430,000 a year, in addition to the sales tax revenue. A more detailed cost revenue study is being prepared by the Levander Company and will be forthcoming for Planning Commission review. Is it feasible to relocate the major access road from Brea Canyon Road in a northerly direction adjacent to the boundary of Tract 32400? Response: It is feasible to relocate the major access road, "A", in a northerly direction adjacent to Tract 32400. The road relocation was evaluated as Concept Plan 4 in the Draft EIR.. The relocation impact would be as follows: (See Attachment C for an engineering detail of the Concept Plan and Street "A" design) A. Additional grading onto Tract 32400 and additional grading onto the adjacent proposed city commercial area. B. Additional noise impacts to the adjacent residential unit that would back onto road "A" caused by bus, car and truck traffic. C. Inferior access to the proposed community park site by the elimination of the :reet A access that, as now proposed, loops around _.:e proposed park site noted in EIR Concept Plan #3. There would be arequirement to add an additional circulation system to access the park site with Concept Plan #4, thus requiring additional street and pavement within the South Pointe Master Plan The relocation of Street "A" adjacent to Tract 320400 provides no lesser or greater functional traffic characteristics than the proposed project approach. 3. Is the proposed cross-section of Brea Canyon Road adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipated demand? Response: Yes, the proposed cross-section of Brea Canyon Road is adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipated demand. See the third paragraph on page 4-99 of the Draft EIR and the first paragraph on page D-31 of the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. 4. Has the traffic projections anticipated the improvement of Pathfinder westerly to Harbor Blvd.? Response: The traffic forecast in the South Pointe EIR does not specifically include the extension of Pathfinder westerly to Harbor Blvd. However, existing volumes on Pathfinder Road and the other roadways in the area have been increased by 30% to account for ambient traffic growth at build -out of the project, plus approved cumulative project traffic added to the future demand volume forecast. Through traffic on Pathfinder Road, as a result of the Pathfinder extension, will increase the traffic volumes on Pathfinder Road. However, the majority of this additional traffic is expected to use Nugales to access the Pomona Freeway if their destination is north on SR -57, and if their destination is south on SR -57, they would use Brea Canyon cutoff road. Therefore, the Pathfinder extension is not expected to significantly change the cumulative forecast at the key intersections evaluated in the South Pointe EIR. 5. What additional off-site improvements have to be made to reduce the impacts of traffic on the intersections of Pathfinder/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs at the on and off ramps of the 60 Freeway? Response: Off-site traffic improvements required to support near-term 1997 and long-term 2002 traffic projections are presented in Table 2, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, beginning on page 2-33 of the Draft EIR. Minor errata for Table 2 is presented on page 2-5 of the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. 6. Can the adjacent open space owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association be utilized to offset the impact to the existing canyon environment? E Response: The adjacent "HOA" canyon could be upgraded and used as an impact off -set. The existing Homeowner Association -owned, canyon areas exist today in a partially degraded and impacted condition. 7. If access to Rapid View and Larkstone is to be prohibited, then could access to Morning Sun be deleted? Response: At least one emergency access is required for the South Pointe project in addition to the proposed access on Brea Canyon Road. Access to Morning Sun would be required if the Larkstone access would be prohibited. Between the Larkstone and the Morning Sun access points, the traffic consultant and the city engineer would recommend the Morning Sun access point because of Morning Sun's overall lower traffic demand characteristics when compared to Larkstone. 8. What would be the results of creating access to Morning Sun, Larkstone and Rapid View? Response: See response to Comment 11, beginning on page 5-9 of the response to comments on the South Pointe Master Plan. If project access is provided for both Morning Sun and Larkstone,.approximately an equal amount of project -related traffic would be expected to use each street. This would result in approximately 65 a.m. and p.m. peak hour project trips each direction on Morning Sun and Larkstone. A proposed connection of Rapid View Drive would only provide secondary access to the 90 homes proposed with in Tract #32400 and not the rest of the Master Plan project area. A connection to Rapid View Drive could also attract some bypass traffic attempting to avoid peak hour congestion of the Colima Road, Golden Springs, Brea Canyon Road intersection. Project access to Rapid View Drive would potentially relocate 30 a.m. peak hour project trips and 40 p.m. peak hour project trips from the project driveway on Brea Canyon Road to Colima Road via Rapid View Drive. 9. It appears that if the commercial property was eliminated from the proposal, or at least reduced in scope, then a substantial portion of the existing canyon could be retained. What is the impact of this type of concept? Response: A portion of the existing Sandstone Canyon could be retained by eliminating approximately 50% of the proposed commercial area. The commercial site would go from an approximate 30 -acre site to a 15 -acre site. The impact of this concept can be evaluated in two ways. First, it would 23 impact approximately one-half of the proposed revenue that could be potentially generated to the city, both in terms of city sales tax revenue projections and ownership -value reserves. Secondly, reduction in the proposed commercial center may have an affect on the private property owners' project viability. The reduction on size could also limit the types of users for the site area both in store size and quality. 10. The proposed access to Morning Sun from Tract 51253 (Sasak) is an offset design. What is the result of aligning the access to the proposed Tract from Shepherd's Hill Road? Response: Civil Engineer Jim Budke on March 24, 1993 provided the response to Commissioner Meyers' memo. Enclosed is an exhibit prepared by engineer Budke, noted as Concept Plan #5, showing an extension of Shepherd Hills Road to serve the southerly portion of Tract 51253 (see Attachment D). The results of this extension of Shepherd HillsHills Road is the loss of two lots (21 lots total vs. the original plan), three lots fronting er truinthe g Sunised tract Avenue. A second entrance, Street A p map, blending immediately to a knuckle and a cul de sac to serve lots 1 through 9 on the northerly portion of the site is also provided. A second alternative for access at Shepherd Hills Road would be to eliminate Street "A", extend Shepherd Hills Road into the site with an immediate knuckle connecting to Street B. Please refer to the attached sketch. This would result in double frontage for lots 21, 22 and 23 and elimination of lot 20. There would also be a slight increase in excavation yardage for each of these alternatives. 11. What are the impacts of saving the Blue Line Stream and the existing oak trees located within the boundary of Tract 51253?. Res onse: Engineer Jim Budke on March 24 provided an exhibit responding to this question. To limit grading to a point beyond the drip line of the existing on-site oak trees, and the Blue Line Stream would result in the elimination of ten lots (lots 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16) and a total loss of the area proposed to receive fill, approximately 90,000 cu. yds. Mr. Budke indicated this alternative is totally unacceptable for the development of his Client's property. 24 12. What is the development density of the three private projects at this point in time? Response: A. Proposed Tract #51407 RMP Development Inc. B. C. D. 1. Gross Area: 61.62 acres 2. Gross Density: 1.46 units per acre 3. Net Density: 3.64 units per acre Proposed Tract #32400, Arciero & Sons, Inc. 1. Gross Area: 40.77 acres 2. Gross Density: 2.23 units per acre 3. Net Density: 4.74 units per acre Proposed Tract #51253, Sasak Corp. 1. Gross Area: 6.7 acres 2. Gross Density: 3.43 units per acre 3. Net Density: 4.29 units per acre Combined Density of all residential units within the Master Plan area 1. Gross Area: 109.09 acres 2. Gross Density: 1.87 units per acre 3. Net Density: 4.15 units per acre 13. It appears that the three private developers would need to develop this project independently. What guarantees does the city have to insure the needed public improvements would be constructed within an acceptable time frame? Response: Certain aspects of the project can be developed independently. Other aspects will have to be developed with the first phase of development. For example, Street "A" and the community parks would probably be conditioned to be developed with the first phase of development as well as other off-site public improvements. The city, through the subdivision map process can condition that certain public improvements be constructed within acceptable time frames. A condition will be submitted to the Planning Commission with project approval that would require a phasing plan to be submitted to the City Engineer with the first final map. This phasing plan would identify those public improvements which would be in phase one and those bonds and guarantees which would require the completion of all public improvements with the approved project in all phases. 25 14. Can the project contain a system of biking and hiking trails? Response: Yes, there is adequate right-of-way to have biking trails along the street right-of-way. The concept plan also identifies hiking trails within the city's dedicated park area that could continue, with permission, into the Homeowners' Association open space ownerships. 15. The concept of having a resource management plan has been identified. when will the plan be presented to the Commission? Response: The.Resource Management Plan would be required to be presented with the final tract maps. It is difficult to develop a detailed Resource Management Plan until 40 scale engineering plans are developed or to ascertain which trees would be specifically impacted by grading and which trees would be capable of preservation given the grading plan. The Resource Management Plan will be required to be presented to the city as a condition of development. 16. As a noise mitigation measure, it has been suggested that the walls be constructed along Brea Canyon Road and the 57 Freeway. is it reasonable to require that a berm be constructed between the proposed dwellings and the existing runways? Response: A 6-8 ft. noise wall is required on the rear yard of several dwellings that back along Brea Canyon Road. A berm could be constructed between the proposed dwellings and the existing roadways. However, the homes will have a 6-8 ft. wall between them and the road to demarcate their particular lots, as a requirement of the Master Plan. A berm could be considered redundant and it would not provide the same type of fencing protection that a block noise wall would provide. Landscaping in front of the block wall would provide the same type of aesthetic effect the berm would provide. The Master Plan could be directed, however, to require that a berm -like feature could be provided between the Brea Canyon Road and the noise wall for aesthetic purposes and additional noise mitigation purposes. 17. Should the passive canyon environment be changed to an active recreational area? Response: This is a policy question for the Planning Commission and City Council to respond to during the public hearing. It should be noted that not all of the entire Sandstone Canyon is proposed for an active recreational area as part of the South Pointe Master Plan. 26 18. Is it possible to develop the project area and leave the canyon and blue line streams intact? Response: The Environmental Impact Report Alternative Analysis under the cluster concept did identify a alternative that left the Sandstone Canyon blue line stream intact. The attached tentative tract map alternative provided by civil engineer Budke for Tract 51253 identifies a tract alternative that ;eaves its blue line stream intact. The Planning Commission has before it a decision to make whether to accept the proposal by the three project developers or to recommend to the City Council an alternative project which protects the blue line streams. If the blue line stream is considered of paramount importance, the Planning Commission should weigh the trade- offs embodied in the preservation alternative to the commercial and active recreational components of the South Pointe Master Plan, which would be lost with the preservation alternatives suggested by this question. 19. Does the city or developers have a responsibility to repair the ancient landslide area? Response: The developers would have the responsibility to repair the ancient landslide areas within their respective ownership areas and the city may have its responsibility to repair ancient landslide areas within its proposed ownership areas. It should be noted that part of the development agreement proposed would be remedial work provided by the developers on the city's commercial and recreational properties as part of the mass grading concept. This cost could be borne by the developers and not the City of Diamond Bar. Also attached to this response to Commissioner Meyer is some additional statistical information previously requested regarding the densities of the surrounding subdivisions to the South Pointe Master Plan area. Two additional graphics are provided which depict the surrounding tracts and the walnut Valley Unified School District boundaries and South Point Middle School service areas. Please refer to Attachment E for additional developer responses to Commissioner Meyer's questions. 27 Planning Commission Meeting of March 22, 1993 Commissioner Lydia Plunk: 1. Inquired as to the commonality and diversity of both the coastal live oak and the California scrub oak? Response: According to Oaks of California by Pavlik, Muick, Jolson and Ropper the coastal live oak and the California scrub oak have a range that exists from Northern California to Southern California. It is one of the more predominant species of trees found in the California natural environment. 2. Is there some way to provide a tree count that would indicate to the Commission the number of California coastal live oak trees in Diamond Bar in the 1950/601s compared to the number of trees that exist today? Response: The Planning Department does not have the data that would allow an accurate description of the number of coastal live oak trees that existed in Diamond Bar prior to development of the community. Nor does the Planning staff have the ability to identify an accurate tree count of trees that exist today in the local area. One could draw some assumptions, however, and the staff would suggest that for every 10,000 sq. ft. lot area in the pre -Diamond Bar development era, there probably existed approximately 3-4 California live oaks on the particular property. With development, a 10,000 sq. ft lot would probably have anywhere between 3-5 trees per lot or some combination of indigenous and ornamental tree species. 3. How many trees on the South Pointe Master Plan site are relocatable and how many trees are proposed for relocation? Response: There are 835 California oaks identified in the South Pointe Master Plan site area. Seven hundred sixty- eight of these California live oaks are proposed for removal. Fifteen hundred and thirty-six replacement oaks will be required according to the City of Diamond Bar oak tree mitigation ordinance. Of the 835 live oaks that exist on site 333 specimen oaks exist on the Arciero ownership area. Of these 333 specimen oaks 156 are considered in good condition. These 156 oaks would be considered candidates for relocation. On the RMP site there are 449 oaks on site. Of these 449 oaks 353 are considered in good condition and would be considered candidates for relocation. On the Sasak site 53 oaks exist on site. Of the 53 oaks 39 are 2d considered in good condition and would be considered candidates for relocation. The developer has indicated their ability to relocate 20 of the specimen oaks to prominent locations within the South Pointe Master Plan area as part of their future resource management plan. 4. How much of the existing Sandstone Canyon area has regeneration potential for the existing habitat? Response: The question raised by the Commissioner relates to how healthy the remnant Sandstone Canyon areas is from the standpoint Df regeneration of the existing environment. Clearly the Sandstone Canyon remnant is an isolated portion of a much larger range and diversity of California coastal species of plant and animal life. Certain aspects of the natural environment have been removed from the Canyon, such as, intermittent fires and other natural ecosystems impacts that permit a regeneration of certain types of plant species. There is no exact way to tell the future of Sandstone Canyon if left in its present environment given the impact of the existing neighborhoods that surround the Canyon other than to indicate it was probably better in pre - Diamond Bar periods. 5. What are the total trips per day that exist in the Diamond Bar Community? Response: Total trips that exist in the Diamond Bar community are estimated at 300,000. Total new daily trips on the project site are estimated at 13,320. 6. Can we contact local Fish and Wildlife agencies or other experts in the area of cougars to ascertain what exists in Sandstone Canyon? Response: Attachment F is a focused mountain lion survey of the project site conducted on March 24, 1993. No evidence of mountain lion was detected on site. 29 ATTACHMENT B MEMORANDUM DATE: MARCH 22, 1993 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DAVID MEYER, PLANNING COMMISSIONER SUBJECT: SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN AND ASSOCIATED TRACT MAPS, ETC. The "South Pointe" Master Development Plan is an opportunity for creating a dramatic and innovative project using a public/private partnership concept. Identifying the common goals of the School District, the City and three Private Developers is an exciting planning opportunity. BACKGROUND: Throughout the public hearing process, the Planning Commission has received testimony identifying environmental problems that will occur as a result of the implementation of this project. The Planning Commission reached a consensus that if the project would be developed certain environmental issues could not be mitigated below the level of "significance". The Commission is now in the process of receiving testimony on the specifics of each element of the project. In an effort to make an informed decision, the Commission has requested additional information concerning the following items: 1. An economic analysis that describes the probable financial results of implementing the project as proposed. 2. Is it feasible to relocate the major access road from Brea Canyon Road in a northerly direction adjacent to the boundary of Tract 32400? 3. Is the proposed cross section of Brea Canyon Road adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipate demand? 4. Has the traffic projections anticipated the improvement of Pathfinder westerly to Harbor Blvd.? 5. What additional off-site improvements will have to be made to reduce the impact of traffic on the intersections at Pathfinder/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs at the on and off -ramps to the 60 Freeway? 6. Can the adjacent open space, owned and maintained by the homeowners association, be utilized to off -set the impacts to the existing canyon environment? 7. If access to Rapidview and Larkstone is to be prohibited, then could access to Morning Sun be deleted? 8. What would be the reriilts of creating access to Morning Sun, Larkstone and Rapidview? 9. It appears that if the commercial property was eliminated from the proposal or at least reduced in scope, then a substantial portion of the existing canyon could be retained. What is the impact of this type of concept? 10. The proposed access to Morning Sun from Tract 51253 (Sasak) is an off- set design. What is the results of aligning the access to the proposed tract from Shepherd Hills Road? 11. What are the impacts of saving the blue line stream and the existing oaks tress located within the boundary of Tract 51253? 12. What is the development density of the three private projects at this point in time? 13. It appears that the three private developers would need to develop this project independently. What guarantees does the City have to insure that the needed public Improvements would be constructed within an acceptable time frame? 14. Can the project contain a system of biking and hiking trails? 15. The concept of having a Resource Management Plan has been identified. When will the plan be presented to the Commission?, 16. As a noise mitigation measure it has been suggested that walls be constructed along Brea Canyon and the 57 Freeway. Is it reasonable to require that a berm be constructed between the proposed dwellings and the existing roadways? 17. Should the passive canyon environment be changed to active recreational areas? 18. Is it possible to development the project area and leave the canyon/blue line streams intact? 19. Does the City or the developers have the responsibility to repair the ancient landslide area? South Point Master Plan Page No, 2 It would be beneficial to me, in my efforts to obtain as much information as possible regarding this development, to have the above requested information from our support staff. It seems that the proposed reconfiguration of the canyon will be a question of the City's development policy. Issues of growth management, preservation of the existing environment, and need for urban services and a solid economic foundation for the future of the City will guide the project debate. Therefore, I am requesting that the Commission continue to solicit input from the general public and to direct staff to provide the requested information. South Point Master Plan Page No. 3 ATTACHMENT c ATTACHMENT D M E M O R A N D U M TO: Hardy Strozier FROM: Jim Budke DATE: March 24, 1993 SUBJECT: Response to David Meyer's memo, T.T. 51253, Sasak property. Item 10; I have prepared an exhibit, concept plan number 5, showing an extension of Shepherd Hills Road to serve the s'ly. portion of tract 51253. The results are a loss of two lots (21 total vs. 23), 3 lots fronting on Morning Sun Ave. and a second entrance, Street 'A' (per the revised tent. map) blending immediately to a knuckle and cul-de-sac to serve lots 1-9 on the n'ly. portion of the site. A second alternative for access at Shepherd Hills Road would be to eliminate Street 'A', extend Shepherd Hills Rd. into the site with an immediate knuckle connecting to Street 'B'. (See attached sketch). This would result in double frontage for lots 21, 22 & 23 and elimination of lot 20. There would also be a slight increase in excava- tion yardage for each of these alternatives. Item 11; To limit grading to a point beyond the drip line of the ex- isting on-site oak trees, thereby saving them and the blue line stream, would result in the elimination of 10 lots (lots 4,5,6,7,8,12,13,14,15 & 16) and a total loss of the area proposed to receive fill, approximately 90,000 c.y. This is totally unacceptable for the development of this property. Budke Design Service - 5 Wrigley Irvine, CA. 92718 - (714) 581-6997 C7 C4 [ B ,p,Ano QO WNW C� w 5 1 Y+ £ J tf O E !�I •l = 1; m i �� � - - r/'�I1I� ,j 'I I �11�•11 Y � � �1"'{/�� , -rte/ / � I sir ._a• '�, I%i � _ •,� � / \' �,, i �• ti;_ - + �` •� � it � 1 �\� ,\ '� \ `\r ` VV 0. •'fir � •(r 1 � \� � '�•� � •\ �. �� �� �\� 1 �- pis■� t ti \ AN WbU N N r . O Z �- V = J � a �.. , 3 is W 1� a a f CL W a ; o Q Z N O V W ATTACHMENT E J.C.D. J. C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATFS LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS 6-1 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SUITE 5 VUALNLT, CALIFORNIA 91'89 ,1-+ 51)-+--568 FAX - -1-4-594-5090 March 31, 1993 SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN REFERENCE: DAVID MEYER & BRUCE FLAMENBAUM COMMENTS 2. Is it feasible to relocate the major access road from Brea Canyon Road in a northerly direction adjacent to the boundary of Tract 32400? Assuming that the project as proposed is approved, the relocation of the road to the northerly location would be poor planning, poor engineering, economically foolish, and environmentally more intrusive. if the intent of the relocation is to divide the project to some lesser intensity, then the economic feasibility of the entire R -N -P portion of the Master Plan needs to be revisited. Assuming that the economic benefit to the owner can be resolved, and the intent is to create a passive environment, the southerly location provides for the smallest and least intense intrusion on the existing environmental setting. The maximum grading impact on the canyon, ie. total earthwork, maximum slopes, greatest area, would be the northern location. 3. Is the proposed cross section of Brea Canyon Road adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipated demands? Assuming that the Master Plan is developed as proposed, the proposed improvement to the existing Brea Canyon Road would be as follows; in existing restricted right-of-way areas to the north and south of the project a minimum section would provide for two north and two south lanes with a stripped left turn lane, the maximum section in front of the project both commercial and residential would provide two north and two south lanes with a landscaped raised median with intersection turn pockets and stacking lanes providing the service capability of a secondary highway along the entire project (a four lane from Colima to Pathfinder). 6. Can the adjacent open space, owned and maintained by the homeowners association, be utilized to offset the impacts to the existing canyon environment? The physical answer is yes, and it has always been our hope that enhancement of these areas could be achieved through transplanting existing flora from the impacted canyon to these areas. We would hope that these open space areas would be included in any resource management plan that would be adopted with project approval. We currently have a scheduled meeting with representatives of the homeowners association arranged for April 1, 1993, at 7:30 at Mr. Schade's home to discuss this possibility. However, Mr. Schade has advised me that the president of the association is strongly opposed to any meeting with us and will not be in attendance. 12. What is the density of the three private projects at this point in time? See attached density analysis. 13. It appears that the three private developers would need to develop this project independently. What guarantees does the City have to insure that the needed public improvements would be constructed within an acceptable time frame? A. Actually there are four developers involved and no one can effectively proceed independently. Project inter-dependentices within the South Pointe Master Plan are as follows: (a) R -N -P Development Inc./Sasak Corporation; The Subdivision Map Act allows the dedication of right-of-way to a public agency without the creation of a subdivision. To provide for the necessary future street connection to Morning Sun and utility connections both dry and wet, the Sasak Corporation needs to dedicate the street right-of-way and provide utility easements for the Master Plan. R -N -P needs to provide storm drain easements to the City, County, Sasak Corporation and mutual acceptance of run- off flows agreement between Sasak & R -N -P. R -N -P and the Sasak Corporation need to enter into a mutual grading agreement to allow cross grading between the two parcels. A reimbursement agreement for proportional improvements needs to be entered into between R -N -P and the Sasak Corporation and administered by the City to allow necessary facilities to be constructed by which ever developer proceeds first with development. The intent here is not to place either owner or the City in a position of advantage or disadvantage, but to insure that the vehicle for proper development exists without an undo hardship on any party. If the final location of the street connection to Morning Sun is not in the location or area in which R -N -P currently owns frontage along Morning Sun, then R -N -P will transfer ownership of their 20 foot wide access to Morning Sun to the Sasak Corporation to accommodate the new location of the connection. (b) R -N -P Development Inc./Walnut Valley Unified School District; there are several interrelated considerations here. Currently Larkstone is a private street belonging to the School District as it extends from the westerly School District boundary up to the proposed ultimate school facility. The portion proposed to service R -N -P Is six residential lots along Larkstone needs to be dedicated to the City and necessary improvements constructed provided by RN- P. In addition, the grading of the School Districts 2.5 acres adjacent and north of the proposed park needs to be addressed and provided for to allow maximum benefit of recreational facilities to both the City and the School District. This would require some sort of bilateral agreement between the three parties. Further more, if the through connection to Morning Sun is not made or provided for in the future, then a through connection must be provided for at Larkstone. This connection and configuration would require participation from the School District. (c) R -N -P Development Inc./Arciero & Sons Inc.; the true key to the entire project as proposed is predicated on mutual agreements between these two parties. The benefit to the School District, the City, the Sasak Corporation and the community of Diamond Bar is a direct result provided and paid for by these developers. As the current Master Plan is proposed, the grading of the School District Site, the Park Site, the Arciero Tract, the City Commercial Site and the R -N -P Commercial Site would necessitate that the work be preformed as a single endeavor. The anticipated agreement between R-N-P/Arciero would consist of mutual grading agreements, access agreements, reimbursement agreements and time oriented performance agreements. The total earthwork being done by these two parties exceeds 3,000,000 cubic yards without remedial grading considerations. The storm drain facilities being proposed require relocation of existing facilities at Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Road to allow gravity collection of off-site flows and conveyance of these flows as well as on site flows to a conventional storm drain facility instead of creating a deep facility along the floor of the existing canyon. It is absolutely imperative due to the mass grading and storm drain facilities required that development in this area proceed as a single effort. while the required water loop can be made through either the Arciero Site or the R -N -P Site, the best location for the City would be along Street A providing fire protection and service for the proposed Park Site. The proposed location of Street A at the westerly edge of the active Park Site is the engineers preferred location to provide Park access, sewer, water and other utilities to and through the Park itself. (d). Developer/City considerations; City involvement will be dealt with through individual Development Agreements between the City and each developer. B. Guarantees and'time constrains will be addressed within the Development Agreements. Guarantees and time constrains truly can not be separate items as they are interdependent. The Development Agreement provides for two major considerations, development entitlement guarantees and time performance considerations. without the specific entitlement guarantees there is no specific performance. Let us assume that the Master Plan is approved as presently proposed with all the underlying densities and uses. Then the following performance considerations would apply: (a) Performance is a product of available funding for infrastructure, an approved development agreement allows the developers to seek necessary funding because it guarantees specific entitlement. Construction can not begin until approved final plans are available, the contract has been let and all necessary improvement and performance bonds are in place. Normally this would take from nine to twelve months including final map approvals. However, the Subdivision Map Act states that tentative map approval or denial will be completed within 50 days of EIR approval. It is clear that time and performance constrains and considerations are a double edged sword. (b) Assuming that the City wishes to see the project constructed within a specified time frame which is agreeable by all parties, deadlines and extensions can be and will be outlined within the Development Agreement with specific performance clauses. (c) In a meeting with the City Engineer, Mr. George Wentz, Mr. Arciero and I were asked if we would participate in the funding of the signalization of the intersection at Pathfinder and Brea Canyon early to allow that signal to be added to the existing contract for the over -pass improvement. I believe that this meeting took place in early January. Both developers agreed that if we had approval during the improvement contract period we would participate. It now appears that the over -pass contract will be long completed prior to our project approval. 14. Can the project contain a system of biking and hiking trails? The present proposed Master Plan includes the construction of hiking trails through the set aside natural open space along the southerly side of the project. These trails would tie together the 15 acre home owners association open space adjacent to the southeasterly corner of the project to the 21 acre home owners association open space adjacent to the southwesterly corner of the project. The intent of the trail system is to allow the continuation of the natural studies outings conducted by Mr. Schade and the School District. The proposed trail system would be suitable for mountain biking activity, however, the extreme grade changes would not allow normal biking uses. 15. The concept of having a resource management plan has been identified. When will the plan be presented to the commission? The concept of a resource management plan should be a condition of approval placed on the Master Plan as part of the mitigation measures for environmental considerations. Consideration of resource management prior to approval of the ultimate master plan would be a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere within the project research process. Without a clear definition of the magnitude of the mitigation effort it becomes a what if consideration. My recommendation would be to form a subcommittee of one commissioner and one council person to develop the constraint limits of the resource management plan after approval of the project. This would allow both the commission and the council to participate in the development of the plan prior to actually coming before either body for approval. 17. Should the passive canyon environment be changed to active recreational areas? The first consideration here is the quality of the environmental setting within the canyon as compared to other existing areas within the community today taking into consideration size, quantity of flora and fauna, impact of surrounding urbanization, is it slowly degrading, can it sustain it's present habitat, and does it have access and direct benefit to the community as a whole. The second consideration is to weigh the active recreational volume Of use against the passive volume of use within the community. The final consideration in the ultimate use is the availability of funding for improvements required for active recreation within other existing dedicated parks. It is a known fact that funding through Quimby Act fees hardly covers maintenance of existing limited facilities. This development proposes to deliver a blended active/passive use that is 80% turnkey. The capability of getting a 100% turnkey facility is possible by allocating environmental mitigation considerations to directly benefit the remaining park improvements. 18. Is it possible to develop the project area and leave the canyon/blue line streams intact? From an economic approach the answer is yes and no. The yes side is to not do anything from Brea Canyon Road to the School Site , eliminate the Park Site and increase the R -N -P Inc.'s residential project over the Park Site. The no side is to develop a strip commercial development along Brea Canyon Road, leave the canyon open, and develop a active Park Site. R -N -P Development Inc. cost to do this is approximately 3.5 million to get to the residential Plus 7.0 million acquisition or a cost of 10.0 million with an expected residential land sale of approximately 7.0 million. The result is a 3.0 million loss. 19. Does the City or the Developers have a responsibility to repair the ancient landslide area? If no development occurs in the landslide area the answer is no. If development occurs the answer is yes. At this time if a failure occurs resulting in damage to an existing home along Shaded Wood, the liability would belong to Brock Homes and the Soils Firm that designed Brock's slopes. Prepared BY: J.C.D dBNEY &CaSSOCIATES Diamo SOUTH POINT MASTER PLAN DENSITY STUDY TOTAL RESIDENTIAL AREA REVIEWED IS 420 ACRES (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT FOR LOCATION OF AREAS) AREA 1: Tract No. 27141 within the County Area West of the Master Plan Gross Area = 75.02 Acres 228 Single Family Detached Residential Units No Park or Dedicated Open Space Gross Density = Gross Number of Units/Gross Area in Acres Gross Density = 228 units/75.02 acres Gross Density Area 1 = 3.04 units per acre Net -Net Density = Actual Number of Units/Actual Area of Lots* *Actual Area of Lots = Gross Area - Streets - Parks - Open Space Net -Net Density 228 units/58.35 acres Net -Net Density Area 1 = 3.91 units per acre Average Lot Size = 11,150 S.F. SUBAREA 1: Morning Sun Avenue Only Gross Area = 7.698 acres 24 Single Family Detached Residential Units Gross Density = 24 units/7.698 acres = 3.12 units per acre Net -Net Density = 24 units/5.95 acres = 4.03 units per acre Average Lot Size Subarea 1 = 10,800 S.F. Max. Lot Size Subarea 1 = 15,390 S.F. Min. Lot Size Subarea 1 = 8,260 S.F. AREA 2: Tract No. 32109 within the County Area Northwest of the Master Plan Gross Area = 32.52 acres 117 Single Family Detached Residential Units No Park or Dedicated Open Space Gross Density = 117 units/32.52 acres Gross Density of Area 2 = 3.6 units per acre units/25.38 acres Net -Net Density = 117 Net -Net Density Average Lot of Area 2 = 4.61 units per acre Size = 9,450 S.F. AREA 3: Tracts No. the Cit 30893 , 32091, 33636 y of amond gar, 33645 & 35741 Gross Area __ , North of the Master Within 290 S' 109.27 acres r Plan No Dedicate d oily Detached Larksto pen S Residential Units ne Park Dedicated Gross , Not Improved, Currently Density = 290 units Under /109. School Site Gross Dens it 27 acres Y Area 3 = 2.65 Net -Net units per acre Density = 290 units/88,93 acres Net -Net Densit Y .Area 3 = 3 . 41 Avera units per acre Min. AverageLotze = 12, 760 S.F. 7, 070 S.F. AREA 4: Tracts No. Diamond gar. 31053, 35741 & 35742 South of the Master Within the Gross Area = 89.93 plan City of 173 Single Famil acres Includes 36.94 Y Detached Includes acres Dedicatedi�ential Units 1.65 acre Developed Darken Space Gross Density = Gross Densi173 units/89,93 acres t Y Area 4 = 1.92 Net -Net units per acre Density = 173 Net -Net units/41.30 acres Density Area 4 Avera 4'12 Lunits per acre Min. Lot Sizelze = 10,400 S.F. 6,580 S.F. (Lot 4, Tr. 35742) AREA 5: Proposed Tract No. 407' Within the Master Plan R -N -p Development Inc Gross Area = 61.62 acres 90 Single Family Detached Residential Units Includes 2.52 acres of Open Space Includes 28.05 acres of Park Gross Density = 90 units/61.62 acres Gross Density Area 5 = 1.46 units per acre Net -Net Density = 90 units/24.70 acres Net -Net Density Area 5 = 3.64 units per acre Average Lot Size = 11,960 S.F. Lot Size = 18,680 S.F. Min. Lot Size = 9,000 S.F. AREA 6: Proposed Tract No. 32400, within the Master Plan Arciero & Sons Inc. Gross Area = 40.77 acres 91 Single Family Includes 1F y Detached Residential Units 10 acres Dedicated Open Space No Park Dedication Gross Density = 91 units/40.77 acres Gross Density Area 6 = 2.23 units per acre Net -Net Density - 91 units/19.186 acres Net -Net Density Area 6 - 4.74 units Average Per acre Max. g Lot Size = 9,185 S.F. Lot Size = 17,200 S.F. Min. Lot Size = 7,200 S.F. AREA 7: Proposed Tract No. 51253, within the Master Plan Sassak Corp. Gross Area = 6.7 acres 23 Single Family Detached Residential Units No Park Dedication No Dedicated Open Space Gross Density = 23 units/6.7 acres Gross Density Area 7 = 3.43 units per acre Net -Net Density = 23 units/5.36 acres Net -Net Density Area 7 = 4.29 units per acre Average Lot Size = 10,150 S.F. Max. Lot Size = 16,980 S.F. Min. Lot Size = 7,600 S.F. AREA 8: Combined Density of All Residential Units within the Master Plan as Proposed Gross Area = 109.09 acres 204 Single Family Detached Residential Units Includes 28.05 acres Park Includes 16.62 acres Dedicated Open Space Gross Density = 204 units/109.09 acres Gross Density Area 8 = 1.87 units per acre Net -Net Density = 204 units/49.20 acres Net -Net Density Area 8 = 4.15 units per acre 120e zed s4Tun ST•� = 8 WaJV AlTsuaQ 49N_48N s920e 0Z'6V/s4Tun VOZ = A4Tsuea 49N -49N 110e lad s4Tun L8'T = 8 eazy AgTsuaQ ssozo saz0e 60'60T/s3Tun tPOZ = A4Tsusa ssozo aoedS uadp P94eoTpaQ sazoe Z9 -9T sapnTOuI s4TunXzed sajop 50.82 sapnTOul TeT uapTsa g pagoe4aQ ATTure3 aTbuTS VOZ S910e 60'60T = ea -Ty ssozD Pas age uTg4TMs4Tun TeT4uapTsag TTVoJO A4TsuaQTPSUTCrMOD :g V311V 3'S 009'L = aZTS 40Z 'uTW '3'S 086'9T = azTs 40Z •xeW '3'S OST'OT = 8ZTS 'off abezanV 920e lad s4Tun 6Z'V = L eazV A4Tsuaa 49N -49N sazoe 9E'S/s4Tun SZ = A4TsuaQ 49N -49N aloe lad s4Tun £D,•£ = L eazV A4Tsuaa ssoiE) s910e L'9/s4Tun £Z = A4Tsuaa ssosS aoedS uado P94V0Tp9Q oN s4Tun TeT�ua Tsa uoT4P0TpaQ x3Pd ON P, N PagOe,4aQ ATTure3 aTbuTS EZ saz0e L'9 = Rely ssosE) ueTd 194seW age UTgqTM`ESZTS -ON �OPao spasodozd :L VsdV '935'9p" P ATTACHMENT F B4j AC�FIC SpUTF{.�y�• B 'OLOGICA4- t post Qtpca Box �s N+Atfon o 1 of CitGltfp�„1a 91911- a I� a (fit) 477•iys8 o , FAX (619) 6�y.134b 1 _ T! Marsh M3 Thomss Robert ,� William F F.O. 19>H sat aadtlatq bums CA 9711 PM #FZ4 111s Mr. T1omm �'3Sew aWMao �adu� � Paddy who h.. cv d 1iaa. (F,tu ,OMMUndJuon h,rmy of t6 Mar The + ,� oe a,rrh as thb tA+t1h ft on " TI, aa�, w� °and ,ir. and arra won loud Oft b1e*� log W 1100 by Mr. Dom pow the aft Vu wow 091% bv Mountain flow 4*mqm� hr fiend pyo of"M use of ths •ad a WNAWo� min >bn ` am MIM T1N , L��StvJRW of the awb xw*a 9 � "�'t and t6 the U' dw of � AMil die dr t� of � a fer ate 6� 5�w. i, 1'°t'w"v 20 , Md' bw 60ft� sew MW � 4 dry i 1Jam. MISswim of iadl,� t1+or a � � Ni IN" d� b� ��,b ia�we did and of tial, ow i�rt�Zftl ion, but tbw �d w ko �� � da a dw �� or I �� � on tiv � b soutlw� '�+. of ehm ni w did Jthbry in ran �! Prod � thu a aeuaga l� G:ilbrrue. Tim Diyt dMr mhOt°m'rr' cbe tits b. mat abe aged" aw oaf' aeyj is oar oarj� " mOwtruit+ liounds Jim forn oa aVey wai{e ra Urbu dwt �Wtw ametwa lies� d a•MW w ,,6"`"'r'ra, a�im �Oka r tbut tJw,iw,� 6 use t do,� �w alae �aet262 t0 "'ah � himsto A. os Would hwwram to a If tlu, iq a �taiolteaWould galawk an ied bege • a��etin Ibq ,tWes a "�0 tis 1be as M.,aoe of L—V pmbww MO'+°w I w„ "tv "MINES c Aaoeee, ',""nd1' e`' a1` °r ha►m11•'°tmd T4... maunt,ia no" b ray Nr" � in dN � Di"Mcadmaded Syr ,ita L d ae 6+om dp b a..r of a � � Otl� iia and b W.40Y t000 aWet of h v a hoop Route V so 661Lnd fa � m9po" no for �' Vain►, CPillf, pars. � cow, Coop+na`i,,,tif � Renes have ° we aehna.o we aer whing C'a7w i to 1 ss� a � Tjw am Medmor ��Slnor ate, mala now an a NEWae b 7148378007 RBF/:ERCNT"C 9L -'G. MRR 25 "93 05! PlWM PACIFIC SWTFWW BIOLOGICAL Mr, Devin Thomm c'7 E_ .2: 223 p.3 36 March 1993 i Pfd /824 Mountain How do inhabit the Sana Ain Mountains, the Chino HMIthe Pamw k9b, and have been reported but unconfirmed in the tan Joe Mls. The Santa Aon hivuoaiatpq�uletioa Of raoaatala lion wq petitioned for Usting a an eadenpered sped« under the l�edenl �e Act la Pebnarp 1992. Thim population would include aoisnaL is the Puente moo is wuq the Diuma d * dte. The Peron wet wed to flu Fish and V►ild & Salim Ro mmal tf'in and a rale mddq dmb ma b Oead4 Cw�elp due Celifocaia Dapattmeec of Pith and Gane hat maaa�emws authority over tlu t¢ UW& lion is the as* how, wr, unlet the aeioul ie coati aW a pu>& as(M,y threas or is unclog daata�e tq pek"w per. the Dgmnu en of Pith and Game —13 deaf with the gal". i M&I Of 210unain Boot are -Ported throughout southern Catifmciia on a bat@. CwdW iavadpdori ooh! these 210doV 1w shown than WA# of the sidtdnp haw bno boWm or damade dep. In am biele�icet surveys of the Diammad kr Bite we did Neatidp babes and donwde dap uWaf the Bites. it @ pwib4 that owuntein lions nen sem an the till but mon than lib* the sightijyt wet+e of 6ebeata 3iaat* ><dtb W. Mubd Vim Praldeat Ps City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report I • SUMMARY- INTRODCCTION Revised 4/22/93 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4 REPORT DATE: April 5, 1993 MEETING DATE:April 26, 1993 CASE/FILE NUMBER: A) South Pointe Master Plan Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 92081040 B) General Plan Amendment C)(3)Development Agreement(s) D) Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 (Arcierc) E) Tentative Tract 51253 (Patel) F) Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 (RNP) G)(3)Hillside Management Ordinance Conditional Use Permit(s) H)(3)Oak Tree Removal Permit(s) APPLICATION REQUEST: A General Plan Land use Element Amendment to re -designate the 4+ acre (former) Water District from Public Facility (PF) to Planned Development (PD). Land development request consisting of Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 involving the subdivision of 47.4 acres into 93 parcels (91 single-family residential lots, 7,200 sq. ft. min. lot size and 2 commercial lots), Tentative Tract 51253 involving the subdivision of lots 46, 47 and 48 of Tract 32576 consisting of 6.7 acres up to 26 parcels (all single-family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 involving the subdivision of lot 53 of Tract 35742 and lots 46, 47, 48 and 49 of Tract 32576 consisting of 90.8 acres into 87 parcels (up to 90 single-family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size, 1 open space lot and 3 commercial lots), three (3) development agreements containing a master plan, three (3) conditional use permits relative to hillside grading, three (3) oak tree removal permits and review of an environmental impact report. PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located in the south- western area of the City of Diamond Bar, encompassing an area of approximately 171+ acres. The project site, which is comprised of a number of existing parcels and ownership interests, can be generally described as 1 being situated westerly of theeasterly ran(S the Freeway and Brea Canyon Road,e City and Tract corporate boundaries ooftpathfinder Road and No. 27141), northerly the existing residential area (i.e., Tract No. 32576) obtaining vehicular access from the roadway and southerly Of south Pointe Middle School and existing l and vacant properties located southerly of Colima Road. PROPERTY OWNERS: Walnut Valley Unified School District, City of Diamond Bar, RnPAmrutlo pent Inc., Arciero and Sons Inc., and APPLICANTS: (1) RNP Development, Inc., 4439 Rhodelia Drive, Claremont, CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Sons, Inc., 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 land, CA (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th St., Up 91785 (4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste. 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I. BACKGROUND/PURPOSE This Staff Report represents the fourth Addenor dum to the yS South Pointe master plan Staff Report This fourth Addendum Staff Report planning Commission meeting. 1993 public meeting. provides the framework for the April 12, CO focus of the fourth Addendum Staffeport is the The Rnningeof Staff presentation of the project elements and the beg mission consideration of the project entitlements. Planning Com II. PUBLIC NOTICES AND HEARINGS The South Pointe Master Plan environmental review process has met public all requirements as set forth bnoticesCalifornia hearings. Environmental Quality Act relative public ss involved the following steps: review and participation proce (NOP) of a Draft Environmental A. The notice of preparation 1992. The NOP Impact Report was distributed on August 19, comment period was 30 days in accordance with CEQA guidelines. B. The South Pointe MeforlpublicDraft reviewEnvironmental commentImpact between Report was circulated1993. November 30, 1992 and January 18, 2 C. A notice of public hearing was mailed to approximately 1,100 property owners adjacent to the site, on January 14, 1993. Additionally, a notice of the Public Hearing process was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Newspapers on January 15, 1993. D. Study sessions were held on October 26, 1992 and December 14, 1992 including a project site tour. E. Public hearings were held on January 25 and February 8, 1993 whereby the Planning Commission received verbal testimony regarding the adequacy and content of the DEIR. As a final action at the February 8th public hearing, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing relative to the adequacy of the DEIR and continued the hearing to February 22nd for Planning Commission discussion. During the February 22nd hearing the Planning Commission determined that the DEIR does adequately address the environmental impacts of the project and directed Staff to prepare the appropriate Draft Resolutions recommending that the City Council certify the EIR document. F. A Public Hearing was held on February 25th in which the substantive project of the South Pointe Master Plan was reviewed with the assistance of a Staff -prepared slide presentation. The public hearing was continued to March 22nd to continue the Staff presentation. G. A Public Hearing was held on March 22, 1993 and public testimony was taken. Direction to Staff was given to return to the Planning Commission with responses to Planning Commission questions. These questions and responses are found in Attachment A of this Staff Report. The meeting was continued to April 12, 1993. III. ENTITLEMENT ACTIONS The Planning Commission is recommended to continue to review and consider the following entitlement actions: A. General Plan Amendment (GPA) The South Pointe application package involves a GPA to redesignate the 4+ acre former Water District parcel from Public Facility (PF) to Planned Development (PD). An analysis of General Plan consistency is provided as Appendix A of the January 25, 1993 Staff Report. Appendix A discusses project relationship to each goal of the General Plan. The City of Diamond Bar has purchased the former Water District parcel to include in the residential/commercial components of the South Pointe Master Plan. These 4 -acres and other easements will be traded to Arciero and Sons, Inc., and RNP in exchange for 10 - 15 acres of commercial property. In order to effectuate the land transfer, the General Plan re -designation from PF to PD is required. B. Tentative Tract Maps Three tentative tract maps have been filed for subdividing the project site into residential, commercial and open space/park parcels. Section III of the January 25th Staff Report (Application Analysis) provides a summary of the intensity and type of development proposed with each tentative tract. C. Hillside Management Ordinance Conditional Use permit (CUP) and Oak Tree Removal Permits Three Conditional Use Permits for Hillside Management and Oak Tree Removal Permits are included within the application package. The impact of project hillside grading was analyzed in the DEIR in Sections 4.2 Earth Resources and 4.10 Aesthetics. Section III F of the January 25th Staff Report addresses how the project grading plan complies with the Hillside Management Ordinance. These CUP's and Oak Tree Permits will be incorporated within the three (3) proposed Development Agreements. D. Development Agreements Staff will brief the Commission on the Development Agreement status and return draft agreements to the Planning Commission for subsequent meetings. The Development Agreement will contain the Master Plan found as Attachment B to your January 25th Staff Report. The Development Agreement is utilized as a single "contract" document to incorporate the Master Plan, Hillside management regulations and Oak Tree Permit. The Development Agreement is adopted by ordinance and is substantially equivalent to the Specific Plan zoning process. 4 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS A. It is recommended that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing on April 26, 1993 in order to receive a brief staff presentation on the project elements. 1. General Plan Consistency 2. South Pointe Master Plan Zoning Regulations and Development Standards 3. Tentative Tract Maps 4. Development Agreements (which will incorporate Conditional Use Permits pursuant to the Hillside Management Ordinance and Oak Tree Removal Permits.) The Planning Commission is directed to the previous Staff Report dated January 25, 1993, for detailed background information on each of the aforementioned elements. B. It is recommended that the Planning Commission invite representatives from RNP Development, Inc., Arciero & Sons, Inc., and Sasak Corp. to present their respective projects in the proposed South Pointe Master Plan area. Two of the developers, RNP and Sasak, have prepared revisions to their previously submitted Tract Maps. Copies of these maps were included within the March 22, 1993, staff report and Planning Commission Agenda packet. These two developers will review the amended maps with the Planning Commission. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to request that Staff, the City Consultant, or the developers respond to technical questions from the Commission upon conclusion of the Staff and Developer prsentations. 5 C. Invite public comments from those in favor of the application and those in opposition. Allow, if necessary, the developers or staff to make a rebuttal statement. D. Close the public hearing. Further questioning of the Staff, City Consultant, Developers, or public hearing speakers would be appropriate at this time. E. Return to the Planning Commission for discussion. Staff recommends that the following approach be considered to review the project entitlement actions. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission first consider General Plan consistency. The Planning Commission upon conclusion of its discussion, should direct Staff through the following course of action: 1. Ascertain if the South Pointe Master Plan is consistent with the Draft General Plan goals and policies. 2. If consistent, direct staff to prepare the appropriate project approval resolutions. 3. If inconsistent, direct staff to recommend Council consideration of an amended goal or policy. 6 4. Direct the staff to prepare a Resolution of project denial based on inconsistencies with the General Plan. If the Planning Commission finds that the South Point Master Plan is consistent with the proposed water District Parcel P.D. re -designation and that the Master Plan is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, then the Planning Commission should move to consideration of the South Point Master Plan elements. If -the Planning Commission determines that the project is inconsistent with any of the above General Plan issue areas, the Planning Commission may wish to refer the matter to the City Council with a recommendation of project denial. The Planning Commission may also wish to consider the South Pointe Master Plan "project" and make the necessary adjustments to the Master Plan in order to, in the Planning Commission's opinion, bring the project into conformance under the General Plan. The Planning Commission may wish to inquire of the project applicants; RNP, Arciero and Sasak, if the type of changes contemplated by the Planning Commission in order to bring the project into General Plan conformity, would be acceptable to the applicants. If the private applicants indicate that the Planning Commission's proposed Master Plan changes are inconsistent with the private applicants objectives and the private projects would not be built, the Planning Commission should direct the matter to the City Council with a recommendation of project denial. The Staff recommends to the Planning Commission the approval of the General Plan Amendment from PF to PD. The Staff also recommends to the Planning Commission approval of a finding of consistency between the South Pointe Master Plan and the adopted City of Diamond Bar General Plan. Please refer to the Staff Report of January 25, 1993, Appendix A General Plan Consistency (Report). If the Planning Commission moves to consider the South Point Master Plan, the Planning Commission should review the various elements of the Master Plan. The Staff recommends the same consensus straw vote be conducted on the following topical element areas: 1. Circulation 2. 'Land use 3. Development standards and 4. Grading 7 The Planning Commission Chairman should inquire, as to each Master Plan topical element if any Planning Commissioner has modifications. A discussion and straw vote should be taken on each modification proposed until all topical areas have cal been considered. Following the consideration of the top areas, the Planning Commission should direct the staff to prepare the appropriate approval resolutions with or without modifications. If the Planning Commission finds against the South Pointe Master Plan, the Planning Commission should directtafft staff to prepare the appropriate denial resolutions. recommends to the Planning Commission approval of the South Pointe Master Plan as presented by Staff in the January 25, 1993 Staff Report Attachment B. Following consideration of the South Pointe Master Plan, the Planning Commission is directed to consider each of the three (3) Tentative Tract maps. Staff recommends that the planning Commission consider each Tentative Tract mapre prepared separately; Arciero, RNP rovalthen forseach•subdivision.Stff has p These Draft Resolutions for app Resolutions will be returned to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting along with Staff recommendations. The Planning Commission is directed to focus upon two (2) Tentative Map issue areas. 1. Does the Tentative Tract map implement the South Pointe Master Plan; and, 2. Are the proposed conditions appropriate to assure implementation of the Tentative Tract map. The Planning Commission should reach consensus on each Tentative Tract map issue area before moving the South consideration of the final entitlement area, Pointe Development Agreements. The final action before the Planning Commission is i the the consideration of the Development Agreement. approach suggested on the above issues, the Planning Commission is directed to seek consensus on each of the three Development Agreements• Agreement assist theuld Placonsidered Commission, the Development Ag in the context of its essential elements: 1. The landtrades andand thededications Diamondbetween Barthe developers (RNP/Arciero ) 8 2. The Transfer of Development Rights to RNP 3. Approval of the South Pointe Master Plan. 4. Approval of the Hillside Grading Conditional Use Permit. 5. Approval of the Oak Tree Removal Permit. Staff has prepared Draft Development Agreements. These Development Agreements will be returned to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting along with Staff recommendations. Following consideration of all the entitlement requests and issues, staff will return to the Planning Commission with wi the formal implementing resolutions fthe Planning Commission. or final action wi V. PREPARED BY: Hardy M. Strozier, AICP Special Project Consultant ATTACHMENT A RESPONSE TO PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS B MEYER MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 22, 1993 C STREET "A", DIAMOND BAR MASTER PLAN D BUDKE MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 24, 1993 E J.C.D. LETTER REF: DAVID MEYER & BRUCE FLAMENBAUM COMMENTS F PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL SERVICES, INC. LETTER TO MR. KEVIN THOMAS DATED MARCH 25, 1993 FROM KEITH W. MERKEL 9 ATTACHMENT A RESPONSE TO_PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: The following information isprepared in response to various Planning Commission comments that had been received during the past eight Planning Commission public meetings and hearings. In order to insure that the Planning Commission gets benefit of a directed response to their comments, Staff is providing the statement by the Planning Commissioner along with a response to the specific question. In some cases, the detailed response may be found in one of several environmental documents or previous Staff Reports. Staff will summarize the response to the Planning Commission question and reference the previous detailed response to that question. The approach utilized by Staff is to review the Planning Commission meetings by date and provide the appropriate questions and responses by the individual Planning Commissioner. Planning Commission Meeting Of October 26, 1992 Chairman Flamenbaum: 1. Chairman Flamenbaum inquired of the location and the size of the proposed secondary road? Reser e: CDD/DeStefano stated that the proposed secondary road would likely become a residential collector street located off Brea Canyon Road generally across from Chuck -e - Cheese, traversing the RNP area and heading to the cul-de- sac at the end of Larkstone Drive. 2. Chairman Flamenbaum inquired if there were other benefits to the City to tie all the parcels together, as opposed to separately considering the South Pointe Middle School project in the Arciero development? Response: CDD/DeStefano explained that the benefit, to the City o tying all the parcels together is that the utility systems would be looped together (such as the streets, the storm drains and the water lines) resolving the proposed land use patterns at one time, and recreational park space needs, grading patterns and site planning. 3. Inquired why the school's improvements have to be encumbered by the rest of this project? Response: Staff explained that the schools' EIR contemplates the Arciero project. If Walnut Valley School District were to change the South Pointe Middle School project another EIR would be required which would further delay the construction of the South Pointe Middle School and probably increase cost of construction. Furthermore, the various water systems needed to serve the school, come through the Arciero and RNP properties. Also a secondary circulation system that would access the school appears to be a viable circulation alternative to provide a more direct and safe circulation route to the South Pointe Middle School from its service area south of the School site. Vice Chairman McBride: 1• Inquired how much of the "Blue Line" stream would be preserved with this development project? Response: Jan Dabney stated that in this proposal the Blue Line stream that runs to the canyon would be entirely filled in. In addition it should be noted that the Blue Line stream located on the Patel property will also be entirely filled in with the proposed project. Jan Dabney went on to indicate that of the 27 -acre park site, 15 acres of the park site would be set aside in its natural setting and include additional plantings of the development area and transferred into that setting. The intent was to insure that the open space area proposed to be developed and transferred to the City would be adjacent to and include the two areas that currently belong to a Home Owners Association so there is a means for mitigation of any animal life. Planning Commissioner Meyer: 1• Inquired if this project would comply with the concept in the Hillside Management Ordinance? Response: Jan Dabney noted that the project has many grades that exceed 10%. With land form grading, a lot of yardage must be moved to preserve as much as the existing features as possible, yet still yield enough density to warrant the additional cost of grading. It is Staff's evaluation of the South Pointe Tentative Tract Maps that they do not conform specifically to the percent slope and percent left in open space parameters outlined in the Code. The Hillside Grading Ordinance has, however, provisions for deviating from the Code through a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed South Pointe Tentative Tract Maps have Conditional Use Permits before the Planning Commission for their review and consideration. The South Pointe Master Plan and Tentative Tract Maps do contain contour grading concepts that are called out within the 2 Hillside Grading Ordinance. Any Final Tract Maps would be ntour and judged against the seGrading containedOwathinctheodocumenta land form grading concepts Planning Commission meeting of—December-14, 1992 _ � — Commissioner Meyer: 1. Requested further elaboration on t nnvironmentalsQualityeAct requirements o (CEQA) and alternate land uses of the site? explained that CEQA requires Res ons e_: Peter Lewandowip a reasonable range of that in addition to the project alternate land uses aizealavoidtordmitigatens etheeimpacts that are designed to minim identified in the project. Six separate project rovide alternatives have been analyzed and are designed to by a comparative analysis, relative to the impacts produced the proposed project. The alternative analysis is found in EIR for the South Pointe MasterPlan. Chapter 6 of the D Peter Lewandowski then entedvinwed each of t the DEIR as well as the impacts alternatives p res identified for each alternative. and the mitigation measu One of the alternatives that should be of particular importance to the Planning Commission, based on previous Commission questions, is the cluster alternative foundoant Page 6-18 of the Eth Undere site, approximatelyive retained portion of canyon the ith development located on the site's as open space w peripheral areas. Chairman Flamenbaum: Concurring withCommssioer ested1thatntheMconsultantsereviewatheaGeneral Flamenbaum sugg e I-11, in Section 3.3 on Plan land use sections 1.2.4 on page on pages I-19, and Resource Management Section 1.1 and 1.2, III -8, in conjunction to their response? E212—?UV Staff in their January 25, 1993 Staff Report Evaluation provided an Appendix A General Plan Consistency of the for the Planning Commission s review. t text. After General Plan was stated within the Staff Report the each goal statement there was a discussion explaining objectives, project's consistency or inconsistency goal attainment. At including strategies, which support the g ort, the Planning the end of each discussion in the Staff Rape specific Commission found a reference identifying objective the written text addresses. Each of Chairman 1. il 2. 3. Flamenbaum's suggested General Plan policies was reviewed within the context of that Staff Report. In addition, Don Schad, in a letter dated January 19, 1993 to the Planning Commission raised many General Plan policy issues in his lengthy discussion. The response to comments on the DEIR presented responses to each of Don Schad's comments, including responses to questions raised relative to General Plan policies. The Planning Commission is directed to pages 5-62 through pages 5-103 for the comment and responses to Mr. Schad's questions regarding General Plan policies and project consistency with those policies. Staff found project consistency in all General Plan areas. The EIR should also include a discussion regarding the impacts of moving the dirt, both within the project area and off the project area. Response: The response to comments in the DEIR, page D-19, evaluated the export of soil from the project site specifically with regard to the 400,000 yards of surplus soil now present on the South Pointe Middle School site. Exporting the dirt from the project site, according to the DEIR response to comments, would require a total of 25,640 truck trips. All vehicles would travel an estimated 102,500 miles in the local area's roadway network and would require approximately eighteen weeks or 4 1/2 months to complete removal activities. other indirect costs associated with the earth moving would be the damage and reconstruction to local city streets required by the 25,640 truck trips. The cost to prepare the DEIR Amendment to allow a different alternative to the removal of the dirt than that previously analyzed in School District's-DEIR could be substantial. Requested information regarding the impacts of any increase in noise to both the surrounding community and remaining wild life in the area. Response: Chapter Iv. 4.7 page 4-134 of the DEIR through page 4-149 evaluated noise and its impact on the surrounding existing residential community as well as the proposed tentative tract projects that would be on site if the project was approved. The DEIR concludes that there is no significant adverse noise impact. with project build -out, noise factors will be well within the General Plan guidelines for the City of Diamond Bar. The.impact on remaining wild life in the area should be no different than what exists today in the surrounding area. The more important impact to existing wild life in the area would be the filling of the majority of the remaining Sandstone wild Canyon area which would displace a majority of existing life. 4 Commissioner Meyer- Commissioner e er:Commissioner Meyer requested that more information be provided as to how it was concluded that going from a rural or a non -urbanized use to urbanize use is a non-significant impact. Response: Page D- ln some level of detailoinhthe9responserespetotquestion comments in DEIR report. Essentially the City's General Plan has the indicated an urbanized use for the subjectproperty. The project will urbanize according City Council has made the policy determination that the to a Planned Development or Master Plan approach. There is nothing within the CEQA statute, with a specific reference toward s Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, that would guide Staff to draw a conclusion that going from an undeveloped to a developed urbanized use is by itself a significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated under CEQA. Furthermore, the City's General Plan, which identified an urban use for the subject property, had a full EIR and master environmental assessment associated with it that providedfull mitigati considerations. on and overriding Commissioner Li: 1. 2. Requested information regarding the exact dollar amount for future fiscal benefits to the City of Diamond Bar. Response: The Staff prepared a estimated revenue projection for the subject project that is contained in the January 25, 1993, Staff Report found on page 10, 11 and 12. The Staff evaluation noted that the City would be expected to accrue annual revenues between $376,000 to commercial development$790,000 per for . In addition, the City wouldracquire acres ten of commercial property which would sell for approximately $4.3 million on the open market. Staff is currently directing the preparation of ahmoreanning detailed economic study by the Levander Company which should be available at the next Planning Commission meeting. How was it determined that 465 new the City with the South Pointe pt? would be created project? in Response: The Staff responded to Mr. the S meeting that job projections were basedluponlng industrytaff standards for commercial and office uses. A more analysis was provided in the Response to Comments onttheed DEIR found on D-9 through D-11. 5 3. Further elaboration was requested as to why the off-site analysis of traffic resulted in one conclusion while the on- site traffic analysis resulted in a separate conclusion. Response: During the public meeting Staff explained that the development of additional collector roads on the project site primarily connecting Morning Sun and Brea Canyon Road enhances internal circulation impacts. However, the external circulation to the South Pointe project, in combination with other projects in the Diamond Bar area, further impact arterial roadways in the proximity of the project. The Response to Comments in the DEIR on page D-11 went on to indicate that on-site and off-site traffic impacts are two separate issues. The addition of A Street will improve access to the existing South Pointe Middle School and facilitate east -west traffic movement through the site. However, the project will add traffic on the surrounding street system and contribute to a regional traffic cumulative impact. It should be noted that the DEIR recommends traffic mitigation measures that Staff will include as conditions to the project. Commissioner Grothe: 1. Inquired if other vegetation or trees have been quantified, beside oak trees? Response: Only the oak trees were quantified because the City's Oak Tree Ordinance directs Staff to identify and mitigate the loss of that one tree species. However, the acreage for each of the seven vegetation species identified on site were quantified. No other State, Federal or locally significant tree species were identified on site. See further response on pages D-11-12 of the Draft EIR Response to Comments. 2. Requested that an alternate project be considered that eliminates one of the major residential developments. Response: The Cluster Alternative found on page 6-18 of the Draft EIR eliminates all of Tract 31407 and Tract 32400 residential units and commercial that is proposed in the riparian area of Sandstone Canyon. This alternative is substantially equivalent to the alternative proposed by Commissioner Grothe. See further response to this comment on pages D-115-16 of the Draft EIR Response to Comments. 6 Commissioner McBride: 1. Requested more information on tossibletdevelopments,ionship of lort�tal ect to other p South Pointe project potentials for development, so as to get a feeling of what's happening beyond the confines of this particular mass proposal. Res�nse: The Draft EIR identifiedtaexpcenumber of relin ted projects which are reasonably wee analyzed in Draft EIR project area. These projects Response to Comments pg. D.17-19. The analysis concluded that an estimated 6,235 new housing units and 815,352 sq• ft. of commercial/business park can beanticipated based on existing and future land use policies .inh impIRtfOf thithis new city-wide development was analyzed City of Diamond Bar General Plan. the 2. Requested a frdensitytofntheaimpactlysis tofthe illustrate fill upon the proportion o canyon. Response: The EIR Response to Comments pg. D-19 noted that the EIR contained seven cross sections through the :.eject scaledsformaa.to the Planning site. These sections were Commission in a 1" = 60' Planning Commission Meeting Januar 15, 1993 Chairman Flamenbaum: 1. Requested a discussion of the pros and cons of the openings of any roads in this project to Rapid View and to Larkstone? Response: The EIR Response to Comments included a response to Chairman Flamenbaum's comments. These responses are found on page D-27. Briefly, the response indicates that the -re currently is an easement to provide access to the proposed project from Morning Sun Avenue. A future connection to Larkstone Drive would require an easement through the School District's property. School District Officials have agreed with South Pointe residents that through access will not be provided on Larkstone Drive. Flood control facilities are currently located at the end of Rapid View Drive. Further, steep slopes south of Rapid View Drive make connection to the South Pointe project almost impossible. If "A" Street was re -aligned to connect with Larkstone Drive instead of Morning Sun Avenue, project traffic forecast of use on Morning Sun Avenue would be shifted to Larkstone Drive and Lemon Avenue. This change would increase p.m. peak hour ICU on Colima Road atLemon Avenue and the east bound SR -60 ramps by 0.01 (0.90 to Avenue and 1.00 0.91 at Colima Road/Lemon to 1.01 at Colima Road/Eastbound SR -60 ramps), with no change anticipated at the other key intersections. The connection of A Street to Larkstone Drive instead of Morning Sun Avenue is also expected to increase the potential for through traffic to cut through the residential neighborhood. The proposed connection to Rapid View Drive would only provide secondary access to the ninety homes proposed with Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 and not the rest of the South Pointe.project. A connection to Rapid View Drive could also by-pass some traffic attempting to avoid peak hour congestion at the Colima Road/Golden Springs/Brea Can Road intersections. Projey ct access to Rapid View Drive would potentially re -locate 30 a.m. peak hour trips and 40 P.m. peak hour trips from the project driveway on Brea Canyon Road to Colima Road via Rapid View Drive. In summary, secondary access to Rapid View Drive is not considered a requirement necessitated by the carrying capacity of the proposed Tentative Tract Map or inadequacies Of the surrounding circulation system. The proposed Tract 8 32400 has provided adequate secondary emergency access southerly to the proposed commercial site. The Tracts propose full access point on Brea Canyon Road provides ample traffic accessibility onto an arterial highway with safe intersection characteristics. 1. Additional full access point would be required, either through Morning Sun Avenue or Larkstone Drive. 2. Requested information on the accuracy of the project's tree count. Response: All trees meeting the criteria outlined in the Oak Tree Ordinance for the City of Diamond Bar have been tabulated. The individual oak tree reports are identified in the Draft EIR. The full reports with detailed tree counts are on file with the City of Diamond Bar Planning Department. 3. The Draft EIR's reference to the absence of amphibians in the project area should be re-examined. Response: The Draft EIR Response to Comments on page D-28 - noted that areas along the main drainage course where surface water was present were searched for amphibians, such as the California Chorus Frog. This small frog is often found in niches and crevices in rocky creek beds. The California Chorus Frog is expected to occur or have occurred on the project site. Many frog populations have locally disappeared or have declined in Southern California in recent years. Another amphibian which is expected to occur on site is the Western Toad. Several species of salamanders may be present on the site, including the California Newt, the Garden Slender Salamander and the Black -bellied Slender Salamander. The details of these amphibian reports may be found in the biological reports which are on file in the City of Diamond Bar Planning Department. 4. The environmental analysis should elaborate upon existing South Coast Air Quality Management District air quality standards and their meanings in practical terms. Response: Existing Federal and State air quality standards are discussed on pages 4-107 - 4-110 of the DEIR and are tabulated on pages 4-108 and 4-109 in Table 13 of the DEIR. More detailed responses to this question are found in the DEIR Response to Comments page D-28. 5. Provide a more detailed analysis as to why Concept #4 found on page 2-21 of the DEIR is good or bad and how Concept #4 compares to Concept 43 found on page 2-19 of the DEIR. 4 Response: Concept #4 includes a relocation of street A from Brea Canyon Road westerly to a point just south of Larkstone. Concept #4 provides an increase in the physical separation between the residential and non-residential uses and potentially increases the park acreage usable for active and/or passive recreational pursuits. The relocation of Street "A" may require additional grading within Tract 32400 and the adjacent commercial area proposed for transfer to the City of Diamond Bar, thus reducing the potential acreage dedication to the City. The location of Street "A" adjacent to the proposed residential area will cause additional noise impacts to the proposed residential units backing upon Street "A". The Planning Commission should note that Street "A" in this location would cause a significant elevation gradient between Brea Canyon Road and the South Pointe Middle School. The buses traversing this street would cause significant noise impacts on the adjacent residential areas in both their acceleration and deceleration modes. Street "A" located next to the residential area does provide a separation of the commercial and residential land uses. However, this separation or buffer can be handled in a different design concept as illustrated in Concept Plan 3. The relocation of Street "A" from the park frontage to the area noted in Concept #4 would reduce the vehicular accessibility to the proposed community park site. Concept Plan #3 provides a perimeter collector road, Street "A", that provides parking and pedestrian access to the entire length of the proposed community park site. Relocation of Street "A" to the area noted in Concept #4 would reduce the access to proposed community park site or require an additional road network to access the park site. Commissioner Plunk: 1. Requested an analysis of the additional cost and benefit, if any, if the dirt would be moved to another canyon. Response: The DEIR Response to Comments page D-25 provided a detailed response to this question. In summary, the additional cost for the off-site removal of soil is estimated to be between $1.6 - $2 million. There would be additional indirect costs for soil removal based upon the cost to prepare additional environmental documents to analyze the impacts of this alternative. There will be costs to remediate the damage to local City of Diamond Bar streets caused by the introduction of the thousands of truck trips on local city streets. Additional analysis of this question was provided in DEIR Response to Comments pages D- 10 25 and D-26 including an analysis of the temporary dirt road required to remove the surplus soil via Brea Canyon Road. 2. Requested an analysis of the relative safety of slippage occurring on cut and fill and on land left in its natural state? Response: The DEIR Response to Environmental Comments on page D-26 and D-27 responded to this question. Response noted that on Figure 13 (Geological Map - Vesting Tentative Tract #51407) and Figure 14 (Geological Map - Tentative Tract #32400) in the Draft EIR, a number of land slide areas have been identified on the project site. Although the majority of these unstable slope areas are internal to that site, a land slide has been plotted in proximity to Black Hawk Drive and Larkstone Drive. Failure to mitigate that existing condition could affect off-site properties. All unstable soil conditions will require remedial work and be subject to detailed soils and geology engineering studies, recommendations and monitoring to insure the safety of future residents. Existing geologic conditions that could be termed unsafe exist in the natural state within the sides of Sandstone Canyon today. Such conditions can be found by referring to the aforementioned geologic maps on both Tentative Tract Maps in the DEIR. Commissioner Grothe: 1. Expressed his concern that the EIR indicates practically everything in the Canyon to be non-significant. In concluding for in -significance, the DEIR may be under estimating the potential impacts of the project on the site's biological resources. Response: The DEIR Response to Comments on page D-24 provided a response to Commissioner Grothe. While the DEIR concludes that impacts from the site's biotic resources will be adverse, mitigation measures identified in that document and augmented by the Response to Comments will minimize those impacts to a level which is deemed by the Environmental Consultant to be less than significant. The Environmental Consultant found no biotic resources which are deemed to be sensitive, rare or endangered by either the State or Federal Government or by the local City of Diamond Bar ordinances. The only area that the Consultant deemed to be of local significance was the Oak Tree population within Sandstone Canyon. While the Oak Tree population is deemed to be locally significant, the City of Diamond Bar City Council has adopted an ordinance which allows a mitigation 11 program to be undertaken which reduces the impact on the locally significant oaks to a level which is less than significant. 2. Requested further information regarding a more detailed circulation plan. This included a further elaboration on the project's circulation impacts within the environmental analysis including a discussion of existing traffic congestion in the project area. Response: This question was responded to on page D-25 of the Response to Comments of the DEIR. Table 8 (Near Term of Service Summary) a Peak Hour Level ndthebDEIR indicaterm ce Summary) Peak Hour Level of Serviat ke study existing and future levels of service (LOS) Y area intersections. Also eP5-9leasthrough e see h5-11 of the se t theDEIR Comments #11 found on p g Response to Comments for additional traffic related information concerning the proposed project. 3. Requested further information on the project's impacts regarding noise and view including information concerning the exact placement of proposed dwelling units. Additional section drawings should be provided. Response: The project EIR's Response to Comments on page D- 25 ni dicated that the project's potential noise and a 4-34 aesthetic impacts are identified and evaluated onpage in through 4-148 and pages 4-206 through 4-218 resp the DEIR. Additional section drawings to augment those contained on page 4-216 in the DEIR have been included in response to Vice Chairman McBride's comments December 14, 1992. The sections provided the Planning Commissioninclude more locations of the exact placement of the proposed dwelling units. Commissioner Meyer: Requested some empirical analysis, provided by a Traffic 1• ening of Street "A" into Consultant, relative to the op dat Morning theetraffictissuesdbrought upes some byadditional the Commission? concerning ng Response to Comments on page D-22 indicated Response: DEIR Resp peak hours, that ring the morning and evening approximately 130 trips each direction, are anticipated on coniderably Morning Sun Avenue, with periods. lower traffic includes forecast during the off-peaks the redistribution of some existing local residential traffic and South Pointe Middle School traffic to Morning 12 in addition to the anticipated project traffic Sun Avenue, proposed at build -out for theuto decreaseth pointe athe ramount ofhSouth master plan is expectedthrough the Lemon pointe middle School traffichborhoodlby more than 400 trips Avenue, Willowbud Drive neig 75� of during the morning peak hour. Walnut Valley Unified School District officials have theindicated pointeamiddle School live the students attending our review• ol south or west of the boundary ma Ais°providedtforlyourdle School school attendance boundary p via "A" Street with the completion of These students south of the school would access the fo forecast from Brea Canyon Road s are the project. Roughly 100 school related trip revised school access. to use Morning Sun Avenue with the gradingve to how the 2. Additional data wasrequested rewala slrequested thatwould would occur and add igrading such as the issue mitigate impacts relative to the migration of wildlife. provided Response: Specific responses to the question was p Rest` Mitigation onse to Comments page D-23 and D-24• and in DEIR Resp eotechnical, hydrologic measures designed to address 9 grading are detailed on page biologic issues associated with 9 wired A detailed phasing plan that would earegthe exact meth and phasing of grading The City methods, timing with the submittal of the first final Trac publicaimprovements will require all necessary bonding gra once and bonding to secure the completion of g started. 13 Planning Commission Meeting of February 8, 1993 Chairman Flamenbaum: ` 1. Requested that the EIR address the following: Further discussion identifying the ways to minimize of moving 9.3 million cubic yards of dirt as well as the actual moving of the dirt. Response: The impacts of the proposed grading activities have been addressed as part of the evaluation of each of the topical issues analyzed in the DEIR. All reasonable Mitigation measures available to minimize project related grading impacts have been included in the DEIR. Responses to alternate haul routes and off-site deposition of South Pointe Middle School's stockpiled soil has been previously responded to. Alternate grading approaches to the ones proposed as part of the project have been analyzed in the DEIR in the alternatives analysis including total preservation of Sandstone Canyon. Please see response to comments on the DEIR page D-33. 2. The Draft EIR should address an alternative to the removal of a majority of oak trees on site that would result in the preservation of those trees in place? Response: The Response to Comments to the DEIR on page D-33 notes that the DEIR includes both an evaluation of the no project alternative on pages 6-2 through 6-6 and the cluster development pages 6-18 through 6-23. Implementation of either of these project alternatives including the alternate site option discussed under Re.sponse to Comment #67 found on page 5-46 of the Response to Comments of the DEIR would minimize potential impacts on the site's existing oak tree resources and would result in the preservation of over 90% of the existing oak trees on site. 3. The DEIR should further evaluate the impacts associated with the removal of the oak trees and the elimination of the existing water course which has been identified as mostly run-off within the project area? Response: The Response to Comments to the DEIR, page D-33 notes that the project's potential effects on both oak trees and existing water courses on site have been addressed as part of the biotic, hydrologic and aesthetic evaluation included in the DEIR and Response to Comments. All reasonable mitigation measures available to minimizeproject related impacts have been included therein. It should be further pointed out that the preservation of the riparian area, including the existing stream, has been evaluated as part of the project related alternatives. 14 Commissioner Meyer 1. Requested that the DEIR address an alternative concept to constructing the South Pointe Middle School without the rest of the elements on the Master Plan. Response: This question was analyzed in the Response to Comments of the DEIR on page D-29. The response notes that both the Final EIR for Walnut Valley Unified School District school site and the Draft EIR for South Pointe Master Plan have evaluated the potential impacts associated with the finalization of the grading plan for South Pointe Middle School site and the deposition of surplus soil material within Sandstone Canyon. In addition, the response to comments includes a discussion of the anticipated impacts associated with the transport of surplus soil material from the South Pointe Middle School site to an approved office depository by means of the existing local street system. The concepts and costs to implement the development of the South Pointe Middle School without the other elements of the South Pointe Master Plan were analyzed in previous responses to Commissioners Flamenbaum and Plunk' questions raised on December 14, 1992 and January 25, 1993. 2. Further elaboration is requested on the items of unavoidable adverse impacts, which are air quality, traffic and circulation, specifically in regard to mitigation measures that could be implemented to address those three topical areas? Response: This question was responded to on page D-29 of the DEIR Response to Comments. Since both air quality and traffic related impacts will continue to exist based upon cumulative development activities which are reasonably anticipated to occur in the project area, it will not be possible to mitigate those project environmental effects to a level which is not significant. External to this environmental analysis, the City of Diamond Bar should continue to participate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other County and State Tonal Transportation Planning Agencies in developing regional solutions to these issues. The Planning Commission is directed to the mitigation measures related to traffic and air quality impacts and to those proposed conditions related to these impacts that are found in the proposed conditions of development on each of the three proposed tentative tract maps. 15 The traffic analysis should be expanded to address the irical 3• Sun Avenue, to include both the empirical opening of Morning potent al traffic into data that assesses the impacts of the p that existing development and mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts, as well as address the issues of no sidewalks, alternate designs of the intersection, and/or elimination of the intersection. Response: The Response to Comments in the DEIR evaluated be this question by Commissioner Meyer. These resp and 75 in the Response found in Response to Comments #11, , traffic volumes are to Comments to the DEIR. In summary, these volumes are not expected projected to increaseHoith the connection of A street o Morning Sun Avenu o exceed the typical traffic volumes found on local to exceed t streets. Right-of-way exists in the Morning Sun area to provide a residential sidewalk system. Rapid View Drive, a collector street is 4. Elaborate as to why P Put together in somesort ofaon-sitean ternative circulationdis system? P some Res onse: The Response to Comments in the DEIR, page D-30, P question. Briefly, a project connection responded to this q provide secondary access to to Rapid View Drive would only P Tentative Tract #32400 the 90 homes proposed within Vesting ro ect and not the rest of theRaohinte Drivescouldlalso attract area. A connection to PidVewto avoid peak hour some by-pass traffic attempting rings/Brea Canyon Road congestion at Colima Road/Golden Rapid View Drive would intersection. Project access hour project trips and 40 potentially relocate 30 a.m. Peakect driveway on Brea p.m. peak hour trips from the Pro]id View Drive. The ng Tract #32400 has Provided Canyon Road to Colima Road via Rap ewa secondary proposed Vestito the southerly access point, emergency access only, commercial area. have Recognizing the amount of dirt ito be remo 5. developeddtonreduce adequate mitigation nificuce potential impacts to a level which is not migration trails Additional mitigation measures, including for wildlife should be considered. Res onse: All reasonable mitigation maCtSrhavees vbeenble to P potential project related imp minimize P analysis as mitigation included in this environmental analy measures. 16 6. since small wildlife, such as snakes and rodents will move out of the canyon during grading and probably move into the habitat of existing dwellings, the method to control this activity should be addressed? Response: Other than through the development and implementation of a trapping program, no additional mitigation measures have been identified. The effectiveness of a trapping and transplant program would have limited environmental benefit. 7. There should be further elaboration as to what the grading controls will be to insure that incremental grading on the project site is coordinated amongst the three property owners. Response: The City of Diamond Bar will require that prior to the approval of the first final tract map that a grading phasing plan be approved by the city engineer prior to the issuance of the first grading permit. City approval. will also require that all plans and bonding for on- and off-site public improvements will have been made prior to the issuance of the first grading permit. 7. The circulation issues regarding the cross-section for Brea Canyon Road should be examined by the traffic engineers; there is no provision for the cross-section for Brea Canyon Road for sidewalks or any pedestrian type of controls. Response: Response to this question was found in pg. D-31 in the Response to Comments in the DEIR. The proposed cross-section of Brea Canyon Road is adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipated demands. Brea Canyon Road as contemplated would be constructed pursuant to the City of Diamond Bar standards for a secondary roadway as noted in Table B-6, City of Diamond Bar Classification System in the City of Diamond Bar General Plan. For further evaluation of this question, please see the 3rd paragraph on page 4-99 of the Draft EIR and the first paragraph on page D-31 in the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. 8. The Circulation Analysis at Colima Road/Brea Canyon Road which identified that the signals to the west and the signals for the on and off ramps to the freeway need to work in tandem with the phasing for that intersection, should be expanded to address the various types of improvements. 17 Response: Some of the recommended intersection improvements may require modifications to the existing traffic signals. The California Department of Transportation specifically controls the operation of signals at the Freeway on and off ramps. However, to the extent possible, the city should coordinate the operation of adjacent traffic signals to improve traffic flow in the area and minimize traffic delays. 9. Address the responsibility this project would have to the impacts on the various intersections and street sections? Response: As indicated in the Draft EIR pgs. 4-101 through 4-103, the project applicants shall be responsible for contributing a fair share to all identified transportation improvements as determined by the City Engineer. The improvements to these circulation and intersection systems are found in the Draft EIR and the related improvements and exactions would occur with the approval of the final tract maps. 10. Address the type of technical judgment, project being used to mitigate the issue an acceptable level, understanding that mitigate to a level of insignificance. with respect to this of air quality to it is impossible to Response: The determination of project related impacts on air quality are based upon information provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District as contained in the publication entitled, Air Quality Handbook for Preparing Reports, revised April 1987. Mitigation measures associated with air quality impacts are found in the Draft EIR, pages 4-131 through 4-133. Commissioner Li: 1. The pre- development and post development hydrologic calculations should be re-examined to insure compliance with appropriate engineering standards. Response: The Draft Environmental Impact Report has been amended through the Response to Comments, to include a requirement for additional studies which evaluate the potential inadequacy of the off-site storm drain system. The provision of on-site retention or the provision for re- routing off-site flows to another storm drain areas having sufficient capacity to handle the runoff from the proposed project site area have been added as project mitigation measures. 18 2. The issue of public safety should be explored relative to unstable slope conditions that exist wi-'-iin the project area? Response: Response to comments on page D-32 notes that development of the project site will be made in accordance with sound engineering practices. In the recommendations of the project, specific geo-technical studies are incorporated into the Draft EIR that will mitigate potential geologic, geo-technical and seismic hazards to a level which is not deemed to be significant. It should be noted that the Draft EIR points out that there are existing unstable soil and geologic conditions on-site existing today. Remedial engineering work will be required as part of project site development to eliminate these geotechnical conditions. Commissioner Grothe: 1. The traffic study should address the project's proposed on- site circulation system, specifically the problem of cut through traffic resulting from the opening of a number of existing streets. Response: The issue of cut -through traffic by opening up Morning Sun, Larkstone Drive, and Rapid View have been discussed in response to comments #11, 18 and 75 in the Response to Comments to the Draft EIR. 2. The sphere of potential project impacts may warrant expansion to insure that all project -related impacts are considered, including any needed signals. Response: The South Pointe Master Plan's potential impact on the adjacent circulation system, including existing signalization, has been included in the Draft EIR Traffic and Circulation evaluation. All reasonable mitigation measures have been included as mitigation measures in the Draft EIR. These mitigation measures reasonably assess the level of impact to the existing circulation system in intersections that may be caused by the proposed South Pointe Master Plan Projects. 3. Since the project is similar to all other past development in Diamond Bar, there needs to be more creativity in its planning with effort expended to possibly the canyon, including more creativity in grading alternatives with the South Pointe Middle School site. 19 Res onset The Draft the evaluation of a EIR has responded to One conceot number of to this issue through permit referred to as The Cluster Project concepts. This alternareservation of the saDdstonemcan would necessitate would transportation of the stockpiled Southe th off-site canyon area. soil. Pointe Middle School 4• The finalization Of the South Pointe Middle should be addressed asa separate alternativeSchool project The finalization of the the inclusion South Pointe Middle Master °f any other. components School without Plan ha Of evaluated °f the South Pointe Commissioners Meyer and Plunk. relative in Previous responses to cost to trans off -This response evaluated to arens Ort the excess soil the Sandstone Cansite to the 20 RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONER DAVID MEYER, DATED MARCH 22, _1993 E_N_T_ITLED "SOUTHPOINTE MASTER PLAN AND ASSOCIATED TRACT MAPS, ETC" ` In the March 22, 1993 memorandum Commissioner David Meyer requested additional information concerning the following items. Each item will be identified, along with its response. Commissioner Meyer's memo is included as Attachment B. 1. An economic analysis that describes the probable financial results of implementing the project as proposed. Response: The January 25, 1993 Staff Report on pages 10 and 11 provided a sales tax revenue evaluation of the proposed commercial/office development. The staff evaluation, based on consultation with outside financial experts, indicated that the proposed sales tax revenue at project build- outwould be between $377,00 to $792,000 per year. In addition, the city ownership of 10-15 acres of commercial land within enclave 4, would have an approximate value of between $4.3 to $6.5 million dollars. If the city chose to lease the land, city revenues would be approximately $430,000 a year, in addition to the sales tax revenue. A more detailed cost revenue study is being prepared by the Levander Company and will be forthcoming for Planning Commission review. 2. Is it feasible to relocate the major access road from Brea Canyon Road in a northerly direction adjacent to the boundary of Tract 32400? Response: It is feasible to relocate the major access road, "A", in a northerly direction adjacent to Tract 32400. The road relocation was evaluated as Concept Plan 4 in the Draft EIR. The relocation impact would be as follows: (See Attachment C for an engineering detail of the Concept Plan and Str.eet "A" design) A. Additional grading onto Tract 32400 and additional grading onto the adjacent proposed city commercial area. B. Additional noise impacts to the adjacent residential unit that would back onto road "A" caused by bus, car and truck traffic. C. Inferior access to the proposed community park site by the elimination of the street A access that, as now proposed, loops around the proposed park site noted in EIR Concept Plan U. There would be arequirement to add an additional circulation system to access the park site with Concept Plan #4, thus requiring additional street and pavement within the South Pointe Master Plan area. 21 3. 4. The relocation of Street "A" adjacent to Tract 320400 provides no lesser or greater functional traffic characteristics than the proposed project approach. Is the proposed cross-section of Brea Canyon Road adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipated demand? Response: yes, the proposed cross-section of Brea Canyon Road is adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipated demand. See the third paragraph on page 4-99 of the Draft EIR and the first paragraph on page D-31 of the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. Has the traffic projections anticipated the improvement of Pathfinder westerly to Harbor Blvd.? Response: The traffic forecast in the South Pointe EIR does not specifically include the extension of Pathfinder westerly to Harbor Blvd. However, existing volumes on Pathfinder Road and the other roadways in the area have been increased by 30% to account for ambient traffic growth at build -out of the project, plus approved cumulative project traffic added to the future demand volume forecast. Through traffic on Pathfinder Road, as a result of the Pathfinder extension, will increase the traffic volumes on Pathfinder Road. However, the majority of this additional traffic is expected to use Nugales to access the Pomona Freeway if their destination is north on SR -57, and if their destination is south on SR -57, they would use Brea Canyon cutoff road. Therefore, the Pathfinder extension is not expected to significantly change the cumulative forecast at the key intersections evaluated in the South Pointe EIR. 5. What additional off-site improvements have to be made to reduce the impacts of traffic on the intersections of Pathfinder/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs at the on and off ramps of the 60 Freeway? Response: Off-site traffic improvements required to support near-term 1997 and long-term 2002 traffic projections are presented in Table 2, Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, beginning on page 2-33 of the Draft EIR. Minor errata for Table 2 is presented on page 2-5 of the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. 6. Can the adjacent open space owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association be utilized to offset the impact to the existing canyon environment? 22 Response: The adjacent "HOA" canyon could be upgraded and used as an impact off -set. The existing Homeowner Association -owned, canyon areas exist today in a partially degraded and impacted condition. 7. If access to Rapid view and Larkstone is to be prohibited, then could access to Morning Sun be deleted? Res onset At least one emergency access is required for the South Pointe project in addition to the proposed access on Brea Canyon Road. Access to Morning Sun would be required if the Larkstone access would be prohibited. Between the Larkstone and the Morning Sun access points, the traffic consultant and the city engineer would recommend the Morning Sun access point because of Morning Sun's overall lower traffic demand characteristics when compared to Larkstone. g. What would be the results of creating access to Morning Sun, Larkstone and Rapid View? Response: See response to Comment 11, beginning on page 5-9 of the response to comments on the South Pointe Master Plan. If project access is provided for both MorningSun nelated Larkstone, approximately an equal amount of project - traffic would be expected to use each street. This would result in approximately 65 a.m. and p.m. peak hour project trips each direction on Morning Sun and Larkstone. provide proposed connection of Rapid View Drive would only p secondary access to the 90 homes proposed with in Tract #32400 and not the rest of the Master Plan project area. A connection to Rapid View Drive could also attract some bypass traffic attempting to avoid peak hour congestion of the Colima Road, Golden Springs, Brea Canyon Road intersection. Project access to Rapid View Drive would potentially relocate 30 a.m. peak hour project trips and 40 p.m. peak hour project trips from the project driveway on Brea Canyon Road to Colima Road via Rapid View Drive. 9. It appears that if the commercial property was eliminated from the proposal, or at least reduced in scope, then a substantial portion of the existing canyon could be retained. What is the impact of this type of concept? Response: A portion of the existing Sandstone Canyon cooled be retained by eliminating approximately 50% of the prop commercial area. The commercial site would go from an approximate 30 -acre site to a 15 -acre site. The impcWO°ld this concept can be evaluated in two ways. First, it 23 impact approximately one-half of the proposed revenue that could be potentially generated to the city, both in terms of city sales tax revenue projections and ownership -value reserves. Secondly, reduction in the proposed commercial center may have an affect on the private property owners' project viability. The reduction on size could also limit the types of users for the site area both in store size and quality. 10. The proposed access to Morning Sun from Tract 51253 (Sasak) is an offset design. What is the result of aligning the access to the proposed Tract from Shepherd's Hill Road? Response: Civil Engineer Jim Budke on March 24, 1993 provided the response to Commissioner Meyers' memo. Enclosed is an exhibit prepared by engineer Budke, noted as Concept Plan #5, showing an extension of Shepherd Hills Road to serve the southerly portion of Tract 51253 (see Attachment D). The results of this extension of Shepherd Hills Road is the loss of two lots (21 lots total vs. 23 in the original plan), three lots fronting on Morning Sun Avenue. A second entrance, Street "A" per the revised tract map, blending immediately to a knuckle and a cul de sac to serve lots 1 through 9 on the northerly portion of the site is also provided. A second alternative for access at Shepherd Hills Road would be to eliminate Street "A", extend Shepherd Hills Road into the site with an immediate knuckle connecting to Street B. Please refer to the attached sketch. This would result in double frontage for lots 21, 22 and 23 and elimination of lot 20. There would also be a slight increase in excavation yardage for each of these alternatives. 11. What are the impacts of saving the Blue Line Stream and the existing oak trees located within the boundary of Tract 51253? Response: Engineer Jim Budke on March 24 provided an exhibit responding to this question. To limit grading to a point beyond the drip line of the existing on-site oak trees, and the Blue Line Stream would result in the elimination of ten lots (lots 4, 5, 6 ro 8,12,13, 14, 15, and 16) and a total loss of the area p P osed to fill, approximately 90,000 cu. yds. Mr. Budke indicated this alternative is totally unacceptable for the development of his Client's property. 24 12. What is the development density of the three private projects at this point in time? Response: A. Proposed Tract #51407 RMP Development Inc. 1. Gross Area: 61.62 acres 2. Gross Density: 1.46 units per acre 3. Net Density: 3.64 units per acre B. Proposed Tract #32400, Arciero & Sons, Inc. 1. Gross Area: 40.77 acres 2. Gross Density: 2.23 units per acre 3. Net Density: 4.74 units per acre C. Proposed Tract #51253, Sasak Corp. 1. Gross Area: 6.7 acres 2. Gross Density: 3.43 units per acre 3. Net Density: 4.29 units per acre D. Combined Density of all residential units within the Master Plan area 1. Gross Area: 109.09 acres 2. Gross Density: 1.87 units per acre 3. Net Density: 4.15 units per acre 13. It appears that the three private developers would need to develop this project independently. What guarantees does the city have to insure the needed public improvements would be constructed within an acceptable time frame? Response: Certain aspects of the project can be developed independently. other aspects will have to be developed with the first phase of development. For example, Street "A" and the community parks would probably be conditioned to be developed with the first phase of development as well as other off-site public improvements. The city, through the subdivision map process can condition that certain public improvements be constructed within acceptable time frames. A condition will be submitted to the Planning Commission with project approval that would require a phasing plan to be submitted to the City Engineer with the first final map. This phasing plan would identify those public improvements which would be in phase one and those bonds and guarantees which would require the completion of all public improvements with the approved project in all phases. 25 14. Can the project contain a system of biking and hiking trails? Response: Yes, there is adequate right-of-way to have biking trails along the street right-of-way. The concept plan also identifies hiking trails within the city's dedicated park area that could continue, with permission, into the Homeowners' Association open space ownerships. 15. The concept of having a resource management plan has been identified. When will the plan be presented to the Commission? Response: The Resource Management Plan would be required to be presented with the final tract maps. It is difficult to develop a detailed Resource Management Plan until 40 scale engineering plans are developed or to ascertain which trees would be specifically impacted by grading and which trees would be capable of preservation given the grading plan. The Resource Management Plan will be required to be presented to the city as a condition of development. 16. As a noise mitigation measure, it has been suggested that the walls be constructed along Brea Canyon Road and the 57 Freeway. Is it reasonable to require that a berm be constructed between the proposed dwellings and the existing runways? Response: A 6-8 ft. noise wall is required on the rear yard of several dwellings that back along Brea Canyon Road. A berm could be constructed between the proposed dwellings and the existing roadways. However, the homes will have a 6-8 ft. wall between them and the road to demarcate their particular lots, as a requirement of the Master Plan. A berm could be considered redundant and it would not provide the same type of fencing protection that a block noise wall would provide. Landscaping in front of the block wall would provide the same type of aesthetic effect the berm would provide. The Master Plan could be directed, however, to require that a berm -like feature could be provided between the Brea Canyon Road and the noise wall for aesthetic purposes and additional noise mitigation purposes. 17. Should the passive canyon environment be changed to an active recreational area? Response: This is a policy question for the Planning Commission and City Council to respond to during the public hearing. It should be noted that not all of the entire Sandstone Canyon is proposed for an active recreational area as part of the South Pointe Master Plan. 26 18. Is it possible to develop the project area and leave the canyon and blue line streams intact? Response: The Environmental Impact Report Alternative Analysis under the cluster concept did identify a alternative that left the Sandstone Canyon blue line stream intact. The attached tentative tract map alternative provided by civil engineer Budke for Tract 51253 identifies a tract alternative that leaves its blue line stream intact. The Planning Commission has before it a decision to make whether to accept the proposal by the three project developers or to recommend .to the City Council an alternative project which protects the blue line streams. If the blue line stream is considered of paramount importance, the Planning Commission should weigh the trade- offs embodied in the preservation alternative to the commercial and active recreational components of the South Pointe Master Plan, which would be lost with the preservation alternatives suggested by this question. 19. Does the city or developers have a responsibility to repair the ancient landslide area? Response: The developers would have the responsibility to repair the ancient landslide areas within their respective ownership areas and the city may have its responsibility to repair ancient landslide areas within its proposed ownership areas. It should be noted that part of the development agreement proposed would be remedial work provided by the developers on the city's commercial and recreational cost properties as part of the mass grading concept. could be borne by the developers and not the City of Diamond Bar. Also attached to this response to Commissioner Meyer is some additional statistical information previously requested regarding the densities of the surrounding subdivisions to the South Pointe Master Plan area. Two additional graphics are provided which depict the surrounding tracts and the Walnut Valley Unified School District boundaries and South Point Middle School service areas. Please refer to Attachment E for additional developer responses to Commissioner Meyer's questions. 27 planningCo_mmis.sion- meeting_of_March 22, 1993 dia Plunk: Commissi_ oner LY._ - of both the I. Inquired as to the commonality and diversity coastal live oak and the California scrub oak?Muick, Res onse: According to Oaks of California by Pathe Cali Jo nson and Ropper the chattexistsef�om Noak rthernCCalifornia scrub oak have a range t predominant mor to Southern rffound•inithesCaliforniathe natura species of tees environment. de a tree count that would 2. Is there some way to proviof indicate to the Commission the nutherCalifornia coastal 1950/60'scomparedto live oak trees in Diamond Bar 1 the number of trees that exist today? The Planning Department does not have the data Res onse: tion of the number of that would allow an accurate desexiscription prior to coastal live oak hercommunity. Nordoes in Dthe mplanningstaff development ofcurate tree have the ability to identify aarac. one could draw edraw somount of for that exist today in the est that assumptions, however, and the staff would sugg re -Diamond Bar every 10,000 sq. ft. lot area in the P approximately 3-4 development era, there probably existed app With California live oaks on the particular property. a 10,000 q. ft lot would probably have s development, lot or some combination of anywhere between 3-5 trees Per ltor indigenous and ornamental tree species. ite are 3, How many trees on the outreeslare proposedinte Master lforsrelocation? relocatable and how manY e are 835 Califareaa °sevenaks identified sixtythe Res onse: Ther South Pointe Master Plan site ro osed for eight of thefteenlhundred andifornia ethirtyks asixpreplacement oaks removal. to the City x Diamond Bar oak will be required according s that n ordinance eXistro the on the Arcie35 livok tree mitigatioownershipis on site 333 specimen oaks cimen oaks 156 are considered in go area. Of these 333 speo condition. These 156 oaks would be considered candidates considered in good condition and for relocation. On the RMPsitethere are 449 oaks on site. Of these 449 oaks 353 are c would be considered candideatess for r53ooaks °39 are the site 53 oaks exist on site. 2d considered in good condition and would be considered candidates for relocation. The developer has indicated their ability to relocate 20 of the specimen oaks to prominent locations within the South Pointe Master Plan area as part of their future resource management plan. 4. How much of the existing Sandstone Canyon area has regeneration potential for the existing habitat? Response: The question raised by the Commissioner relates to how healthy the remnant Sandstone Canyon areas is from the standpoint of regeneration of the existing environment. Clearly the Sandstone Canyon remnant is an isolated portion of a much larger range and diversity of California coastal species of plant and animal life. Certain aspects of the natural environment have been removed from the Canyon, such as, intermittent fires and other natural ecosystems impacts that permit a regeneration of certain types of plant species. There is no exact way to tell the future of Sandstone Canyon if left in its present environment given the impact of the existing neighborhoods that surround the Canyon other than to indicate it was probably better in pre - Diamond Bar periods. 5. What are the total trips per day that exist in the Diamond Bar Community? Response: Total trips that exist in the Diamond Bar community are estimated at 300,000. Total new daily trips on the project site are estimated at 13,320. 6. Can we contact local Fish and Wildlife agencies or other experts in the area of cougars to ascertain what exists in Sandstone Canyon? Response: Attachment F is a focused mountain lion survey of the project site conducted on March 24, 1993. No evidence of mountain lion was detected on site. 29 ATTACHMENT B MENIORANDUM DATE: MARCH 22, 1993 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSOIONAND MEMBERS OF THE DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMM FROM: DAVID MEYER, PLANNING COMMISSIONER SUBJECT: SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN AND ASSOCIATED TRACT MAPS, ETC. The "South Pointe" Master Development Plan is an opportunity for creating a dramatic and innovative project using apublic/private partnership concept. Identifyig thhencommon goals of the School District, the City and three Private Developers is an excitingp opportunity ppor ty BACKGROUND: Throughout the public hearing process, Planning th t willoccuras a resulon has of the ived testimony identifying environmental problems implementation of this project.developed Pcelrtann environmental lssion �suescould consensus be _ that if the project would be P� mitigated below the level of "significance". The Commission is now in the process of receiving testimony on the specifics of ake an each element of the project. In an effort fooconcerning the fol owing items: ed decision, has requested additional in 1. An economic analysis that describes the probable financial results of implementing the project as proposed. f 2. Is it feasible to relocate the major access road from Brea 2 Canyon Road in a northerly direction adjacent to the boundary of Tract) 3. Is the proposed cross section of Brea Canyon Road adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipate demand? 4. Has the traffic projections anticipated the improvement of Pathfinder westerly to Harbor Blvd.? 5. What additional off-site improvements will have to be made to reducethe impact of traffic on the intersections at Pathfinder/Brea Canyon, Springs/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs at the on and off -ramps to the 60 Freeway? 6. Can the adjacent open space, owned and maintained by the homeowners association, be utilized to off -set the impacts to the existing canyon environment? 7. If access to Rapidview and Larkstone is to be prohibited, then could access to Morning Sun be deleted? 8. What would be the revolts of creating access to Morning Sun, Larkstone and Rapidview? 9. It appears that if the commercial property was eliminated from the proposal or at least reduced in scope, then a substantial portion of the existing canyon could be retained. What is the impact of this type of concept? 10. The proposed access to Morning Sun from Tract 51253 (Sasak) is an off- set design. What is the results of aligning the access to the proposed tract from Shepherd Hills Road? 11. What are the impacts of saving the blue line stream and the existing oaks tress located within the boundary of Tract 51253? 12. What is the development density of the three private projects at this point in time? 13. It appears that the three private developers would need to develop this project independently. What guaranlces does the City have to insure that the needed public Improvements would be constructed within an acceptable time frame? 14. Can the project contain a system of biking and hiking trails? 15. The concept of having a Resource Management Plan has been identified. When will the plan be presented to the Commission?-, 16. As a noise mitigation measure it has been suggested that was be constructed along Brea Canyon and the 57 Freeway. Is it reasonable to require that a berm be constructed between the proposed dwellings and the existing roadways? 17. Should the passive canyon environment be changed to active recreational areas? 18. Is it possible to development the project area and leave the canyon/blue line streams intact? 19. Does the City or the developers have the responsibility to repair the ancient landslide area? South Point Master Plan Page No, 2 It would be beneficial to me, in my efforts to obtain as much information as possible regarding this development, to have the above requested information from our support staff. It seems that the proposed reconfiguration of the canyon will be a question of the City's development policy. Issues of growth management, preservation of the existing environment, and need for urban services and a solid economic foundation for the future of the City will guide the project debate. Therefore, I am requesting that the Commission continue to solicit input from the general public and to direct staff to provide the requested information. South Point Master Plan Page No, 3 ATTACHMENT c tae I r ¢+ i ATTACI-DIENT D M E M O R A N D U M TO: Hardy Strozier FROM: Jim Budke DATE: March 24, 1993 SUBJECT: Response to David Meyer's memo T.T Item 10; 51253, Sasak property. I have prepared an exhibit, concept an extension of Shepherd Hills Road toaservebthe s'1 . Portion of tract 5, showing (21 total t 51253. The results are a loss of two lots 23), 3 lots fronting on Morning a second entrance, Street 'A' asecblending(per the revisdStentun Ve� and immediately to a knuckle and cul-de-sac to serve lots 1-9 on the n'1 Y• portion of the site. A second alternative for access at would be to eliminate Street Shepherd Hills Road Rd. into the site with an i �A�� extend Shepherd Hills Street 'B� mmediate knuckle connecting to (See attached sketch). This would result in double frontage for lots 21, 2 2 23 lot 20. There would also be aslight increaselintexcnava- °f tion yardage for each of these alternatives. Item 11; To limit gradin to g a point beyond the drip fisting on-site oak trees, line stream thereby saving line of the ex - 'sting (lots 4 , would result in the elimintionmofn10and tlots lu ,5,6,7,8,12,13,14,15 & 16) and a area proposed to receive fill, a total loss of the total 90,000 C.Y. This is totally Y unacceptable for the development of this Oudke 'Design Service - 5 Wrigley - Irvine, CA. 92718 - (714) 581-6997 'VO `auinjj - Aa/6jaM S - aain.�a� u62sa� axpng; s?u:lo 4uamdol9naP auk 209 aIgsjdaoosun tts�o'Xlaadoad I s? s?us 'X'O 000`06 -KTDIEMTxozdds au1 go ssOT Ts403 us It?3�aniaoaz o�`pasodoad saau P (91 � SI 7I EI ZT 8 L 9 S +� s4oT) 9401 OT go uo?42UTMITa aqq u? aInsaa pTnor, '9'9'� au?t aniq aur pus mate Su?nss Xq aaauj 'saaa4 xuo a,?s-uo 2u?js? -xa aqq go au?T d?aP au4 puoXaq Iu?od s 04 2u?ps22 J?m?T oI :TT malI 'sanTjsuaajTu asau, go uosa log a?spau�C uo?a -RAUDX9 UOT u? assaaout Ig2TTs s aq osTs pTnom aaa �o uo. UTMTTa pus £Z ZZ `iZ s�o log a$s uo� aZ nOT UT 4Tnsaa pinom s?us (ull s I 3 Iq P o� �u?�oauuoo al�ionux a�uzpatuui usuouggs aaS) ,8, laaa�S udaTgs Pua3xa `, �aaa BIBuTmTTa o4 aq PInoM u�?M a�?s auk o�u? -PN Paa PEO?I sTI?H PaagdagS 4p' ssaOOPlaa log 9n?4suaalTs puooas y enzas o '92Ts aql 90 uo?2aod '�fT,u aur uo oss-ap-Tno pus a anu s o 6-T sgOT (duet •�ua� pas?naa a Tx x q XTa1s?pammT 2utpuaiq Pus •any unS ?u?u'ON uo 2uj3uoa SaoT C `aousaaua puooas s s4OT om' go ssOT u alp sITnsaa a T £ `(£Z 'sn Tu�o� IZ) uz '£SZTS 40sa2 3o uo?gaod 2utro s`S auk anzas o� puog sit?H paa da u S aagmnu uuid ;daouoo uS 3° uo?sua�xa us `�?q?uxa us paasdaad anuq I =01 malI ��aadozd xsssS £SZTS ',L',L 'om@w s,aaXaW p?nsQ 01 asuodsag :Z0 Hrgns £66I `7Z uoasyq :SSdQ axPng Mir :W011d la?zo14S -CpasH :01 NaaNvN0Haw Q ZNaWIDV.LTv �Y. to N r to O 1- Z U Z Q Q CC J H d. Y! ATTACHMENT E J.C.D. J. C. DABNEY & "kSS0CIaTFS LAND D1AT'L0P J[:NT CONSL`LTA,tiTS & ENGINEERS ('I S BkEA CANYON kOAD SUITE > WALNU'I'. CALIFORNIA 91780 -1-+ 50-E--568 FAX - -14-594-50()oMarch 31, 1993 SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN REFERENCE: DAVID MEYER & BRUCE FLAMENBAUM COMMENTS 2. Is it feasible to relocate the major access road from Brea Canyon Road in a northerly direction adjacent to the boundary of Tract 32400? Assuming that the project as proposed is a Of the road to the northerly location would be poor planning/ approved, the relocation engineering, economically foolish, and environmentall intrusive. g. poor y more If the intent of the relocation is to divide the project to some lesser intensity, then the economic feasibility of the entire R -N - portion of the Master Plan needs to be revisited. the economic benefit to the owner can be resolved P is to create a Assuming that for the Passive environment, the southerly location hprovides smallest and least intense intrusion on the existing environmental setting. The maximum ie, total earthwork, maximum slo es grading impact on the canyon, northern location. lopes, greatest area, would be the 3• Is the proposed cross section of Brea Canyon Road adequate handle the proposed traffic generated by the anticipated demands? q to project and other Assuming that the Master Plan is proposed improvement to the existing BreaCanyonRoed as d ould betas follows; in existingproposed, south s; the restricted right-of-way project a minimum section woulprovide for areas to the two north and two south lanes with a section in front of the stripped left turn lane, the maximum would provide two north and two south lanes with a land project both commercial and residential raised median with intersection turn pockets and stackingla providing the service capability of a seconds scaped entire project (a four lane from Colima to Pathfinder).ry highway along the nes 6• Can the adjacent open space , owned and maintained homeowners association, be utilized to offset o the existing canyon environment? the impacts to the yes, and it has always been our hope that The physical answer is enhancement of these areas uld c anyoneto these areas. We eawouCe existing flora from the impacted hope that these open would be adopted with project would be included lapprovalso management plan t We currently have a scheduled meeting with representatives of the homeowners association arranged for April 1, 1993, at 7:30 at Mr. ho hohome to discuss this possibility. However, Mr. Schade has me wne advised me that the president opposed to any meeting with and will not sbelinl strongly attendance 12. What is the density of the three private projects at this point in time? See attached density analysis. rivate developers would need to 13. It appears that the three P What guarantees does the City develop this project independently• have to insure that the needed public improvements would be constructed within an acceptable time frame? A. Actually there are four developers involved and no one can effectively proceed independent Project inter-dependentices within the South Pointe Master Plan are as follows: The Subdivision e Map (a) R -N -P Development Inc./Sasak C ht of way�to a public ag cy Act allows the dedication of rig To provide for the without the creation of a subdivision.Sun necessary future street connection the o Mor Corporation andning utility lto connections both dry and ` and provide utility easements for easements dedicate the street right-of-waydrain the Master Plan. R -N -P needs to idemstorm acceptanceofrun the City, County, Sasak Corporationathe Sasak o f f flows agreement between Sasak & R -N r din a r R_N_p eemeand and e a al low Corporation need to enter into a mutual A reimbursement agreement cross grading between the two parcels. for proportional improvements needs to be entered into between by the City to R -N -P and the Sasak Corporation be constructed by which ever allow necessary facilities e is not e intent her developer proceeds first with development. of advantag ment to place either owner or the City in a position develop disadvantage, but to or insure that the vehicle for proper If the final exists without an undo hardship on any party. location of the street conneRcNipn currentlyn owns fro tageSun is not l along location or area in whichownership h o Morning Sun, then R -N -P will transfer k Corporation t accommodate wide access to Morning Sun to the asa the new location of the connection. (b) R -N -P Development Inc./walnut Valley Unified School District; there are several interrelated considerationsthe School DiCurrently Larkstone is a private street belonging to as it extends from the westerly School District boundary up to the proposed ultimate school facility. The portion proposed to service R-N-P 's six residential lots along Larkstone needs to be dedicated to the City and necessary improvements constructed provided by RN- P. In addition, the grading of the School Districts 2.5 acres adjacent and north of the proposed park needs to be addressed and provided for to allow maximum benefit of recreational facilities to both the City and the School District. This would require some sort of bilateral agreement between the three parties. Further more, if the through connection to Morning Sun is not made or provided for in the future, then a through connection must be provided for at Larkstone. This connection and configuration would require participation from the School District. (c) R-N-P Development Inc./Arciero & Sons Inc.; the true key to the entire project as'proposed is predicated on mutual agreements between these two parties. The benefit to the School District, the City, the Sasak Corporation and the community of Diamond Bar is a direct result provided and paid for by these developers. As the current Master Plan is proposed, the grading of the School District Site, the Park Site, the Arciero Tract, the City Commercial Site and the R-N-P Commercial Site would necessitate that the work be preformed as a single endeavor. The anticipated agreement between R-N-P/Arciero would consist of mutual grading agreements, access agreements, reimbursement agreements and time oriented performance agreements. The total earthwork being done by these two parties exceeds 3,000,000 cubic yards without remedial grading considerations. The storm drain facilities being proposed require relocation of existing facilities at Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Road to allow gravity collection of off-site flows and conveyance of these flows as well as on site flows to a conventional storm drain facility instead of creating a deep facility along the floor of the existing canyon. It is absolutely imperative due to the mass grading and storm drain facilities required that development in this area proceed as a single effort. While the required water loop can be made through either the Arciero Site or the R-Ne, the best location for the City would be along Street A providing fire protection and service for the proposed Park Site. The proposed location of Street A at the westerly edge of the active Park Site is, the engineers preferred location to provide Park access, sewer, water and other utilities to and through the Park itself. (d). Developer/City considerations; City involvement will be dealt with through individual Development Agreements between the City and each developer. B. Guarantees and time constrains will be addressed within the Development Agreements. Guarantees and time constrains truly can not be separate items as they are interdependent. The Development Agreement provides for two major considerations, development entitlement guarantees and time performance considerations. Without the specific entitlement guarantees there is no specific performance. Let us assume that the Master Plan is approved as presently proposed with all the underlying densities and uses. Then the following performance considerations would apply: (a) Performance is a product of available funding for infrastructure, an approved development agreement allows the developers to seek necessary funding because it guarantees specific entitlement. Construction can not begin until approved final plans are available, the contract has been let and all necessary improvement and performance bonds are in place. Normally this would take from nine to twelve months including final map approvals. However, the Subdivision Map Act states that tentative map approval or denial will be. completed within 50 days of EIR approval. It is clear that time and performance constrains and considerations are a double edged sword. (b) Assuming that the City wishes to see the project constructed within a specified time frame which is agreeable by all parties, deadlines and extensions can be and will be outlined within the Development Agreement with specific performance clauses. (c) In a meeting with the City Engineer, Mr. George Wentz, Mr. Arciero and I were asked if we would participate in the funding of the signalization of the intersection at Pathfinder and Brea Canyon early to allow that signal to be added to the existing contract for the over -pass improvement. I believe that this meeting took place in early January. Both developers agreed that if we had approval during the improvement contract period we would participate. It now appears that the over -pass contract will be long completed prior to our project approval. 14. Can the project contain a system of biking and hiking trails? The present proposed Master Plan includes the construction of hiking trails through the set aside natural open space along the southerly side of the project. These trails would tie together the 15 acre home owners association open space adjacent to the southeasterly corner of the project to the 21 acre home owners association open space adjacent to the southwesterly corner of the project. The intent of the trail system is to allow the continuation of the natural studies outings conducted by Mr. Schade and the School District. The proposed trail system would be suitable for mountain biking activity, however, the extreme grade changes would not allow normal biking uses. 15. The concept of having a resource management plan has been identified. When will the plan be presented to the commission? The concept of a resource management plan should be a condition of approval placed on the Master Plan as part of the mitigation measures for environmental considerations. Consideration of resource management prior to approval of the ultimate master plan would be a waste of money that could be spent elsewhere within the project research process. Without a clear definition of the magnitude of the mitigation effort it becomes a what if consideration. My recommendation would be to form a subcommittee of one commissioner and one council person to develop the constraint limits of the resource management plan after approval of the project. This would allow both the commission and the council to participate in the development of the plan prior to actually coming before either body for approval. 17. Should the passive canyon environment be changed to active recreational areas? The first consideration here is the quality of the environmental setting within the canyon as compared to other existing areas within the community today taking into consideration size, quantity of flora and fauna, impact of surrounding urbanization, is it slowly degrading, can it sustain it's present habitat, and does it have access and direct benefit to the community as a whole. The second consideration is to weigh the active recreational volume of use against the passive volume of use within the community. The final consideration in the ultimate use is the availability of funding for improvements required for active recreation within other existing dedicated parks. It is a known fact that funding through Quimby Act fees hardly covers maintenance of existing limited facilities. This development proposes to deliver a blended active/passive use that is 80% turnkey. The capability of getting a 100% turnkey facility is possible by allocating environmental mitigation considerations to directly benefit the remaining park improvements. 18. Is it possible to develop the project area and leave the canyon/blue line streams intact? From an economic approach the answer is yes and no. The yes side is to not do anything from Brea Canyon Road to the School Site , eliminate the Park Site and increase the R -N -P Inc.'s residential project over the Park Site. The no side is to develop a strip commercial development along Brea Canyon Road, leave the canyon open, and develop a active Park Site. R -N -P Development Inc. cost to do this is approximately 3.5 million to get to the residential plus 7.0 million acquisition or a cost of 10.0 million with an expected residential land sale of approximately 7.0 million. The result is a 3.0 million loss. 19. Does the City or the Developers have a responsibility to _ repair the ancient landslide area? If no development If development °Ccurs in the landslide occurs resulting the area the answer the liability in would damage to an is istin At this time if arfailure designed Brock�s ld belong tO Brock Homes ande along shaded wood, the soils Firm that •sadoTs s,Xoozg Poub?au noon A4?T?qE?T ools 04 buoTaq PT nsaz s-In000 tuzi3 T ue sauioH X u? bu?4T anap a q P o� ab�wrep uauidoT I ��u� s TbuoTu bu?4sTXa uv san000 anap ou 3I e auioq . saA s? zaMsuE auk uaiudot ooM papeuS uT SIn000 P e 3? auz?� s?uq 4v aur all .. eaae ap?TSPueT • ou S. �ar,su2 aye Gross Density = 117 units/32.52 acres Gross Density of Area 2 = 3.6 units per acre Net -Net Density = 117 units/25.38 acres Net -Net Density of Area 2 = 4.61 units per acre Average Lot Size = 9,450 S.F. AREA 3: Tracts No. 30893, 32091, 33636, 33645 & 35741, within the City of Diamond Bar, North of the Master Plan Gross Area = 109.27 acres 290 Single Family Detached Residential Units No Dedicated Open Space Larkstone Park Dedicated, Not Improved, Currently Under School Site Gross Density = 290 units/109.27 acres Gross Density Area 3 = 2.65 units per acre Net -Net Density = 290 units/84.93 acres Net -Net Density Area 3 = 3.41 units per acre Average Lot Size = 12,760 S.F. Min. Lot Size = 7,070 S.F. AREA 4: Tracts No. 31053, 35741 & 35742, within the City of Diamond Bar, South of the Master Plan Gross Area = 89.93 acres 173 Single Family Detached Residential Units Includes 36.94 acres Dedicated open Space Includes 1.65 acre Developed Park Gross Density = 173 units/89.93 acres Gross Density Area 4 = 1.92 units per acre Net -Net Density = 173 units/41.30 acres Net -Net Density Area 4 = 4.12 units per acre Average Lot Size = 10,400 S.F. Min. Lot Size = 6,580 S.F. (Lot 4, Tr. 35742) 't 40Z) '3'S 08S'9 = aZTS '4oZ •uTW '3'S 00V'O1 = aZTS WrI abesanV ajoe sad s4Tun ZT'V _ v eaav AgTsuaa 49N -49N sasoe 0£'Tt,/s4Tun ELT = A4Tsusa 48N-4eN aloe sad s4Tun Z6•1 = t QasV A4Tsu9Q ssOaD sasoe E6'68/s4Tun ELT = A-4TsuaQ ssOaD xspa padOTanaQ 9IDe 99'T saPn'TOuI aopds uadp p94e0Tp9Q sasoe t6 -9E sapnToul s4Tun TeT4u9pTsag pagoe4aQ ATTure3 aTbuTS ELT sazop £6'68 = east/ ssoso ueTd s94SPW ago ;o T44"S '1PS PuoureTQ ;o AgT3 9144 uTu4TM 'ZVLSE 'S TtILSE 'ESOTE 'ON s40psy :t VaNy '3'S OLO'L = aZTS -40'1 'uTW '3'S 09L'ZT = aZTS -4oZ abesanv glop sad sgTun Tt'£ = E past/ A4Tsu9a 49N -48N sasoe E6'-8/sgTun 06Z = A4Tsu9a 4aN-49N glop sad sgTun 59'Z = £ paav A4Tsuga ssoaD sasoe LZ'60T/s-4Tun 06Z = A-4Tsu9(I ssosS 9 -4 -TS TaogoS sapun AT-4uassn:) 'panosdurI -40N 'p94V3TP9a xspd auo-4sxspZ aoedS uado pageoTpea ON s4Tun TeT4u8pTs9g pagae49Q ATTuma aTbuTS 06Z sasoe LZ'601 = past/ ssOaD UuTd s94seW ago 30 g41ON 'seg puoureTQ To A4TO ago uTg4TM 'TtLSE R St9EE '9£9EE '160ZE 'E680E 'ON s-40pss :E vauv '3'S OW 6 = aZTS 4OU abesanV aloe sad s4Tun T9'V = Z QasV 30 A4TsuaQ 4aN-49N sasoe 8E'SZ/s4Tun LIT = A4TsuaQ -4aN-40H aloe sad s4Tun 9'E = Z ea -Tv 30 A4Tsuaa ssosS sazop ZS'ZE/sgTun LTT = A4Zsu9O ssOaD AREA 7: Proposed Tract No. 51253, within the Master Plan Sassak Corp. Gross Area = 6.7 acres 23 Single Family Detached Residential Units No Park Dedication No Dedicated Open Space Gross Density = 23 units/6.7 acres Gross Density Area 7 = 3.43 units per acre Net -Net Density = 23 units/5.36 acres Net -Net Density Area 7 = 4.29 units per acre Average Lot Size = 10,150 S.F. Max. Lot Size = 16,980 S.F. Min. Lot Size = 7,600 S.F. AREA 8: Combined Density of All Residential Units within the Master Plan as Proposed Gross Area = 109.09 acres 204 Single Family Detached Residential Units Includes 28.05 acres Park Includes 16.62 acres Dedicated Open Space Gross Density = 204 units/109.09 acres Gross Density Area 8 = 1.87 units per acre Net -Net Density = 204 units/49.20 acres Net -Net Density Area 8 = 4.15 units per acre / �• ; • \ \ �� /\• fsl •as • folly■ Polar scfu► LAwSf— v.wc \' 1.01 AE I n a r �rtr�r►Wrar IgC SCALE t' •200' I :0clfef af• fdaf .0 11 .cN c H SIfTwI CL' i m LOCI �TAP f•Ih/ 0EVELOler iwc 17 E(sE5 » u Icres NO 35742 . �� � • / � 15 ld ACRES i SS ACMES COMNEACIAL iri• � — AAAA—...--- — o'- i X / Area 1 Area 6 Area 2 . Area 7 i Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 : m LOCI �TAP f•Ih/ 0EVELOler iwc ZiT 1'Al -MEN'_ ._ MpR -§ '93 0415SPM PALiFIC SOLTHWE5T aIOLOGICAL P.2 Sm — -siftf ly ' , �CoRlftrvimm . Inc. -� Post Office Box 965, National ChY, California 91961-0918 • (6111) 477.5338 • FAX (619) 477.1245 ' 23 much 1992 FSS #W Nlr. Kevin 'Thomas Robert Bdn, Wlitiam Prvtt and AMociata P.O. Boa 1979 Irvine CA 92711 Dear Mr. 'I'hotntes: On March 2i,1945 Ps+atfic 9oaslhwrat conducted a focused mounuln�lioa turvaY of the Di4=WW Bar site and of mouatai 1 lions vvik csarcalerj using the $WL-iI a mArm Was ti oonductsd by ARr. Doug w. found no evi on" easeareh on this Spada in s0ueh�a Fadley who has condaeted iates maAu+nia lion t+n�of�the • The larvas was eon burad ba'w*" 1600 and tido hours and oostditiv s sad atrsara beds area sue good to poor, Areca ttsod IPY aaouatdu !roan u trawl rocas n avlaeaaa wee found is tarchad for tracks, scan► "poa, ro malnt and other monoRain °' jormeuaaia lion► tsrcks. the area was used bby�► terse � sad a fsvr of the uWkIuVjW be hm those of MMOWn 11001- Used 1001. Of infor"Jan war to dinlA�aish the me of of dam, tbs 1W of a serial of umks. T shape of the pad. the dbtrlbaOM of toes abe01 lbs pad, she t�r�a of a dote pad �y supae "y sad the sine d the treew vers all oongdow. In some Dasa cbe thMa diSinsoa. The absence of dews resemble a mountain lion's Pad4 one tke ethu aharaearW Lou, but this chartatarini� also is cited by same • u and is wtion that tracks may indica " that a spends a t deal of time on pavemua Of atouatata flow on the alta, sot p� that s meunt4ia lion hes we did not Aad MY a sad o vur saber not tice sin in tis Past, or will not in the dte is lbs future � of�tbs moi naia Ilea in biological on" of this sin we did bad mule doer. AI U +last are primary esal► n koros southorn Calsis. Tit~ Dtaatoad Bar sin aeetta►ns a divueicY of that an attlnble for aaaauld h.w, wr, t�iw do is a habitat Wandwtthtn as urban ages B L Y a+ellkaly that thio sin.rato be used by a mowllaia lion oa a regater bub, ib"em, The food r sourees o° 1In eke ati+e sot adsetussa m s'��md a moomia lion for very► lens. Is amummva, a mowla+a Last to" 11i Ulsite m ellehem� � 19 9" t as reach the site. This tas�► t PisailY, tlLe u►lddp:a+�d P:a•a°a of around •mils of urban dsvelepmen not habitat MW trawl mths likelihood tiornull; a ..J. lion� W0016W with m6ummin area for a sec aded psnod Zmatic dor rsdttees bab1Y a � sub s"t cc jywntle animal, Thea If the site had ban put by ► m beam lion, it Via. A e UW U'm radio-Whu*d in the Sema attitnals can wands>r i<eae dirtaasaOe' mils east of the sits. Ana mawswu was WW tsyias to won rise Dameat Freeway tet►ers Mountain Bone in WAhaen OW&ruis Use from 60 to awn 200 tQg&� tali!wppan . of habl�u� � � � Diamond Bar site is las Skase o.s ulnare a 4 and b dasa+ty too mil Ms iti brrs meds easadw use mmWed psrW of til=l., Other moinada lone collmd is the �a� 01 wndtutfd unset of scan of the Chtno MIS, but haus nal bean 160"d ~ of stats Rotate V. !demi anY SSI Route 57 u pan of the Orange Cou�aw Cooperative Abe I.b e► Y hos on a ro rju beefs Beier, Univ. Calif. Pers. cnme�. Mg. The closest ata known to be uNd by mv� is Towner Canyon 1 to ) claw tett of the Diamond Bar tits. 7148378007 RBF IEROr�Ir10 BLDG. F-557 T-050 P-003/003 MAR 29 '33 10:23 MAR 25 '93 05:OOPM PACIFIC SOUTHWEST BIOLOGICAL P.3 Mr. Xevia Thomas 4 25 Masrh 199 i PS89 lBZ4 Mountain lions do inhabit the Sana Ana Mooataiar, the Cldeo iiilI�, the Paeate I;1tL, and have been repotted but unconfirmed in the Sen Jae Dills. The Santa Ana Mouaataias p1ulw of rnoantaW liow was petitianod for listing a as eadaopred apea s« uasder the Prde:al adaAN m6m Act la Pebrwry 11 Tlsis populasioc world include aaiarsols in the Puente Bills induding the DWoond�dte. The pWtlon was brwoded to the Fish and 'Wildlif+e Sauk* Redoml Qfce and a Ads -making b pondias�, Curteady the Caiiforaia Department of Finis aed Ga:4e ban meat authority ova the a�ouawn 1104 in the atetea however, unlw the animal L cowidwW it public oafety threat or is morias damage to privae prapcm, the Deparasmt of Piste and Came out= dent with the ateiasal. Nghti4p of mountoia hops are mpattad tbtnugbout rtoutlurn C ' oa a bow. Ca»fui investigation of these si(h*w tem shown that mots of the tightinp have been bo or domoetic clap. In our biete�ioot survs's of the Diamond )tar site we did /dent* bobeots and do clop ud" the sites. It L Aaaible that aaouatain lions wens area an the site but mors than holly the fthdip were of beboats. stacea�slys JW%h A. Merkel Vice Prosident )1+ PANNING City of Diamond Bar CpMMlSSION AGENDA ITEM NQMBER: Staff Report 2 REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: May 6, 1993 CASE/FILE NUMBER: May 10, 1993 South Pointe Master PlanEnvironmenta1 Impact RepotNo•State r Clearing House N 92_1,0. 92081040.Development Agreements No.'s 92-1 92-21 92-3 which incorporates the proposed South Zonin Pointe Master g regulations Plan and development standards. Vesting Tentative No. 32400, Vestin NO. No. 51407 Tentg Tentative Tract Tentative Tract No. Conditional 51253, Per Oak Tree Use Permit N°• 92-8 and Use mit No. 92-8; Conditional Permit No. 91-5, and Oak Permit No. 91-2; and Tree Permit No. 92-12; Oak Tree Use 92-9; Permit No. APPLICATION REQUEST: Land development requests of Vesting Tentative consisting involving the subdivisionact 32400 acres into 93 Parcels lot 47.4 family residential (91 single - ft. min. lot lots, 7,200 sq. lots Size and 2 commercial Tentative Tract involving the 51253 subdivision 47 and 48 of Tract °f lots 46, 32576 consisting of 6.7 acres up to 26 parcels (all single-family ly residential lots, 8,000 t Tentative lot size), Vesting subdivision of51407 involving the and lots lot 53 of Tract 35742 32576 cons istin J. 48 and 49 of Tract 94 parcels g of 90.8 acres into residential lots to 90 single family lot size, 8 0sq. t. min. commercial 1 open space and 3 lots), development agreement containing a master plan Conditional Use Permit relative , hillside grading, Oak to Tree Removal Permit and review of an Environmental Impact Report. 1 PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located in the western area of the City of Diamond Bar, encompassing an area of approximately 171± acres. The project site, which is comprised of a number of existing parcels and ownership interests, can be generally described as being situated westerly of the Orange (SR -57) Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly of the corporate boundaries of the City (and Tract No. 27141), northerly of Pathfinder Road and the existing residential area (i.e., Tract No. 32576) obtaining vehicular access from the roadway and southerly of South Pointe Middle School and existing residential and vacant properties located southerly of Colima Road. PROPERTY OWNERS: Walnut Valley Unified District, City of Diamond School Bar, RnP Development Inc., Arciero and Sons Inc., and Amrut Patel. APPLICANTS: (1) RnP Development, Inc., 4439 Rhodelia Dr., Claremont CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Sons, Inc., 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th St., Upland CA 91785 (4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste. 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 BACKGROUND: The South Pointe Master Plan project represents a comprehensive land use planning effort on approximately 171 acres of primarily undeveloped land. The proposed project is the culmination of a multi-year effort by landowners to produce a balanced development plan for one of the remaining large undeveloped properties in the City. The proposed project is designed with a combination of residential, recreational, commercial/office, open space and educational uses. Approximately 80 residential acres are propos approximately 195 single family homes. 31 ac: future commercial/office development adjacent t acres are proposed for a neighborhood public consist of both passive and active recreational acres are proposed for the construction of a Middle School. :d for construction of -es are proposed for a > Brea Canyon Road. 28 park site which would uses. The remaining 31 permanent South Pointe The proposed project, as presently contemplated, would be developed over a projected 10 year period. To accommodate the proposed land 2 uses, a variety of circulation system improvements are being considered. They include the creation of new local streets within the project site, and a new main access road to the school from Brea Canyon Road. A variety of public improvements to both Brea Canyon Road and other off site street and intersections improvements, will be required as a result of the project. Public hearings for this project began on January 25 of 1993. Since that time the Planning Commission has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and has directed Staff to begin preparation of the appropriate resolutions recommending City Council certification. As a result of the City Council action in March to rescind its previous approval of the General Plan, no action or consideration will be undertaken in furtherance of an amendment to the General Plan at this time. The Development Agreements, Tract Maps, and associated permits may proceed with reference to the Draft General Plan pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992). The Planning Commission concluded its April 29th public hearing by determining that the South Pointe Master Plan zoning regulations and development standards were consistent with the Draft General Plan. City Staff was directed to prepare the appropriate resolutions for future Planning Commission consideration. It is now appropriate for the Planning Commission to consider the specific Tentative Tract Maps proposed. As noted within South Pointe Master Plan development standards, the 171 acre site has been divided into five land use enclaves. Each Tentative Tract Map has been designed to development standards consistent with the Master Plan. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 is proposed by RnP Development, Inc. and consists of 84.20 acres containing 90 single family residential parcels with 28.13 acres proposed for recreational open space and 21.9 acres proposed as a commercial center. This map is located within Enclave 1, as described within the Master Plan development standards. Minimum lot sizes for this Enclave are 8,000 square feet with minimum pad sizes of 6,900 square feet. The proposed residential neighborhoods within this Enclave are designed to be compatible with the existing style and type of development pattern adjacent to the project. VTM No. 51407 provides for an overall density of 2.59 units per acre on the 34.62 acre residential site. Lot sizes range from 8,977 sq. ft. (lot #24) to 18,679 sq. ft. (lot 134). Pad sizes range from 7,079 sq. ft. (lot #26) to 13,322 sq. ft. (lot 130). 28.13 acres have been set aside for open space/recreational purposes (lot 191). Three commercial lots are proposed ranging in size from 3.40 acres to 13.05 acres for a total of 21.45 commercial acres. Earthwork quantities indicate 2,567,000 yards of cut and 2,571,000 yards of fill for the proposed map. The circulation pattern consists of a residential collector, street "A", from Brea Canyon Road to the middle school site, and a residential street "B" proposed extending through to Morning Sun Drive. The project proposes six residential KI ro erty presently owned by dwelling units facing Larkstone Drive P P The proposed map would the Walnut Valley Unified School Distrrict. Previously filed Tract Map No.'s 32576 and 35742. Those maps supercede P revprohibit the construction of the County residential andunits is dedicated the right to P ht was accepted by request. Other within certain lots. Thatany development req valid and enforceable against ert relate to flood hazard and restricte use restrictions on the prop y would supercede and erase the existing areas. This proposed map aced upon the property. development restrictions p re a number of other parcels in the community lwith are also There a Other properties eles _ Los Ang subject to similar development restrictions.royal of this requested app the change in such development restrictions has sspec f have been allyre q bdividedY County. The applicant to evaluate application package which permits the city request. entitlement on the merits of the particular req project attempts to provide a balance between rfordneeded The proposeential d and ace and is providing an opportunity development and oP en space neighborhood and the resources and facilities to serve the immediate community at large. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 51253 unit single family ro osed as a 23un nt1 designed is This 6.7 acre site is currently proposed project as p development standards or Enclave residential development. Thep P approximately 000 cubic not consistent with ea thwork incorporster Plan ates app approximately No. 1. Projectortation of app of the The present configuration yards of excavation and embankment eartri - with ex as shown on 58,000 cubic yards of ermit the extension of Street "B' gun Drive. subdivision does not P 51407 to connect with Morning Vesting Tentative Tract No. provides for a Tentative Map contains the same basic vis ion Map Ac restrictions on to This Ten The S the previously discussed map- the offer of subsequently filed for approval, way to deal with such restrictions. If a resubdivision or reversion Y on the approval of the acreage of the tract is subseq dedication previously rejected is terminated up map by the City Council. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400 prciero and Sons and Tentative Tract No. 32400 is proposed by Vesting le family homes are proposed with two 1The ur oses. contains 93 lots. 91 sing The minimum lot size totaling approximately 7 acres set aside for commercial p proposed map is located within argil feet3with a minimum pad size of ge proposed for Enclave 3 is osed00 sp j pad sizes range Thep p ro ect conuaTesfeet,slzes that ran 6000 square feet. to 15,095 (Lot #14) sq primary access from 7200 (lot #31) to 13,365 (lot #45) square feet. lot #69) point through the from 6,070 ( on Road with a secondary access is from Brea Ca Earthwork quantities indicate 1'The yards of fill. are future commercial development. osal, million cubic yards of cut and of the current cubic 1.810 million cSasak prop proposed maps, with the exception consistent with the design and development standards contained within the Master Plan. 4 171 acre site may this January 21, propose subdivision °Report dated 1993. of the prop ission Staff of January 25► Further details planning COmm Commission meeting 11 in be found within thetI Planning Comm to approve repared for take action upon Planning 1993 P Commission Basedfor ends that Planning subdivisions• revised resolutions Staff recomm three proposed bring back �� the staff will Commission Meeting• concept direction, planning Commission tion at the next formal adoption le contract document the DEVELOPMENT p,GREEMENTSs as a sing regulations, utilized Management to the ment Agreeme plan, the Hillside with reference to enter The Develop Master Plan► ment Standards ability went incorporate the the Develop provided with the Develop Tree Permit, Cities are p ropertY owner' a public Oak Tract Maps with any P between Agreements negotiated contract establishes and Tentative mens ment Agreement roceed Develop essentially a The Develop can P intodevelopment fitment to Agreements are developer which the their commitment agency and a P based UPC incorporate terms and conditions assurances The agreements toward the the applicants the agreements. all parties brief the provides compliance witri and commitments by Staff will their timing and transfers proposed project. detail and a variety of land of the P in more Commission completion ment Agreements the Planning order to successful on the Develop recommended ment Agreements in Commission It is the Develop adoption• current status- discussion of future undertake sPeciffinalize the documents for permit staff to the ENDATIONS: staff presentation on STAFF RECOMM to receive a the Public Hearing their 1• Reopen entitlements• developers regarding proposed prO7ect a presentation by the specific 2. Request ooals. respective Prop staff and/or applicants Direct appropriate questions to 3 for public comments- 4. public hearing Reopen action to: 4. take dards and public hearing and went stare 5. Close the P plan develop and Pointe Master etc.) No. 51407 the South ment standards► No. 51253 approve develop Tentative Map a) Vesting Tract Map attached major elements (i -e. action to approve and Tentative thin the b) take Map No - 32400 contained within Vesting Tentative indings and conditions with the draft Agreements Development Agr to prepare resolution�e proposed staff c) review 29th directed Draft General on April with the all Master Commission plan consistent approval of Planning The Planning the Master recommending the finding Staff is es be directed b work with resolutions policies. chang to Staff to plan Goals and Should specibec provided plan components. should Commission, direction 5 9 E66T 'TZ Aapnuer paggp gaodag 33pgs uOTSSTURUOD buTuuejd APapH oq suos pug oaaToaV 'uzoa3 'E66T damns papzTZ pauaOH ObaTQ UPS I s.zaautbug sui94sdsga4jn MOaJ ' E66T •off 19pugn9U aqq dq paapdaad oaaToay pug dug aeTzoags 'S AeN PageP (Z) saaggaZ aqq buTpagbaa 'saogonagsuoO 'EZ jTadv paggp aaggaZ sTsdjguV goedmj jeosT3 agy ao3 sguamaaabV quamdojanaQ C,SZTS '9 .9 'E 'Z • deW gog.zy aATgpquay pug ' OO t Z E *ox • d,2x gog.zs anTggquay butgsaA '[.o,vTS 'ox •dpy� gogay anTgpqua,y buTgsaA aoj jgnoaddV jo suoTgntosag •j : sdxamRo llv aogoaaTQ quamdojanaQ dgTunuxwoo oug3agsaQ sampr :is aauvd3Md •uOTSSTunuoD butuupjd agg dq UOTgoe jpuTJ aoj sbuTpuT3 TpguauiuoaTnug pup sguamaaabV guamdojanaQ aqq 'SIPjjaM sp 'Tpnoadde 30suoTgTpuoO '40g3 30 sbuTpuT3 g4TM suOTgnjosaa TpuT3 POTTe49P 'OT3Toods g4TM UOTSSTMMOO butuupTd aqg oq uangaa jTTM uauiaj*o uoTggaapTsuoo Tgua jje 3 J924s 'sanssT pug sgsanbaa gbuTMOTTOJ :x0isa7OXOD •Tpnoadde 3o suOTggpuaunuooaa agpaodaoouT pug gaxopd aqq UTg4TM papnjouT Bae squautaa.zbV Squa guautdojanaQ g3paQ • utaja jeTguassa sqT og 4oadsaa ggTM guautaaabV quamdojanaQ gopa 3o snsuasuoo s(aas uotssTunuoO buTuugjd agg gpgg pagsabbns ST qI •sguamaaabv quamdojanaQ aqq aapTsuoO og buTnouc aao.;aq deui gopa uo snsuasuoo gopa.z pjnogs uoTssTunuoD buTuueTd ags, •agPTadoadde eag suoTgtpuoo pasodoad aqq dT `ATT20T3toads azouz pup 'ugjd aagspK aguTod ggnoS aqq quamajduzT dagg 3T 'djjg.zauab 'auTMJagap pug sdvm goeag anTgeguag aqg uo snoo3 uagg pjnogs uoTSSTUIMOD BUTuugjd eqy -demgoeag anTgoadsaa goga puauzg og saadojanap City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 41. REPORT DATE: May 19, 1993 MEETING DATE: May 24, 1993 CASE[ME NUMBER: South Pointe master Plan Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1, State Clearing House No. 92081040. Development Agreements No.'s 92-1 and 92-2 which incorporate the proposed South Pointe Master Plan Zoning regulations and development standards. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 51407, Tentative Tract No. 51253, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Conditional Use Permit No. 91-5; and oak Tree Permit No. 91-2; Conditional use permit No. 92- 12; Oak Tree permit No. 92-9. APPLICATION REQUEST: Land Development requests consisting of Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 involving the subdivision of 47.4 acres into 93 parcels (91 single-family residential lots, 7,200 sq. ft. min. lot size and 2 commercial lots), Tentative Tract 51253 involving the subdivision of lots 46, 47 and 48 of Tract 32576 consisting of 6.7 acres up to 21 parcels (all single- family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size), Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 involving the subdivision of lot 53 of Tract 35742 and lots 46, 47, 48 and 49 of Tract 32576 consisting of 90.8 acres into 94 parcels (up to 90 single family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft. min. lot size, 1 open space lot and 3 commercial lots), development agreements containing a Master Plan, Conditional Use Permit relative to hillside grading, Oak Tree Removal Permit and review of an Environmental Impact Report and a separate Oak Tree Removal permit and Hillside Grading Conditional Use Permit for Sasak Corporation. PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located. in the western area of the City of Diamond Bar, encompassing an area of approximately 171 ± acres. The project site, which is comprised of a number of existing parcels and ownershiP interests, can be generally described as being situated westerly of the Orange (SR -57) Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly of the corporate boundaries of the City (and Tract No. 27141), northerly of Pathfinder Road and the existing residential area (i.e., Tract No. 32576) obtaining Z '(166I) - off gilm Paaaojd Alm s1�a 3o svorslnojd atp 01 luenan d ue RJOUOD oosse Id tejaua� jQ aV 01 aaual1J.1 j JO oq,g ou luampuame 3a $1�1i �asj.L siaamau8'V 1IIamdolOA2a OkL •2W1 �A J0 IMSuavid algj2aaD 3o IeAojdde snolAaJA ' aaaeljapun aR IIIb uo $ Pa1�Otltp .meq >J,,�I�WanOa �(li, $Q�Pa PMOM ol "IN � II4U�! Ii�fIn0�I 0� Smnu�d m 2M PUR mn 13 MI MU2=OJIAQ3 nIos2i P2A XAal Qld�,' ai�i ajedud SZ 4jenue f uo ue ojd sr[P JO ssq uoissra�o, jo3 SSUPEN �IIRnd sluamanojdml suo 'loafold atp ollRnd 30 �arjNA P� laajts aus jlo 301lnsaJ a se poen V pgog uo�tue ° PIIe Peng uo&ND eu aR iII� PUN `MIs loafcud aQ1 mg11� g g1Oq o1 s I=Aojdml S7Uamanoldun mals�fs uope,sI o uo�� °1 PeOj ssaooe utero Baa E �eaA OI Palaafojd a jano podo ana o �Ia. VA a 'sPuvl Td �Caq.L 'Pajaplsaoo 8maq a. I P aR PInoM palei uaMuoo al8poounuo"e Ol 'Fouad A ud se 1 afoid Posodojd aq,L "I Pasodojd am sajoE I£ Ivle '10 aqZ ars almod Plnonj garq,i alis Xjed or Poogj Ie O �j anq pat rsseduon,�lsaoo aq1 01 luaaefpE 1IIamdolana Ignd oRgBlaa E joI Pasodojd ai8ats P aow0/Ielalamtuoo an saloE oq 30 lslsaoo ZOZ'(Ia1e[mxojdde "1nJ a 103 Pasodord 8Z Pig uo,fuE, eajg �o uorlonjlSuoo j03 Pasodojd am sajoe are sojas I £ samoq xuwN 'sasn INUOPLIonpa p� aoEdsddV [s.luaprsaj Og ,{lalemtxoj. e g1ln' PauBlsap s! laafojd gado a3Wo/Ielojamwo3 aq1 Io auo j03 � d Pasodoid aq,L •,UI, a `IEaorleajaaj `Ieclaaprsa.I o aol ao11 no a I laatudoianap paauEle e EP ut sagj-do.Id d lealgmoa �mI tp sr laafojd R aonpojd 0 Padolanapun a&EI Suluremaj uo 1jo a 8aruueld asn Pl ,A, d aq,L PURI Padoianapun Pvmud j �g 1jo�a jea,C_pinm a 30 Fuel anlsuagajdmoo a mljd3o sajo' IL I XIalemrxojddE sluasaidaj loafojd IIeld lms IN almod glnos . `001 a1S `.jQ X01doS91I6 VO `jeg Puomel(l 98/-16 VO `paEldn J 19 099 i Z `jeg Puomel `IIOgejodaoD )MSNS bJ 'UnagRud Er9sn.L quoN OS6 `•auI sUOS Pue L08Z6 oj JIIOLaajE •av IJ jQ Ellapogll 6£bb `'auI`IuamdolanaQ adJ P" ` • aUI sUo ' Ia1E PUoruElcl do ,1r, orAs Q 100433 I lvaladoianaQ d Pa �f) a[[PA 1nuIEM ��aen PUR PEog MUIi00Io sfjaglnos Paleaol lellUaprsaj SWISIxa qjnoS jo SljaPUL glnos PuE sacuadojd �ebloogaS a[PPIy1i alutod peoj 'IT moj3 ssaooE JElnargan aNaonoxiva (Z) (1) ' S,lNVZ)I'IddY SW3XMO AL?Iddond The Planning g Commission concluded its Pointe master Plan zollin April 29th public he General Pian- City Staff was and developments hearing by determinin Commission as directed to pre are standards were co g that the South consideration. P the appropriate ns'stent with priate resolutions for the Draft During the May 10 future Planning directed Staff to b • Public meeting the Planning approval of the v�g back to the May 17 l Commission closed direction to the Staff annus . Planning the public healing and Project entitlements. �g COnjmission the pre pl meeting Resolutions for m partition of the Resolutions: g Commission 1. Level ofgave the following iQnit'i��.. • The Pialulin environmental impacts g Commission d• its associated flOmacts with no mitigation below directed a CE QA and aesthetics. Staff a level of non_si QA finding of adverse mgs as well as the findings of fact a has included 8mficance for oaks and the Statement o�pvelnding m the Resolution 2. Resource ending Considerations. Conditions coma t lam' The Pl accomplished m a separate g Co�ssion directed that Exhibit and can be found Resource Management ply the Tentative Tract sub Tle Master Plan has each Tentative �chOII This 1 as witted to the Co further required • Tract Map Resolution been Community Develo q jred this Resource Conditions The Planning pment Director as a SePara agement Plan to be Plan. �jng Commission requested an ex document, A new Section VII has been added set of land concepts, to the Master plan concepts i the Master with graphic landscape The Planning Comm. fission asked for e incluuddi g planning for landform gradin wed Hillside Standards in g Corrunission g have been includ the Master Plan. 3. requested standards for t� m Muer Plan Section VI Se"15�. The PI terrace or bench drains. 10' flat to - a5 an Commission requested side Plan Section c� Sand 10' clear and flat. This c and setback be c change has been added to ed from S' and The Planning Co Master has tboen variabk mmission also requested setback with a that the front yard setbacks minimumack be changed 4 O and IIO In Master Plan Sec ion IIIOf 6 with an average ofrom — 4 o cis. This descnbtgg �+acY: The City Attorney mance 4 Consistency. requested language S. � ' These Resolution amendments � � bansolutions o added. `Ce c ged to reflect The PI f LarlcstOlx through timing Commission kgs and the Master Plan conditions haCcesve with � a �� closure �alte ested d�uments to be n changed to rhis re. The reflect this request. 3 6 ��mPnr� 1 n condition "e ource be add R ve : he Planning individuals. This ed to wow plat nn recovery requested edition has bin addedtree. rior that a Tract 7 Gra P to grading by Private onds: The Co requ�g grading bonds nimission requested that a condition This condition has been added. be added to ENVIRONMENT L the Tract Maps IMP C RT: Attached for the Pi Comrrents on the Draft Commission review includes a review Enviro�n� 's a Technical A incl of all South Pact Report prepared b PPendix on the recommends to the Pl Pomte environmental Y Ultras ste Response to the EIR. The language Commission that r documents Y ms. This document Suage to implement Certification to Prepared to date. Staff Certification is found iS.n the City Council certification of PROJECT E1V N each of the project Resolutions. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS: The Development Agreement Plan, the Hillside M is utilized with referencegement re as a single contract d into to the Vesting Te regulations, the Oak Tree p document to incorporate the Development q , the Master essentially a negotiated cments the Tract Ms Cities are Provided Dwe�1oPment Standards Development Detract between ei Y Property owner. the ability to enter Proceed t g8reement established ae a Public agency velopment Agreements are com li Provides the aPplicams with tent and conditions from which developer. The P ante with the ag1eements areurar s based u hich development con��ents by all parties toward agssuran is Inco Pon their commitment to timing can the successful Completion of the varietyrate a op se land f and The attached Developmentposed 1O assist the Planning ggrf�� P ject. Sin concurrence Commission with its arehighlighted with "strike " Staff cur nce with the Staff and Undeveloped view n the documents. strike and ""� lining" to Commission recommends the Arciero and RNP Develop nt �i� en Otiationss t ro nd � are 8teements agreements. The Sasak Develo as Presented for Planning Commis - moment gSnxment has been limitations n the City's k removed from consideration b be adopter late timing °f Sank Development to consider this o the Planning and. applied to Sasak ABreement �� due to Ordinance 4 VEST�TG T ,A � the other Sasak entient r* Th Master plan will TM TRACT NO. 32400 documents. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32 single family homes are Proposedwithis �� by Arciero and Sons ots totaling approximately Contains 93 lots. 91 Y acres set aside for 4 commercial purposes. The proposed map is located with Enclave 3. The minimum s proposed for Enclave 3 is 7200 square feet with a minimum pad size of 6000 squaretot izg proposed project contains lot sizes that range from 7200 (I.ot #31) a 15,095 (Lot fe square feet. Pad sizes range from 6,070 (Lot #69) to 13,365 (Lot #45 is from Brea Canyon Road with a secondary ) s9� feet. Primary access development. Earthwork quantities indicate 1.795 milslion cubic yards�ofhcut and 1.810 mile future lion ial cubic yards of fill. Staff recommends approval of Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400 to the Planning Commission. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 is proposed by RNP Development Inc., and consists of 84.20 acres containing 90 single family residential parcels with 28.13 acres proposed for recreational open space and 21.9 acres proposed as a commercial center. This map is located within Enclave 1, as described within the Master Plan development standards. Minimum lot sizes for this Enclave are 8,000 square feet with minimum pad sizes of 6,900 square feet. The Proposed residential neighborhoods within this Enclave are designed to ,compatible with the existing style and type of development pattern adjacent to the project. VTM No. 51407 provides for an overall density of 2.59 units per acre on the 34.62 acre residential site. Lot sizes range from 8,977 sq. ft. (Lot #24) to 18,679 sq. ft. (Lot #34). #26) to 13, 322 sq. ft. (Lot #30). 28.13 acres have beepad set aside for sizes rangeo on pace/ sq. atft. (Lot purposes (Lot #91). Three commercial lots are proposed ran space/recreational 13.05 acres for a total of 21.45 commercial acres. Earthwog� m sties from 3.40 acres to yards of cut and 2,571,000 yards of fill for the quantities indicate 2,567,000 of a residential collector, Street "A", from Brea proposed Road to circulation school pattern sitconiand a residential Street "B" proposed extending through to Morning Sun Drive, The project proposes six residential dwelling units facing Larkstone Drive on property presently owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District. The proposed map would supersede previously filed Tract Map No. 32576 and 35742. Those maps dedicated the right to prohibit the construction of residential units within certain lots. That right was accepted by the County and is valid and enforceable against any development request. Other restrictions on thero P PertY relate to flood hazard and restricted use areas. laced Tn t Posed map would supersede and erase the existing development restrictions p upon the property. There are a number of other parcels in the community which are also subject to similar development restrictions. Other properties with such development restrictions have been re - subdivided by Los Angeles County. The applicant has application a �� ���Y requested approval of this P�8 permits the City to evaluate the change in entitlement on the merits of the particular request. The Proproject attempts space andd is to provide a balance between residential development and open is providing an opportunity for needed resources and facilities to serve the immediate neighborhood and the community at large. Staff recommends approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 to the Planning Commission. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 51253 This 6.7 acres site is currently proposed as a 21 unit single family residential development. The proposed project is now designed consistent with the Master Plan development standards for Enclave No. 1. Project earthwork incorporates approximately 145,800 cubic yards of excavation and 98,300 cubic yards of embankment with exportation of approximately 47,500 cubic yards of earth to the RNP tract. The present configuration of the subdivision does permit the extension of Street "B" as shown on Vesting Tentative Tract No. 51407 to connect with Morning Sun Drive. This Tentative Map contains the same basic development restrictions as the previously discussed map. The Subdivision Map Act provides for a way to deal with such restrictions. If a resubdivision or reversion to acreage of. the tract is subsequently filed for approval, the offer of dedication previously rejected is terminated upon the approval of the map by the City Council. Staff has evaluated with the developer a Planning Commission direction to study a tract design alternative to bring Street "A" in from Shepherd Hills Road. Staff has determined that the resulting 20' high by 190' long retaining wall would not be in keeping with Diamond Bar retaining wall guidelines nor acceptable by the adjacent RNP developer. Inasmuch as the new 21 lot design meets the minimum criteria for Enclave 1 of the proposed South Pointe Master Plan and both adjacent developers (RNP and Sasak) have agreed to the respective tract designs, the Staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract No. 51253 as revised for 21 lots. A summary lot comparison is provided in the Planning Commission packet for your evaluation. The previous Hillside CUP and Oak Tree Permits for Sasak Corporation that was contained in the Draft Sasak Development Agreement is now contained in one Hillside CUP and Oak Tree Permit Resolution for Planning Commission Consideration. Staff recommends approval of this new Resolution contingent upon planning Commission approval of Tentative Tract 51253. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Staff presentation on the Resolution Revisions. 2. Planning Commission Questions of Staff and Developers 3. Planning Commission take action on the following Resolutions: a. Arciero Development Agreement and Resolution. b. Arciero Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 Resolution. C. RNP Development Agreement and Resolution. d. RNP Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 Resolution. e. Sasak Tentative Tract 51253 Resolution. f. Sasak Hillside Grading Conditional Use Permit and Oak Tree Removal Permit Resolution. Prepared by: Hardy M. Strozier ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolutions for approval of Vesting Tract Map No. 51407 and 32400 and Tentative Tract 51253. 2. Resolution for approval of Sasak Hillside Development CUP and Oak Tree permit. 3. Resolution for approval of Development Agreements for Arciero and RNP. 4. Development Agreements for Arciero and RNP. 5. Technical Appendix for the Response to Comments, South Pointe EIR. 6. Summary Tentative Tract 51253, 21 Lot Density and Lot Comparison. 7. Letter from Jan Dabney, dated May 20, 1993, regarding South Pointe Master Plan Commercial Area. 8. Petition to "Save Sandstone Canyon" presented to the City Council on May 18, 1993. Suff Report 5/19/93 7 SUMMARY TENTATIVE TRACT 51253 =_ 21 LOTS - MAY 6, 1993 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT: TO SASH -K CORP: 17,098 S'F' TO RN?: 1,749 S.F. NET TO SAS�s' CORP: 345 S.F. ( 0.34 AC.) RECORD A1tEA: 5.7 AC. ADJUSTED ARF -,k: 7.05 AC . ESTIMATED EARTHWORK EXCAVATION 145,760 C.Y. EMBANKMENT 98,270 C. Y. EXPORT 47,490 C.Y. Pal. t CF z Oudke 'Design Service - 5 Wrigley - lrvine, CA. 92718 - (714) 581.6997 DVSI'i'y COMPARISON MORNING' SUN SASAK RNP ARCIERO AVENUE GROSS 3.13 1.46 2.23 3.12 (RECORD) GROSS 2.98 1.46 2.23 3.12 (ADJUSTED) NET NET 3.70 3.64 4.74 4.03 (ADJUSTED) LOT S MORNING SUN SASAK RNP ARCYERO AVENUE AVERAGE 11,831 111960 9,185 10,800 LARGEST 20,962 18,660 17,200 15,390 SMALLEST 8,241 9,000 7,200 8,260 ESTIMATED EARTHWORK EXCAVATION 145,760 C.Y. EMBANKMENT 98,270 C. Y. EXPORT 47,490 C.Y. Pal. t CF z Oudke 'Design Service - 5 Wrigley - lrvine, CA. 92718 - (714) 581.6997 SUMMARY TENTATIVE TRACT 51253 21 LOTS o MAY 6, 1993 AVERAGE: 12,831 LARGEST: '0-962- ?0,962- ATO. 4 1,214- NO. 4 SMALLEST 8,241- N0. 1 0,906- ISO. 10 `.Budke ties=yn service - 5 yyrlgl®y - Irvine, CA. 92718 - (714) 587-6997 LOT SIZE -S. , PAy SIZ_ E-5 .� ----- 1 8,241 2 6,964 3 8,73 7,771 4 15,.?85 1 , 0,956 70''6'2 11,214 � 15,y4^ 6 8,1447 9,830 6,984 8 9,679 6,937 g 6,982 10 17,79 7,16 it 8,697 8,191 12 10,077 13 8,954 8,741 14 31,619 8,917 15 13,857 7,614 lb 11,771 7,018 17 12,949 6,986 1s 14,824 7,367 ig 16,148 10,879 20 9485 7.543 2I 8,763 6,906 9,985 6,962 AVERAGE: 12,831 LARGEST: '0-962- ?0,962- ATO. 4 1,214- NO. 4 SMALLEST 8,241- N0. 1 0,906- ISO. 10 `.Budke ties=yn service - 5 yyrlgl®y - Irvine, CA. 92718 - (714) 587-6997 - :__J.C.D. _ C. DAB.'EY & ASSOCIATES LA`TO DEVELOPMENT CW;'KI -TANTS & FNGINUR: 671 S. BRF.A C.�,NYON ROAD S[.':111 5 I ALN'C.'T. CALIFORNNIA 91799 714 5g4 -75c 8 FAX - '1{•594.5090 i}'��1ilr No. May 20, 1993 Mr. Janes DeStefano Cornunity Development Di -rector City of Diamond Bar Reference: South Pointe Master Plan Corunercial Area Dear Jing, The commercial area within the South Pointe baster Plan area has been arrived at as follows: Vesting Tentative Map No. 514071, R -N -P Development In!: - Lot 92, 3.4 acres City Owned Lot 93, 5.0 acres RNP owned Proposed City Owned Lot 94, 13.5 acres RNP Owned TOTAL COMMERCIAL AREA = 21.9 ACRES Each proposed commercial lot in this tract includes the rear slape area from the proposed park and any slope from the commercial Site to the proposed parkway along Brea Canyon Road. The Acreage -of each proposed com.ercia.l Lot is true acreage reflecting the required dedication for the ultimate proposed improved }area Canyon. Road. Vesting Tentative Map No. 32400, A_-ciaro & Sons Lot A, 0.34 acres City owned Lot 92, 3.34 acres City Owned Lot 93, 2.58 acres City Owned Street 0.36 acres (the portion or. City owned Corinsrcial) TOTAL COMMERCIAL AREA . 6.34 ACRES Lot A represents gross area and would be red,.Iced by the necessary dedication required to improve Brea Canyon Road to it'E ultimate required section. The additional .dedication required by Lot A would be approximately 13.0 faet or a reduction in area of Lot A of paw t ���- approximately 0.06 aces. TRUE COWRCIAL AREA WITHIN MASTER PLAN = 28.48 ACRES* *This acreage represents the "Tentative reap" acreage and Will be refined upon 'Final Map" approval. R tfully /J _. DabneY RCE President CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MIIiII'rso OF THE PLUMING COKKISBION OCTOBER 12, 1992 to the South Coast Air Q order a= ng Chairm an Flamenbaum called the ti ty Management CALL TO ORDER: 7:05 p•m, at le Drive, Diamond District Auditorium, 21865 E. Co Copley Bar, California. by The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance PLEDGE OF Chairman Flamenbaum. Vice Chairman Commissioners: ALLEGIANCE: Meyer, Grothe, Li, ROLL CALL: MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum• Development Director Also present were Community er Robert Searcy, Associate Pians Deputy City James DeStefano�Attorney Bill Curley, Liz Assistant City and Contract Secretary Attorney Craig Fox, Myers. N� Bp8�E88: Strozier, of the CDD/DsStefano stated that present the proposed 170 South Point planning Associates, plan, an area of about Master Plan point baster of pathfinder, and act South generally located north encouraged the Proj acres, 9 on Road. The City interest, west of Brea who had indicated an in to develop* a master plan, begin year, City. The hginninq. ro ects t to provide the order to process the projects Strozier management• coordination and City has hired overall project consultation to the City. at 7.52 P•m nbaus reeessad the meeting review the Chair/Fiane Coaiission time to allow the ro act. displayed graphics of the P i . Flasanbaum reconvened the meeting at s:lo Chair / P.M. the Planning Associates, Hardy Strozier, of the South Point Master the proposal for course of his outlined o eat. During the star plan Plan Pr i Strozier out"nad the r phics. tie presentation, Mr. Sizing the disp Y permits alternatives► Stats and School District P EIR- stated that all ineludina the Cartif ied fired approved, its regu have been maybe additional per�the State of gowaver, GaMe Coro of Zn frost the Fishmand he U ArfY t o one Canyon. Cal filling a operations in regarding filling he developient pro iia s i c es He then reviewed point Kiddle School tragi= follows: a 30 acre South =asily residential ciero sing with an average minim=!e a 40 acre � 93 lots, a 4S acre "�P for for 71- t -- (#32400), - of 7,200 1 ft.i size lot subdivision tract (#51407)► residential October 12, 1992 Page 2 lots, with a minimum size lot of 8,000 sq. ft.; a 30 acre commercial site that would have 10 to 15 acres of property transferred to the City as part of a development agreement and vesting transaction between these developers;. a 26 acre park site dedicated and transferred to the City, from the RnP development interest, in which the City would be granted about 10 acres of usable park area; a transferring of approximately 2 acres of land, known as Larkstone Park, from the City to the School District for South Point School purposes; an acquisition, of the City, for approximately 4 acres of Water District land; there is 6 acres of City/County right-of-way, that would be part of a transfer to Arciero, RnP, and the City's commercial interests; and the proposed project entitlements entails a development agreement, a zone change, a Master Development Plan, and perhaps a CUP for Hillside Management. He then summarized the four alternatives, to the proposed development, as submitted to the Commission. The difference between the alternatives relates to the land use potential in the commercial site, the linkage to the South Point Middle School, the through access of Larkstone Drive, the amount of usable park acreage, and the position, on the site,. of the permanent South Point Middle School. Mr. Strozier stated that their objective is to present this proposal to the Planning commission, for review, in November of 1992, and to the City Council by January of 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if, from an engineering standpoint, various portions of the project can be extricated so that if there is a problem with the blue line stream, South Point School can still move the dirt to the Arciaro property without impacting the blue line stream. !lardy Strozier explained that the objective is to ADVO this request through the Comission to the City Council as a total Master Plan application, as was submitted by the property owners. The project is inextricably tied together by it's master plan of gradinq, and it's master plan of land exchanges. Hardy Strozier, in response to a series of Commission inquiries, made the followinq comments: The Walnut Unified School District is desirous to move the stockpile of dirt, and negotiate a land transaction now owned by the City of Diamond Bar; the City wants to facilitate a master plan for the 15 acre commercial site, and the 15 acre park area; October 12, 1992 Page 3 RnP is desirous to develop 92 lots, with a lana trade of City property to school property; Arcierc want to develop 93 lots, and obtain land from the City for the would be excess right-of-way; there is not yet an application, before the City, by Mr. Patel, but it is anticipated that he will soon file a subdivision map; there has not been any comment made from the environmentalists regarding Sandstone Canyon; the School District officials, and the City of Diamond Bar feel that Larkstone Drive should not be a throuqh road; the Master Plan Project will comply with the Hillside Ordinance; and this project will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their input to the passive/active recreation area. Chair/Plamenbaum recessed the meetinq at 9:07 p.m. The meetinq was reconvened at 9:25 p.m. CITY OF DImon BAR MANTES OF TEE PLAWING COXXI68IOK BITE TOUR MASTER PLAN SITE TOUR DECEILBER 14, 1992 CALL TO ORDER•, Vice Chairman MacBride called the meeting to order at 2:10 P.M. at the City Hall, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. ROLL CALLs Commissioners Meyer, Li and Vice Chairman MacBride. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, City Planning Consultant Hardy Strozier, City Environmental Consultant Peter Lewandowski. STUDY TOUR VC/MacBride announced the intent of the tour and rovidd purpose and directions to the first viewinq location. VC/MacBride recessed the tour/meeting a - approximately 2:15 p.m. and reconvene: the tour/meeting-at approximately 2:2� ,- the rear parking lot of the Ave Dennison Building located at 2c: - Pathfinder Road. Mr. Strozier provided a brief overvie. the tour and briefly described project location and proposed uses seen from the parkinq lot. VC/MacBride recessed the tour/meet'--: the terminus of Rapid View Drive tot' a walking tour of the Arciero and Property- Mr. Lawandowski provide-- Overview rovide:overview of the EIR prior to the.to-. the property. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that :.-. Lewandowsky is with the firms Ultrasystems. U.ltrasystems is independent contractor that the hired to create the Lnvironaental ::.• Report that analyzes the pote-- impacts of the proposed project. Lewandowski pointed out that they _ be walking in the bottom of the which is identifisd as Sandstone in the EIR. The perspective wil: rather focused one and pointed ou! this only represents a portion of t-• acres. .He also pointed out an ar.s contiquous with the project site, c an open space area identifie Homeowners Association Open Space _ will be left in a preserved cons December 14, 1993 page 2 Similarly, on the other side of Shaded Wood, there is also another Homeowners Association Open Space Area. The intent of this tour is to give people a focused perspective of the canyon. A Water course was pointed out that at one time commenced on the other side of Pathfinder Rd. With the previous development of the Office Building and Water Tanks, the tributary has been impacted, and in Ultrasystem's opinion, the water that is now being seen is primarily urban runoff, as opposed to a stream -fed canyon. Lewandowski introduced Jim Harrison who is qualified to respond to questions about the biology on the site. Harrison .pointed out many plant species and Oak trees in the area. Lewandowski mentioned that the EIR was on file at the City Hall and Library for the public's review. He also pointed out that in the second chapter of the EIR is a 25 page condensed version of all the analyses of the existing setting, impacts and mitigation measures which he recommended reading as a summary of the document. Harrison also pointed out that a number of technical studies were utilized to derive the information in the EIR. These studies in two volumes are on file at the City of Diamond Bar. END OF TOUR: Upon completion of the tour CDD/DeStafano announced the Study session would convene at approximately 5:30 at South Coast Air Quality Management District Building in room CC -3. VC/MacBride adjourned the tour at approximately 4:15 p.m. Respectively, James DeStefano Secretary CITY Or DIAMOND SAA MINUTES OF TRE PLANNING COMMI88I03t STUDY SESSIOX DBCBMBER 14, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the 5:30p.m. meeting to order a ± at the South Coast Air Management District 4ualit Buildinq, 21865 E Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: oGrothe, Chairmar MacBride, and Chaierman F amenbaum 1' vice Also present were Community J, ames James DeStefanoAssociate Development Director q Technician . Planner Robert Sea m-•., ician Ann Lunqu, 1 Engineer George Wentz, Interim c:t Myers. and Contract Secretary Liz STUDY SESSION: CDD/DeStefano introduced South Pointe Hardy Strozier and Peter Lewendowski. Hardy Strozier, from Associates, the Master Plan is retained planning Consultant and as a General overall Project Manager the City in procsasinq this assist Lewendowski, Iron Ultra Systems, project. Consultant Firm nj vironmPeter that is the environmental consultants retained independent ptepare �' the an environmental City to address the potential impact report (EIR), will project. impacts known stags Of that the proms ed d the South Pointe Master Plan, is pro; located west Of Brea generally Canyon Road Pathtindarnorth of , east of Morninq Sun Drive, and south Rapid View of Drive. The proposal is to develop 171 acres incorporatinq the followinq variety of land uses: a permanent middle school located on 30 acres; a n acro mix use commercial site off of Brea Canyon Road; approximately 95 homes area Canyon Road located on just south o! the pump station; 110 homes in two separate developments qenerally east of Morning Sun Drive. The reason for the meetinq tonight is to introduce the Planninq Commission to the draft EIR, and to provide an overview of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. The public comment Period for the EIR ends on January 18, 1992, there are and two Planninq Commission public hearings scheduled on January 11 i 25, 1993. Hardy Strozier stated that, earlier in the afternoon, staff, consultants, the majority of the Planning Commission, and same public, want to the 171 acre members of the to qet a te in order oof rThe comprehensive review thea site. Project represents 5 different interests: Walnut '`tee Valley Unified School District (WVUSD), City, Arciero & Sons and Development, gnP DeVelopment, asik Corporation. At Counc lmember Pa p the request i the Impacts and Mitigpatcion Measures, brief summa: December 14, 1992 Page 2 found in the EIR, has been provided. There is also a binder available at City Hall that contains all the background technical documents that formed the foundation for the draft EIR. He outlined the following 6 important project benefits that the City will gain from the proposed 171 acre project: a 20 acre park site, of which 10 acres will be flat usable park land; a 31 acre commercial office site, of which the City will gain 1/2 of the 31 acres for their own future financial inventory of revenue; at project build -out, there should be 465 new jobs created in the City; the completion of South Pointe Middle School, as well as the removal of 400,000 cubic yards of dirt; greatly improved road access to the South Pointe Middle School, which will reduce traffic on existing Larkstone; and significant roadway and signalization improvements off site and approximate to this project site. CDD/DeStefano reported that the project came before the City approximately a year ago as independent interests, and the City merged these separate interests into one master planned area for the overall community benefit. He explained that Mr. Armed Patel, one of the developers, has a company called Sasik Corporation, and that the names are often interchanged. Also, Mr. Jan Dabney, the Engineer for RnP Development, also works very closely with, and often speaks for both Mr. Arcisro, and/or Mr. Patel. Peter Lewendowski explained that Ultra Systems was selected, as part of a competitive process, by the City to act as an independent third party consultant to assess the environmental impacts associated with the proposed South Pointe Master Plan project. The objective of today's presentation is to provide a brief overview of the CWW process, to present the EIR and the findings presented therein, to answer specific questions the C= fission may have, and to receive any public testimony that the Commission may wish to receive on the LAIR. He recommended that any public comments received tonight be accepted into public record, but that a formal response be given at a later date after individual consultants have had an opportunity to review those comments made. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 6:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. in the AQKD Auditorium. Peter Lewandowski, continuing with his presentation, explained that CEQA was designed to December 14, 1992 Page 3 - establish some environmental policies for the state Of California. All projects that are undergoing discretionary actions are subject to review in accordance to the CEQA, and the resulting State CEQA guidelines. The City of Diamond Bar is identified as the lead agency, and will have the primary discretionary action in reviewing this project. The other agencies identified, in the environmental analysis, as responsible agencies that may also be issuing permits or approvals, are the WVUSD, the walnut Valley Water District, the Army Corps of Engineers, the California Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Regional water Quality Control Board. CEQA requires that significant environmental impacts, which deal with substantial adverse changes in the physical environment, be focused upon. The decision as to what constitutes a significant impact is based upon reasoned judgment on the part of the local decision makers. Ultra Systems was selected to prepare the EIR as an impartial third party observer to the project, ensuring a full disclosure of an environmental impact associated with development of the South Pointe Kanter Plan s. The prepared draft EIR, which is available fo, Public review, is an informational document only and not a policy document. It contains Ultra Systems professional judgment of the impacts associated with the project, and contains a set of mitigation measures designed to minimize, or avoid the impacts identified, as wall as identifyinq project alternatives which, if implemented, might reduce, avoid, or minimise some of the impacts defined. The EIR serves as a problem solvinq device through the identification of mitigation measures and project alternatives. It provides a vehicle to assure a full open dialogue on a Projects potential impacts, and provides a vehic.* for public participation. The City will be soliciting oral and written comments on the findings of the EIR between now and January is. 1993. The public is encouraged to submit letters to the City, and those consents will be included into a document called The Response to Comment Document, which is part of the EIR. The EIR is an informational tool only, and the City can elect to implement the mitigation measures, elect to adopt the project alternatives, or elect to take otnor actions not fully disclosed in the EIR. Peter Lewendowsk i then presepted a brief overy . e Of the CEQA process. The'Wocess starts witr. , submission of a formal) application f-, discretionary action. Upon submittal of tncs. DeCember 14, 1992 Page 4 tentative maps, in conjunction with the Master Plan and other discretionary approvals, the City prepared an initial study, or preliminary assessment, of the project, identifying potential environmental impacts to determine if an EIR should be prepared. The City concluded that the implementation of the project has the potential to produce significant unavoidable adverse impacts, thereby necessitating the preparation of an EIR. The City has published a Notice of Preparation informing public agencies of the City's election to prepare an EIR, and soliciting comments from goverment agencies and special districts. Those comments have been included in the technical appendix section of the EIR. Ultra Systems has prepared the draft EIR based upon the initial study, our independent analysis, the comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation, our field inspections of the property, and on the work by other subconsultants. CEQA does not require that a public hearing be scheduled, however, it does encourage full open disclosure information. Upon completion of the public hearing process before the Planning Commission, a document, identified as a Response to Comments, is produced, providing a technical, detailed response to all the issues that have been raised on the draft EIR by the Planning Commission, the City Council, by government agencies reviewing the document, and by the citisenry who have full opportunity to review and comment upon that document. The final EIR will also include, as either part of the approval or denial of the project, Findings of Fact and Statement of overriding Considerations. In reviewing the project, there are other considerations, balanced against the projects potential impacts, that the City may wish to address, such as employment opportunities, and revenue generation. Mitigation measures, which are ultimately adopted by the City as conditions of approval, are incorporated into a document called The Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program. It ensures that the conditions of approval identified are in fact incorporated into the project either through project design changes, enforcement during construction, or enforcement after project construction. Peter Levendovski then reviewed the conclusions reached, as presented in the draft EIR. Based upon the initial study, an assessment of ,a number of technical issues were reviewed which included earth resources, hydrology, land use issues, biology, traffic, circulation, public services and December 14, 1992 Page S utilities, aesthetics, growth inducing impacts, and project alternatives. It was determined that the implementation of the South Pointe Project, as presented, will result in the creation of two significant adverse impacts: the air quality impacts during project construction activities will result in exceeding established SEAQIM standards for nitric oxide, and the project, in combination with other development activities which have been identified. in the project area, will result in cumulative air quality impacts which will result in exceeding SEAQ1lD standards for a number of other criteria pollutants; and based upon the findings of an independent traffic study, it has been concluded that, although the project itself will not produce significant impacts upon the areas roadways, the project, in combination with other development activities, will result in exceedinq established level of service standards at six intersections. Though other impacts have been identified, they have not been determined to be significant impacts. The removal of 929 of the 835 oak trees identifies, in project implementation, is not a signific impact because compliance with the oak T. Ordinance, which clearly identifies a mitigation measure of a 2:1 replacement ratio, will fully mitigate all impacts to existing oak tree resources. The project implementation will also result in substantial grading of the project site, and convert a, rural piece of property to a developed use. However, based upon the City's General Plan, and existing State and County Policies, there is no rationale to conclude that the development of the urbanite site itself is a significant impact. There are different standards of beauty, and we are unable to document any evidence, any public policy, which would conclude for significance for aesthetic impacts. Furthermore, the conversion of this undeveloped site to an urban use will result in the removal of existing vegetation and the loss of habitat areas to those animal species which now inhabit the site. However, based upon detailed biologic surveys, •-e have not found any plant or animal species on si-e which are legally protected either by State _. Federal statute, and there is no public policy the City indicating that the loss of habitat a r e i constitutes a significant impact. Also, --- project development will result in the introduct of additional students to the area schoc. However, the school district has indicated that schools can accommodate the growth projected by project. Project development will increase dema-: upon police services and fire service. Howeve- December 14, 1992 page 6 those ,resource agencies have not identified significant adverse impacts. Peter Lewendowski then concluded his presentation by reviewing the alternatives identified in the EIR: No Project - either identified as the site's ultimate preservation as an open space parcel, or developed in accordance to the existing zoning standards; the development of a similar project intensity but with a cluster development concept; different lot configurations proposed for the various tentative maps; the absence of the Sasik project from the ultimate. project site; and an analysis of just the Sasik project in terms of it's ultimate development. C/Meyer requested further elaboration on the analysis and the requirements of CEQA, and alternative land uses of the site. Peter Lewendowski explained that CEQA requires - that, in addition to the project, a reasonable range of alternatives be identified that are designed to minimize, avoid, or mitigate the impacts identified in the project. Six separate project alternatives have been analyzed, and are designed to provide a comparative analysis, relative to the impacts produced by the proposed project. He then reviewed each of the project alternatives, as presented in the draft EIR, as well as the impacts 'and mitigation measures identified. Hardy Strozier explained that, as one of the alternative project, RnP and Sasik clustered their developments to minimize the intrusion into the woodland area, the Arciero property clustered apartments or townhouses on the ridge necessitating Ostensive use of retaining walls, to stay out of that canyon area, and the future commercial site was reduced from 31 acres to 3 acres. Tho net effect of this alternative is almost an got preservation of this Sandstone Canyon area and it's tributaries. Hardy Strozier also explained that when the three developers, Arcisro, RnP, and Sasik, originally made applications, Sasik was combined with the RnP tract. When the environmental documentation was about 90% complete, Mr. Patel indicated that he would like to file a separate tract map from RnP. For purposes of environmental analysis, it was decided to place the separate tract map, as an alternative to the draft EIR. The tract map vas December 14, 1992 Page 7 then evaluated, and three separate alternatives, t; Sasik Corporations newly developed. submitted tract map, was Peter Lewendowski reiterated that the draft document is not a policy EIR document, informational document for the cdocument,but an consideration to balance the projects environmental impacts with Other considerations. C/Meyer requested that more information be provided as to how,it was concluded that going from a rural, or a non urbanized use, to urbanized uses is a non significant impact. Chair/Flamenbaum, con currinq with request, suggested that the consultC/Meyer s ants review the General Plan Land Use section 1.2.4 on paqe i-11, and section 3.3, on paqe 1-19, and Resource Management section 1.1 and 1.2, on page III -8, in conjunction to their response. C/Meyer inquired how far the radius review is --in analysinq traffic impacts on intersections eYistinq'facilities. Peter Lewandowski stated that there is no formal standard required by statute. Traditionally, we look at something within a one mile radius, believing that projects within that area, in conjunction with the proposed action, may cumulatively impact a project. �1e net with the various planning departaents or traffi n9ineerinq departments, of the adjoining cities, and ask them of currently proposed projects. Based ��Upon the inventory of projects which are developed inventory b that interview process, we develop an Information is also of !ated obtained from CalTroject r ns . Th . level of service, atter the he d be different at various intersections project, t by a.m. or P•8• peak period, as noted on the table on Page Iv -96. C/Li requested information regardinq the exact dollar amount for future fiscal benefits to the City. He inquired how it was determined that 465 Jobs would be created. Peter Lewendowski explained that the Projectio employe c°oercialsand/orhofficeased �U"g, bed se tot Department which Partaant of Trans upon the U.S. generation !actors of 4ich assumed employNs per 1,000 square December 14, 1992 Page 8 feet for non residential uses. we multiplied the number of non residential square foot proposed on site, or ultimately developed on site, times that factor to produce the employment generation ratio. C/Li requested further elaboration as to why the off site analysis resulted in one conclusion while the on site analysis resulted in a separate conclusion. Peter Lewendowski explained that the development of additional collector. roads on the project site, primarily connecting Morning Sun and Brea Canyon Road, enhances internal circulation impacts. However, the external circulation to the South Pointe project, in combination with other projects, further impacted arterial roadways in proximity. C/Grothe inquired if other vegetation or trees have been quantified, beside oak trees. Peter Lewendowski explained that only the oak trees were quantified because the City's Oak Tree Ordinance directs us to identify and mitigate the loss of that one .tree species. However, the acreage for each of the 7 vegetation species identified on site were quantified. C/Grothe stated that, it seem uncomprehendable, to indicate that the removal of 835 trees, with their various range in sizes, are not significant, even with a 2:1 replacement ratio. He than requested that an alternative project be considered that eliminates one of the major residential developments. VC/MacBride requested that there be more information on the relationship of this total South Pointe project to other possible developments, or potentials for development, so as to get a feeling of what's happening beyond the confines of this particular mass proposal. Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the report also include discussion regarding the impacts of moving the dirt both within the project area and off the project area. He also requested information regarding the impacts of any increase in noise to both the surrounding community, and remaining wildlife in the area. VC/MacBride requested a cross section analysis to illustrate the proportion of density of the impact of the fill upon the canyon. December 14, 1992 Page 9 CDD/DeStefano stated that various members of the City staff are available to the public to answer any.questions, and to provide documents, or details needed to further understand the project. The public review period runs through January 18, 1993. The Planning Commission public hearings are scheduled for the January 11 i 25, 1993. This is the first opportunity the City has had to Master Plan a variety of interests on a remaining piece of property within our community, to the maximum benefits to the community as a whole. The project in the EIR is not necessarily the project that is goinq to be approved, denied, or modified, but rather it is only the project that has been presented by the development team at this point. BECs/Ss Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the study session meet.-.; at 7:06 p.m. to be reconvened to the Requ:a: Planning Commission meeting. Respectively, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAPOND BAR Notion was a by VC/Never, seconded b7 to approve R solution 93-1. _ C/Plunk, n ing that Mr. ,Camp► the appl` • represent& ve, had indicated, at a last me.' his villi ass. to participate in cost 'I graffiti partake in a cost benef t analy+. painting -with graffiti resistant paint MINUTES OF TEE PLANNING CO-V(ISSION .JANQARY 25, 1993 CALL TO ORDER; Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Plunk. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Plunk, Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman Chairman Flamenbaum. c/Plunk excused Meyer, and herself from the meeting.at 12:00 a.m. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lunqu, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. 1sATTER FROM Oscar Laws residing at 2150 Pathfinder, expresse3 lane fo` THE AQDIENCs: his cone n for the need of an a9cess ehicles during the const etion phase _. emergency the Pathf der Bridge Widening oject.. He a:sc expressed his concern that a project cr:; proposes 4 apes, when in actua ity, it requires lanes to ma stain the traffic crease from f,.:,: --e growth. ICE/Wentz lained that a Pathfinder Br.::e Widening Prof ct is under a jurisdiction of : = s Angeles County The con et for the project `is already been a rded, and the anticipated date construction is. ril of 1993. Staff will cord the County and altr to discuss the cor=e. related to emerge cy v icis access. CONSENT CALEM A: Notion was made b C Neyer, seconded by C/Gr:'-• the Kinutes and CARRIED UNANIKO LY to approve Minutes of January 11, 1993, a resented. Jan. 11, 93 OLD DUST PT/Lunge reported hat Resolution of Approve. ' 23629 is before • Parcel Tentative Parcel Kap . Planning Commis ' n for a idsration,.asai9. ••.• Tentative Map No. 23629 memo from the puty Ci Attorney, tration and reloc a addressinq the ssues of ar of tenant, and the additio of statements CC&R's regards g these issu Notion was a by VC/Never, seconded b7 to approve R solution 93-1. _ C/Plunk, n ing that Mr. ,Camp► the appl` • represent& ve, had indicated, at a last me.' his villi ass. to participate in cost 'I graffiti partake in a cost benef t analy+. painting -with graffiti resistant paint Jan" Ary 23, 1993 PUBLIC BEING: General Plan Amendment 92-2; DA 92-1, 92-2, 92-3; Vesting TT Map 5140, CUP 92-8 & Oak Tree Permit 92-8; Vesting TT 32400, CUP 91-5, Zone Change 91-2 i Oak Tree Permit 91-2; TT Map 51253 i CUP 92-12; Oak Tree Permit 92-9; thg South Pointe Master Plan; 6 EIR 92-9. Page 2 continuously repainting, suggested a substitute Motion to approve Resolution 93-1, With the amendment that the applicant be requi d to participate in the City's graffiti program. tsment cna Flamsnbaum stated that it the la - a meetinq, that it woul nottbe rmined, at to penal this one single appropriate him to part ate in the t P -1I aft by requiring program. y graffiti abatement measures, uch Aps1i t is will to take vegetation, as a m additional lighting and for graffiti prevention. C/Plonk's second. died for lack of a The Plane q Commission voted Upon by vC/ or, and seconded b Notion made Resol On 93-1 for Tentative parcel Kap No. p36 9e rh tion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CDD/DeStefano reported that, the proposed before the Commission, is a request for approval of a mixed use project consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, open space and school facilities. The project site, approximately 171 acres, is located within the South Pointe !fiddle School/Sandstone" Canyon area, and is presently owned by S entities, three of which are Impact Private and two are public. An Environmental Report MR) has been prepared in accordance with State guidelines, circulated to various State and local agencies, and has been available to the general -public for over 6 weeks. This is the first Public hearing on the proposed South Pointe !taster Plan project before the Commission. The Planning Do■�ission will not take any action on the merits Of this project this evening, but will receive testimony, and provide comments and direction to staff. Discussion of the merits of this project will be continued to February of 1993. There can be no final action on this proposed project, until the issue of the pending litigation withproponents of a referendum upon the City's in resolved. / y General Pian is CDD DeStefano than introduced Peter Lewendowski, from the firm of Ultrasystems, who Prepared the EIR, and Hardy Strozier, of the Planning Associates, who•is the project manager. Hardy Strozier explained that a project team as been pulled together to manage the preparation of an EIR, which evaluates all topical issues required January 25, 1993 page 3 under State Law, and put together a Development Plan, which guides the Master execution of various engineeringplanning and the the project develops over the next entitlements as years, if approved. five to ten presented to the PlTheann4Z Page staff report, condensed version g Commission, is a documentation °! the environmental Commission. Previously presented The following 8 specific items willbe he weeks: to t reviewed by the Commission over the intervening the EIR (the option to either deny or Commission still has theapprove the if the planning Commission chooses toolreccmmend certification of this EIR to General plan Amendment the City Council); the Property needs to have (the existing xi i ing water district Development); the Development redesignation to Planned be provided later for thAgreement (this will Vesting Tentative Tract Map Commissions review; staff report); Tentative p No. 32400 - Arciero (no Patel (no staff re Tract Kap No. 51253 - 51407 - port) vesting Tentative Kap No. Ordinance CUP; stat! report); Hillside Management Notice of and an Oak Tree Removal permit, The distributed fore Preparation of the draft EIR was California Environmental' in accordance with the there was a 45 da y review period to allow for ended Januaryegardinq the 18draft EIR, which 9 was hearin ► 1993. The notices for public mailed,on January 14 1993 t� project site. approximately 1,100 property owners adjacent to tr.e EIR was independent firm The a Prepared by the provided rode Ultra systems, and the. all the t Pendent conclusions on the analysis ct opical areas found in the draft EIR. impacts were identifiedTti� , in independent consultants reviewunary Of t r. e , s mitigated below a level of s w, that Could tra t to and air quality. The intent this evening is solicit community inputon the respond to any questions draft EIR, a direct to staff and the that the Commission sa, planninq consultants. VC/XGyar requested Pur'Mr. Lewandowski to explain t-. urP00posa of an EIR. Mr. Lewendowski explained governmental agencies that CLQA req,,:.', Particular projects, to include have in authority making PrOCess, an analysis of the projectsir dinF. upon the environment, The City Prepared an in:•. study for this project and concluded that Project implementation had the potential to res. in significant impacts upon the environment, 8d January 25, 1993 page 4 upon that conclusion, the City directed the preparation of an EIR, which represents a detailed technical analysis of the project's direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts upon the environment. The intent of CEQA is to provide an environmental basis for the decision making process, and to insure public access to the decision makers so as to insure a full disclosure of the projects potential impacts, potential alternatives that may be available to the decision makers to adopt project alternatives that may produce lesser impacts, and to identify and develop mitigation measures which might further reduce the impacts identified in the analysis and brought forward through public testimony. Upon conclusion of the review period, the environmental consultant will return to the City a document called a Response to Comments. Based upon all the written and oral comments received durinq this review period, formal written replies will be provided, . furnishing technical, analytical conclusions for the various comments raised. The Response to - Comment document and the draft EIR, in addition to whatever other documents the City may wish to include, constitute the final EIR for the project. The certification of the final EIR is a precursor to the City's ability to take any action on the project. Frank Arciero, Jr., a principal of Arciero i Sons, who has owned the property on Brea Canyon Road up to the existinq school site, adjacent to the old water tank site, and adjacent to the existing subdivision built by Shea Development for about 7 years, explained that, prior to incorporation, they sold 23 acres to the School District for the school site. At that time they were in the process of moving an R -i project alonq throuqh the County, With the understanding to grade the school site and moves the balance of the dirt onto our piece of Property. Followinq incorporation, we applied to City to qet the R -i development built so we could move the balance of the dirt,'frou the school site, then the School District could build their structure. The City approached me, two years ago, and I concurred, to meet with the adjoining Property ownam to master plan the entire area. he concurred. The plan is very beneficial to the City. He then indicated that lir. rorrester, the owner of the adjoininq property, who was unable to attend this meetinq, also supports the kaster Plan. Mr. Patel, owner of the property on Morning Sun Dr., which is adjacent to the RNP tract, stated January 25, 1993 Page S that he bought the property 8 years ago and planned to build about 25 homes. When the City asked him to join in the Master Plan, he concurred. The project will benefit the City and the community. Hardy Strozier gave a brief overview of the components of the project: 171 acres; Tract 51407 (RnP) identifies 90 dwelling units; Tract 51253 (Patel) identifies 27 dwelling units; Tract 32400 (Arciero) identifies 91 dwellinq units; a 31 acre two parcel commercial site; a new collector road, identified in the Master Plan as Road A, which connects Morning Sun Drive to Brea Canyon Road; and a proposed 20 acre park, in which approximately half passive and half is active. The EIR not only identifies the adverse impacts of this proposed project, and those impacts that cannot be completely mitigated, but community benefits as well. He then highlighted some of the benefits identified in the project description: a proposed community park site, of which 12 acres are usable; changes in Road A provides a relative benefit to the park site in terms of access and parking; it has been identified that the 31 acre commercial site can generate up to $400,000 to $500,000 dollars a year net revenue to the City; there is a proposed dedication of 10 to 15. acres of property to the City that has a value to the City between $4 and $6 million dollars of improved land value; it would generate 465 now jobs in the City; it would allow the completion of South Pointe Middle School; it would remove 400,000 cubic yards of dirt located on the school site that, according to the School District's EIR, would be deposited into the upper part of Sandstone Canyon to eOmplets the buildout of the school; the improvement of Street A would allow a new.connection to allow transit of students to and from the school, reducing the dependency upon Larkstone and Lemon Street to access the school; and there are numerous off site traffic improvements provided through the EIR mitigation program that would provide Bignalization and other intersection geometries in widening of various streets adjacent to the project site. Chair/llamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:53 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 5:03 p.m. Hardy Strozier explained that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive coas�ents on the dra._ EIR. The EIR is an information document. Tte Planning Commission is to 'ensure that there _= enough information, in the EIR, that would allow decision on the project. He reiterated tt,3- January 25, 1993 Page 6 approval ,of the EIR does not connote approval of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the opened. public hearing Chair/Flamenbaum reminded the audience that the consultants will be responding to any questions or comments made, regarding the EIR, at a later meeting. Sharon Bowler, residing at 1603 Morninq Sun Ave., Walnut, expressed her concern that notice for the Public hearing vas put in the San Gabriel valley Tribune, a newspaper that one must subscribe to, and not put in both sections of the Highlander, one for Rowland Heiqhts/Walnut and one for Diamond Bar. She made the following comments: since the Morninq Sun Ave. area consists of existing homes on lots ranging from 1/3 acre to 1/2 acre, there should be a minimum of 12,000 square foot lots on the proposed development; the proposed collector street should be circled through the proposed not directly on to complex, and the Morninq Sun Ave. area; opening up the street will create more traffic, affecting the children who play on that existing cul-de-sac, especially since presently there are no sidewalks. Since currently, there have been mudslides running into the cul-de-sac area due to the recent heavy rains, she questioned what would happen When development occurred on those unstable hills in the proposed site, particularly to the 4 homes at the bottom of the hill at the end of the cul-de-sac; and there is a flood hazard zone in the middle of the site. Anne Flesher, residing at 20647 Larkstone Drive, GtAtsd that the residents of Diamond Bar need to sl�tnatioogether to make this the best workable Possible, instead of looking to who is good or bad. she expressed the following concerns: allowing the 4000000 cubic yards of dirt to be removed coming down Larkstone Drive, as has been suggested by some, would require 26,000 truck trips over a 4 1/2 month period, with a truck leaving every five minutes, ten hours a day, six days a week; Larkstone ,.Drive was designed for 200 car trips a day, but it now carries 1,200 car trips a day, and something must be done by the Planning Commission to alleviate the traffic on Larkstone Drive that will also benefit the children, the residents on the existinq property, and the developers. She pointed out that all of the homes January 25, 1993 page 7 in Diamond Bar were developed on cut and fill property. William Gross, residing at 21637 Hiqhbluff Road, made the following comments: he questioned what was known at City Hall about this project while the City was buying the surplus land from the Water District; since Mayor Miller, at one time, owned various parcels in this project, the EIR should address his involvement in any transaction involving this property; though the consultant has indicated that 1,100 homes were notified of the public hearing, only about 300 to 400 homes were actually notified because the mailing lists not only overlap, but are outdated; the public was charged .25 cents a page for a copy of the mailing lists; the 4,000 people who signed the referendum are a good representation of the City; mitigation is a method of ignoring the problems; the EIR should address the impacts of putting 400,000 cubic yards of dirt into the Sandstone Canyon, as well as address how that dirt got there, and who is responsible for it; the LIR should address alternative methods of removing the dirt, such as trucking it out the Brea Canyon side; since it has been indicated that 400 plus jobs will be created from the project, then the vacant centers throughout the City should be explained; Street "A" will be another means by which motorists will by pass the freeway and travel through the City; and there are other alternatives to building the school and moving the dirt that need to be explored and that will save the canyon. Nellie Reyes, residing at 1728 Morning Sun Ave., Walnut, 91789, pointed out that, with all the time that has passed, the developer could have removed a quarter of the dirt by Government apparently recognizes the need to maintain open land otherwise they wdould not needs to have federally funded parks. Open an preserved for our future children. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, pointed out that when the hillside along Brea Canyon Road is graded, 9 million cubic yards of dirt that will be pushed into that Canyon, killinc over 978 of the tree existing there. In reference to Section 10, of the consultants report, regardinc the Hillside Management ordinance, indicating the the proposed project includes grading technique - which minimize grading in portions of the projec by incorporating extensive open space an significant use of green belts, he stated that h: January 25, 1993 Page 8 interpretation of the EIR is quite different, and there are many questions that are being left unanswered. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded wood Road, expressed the following concerns: the project will increase the decibel level from 45 to 55 decibels to over 90 decibels, severely impacting those homes along the Pathfinder Road and Shaded wood Road areas; the traffic problem will become insurmountable on Area Canyon Road; what is the height of the finished structure, both commercial and residential, relating to the grade level of the existing homes on Shaded Wood Road and Starshine; will the views of the existing homes be impacted by air conditioning equipment; what will happen to the wildlife, such as cougars, deer, raccoons, redtail fox, titmice, when their entire natural habitat is destroyed; what controls are there for light pollution; what controls are there for commercial development, and will it be manufacturing, wherehouses, etc.; will privacy of the existing residents be impacted; what kind of land clearing will come up to the existing properties; will the toes of the existing hillsides, supporting existing homes, be disturbed, and create sliding; what security safeguards will be used when the natural canyon, the present intrusion barrier, is destroyed; the tree count in the EIR is incorrect because it is based upon the Tree ordinance, which does not recognized many of the tress; 97% of the vegetation in the canyon will be destroyed, along with some of the wildlife; the City has the last vestiqe slack Walnut forest left in the state; children can no longer go on wilderness trips through the Canyon; there are trees, in the Canyon, that are 400 to 500 years old, and many 250 year old trees; the EIR should have been dons during a peak wildlife activity in order to get a proper vaunt, particularly for the birds; there are rare birds, that may exist in the canyon, that were not accurately observed; and the EIR did not address an alternative use of the canyon, such as recreation programs that could bring revenue to the City, preserving Sandstone Canyon. Phil Duarte, residing at 1343 Red Bluff, pointed out that the Los Angeles County Planning Commission - denied a similar scope type of project five years ago for that same area. The purpose of incorporation was for local control, emphasizinq slow growth for the City. we, as residents, want to preserve our properties to maintain our lifestyles, preserving a small amount of open space January 25, 1993 Page 9 for ourselves, our children, to enjoy nature. we do not have the resources attainable to the developer, who chooses to utilize their property for a profit. He then presented the newspaper article, headlined "A Radical Change in the Environment", dated November 22, 1987, which talked about the project, proposed by Arciero i Sons, that was rejected by the County of Los Angeles. Joe Larutta, residing at 2546 Sunbright Drive, stated that he recently relocated his business office to the north end of Diamond Bar from Pathfindeir Road because his clients were unable to ingress/eqress due to traffic. This project may be great for development now, and may encourage the development of the school site, but the affects to the City in 20 years need to be considered. Elaine Rim, residing at 2074 Peaceful Hills Road, a Real Estate Broker, stated that there must be a compromisethat will allow the property owners to develop the land to it's highest and best use, yet still protect the homeowners living in the area. She stated the following concerns: the density of the proposed project; preventing slippage of the hills; who will be responsible for cleaning up the repairs*if slippage was to occur, the City or the Homeowners Association; and the preservation of the trees in the Canyon. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peacefu: Hills Road, made the following comments: if there is no difference between rural and urban livinq, then why do move to this City which advertises "Country Living"; if there are no significant noise impacts exceeding municipal standards, then what are our standards and perhaps they should be adjusted; why is the cutting down of 700 trees considered an "insignificant" impact; there are hundreds of vacant commercial properties., throughout the City, including Mr. Arciero•s property at Colima and Brea Canyon, thus indicat:r4 that the 31 commercial acre site may not be i valuable resource; many citizens do not consider this project as beneficial, nor is it considered be without significant impact to the residents; was assured by Brock homes that there would alrra,, be open space; since she paid a hefty premium r the property and view, if the project is develcpp - as proposed, then she will ask for reassessme-• and lowering of property taxes, resulting in • loss of revenue to the City; -since Brock took to promised land from the community Association, vr.. involved !Mayor Miller, there is a conflict January 25, 1993 page 10 interestp having the City of. Diamond Bar as an involved -party in this development is also a conflict of interest; and people voted for cityhood to stop the excessive building in Diamond Bar. Roy Marcosi, residing at 1664 Chappel Hill Drive, Walnut, stated that the project will put all the traffic from the proposed development on to Morning Sun Ave., a short cul-de-sac street, to Shephard Hills Drive, to Chappel Hill Drive, and to Tamaschaner, all of which do not have sidewalks. The school bus pickup, for the neighborhood children, is located on Tamaschaner Street, which is presently impacted by heavy traffic. Home values will decrease because of the unmitigated traffic, the unmitigated air quality, and the 5 to 10 years of construction in the area. There is no benefit to the existing area. Norman Beach Cuschane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, stated that they are currently investiqatinq if the land below their tract is actually the property of the Homeowners Association. He inquired if the development, proposed by Mr. Patel, will become part of the Homewoners Association since Mr. Patel is presently a member of the Association. He requested that the EIR address land slippage, specifically in the area where RnP proposes to develop on a canyon with an 89 degree slope downwards.. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder, pointed out that the area proposed for development is an unique environmental area for all of us now and for future generations. Once that area is destroyed, the wildlife and vegetation is lost forever, and =a never be seen again except in a make shift sevironment such as a zoo. The developers don't care what is destroyed, as long as. they make a prof it. Baran Ahmed, residing at 1810 Peaceful Hills Road, requested that the dollar value for both the advantages of the project, and the disadvantages of the project be evaluated to determine the actual benefits of the project. Art Fritz, residinq at 20635 Larkstone Drive, expressed his concern of- the notion that all development can be stopped by simply preventing people from doing anythinq with their property. This, essentially, would be a taking of property. None of us would be living hare if this attitude January 25, 1993 page 11 prevailed as the City wa: be "Country Living" for City appears to be making reasonable development. property to remain as buying it. developing. There would about 5,000 people. The an attempt to make this a Those who would like the a park, should consider Bob Roberts, residing on Morning Sun Ave., noted that the map indicates that part of Mr. Patel's property is located in the County of Los Angeles. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, a development consultant for the applicants, stated the following: RNP Inc., Dwight Forrester, is dedicating 42% of his entire ownership to the city, for park/open land, and commercial capabilities; the park dedication of 28 acres, for this proposed project, far exceeds the requirements in the Quimty Act; the entire project is within the City of Diamond Bar; and the land owners, in this proposed development, feel this project provides" the best opportunity for the community itself. The audier:e seems to be confusing the developers with the :.- consultants. The only association the develcFe-s have with the professional EIR consultants is --i- we give the City the funds. to pay for service, and they give all the directions to sti" and the public. The intent of the developers .s - develop legitimately within the confines of •-� community. Judy Newman, residing at 1652 Chappel Hill Dr.•# inquired how Diamond Bar can open the streets s funnel traffic into this unincorporated area the City does not have jurisdiction outside of --� City limits. She also inquired when and - Diamond Bar will settle the traffic problems • will come into the unincorporated area. Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 P4a-6' Bills Road, inquired who will pay for the tra" signal at Brea Canyon Road. He also inquired such of the land, to be dedicated by RnF buildable. Swany Fong, residing at 20679 Missionary p ' inquired if the elementary schools, whic' already crowded, will be able odhlo�.• additional children from this propos ve She also stated that there are already many in the City that appear to be vacant most time. If a 26 acre park is developed, will have to pay to maintain the park, but 1! January 25, 1993 Page 12 left as a canyon, nature takes care of it at no cost. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed, and continued to February 8, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 p.m. vC/Meyer directed staff accordingly: he would like some empirical analysis, provided by a traffic consultant, relative to the opening of Street "A" into Morning Sun Ave., that includes some additional data concerning the traffic issues brought up; additional data relative to how the qradinq would occur; and additional data that would mitigate impacts relative to grading, such as the issue of the migration of the wildlife. Hardy Strozier, in response to VC/Meyer, explained that there is no zone change associated with the project because that, Development Agreement will be used as the zoning tool. The Planning Commission will first consider recommending, to the City Council, the certification of the EIR, then consider the entitlements, the General Plan amendment, which changes the Water District property to PD, the throe Tentative Tract Maps, one Development Agreement, the Hillside Management ordinance CUP required 'for the hillside grading, and the Oak Tres Removal Pith the Master Plan Development will be considered along Agreement. C/Grothe expressed his concern that theEIR to indicates practically everything inthe canyon be nonsignificant. He requested a more detailed circulation plan, further information on and project's impacts regarding noise. and view, d more information regarding the exact placement of these proposed homes. C/Plunk requested an analysis the dirt additional woulbe cost and benef it, if any, moved to another canyon. Sind the area was not listed as an SEA in the 1980 Master Plan by LA County, the importance of sandstone Canyon is local, therefore local money will have to pay for it. She stated that she would prefer that the development is below grade. She requested an analysis of the relative safety of slippage occurring on cut and fill land, and on land left in its natural state. January 25, 1923 Page 13 Chair/Flamenbaum requested the following: a discussion of the pros and cons of the openings of any roads, in this project, to Rapid view and Larkstone; address the discrepancy in the tree count; review the siological Resource Section, Existing Setting, and determine why it indicates that there are no amphibians, which would include frogs; distribute, to the Commission, the responses to the comments made no later than February 2, 1993; a copy of a more detailed index, only if it takes half • a minute to generate; information regarding the SCAQM standards, and their meaning in practical terms; and a more detailed analysis as to why concept 04 is good or bad, and how it compares to concept three. chair/Flamenbaum stated that the public hearing is continued to the meeting of February 8, 1993. CUP 91-1 5 AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the EIR 91-4 request, made by the applicant Inter -Community Health Services, to develop a three phase 425,000 square foot medical building plaza project, to be - located at 887 Grand Avenue, that will include the following services: medical office buildings, acute care hospital, hospital support, outpatient services, diagnostic and treatment center, and a community conference and education center. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive comments on the EIR, and direct staff to respond to comments addressing the document, and return with the final EIR at the next public hearing, which will address the Development Review and Conditional Use permit application. Mark Blodgett, from David Evans i Associates, summarized the process, related to the Diamond ear Medical Plaza application, as follows: the c:t, prepared an initial study that identified potential for a number of environmental impact, that would need further evaluation in Ito; initial study and a Notice of Preparation circulated to a number of City departments a, local, County, and State agencies, alerting the that a draft EIR will be prepared for this projec• the comments received from those agencies included in the draft EIR; upon completion of draft" EIR, a notice of completion was f iled ; prior to the circulation of the draft EIR, staff,.the applicant, and the consultant attender scoping meeting to receive -additional input interested parties. Mr. ,Evans then br,@, reviewed those areas evaluated, as presented ir, draft EIR before the Commission. January 25, 1993 page 14 Deborah Nicolas, Vice President of Corporate Development for Intercommunity Health Services, Inc., stated that Intercommunity Health Services is the parent company of three affiliates: Intercommunity Medical Center, located in Covina; Hospice of the San Gabriel Valley; and Intercommunity Foundation. Intercomaunity Health Services purchased the site in May of 1990 after the strategic planning process identified that the Diamond Har area was in need of medical services, not currently provided in the area. The intent is to provide a facility that will be utilized long term. The facility, in phase one, will include a medical office building, a diagnostic and treatment center, based on the demand for out patient oriented services, and a recovery center. The second phase facility will include a hospital building, hospital support facilities, a conference center, and a helipad. The third phase, projected in 10 to 20 years if there is a growing demand, will be a duplication of phase one and phase two. She pointed out that the helipad will only be used in extreme casd, which is anticipated to be about once to twice a year. Ken Liu, the project architect, presented a material board illustrating the material and color to be used for the construction of the facility. The proposed materials will have substance and permanence. Ther* will be accent colors as part of the. pallet that will be treated not only at ground level but from above as well. It is our intent to be sensitive to the neighbors, who have a view of the roof tops, by enclosing major pieces of equipment, or integrating them into the design and the volume of the buildings. It is also our intent to break down the scale of th* building, in regards to the elevation visible to Golden Springs Moed, so that it is not a massive structure. The facility will be a future building geared towards evolvinq health care that will most the needs of the community. Chair/Flamenbaus declared the public hearing opened. Lloyd Duncan, with Comprehensive Property Management, representing the Montefino Homeawn*rs Association, expressed the following concerns: it would b* beneficial to actual see the design of the enclosed structures proposed on the roof top; since Grand Ave. is already heavily impacted by traffic, the additional Soo to soo vehicle aQcess will create a condition of bumper to bumper traffic back January 2S, 1993 Page 15 to the freeway; emergency access to the facility, from Grand Ave. and the freeway, will be blocked by traffic; ambulatory access, or emergency access, should be gained off of Golden Springs Ave.; the parking facility should be made close to this Golden Springs entrance, to minimize the impact of traffic in and out of the complex, and perhaps access to the parking facility should be shared with the additional development below this area; the EIR should investigate significant geological aspects in regards to the movement of the slope at Montefino; the fire aspects should be investigated; the height of the facilities should be restricted, in the CVP, to 4 stories maximum for the life and the duration of the project; there should be some interlocking architectural integrity with this facility, and future developments to the north; and there should be some restrictions, in the CVP, that would not allow a trauma canter in the facility so that helicopter trips are kept at a minimum; and the location of the helipad should be addressed to minimize the noise impacts. Bert Ramer, residinq in Diamond Bar, on the Citizens Advisory Committee, in favor of the project, stated that he has been impressed with Intercommunities willinqness to listen to the communities input, and to make modifications. Richard Jancowski, residinq at 22801 Shardennay Drive, 12 in Montefino, expressed the following concerns: there, will be more than the indicated 1 or 2 helicopters a month coming to the facility; if the facility is to be duplicated in phase three, then that means there could be 2 or 3 helipads; the noise impacts could not possibly be mitigated, as indicated in the EIA, since Montefino is only about 150 feet away from the facility; Grand Avenue is already seriously impacted by traffic without this facility; the noise and traffic impacts created from this proposed facility will destroy the property values of Montefino; and the notice of the public hearing could have been better communicated, other than the notices put in the Tribune and the Daily Dullatin. Mrs. Jancowski, residinq at 22801 Shardennay Drive, 02 in' Montafino, stated that this facility does not Just impact the property values of Montefino, but of all of Diamond Bar. The City is inundated w:tn air traffic noise pollution�as it is. This is a major hospital expansion in a City that does nct need all the noise, traffic, congestion, waste material, or nuclear medicine associated with :t. January 25, 1993 Page 16 The Planning Commission should consider denying the project in it's entirety. Dan Buffington, residing at 2505 Indian Creek, a member of the Advisory Committee, pointed out that the proposed facility is not a major facility, but a small facility to be comprised mainly of medical office space, to include an urgent care center that is much needed in this area. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed, and continued to the meeting of February 2.2, 1993. Mark Blodgett stated that the consultants will respond to all the comments raised at the public hearing, as well as respond formally to all the comments received from the various agencies, and included in the final EIR. Mr. Liu pointed out that there will only be one helipad at any one time. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 11:00 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 11:08 p.m. VC/Meyer pointed out that there has been significant notification of this proposed project, which included literature mailed to households in the community, as well as a sign on the site itself. He then made 'the following comments: though motorists may not have difficulty leaving the propoMd site because of traffic signals, the increase in traffic will significantly impact Grand Ave., which is already heavily impacted; there wens to be a tremendous amount of accidents at the zwrging area of the 37/60 freeway, which tends to iWct surface streets; there should be serious eonsideration to the analysis that the traffic is a significant impact that more than likely cannot be mitigated; explore alternatives to access Golden Springs; it should be considered that air quality, at build out, nay or may not be mitigated to a level of nonsignificance; arterial intersections that are impacted by traffic tends to throw the traffic onto collector streets; there needs to be consideration of potential spills of hazardous waste in and around this facility; since phase three is a 20 year projection that could change measurably, and may not resemble the original concept, the scope of the project could be scaled back to be within the foreseeable construction budget of the applicant, allowing the Planning Commission an opportunity to address it sore January 25, 1993 Page 17 intelligently in the environmental review; the mitigation of the jobs housing balance is a Positive aspect; the facility may generate a cumulative development of medical ancillary facilities, and offices in the area to support it; there needs to be further information relating to the safety of the heliport in regards to landing, as well as the possibility of crashing; and he noted that the design of the facility is pleasing. C/Li expressed his concern regarding the increase in traffic. He requested further information regarding the frequency of the use of the helicopter comparid to the. facilities in west Covina, and other such comparable facilities, both now and at it's buildout point in 20 years. C/Grothe expressed his concern regarding the traffic impacts to Grand Avenue. There needs to be sone consideration Bade to transferring some of that traffic to Golden Springs. C/Plunk noted that the project is very well planned out, and, once the concerns regarding traffic and roofscapinq are addressed, it will be a good project and one that is needed in the City. Chair/Flamenbaus Bade the following comments: input should be solicited from the highway patrol because they will probably divert their accident victims to this proposed facility; the potential impact, of this Project, to the existing slope Should be explored; are the proposed suggested iapt'ovements to surrounding roads, as indicated in the EIR as mitigation measures to traffic, within the existing right-of-way or is a greater right-of- way going to be acquired; the impact to the traffic mitigation, long term, should be explored if the use of the adjoining property turns out to be a high traffic generation facility; there should be some consideration made to the impacts to the Fire Station; he questioned the validity of the EIR in the third phase; there needs to be consideration made to runoff and surface reflectivity of the Parking area when theproject is at buildout; what would be heimpact if the flight path was restricted so that it either does not pass over the homes in adjacent areas, or is limited in how low the flight path can be; the amount of paper product trash generation should be considered as it relates to A9979 requirements; following all t`:e raislots Pe at the south side, n9rth of the project, should be explored; and there needs to be furtne consideration made to the traffic impacts. January 25, 1993 page is Chair/Flamenbaum stated that this item will be continued to the meeting of February 22, 1993. DR 92-CUP P92511 & AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the request, made by the applicant Smart sNR of CA, Inc., to locate a 200 sq. ft. building housing an unmanned mobile radio communication facility and a 74 foot monopole, to be located at the Diamond Bar High School. There are two monopoles and related repeater stations currently located on that site. Though the staff report indicates that the pole is made of wood, the applicant has corrected that the monopole will be on a 60 foot metal pole, reflecting the existing light standards on the football campus. Residents have expressed their concern that this mobile radio facility will interfere with T.V. and radio reception, however, the information provided by the applicant indicates that the frequency used by this service would not interfere with either MAN radio or T.V. transmission. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration, Conditional use permits 92-11 and Development Review No. 92-5 with the Findings of Fact and listed conditions. Fred Wink, representing smR of Ca . , Inc. , 1335 S. Acacia Ave., Fullerton, presented computer enhanced slides, to the Commission, simulating what the project would look like. This location is suitable because the facility will blend with the existing light standards, which will mitigate visual impact, clustering of these facilities is beneficial from a planning standpoint, and the students will benefit by an income flow from this lease. The FCC allows us to operate in the frequency range of an Goo to 900 imegahurst range, which is a similar frequency range the other two facilities currently operate Under . C/Plunk inquired if a study has been done supporting that there :s not intermodulation distortion from the many repeaters so close to each other. Mr. Wink stated that intermodulation has been studied with tbese two other carriers in several other locations, which are on school grounds* as well. All of the studies indicate that, as long as the frequencies used are coordinated with the frequencies used by the other repeaters, there should not be any interference problem. Presently, we are planning to start with five radios, and will probably have a maximum of twelve radios. We do January 25, 1993 Page 19 not interfere with the new 900 megahurst phones because we operate under a different frequency range. C/Grothe inquired about the difference between this mobile radio service as compared to the cellular Phones service. Mr. wink explained that the mobile radio service is primarily used by fleet users who have dispatchers talking one person to several persons, possibly at the same time. There will also be the ability to place cellular phone calls on the system as well. VC/Heyer inquired if the applicant would be amenable to a condition that, in the event that there is interference with the surrounding property owners telephone, radio, T.V., that, within a specified period of time, the applicant would either fix the situation or cease operation. Mr. wink stated that he would not object to such a condition, given a reasonable time period to address and identify any problem. The intent is to be good neighbors. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Joe Larutta, residing. at 2506 Sunbriqht Dr., expressed the following concerns: the applicant is installing a third tower because he is overloaded, and there is a possibility that he will request a fourth or fifth tower in the future; the towers and antennas can be seen from the 57 freeway going north; and public schools are not the appropriate place for private concerns to place their equipment. Rearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbau�+ declared the public hearinq closed. Mr. Wink, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum,s inquiry, made the following responses: it operate; under a maximum of 100 watts per channel; the otr.e- towers presently existing are owned by Pactel a-: LA Cellular, and we do not own any other tower this City; there is no objection to condition fence is built around the monopole to preve-• climbing; the pole will be of galvanized mater. to match the existing light standards; because is a line of sight technology, there is a need a 60 foot rad center to be able to talk to January 25, 1993 page 20 other sites; and the nearest light standards are approximately 100 to 110 feet to the north. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if it is technically feasible to mount the antennae either around the existing light standard, or on top of it. Don LaFoy, the construction expert for SMR, stated that a structural analysis of that existing pole, and the foundation that supports it, would have to be done to determine if that would be possible. The weight put up there will- be insignificant but the usual problem relates to wind loading. Also, because the athletic bleachers are in between two Of the light standards, on the west side of the field, the School District may be concerned it may fall on the bleachers in case of an earthquake. c/Grothe inquired why the antennas could not be placed on the gymnasium, along with the other antennas, since they operate under different frequencies. Mr. Wink explained that the question of interference becomes more difficult to dealwith the closer you get to those other facilities. Mr. winks inquired if the project could be conditioned requiring that we first determine if the school will allow us to put the equipment of the light standards, and if not,, then proceed as first proposed. C/Meyer noted that the School District does have the authority to exempt themselves, under a given set of circumstances, from local zoning requirements. CaD/D68tefano stated that it is staff's opinion that this application does not fall into the Category that allows the School District to exempt themselves, nor does it fall under a broader PUC category that allows thea to exempt themselves from local jurisdiction and review. Motion was made by C/Plunk to deny the project since there are already two antennas at that location. The notion failed for lack -of a second. C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 12:00 a. a. January 25, 1993 Page 21 C/Grothe requested that there be a condition restricting the use of microwave dishes on the pole. He stated that he would prefer a condition that the applicant mount the equipment on the existing light standards, subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. DCA/Fox advised that such the condition, regarding mounting the equipment to the light standards, would make this a different application, in which the Commission would not have had the opportunity to review the effect of such an installation 3s related to potential safety, and other problems that may arise. The applicant would have to make a new application. Motion was made by C/Grothe to continue the project, with the condition that the equipment to mounted on the light standards, if engineering,,,- feasible ngineering:,feasible and acceptable to the School District. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion was made by VC/Heyer, seconded by C/Li CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Rssolutior. submitted by staff with the following al=-' conditions: microwave dishes are not to installed on the pole; in the event that •.•.% facility causes interference or disturbance -. audio or television reception of the reside-,% within 500 feet of the facility, the applicant -.. repair the facility within 21 days of notificat.=- or cease it's operation; and the plans be mod::.*' to change this from a wooden pole to a steel P-• galvanized of the same color of the existing :•:" standards. AYES: CONMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, VC/Heyer + Chair/hlamenbaum. NOES: COMKISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. Variance 92-3 i AP/Lu resented the staff report regarding Planned Sign request ma by the applicant Steve Porrett• r• Program 92-4 develop a P ed Sign Program at Diamond village Shoppin Center 325. and Blvd.'and 23341-2 9 E. an Springs Dr. approval of a Varian or six monument signs •• fifteen feet in qht 84 square feet of face area. ough the posed project • opportuni to correct si deficiencies improve sign visibility for t staff doe, concur with the applicants reques for s:= Co11TIlfUBD PUBLIC ZRARINO: CITY OP DIAMOND Bljt General Plan KINUTBB OF TER PLANNING COIOQSSION Amendment 92-2; FEBRUARY •, 1993 CALL TO ORDRR: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to TT Map 5140, order 2 7:14 P.M. at the South Coast Air Quality Managemer District Auditorium, 21865 CUP 92-8 � E. Copley Drive, Diamor Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance t Vice Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman Meyer and Chairman Flamenbaum. 91-5, Zone C/Plunk was absent. Change 91-2 Oak Tree Permit Also present were Community Development Directo James DeStefano, Associate Planner 91-2; TT Nap Robert Searcy Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorne• Craig Fox,'and 51253 S COp 92-12; Oak Tree Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONSRUT CALZAR: VC/Meyer requested that the minutes be amended Minutes of or Page 1 to correctly indicate Commissioner Plunk. .Ian. 25, 93 Motion was made by VC/Mayer, seconded by C/Li anc CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY EIR 92-9. to approve the Minutes o: January 25, 1993, as amended. Co11TIlfUBD PUBLIC ZRARINO: CDD/DeStefano reported that the p approximately 171 o wi General Plan acres, is located hin —thc South Points Middle School/ sandstone Canyon I Amendment 92-2; , generally north of Pathfinder, west of Brea Ca..yoi Road, east of Morning Sun DA 92-1, 92-2, 92-3; Vesting Drive, south of LarkstonE Dr., and south of Rapid View Drive. The purpose etof TT Map 5140, tonight's public hearing is to further he CUP 92-8 � presentations by the -two consultants, hired by the City, to review Oak Tree Permit 92-8; this linc tithe Commission will not be taking tany Vesting TT 32400, CLIP action on merits Of this -project, but will be receivinc 91-5, Zone testimony, and providing n tc staff. There s and eon othis be Change 91-2 Oak Tree Permit can noo�filnsatl action proposed project until the issue of litigation 91-2; TT Nap of the City's General Plan is resolved-. CDD/DeStefano then introduced 51253 S COp 92-12; Oak Tree Peter Lewandowski, from the firm of Ultra Systems, who has managed the he Preparation of the EIR, and Hardy Strozier, of the Planning Associates, SouthPermitPointi who is the independent analyst and the Project Manager. Master Plan= S EIR 92-9. Hardy Strozier stated that, upon the conclusion of any additional public testimony, they will draw upon the questions and comments received from the audience and the Commission and Argent a brief review of the draft EIR. If the Commission determines that the information in the draft EIR is complete, and recommends Certification of the draft EIR, discussion can begin regarding the var entitlement isbues. The Coaission can recomm�n, certification of the draft EIR and take actio. against the proposed project. All commen-s February s, 1993 Page 2 --------------- received this evening will be responded to in writing as part of the final EIR. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the opened. public hearing Max Maxwell, residing at '3211 Bent Twig Lane, requested that the responses to the questions raised regarding the draft EIR be presented first to allow the audience an opportunity to respond to the consultants responses. Sherry Rogers, residing at 2660 Broken Feather, President of the South Pointe Middle Community Club, stated that a school was prowle recent to the community four years ago. with this ised passing of Proposition H, the school should be under construction now. she submitted 300 letters of parents and students who have joined in pleading for the construction of the permanent South Pointe Middle School as soon as possible. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder Road, requested that the EIR address the following issues: the change of air quality to the residents in and around this construction; the reso Of the builder involved in the Constructioniof tilhe Middle School to remove the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt from the school site; can the City master Plan a section of the community without having a General Plan for the City; and, by law, can the City be a partner in this project. CDD/Deatsfano, noting that there are many in the audience that may appreciate a brief overview of the project, and the EIR issues, recommended that the consultants provide a brief presentation. Chair/Flamenbaua declared the public hearing closed. Hardy Strozier reviewed the eight specific elements that the Project is composed of: the draft SIR, an information type document; the General Plan Amendment redesignatinq the existing water district Property to Planned Development; three Development Agrsesents; Veatinq Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 - Arciero; Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 - Patel; Vesting Tentative leap No. 51407 - RNp three separate Hillside Management ordinance COP; and three Oak Tree Removal Permit. The proposed project consists of the 'following: two hundred (200) dwellinq units proposed within this project area, with lot sizes ranging from 6,500 square foot February 9, 1993 Page 3 to 8,000 square foot; a 31 acre retail Office/commercial site; a 26 acre community park site proposed for dedication to the Cit removal of 400,000 cubic Yl and the s dirt from South Pointe Middle School site tofbe depositedthe on part of the project area residing within Vesting Tentative Map No. 32400. The City has chosen to tie each one of these applications, and public, in one Master Plan. both private Mr. Lewandowski, Director of Planning with the consulting firm Ultra Systems, explained that the California Environmental Quality Act requires governmental agencies, who have authority over particular projects, include, in their to decision making process, o analysis of the prepares impacts upon the environment. Prepared an initial study for this proThe city ect and concluded that the project implementation jhad the Potential to result in significant impacts upon the environment. Based upon that conclusion,.the City directed the preparation of an ich represents a detailed technical analysis of h t e project's direct, indirect, and cumulative imp, upon the environment. provide The intent of CEQA is an environmental basis for the decision making process' It is also the intent o! CEQA t o insure public access to the decision makers so as to insure a full disclosure of the roects Potential impacts, and potential alta natives, that may be available to the decision makers. The Purpose of CEQA is to adopt project alternatives that may produCe lesser impacts, and to identify and develop mitigation measures which might further reduce the impacts identified in the analysis brought hinq is ar brief through public testimony. The identified in the draft�g of the topical issues Land Use Impacts o Land Use Compatibility: The project, as Proposed, is consistent with the General Plan o designation for the site. ZonThe project is consistent wits: the zoning designations of the site. o Hillside Management ordinance: There are a number o! areas that the project may not a consistent with the Ordinance, but th. Ordinance specifies that there are c p mechanisms which allow site specs Earth interpretation of the project o Geotechnical Studies: 'Although unstable at, op* conditions on the site, there are no fau.ts February 9, 1993 Page 4 that have been identified. Geotechnical conditions that occur on the site are typical of other development properties in southern California. Water o Surface Water and Ground Water Impacts: Three regional storm drain conduits exist. Two are sufficient to accommodate post development discharge. Those areas where deficiencies exist will be improved to accommodate future discharge .that may occur from the site. Traffic o Traffic Assessment: There are 6 area wide intersection (Colima Rd./Brea Canyon Cut-off, Colima Rd./Lemon Ave., Colima Rd./eastbound 60 freeway ramps, Brea Canyon Rd/westbound 60 freeway ramps, Brea Canyon Rd./Colima Rd., Pathfinder Rd./northbound 57 ramps) which will be impacted both by the project and by cumulative development activities which will occur between now d the ear and through the year 2012, ot ithstanding hether the project is built. Air Quality rations: Emissions o o During Grading pe associated with heavy duty equipment and fugitive pact Will reate a is defined as exceeding ort tars air quality impact existing SCAQMD adopted standards. o Upon Project Development: The emissions associated with the project generated traffic, and the consumption of natural gas and electricity associated with the on site uses will result in an exceedance of conditions. There are no available mechanisms or technologies which will result in the reduction to those standards below significant levels. Biology o Existing Resources which are recognized by Sate h .federal agencies: Seven vegetation communities are identified on the propertY and are as follow: the riparian, coastal esIn shrub, and the California Walnut Woodlands. accordance with the Tree Ordinance, each Oak removed must be replaced at a 2:1 ratio in such a manner as to create a replacement habitat either on site or off site. It has boon concluded that the impacts upon biological caMunities can be minimized to a level which is insignificant. Aesthetics The General Plan and 0 Existinq Public Policy: Zoning indicates that the long term objective February t, 1993 Page S of this area is urban development. There is no clear cut direction, in other policies in the General Plan, which indicate that the change from rural to urban is a significant adverse change. However, there appears to be a need for additional mitigation measures that might reduce sone of the perspectives of the site. Project Alternatives o Preservation Alternative o Higher Density options o Lower Density options o The Clustering of Development Peter Lewandowski explained that the final EIR contains all the information derived from dialogue, the draft BIR, and information that materializes through further analysis based upon the public testimony. The EIA is an independent document of the project, and it's intent is informational to insure that the decision makers has the environmental bases to make their decisions, and that the public has a vehicle to make tr ^ r comments known through this decision ma's g process. The EIR is not a policy document. I+ attempts to represent a nonbias professional, technical opinion of the projects impacts. To assist the decision makers.to make a well balanced decision, public comments are needed that primarily focus upon. whether or not the EIR provides a faithful and reasonable analysis of the project's impacts. Hardy Strozier pointed out that, in the CEQA process, experts, in their various fields, are asked to provide differing opinions on similar topics so that the decision makers are exposed to all sides of the issue. Upon conclusion of tr.e review period, the environmental consultant wit= return a document called a Response to Comments, to be presented at the February 22, 1993 meetinq. Based upon all the written and oral comments received during this review period, formal detailei written replies will be provided on the varic..s comments raised. Chair/Flamanbaum reopened the public hearing. Paul Bramonte, residing on Tan o'Shanter, - unincorporated part of Walnut, expressed concern of the increase in traffic that wil: created on Walnut Leaf Road and Tan O'Shanter. requested that the EIR evaluate the need for residential dwelling units and cossoercial �� February 8, 1993 Page 6 when there are many homes and businesses currently vacant in the area. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning Sun, Walnut, within the unincorporated area, requested that the EIR address how traffic will impact the streets in the Emerald Hills .housing project, specifically Colima/Walnut Leaf, and Colima/Lake Canyon. The roads in the area are steep, without stop signs, centerlines, or sidewalks. The Rowland Unified School District has written the City to express their concern for the safety of the children, with the increase in traffic resulting from the development of this proposed project, especially since there are no sidewalks, and they must walk in the street to get to the bus stop. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood Road, stated that the SIR in incomplete because it does not mention amphibians in the canyon, nor the process used to discover creatures within the canyon at night. He requested the dates and times of observation, and the names and qualifications of E the individuals that conducted the observation. The removal of 97% of the vegetation in the canyon, as noted in the EIR, will annihilate everything living in that canyon. He made the following comments: the canyon contains one of the densest grove of oaks in the City; the canyon can provide studies in botany, herbitology, entomology, astronomy, and plant and tree propagation; the canyon is a cougar migration corridor; wildlife and bird lose will be horrendous; and the soil can be removed at a minimum expense (written suggestions wore provided) and should be done so during the summer so that there is no audio impact on the children. Mr. Schad then presented two maps, snbaitted to the Commission for the record, Illustrating alternative concept plans for the iamdatone Canyon area. The concept.plans include such features as a children's museum, an observatory, trails, a school, as well as internal on site street configurations. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder, requested that the SIR address the following items: the noise level, during and after construction will be greater than the noise level emitted from a home smoke detector; though -air quality currently exceeds the SCAQND standard, it need not go beyond that point, and something should be done to improve the condition, not worsen it; who will pay for further widen the Pathfinder Bridge to accommodate the increase in traffic from this development, as February 8, 1993 Page 7 well as pay for maintaining all the streets in the area; since Oak Trees are very slow growing, and susceptible to dying if transplanted, they cannot be replaced in a similar manner; trees clean the air, and the removal of this many trees will affect the air quality for as long as 400 years. Jan C. Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, noting that many people are leavinq after addressing their concerns, reminded the audience that since the consultant will answer questions raised following the public hearing, it may be beneficial to remain to hear some of their responses. John Anderson stated that EIR needs to address the "Country Living" atmosphere in Diamond Bar, th environmental aspects e of driving down the 5e freeway and seeing cows, and the other aesthetics that this project will eliminate. The EIR should also evaluate the financial gains, of the project land holders, by building this development r our community. Joyce Hill, residing at 1836 Shaded Wood Ri requested that the EIR address the following: tht. current vacant commercial buildings in the City; the reduction of property value@ of those homes now overlooking Sandstone Canyon because the view will became that of buildings, rooftops, air conditioning equipment, etc.; what compensation will be provided in the event of landslides; the unique wilderness area is being replaced by noise Pollution, air pollution, and increased traffic, Which is a problem the City has been working hard to mitigate; and consider an alternative concept Which builds the school, limits the dwelling units, and preserves Sandstone Canyon. Mike Collins, residing at 1612 Morning Sun, Walnut, submitted, to the Commission, written comments addressing concerns on the EIR. George Barrett, residing 1884 Shaded Hood Road, made the following comments: many centers, within the City are currently vacant, yet the City is proposing more commercial area; the elementary schools are overcrowded, and facilities for them are lacking; the Middle School should be built regardless of this developaent; the removal ofa dirt should be the responsibility of the develc who put it there; alternatives to removing the dir, should be explored; and a sign on Brea Canyon Road indicates that it is a slide area. February 8, 1993 Page 8 Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, President of the Pathfinders Homeowners association, requested that the EIR address the following:- the California Burrowing Owl, a threatened species in Orange County, may exist on the flat land to be developed by RnP; the Possibility of moving the dirt to fill a hole elsewhere should be explored; 20 acres of open area is not a fair exchange for developing on this existing 139 acres of open area, excluding the school site; there will be a need for traffic signals for the future intersections on Brea Canyon; this construction will bring rattlesnakes, coyotes, and bobcats into the backyards of existing homes; and since the existing homes will be devalued, there should be a reduction in property tax. Bob Roberts, residing on Morning Sun, walnut, opposed the opening of Morning Sun Avenue as the main residential access. Larkstons Dr. and/or Rapid View should be considered as secondary access roads regardless of the opinions of school officials, local residents, and local officials who do not find these Alternatives acceptable, and who may have a conflict of interest being involved in this project. Lee Doyle, residing at 20206 Evening Breeze Dr., Walnut, expressed the following concerns: the increase in noise from the freeway; the loss of wildlife; the cutting of the hillsides; and the increase in traffic. Phil Duarte, residing on 1343 Red Bluff, expressed his concern that the size of the proposed lots, 6,000 to 8,000 square feet, is not consistent with the existing neighborhood which has an average lot rise of 20,000 square feet. He submitted pictures to the Commission of deer and the canyon in it's natural setting. Chair/Flamenbaus declared the public hearing review of the EIR closed. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:03 p.m. The Beating was reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Chair/Flamenbaua declared the public hearing opened to general comments. Marlene Tanqeman, residing at 20671 Larkstone Dr., Principal of South Points Middle School, expressed February 8, 1993 Page 9 her concern that the longer it takes to certify the EIR, the longer the Middle School is delayed. Carolyn Elfelt, residing at 21119 Silver Cloud, pointed out that the South Pointe Master Plan benefits the entire community, and gives our children a school they deserve. Overall, the good points, such as the school, the park, the community building, and the access road, far outweigh the bad points mentioned. Lauren Minck, residing at 2067 Tierra Loma, a teacher at South Pointe Middle School, stated that the permanent Middle School is needed immediate:,. Linda Bishop, residing at 1281 Rapid View Dr., expressed her opposition to accessing Rapid view Brea Canyon Road. The area has already beer impacted by traffic created from the Middle Schcc.. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twiq, expresses his support that the Middle School should be bus.- However, the City should not conceive a Master F. community against the wishes of a lot of pec; The developer should remove the dirt at this cost, and the City should separate the pro;P within the Master Plan, and stop using the se- as an excuse to construct the dvellinq units. , the commercial development. This project s! - not even be in the public hearing stages unti. decision on the General Plan Referendum has :,- made. The proponents of the referendum have called liars, and accused of being con artists the entire process has been delayed because c, City of Diamond Bars action, including staff Chair/Flamenbaum requested Mr. Maxwell to d.•. his comments to the issue at hand. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:4 -- The meeting was reeonvened.at 9:41 p.m. Chair/Flamanbaum apologised for calling a recess. He encouraged the audience to conte-.* direct comments to the issue at hand. Elisabeth dodges, residing at 1604 Morning Su - Walnut, expressed her opposition to the at, that the !fiddle School must be built at all • regardless of the change in quality of life existing community. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder, exj-.., his concern that the Commission is not rasp February S, 1993 Page 10 to the alternative concept plan to remove the dirt, at no cost to the City, as suggested by Mr. Beach Cushane. The Middle School should be built first, and the development at Sandstone Canyon considered separately. CDD/DeStefano stated that the City has announced this Master Plan to the community via three public study sessions, two public hearings, and the community newsletter, as a process of gathering information and reviewing this specific proposal. The Planning Commission is not the proponent of this project, but a quasi judicial body which will make a recommendation to the City Council. The City is a participant in this project because the City owns land in small pockets within this 171 acre area, and from a professional planning standpoint, it made sense that boundary lines of ownership be erased to look at the whole area comprehensively. The Planning Commission and staff are listening, collectively, to all the concerns that have been made. All concerns and suggestions will be responded to. John Anderson, a resident, stated that the City has a responsibility to begin holding the developer accountable for cleaning up their project after development. The dirt should have been removed by the developer long ago. There can be no Master Plan in the City until the developer is held accountable. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, made the following comments: if there are no significant impacts to the project, then why must there be variances, and CUP'S to develop it; these impacts cannot be satisfactory under the General Plan, as indicated, because there is no general Plan that can be implemented at this time; ,IMW people in the City are concerned with the flaws in the General Plan, specifically dealing with the situations planned in this project; there is slippage on the land bordering Brea Canyon; the EIR should be corrected to indicate that there are no "recognized* faults; is there a document of approval from the LA Flood Control; 20 acres of open area is not a fair exchange for the loss of over 100 acres of open area; the canyon maintains itself at no cost to the City; Brea Canyon and Pathfinder are adversely affected by this development; there is a conflict of interest because all the officials in Diamond Bir are a lead agency and developer; Mr. Arciero should fulfill his responsibility and remove the dirt, without February •, 1993 Page 11 affecting the canyon; though the permanent Middlf School is needed, quality education comes frog teachers and administrators, not brick and mortar and the school can be built without the development of Sandstone Canyon; and the existing property owners were promised that the land would never be developed. Ms. Beach Cushane stated that the consultants should have responded tonight to the concerns made at the last meeting before opening the public hearing so that the audience could respond to.them. Hearing no- further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. VC/Meyer requested that the EIR address the following: address an alternative concept of constructing the South Pointe Middle School without the rest of the elements on the Master Plan; further elaborate on the items of unavoidable adverse impacts, which are air quality, traffic, and circulation, specifically in regards ---to mitigation measures that could be implemente o address those three areas; expand on the issue o` opening Morning Sun Dr., to include empirical dat. that assesses the impacts of the potential traffic into that existing development, .and include mitigation measures that would reduce the impact, as well as address the issue of no sidewalks, alternative designs of the intersection, and/or the elimination of the intersection; elaborate as to why Rapid View, a collector street, is disregarded as an alternative, and is not put together in some sort of on site circulation system; the amount of dirt to be moved on site has not been adequately mitigated to a point of non significance, and further information is needed regarding some migration trails of wildlife; there should be further elaboration as to what the grading controls Will be to insure incremental grading on the project site coordinating the three property owners; since the small wildlife, such as snakes and rodents, will move out of the canyon, during grading, and probably move into the habitat of the existing dwellings, the method to control this activity should be addressed; the circulation issues regarding the cross section for Brea Canyon should be examined by the traffic engineers; theme is no provision for the cross section for 1 s Canyon for sidewalks or any pedestrian type jf controls; the circulation analysis at Colima/Bre Canyon, which identified that the signals to t^e west, and the signals for the on and off ramps t_ the freeway need to work in tandem with the phas:-: February S, 1993 Page 12 for that intersection, should be expanded to address the various types of improvements; address the responsibility this project would have to the impacts on the various intersections and street sections; address the type -of technical judgement, with respect to this project, being used to mitigate the issue of air quality to an acceptable level, understanding that it is impossible to mitigate to a level of nonsignificance; there should be more creativity in saving some of the provisions of the canyon; and effort should be expended between this project and the property owners to the south to develop. a cooperative venture to save some of the significant natural environment. VC/Meyer stated that, first blush, the EIR identifies the issues arising from each elements needs and efforts to compromise, as well identifies a lot of the ways to mitigate the impacts, and impacts of urbanization. C/Li requested that the predevelopment and post development calculations, regarding water on site, be further examined in teras of public safety for further landslides, if the project is developed. C/Grothe requested that the EIR address the following: a traffic study that further addresses the on site circulation system, specifically the problem of cut -through traffic upon opening many of these streets; the area in the City's sphere of influence needs further analysis in regards to traffic impacts and needed signals; the project is similar to all the other past developsent in Diamond Bar, and there needs to be more creativity in it planning with effort expanded to possible save the canyon; there could be more creativity in grading alternatives of the Middle School site; and the Middle School project should be addressed as a separate eluent of the Master Plan. , Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the'EIR address the following; further discussion identifying the ways to minimise the impacts of moving 9.3 million cubic yards of dirt, as well as the actual moving of the dirt; address an alternative to removing $00 oak trees that would leave more of those trees in place; and further evaluate the impacts of removing the trees and the closing of the stream, which has been identified as mostly run off. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the comments and concerns raised tonight by the audience and the Commission will be responded to in a report, to be February •, 1993 Page 13 included in the EIR, and presented at the February 22, 1993 public hearing meeting. The Commission concurred to declare the public input portion of the meeting closed. The next meeting on the South Pointe Master Plan is scheduled for February 22, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 10:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:35 p.m. 11 CITY OF DIAmoND BAR NINOTES OF TEE PLANNING CoXXISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Plunk. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Li was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lunqu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. XhTTns tROK Oscar Law, residing at 20511 Pathfinder, in TEE AUDIMCR: what Proposition C funding entailed. quired ICE/Wentz explained that Proposition C funding relates to funding that is set aside for uses for street improvements to help offset increase traffic flow for cities. Oscar Law then indicated that, through a Supreme Court ruling, the Fediral Government has acknowledged the importance of improving air quality....... General Plan Amendment 92-2; Chair/Plamenbaum submitted, for the record, a petition DA 92-1, 92-2, with 59signatures regarding the South Pointe baster Plan. 92-3; Vesting TT Map 5140, CUP 92-8 8 Hardy Strozier, the Special Project Consultant, reviewed the Oak Tree Permit following options available to the Planning Commission: 1. Determine that the 92-8; Vesting TT 32400, CUP DEIR and supporting documents do not ad ess the project,quateldrand 91-5, Zono environmental impacts of the recommend that the City Council Change 91 m Oak Tre Aidt not certify the DEIR and direct staff to prepare the appropriate 91-2; TT Nfp Resolution; 2. Request additional information from staff relative 51253 i CUP to the range of environmental topic covered in the DEIR, and continue consideration 92-12; Oak Tree Permit 92-9; the of the DEIR until the additional information is available; South Points and 3. Determine that the DEIR and supporting documents do adequately address the Master Plan; 8 EIR 92-9. environmental impacts of the DEIR, and recommend that the City Council certify the DEIR as adequate and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution. He suggested that, given the lateness Of the hour, that the Planning Commission just consider the EIR toniglot, following the presentation to be made Py Peter Lewandowski regarding the DEIR and Response to Comments, and February 22, 1993 Page 2 continue the discussion on the project to another night this week. Peter Lewendowski, Director of Planning with the consulting firm Ultra Systems, explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires governmental agencies, who have authority over particular projects, to include, in their decision making process, an analysis of the projects impacts upon the environment. The purpose of CEQA is to identify potential environmental impacts associated with that project, to identify mitigation measures that would reduce, minimize, or Avoid those impacts, and bring forward, for public review and discussion, project alternatives that might minimize or avoid the environmental implications identified in the environmental analysis. The EIR, before the Commission, has been prepared pursuant to, and in full accordance, with the procedures established by the California Code of Regulations, which establishes a procedure that must be followed to satisfy the intent of CEQA. There ars two documents before the Camaission: 1. the DEIR, dated November of 1992, which contains identification of those environmental impacts identified in the initial study, as well as additional information brought forward through the analysis conducted by Ultra Systems, and comments received pursuant to the Notice of Preparation; and 2. the Response to Co- nts, dated February of 1993, containing revisions, changes, amendments to the DEIR, comments received by government agencies and . the public, pursuant to the Notice of Completion, as well as the minutes from the Planning Cosmission, Traffic and Transportation Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission, of the meetings that addressed this topic. The Response to Comments, and the DEIR, in conjunction with other additional information the City might include, constitutes the final Environmental Impact Report. Prior to taking action on the project, the City is required to certify the final .EIR, concluding that, the EIR adequately addresses the environmental implications of the project, and provides a reasonable analysis to foster informed decision. The Planning Commission, as`+`another alternative to those options summarised by fir. Strozier, can provide the - City Council with a recommendation that differ from the conclusions presented in the DEIR, which may include additions or deletions to specific mitigation measures, further elaboration on project impacts or project alternatives, or changes regarding conclusions on significance, as presented February 22, 1993 Page 3 in the DEIR. The firm of preparation of thisdocument, Ultra Systems clear this and cb ent, was to In the projects im acts objective anal pr°vide a data. impacts, based ysis of the It is not the func ion c=1entific empirical consultant, nor the EIR itsel! the environmental Policy. The EIR ,a I inch to establish project, and itis Pendent public insure intent is document of the environmental bases the decision informational, to to makers have the that the public has make their decisions comments known a vehicle to make and process. through this their It attempts to decision making professional represent a nmakins impacts, and isechnical opinion of the based sat ect to change and revisions Upon a direction provided to staff b Commission. y the peter Lewandowski additional mitigation Measures the following is a result from the measures to the DZ following which the last 6 Public testimon Februaryweek Period, as identified received over additinal ■itigations1993 Response ncsto i in the includingOoants document: the widening of Drea Ca traffic impacts, full width, and improv Yon Road to itis frontage; alternative improvements along the property development hydrology solutions to mitigate post #1467, in the vicinity °�&ir to Public drain included three separate additional which are On site retention, phase al options which alternative drainage solutions; developeent, and received frog conty,red upon comments meelYret were brought fo Additional mitigation annexation of the rward which included the cO�lidated sewer maintproj� area into the mitigation measures directed district; additional reduction and recycling; towards source measures that are de and additional mitigation implawentation of the deaigns� to facilitate the in the context of the ak~ Ordinance, not only to ensure the user of trees replaced, but facilitate the dev�icasent of those trees to tree habitat. He op�ent of a replacement oak clarifications then reviewed the following mitigation made to the. addition to the the measures: it clearly deso"trates that the is�acts to air quality are si i!i Phase grading t�hase of the prO feet r �ehe Dant during Perspective; •Project, and tree a perationa: . it indicates that LarkstOneive gh street, c Dr1.e not intended as a throu facilitate emergency ani but only -- additional access is the event Master Plan as a S tepired; referance to -. pecifie Plan has been amender February 22, 1993 Page 4 and it identifies Tentative Tract 032400 as a Vesting Tentative Tract. In response to C/flunk's inquiry if there is adequate water available to wildlife, Kr. Lewendowski stated that, based upon field inspection of the property, there is standing water in the creek in Sandstone canyon representing an opportunity for wildlife in the area to obtain water and other nutrients, as well as brush to provide foliage and -ground cover. However, based upon the biological analysis of the site as a potential conduit as part of a wildlife corridor, it was concluded that, based upon the surrounding development, the site does not practically represent a linkage between this area and other open space areas, and that there are not any rare, threatened, or endangered species in the area. The loss of the water can be compensated through the development of the park plan, which might include _ such things as guzzlers, which would ensure that there would be water available should wildlife continue to be present after development. Hardy Strozier stated that the mitigation measure in the Resource Management Plan, to be presented if the project is approved, will be clarified to include necessary facilities such as guzzlers, or other waterinq sources, to be both on and off project site. Peter Lewandowski stated that the EIR demonstrates that, in addition to any permits that may be required from the City, permits may also be required from the California Department of Fish and Game and the V.S. Army Corp of Engineers. In response to C/Meyer's inquiry, Mr. Lewendowski stated that, in his judgement, the changes made as a result of the Response to Comments are not significant enough to warrant a recirculation of the DEIR. The Commission does have the option to add additional mitigation measures, if deemed necessary. The conclusions in the EIR represent Ultra Systems independent analysis of the project, and it is felt that the mitigation measures adequately mitigate the many impacts associated with the project, with the exception of air quality and traffic. C/Mayer inquired if additional conditions could be added reflecting these mitigation measures, if the project goes forward, without redoing the EIR. February 22, 1993 Page 5 Hardy Strozier explained that the 105 mitigation measures will be translated, when the Resolution comes back to the Commission, in the form of conditions, and those conditions will be allocated amongst the various entitlements. It is felt that there are adequate mitigation measures to cover all aspects of potential environmental impacts on the project. Furthermore, staff will be adding recommended conditions in addition to the current 105 mitigation measures Additional conditions could be added regarding future review of the project, and any design modifications that may be necessary. The certification of the EIR verifies that it is an adequate informational document prepared in compliance with State law.' The project can be approved or denied regardless of what action is taken on the EIR. C/Grotha inquired if the EIR would be impacted if the project changes significantly. Hardy Strozier stated that a broad range of alternatives have been covered in the EIR, anticipating a broad range of potentialities from the Planninq commission. If there are significant changes made to the project later, there is a tiering effect where only those items relative to the modification of the project would be reviewed. Peter Lewendowki explained that CBQA establishes a basis whereby a future change in the project can be addressed after an EIR is certified. If the Changes are insignificant, an addendum is included, or, if the changes ars substantial, a new EIR is prepared. As lonq as the project do" not exceed the base limits, it is believed that the environoantal analysis clearly represent the Projects impacts, If a such larger project is considered, than the changes of the project would have to be reviewed, focusing exclusively on how those changes differ from the information presented in the environmental documentation. C/Meyer stated that he foals that tho anvironmenta: document has been adequately prepared as a foundation document, and that it adequate:, addresses the issues. Motion was made by C/Mayer and seconded by C/pig-• to recommend that.the City Council certify the E:r Chair/Flaaanbaum inquired if the motion is recommend certification, with the proviso that a February 22, 1993 Page 6 further mitigation measures necessary be attached to the document. C/Meyer pointed out that the document includes the potential impacts, as well as 105 mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a level of nonsignificance, except air quality and traffic. The EIR addresses the issues and it should be passed on to the City Council for certification. Any other changes would include a new environmental tiering process. Chair/Flamenbaum, in response to Oscar Law, explained that discussion of the EIR is no longer open to the public for comment, however, the public will get an opportunity to comment on the EIR before the City Council. CA/Curley explained to the Commission that the they would only be recommending certification of the SIR to the City Council, and not taking the final action. The Commission was presented with three options, which included recommending that the City Council certify the DEIR, recommendinq that the City Council not certify the DEIR, or requesting additional information and continue consideration Of the DEIR. Since there was a question concerning guzzlers, perhaps, since this is not a final action, it would be appropriate if the Commission requested more information on the project to determine if the mitigation measures, the monitoring program, or any other elements, are appropriate, so as to give the Commission the assurance that all the information needed has been received. however, if the Commission collectively feels that all the information provided is adequate, then it would be appropriate for the Commission to proceed. C/Meyer indicated that, to his understanding from Mr. Strozier's and Mr. Lewendowski's comments, the mitigation measures include all the information to reduce the potential impacts of the project down to a level of nonsignificance, as we understand them now, and that the Commission could go beyond those particular measures as conditions of approval, or bases for denial, of the individual elements or components of the project. Even if the Cown ission recommends certification of the SIR, determining that the document has been.prepared in accordance with the State law, the Commission could then deny the project. February 22, 1993 Page 7 CA/Curley confirmed that the Commission can recommend certification of the EIR, and still deny the project. C/Meyer, indicating that he was under the impression that the Commission could not act on the rest of the project until a recommendation on the environmental document was given, inquired if a recommendation could be made at the conclusion of all the hearings. CA/Curley explained that the City typically has processed the elements of a development, the environmental findinq, project approval or denial, etc., all inclusively in one Resolution. However, this procedure is not cast in stone, and is a decision of the Commission. CDD/DeStsfano noted that the Commission appears ready to certify the adequacy of the informat:cn contained within the EIR, but not nscessar::: prepared to certify the adequacy of the iitigat:�:_. measures presented. It is staff's recommendal�- - that the Commission conclude the discussion on --e environmental document, set aside the environmer_i. document and the 105 mitigation measures outl:-e; and direct staff to begin to incorpori•e certification of the EIR into the appropr.i-e resolutions. The specific mitigation measures be put aside until the Commission is prepares reach a decision on the project. C/Grothe indicated that he feels that ..0 information has been adequately presented, e.. though he does not concur with some of • # conclusions made. It is time now to be: discussion of the project. Chair/Plamenbaum expressed his concern that tr,e aitiqation measures outlined in the EIR doc se are final, and any other -mitigation measure the Commission comes up with becomes a cond t . which may not have the same force and effect Hardy Stroxier pointed out that the EIR is _s starting point. The Commission has the autn _ to add as many conditions to the projec• desired, whether it be with a conditiona. permit, a tentative tract map, or the develcc•- agreement. In fact, some mitigation measures no longer be applicable because of modifica• made by the Commission. If the Commission mod the project in such a manner that has not February 22, 1993 Paq• S analyzed in the EIR, then an addendum or a subsequent EIR may be needed. Chair/Flamenbaum requested an explanation of the difference between the "condition" and "mitigation", and their respected impacts. Hardy Strozier explained that State law re that we turn the environmental impact report land mitigation measures, through- the mitigation monitoring program, into some force of authority, and that is done through conditions. the application of Peter Lewendowski explained that there- is nothing in the document which is locked in concrete. The mitigation measures represent recommendations for subsequent conditions of a roval un as the document is certified, the it such time approved, or modified in some way:roject is mitigation measures are ultimately inco Those conditions of approval. rporated as Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he is confused because he was under the impressionetthhat once the EIR is certified, additional mitigation measures may not be added. Lewendowski has indicated that Hthoa�r, aitigation measures become conditions upon certification of the EIR. If they're called something else, is a reason for it. there /'leY explained that the the mitigation measures, mitigation monitoring programare the broad definitions that can be line tuned to respond to individual circumstance approval. for entitlement specific C/Meyer, concerned that it appears that the direction from staff is not in total agreement, withdrew his Motion recommending that the City Council certify the EIR. C/Grothe inquired if the mitigation measures in the environmental review document can be changed or left out from the project. Hardy Strozier explained that, upon certification Of the EIR by the City Council, staff must demonstrate legally that each one of these mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, or a statement of overriding copsideration must be submitted. Furthermore, there is a mitigation monitoring oroaram in the DE?R that February 22, 1993 Page 9 identifies where all the mitigation measures are found, such as the CUP, the tentative map, or the development agreement. C/Meyer expressed his concern that the Commission may not be allowed to make a condition because it wasn't in the EIR. He suggested that the meeting be continued to a date certain, allowing staff time to go through the legal ramifications, and come back with a recommendation. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the Commission is only directing staff, and no official action is being taken at this time. Changes can be made at a later date if deemed necessary. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at L1:o6 p.m. to allow time for staff to confer on their recommendation to the Planning Commission. The meeting vas reconvened at 11:24 p.m. CA/Curley stated that it is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to begin preparation of a Resolution that would indicate that the Commission is recommending that the City Council certify the environmental document. This would not be a final action by this Commission, and it will be brought back to the Commission to make any appropriate changes is so desired. C/Grothe requested that the full set of motions and resolutions be brought back to the Commission a minim of a week prior to the meeting. Motion was made by C/Moyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CAMID UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommendinq that the City Council certify the EIR document. The Planning Commission concurred to continue the public hearing to Thursday, February 25, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOOT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded ty Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjour^ the meetinq at 11:35 p.m. CA/Curley reported that meeting is the purpose of tonight: to present, to the Commission, the substantive project of the South Pointe Master the Plan. The Planning Commission directed.. staff, at Planning of February 22, 1993, to prepare e Resolution recommending that the City Cot—i: certify the environmental document• It was , a final action, and the document will be back before the Cosstation. subject to further review, or recommendation. C/Li, in response to CA/Curley, be stated that he rrl„ listening to the tape of the meeting of February 22, 1993 prior to the neCommission meeting. TIM 1yam� next Commission Kaxwll, residing at 3211 Dent Twig Lane, � AUDIODBlC>!: requested that the public hurl ng Environasntal Impact Review portion the allay more opportunity for the 00 be reopened tc � be addressed, and to assure that the raises tc Commission are fully informed of all the tissuesthe IF the o . He g not gett & also stated that, because he did a co copy of the EIR until two hours prior tc the February 22, 1993 Boating, he felt that he d;d not have sufficient time to review the document. Barbara Beach Cushane, raiding at 2021 Peaces,.: Hills Road, stated that she was offended that c^e South Pointe Master Plan item was placed last ::r, the agenda of the February 22, 1993 meets -q, obliging the majority of the audience to wait :ate into the evening, and thea announcing that. consideration of time, the consultant,* deta� •I report would not be given that evening, but , continued public hearing meet the consultant, Hued She states conferred with the davelY atsosier, continua.. tbe,, Yet failed to cor�!e- with the public, and that iustly reoresented. She stated that JesannAhn•vc0@', CITY OF DIMOND g3� ADJOURNED RZGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CojMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 1993 CALL TO ORDSR: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order 7:13 P.M. at the South Coast Air a District Auditorium, Quality Managemen 21865 E. Co Bar, California. COP10Y Drive, Diamor. PLZDGE OF ALLEGIANCZ: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance Chair/Flamenbaum. b- ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Li, Plunk, Vic* Chairman Meyer, an( Chairman Flamenbaum, C/Grothe was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy City Attorney Bill Curley, Liz Myers. and Contract Secretar, CA/Curley reported that meeting is the purpose of tonight: to present, to the Commission, the substantive project of the South Pointe Master the Plan. The Planning Commission directed.. staff, at Planning of February 22, 1993, to prepare e Resolution recommending that the City Cot—i: certify the environmental document• It was , a final action, and the document will be back before the Cosstation. subject to further review, or recommendation. C/Li, in response to CA/Curley, be stated that he rrl„ listening to the tape of the meeting of February 22, 1993 prior to the neCommission meeting. TIM 1yam� next Commission Kaxwll, residing at 3211 Dent Twig Lane, � AUDIODBlC>!: requested that the public hurl ng Environasntal Impact Review portion the allay more opportunity for the 00 be reopened tc � be addressed, and to assure that the raises tc Commission are fully informed of all the tissuesthe IF the o . He g not gett & also stated that, because he did a co copy of the EIR until two hours prior tc the February 22, 1993 Boating, he felt that he d;d not have sufficient time to review the document. Barbara Beach Cushane, raiding at 2021 Peaces,.: Hills Road, stated that she was offended that c^e South Pointe Master Plan item was placed last ::r, the agenda of the February 22, 1993 meets -q, obliging the majority of the audience to wait :ate into the evening, and thea announcing that. consideration of time, the consultant,* deta� •I report would not be given that evening, but , continued public hearing meet the consultant, Hued She states conferred with the davelY atsosier, continua.. tbe,, Yet failed to cor�!e- with the public, and that iustly reoresented. She stated that JesannAhn•vc0@', February 2S, 1993 Page 2 indicated to her that he too felt unrepresented at the February 22nd meeting. Evan Shanauqht, residing at 1820 Peaceful Hills Road, expressed her concern that the Commission is not listening to the concerns raised by the public. It appears that the interests of the residents are not being served. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder Road, inquired why the consultant is paid for by the City, yet recommended by the developers. He too complained of the process by which the February 22, 1993 meeting was abruptly ended, and then continued to tonight, without further notification to the public. He stated that he feels that the EIR is neither complete nor accurate, and that the South Pointe Biddle School is being held hostage by the City so that this project could be railroaded through. Gerald Fong, residing at 20879 Missionary Ridge, reviewed the following concerns outlined in a letter he sent to the City: noise level; traffic impacts; a 30 acre commercial site in an area that currently has many vacant business centers; a 26 acre park is not needed especially when most parks are usually unoccupied; the children of these developments will heavily impact the elementary schools that are presently overcrowded; the stability of the hillsides; a decrease in the axistinq property values; and Sandstone Canyon should be preserved. Eileen Lnsari, residing at 1823 S. cliff Branch Dr., concurred that the EIR should be further studied and discussed. Since Sandstone Canyon is of a cougar corridor connecting with Chino Mills and Whittier Hills, the City should preserve the area, and investigate alternatives to obtain fundinq to preserve it. it appears that the project is beinq pushed through, and forced upon the citizens of Diamond Bar. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that, based upon the Commission's review of the project, the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR may bs modified. Everyone's comments will be taken into consideration, including the approximately 22'200 letters received in favor of the project. The Commission will not be taking any positionTh rogardinq the project until the entire Project has boon presented, and all public testimony and February 25, 1993 Page 3 comments from other public agencies have been received. C/Plunk inquired if Mr. Dabney was indeed offended by the process that occurred at the February 22, 1993 meeting. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, explained that he, like the developers and the public, was somewhat offended by what appeared to be a breakdown of communication by staff during that meeting. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Plunk, explained that the City's fee for service policy requires developers to pay the costs of the services to be provided by staff. The developer, in this particular case, has paid application fees to the City in order to process the entitlement requests. Additionally, the developer is paying theCity for the costs associated with the City's hiring of two independent contractors, the environmental expo— and the project manager. C/Plunk, in response to a comment made by Mr. Fong, pointed out that the parks, at times, are heavily utilized, even though at certain times of the day it appears that they are never used. VC/Meyer noted that tho review of the EIR, and the entire project, will be duplicated before the city Council, which includes additional public hearings. CDD/DeStefano stated that, unlike most cities, is Diamond Bar's policy to require projects, such as this one, to come before the Planning Commission for it's review and consideration, at the tentative stages, before coming to the City Council in whic^ the process is then duplicated. CA/Curley stated that the California gnvironmenta: Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines have been fully met at the Commission level. Since public hearings are not required at the CEQA level, the public hearings given already exceed legal requirement. .~•e statutes are quite clear that there must be a circulation period, a review and a comment perio�. as well a period of finality to the EIR docume7- In response to a series of inquiries made VC/Meyer, CA/Curley made the following eomme. the Commission may recommend certification of EIR and then recommend denial of the e n - . - - pro j ect ; the commission can recoaend certi f i c a - . - of the EIR, then recommend modification of February 2S, 1993 CONTINUSD PUBLIC HEARINGG: General Plan Amendment 92-2; DA 92-1, 92-2, 92-3; Vesting TT Map 5140, CUP 92-8 i Oak Tree Permit 92-8; Vesting TT 32400, CUP 91-5, Zone Change 91-2 : Oak Tree Permit 91-2; TT Map 51253 i CUP 92-12; Oak Tree Permit 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; i EIR 92-9. Page 4 project less than what is proposed; the Commission can recommend certification of the EIR, and recommend conditions which exceed the range of the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR, within the legal premise of the entitlements; and the Council's final certification involves finding that the EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA, and that the final EIR was utilized in assessing the project and coming to a conclusion. VC/Meyer stated that specific issues regarding the EIR can be addressed during the process of review and consideration of the Master Plan, the tentative tract ups, and so forth. There is ample opportunity for the public to offer their comments for the conclusions drawn in the EIR. Tom Van winkle, a resident, pointed out the reason there is a referendum on the General Plan, and a law suit against the City, is because there have been projects, in the past, that have been packaged poorly, sent on to the Council from the Commission level, and then made worse at the Council level. Chair/Plamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:02 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:16 p.m. Hardy Strozier reported that the review period for the EIR has been tentatively completed, and the Commission has directed staff to begin preparation of a Resolution recommendinq certification of the EIR. The next process is to begin consideration of the various entitlement actions presented by the project proponents. Those entitlements include the following: a General Plan Amendment involving a redesignation of the water District parcel to planned development; two vesting tentative tract asps; one tentative tract map; the Hillside S�atfagemrnt Ordinance; three CUP's; and three Oak 'Ptse Removal Permits. The three CUP's and Oak Tree Permits will be incorporated into three separate draft Development Agreements, which will be presented to the Commission on a future date. Hardy Strozier then directed the remainder of his presentation to the slides exhibited before the Commission and the audience. The 78 slides to be presented is outlined in the staff report, entitled "Slide Presentation", which was submitted to the Commission by Mr. Strozier. The followinq is a brief summary of Hardy Strozier's presentation, highlighting some of the points mentioned: Slide 2 February 23, 1993 Page S o Demonstrates the location of the two blue line streams within the project site area the Sandstone Cafound in Corporation prnyon Water Shed and the Sasek Slide 3 operty. ° An aerial view of the Sandstone Canyon, Rapid View p,,•,highlighting property, exithe Arciero pad site for the water tasting building pads, the large r nk, Larkstane the location of an ample stand of oak treesan the Arciero Tract, the pristine area Sandstone Canyon, the location of of Homeowner Association the two property, the Patel Ownerships, the P-np the 400,000 cubic yardsartyd the school site, and Morning Sun Ave. Mr. Strozier, in response to inquiry regarding the ° Chair/Flamenbaum s the middle of the residential pen Spec* tacto parcel located Peaceful in Bills Road, suggested that the until the end of the presentation. uestion be held Slide 6. ° The view south to northern part of the 1lrcrit*hro standing on . na Rapid View looking towards Pathfinder. above area contains the majority of the caK woodland. Slide 7 O The view north to south, stands Rapid View,ab school looking southerly, and via ingbtne site. site and the graded portion of t!. Slide 8 O The view just above Larkston* looking east The area contains ample st woodlands. ands of the d Slid* 10 O Viewing the east side of the site, which was previously graded, as well as viewing c-, remnant stands of Oaks. The ArcieroIG 44 a„-. OYnership identifies 333 Oaks on the site, Which 156 oaks are identified in condition, 110 oaks in fair condition, and Oaks in poor condition. Slide it o There are 449 oaks located on the RnP s.•. The condition of the cake will be provide- _ later staff reports. The large heritage are located primarily in this area. Slide 12 pebruary 25, 1993 Page 6 ° The Patel property has 53 Oaks on Pointed out Morning Sun and the site. He stream. blue line Slide 13 o He reviewed the enclave areas; tract taking it's access merciaa off of the Arciero Road; the 31 acre comnyaon n emergency access l area that has from the Arciero tract; two to three points of access off of Brea Road from new Street A; and the Canyon providing a drop off point accesssforol site buses and cars off of Larkstone. school Slide 14 o Thera is a lar e o through the q pen space corridor moving up site, in which there ark iis 75te nto 90 acrd into es °=c°boel space that would be renaturalized active opsin Space area upon the Master Plan approval. VC/Meyer inquired if the developer has submitted an emergencyalternative that would provide either no access, or. requested access only, to Morning Sun, as was requested. Hardy Strozier stated sittthat the davalo ad such an alternative per has not analyzed. If the Commission, otWill ct access to Morning Sun, as to rastri it can be restricted the same way it was recommended on Larkstons. VC/Meyer stated that he wants to be sure that staff has that type of information available to analyze such an alternative. Slide 15 ° There is access for school site through emergency vehicles to the Larkstone Drive. slide 16 o the There is ample composition of active areas on baseballo fields, rith t! tennis, large vollifields, track, forth.Volleyball, and so Slide 17 ° There has bean discussion with district about taking the the School it to provide a better relationship two vthhee Slide pr8posed City park. ° There is a total of ould be 28 acres that w dedicated to the City, if the Master Plan is approved, of which to to 12 acres would be active Play area. The illustrative plan is in the EIR to illustrate the holding capacity of February 25, 1993 page 7 this park, and it demonstrates that there could be three full size adult softball fields, and one regulation soccer fields, as well as an amphitheater, utilizing parking access along Street A as well as the commercial area. Slide 21 o The Arciero tract takes it's major access an the collector road from Brea Canyon Road. He stated that there is a qas valve in the area that is noisy, however, there are mitigation measures that can attenuate that noise. Slide 22 o There are 91 dwelling units on 44 acres proposed on the Arciero tract, with a minimum of 7,200 square feet with a �3= minimum of 6,000 square feet, which consistent with the adjacent tracts. Slide 23 o It is possible to have through access from Arcierc tract on to Rapid view, and _. Commission direction, that alternative looked at in more detail. Slide 24 o Most of the noise attenuation from freeway, in the Arciero tract area accomplished by the natural terrain, ho�-P there are 6 homes identified in the DEIF may need some noise attenuation. That - attenuation can be accomplished by a six block wall, and it is suggested in the that a site specific noise study be inc with the final maps determining the hei:-• the wall, if it is needed at all. There are a variety of lot sizes beyor' 7,200 square foot lot sizes in the A:- tract. =tract. There are a lot of grade troy• employinq a lot of the contour 14r' concepts from the gillsido Grading Ord— furthermore, it was also suggested the' Oak woodland composition contain a var:•- trees other than just Oaks - Slide 25 o The commercial layoutof 31 acres presented Of represent any type of intens. rather a model of the type development that could occur, and the traffic impact that could occur in the • Slide 26 o The lot minimus is set at 6,000 squat* with a pad minimum size of 6,900 square All the lots have a lot depth recomm*' of 100 feet minimum, and a foot widt r feet, side yard setbacks of 5 and 1- Pebruary 2S, 1993 Page a With a 20 foot front yard back of right-of-way, There setback from the different tract alternatives, foare three o five Slide 27 in the dEIR. r the Patel ° There is an existing area. It is su g easement located in this be kept in that. aasementssted hat the access point transportation , enlargenin Slide 28 Purposes. 9 it for ° The original plan submitted b shows a through access into Y the applicants Slide 34 Larkstone. ° It also illustrates that could occur. P°ssible trail systems Slide 37 ° It illustrates the ori in this location. genal submittal b staff have Planning and Y Sasek identified reviewed Engineering technical the followingsubmittal and engineering oProblems with the it doesn't take into accoun i thtr tract design: and 27 lots will not work.large Slide 38 ° The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that this configuration is not a desirable situation. Slide 39 ° The Master Plan is trying developer can develop to ensure that each independently, withouadversely and/or another, and houtY affect one Master plan in t Maintaining some vintages of a and consistent tersof a circulation system, to the lotting design standards when it comes Slide 40J and grading arrangement. ° This concept into MorningPlan illustrates Street A teeing from the Sun, with a cul-de-sac Slide 41 with' property, coming 18 lots ° This cones t Proposed' Komi P plan shows Street A teeing into cul-de-sac, Sun, with a different variation of the cols tsac, with about 20 lots proposed. This statt splan better traltienCe, and it more closely tits a Master plan Ongineerinq relationship in the Slide 43 guidelines. Concept plan g would re grading between little reciprocal tract. the Rnp tract and the Patel VC/Heyer noting that there were attempt., of the other proposals, to salvageon some some natural February 23, 1993 Paqe 9 areas, yet it does not appear that the concept B proposal attempts to salvage any of the existing oak trees. Hardy Strotier explained that none of the proposals, on the west side of the Master Plan, have ever proposed preservation of the Oaks. Slide 44 o It shows a better view of the homes that exist off of Morning Sun. All these homes that would he built in this area would not take access off of Morning Sun, and there would be internal cul-de-sacs. Therefore, the homes along Morning Sun would maintain a high degree of privacy, and the only impact they would see is an additional amount of traffic moving on to Morning Sun. Slide 45 o It will be our recommendation that we bring some of the mitigation required into this existing permanent open space area to try to re-establish the property owned by Homeowners Association. VC/Meyer directed staff to approach the Homeowners Association regarding the open space area. Slide 47 o There does appear to be an existing corridor located in this area that could allow, in the future, some animal activity moving to and from other open space areas that occur off site. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:36 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:5o p.m. C/Plunk suggested that the slide presentation be continued to the next meeting to allow the Commission time to digest what has already been presented. The commission concurred. Jan Dabney, 671 area Canyon Road, the Engineer and Planner representing Arciero, RnP, and, when appropriate, Mr. Patel, stated that his presentation will be lengthy, and he will defer his comments until all the information has been presented to the public and the Commission. Jia Butkay, the Engineer representing Mr. Pat with the firm Butkey Design,, S Wrigley, Irvine. pointed out that the 3 or 4 alternatives shown Mr. Patel's 7 acres was informational in nature. February 25, 1993 Page 10 He then presented another alternative Patel's property, confined Strictlylayout on Mr, Which addresses some of the traffic concerns going to his site, out into Mornin 8,000 square foot minimkeeping the lot size at an Square foot minimum um, the pad size at a 6,000 as indicated in the Master Plan he same constraints some of the elements in the The following direct re through traffic access from thethere is out to Morning sun; the RnP street is cul-do the lots are located around the cul - is a 20 foot emergency access/cul-de-sac; there sewer connection; there is an existin , with a inlet; there are 23 lots around g 'tors drain there is a cul-de-sac on the south Patel'' site; longer cul-de-sac on , with a little the layout is the north that are lined up; with the exception within the tract property line, site is utilized bout 10 feet: the entire trees, or the Canyon;theno intent to preserve the Off of Morning Sun, end he are all lots do of take frontage development; there is a slo • the tract - there p bank that is fairly the ridge that and there is a considerable slope b constraints is unavoidable given the physical that exist on this site. Hardy Strozier stated that this alternative was just submitted plan opportunity to review and staff has not had the be presentin Mr- Butkey•s staff will Commission q a more thorough review for the next lots meetinq. Because the EIR evaluated 27 in that area, the plan environmental parameters of the disocumenwithin the t . Armed Patel indicated that he did not opportunitY to review the slides have regarding his property.Rar Presented tonight tcni nt rO ier stated that the 3 q mr• Patel -g slides present Nven alternatives takenfromthewR11R• three of the Chair/Flamenbaye declared opened. the public hearing C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 10:20 p•m, due to poor health. Don Schad requested that the public comment of the EIR be reopened because the comments portion the apartment of Fish and available to Game were not made the public until late in'the process. HQ pointed out that since the Tree ordinance does not address all trees, the EIR is incomplete. The February 25, 1993 Page 11 EIR should be as thorough as possible. Furthermore, the South Pointe Middle School should be separated from the project. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the DEIR does acknowledge that the destruction of the Oak trees are significant, however, staff feels that the Tree Ordinance mitigates this by requiring a replacement ration of 2:1. CDD/DaStefano stated that staff has received correspondence daily, regardinq the EIR and the Master Plan, and has immediately presented them to the commission and the consultants. All letters have been, and will be, made part of the public record, and is available to the public. Hardy Strozier pointed out that there have been two additional mitigation measures added to the EIR upon review of the letter from the Department of Fish and Game by the Planning Commission. All comments made have been researched and responded to in the Response to Comment document. For examp -- on page 4-60 of the Response to Comment docume it responds to a concern, made by Mr. Schad regarding the Monterey Blue Butterfly, and indicates that the Department of Fish and Game has confirmed that there is no record of this species of insect found in the California Natural Diversity Data Base, nor is it listed in the Endangered Species Act. Staff has gone to every extent to respond to technical concerns. Oscar Law, residing at 20511 Pathfinder, stated that he feels that Mr. Schad's suggestion to preserve Sandstone Canyon, making a childrens museum and an observatory, should be acted upon by the Commission. If the project is to be built, then it should be built with the minimum amount of effect to the canyon, protecting the wildlife, nurturing the flora and the fauna in the area, and maintaining the balance of nature. Air quality is a significant issue and vegetation is needed to keep the air clean. He also stated that the City's building inspector, as well as the school District, should have insisted that the developer move the dirt. .In response to vC/meyer's inquiry, he stated that he would support a bond to acquire the property to preserve it. Hardy Strozier, correcting a'statement made by Law, pointed out that the environmental consult--. did find that there was significant, unavoidable effects, and that the project should not move February 25, 1993 Page 12 forward due to the adverse effects on the region. A Statement of Overriding Considerations would have to be made to that environmental finding in order to approve the project. CDD/DeStefano, in response to a comment made by Mr. Law, explained that the walnut Unified School District is an autonomous agency that does not need, nor are they required, to come to the local City for building inspection, construction, or a plan check. Furthermore, the City was not incorporated at the time of the construction of the school. All of the remaining dirt is on the School District property. Hardy Strozier explained that the school was developed prior to the City incorporating, and therefore, prior to the City's grading ordinance. The School District's EIR indicates that the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt must be moved either down Larkstone Drive or put into the Canyon. The School District is required by law to conform to the City's grading plan. Jan Dabney, representing Arciero, explained that there was an agreement made between the School District and Arciero to move an "X" amount of dirt, as agreed to by the County. However, when the City incorporated, the City did not concur with the grading plan as stipulated in that contract, thus the issue existing today. Max Maxwell made the following comments: the planning Co ission should not be discussing this project until the General plan issue is resolved; the City and the School is holding the construction of the Middle School hostage; no one is willing to consider some of the other alternatives mentioned regarding preservation, or an alternative haul road for removing the dirt; the consultant, Hardy Strozier, appears to be defensive on the comments presented; there appears to be internal conflicts occurring among the developers and the consultants; a Response to Cosent document was not given to his upon his request; the School EIR was finalized approximately S years ago; and the EIR should be tabled until all questions and comments have been adequately answered. CDD/DeStefano stated that the document was noticed within the newspaper, sent to a wide, variety of people, and made available at the City gffices and the library, and made available for loan for those individuals that did not wish to purchase the February 23, 1993 Page 13 document. This is the 7th time, since October of 1992, that the Commission has discussed this project in a public setting. There are going to be more hearings before the Planning Commission, and this whole process will be repeated at the City Council level in terms of reviewing the entitlement request and the EIR. Therefore, this is not a project that is being fast tracked. The Response to Comment document was presented in it's final form to the City staff last week, immediately presented -to the Commission in their agenda packet, and made available to the public at the City Hall and the library, as is all agenda material. In response to Mr. Maxwell's comment regarding internal conflicts, CDD/DeStefano explained that amendments to the project are part of the process because it is intended to be a dynamic document. it is part of the City's responsibility to resolve any conflict that may exist between independent developers, and independent proposals. Part of the intent of this Master Plan is to erase the property lines and look at this area as if it is one lot -of 170 acres. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the questioned raised regarding alternatives of the exportation of dirt from the project site is responded to on page D-19 of the Response to Comment document. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning sun, referrinq to the response made in the Response to Comment document, on page 5-56, regarding the impact of putting Street A through into Morning Sun, stated that the response made seems poorly researched, with not a lot of thought put into it. She pointed out that because of the steep nature of the streets, cars tend to travel faster, ani because there are many curves without stop signs or centerlines, cars tend to cut the corners. In response to vC/Heyer, she stated that she opposes the total project, both in the destruction of the canyon and the cont iquration of the houses proposer on the Patel property. The proposal will put a rc. of block wall fences alonq the strut. If homes were to be developed, than they should be the same size as the existing lot sizes. She indicated tn3- she would support a bond issue if she were par` _. the City. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the develoF- proposed by Mr. Patel is equivalant to wha po currently existing. February 25, 1993 Page 14 VC/Meyer requested staff to determine what the financial obligation would be to the tax payer to buy the site, if the answer to the entire project is to leave this site in it's existing state. Chuck Dowler, residing on Morning Sun, stated that the majority of the lots in the area are a minimus of a third of an acre. He expressed the following concerns: the block wall fence attracts graffiti; though he would prefer no development, if the homes are developed, they should face Morning Sun; and eliminating the street on Morning Sun, and cul-de- sacing the street assists in successful robberies. Hardy Strozier indicated that he has asked Mr. Butkey to provide staff with a design of homes fronting Morning Sun, for the Commission's review. In response to VC/Meyer, Mr. Dowler stated that he too would support a bond issue, but if that does not occur, then he would support a maximum of 14 homes on Mr. Patel's property. Ton Van estated tthe Commission needs to also consider theideatofaconservancy as well as a bond issue. Max Maxwell stated that there is money available for a conservancy and the City needs to research the possibility. Ron Beachen, residing complete5Black prasarvatio Hawk, stated andhe that he too Supports would support a bond issue or a conservancy. Mike Nola", residing at 1612 Morninq sun, made the following comments: his lot is about 13,000 square feet; there should be no access onto Morning Sun; it would be preferable if the area stayed in then natural state; and if it is to bedeveloped? some Of en it should be done responsibly, preserving the trees and some of the canyon. Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, the President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, made the faco�llowingi comments: a conservancy can be a good t off; the City should investigate dirt brokers willing to buy the dirt on the school property; there is grading occurring now on Mr. Patel's property; a wall will not sufficiently mitigate the noise that will effect 'the properties in the Pathfinder Homeowners Association; rie proposed amphitheater will effect their property February 25, 1993 Page is and originally, Mr. Patel was to build only three homes on the 6.77 acres. VC/Meyer inquired if the would be amenable to discuss meownerssociation alternatives to improve and a with the developers area for natural Whence the o habitat. pen space Norman Beach Cushane explained that the reason that Open space area is 1eft in because the Homeowners Associit's present s told that any improvement wone state is Homeowners Association would to the �f maintainingbecome responsible for the property from exaplained that, according to then °n• He then the amp ty lot on the original county noted by Chair/Flamenba� Peaceful Hills Road, as presentation, is during the sl ue amphitheater is an access, to where the hoses were to now being proposed, in which two that the be built in that area. He stated Y are also concerned that a easement area, to the Path, in the encourage robberias in thproposed park will the question In respons that made by VC/Beyer., ��.. Cushane stated develo the Vere to be discussion with the pars regarding alternatives to the opan ace area, a lot of trading their plans infringe onwauld have to occur beca:se they would be represented ot of our property, a.,.., Association are amenable Llegally. The Homeowners this land, raising money to c� Jan Dabney, in res ry regardin ponse to Chair/Flamenbaus.s inqui g possible Patera property, a grading occurring on M; eroded the browdrain, xplained that the hes homes drain constructed to heavy rainfe^e in tract 27141, and the Slope protect Since the uphill part of the alo pe had faire; property, and the downhill Pe is on Rnp s Kr. Patel's property, Part of the slope Is good nei ethere was an agreement, as , 9hbor, to restore the al� Sed drain to protect the adjacent _ I and Patch --o back yards, even though hom•ovn.., obligation for Mr. Patel g there is no 19.+ that homeowners tract' htcierc to mains, - drain. Norman Beach Cushans, Chair/rlanenbaum.s in response stated that he has inquiry regarding dirt broke Onlcontact one dirt broker y had °PPortunit, C/Plunk• He will att and he was referre brokers. yPt to contact other : February 25, 1993 Page 16 Barbara. Beach Cushane Hill Road residing at 2021 Peaceful received b the Cit if the approximate 200 directly Y the City b n support of the project letters e Y affected Y the development.are xPlained that the existing lots She tract are that aize in the Pathfinder agreement that there would cause there was an if Mr. Patsies developIDent Occurs spacious open s Open space wouldthen most pace. and traffic. taken away, �increasin °f the 4 noise Chair/Flamenba counted all the sted that he has not act uall Project, however signatures in support o! tho Public record and area petitions axe put Of the available for review, Jennifer Chism, residing at iS70 expressed her support for total S. Black Hawk, Chair/ total Preservation. declared declared the Public Hearin be determined. to be continued to a date a was Yet to Motion was made Chair/Flamenbaum and y VC/Meyer, seconded continue CARRIED TJNANIMpUSLY tc 1993. the matter to the meeting of March 22, vC/Meyer suggested that meeting, if time the Commission, at the next slams nts of the Mashits, begin review of the standards and determine plan to establish design be dealt with. Policy issues that should �C Motion was made by VC/Ke er CARRIZD �INOUSLY to adjourn seconded Y C/Li and ppm. ng at 11.40 Respectively, James DeStefano Attest: Secretary Bruce Flamenbaua Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 12, 1993 Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at CALL TO ORDER: 7:11 P.m, at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond gar,California. The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by PLEDGE OF Community Development Director James DeStefano. ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Li was sworn in by City Clerk Linda SWEARING IN. Burgess as Planning Commissioner. ROLL CALL: CONSENT CALUDAR= Minutes of Mar. 22, 1993 CONTIMM PUBLIC =8AR2Y"= Commissioners: Grotha, Plunk, Li, vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director Planning Technician Ann Lungu, James DaStafano, Fox, Interim City Deputy City Attorney Craig tz, and Contract Recording Engineer George Wen Secretary Liz Myers. requested the Minutes of March 22, 1993 be C/Plunk ..and according to amended on page 10 to indicate " T the gentleman from the Whittier conservancy, i - took..•" icated that he has read t Uat meeting, es VC/Meyer indan, listened to the tapas of the Subject is prepared to vote on the minutes. C/Li will be abstaining from voting on the minutes because he was not in attendance at the subjec- msating. Motion was mads by C/Grotha, seconded by C/Pl22 and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of March z� 1993, as amended. C/Li abstained. Pla- CDD/DGStsfano stated that this proposed Master bound*! project is located l 171 acts area bound � ' generally by property iota sad th Of pathfinder generally west of Brea Canyon Road, and east of Mornir: the South points Middle school, the ch 2: Sun. The project was Onti.Z sdrispr�sentstive, J&- 1993 000tinq. The app ch 3: Dabney, has requested, via a let conte ued again - 1993, that the Public hearing refinismen� order to allow more tths fpavolopment Agroeuen•l and negotiation Of and to furtr* between the City and the applicants, mandations bei. examine the fiand nal staff consideration given to special m prepared .aetin9 on April 19, 1993. General Plan Amendment 91-2; DA 92-1, 2, and 3; vesting TT MAP 51407, CUP '92-S Q OT 92-8; ZC 91-2 4 OT 91-2 ; ' TT MAP 51253 i CUP 92-12; OT 92-9; SP Master Plan; i EIR 92-1 the Planning CaOissl Following discussion, item to the raga•' concurred to continue the 26, 1993 Planning Commission meeting of April April 12, 1993 page 2 6:00 p.m.. The requested date of April 19, 1993 was in conflict with the schedules of some of the Commissioners. The Master Plan project is to be placed first on the agenda, and if all other items cannot be heard that evening, then the meeting will be continued to April 29, 1993. Jan Dabney, representing the applicants, stated that April 26, 1993 at 6:00 p.m. is acceptable. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, indicated that a continuance to April 26, 1993 appears to be acceptable to audience members. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum A eclared the public hearing closed and continued. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Gtothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the meeting to April 26► 1993 at 6:00 p.m. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OFHE PLANNING 7I 199;COXXISSION CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at the south Coast Air Quality Management 6:11 p.m. at District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by PLEDGE OF P,LLEGIANCE: Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Plunk, vice Chairman Meyer, and Commissioner Li arrived at Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Grothe arrived at 6:57 6:19 p.m. and p.m. Also present were Community Development Director Planning Technician Ann Lunqu, James DeStafano, City Deputy City Attorney Fox, Recording a d Contractterim Engineer Georgege Wentz,Craig Secretary Liz Myers. C0118S1iT CALENDAR= Chair/ lamenbaum indicated th staff has item 2 be pulled the Consent recomme dad that be Calanda . Chair/Flamenbaum requ tad item 3 o Minutes of pulled f om the Consent Calends as well. Apr. 12, 1993 1993 be C/plunk re sated the Minute o! April 1 Foothill that amended on age 5 to indic a prasbyterian Hospital ha possibly 0 landings *corded in o s year, but at the inf ruction will chocked." it/Flame seconded by No ion was meads y rove the USL Minuoesrand of April 1 ED1g93,N as ndsd.cpp Resolution of ICE/Wo tz stated a the wor "grading permits" i #14 should be changed to Approval for condit' n on page a remainder of the " lding Bruit " CUP 93-2 stats conditions re tisfact as written. C/Plunk sugge ed that co tion #16 be amended to is required by indicate "... said pro owner and condition #19 the City to p ovi a such ccs , in irate for Sunday services should be nded o t " to re lace the statement or largo sp cial e hours o 00 to 14 hours". "between Motion s made by VC/Meyer seconded by SLY to approve UNANov Chair/Fl anbaum an CAR App for 93-2, as the Res lution o amended aserica Realty thatitc Finding ICE/We tz repor�ed qu aim is interest in Conformity Of Sorvi •s has off rad t a strip of land located along the south side of 10 of Tract draft General for Prospectors Road and Lots 3,4,s,9, and Springs Drive. The Plan acquisition No. 26203 west of Golden, April 26, 1993 Page 3 property along the south side of Prospectors Road west of Golden Sp ings Drive. ROLL\ L: AYES: ISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: OMMISS RS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSION : None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. CONTINUED Hardy Strozier, Project !tanager, reported that this is continued public hearing regarding the PUBLIC ZZARINGS: a following items: South Pointe Master Plan General Plan Environmental Impact Report No. 92081040; General 3 Development Agreements; Vesting Amendment 92-2; DA 92-1, 2, and 3; Plan Amendment; Tentative Tract 32400 Arciero); tentative Tract Vesting TT Map 51253 (Patel); Vesting Tentative Tract 41407 (RnP); Hillside Management Ordinance Conditional Use 51407, CUP 92-8 i OT 92-8; ZC 91-2 i 3 Permits; 3 oak Tree Removal Permits. The -proposed OT 91-2; TT Map project is located in the southwestern area of the area of approximately 1= - 51253 i CUP 92-12; City, encompassing an The project site is comprised of a num OT 92-9; SP !taster Plan; i EIR 92-1 acres. of existing parcels and ownership interest: generally described as being situated westerly of the Orange Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly boundaries of the City, and of the corporate northerly of Pathfinder Road and the existing residential area. The four applicants are RnP Development, Inc., Arciero and Sons, Inc., Sasak The Corporation, and the City of Diamond Bar. staff report includes a series of procedures recommended by staff, as well as responses, or the to Planning Commission location of those responses, questions raised at previous meetings. There is also a response to questions submitted by VC/Meyer biological and by C/Plunk. Furthermore, a cougar included which responds to a study has also been concern regarding cougars in the project area. Hardy Strozier then presented the conclusion to the a meeting. slide presentation given at previous The first few slides illustrated an overview of the project area, for the benefit of those who were not presentation, which present during the first slide attempted to bring forth the data from the EIR, in shown summary photo form. The remaining thio Slides focused upon cross section, ; inside the project and describe attempting to get what is oacurrinq with the grading plan and l' tt, use plan. The following is a summarization of slide presentation: April 26, 1993 page 4 I� �� - Illustrates the 57 freeway along Brea Canyon Road area- he Thera is Of a 155' foot setbackback oolt the df�rst 0 on Road to the difference of Brea Carly and an elevation building, 50 feet from Brea Canyon Road to approximately which illustrates the slope of the first home, act with the why there is very little noise impact of cut is proposed project. Th s maximum dap 97' feat.Sandstone Canyon C The location of the existing depth of fill is stream is illustrated* is 82' Leet. pointe middles Sch ool O The South illustrated • Thi a an ish6d, elevation change outh 40' feet between the finished ciiro finished points middle School to the dostrian pad. The Master Plan provides Lor pe access from the �� Tract cut on ths school Paths site. The depth o 42' Last. bit « « - Illustrates a little northerly of cross section "I► back from area Thera is still the 120' Lthe proposed Arciaro o however, Canyon Stood, an Canyon Road, and the 57 freeway Tract at this location is 75' last higherCanyon existing area fast highsr than Dr the is around depth o! cut is 65' fast, and Road. The dap is 70' foot. a also depth of fill of the existing the location ,trout andstone Canyon. There is about a 40' foot olovatand the finish o bet,. W the Arc aero fines depth o=! cut is 701 pad o! the school- test at the school building pad. �a 0 - Illustrates the north to south direction, cutting through the lrcisro Tract• ill betweenthe foot tall h o Thsrs is a 75• units, or Garason PlaCe, existing residential 60� fest- at the proposed Arcisro tract• Of cut at this location the hill to C Ths deptha rtion of allows I butler betweenthe The design ` a sat and the regain residential, Garazon Place. 'existing tract• the proposed Trope between rcial is _ o The transition the oftics/cam roe: The depth of Lill at the point illustrated* April 26, 1993 Page S Of the commercial area is 401 a 120' foot setback feet. There commercial Proposed between is structures, structures and the the 0 The continuation of the residential into the proposed South residential pad moving illustrated, showin Pointe park area "A"• Street "Alf, g the location of street grade with the eat this location, t at falls off from stre�trN i» 1 area• The slope the Homeowners A down towards one of parcels. Association's ° There is a 55the � °ership "A" and foot set back between street property line Association open space parceof the' R00eowners l. 57 freewa - Illustrates beglnninq from the commercial area, then westerly , cutting through Patel pro y. through the RnP, 9 the pert and then the o Brea Canyon Road, grade with the at this location, i! t It is also about so 6, ed °�rcial proper_,. 57 freeway, still havin feet higher than th the freeway t to the ample visibility froi ° The depth of cut at °aercial property. feet, which is a this location is 111' the commercial area�x�tely in the middle of o The depth Of Lill at 66� feet, the existinq stream is the can on Half of the c°mercial area is in 1' and half in the cut area where the hill exists. Preserving SOm0 of the slide Slopes and soma of the canyon area would eliminate approximately 1/2 of the proposed 3: acre commercial area. ° The park site g area, is illustratb, across the commercial the southerly locating street "Alf- ggested b y Portion of the park, as su y staff. commercial site era The park site and t^e level, makin Pretty much at grape o q them assessable to one another. is 4h of cut in this area 1a 60@ feet. There is a 320 loot open space Se the edge of street N • Paration betwee- the RnP tract. h and the first home It the how half pahrekpair4k usabis flatlebut and inusable, and how half a -•' environment. The first how passive open sr3 _ is separated, from a the RnP t " the active noise standpoint, o Movinq westerly frtom Patel tract y the RnP tract into Horning Sung the lUBtrae in =in the locat i c 7 loot cut o, April 26, 1993 Page 6 Patel portion. The Patel tract has a blue line stream, and around 50 Oak Trees associated with it. Cross section "E" - Illustrates north to south through the Homeowners Association ownership, which is located on the west side of the property cutting through the Peaceful Hills property. o There is approximately an 80' foot setback between the existing homes and the proposed homes, which generally relates to the setback characteristics of the RnP and the Patel tracts at that location. The typical existing grade in depth of fill in this area is about 46' feet. o The existinq residential Peaceful Hills tract is located at an elevation of 98o, feet. There is an approximate 165' foot grade differential between the home that overlooks the HOA open space area and the first home of the RnP tract. There is an 111' foot setback difference between the property line of the Peaceful Hills nearest home and the property line of the.nearest home proposed at the RnP tract at this location. Cross section "F" - Illustrates from the Peaceful Hills subdivision crossing north, northwest to a point near Horning sun Drive in the Patel tract. o The existing residential Peaceful Hills is at an elevation of 930' feet. o The proposed grade at RnP is 810' feet, and there is an 180 foot grade differential. o There is no view line obstruction between the existing residential and the proposed residential. There is a 90' foot property line setback between the RnP property and the Homeowners Association property. There is a 1650 foot setback between the first hose at Peaceful Hills and the first home at RnP. Cross Section OG",- Illustrates from Peaceful Hills north, northeast through the Arciero tract and through the commercial site. o There is a 320' foot setback between the first existinq residential home on Glenthorpe Drive, and a 100' foot elevation difference between the first home at Glenthorpe Drive and the first home at the Arciero tract, whereas the Arciero tract would be at a higher elevation. April 24, 1993 page 7 The depth of cut at this location is l feet. o The beginning of the commercial property is from Glenthrope Drive to the edge of the residential property. The depth of fill of the commercial site is 731 feet, o The parks site in relationship of the commercial site is illustrated, with street "A" located on the Southside. It is a flat pad. The depth of fill at the park site is 69' feet. There is a loo, foot elevation higher to the existing homes at Peaceful Hills to the park site. The setback is over ioc, feet. Hardy Strozier concluded the slide presentation,, which also concluded staff's presentation of the various elements of the Master Plan, and the technical elements of the proposed grading concepts. It is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission invite the three developers to present their respective projects within proposed South Pointe Master Plan area. Sasak RnP have prepared alternative tentative tract map! for the Commission's review, which were included ;n the March 22, 1993 staff report. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:05 pm The meeting was reconvened at 7:20 p.m. Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to the South Pointe Master Plan booklet attachment "B" of the Jan. 2t 1993 muting, requested more information regard: -q the transfer of land. Hardy Strozier stated that the City owns about - acres of residual slope easement property locates along Brea Canyon Road, 2.5 acres of exist:-; Larkstone Park, and 5 acres of the former Water District property, totaling about 15 acres to c* dedicated to the developers. The developer s proposing to dedicate a 28 acre park site, .-i another 10 to 15 acres of commercial propert, totaling 39 to a3 acres that will be dedicated the City. The City will end up with a net 15 to acres more useable property with this Master P.& - in it's various transactions. The City also qe•% land back from the School District, in which City will transfer that land to RnP, who in t: - will transfer commercial acreage and park acre to the City. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, consultant RnP and Arcierc on the Master Plan, explainer April 26, 1993 Page • he was hired by RnP, January of 1991, to meet with the City on the development of their 78 acres. They met with the City, and individually with the Council members, to propose an empty pallet for the Council to outline the desires of the community on RnP's ownership. The following concerns were addressed by the Council: environmental issues surrounding the canyon; the School District's capabilities to proceed with the construction of a Middle School; the proposed Arciero tract; and concerns on what would occur with this 171 acres undeveloped, and it's impacts on the surrounding community. After viewing the project for 6 or 7 months, it was recommended by the then City Manager that a Master Plan or a Specific Plan be developed, allowing for the best utilization of the entire property. The Master Plan was predicated by a market analysis which addressed many of the concerns raised by the public such as the devaluing of the adjacent properties, the general development of the residential aspect and enclaves, the sizing of the lots, and vacancies. The first consideration of the overall aspects of the Master Plan was the cost of the land, and the economics of the marketing of the properties. The planning aspects of the location of the commercial, the park, street "A", the aesthetics of the project, and all the accesses have been serious studied. If a street is to be realigned, one must consider the dramatic impact it would have on the entire project. Another major consideration of the Master Plan was a density analysis. It has always been the intent to have this Master Plan be the least donee develop wnt, as far as actual lots per acre, in the entire area, and to create a recreational area that the children could enjoy. He then reviewed the following densities of the existing developments: Tract 27141 has a gross area of 75 aores,with 224 single family detached residential omits, sed a gross density of 3.04 DU/acre; Area 1, h=ss surrounding Morning Sun, has a gross area of 7.7 acres, with 24 single family detached units, a gross density of 3.12 DU/acre, and an average lot size was 10,400 square feet, the biggest lot being 15,390 square feet, and the minimum lot being 4,260 square fat; and Area 2 has a gross area of 32.5 acres, with 117 units, a gross density of 3.6 DU/acre, with an average lot size of 9,450 square feet; Area 3, surrounding South Points Middle School, consists of 109 acres, with 290 units, for a gross density of 2.65 unit, and an average lot size of 12,760 square foot, with a minimum lot of 7,100 square foot (There was not any dedication of park or open space in the development of these April 24, 1993 Paqe 9 specific project); Area 4, the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, has a gross area of 89.93 acres, with 173 single family detached residential units, which includes 36.9 acres of dedicated open space, and an improved 1.65 acres developed park within the community, with a gross density of 1.92 DU/acre, and an average lot size net development of 10,400 square feet, with a minimum lot size of about 6,600 square feet. The Pathfinder Homeowners Association was a density transfer from the *•:c open spaces set aside to allow the cluster development under County zoning. VC/Heyer inquired of the difference between gross density and net net density. Jan Dabney explained that the net net number - derived from the actual lot, excluding the stree- parks, dedicated open space, and calculates •- intensity of the development and not. dens:-.~ There are three density configurations: q: ; density which includes the street; not de�� which includes all the park and open space excludes the street; and the net net density excludes everything but the true lot. CDD/DeStefano confirmed that the density prov:s in the City's Zoning ordinance are based upon density. Jan Dabney then reviewed the following donsit..- the Proposed developments: Area 5, the development, has a gross area of 61.6 acres. . 90 single family detached residential units, includes the dedication of 2.5 acres of open s.• and 28.05 acres of park, and has a gross dens. - 1.46 units per acre, with an average lot s.:• almost 12,000 square feet, a maximus lot s. 18,700 square feet, and a minimum lot size of square feet; Area 6, the Arciero development. gross area of about 41 acres, with 91 single' is detached residential units, which include: acres of dedicated open space, and a gross de , of 2.23 units per acre, with an average lot s 9,200 square feet, a maximum lot size of and a minimum lot size of 7,200 square fee• combined area of Arciero and W is 102 acr*+ 181 single family units, with a gross dens 1.77 units per adre over the Master Plan; the property, depohdinq on the final propose: from 1.77 to 1.85 average density across the Plan. April 26, 1993 Page 10 Jan Dabney stated then that all concerns have been considered and evaluated. An analysis, completed about two years ago to determine the feasibility of leaving a portion of the canyon open, concluded that doing so would not really be a benefit to the City because it would still require the removal of the top of the hill, the removal of the vegetation, and the buttressing of the existing slides. This Master Plan, as presented, was developed to blend the various aspects desired by the City. The park configuration was laid out to break up the commercial from the School District, and the commercial from the residential development, and to provide an excellent buffer between the existing development on top of Peaceful Hills and the commercial. The location of street "A" serves to provide for some protection in case there is a condition of slippage. Those opposing the project seen to be 1 environmentalist, and g its 1 part Politician, parts not in my back yard". Those on Morning Sun have indicated that they are opposed to the development because they have a substandard street. However, in reality, Morning Sun is not A substandard street, and though there is no sidewalk built in the right-of-way, they do enjoy the use of 12 feet of the County ' s Property instead. if this project was not to be approved because of the sidewalk, which is about an $18,000 cost, the owners of the property would probably be willing to resolve this single issue. vC/Neyer inquired if the developers not with the Pathfinder Homeowners Association to explore the possibilities of improving their existing open space Property for additional passive recreational, and exploring possibilities of allowing public access to the area. Jan Dabney stated that, in his opinion, the concern that the Pathfinder Homeowners Association had, regarding the enhancement of their property and the Passive area around there, was that they preferred not to give up anything in their fight to stop the project. If in fact the project does develop, they would probably then give some consideration to those mitigations. vC/Keyer inquired if it would be possible to provide public access , to the Homsovners Associations open space for passive recreational use* He also inquired if part of the ancient landslide is within the Pathfinders Homeowners Association's open spaci area. April 25, 1993 Page 11 Jan Dabney stated that the open space area does lend itself nicely to passive recreational aspects. The ancient landslide appears to stem from Mr. Schad's house down to the park. VC/Meyer requested a preliminary engineering feasibility study of moving road "A" northerly against the Arciero project. Jan Dabney stated that locatinq the road on the northerly side, adjacent to the Arciero tract, saves some of the Oak trees, but it does not yield as much of the canyon as anticipated because a 2:1 slope would not be allowed within the City due to the hillside considerations to that specific grading avenue. if there was no improvement to the canyon whatsoever, the true location for street "A" would be on the southern end of the property because it has the least intrusive impact on the canyon coming from that direction. He then pointed out that the private property owners involved in this Master Plan have a .development potential of 452 dwelling units, but only approximately i units are being proposed. Furthermore, almost Of the entire RnP and Arciero ownership, within the residential development, is beinq transferred to either passive or recreational park facility or open space. Jan Dabney, in response to VC/Meyer's inquiry regarding the closures of Rapid View and Larkstone, stated that, strictly from an engineerinq point of view with no consideration to City policy, every street should be connected to lessen the impact on every specific neighborhood. it is not desired havinq just emergency access to Morninq Sun because of the associated fire hazards, even though the minimum fire department standards are not by having emergency access only to Morning Sun. Upon the request of C/Grothe, Jan Dabney showed the slide illustrating the location of the development as compared to the location of the existing canyon. About 1.4 million yards of dirt will have to be cut to create that commercial strip center, regardless if any of the dirt is put in the canyon. The tree count. does go down on tha easterly side of the specific canyon, but the tree size appears to be more significant. C/Grothe suggested that, as an alternative to has been proposed, a portion of the dirt be put the east side of the canyon to gain back a fa: - amount of the commercial pad, and then placing 1�".e April 26, 1993 Page 12 rest of the dirt on the center of the development creating a hill in the middle, with Brea Canyon and the school on either side. This mimics the general topography of the City, which are hillsides, and mitigates the problems associated with lights, and sounds from the freeway. Though this configuration would eliminate a lot of the park, it also reduces grading and cutting down into the canyon. The road would be designed at the base, wrapping around with some access roads into the housing development, and no homes would front that road. Jan Dabney pointed out that most of the Councilmembers urged them to consider a strong, large, active recreational community. Having a smaller commercial development, and leaving a portion of the canyon, was considered, however, if the commercial development becomes too narrow along Brea Canyon Road then terrible marketing constraints develop. One of the considerations of this project is the huge traffic generator immediately before us. The traffic count on the 57 freeway is dramatic to this project. C/Grothe stated that the developers have a responsibility to build a project that resembles the rest of Diamond Bar. Most of the development in Diamond Bar does not have such gigantic flat pads and development, but rather terraces up and down hills. Jan Dabney pointed out that the mountain, for the development in the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, was completely cut off flat, and the entire cut was put in the original Sandstone Canyon headwaters. We are very sensitive to this specific neighborhood, more so, historically, than people have ban in the past. C/Grothe stated that he has been requesting Potentials and possibilities for the last 6 months demonstratinq why the shopping center would or would not work. It is important to remember that what is hot in retail building and construction today may change in two to three years. It is short sighted to do planning based upon sales tax revenues. There is a need to review the options to determine if the project presented is the best project to be proposed. Jan Dabney pointed out that the one thing not changing is the City's declining revenue versus service costs. He explained that many of the things being suggested through mitigation have April 26, 1993 Page 13 already added over $5,000 per lot for the planning function, and $7,500 per lot for tree mitigation for Mr. Arciero's project. If the wheel is reinvented at this point, from a conceptual point Of view, it would add a substantial amount of money to the cost of the development. After 2,000 man hours on this project, the plan presented today is very sensitive to the community needs. C/Plunk requested Mr. Dabney to compare this project to the approximate 200 unit project turned down by LA County a few years back. she then suqqested that there be consideration made to assure that the commercial center is not a size that would only hold dry cleaners and pizza parlors. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired it there has been a survey conducted on the San Diego horned lizard, as referred to in the EIR. Hardy Strozier stated that the survey has been conducted which indicated that the horned lizare not on the site. The written results of the sur will be given to the Comsission when it is received. Furthermore, the Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. have contended that there are no cougars present in the canyon. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the-meetinq at 9:08 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m. Frank Arciero Jr., of Arciero i Sons, 950 N. Tustin, Anaheim, made the following comments: they have researched and studied various different designs to the project to try and mitigate the Potential problems; the site is unique in that one is confined in certain areas; staff has been available to answer any of the Commission's questions up to this point; the project presented, and denied, before the LA County Planning Cossission was for a 120 unit seniors development; when the School District expressed an interest in buying part of the property, they returned to the County's Commission with an R-1 development, but because the city, at that tine, was ready to incorporate, the project was put aside, and he decided to wait until after incorporation to present a project; the City called his a year later to discuss master planning tpe entire area; 3 - years later, we are still trying to discuss master plan; and an EIR was cikaulated and approved allowing his to move the dirt, and he has the funding and the mechanism to sov* the dirt today; April 26, 1993 Page 14 and he has not moved the dirt because he has wanted to be in good standing with the City. In response to VC/Mayor's inquiry regarding the history of the Rapid View access to his site, Mr. Arciero Jr. explained that originally there was access to Larkstone Drive and Rapid View, but there was a lot Of opposition and concern that the development would create a lot of traffic going through Rapid View. During the course of mediation, the School came forward and suggested the configuration proposed today, with the primary access being on Brea Canyon Road to include an emergency access. The design for South Pointe Middle School has been completed and approved by the State architect. Though access to the school from the project has been cut off, a pedestrian access will be created through a walkway so that the children can take access to the school via a path. Hardy Strozier confirmed that the Arciero development will generate 30 trips a day, which is not a significant number of new trips for a local collector. VC/Meyer inquired if Arciero's project could be redesigned to provide access to Rapid View. Frank Arciero Jr. stated that the redesign may be feasible but research would be needed to determine to what extent, taking into consideration the School constraints. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, he stated that there is no present impediment for them to move that dirt at this point, with the exception of obtaining a Fish and Game Permit, which is not a problem. The dirt has not been moved at this time because he would prefer to work with the City. He then corrected that the amount of dirt generated by this plan is ao more than 4.5 million cubic yards of dirt, as opOosed to the 9 million that was mentioned. In response to C/Grothe, Frank Arciero Jr. stated that though he does not yet have the grading permit to nova the dirt, he could work something out with the school district to do the grading, if needed. James Budke, President of Budke Design, S Wrigley, Irvine, repreantinq Mr. Patel, made the following comments regarding the proposed project: there are 6.7 acres with an average slope of 12% to 15%; there is a 136' feet of elevation change from the lowest point to the highest point; ,there is a portion of blue line stream, of about 300 fat, on site; there are 53 coast live oaks to be removed; there are 23 lots proposed; there will be 145,800 April 26, 1993 Page 15 cubic yards of cut; the on site fill is 8,790 cubic yards with an export of about 58,000 cubic yards; the deepest cut occurs on lot 016 of 41 feet; the highest fill on the site is on lot #14 for approximately 50 feet; the minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet; the minimum pad size proposed is 6,000 square feet; the largest lot is 16,700 square feet; the average lot is 10,200 square feet; and the density is 3.43, which is comparable to the surrounding neighborhood. He then presented several alternatives to the site, as indicated :n the staff report, that have been laid out responding to comments made by the Commission, staff, and members of the audience. He then presented a slide presentation illustrating a brief overview of the alternatives for Mr. Patel's site, as presented in the staff report. Concept #4 is the preferred proposed alternative. Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that Concept 04 completely disenfranchises those residents that live in that area from the City, in tares of any physi-al connection, stated that, in his opinion, it i n error not to directly link those people with City. James Budke explained that the decision not to provide for a direct link case from his client, who is responding to a lot of consents addressed to hip by many of the residents on Morning Sun. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, he stated that the gross density is 3.43, and the draft General Plan calls for a zoning of RPD 10,000-6U. Chair/Flamenbaum pointed out that the draft Genera Plan currently indicates that 3DU/acre is allowed in that zone. C/Grothe thanked the applicant for his efforts drawing a number of alternatives, illustrating wha_ a number of the suggestions made would look like. C/Li inquired if Mr. Patel has definitely decizei to be part of the Master Plan process. He a_:: inquired what is meant by a blue line stream. James Budke indicated that Mr. Patel is defini,e.. part of this Master Plan. In regards to the c..� line strum, he explained that the term blue - comes from it's actual, physical depiction USGS topography map. At one point in time, stream was a such longer, and larger stream. water found in the 6tream now generally is r, -.- from the south slope landscaping and _._ April 26, 1993 Page 16 irrigation. Once it is designated as a blue line stream, then it is always a blue line stream regardless of the size. Hardy Strozier explained that the federal agencies use the USGS quad as a first indicator of a navigatable water way of the United States, and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act, requires a dredge and fill permit within the navigatable water way. Following this, a stream bed alteration permit is also required from the California Park Fish and Game. C/Li stated that, if this project is to be approved by the City Council, he would prefer that cop and gutter not be used in any of the storm drain services. In response to VC/Meyer, James Budke confirmed that all existing oak trees, which are mostly clustered, will be removed and replaced according to the City's 2:1 ratio policy. He also indicated that, at this time, no consideration has been made to designing an architectural feature with the trees on a valley rattier than on a slope. It is Mr. Patel's intent to pay in lieu fees rather than providing any recreational space. VC/Mayer, referring to Concept 04, inquired if consideration has been given to the problem that all Municipal service delivery is to be made out of the City. Hardy Strozier stated that staff has considered this and has recomoended that the access be through to Morning Sun, and that there be a maximum of 21 dwelling units. Vr/Neyer expressed his concern that the residents on the cul-de-sac will experience a major change in it's existing lifestyle when the street at the indicated location is introduced. He suggested that a full range of design options be considered, including clustering, to try to save some of the Open space, and that there be consideration to a common recreational area. James Budke pointed out that Concept A does not have a through street to that cul-de-sac. We have tried to be as sensitive as possible to the residents on Morning Sun in'that regard. There is flexibility on the site, and there was an attoWt to consider a variety of options, and constraints. April 26, 1993 page 17 Chair/Flamenbaum► recessed the meeting at 10:40 p.3. The meeting was reconvened at 10:50 P.M. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the Commission focus on the concept of the draft General Plan. He reminded the audience that the Commission does plan to meet again Thursday, April 29, 1993 to allow additional time for public comments. VC/Heyer suggested that, since the Commission, in essence, has made closure on the environmental document, the public may prefer to focus on tie land use issues of. the canyon rather than the environmental issues. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Sherry Roberts, residing at 2660 Broken Feather, responding to some of the comments made by C/Groths, pointed out that "trashing" the canyon :s a matter of opinion, and in her opinion, buildi"-a beautiful school, adding beautiful homes equiva to the existing homes, and adding a park, is "trashing" the canyon. She than presented a video, produced by students from South Points Middle School, depictinq the conditions existing at tr,e school today, which include overcrowded portable classrooms, dangerous traffic conditions in the morning and the afternoon, overcrowded lunch ties conditions, and problems occurring when it rains. She stressed the urgency of building a scnoc. immediately. The developers have a right to develop on property owned by them. Vinod Kashyap, residing at 21452 Chirping Sparr-w Road, made the following comments: the schools Kenya, Africa are in better condition than so--,. Points Middle School; the developers shouldno for the ben*,., to required to redo the entire process of one Commissioner; he too pays taxes therefor• his voice should carry as such weight as t-. Pathfinder Homeowner's Association; he moved -- Diamond Dar because he wanted his children to go, s good education in a good environment; and --* children should take precedent over the interes•s of a few selfish people. An York Lee, residing at 20724 Gernside Dr.— submitted a letter for the record indicating support for the construction of the school. school project should be separated from the res, the proposed project so that it's constructicr no longer delayed. April 25, 1993 page is Max Maxwell concurred that a school is needed, and suggested that the school project be separated from the rest of the proposals. Concerned that there is no General Plan, he requested a letter confirming why the fIR has been separated from the rest of the project, if the Planning Commission did actually recommend it's approval to the City Council, and if it is possible for the Planning Commission to approve the entire project without it ever going before the City Council. George Barrett, a resident, concurring that a school should be built, stated that, in his opinion, the school is being held hostage to get the rest of the project approved. He pointed out that other citizens oppose the project, not just the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, and that other schools in Diamond Bar suffer from similar conditions as those present at the South Pointe Middle School. This project will only bring on additional traffic, compounding horrendous traffic conditions already present. Dr. Gorman made the following comments: it may be illegal to finalize an SIR without an approved General Plan; he is planning on conferring with the LA County Planning Commission to determine if Oak trees 8" in diameter with a girth of about 250, and if heritage trees of 20" in diameter, can be removed; the biology and the geology portion of the draft SIR is faulty; he saw 8 or 9 cougar tracks, a few weeks ago, in Sandstone Canyon; the canyon is a transit corridor for cougars between Tanner Canyon and to the west; and, in his opinion, the project is being forced through. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Bills Road, made the following comments: the SIR concludes that the noise impacts could not be litigated beyond a significant level, which is contrary to Mr. Stros ier' s comment that the project will not create a noise problem; the proposed homes will interfere with the existing view; this project dramatically and negatively affects the quality of life of the homeowners; there are other scientists, just as accountable as the developer's scientists, that disagree vehemently with the conclusions brought forth; it is quite true that she does not want the project in her backyard; originally, this land was zoned open space, or a possible park, as is indicated in the tract map; it was the City, after incorporation, that rezoned that land and allowed this project to be considered tonight; the Pathfinder's Homeowners were told that the land April 2s, 1993 Page 19 would not be developed; she thanked C/Grothe fog his comments made, and indicated that they too are waiting for answers to questions asked last November of 1992; and she pointed out that schoo; quality has nothing to do with brick and mortA- CDD /D S e tefano, upon the request of c/plunk, e xplained that there has been no zone changes i,,, that area since the City incorporated, and that t:ie zoning for that area is exactly as it was �pcn incorporation in April of 1989. changed was the adoption of the only tr.:r,q classification, with the a Land Plan in July of 1992, which rhee3e been rescinded. of Course has s^ Bill Tinsman, a resident, expressed his cone -- that decisions are beinq made without a Generi Plan. He inquired if upon the a development, and if the commercial approval of Pathfinder and Brea Canyon is nonger vacantr the business condition at the Albertson ce-- suddenly improves, would the traffic conditic- such that the existing residents in Area "A- be able to egress from their tract withou another siqnal. He concurred that the t nee: the school is horrendous but that coedit. the issue s - be brought before the School District. The s issue should be separated for this dsvelopmer- Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded wood thanked the Planners and the developers fc- Presentation made this evening. Hearinq no further testimony, Chair/F1amP declared the public Hmminq closed. Hardy Strozier, in response to a comment me Krs. Cushane, explained that the EiA indicates the noise, from any point of the project, mitigated to levels that are adequate accor,� the City's noise quidelines. C/Plunk requested staff to respond, at tr.. meeting, if the South Pointe Biddle School d. moved. as indicated by lir. Arciero Jr.. Followinq discussion, the Planninq Coss .. concurred to continue the public hearinq t- 29, 1993 at 7:00 p.m., understandinq that and C/Grothe cannot be present due to a conf schedules. Znoh1[71TZOY CDD/DeStefano reported that the GenerA April 26, 1993 Page 20 ITEMS: process for revision has begun with two community workshops held, each having 25 people in attendance representing various interests within the community. He also reported that the issue of reorganization will be on the May 10, 1993 meeting agenda. ADJOUR1iXXNT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:45 p.m. to April 29, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. Respectively, James bostefa10 Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES Or THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meetin 7:15 p.m. at the South Coast Air 9 to order a Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 g, Bar, California. Copley Drive, Diamond PLEDGE O? ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Flamenbaum. by ROLL CALL; Commissioners: Meyer, and Chairm notheFlamenbaumlu, vice Chairman Also present were James DeStelanoCommunity Development Director , Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lunqu, Deputy City Craig Attorney Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS 1101[ THE AUDIE1iCE: Nick Anis, residing g at 1125 Branford Court, expressed his concern that information regarding Sandstone Canyon and the proposed project was misrepresented. Though he was told that the canyon was pristine, he stated that, after going into canyon over the the weekend, he found a substantial amount of trash and rubbish both in the canyon and in the stream. Furthermore, several firemen �- indicated to his that they felt that Sandst Canyon was the greatest fire risk in Diamond Ba. and the surrounding area. Another misnomer is that there is a deed restriction, yet upon investigation, there is actually a map restriction. Chair/ Flamenbaum stated that a letter regarding Sandstone Canyon has been CONT2�IpBD submitted by Mr. Anis. PUBLIC M WI=g: CDD/DeStefano plan reported that the South Pointe Master project General Plan represents a comprehensive land use planning effort on approximately 171 Amendment 92-2; acres of primarily undeveloped land. proposed! is designed DA 92-1 2, and 3; vesting TT flap with a combination ed�ntialt recreational, cosmercial/office, o 51407, COP 92-8 i educational uses. pen space and acres Approximately 80 residential OT 92-8; aC 91-2 i OT 91-2• a are proposed for construction of approximately 195 single family hoses, 31 51253 i�CUP 92p12; OT acres are devproilopmensed toadjacanttto�Bru�rcial/office space 9�2-9; SP Master Plan; i EIR 92-1 are proposed for a public Canyon Road, 28 acres site passive and active recreationalPublpark for both and acres are proposed for the construction of permanent South Pointe Middle School. The project developed uld be over a ten year period. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and has directed staff to bec- — preparation of the appropriate resoluti recommending city Council certification. Becau-e approval of the General Plan was rescinded in Mar=n, Of 1993 by the City Council, no action c May, 10, 1993 Page 2 consideration will be undertaken in furtherance of an amendment to the General Plan. However, the Development Agreements, Tract Maps, and associated permits may proceed with reference to the Draft General Plan pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992). The Planning Commission concluded its April 29th public hearing by determining that the South Pointe Master Plan zoning regulations and development standards were consistent with the Draft General Plan. Staff was directed to prepare the appropriate resolutions for future Planning Commission consideration. The Planning Commission will now begin consideration of the Tentative Tract Maps. As noted within the South Pointe Master Plan development standards, the 171 acre sit* has been divided into five land use enclaves. Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 51407 (RnP) and Tentative Tract No. 51253 (Sasak Corporation) are located within Enclave 1, and Vestinq Tentative Tract No. 32400 (Arciero i Sons) is located within Enclave 3. Each Tentative Tract map has been designed to development standards consistent with the Master Plan. CDD/DeStefano then reviewed the _ three subdivision specific proposals, as indicated in the staff report. It is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve "in concept" the three proposed subdivisions, and direct staff to bring back revised resolutions for formal adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting. It is further recommended that the Commission undertake specific discussion of the Development Agreements in order to permit staff to finalize the documents for future adoption. The Development Agreement establishes the torus and conditions from which the development can proceed and provides the applicants with assurances based upon their Commitment to timing and compliance with the agreements. The agreements incorporate a variety of land transfers and commitments by all parties toward the successful completion of the proposed project. CDD/DeStefano .then stated that the EIR will be brought back to the Commission for final consideration as part of the final resolutions for review, at the time that the Commission begins to come to closure on this specific project to be forwarded to the City Council. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the South Pointe Master Plan development standards and major elements, and that the Commission take action to approve Vestinq Tentative Map No. 51407, Vestinq Tentative Map No. 32400, and Tentative Tract Nap No. 51233 with the draft findings and conditions contained within the attached resolutibns, and that May, 10, 1993 page 3 the Commission review the proposed Development Agreements. vC/Meyer suggested that, since the Sasak Corporation has presented a new iteration of the Tract Map, they should be allowed an opportunity to present their new proposal. Mr. Budke, representing Mr. Patel, reviewed the details of the proposed subdivision as follows: the recently submitted Tentative Tract Map is now in line with the City's zoning and ordinances, and meets all the criteria of the Master Plan; the adjusted 7.05 acre site is currently proposed as 21 single family units; street "B" and "D" is now a through street that goes to Morning Sun, and is 6o feet wide, and there is a short median; the map is a direct result of recommendations made by some of the Commission members; the average lot size is 11,821 square feet; the average pad size is 8,096 square feet; the largest lot, lot 04, has 20,962 square feet; the largest pad, lot 04, has 11,2_14 square feet; the smallest lot, lot 020, has 8 5 square feet; the smallest pad, lot #16, has 6, square feet; there is a lot line adjustment beinS proposed adjacent to lot 05, PC i 07, and on the easterly side of lot #12 6 013, as an effort to make this a seamless development, which increases the overall density of this project by 15,300 square feet, and adds 1,750 square feet to the RnP site; the gross record density, at 6.7 acres, is 3.13 dwelling units per acre, which is almost exactly what is existing on Morning Sun; the adjusted gross density is 2.98 DU/par acre; the net net density provides. an adjusted density of 3.07 DU/acre; the adjusted layout exports 10,400 less earthwork; there will probably be one ngraded the contractor for the Master Plan project: and maximum fill is 44 feet. Mr. Budke stated that generally, in their opinion, this proposed subdivision is now in line with the other two projects. They are looking for approval on this project and the entire Master Plan. vC/Meyer inquired if there was consideration made, in the current design analysis, to connect street "B" with Shepherd Hill. Mr. Sudke pointed out that a proposal having that connection was presented ;t the last maet�_- however, such a design would require an ease: for sewer and emergency egress access to th' proposed cul-de-sac. This current design is it response to chair/Flamsnbatym's suggestion that the May, 10, 1993 Page 4 other proposal not be utilized, preferring the alignment now presented. vC/Meyer suggested that the street can still be aligned with Shepherd Hill by using the current configuration, and maintaining the concept of discouraging cut -through traffic through the entire project. There is an obligation to those residents living on the Morning Sun cul-de-sac to leave the neighborhood as it is currently, if at all possible. Mr. Budke pointed out that, with the current configuration, there are only five homes along Shepherd Hills and street "A" that will be affected. The only way to redesign it so that none of the homes are affected is to have a double loaded row of lots, which is detrimental from a marketing standpoint. It had been suggested by Chair/Flamenbaum to design it so that there would be a connection right at Shepherd Hills. vC/Meyer noted that the current design also has double loaded row of lots. If it is sngineeringly feasible, the design should be modified, keeping all the utilities and sewer exactly as it is currently shown through a common casement between lots i1 and 021, but moving the street to the south. This modification may result in the loss of one do -sac as is, withoutever, it iaffecti affecting leave existingresidents. Mr. Budke stated that, from an engineering standpoint in teras of the impact on the RnP sits, and sewer and drainage, it does not make sense to connect to shepherd Hills. our first choice was not to have a through street regardless. C/Plunk stated that it would appear that this vnrrent design is attempting to get the most while a 013, giving the least. If lots 05, 06, J7 #G which encroach on the RnP property the proposal would be closer to tho ittwo ss proposed by the other projects. The ovide More buffer, such as the school projects pr site, offering relief to the site and the park However, this project packs in local neighborhood• more houses right up against the existing neighborhood, offering very little relief. Mr. Budke pointed out that the density of the project is 21 DQ/per acre, which is less densmparable in ne net the Arciero project, and very density to the RnP site. May, 10, 1993 Page S C/Li explained to Mr. Budke that the Commission is concerned that the proposal has double loaded row of lots, and that someone else's property must be utilized in order to substantiate the 21 homes. The other two proposals offer open space and other amenities, thereby offering relief to the neighborhood. Mr. Budke stated that this project has met all criteria that has been established. There is actually room to put as many as 24 lots on the site. There is no room on this 6.7 acre site to offer a school or a park. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/Flaunbaum, stated that RnP has agreed upon the lot line adjustment, as long as it does not impact thea dramatically, and that the layout would demonstrate harmony through the Master Plan. There has not yet been an opportunity to review the actual impact being proposed, however, we were pleased with the preliminary layout of the plan. Mr. Budke, in response to VC/Heyer, stated they have concurred to construct $18,000 wort. t sidewalks, off site, in the existing Morning sun tract, only where necessary to gat the children to the bus stop. C/Plunk suggested that there be a condition that approval must be received from the existing neighborhood prior to constructing curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The Planning Commission concurred. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, explained that the plan for the Larkstone interconnection would allow it to be made into an iamadiate connection when desired. Two cul-de- sac's cannot come together because the bus would have to drive over the curb to get to the parking lot. C/Crothe requested clarification between the differing calculations as indicated on page 7, icer 2.2, of the Cost Analysis, and page 10, the las, bullet. He inquired if condition A is calculate. at 10 acres or 15.5 acres. Hardy Strozier, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum explained that Arciero's prior proposal, which .a denied by the County, was a totally differ , concept than the one beinq proposed today be the Commission. May, 10, 1993 page i AP/Searcy, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding last meetings concern that there was a possible misquote in the letter received from Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., stated that staff was informed by the firm that they were not aware of anything in that letter that would be contradicted by anyone in their office. As of the time of this meeting, there has been no information from them stating that there would be any retractions. CDD/DeStafano, in response to VC/Meyer's concern, stated that, though the Commission cannot take definitive action this evening, it is staff's recommendation that very specific direction on the maps be given because some of the mitigation that measures in the EIR may need to change as a result indicate specific action. The Subdivision Map Act ns that the subdivision should be compatible with the objectives, policies, general guidelines, of the land use and programs contained in the Master Plan. It is staff s opinion these maps are consistent that all of that charge. Also, - the City is currently operating under Ordinance No. 4 (1992) which permits us to recommendations to the City Council, and eto ttak� definitive action on some other the other- cases before the Commission this evening. Chair/Flamenbaun recessed the meetinq at 8:25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Dale Levandar, the author of the Fiscal Cost Benefit Analysis, stated that they have concluded that the site is good for a commercial retail complex, and that in all three alternatives, the City does not show a negative cash flow. In Pones to C/Grothe,s earlier question, he WVlained that there is a typo on page 10, and it sbould have read "...based on 8O rate applied to a value Of $495,000 dollars (43,560 square feet per acre meted at $10.00 per square loot)." In addition to the pure economics o! the situation, the projections contain some cost figures which over state the proportionate share. This is a cash flow projection, not a lair share approach. In response to C/Li, Dale Lavender explained that the analysis show the cash flow to the City during the developynt period, which .is 10 an annual basis beyond 10 Years. plus on cash flow assumes an interest rate of 6 discounted percent. May, 10, 1993 page 7 Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearer.: opened. Tom Van Winkle, a resident, advised the Commissior to move cautiously on any portion of the project since the City has no General Plan. Don Schad, residing at 1924 Shaded Wood, made the followinq comments: the EIR should address the mitigation of "Valley Fever" (Coccidioidosycossia), which is caused by the prolonq dust associated the destruction of so such soil; the EIR is incomplete because the City does not have a compatible Tree Ordinance; destroying 974 of an established area is a significant impact, contrary to what is stated in the EIR; and there are trees in the canyon that are between 250 and 500 years old, with no indication that fire occurred. Barbara Beach Cushane, residinq at 2021 Peacef.:: Hills, stated that the project not only affects tr.e Morninq Sun tract residents, but also the life :f the Pathfinder community as well, in a ver. negative way. Chuck Bowler, a resident on Morninq sun, poor. -e] out that sidewalks would need to be constructed Morninq Sun, Shepherd Hill, Chapel Hill, a Tameschaner because that is the route that •- children take to the bus stop. He then sugges,e7: that the homes on Patel's site face Morning s_- movinq the other homes over so that there -e backyards facinq each other rather than one row homes with two streets. The road on Morning should be totally eliminated, and the traf�.- should be run back to colica since the subdiv.s. - is part of Diamond Bar and not Walnut. Vinod Rashyap, a resident, stated that he was --:e- the impression that the issue of the General :..- has been resolved. NO then stated that, it - . opinion, the needs of the entire community at, take precedent over the needs of the Pathf. community. Norman Beach Cushans, President of the Pathf.- . Homeowners Association, stated that they promised that this site was to be 90 acres rose for parks. He also stated, in response comment made earlier rogardinq the fire safe* the Canyon, that there was a fire in the area it was in their tract and, no one had evacuated. Kay, 10, 1993 Page • VC/Meyer, referring to a HOA meeting held regarding the possible use othat was t be Open space areas for public use the existing HOA�s position was on that inquired what the possibility. Norman Beach Cushans stated that this issue w' Presented to the HOA at their the and of the month when annual meeting is scheduled. concern, if the land is dedicated for PuThere s to the property, regarding Ownershipblic access and possible development, as is occurinliability, Elisabeth g now. Hodges, a resident County has given t quired if the construction of Permission pursue the Property becausewa tdwaslks since it is County County Department of her to that the oPPosin Transportation wrote strongly as is indicated in the Response touMorning sun Of the EIA. Comment section Hearing no further testimony, the public Hearing was declared closed. Jan oabneY, in response inquiry, stated that as issues are resolved, they with potting the 2 inch oak relocated to offer thea to to Chair/Flaeenbas,s long as any liability would not see a problem trees to be removed and the community. Chair/llambas suggested that Proceed enas has been recommended by the Commission staff. VC/Heyer stated that he listened to the tapes of the April 29th meetin understands what went on 4 and feels that he the review process is to NO suggested that, if progr"car 'Sion. the Comsissionb should fi sta revisit olosure on iany issues in the EIA, in order to get froe the last Furis Furthermore, since the straw vote, wee onl ng• on General Plan cons is a 2-1-1 vote,, the Comeission tency, should Perhaps revisit that issue as well. not a consensus_on If there is these is no n the Kanter Plan issue, then approval of a ten at tive t act map a o through conditions of agreeeent, and the project should be rd devco a to the City Council for denial. The Planning Commission concurred to revisit issues Of concern in the EIA. VC/Keyar stated that he does not concuir with the findings in the EIA that the replacement of Oak Kap. 10, 1993 Page 9 Trees at a 2:1 covering u 97% ratio sufficiently mit. nonsignificance. °f the trees gates to a level of Motion was made by VC/Meyer, and CARRIED UNXVIMOUSdir LY to and by C/Plunk overriding considerations seconded staff to prepare trees. on the removal of she ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk chair%Fla anbaus., a NOES: COMMISSION ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ASSENT COMMISSIONERS: None. VC/Meyer stated that t plan would prefer Resource Management that --.e landscaping concepts, such as stat deal with ._ road, the architectural statement to about medians, the architectural made to landscaping of the commercial t lacient litiemith hillside grading, etc,, and to s that information in one locand to specifically CDD/DeStefano, noting that the material desire: already within the documents reviewed by Commission, suggested that a s added called, "Resource Kana Specific sectic- Master Plans exon q�nt Plan with�- standards that would deal with all aof these nd dev*is Also, or indicate where the iformation can be f the n conditions roc be grouped into a section for approve, called into Kana w that specific issue �o�nslPearn t �i� wi1: individual or agenthe rev cy in the future that wil.! implement the project. C/Grothe stated that he contour grading, !Mels that the areas bench drains, and landac.. should be taken directly out of the H1.., Management Ordinance and placed in the condi!. The Planning Commission concurred information in the resolutions to plat. to the sp. tract maps. CDD/DGStafano stated that staff will also ac more of the detail of the Hillside Ordinance. , with the conditions fluent through all the May, 10, 1993 page 10 documents, and group them into one section such as the "Resource Management Plan". VC/Meyer, concerned that there can be obstructions that reduce the clearance at the side yards, suggested that the side yard set back be modified to a minimum of 5 feet and 12 feet to guarantee access to the rear yard. Also, the front yard set back can be determined based upon if the garage faces the street or if it is perpendicular to the street, so that the homes are staggered for aesthetic purposes. Jan Dabney stated that the intent of the 5 foot and 10 foot side yard set back was to provide the homeowners access to use their rear yards. If the Commission desires 10 feet at the side yard setback then it could be stated as 010 foot unobstructed", which is measured from the closest obstruction, rather than distance. C/Grath* stated that he would prefer that the conditions *poll out exactly what the engineers standards are in regards to the street cross sections, sidewalks, landscaping, etc. ICE/wontz stated that those conditions are normally tied into the tract map, and, if desired, that detail can be specified as part of the condition, but doing so can restrain us somewhat if we change our minds for engineering reasons. It was left with enough discretion at this time to give flexibility, yet still indicate what the street sections will be on the map. CDD/DeStsfano stated that staff will develop additional language to do this thought together, and place it in the Development Standards document, er wbere appropriate. VC/Meyer suggested that the Commission vote again on the consistency of the Master Plan document to the General Plan since all five Commissioners are now present. The Planning Commission then discussed the issue of the General Plan and it's revision. C/Grotho indicated that his opposition is not so such to development in the proposed area, but that he feels this is not the best Master Plan that has been proposed. Kay, 10, 1993 Page 11 Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded C/Plunk and CARRIED to find that the Master Plan document is consistent with the General Plan under Ordinance No. 4 (1992), with the following modifications: to direct staff -to compile the Resource Management Plan with the concept of having all these references into one document; having a side yard setback of 5 feet and an unobstructed 10 feet; creatinq a staggered formula to vary the front set back from the property line to the nearest structure for the purpose of eliminating the straight run of the units throuqh the streets. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VC/Meyer stated that, from a desiqn standpoint, it is better to provide as many access options as possible to help incorporate the rest of thf project into the community, therefore,. the should indicated that Larkstone should be r..,: through. Hardy Strozier, in response to C/Plunk's suggestion that the Arciero property be conditioned to indicate, "the secondary access to a public street, other than through the com=ercial or through Rapid view", in order to avoid cut through traffic, suqqested that such a condition say be more appropriately located in the subdivision tract map resolution. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY that the EIR documentation should be amended to show mitigation that Larkstone should be connected. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Grothe, Li, V C/ M e y e r, a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NOne. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VC/Meyer stated that he is uncomfortable with design submitted by the Saspk Corporation. May, 10, 1993 Page 12 Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Li, to direct staff to work with the applicant for two weeks to'redesign the plan to realign the street with Shepherd Hills. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. to allow the applicant time to consider the request. The meeting was reconvened at 10:15 p.m. Notinq the late hour of the meetinq, C/Grothe withdrew his motion to allow the applicants of items 3 4 4 of the agenda to consent to a continuation. C/Li withdrew his second. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened for item 3, Variance 93-1, CUP 93-3, and Oak Tree Permit 93-1. Jake Williams, the property owner, stated that he does not object to a continuation, with the understanding that his matter will be placed first on the next meeting's agenda. Motion was made by Chair/Flasenbaus, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue item 3, of the agenda, to the next seating of May 24, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened for item 4, Amendment to Conditional Use. permit 91 - David Lee, the applicant's brother and representative, stated that they would prefer that their matter come before the Planning Commission tonight. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CAIID UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the meeting of May 24, 1993. VC/Meyer suggested that a somber of staff explain to the applicant that there was a consensus of the Commission to continue the item. The Planning Commission then concurred to continue item 5 of the agenda, the Reorganization of the Planning Commission, to the seating of May 24, 1993. C/Grothe then restated his notion to direct staff to work with the applicant for two weeks to redesign the plan to realign the street "8" with Shepherd Hills. May, 10, 1993 Page 13 Mr. Budke, the applicants representative, stated that they have worked with staff, and the current design is a product of their recommendation. -he objection to the project, from the Commission, seems to be arbitrary, as does the recommendation to reduce the project to 16 lots. There have been 7 different layouts presented before the Commission showing alternates with lots on Morning Sun, and alternates with connections at Shepherd Hills. :he design presented tonight fits all of the criteria, and adequately demonstrates the engineering problems associated with connecting to Shepherd Hills. There seems only to be an emotional concern for those residents on Morning Sun. He then stated that he was directed by Chair/Flamenbaum to do this specific layout. Chair/Flamenbuam stated that he never indicated that a particular road needed to be aligned in a particular spot, but that hs indicated that he did not like the 24 foot wide easement,, or the isolation of the tract from the rest of the community. C/Plunk reiterated the Commissions desire that project be designed to be as considerate to the existing neighborhood as possible. The other projects are donating quite a bit in order to do their subdivisions, and there is plenty of buffer to the existing neighborhoods. C/Grothe withdrew his Motion. Jan Dabney stated that, with the restrictions that Nr. Petal has on his property, there are hardships in setting aside available open space. The map before us this evening is a vast improvement from what has bean presented in the past. Moving the access road to Shepherd Hills creates a need for retaining walls which is not within the constraints Of the Master Plan concepts, or the current approved Hillside Ordinance. Perhaps, as an alternative, Mr. Patel could be asked to donate something else to the community in lieu of giving UP any open space. Notion was made by Chair/Flamenbuam, seconded t'. C/Plunk and CARRIED to continue the matter of Tract Map No. 32576 for two weeks to give staff the Opportunity to review the map and to mar appropriate recommendations. May, 10, 1993 Page :4 ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS:. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ASSN': COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. Grothe. None. None. Notion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to explore the possibility of having a Tree Relocation Program, to provide 2 inch trees to the community at a nominal cost, as a mitigation measure for the removal of the trees from the canyon, andto place it in the Resource Management Plan and the EIR, if appropriate. CDD/DeStefano stated that it is staff's Tract Map to e recommendation that the Commission review the Rnp nsure it's in compliance with the Master Plan, and to sake any suggested changes. Staff will then fins tuna the resolutions, and make any appropriate grammatical or spelling changes. VC/Meyer made the following statements: the findings in support of the EIR documentation should lso indicate "by the recommendation of the Planning Commission" throughout the entire documont; page 21, item E, should be Modified to include Larkstone; and, if appropriate, include a condition, on page 2 of Attachment "H" the adjacent , to include Homeowners Association in the landscaping district if they should happen to decide to participate in this project with respect to providing open space. CDD/DaStefano stated that, if so directed, the City engineer and he will look at creating a specific eondition to deal with the issue of the Homeowners Rssociation. The Planning Commission so directed. ICE/Wentz pointed out that the boundaries of the district can always bs amended by the City Council as part of the public hearing process, and, they can add a secondary district to incorporate their Participation in the overall maintenance of that area. CDO/DaStefano, in response to C/Grothe's inquiry as to the specific percentage of improvements to be - done by the developer, explained that the developer will be contributinq towards the project as is listed within the Conditions of Approval within the May, 10, 1993 page is Resolutions, and the Development Agreements subject to further negotiation between rh developers and the staff, Planning Commission, an the conclusive comments of the City Council. Th. percentages indicated in the Fiscal Impact Repor,, was done only for study purposes in order t< complete the assignment. In response to C/Grothe's Specific percentage of acrea a f2 ' regarding the CDD/Dastefano stated that g for commercia� _an to be about a C to 31 acre commercial Center, inere is which the city35 ownership will be between 10 and 15, which will ultimately be a business decision of the city Council. The land use decision before the Planning Commission is the commercial ceissue of whether the 30 to 31 nter is an appropriate land use. C/Grothe then made the followings comments: a 3:1 Oak Tree replacement ratio should be indicated in 'tons ill, 016, 017, i 018, or keep with the bigger variety of sizes; there should be language indicating that the developers can place the quantity Of tress on or off site; staff sh explore 'the possibility of getting the sc, i District to use contour grading, put proper bench drains, landscaping, etc. on the hillsides, on the School District site dropping on to Arciero's property, and include their property in the Landscape Maintenance District; and grading for all three project should be done at one time. Jan Dabney stated that all the improvements, on the Arciero site, will be put on at one tine. All the improvesents to the commercial and the park site, can be done by RnP, tying into Larkstons, and then the remainder of the RnP Project to the Sasak project would also be done all at ons tine because Of the grading for the hydrolics. ICE/Mentz indicated that a condition can be included to indicate that the phases are to be done all at once. VC/Meyer suggested that page 3, in the RnP resolution, under "Grading", include a condition for bonding. Referring to thefi nal grading plans as indicated in condition 12, he ir�uired wha- Plan* have been made if there are ma -,c!' modifications made alter the geoloqiz3 investigation. ICE/Mentz stated that there is a paragraph on Fa:= lour, before item 017, intended to deal with na- Kay, 10, 1993 Paqe 1` particular issue, that indicates there could be an amendment to the lot configurations based upon their findings. If the proposed finals varied significantly from the approved tentative the whole process could be repeated, per the decision of the engineer's office. ICE/Wentz then made the following response to inquiries made by VC/Meyer: the definition of an urban pollutant basis, on page 6, is a detention basin; page 7, item 51, will be addressed by the Resource Management Plan; the intent of item 55, page 8, is that the issue of the access out to Morning Sun and. Larkstone may ultimately be addressed through the City Engineer's office; item 64, page 9, the utilities will be unde=grounded as part of a condition of this tract, and will be adjacent to this tract on Brea Canyon; page ten, item 7 should be relocated into the Resource Management Plan and it should cross reference the Hillside Management Ordinance which talks about rip rap, muted tones, etc.; and the intent of item 19, page 12, is to try to reduce the impact of wildlife to the surrounding residential area when the grading begins. Motion was made. 'by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to draft the Resolutions of Approval for RnP and Arciero tract, responding to the comments and corrections made. The Planning Commission then concurred to direct staff to make the Development Agreement consistent with the current changes. ANNOONCOtSNT91 CDD/De8tefano reported that the workshop for the GsrAral Plan revision process is scheduled May 12, 1993. The public hearings on the General Plan "vision begin May 19, 26th and June 2, 1993. CITY OF DIAMOND BXq MINUTES OF TEE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 22, 1993 _ CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order a 7:06 P.M. at the South Coast Air Quality Managemen. District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamon Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance b, ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Grothe. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Plunk, vice Chairman Meyer till 7:40 p.m., and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Li was absent. Also present were Community Development Directoz James DeStefano, Planning Technician Ann Lung.:, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. Chair/ Flamenbaum announced the passing of Mr. :c- Nardella, a former Parks and Recreat:7,- Commissioner and City Councilmember. The meet. will be closed in his honor. CDD/DeStefano reported that the applicant seeking a continuance in order to be able present the presentation to a full Commission. Jan Dabney, speaking for Mr. Patel, Mr. Arcie—_ South Pointe and Mr. Forrestor, stated that with the passir Master Plan Don Nardella and the absence of two Commisb,._- members, the owners of the properties na.e requested a continuance to some future da -e Furthermore, some of the items on the agenda wc..: require three votes to either approve or deny, with only three Commissioners, it may appear --�• the Planninq Commission was swayed ons way or other reqardless of the vote. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, all the applica- , nodded their concurrence for the continuance,-: Hardy Strosier stated his desire to continue presentation to the next meetinq as well. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public He.: opened. Don Schad expressed his regret for the passe -a Don Nardella. He pointed out the folic. inconsistencies in the EIR: no mention of waterway, relocation or replacement; sage 1•^ i not properly covered; cacti not fully resear--. the gnat catcher not mentioned; it provides annihilation of the trees without recourse exceptional ecological area; and it states on.. trees will be destroyed when there are ac-.• 3,000 that will be destroyed. March 22, 1993 Page 2 Clair Harmony expressed his concern that the City has not been provided with enough information on the project, therefore the City has failed to exercise due diligence. He questioned if the City has pulled a title report on the RnP property to legally explore the aspects of the cloud on that land, specifically the disputed ownership between the Pathfinder Homeowners Association. He also questioned if the City investigated Mr. Forrester to assure that he is capable of financially carrying through the project. He then suggested that Mayor Miller give a more detailed explanation to his appearance of a conflict of interest, especially since he has taken an active role in pursuing this project. Swanee Fong, residing at 20879 Missionary Ridge, expressed her opposition to the proposed amphitheater in the South Pointe Master Plan development because it will increase noise, traffic, crime, and graffiti in the existing neighborhood. Tom Van Winkle inquired if the proposed Metro Rail Station pickup at Grand Ave. and Currier has been considered in regards to the increase in traffic, along with the traffic impacts of this development and businesses. He noted the traffic congestion caused by the business center located on Brea Canyon and Pathfinder. Evan Chanall, residing at 1820 Peaceful Hills, stated that the Middle School is being used as a pawn in an attempt to qet development in Sandstone Canyon started. The City need to act in the best interest of it's residents and take action against Arciero to qat the problem solved. He should be fined and forced to move the dirt. Mrbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Rill Road, requested that the City look carefully at an SIR that substantially disagrees with noted environmentalists, and publicly appointed aqencies, specifically the Department of Fish and Gage. She then read the follovinq portions of the General Plan which is inconsistent with the EIR: page I, item 1 of the General Plan indicates that each piece of development must best fulfill the short and lonq tern reds of the City; and paqe I, item 7, indicates that there is a need for the City to plan for growth in ways that protect and conserve natural resources and the anvironmgnt. She inquired how the City can proceed with a project March 22, 1993 Page 3 that is significantly tied to a nonexistinc document since the General Plan has been rescinded. Joe Gorman, 333b Mountain Ave., Claremont, of Gorman PhD, Associates, made the fol 1 :•.:n; comments: since the City does not have a General Plan, the City is very such open to legal action for the lack of a consonant EIR based upcn a General Plan; the geology of the site has not been sufficiently explored; the ground on the site appears to be soft, and if houses or streets are constructed there is a likelihood that the are will experience slippage within 20 to 50 years; -,e seismic area has not been properly explored; t`iere is evidence of cougars within the canyon; -n.e presence of the gnat catchers has not been property explored; there are 12 or so more organisms tn.a= need further consideration; and it is a polit:=31 trick to use the school to lever in putting in --.F dirt that Arcisro was to remove. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing continued. _ C/Grothe pointed out that the "pile of dirt" school site, that is being referred to, is acc-+. the entire top of a hill that has not been le -.k - at e -.eat this point. The City of Diamond Bar does have jurisdiction over the School District, art only control the City has regarding the schoo. has to do with issuing a grading permit. Nation Chair/ Flaamenbaum to conte inue the rs matter nt April 12, 1993 meeting. C/Plunk requested the following informatior,. staff: coastal live oak and the scrub o " regards to the range and the commonali; tie. there of, in the California landscape; of Diamond bar from the 1950's versus now; th• count of the surrounding neighborhoods affect@- this project, for example the Wk; how many will be planted in the City this year; how mo- ths large tress would be relocatable, .' project was approved; evidence of the reganer•' capability of this habitat; the number of trips per day in the City resulting fres project; and a comparison of the nor of c-•' trips generated by a full business center ve-1 neighborhood. ' She then made the f0. comments: if there is a cougar, then an • moved forbit'snsafetyI,sthe safe y of other arae. March 22, 1993 Page 4 and the safety of the children; the City has a lack of active organized sports and active park space is needed; Sycamore Canyon Park is too small for the Concert in the Parks; it is extremely expensive to remove the dirt for the school; and, according to a gentleman from the Whittier Conservancy, it takes years to raise the money, and 5 years to complete the transaction, and it was suggested that first criteria be set up to determine what areas would qualify for a land conservancy, to include quality of habitat, the corridor for movement, buffer from development, the size of the property, the access of the property, the regeneration, for whom is the land to be saved for, and the aesthetics. Chair/Flamenbaum read the memorandum submitted to the Commission by VC/Meyer, in which Chair/Flamenbaum is in concurrence with the statements made. The following is a summary of that memorandum requesting additional information from the suppport staff: an economic analysis describing the probable financial results of implementing the project as proposed; the feasibility of relocating the major access road from Brea Canyon Road in a northerly direction. adjacent to the boundary of tract 32400; is the proposed cross section of Brea Canyon Road adequate to handle the proposed traffic generated by the project and other anticipated demand; has the traffic projections anticipated the improvement of Pathfinder westerly to Harbor Blvd.; would additional off site improvements have to be made to reduce the impact of traffic on the intersection of Pathfinder/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs/Brea Canyon, Golden Springs/on and off ramp to the 60 freeway; can the adjacent open space owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association be utilized to offset the impacts to the existing canyon environment; if access to Rapid view and Larkstone is prohibited, then could access to Morning Sun be deleted; what v=ld be the results of creating access to Morning Sun, Larkstons, and Rapid view; what is the impact of eliminating the commercial property from the proposed project, or reducing it in scope, which would appear to retain a substantial portion of the existing canyon; the proposed access to Morning Sun from tract 51253 is an off set design and what is the results of aligning the access to the proposed tract from Shepherd Hills Road; what are the impacts of saving the blue line stream and the existing oak trees located within the boundary of tract 51253; what is the development density of the three private projects at this point in time; it appears that the three private developers would March 22, 1993 Page S need to develop this ;roject independently, ar, what guarantee would the City have to insure tha the needed public improvements would be constructe within an acceptable time frame; can the projec contain a system of biking and hikinq trails; whe will the Resource Management Plan be presented t, the Commission; is it reasonable to require that berm be constructed between the proposed dwelling: and the existing roadways to mitigate noise; shoulc the passive canyon environment be changed to activf recreation areas, or kept as passive, and What are the impacts; is it possible to develop the pro eci area and leave the canyon blue line streams it tact; and does the City or the developers hav( responsibility to repair the ancient land slide area. Chair/Flamenbauz requested staff to responc to these inquiries, as well as those inquiries asked in previous meetings, to include informatior regardinq the possible presence of cougars in the canyon. The Commission voted upon the Motion made b} C/Grothe and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum _tc continue the matter to the April 12, 1993 meet The Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CITY of DIAXOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order a- 7:09 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Managemen- District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamonc Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance b;. ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Plunk, and Vice Chairman Meyer. Chairman Flamenbaum arrived at 8:25 p.m.. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. VC/Meyer reported that Chair/Flamenbaum will be arriving late to the meeting....... CDD/DeStefano reported that the Planning Commission. CONTIl1UBD closed the public hearing, at the May 10, 1993 PUBLIC meeting, for the Arciero and the RnP portion of the RZARINGs: development, and directed staff to prepare Resolutions of approval of the various project South Pointe entitlements. The Planning Commission did r.c_ Master Plan EIR close the public hearing with respect to the SaSaK No. 92-1, State proposal. Staff, with the services of the Clearing House consultant team, has put together the follow.-: 92081040. DA variety of documents for Planning Commission rev:e. No's 92-1, 92-2, which is contained in the Commission's pacKe- 92-3; Vesting responding to a variety of questions and iss..es TT Map 32400, raised by the Commission at the last meeting: I- Vestinq TT Map additional CEQA finding of adverse environment. 51407, TT Map impact for the issue of oak tree removal; :-e 51253; CUP 92-8 Resource Management Plan has been added in vary=_s i OTP 92-8; CUP documents, consolidating all the conditions deal: 91-5 6 OTP 91-2; with that issue as directed by the Commission. CUP 92-12; OTP the conditions suggested for approval as we I' ,s 92-9 the South Pointe Master Plan development standar-'s the development standards have been mod i'.P: specific to the Commission's request, particu.ar., dealing with the 5 and 10 foot sideyard areas; � P provisions dealing with Larkstone through access has been incorporated within the SIR document 4-1 the Master Plan document; and Condit.:-% appropriate to each tract have been added rela••l to environmental resource recoveries categor.es Both the series of Resolutions and the Develops*-, Agreements incorporate a variety of land trans'. and commitments by all the different par* •• towards the successful completion of this prc The documents are substantially the seas as •• •- received in may of 1993, and the specific cha- .•� have been identified in axed line or strike May 24, 1993 Page 2 format for ease in identification. It is recommended that the Commission take action to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (Arciero) and the Development Agreement for that project, and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 (RnP) and the Development Agreement for that project. The Sasak project has been evaluated further by the City Planning staff as directed by the Commission looking at an alternative that extended Shepherd Hills Road from it's existing terminus at Morning Sun. That proposal resulted in a substantial retaining wall that created some concerns for the City staff. Inasmuch as the new 21 lot design meets the minimum criteria for Enclave 1 of the proposed South Pointe Master Plan and both adjacent developers have agreed to the respective tract designs, staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 as revised for 21 lots. A summary lot comparison is provided for evaluation. The Sasak project does not incorporate a development agreement. Therefore, an additional resolution has been provided for the Hillside Conditional Use Permit and the Oak Tres Removal Permit. Peter Lewendowski, the Director of Planning for Ultra Systems Engineers and Constructors Inc., located in Irvine, Ca., stated that they have been contracted by the City to prepare a detailed EIR for a mixed use project on a 171 acre site in the City of Diamond Bar. A draft EIR was prepared in compliance with California CEQA and the State CEQA guidelines, dated November, 1992, which analyzed the direct, indirect cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. A Response to comments document was prepared, dated February, 1993, in response to public and government agency comments received on that document, as well as questions raised by the Planning Commission. Subsequent to the publication of that document, a number of technical studies have been conducted in response to specific questions left unaddressed in the Response to Comments document. The following three technical studies were prepared and included in a document entitled Response to Comments Technical Appendix: San Diego Horned Lizard Survey; a Focused Spring Time Plant Survey; and a Focused Mountain Lion Survey. These studies concluded that none of the species surveyed were evident on the project site, and no additional biological resources, other than oak trees, would be impacted by project development. The draft EIR, the Response to Comments document, and the Technical Appendix collectively constitute the Draft EIA. May 24, 1993 Page 3 Both CEQA and the State CEQA guidelines requ;r that the lead agency certify the EIR prior t taking action on the proposed project Certification of the EIR is included as a componen-, of the Resolutions presented before the Commissior this evening. Hardy Strozier reported that staff has incorporates every recommendation, made by the Commission at the last meeting, to the Resolutions. He then identified the following specific changes made tc the Resolution, which are relatively consistent throughout all the Resolutions: item $.a., on page 6, should be amended to read, •The action proposed has been processed in accordance to the provision=_ of Ordinance 0*4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar."; page 3, item 7.c., of the Vesting Tentative Map should be amended to indicate "94 lot subdivision"; page 4, item q., should indicate "based on the size and shape"; page 4, item h., should strike the word "not" because all these projects do front upon a blue line stream; and page 3, of the Conditions of Approval for RhP, should add new item 11, under General Engineer:nv, Requirements, to read, "Adjustments to the designated lot lines of lot 057, 158, 059, I6�, 064, *65, i 066 Of tract 51407 (RnP) shall ce recorded within six months of final map approval.". VC/Meyer, upon confirmation from DCA/Fox that th:s Vesting Tentative Map would be recorded first, followed by a lot line adjustment, suggested tha- such a condition would be better placed in the Development Agreement because there is motivation to do a lot line adjustment after map recordation. Also, the lot line adjustment is a discretionary action, and such a condition .s requirinq that a decision be reached prior to the application being placed before the discreticrar; body. DCA/Fox explained that the map has to be in f:ra. form before it can be adjusted through a lot :. - e adjustment process. This map can be recorded as condition on the recordation of the Vesting Map, is well as be placed in the Development Agreement. the condition is approved, the Commission is a decision ahead of time, however, all of the fa ; are presented to make such a decision. The -- must be in a final form before the lot lines ca - adjusted. The specifics of the lot adjustments are probably not known at this t::, May 24, 1993 page 4 ICE/Wentz stated that the process proposed by the DCA/Fox is feasible and is a typical approach to making an adjustment. However, if those specifics could be identified, then that would preclude us from making a lot line adjustment at a later date. vC/Meyer expressed his concern that the maps would be approved subject to being adjusted later with no guarantee to Sasak or RnP that it will be adjusted later. ICE/Wentz stated that it would be appropriate to approve the maps and establish the legal descriptions. Hardy Strozier, continuing with his report until the City Engineer can suggest some language addressing the concern regarding new condition 011, reviewed the following changes: page 3, Grading, item #11, should read "The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the total cost estimate and post surety for bonding purposes of all grading and execute an agreement guaranteeing completion of grading prior to approval of the final S&P."; i tem 037, on page 6, Streets, should read "...right-of- way improvements shall include but are not limited to undergroundinq of existing overhead utilities"; add condition 053, on page 8, Streets. to read, "Through access to Larkstone Drive shall be provided with a future ability to close off the access if so desired by the City"; properly spall "Prior" in item 013, on page 12, of the Conditiable ons; add a new condition on page 14, Applicable shall mitigation Measures, to read, "App comply with the mitigation monitoring program wo implement the required EIR mitigation measures-"; strike item, 10.k. on page 17, "Commercial site: provided adequate ventilation system for enclosed parking facilities" and reletter those conditions, and add a new condition 10.m. to read "The applicant for the commercial enclave shall develop and submit, for Community Development Director review and approval, a trip reduction pr egalo All the preceding changes should be repeated r the Arciero, RnP, and Sasak conditions of approval. Hardy Stroaier then reviewed the changes made to the RnP Development Agreement: item 3, Term. on page S should properly indicate "no effective date"; item b., on page 11 and page 12, should properly indicate $50,000;' item C. on page 12, should "indicate a one year guarantee"; and the full RnP address, which1111s 4439 ba put on pall 2Driv*1 Claremont Ca., 91711, May 24, 1993 Page S then explained how the references to "findinc under each one of the topical headings are dea with. Hardy Strozier then reviewed the changes made Exhibit "C", the Master Plan: add, to page 5, it 3, that Larkstone Drive shall be a through stre to new street "A" connecting Brea Canyon Road, a; that the City reserves the right to close t! Larkstone Drive through connection at o street the future; change the front setbacks, to indicate a minimum of 16 on page feet and an average c 18 feet; and a condition on page 12, item c.: indicates that there can be a 15* grade with tt City Engineer's approval, as indicated in conditic 034, page 6, in the Arciero Tract conditions. Hardy Strozier then reviewed the changes made t the Arciero Resolution: strike the word "not" o Page 4, item h.; the remaining changes are simila to the ones outlined previously for al Resolutions. He then reviewed the changes made t the Sasak Resolution: strike the word "not" o Page 3, item h.; the remaining changes are simila to the ones outlined previously Resolutions. for al Hardy 'Strozier, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum,; statement that the Commission had requested that the home's setback not be uniformed, explained tha+ the way the condition is written, the concept o! "averaging" is going to dictate how the Communit) Development Director reviews the plans during plar check. CDD/DGStsfano suggested that the language in the condition be modified so that it meets the intent Of the Planning Commission to assure that there is not a uniformed setback. C/Plunk inquired why the 1 year warrantee was changed from a three year warrantee as indicated on page 10.3 of the RnP Development Agreement. CDD/DeStsfano explained that it was felt by the negotiating team that the combination of requiring a ;50,000 cash deposit, and the one year warrantee for improvements, plus further criteria within the DevelopUent Agreement that allow the City to deal with development improvements and warrantee for those improvements was more appropriate to deal with this issue than the normal three year requirement seen on a typicil subdivision. The Commission concurred with staff's recommendation. May 24, 1993 Page 6 Hardy Strozier suggested the language on page 10, double asterisk, of the Master Plan be amended to add the following statement to deal with the setback issue: "...,adjoining lots shall provide variable front yard setbacks of not less than 2 feet without prior consent of the Community Development Director" or add a statement, "..., average home setback shall be staggered and minimum setback shall be 18 feet, providing a variety of front yard setbacks to prevent a series of similar front yard setbacks." VC/Meyer expressed his concern that by setting a minimum development standard, you get a development that only meets your minimum development standard. Following discussion, the Commission concurred with the latter phrase, "...,average home setback shall be staggered and minimum setback shall be 18 feet, providing a variety of front yard setbacks to prevent a series of similar front yard setbacks." DCA/Fox then suggested the followinq lanquage to address the lot line adjustment issue: "Adjustments to lot lines of lots desiqnated by the City Engineer between Tract No. 51253 i No. 51407 shall be identified and described to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be recorded within 6 months of final map approval." Motion was made by C/Plunk to continue the meetinq to tomorrow night. The Motion DIED for lack of a second. The Commission concurred with the lanquags as suggested by DCA/ lox . Jan Dabney, Jan Dabney i Associates, 671 Brea Canyon Road, representing RnP and Arciero, stated that Arciero is in agrsement with the changes made to the Resolution. RnP is generally in agreement with the chanqes made, but has concern with the lanquage on the lot line adjustment. The owners would prefer to do a lot line adjustment for the four lots after the tentative map and prior to final approval.. The lanquage does not protect RnP if someone should die, nor does it indicate where the lot line adjustment ends. The language should indicate that RnP will do a lot line adjustment, Sasak will do a lot line adjustment which will affect lots 046, 047, #48, i 049 of 'the parent tract. The concern of the lot line adjustment is May 24, 1993 page 7 that since the Sasak Corporation does not have a development agreement, it has revoked all the protection that the development agreement would render to Mr. Forester and equally to Mr. Patel. DCA/Fox suggested the following language: "Adjustments to lot lines of lots mutually agreed upon by the City Engineer and applicants for Tract No. 51253 and No. 51407 shall be designated on each tentative tract map and shall be recorded on each final map." Jan Dabney stated that he is in concurrence w+ tt the language suggested by DCA/Fox. The Planr.:-.-. Commission also concurred with the suggested language. VC/Moyer inquired how the secondary access for t'.e Arciero project will be provided. Jan Dabney stated that the current presentatior the Master Plan is to allow emergency secondar^ access to the commercial site. There will to 3 full street section that will be turf blocker landscaped to discourage commercial traffic c- _ through traffic coming through the Arciaro t - In addition to that specific access, Mr. Arcia er= providing pedestrian access through a trail - •_ the South Pointe School. Mr. Arciarc meets~ County requirements for a tract this size, this circulation pattern. The entire system a.• _ You to get out to Brea Canyon Road. Hardy Strozier suggested that another sentence added to condition 052, on page 7, Conditiors Approval under Streets, to read, "said access s— be improved across enclave 4 (the commercial s to Brea Canyon Road until such time that enc'. is improved with its temporary access." The Engineer concurred with the suggested lanquago VC/Meyer inquired if increasing the street as Of street A, along the southerly portion c! commercial site to include an i foot wide : + landscape median for that street would work the grading plan proposed. Jan Dabney stated that the property is owned : City and if the City desires to widen the roa would not be a dramatic impact to us. Howe* it is increased dramatically, then, because slope situation*, the commercial is cut down there street. H wever, wedo�pnotwiwant street A t May 24, 1993 Page s any commercial traffic or connection commercial site whatsoever unless to that Purposes. for emergency VC/Meyer inquired if in building Mr- Forester will participate connect to Shepherd Hi b se street intersection to Jan Dabney stated that since Sasak Corp. does not have a development agreement, from anyone that wa will be there is no assurance way to reduce the grade ebe protected. The only with the design problems is gh to help Mr. Sudke on that piece of land for those 6 or 7 lots, down that hill to to have the sewers drain vehicle to allow Morning Sun. But thete is ready toto a to us to guarantee that when we are available to us. that access will be set aside and Motion was made by VC/Mayer, seconded b and CARRIED to recommend adoption of y C/Plunk recommending that the Cit the Resolution ncil and approve Vesting Tentative act certify the EIR as amended, P No. 32400, ROLL CALL: AYES: CONKISSIONERS : NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMISSIONERS; ABSENT: COMISSIONERS; Li, Plunk VC/K(yer, and Chair/plamenbaum. Grothe. None. None. Notion was made by VC/Meyer, and CARRIED to recommendseconded R C/Plunk adoption o! the Resolution amending that the City Council certify and approval of the South Pointe the RJR for Arciero i Sons Development , as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMKISSIONERS: NOES: COMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: CoMaSSIONERS: ABSENT: COMISSIONERS: Li, PlunkChair/, VC/Heyer, and GGrothe. otheamenbaum. None. None. Motion was mads by VC/Meyers seconded by and CARRIED to rocby adoption of the Resolution C/plunk andrecapproval that the City.Council certilytheEIR PProval o! the South Pointe Development Agreement for RnP, as amended. ROLL CALL: Mav 24, 1993 page 9 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, VC/Meyer, ant Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Motion was made by vC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED to recommend adoption of the Resolution recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 to develop a 94 lot subdivision consisting of 90 single family residential parcels, as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, vC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by-C/Grothe and FAILED to continue the utter to the next regularly scheduled meeting. AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Grothe. and Li, VC/Heyer, Chair/Fiazenbaum. ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None. None. C/Plunk and C/Grothe departed the meeting at 12:20 a.m. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 12:20 a.m. The meeting was reconvened at 12:30 a.m. CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report for Tentative Tract No. 51253, Oak Tree Permit and CUP for Hillside Development for the Sasak Corporation project. Staff was directed, at the last Planning Comission meeting, to look at an alternative design dealing with the issue of bringing street A up from Shepherd Hills Road. Upon evaluation, it was determined that such a design would indicate a large retaining wall of about 20 feet in height at Hills Road and Morning Sun Avenue. Staff Shepherd determined that such a wall lof theno other appropriate, nor would vote in previous meetings. It :s alternatives reviewed at, inastuch as the new z` staff's recommendation th lot design meets the minimum criteria for Enclave of the propos!d South Pointe Master plan and botn adjacent developers have agreed to the respective May 21, 1993 Page to tract des'_gns, that recommend approval of the commission as revised for Tentative review and 21 lots Tract Map No. 51253 aPProval for the as well Removal Pe Hillside CIIp as recommend Permit. and the Oak Tree James Budka, Patel, stated the Design Engineer re recommended b that 2 or 3 other Presenting Mr, staff, but Y the Commission 'Odlficat'one, a8 retainin regardless of the were reviewed with aesthetically 1 would have to layout, the large Pleasingremain, which Is engineerinq point of View.nor effective from not problems as aociat He reviewed an benefit or ed with the designthe various intersection compelling reason ' There is no tentative map,at Shepherd Kills locate this the May 6. 13 ]meeting with 21 lots Drive. Z'ha VC Me g• is the preferred at / preferr 9n. Yer pointed out Presented this evening hthatthe earlier project ad a one rind that received atalfsimilar design as this. being reco approval but this responaibilit tended against. try We have a to preserve those peOple on the cul-de-sac to. Possible. The traffic will�rh� as VC/Mayer concurred dip on best as in ter" of the 1Sproveaents he °sign presented Morning sSbad Howeverthat would have to be not been allowed to appears that the research has analysis should 90 far enough. The engineering bounds look have gone beyond the boundary to 1 whete a series o! retaining walls of the be i grades °n the RnP Project to g walls alignment the and reduce lower some cts the impacts The Master Plan should have con at Spacts caused on the ad should have atter the Surroundi considered pted to miniSiziyunities, Chair/Flanenbaux declared the public fined. Hearing ��'a °each concern that Cushane, a resident last on thea $� Pointe ' expressed her citizens o! Benda• giving a Master Plan was heard should this c�unit perception that the be taken in Y come last. AgOnda items significant the order listed hearing are mad�rt9eney. She stated that i nen g should be proposal penor project a Public opportunit pond to Paned to provide an pointed out tit • the changes. She protect the Such effort has than Morning Sun, and q quality of life of tax bG,On made to given to the rase consideration should ba all citizens of Diamond ser. q. Use low -sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment pursuant to Rule 431.2. r. Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts. For daily forecast call: (800) 242-4022 (L.A. and Orange Counties) or (800) 367-4710 (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties). S. Use construction equipment that has catalytic convertors (for gasoline powered equipment). - t. Prevent trucks from idling longer than two minutes. U. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. V. Provide temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to improve traffic flow such as providing a flag person to direct traffic and ensure safe movements off the site as directed by the City Engineer. W. Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow to off-peak hours (i.e., between 7:00 PM and 6:00 AM and between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM) with approval from the City. 10. The following mitigation measures are recommended by the SCAQMD to minimize long-term emissions associated with the project: a. Use solar or low -emission water heaters. b. Use Central water heating systems. C. Use built-in energy efficient appliances. d. Building and subdivision orientation should be to the north for natural cooling. e. Provide shade trees to reduce building heat. f. Use energy efficient and automated controls for air conditioners. g. Use double -glass paned windows. h. Commercial Site: Implement on-site circulation plan in parting lots to reduce vehicle queuing. i. Commercial Site: Improve traffic flow at drive-throughs by designing wpm= windows for different functions and providing temporary parking for orders that are not immediately ready for pickup. j. Commercial Site: provide adequate ventilation systems for enclosed parking facikid". L Comatercial Site: Use fighting controls and energy efficient lighting. 1 Commercial Site: Provide preferential parting spaces for carpools and vanpools and follow other guidelines as defined in the City's 1lart Oil demand management (TDM) plan. M. MW applicsittt for die commercial enclave sh&il develop and submit for Community Development Director Review and Apprw4d, a trip reduction program. 11. Construction and maintenance acuvtues. including the repair and maintMattce of equipment, shall conform to and comply with applicable provisions -of the City of Diamond Bar's Nome Ordinance 17 May 24, 1993 Page 12 CDD/DeStefano stated that the City will have a graded active park site, plus a significant amount of revenue coming from the other two developers in term of their park improvement fees. The formula used for the Quimby Act fees is based upon the value of the property and other things. The fees will be in the range of about $1,500/DU. VC/Meyer suggested that another $3,500 dollars per lot be added for open space fees to be used directly for the improvement of the park. ICE/Wentz, in response to VC/Meyer's inquiry if there is another design solution for that intersection, stated that, from an engineering point of view, the May 6, 1993 design is the most practical of the alternative designs presented. That particular design say also discourage some of the cut -through use being anticipated through that area. other innovative things could also be done in the entire development area to help di courage the potential problem of cut -through traffic. CDD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Plamenbaus, stated that, on the present proposal, there is a significant slope between lots 013 through 018 and the RnP property that may be an appropriate location to replant a majority of the series of oaks. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the Mitigation Monitoring Program can provide an opportunity to do Off site mitigation for the oak Trees. Motion was made by C/Li to deny the project. The Motion DIED for lack of a second. VC/Meyer stated that there has been a significant amount of opposition to the entire project itself, and perhaps they should be allowed an opportunity to back up their commitaent to total preservation. MPT/Papers has expressed some interest in putting a bond issue on the next election to generate the revenue to acquire open space, and perhaps the Commission should recommend that the Council entertain this option. Motion was made by VC/Meyer to recoamtnd to the City Council to entertain the feasibility of putting a bond issue on the next election to purchase open space. Kays4, 1993 Page 13 DCA/Fox stated that it would be advisable that Commission not take action on something not on agenda. The Motion WED for lack of a second Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded VC/Meyer and CARRIED to approve the Resolution Tentative Tract Map No. 1 2 subdivision, as amended 51253 for the with the add 21 assessment of $3,500/DU developments, and the for off site p $1,800 dollars for off s sidewalks. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V C/ M NOES: e Y e r a r COMMISSIONERS: Liair/Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Grothe. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum� seconded VC/Meyer and CARRIED to a the Hillside Management O pprovdinanthe Resolution Removal b and oak Tr Permit, as amended. by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V C/ M e NOES:CC y e r a n COMI�ZSSIONERB: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ihair/Flamenbaum. CONMISSIONERS: None. COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Grothe. 13 NOTIC. 77.9 TA? 1111TRILIP �I��lR►I�1T� C ty d Diamond B r ■ 2'660 ',? Cot ',y I rr e, Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909)396-W6 1'0: ?roperty Owner w tt in a 5d) : oc :. adit s j ,f subject site ERCId: "bmmunity De% :Io )n er t De - p :., Ci y of I tia mond Bar �O'I']('L 13 IFEF EBY GIVEN, pug su an: to State L Lu , th tt .' &L-1—Public hearing will be held by the City Council and Planning omntis;io t to determine whether or nc t i he suhje(:t ] ecues' (s; shall be approved under the provisions of state Law and the City of diamond B u• as fellows: )ATE; AN ) TIME: OF ]HEARD G: Monda", .Aty 2, 1994 7:00 p.m. 'LACE U} HEARING: SOUTE COASI AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Audi tor,w i 21865 F. -Aople) Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 d Oak I: Development Agreement N �s 92-1 and Ves mg Tentative Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional id Oak Tre<; Permit No. 92-8; Vee ting 7 en tative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. 91 Use Permit No. 92-8 -5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-2; tional Use Permit No. 92-12; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; entative Trict Map No. 51253 and Condi A Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1 EQUEST: This is a request for approN al of a mixed use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses N include residential, commercial, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and ated north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The oJect proposes to develop 30 acres acre of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; approximately 200 single-family tached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. 'PLICANTS: (1) R -n -P Development, Inc., 4439 Rhodelia Court, Claremont, CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Son's, Inc., 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th St., Upland, CA 91785 (4) City of DiF.wond Bar, 21660 E. -Copley Pr.. Ste i00, Diamond Bar, r;A 91765 WMONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the terms of California Environmental Quality ermined that this project requires an Environmental Impact Report. An Environmental Impact Report has Act been prepared (SCH No. )81040), and is available for public review. )lished in: Gabriel Valley Tribune: 4/11194 do 4122194 and Valley Daily Bulletin: 4/11/94 & 4/22/94 ie May 2, 1994 Ioint Public Nearing is being held to focus attention on this project and to allow optimum public input. PLEASE ATTEND AND MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN review case materials or for further information on this subject please contact the Community Development Department at (909) X76 If you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone -dised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior :he public hearing. r taste of call Ma �� UP) GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNNG AND RESEARCH �r 1400 TENTH STREET PETE WILSON SACRAMENTO 96814 LEE QNS80M p11ECTOR GOVERNOR 916/445-4831 January 31, .1994 Mr. Gary H. Werner, Mayor City of Diamond Bar city hall 21660 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California 91765-4117 Subject: City of Diamond bar's General Plan Extension Dear Mayor werner: This letter informs you that I have conditionally approved Diamond Barts request for an extension of tide for adoption of the city general plan. This extension is granted for a tam of nine months, beginning -January 31, 1994 and ending October 31, 1994 or upon adoption of all the affected elements of the general plan, whichever occurs first. This extension applies to all elements of the general plan, excluding the housing element. As the basis for granting this extension, I refer to the findings made by the Diamond Sar City Council in Resolution No. 94-01. 1 have determined that the resolution and additional supporting data submitted to me by the city comply with Government Code Section 65361. The grant of an extension under Section 65361 and its relevant subsections releases the, city from the requiremant that it maintain a complete and adequate general plan. In accordance with the powers granted as by Section 65361, Z have made this extension subject to certain conditions which will ensure compliance with planning and toning laws. The following conditions shall take effect immediately and shall remain -in effect during the term of this extension. I reserve the right to amend the conditions, if necessary, at any time. This extension io' granted on the presumption that the city will make a concerted effort to complete its general plan, within the allotted time period. A further extension of the plana may not be granted if the city has not made substantial progress in completing its general plan. 3. Mr. Gary H. Warner, Mayor January 31, 1994 Page Two CONDITIoNSt 1• (a) Until approval of "a draft 4 Commission, the aitgan*ral plan by the city discretionary land use Y may not approve findings, supported b Arojects unlet• it sakes written record, ghat Y substantial evidence in the there is little •or no probebia In Project will be detrimental to or interfere w that the future Will generel plan if the ith the inconsistent with that plan. Project is ultimately (b) Upon. approval of the Planning commission draft general plan by the city land use projects onithe city may approve discretionary en basad upon substantial idem Makes written findings, projects are consistent with the drain ft record, that such Upon the Planning aomnfasion•t a general plan. findings of probability o! no d.pVroval of the general plan will iaaant to draft' no longer be required. the future Z• The city shall not initiate general plan amen a°sept. process, or approve uri The only Permissiblena,,,Pt,ng the Period of this tanaion. general plan amendments as ma to this condition apply to Y be necessary to: (a) continue processing Plano, initiated g general plan amendments o�c extension; Prier to the effective date of this (b) revise or implement a Pursuant to the srvtiva or impact California fees rnmant Coda; (C) incorporate solid waste, h a Plans-,-' or other VWW as sagrd9us waste management federal law, includin re Y be required b 9 quired updates; Y state or (d) approve permits to construct waste disposal, solid waste disposal, Operate municipal facilities (including,pial, or hazardous waste transfer stations but not limited to landfills, household hazardousmat rialar*cO facilities facilities , The cit , etc.) in the city. Y shall not Initiate or process an s d°pined in Government code Section 65 amendments Y specific plans (as for those initiatedil prior of the draft go or sp�itic plan extension. prior to the effectivendstl plan, exceptof this Mr. Cary H. Warner, Mayor January 31, 1994 page Three 4. The city shall not initiate, accept or process new applications for vesting tentative maps, development agreements, or any other agreement which vests and legally precludes unilateral changes in land use by the city during this extension, except for those initiated prior to the effective date of this extension. 5. The following terms are defined for the purpoess of this extensions (a) "Discretionary land use project" is defined as a zoning ordinance map or text amendment;, specific plan when allowed pursuant to Condition #3 herein, planned development, conditional use permit, variance, and. tentative subdivision sap (including a tentative Rap but excluding a vesting tentative ma Parcel blic works or capital improvement project (excipto oruthose projects necessary for maintenance or public safety). (b) "city" is defined as the city council, as well as any other city official, commission, or individual delegated administrative responsibility under city ordinance or policy. (c) "Draft general plan" in defined as the proposed general Plan approved by the planning Commission and referred to the city council for action. 6. Ministerial, non -discretionary actions such as approval of a final subdivision nap, at line adustmant, site pian review, are or building permit where no car ons imposed share not ba subject to the restrictions enuaerated in this letter. 7. The -city shall submit �► copy of the draft the accompanying draft Environmental I general plan and the Governor's office of planningReact Report as t) to thirty 30 days and Research at least i ( ) y prior to final consideration by the city council. 8. The city shall submit a copy of the draft housing element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) at least 90 days prior to adoption. further, the city shall respond to HCD1'■ comments in a timely fashion prior to taking final action on the general plan. 9. The city shall continue to comply with applicable federal, state, and regional requirements, including the California Mr. Gary H. Warner, Mayor January 31, 1994 Page Four. Environmental Quality act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 st saq.). This extension does not release the city from its obligation to comply with all city regulations and Policies other than the general plan. I am willing to discuss these conditions or other aspects of this extension if you believe they are not well taken or advisable. In any event, if you have any questions pertaining to this extension, Please contact Robert Cervantes of .my office at (916) 445-4831. Si arely, rn GRrssox Director cc: senator Prank Hill Assemblyman Paul Horcher J.C.D. J. C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS G' 1 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SUITE 5 WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91-89 909 594-7568FAX - 909-594-5090 ,. _) Ili March 25, 1994 ivir. Terrace Belanger City Manager City of Diamond Bar State 100 21660 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, Ca 917b5-4177 Reference: South Pointe Master Plan Processing Dear Mr. Belanger, C= ¢' During our last public hearing before the City Council in early December, the Council asked that our project be continued until a ruling or opinion from OPR could be obtained and or the General Plan be modifie.l. It was also the opinion of the Council that the referended 1993 General Plan would be: modified by late March or early April. Since the redtiired opinion letter from OPR has been received by the City, and does aliow some continued processing for those vesting applications that feii within the outlined time cnnstrninm of the OPR opinion, We are asking that our applicatit,n. process be allowed to continue due to the following consiacrations. It has been our intent to try to work with the City and the Council to delay our further processing until the completion of GPAC hearings and the. further modification of the General Plan by the Planning Commission and the Council. However, there are extraneous factors outside of our control that are influencing the need to have this project proceed immediately. As both you and the Council are presently aware, the State has placed time constraints upon the Walnut Val!ey Unified School District which require them to proceed with their proposed improvements to the South Pointe Middle School or place in jeopardy 6e available and necessary matching funds from the State. With these considerations in mind, we are requesting that our project, the South Pointe Master Plan, be placed on the earliest council agenda for consideration. We are further suggesting that the Council either accept, reject or propose modifications to the existing project. In a good faith effort, the two major property owners within the South Pointe Master Plan have proposed what they feel is an acceptable alternate development plan that would allow everyone involved to proceed. This plan only involves the proposed vesting maps.*submitted by both Mr. Forrister and Mr. Arciero. While Mr. Patel is sympathetic to the school districts problems, his property is not large enough to accommodate a resolution to the school districts problems and should be considered upon its own merit. Attached please find a copy of my letter of March 15, 1994 outlining the referenced alternate development plan of Mr. Arciero's and Mr. Forrister's holdings. Please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience concerning the dates of scheduling. Respectfully, )an C. Dabney, RCE President cc: Mr. Dwight Forrister Mr. Frank Arciero Jr. Mr. Amrut Patel Mr. Ronald Hockwald J.C.D. -A W J J. C. D A B N E Y & AS S O C I A T E S LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS 6"1 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SUITE 5 WALNUT. CALIFORNIA 91-89=-=•�- 909 594--568 FAX - 909-594-5090 N n March 15, 1994 rri City of Diamond Bar Reference: SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS: am presenting for your consideration a conceptual plan of the modified South Pointe Master Plan. 1 feel that this conceptual plan addresses the issues that you have presented to us and achieves the goals that your constituents feel are of benefit to the community at large. The basic concepts of the plan are to provide the most environmentally sensitive access to the South Pointe Middle School and the proposed residential development while preserving the ecological and scenic setting of the canyon. The proposed access from south to northwest is the product of five separate route _._..locations.that -we had iavestigated... Two. routes- -through,the-Arcfero property -and three through the Forrister property. The selection criteria for the access did not include cost to construct, but more appropriately, least grading through the entire length, maximum grade considerations, maximum tree preservation, and least intrusion on the canyon floor and stream. This proposed access route is located within a standard 64' wide right-of-way with a 40' wide paved section providing the capacity of a neighborhood collector street. We have further refined the street section to reduce impact by designing the sidewalk on one side only, the northeasterly side, while allowing the cut and fill slopes to start either 2' behind the curb, on the side without sidewalk, or 2' behind the sidewalk on the other side. The sidewalk has been located on the northeasterly side to allow pedestrians to encounter the minimum expected crossing traffic at build out of the project. The proposed access road grades down from Brea Canyon Road at 12% to the stream crossing and then grades up at 8% to the residential development and school site. The 12% downgrade to the canyon floor allows the construction of the arch pipe pedestrian underpass to present the minimum footprint in the stream bed. The underpass allows access along the entire length for both pedestrians and animals without crossing the improved access route. The original Master Plan required 92% of the on-site oak trees to be removed through grading. This revised conceptual plan requires that only 12% of the on-site oak trees be removed. Of the 835 oak trees on the site 714 will remain after development. This conceptual plan leaves the migration corridor intact as shown in the original master plan and would further set aside the entire existing canyon. The proposed canyon set aside would consist of 10 acres owned by the City, 40.4 acres owned by Arciero & Sons Inc. and 31.6 -acres owned by Forrister for a total of approximately 82 acres. One of the issues before GPAC, currently, is the wish by several members to set aside at least 5% of the remaining undeveloped property for open space and park. Of the 1680 acres of land that is privately held and capable of development within the City of Diamond Bar, the set aside of Sandstone Canyon represents approximately 5% of the 1680 acres! When the City received their extension for the completion of the general plan from the State, the extension allowed for vesting map projects to proceed during the extension period. We fall within this category and, I believe, we fall within the intent of the current GPAC considerations. In my discussions with the four impacted parties within the South Pointe Master Plan, the Walnut Valley Unified School District, Mr. Forrister, Mr. Arciero and Mr. Patel, it is apparent that.each and every one of the parties wishes to cooperate with the -City. Each party desires to -proceed or bring this stalemate to resolution. However, no one wants to negatively impact the others and no one wants to weaken their own legal position. For this new plan to proceed several things have to happen. Mr Arciero and Mr. Forrister need to reach a satisfactory agreement on the exchange of properties, a development agreement needs to be in place between the City and Misters Arciero and Forrister, a grading permit needs to be issued to satisfy the school district's needs and Mr.. Patel's development rights need to be protected. Without an approved development agreement and/or vesting map, neither Mr. Arciero nor Mr. Forrister will proceed. Mr..Arciero needs the entitlement to proceed with the removals for the school district and Mr. Forrister will not transfer or relinquish any rights without a development agreement. r: Mr. Forrister would require that the restrictive language on his other parcel be removed according to the constraints of the -Map Act, that the zoning on this alternate parcel remain 1 DU/Acre, that the grading ordinance in effect under his vesting application remain in effect on the alternate parcel, that a negative impact declaration be granted on the alternate parcel, that the transfer of ownership of Sandstone Canyon be payment in full for any park fees and that processing and application fees he has paid to date under his vesting map application be credited to the alternate site application. Mr. Arciero would require that all fees paid to date on his vesting.map application be credited to his alternate site (R -N -P's tract), that those ordinances in effect at the time of his vesting application remain in effect, that transfer of ownership of Sandstone Canyon be payment in full for all and any park fees, that a rough grading permit be approved immediately to allow the grading of the South Pointe School site and that a reasonable resolution to his development request on his 22 acre ownership on the east side of the 57 Freeway be made. Both gentleman would ask that under no consideration mentioned above should Mr. Patel's development rights be effected as it is not their intent to jeopardize any other parties development potential or rights. Respectfully, Vajn6C7. Dabney, RCE President cc: Mr. Dwight Forrister Mr. Frank Arciero Jr. Mr. Amrut Patel Mr. Ronald Hockwald Walnut Valley Unified school District 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut, California 91789 • (714) 595-1261 • Fax (7'4' 598-8423 • Ronald W. Hockwalt, Ed. D., Superintendent April 4, 1994 Honorable Gary Werner, Mayor City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91789 Dear Mayor Werner: The Board of Trustees and administration for the Walnut Valley Unified School District request your assistance in building South Pointe Middle School. The time is short. The Board of Trustees hopes to award the bid to the construction company on Wednesday, April 20, or on May 4, at the very latest. In order to maintain the bid at the present costs, we would need to start construction within thirty days. The grading needs to take place before the actual construction can begin. Formerly, we have been given an estimate of thirty working days in order to remove the necessary dirt from the site so we can begin construction. As should be obvious from these times and dates, we need to have the grading permits granted to Mr. Arciero so that the grading can begin this month. It is our understanding that these permits can be approved during "this window of opportunity" allowed to Diamond Bar by the State of California. It should also be mentioned that we are concerned about the reimbursement to the district for this project. At stake is nearly $8,000,000 dollars of refundable costs that the state will grant us if we continue to make reasonable progress on the project. We are always concerned that new projects in the state could shift priorities and re- allocate away from the South Pointe School project. We are asking for your quickest possible assistance so that we can move ahead with the construction of the permanent facilities for South Pointe Middle School. Thank you for your concern and assistance. Most sincerely, - ---- on Hockwalt, Su rintendent rwh/rwh cc: Board of Trustees TIMELINE OF CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH POINTE MIDDLE SCHOOL 1994-1995 Preconstruction Timeline Jan. 13, 1994 Bids opened on So Pointe Middle School Construction Opens a 90 day window period in which to award the construction project. Feb. 16, 1994 Board accepts recom- mendation of low bidder & recommends to Office of State Architecture for approval. • Dept of the State Architect takes 30-60 days to complete approval process. April 20, 1994 Board awards contract to low bidder. Note: The guaranteed pricing'associated with the construction of So. Pointe Middle School provided by the low bidder only applies until April 20 after which time, costs could be increased by the builder to match the cost of inflation. mar 3/1 Financial Timeline California State Alloca- tions Board approved allocation of matching funds for approximately $8,000,000. Jan. 1994 through 1995 District must substantiate that we are making "reasonable progress" in the construction of South Pointe Middle School. School Construction Timeline March, 1994 Move dirt off site at South Pointe. April 20, 1994 Board awards the bid to build South Pointe Middle School. April 20, 1994 Begin construction. Will require approxi- mately 18 months to complete project. September, 1995 New South Pointe Middle School scheduled to open. Ron Hockwalt Walnut Valley Unified School District 'SIEflRA l ANGELES CHAPTER SIERRA CLUB 3345 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 508 • LOS ANGELFS • CALIFORNIA 90010 • (213)387-4287 FAk(213)387-5383 Sierra Club Resolution.on Sandstone Canyon The Angeles Chapter opposes the South Pointe Master Plan in the City of Diamond Bar and supports the "preservation of Sandstone Canyon for wildlife habitat and low impact recreational use. passed by the Angeles Chapter Executive Committee; November 13, 1993. ti a cv attest: �7 - Dick Hingson, Conservation Coordinator. z _ LU o a "- ._ r N vn � 01, Eru �- Dear Sir, We are very concerned about the future development of the South Point Middle school. At present there is only one route to and from the school - from Lemon to Blackhawk to Larkstone, which creates a traffic jam every day. Not only is this an inconvenience to residents here-- it brings noise and smog from the many busses and autos. Additionally, we are put in great jeopardy since it would be almost impossible for paramedics and the fire department to answer emergency calls quickly during the traffic jams. Before there is any more dirt removal up there, we feel it - is imperative that an alternate or temporary road be built leading to Brea Canyon. Those heavy dump trucks must not be allowed to travel over our residential streets causing pavement damage, dust and dirt, noise, congestion and danger to the people and cars using these areas. We hope you will give this matter your serious attention before there is a catastrophe of large proportions. For example what if the school would catch fire and the fire department response was delayed because of traffic??? Sincerely, Fredric and Frances Strunk I M rn ori '0 C)a Cp 's 3 1525 Blackhawk Dr. ty Walnut, Ca. 91789 f -a April 17, 1994 Planning Department City of Diamond Bar 21660 Copley Dr. Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765 Dear Sir, We are very concerned about the future development of the South Point Middle school. At present there is only one route to and from the school - from Lemon to Blackhawk to Larkstone, which creates a traffic jam every day. Not only is this an inconvenience to residents here-- it brings noise and smog from the many busses and autos. Additionally, we are put in great jeopardy since it would be almost impossible for paramedics and the fire department to answer emergency calls quickly during the traffic jams. Before there is any more dirt removal up there, we feel it - is imperative that an alternate or temporary road be built leading to Brea Canyon. Those heavy dump trucks must not be allowed to travel over our residential streets causing pavement damage, dust and dirt, noise, congestion and danger to the people and cars using these areas. We hope you will give this matter your serious attention before there is a catastrophe of large proportions. For example what if the school would catch fire and the fire department response was delayed because of traffic??? Sincerely, Fredric and Frances Strunk Sandst $ne Canyon: s� 105r o whom it may concern: r -k As most of you know South Pointe School is planning to push a large amount of dirt, sand and rocks into the natural habitat of hundreds of animals. Many people have been against it from the start, yet it is still going to happen. Now, if the City of Diamond Bar will not give South Pointe the permits needed to push the sand, dirt and rocks into the ravine, that gives us -- people who care about wrild life -- time to take control and stop this from happening. Make your voice be heard. a 3 ` u,r V`- F The people listed above do not agree with killing hundreds of animals.' tq, Sandstone *Canyon: CJ�-4r-� o whom it may concern: As most of you know South Pointe School is planning to push a large amount of din, sand and rocks into the natural habitat of hundreds of animals. Many people have been against it from the start, yet it is still going to happen. Now, if the City of Diamond Bar will not give South Pointe the permits needed to push the sand, dirt and rocks into the ravine, that gives us -- people who care about wild life -- time to take control and stop this from happening. Make your voice be heard. n The people listed above do not agree with killing hundreds of animals. 16s Sandstone,lanyon: o whom it may concern: As most of you know South Pointe School is planning to push a large amount of dirt, sand and rocks into the natural habitat of hundreds of animals. Many people have been against it from the start, yet it is still going to happen. Now, if the City of Diamond Bar will not'give South Pointe the permits needed to push the sand, dirt and rocks into the ravine, that gives us -- people who care about wild life -- time to take control and stop this Tom happening. Make your voice be heard. 1. UJ_LV\ '-C r�� 4 W lI1C PCUPIC IMMU dUUVC UU 11U1 4rIV-U V11111 L1111111b lI1C PCUPIC IMMU dUUVC UU 11U1 4rIV-U V11111 L1111111b Sandstone Canyon:/� r o whom it may concern: As most of you know South Pointe School is planning to push a large amount of dirt, sand and rocks into the natural habitat of hundreds of animals. Many people have been against it from the start, yet it is still going to happen. Now, if the City of Diamond Bar will not give South Pointe the permits needed to push the sand, dirt and rocks into the ravine, that gives us -- people who care about wild life -- time to take control and stop this from happening. Make your voice be heard. n. f s �r The people listed above do not agree with killing hundreds of animals. ja; Sandstone Canyon: o whom it may concern: As most of you know South Pointe School is planning to push a large amount of dirt, sand and rocks into the natural habitat of hundreds of animals. Many people have been against it from the start, yet it is still going to happen. Now, if the City of Diamond Bar will not give South Pointe the permits needed to push the sand, dirt and rocks into the ravine, that gives us -- people who care about wild life -- tune to take control and stop this from happening. Make your voice be heard. 0113 Auvrf) G f The people listed above do not agree with killing hundreds of animals. ids5aadstose Irapa: - o whom it may concern: 1 V`J Z As most of you know South Pointe School is planning to push a large amount o 'dirt, sand and rocks into the natural habitat of hundreds of animals. Many people ha- re been against it from the start, yet it is still going to happen. Now, if the City of Diam )nd Bar will not give South Pointe the permits needed to push the sand, dirt and rocks ir_to the ravine, that gives us -- people who care about wild life -- time to take control and stop this I i om happening. ig... Make your voice be heard. 0 The people listed above do not agree with killing hundreds of animals. CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED AGAINST SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN January 19, 1993 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Chisholm January 29, 1993 Letter to Supervisor Dana from Mr. & Mrs. Hodges February 2, 1993 Letter to Diamond Bar City Council from Mr. & Mrs. Hodges February 3, 1993 Letter to Diamond Bar. City Council from Mr. & Mrs. Collins February 5, 1993 Letter to Diamond Bar City Council from Mr. & Mrs. Taylor February 28, 1993 Letter to Supervisor Dana from Mearlyn Stein February11, 1993 Response from Supervisor Dana to Mr. & Mrs. Hodges February 11, 1993 Cover Letter for Form Letter to South Point Neighbors - 9 signatures February 13, 1993 Form Letter from South Pointe Neighbors - 50 signatures/letters reed February 23, 1993 Letter to Planning Commission Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum from Mrs. Hodges February 25, 1993 Letter to Planning Commissioner David Meyer from Mrs. Hodges April 1, 1993 Letter from Mr. & Mrs. J.' Oliva April 4, 1993 Form Letter from Pathfinder's Homeowners Association - 45 signatures/letters reed May 10, 1993 "Grassroots Petition to Save Sandstone Canyon" - 1334 signatures CORRESPONDENCE IN FAVOR OF SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN February 1, 1993 Cover letter from .South Pointe Middle School to Parents February 1, 1993 Form letter/petition from South Pointe Middle School Parents 234 signatures on file February 14, 1993 Letter fromRon Hockwalt, Superintendent Walnut Valley Unified School District February 22, 1993 Petition from Diamond Bar Little League 59 signatures on file May 10, 1993 Letter from Nick Anis June 8, 1993 Petition from AYSO Soccer Club of Diamond Bar 124 signatures CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS ON FILE IN SUITE 190 cis c `'' SMC v, V V661 aunt L 8101,6 # qot OWI. uoisr3 •g ugot 280 anaKS I80L-t,89 (606) L09Z6 VD `apisianrd g almS `onuand RAM 6;I1 •ouI `s3uminsuoD oipvlq wolf, :gq pandaid a29 -CIM g f4iD ja2uLlQq •-I aouaua,I, -Jw :131nuoD LITE -198 (VIL) 'ted 999;-96£ (VIL) lal LLIt-S9LI6 VO `ng PuouretQ 001 alms `anuQ Aaldoo •g 09912 .meg puoumi(l 3o f4iZ) :io3 pamdald juaiussassv M!20[010 aopiaa03 aj!lpl!m uul j aa;s N aluiod gjnoS SIA Vq"Y Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. (TMC) was contracted by the City of Diamond Bar to assess the value of the proposed South Pointe project site as a wildlife movement corridor. We conducted five field surveys in May 1994 to analyze the significance of the site in connection with regional and local natural land. In addition to our geographic surveys, we identified animal species presently using the site. We examined many obstacles and potential corridors in the area, ranging from highway underpasses to unfenced vacant lots. The only potential corridor connections we found were in the southern portions of the site. These corridors connected with open natural land in the Puente Hills. The site is not considered to be a part of a large-scale wildlife corridor, but is connected to the Puente Hills by smaller corridors. We recommend that open areas of the project remain connected with these corridors, and have listed seven specific recommendations for retaining the quality of these connections. SOUTH POINTE (94-01 a) Tk=Madre 7JUNE1994 O conuR" South Pointe Master Plan Wildlife Corridor Biological Assessment Prepared for: City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Tel. (714) 396-5666 Fax. (714) 861-3117 Contact: Mr. Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager Prepared by: Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. 1159 Iowa Avenue, Suite E. Riverside, CA 92507 (909) 684-7081 Steve Ogg John R. Easton TMC Job # 94-018 7 June 1994 C n M INTRODUCTION Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. (TMC) was contracted by the City of Diamond Bar to assess the value of the proposed South Pointe project site as a wildlife movement corridor. The approximately 200 -acre site is located within an area bordered by Colima Road/Golden Springs Drive, Brea Canyon Road, Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Cutoff. The site can be found on USGS 7.5' Series Yorba Linda Quadrangle (T2S, R9W Sections 17 and 20), or in the 1994 edition of Thomas Bros. Maps of Los Angeles County (page 679). Development of urban communities in the vicinity of the site has contributed to the loss of natural land in the region. Some species of wildlife (e.g. coyotes, skunks, and some birds) are adaptable and/or highly mobile and can regularly move through or occupy some residential areas. However, many species of the Puente/Chino Hills ecosystem (eg. Cougar, Bobcat, Badger) depend on contiguous areas of habitat (natural land) which are undisturbed or minimally disturbed. Wildlife movement corridors are an important element of ecosystems and function in a variety of ways. Beier and Loe (1992) describe a 1990 ruling by the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Marble Mountain Audubon Soc. vs. Rice, 914 F.2d 179) which explicitly listed 5 functions of wildlife movement corridors. Specifically, corridors maintain connectivity among formerly contigums wildlands and provide avenues along which: 1. Wide-ranging animals can travel, migrate, and find mates. 2. Suitable conditions are present for natural propagation of plants. 3. Genetic interchange can occur. 4. Populations can move in response to natural changes and natural disasters. 5. Individuals can recolonize habitats. Wildlife corridors near the South Pointe project site have been addressed with these functions in mind. We examined the site from a regional perspective, and a local perspective. We identified animal species present on the site, then examined how the project would affect their needs. Tierra Madre Consultants used a wide array of remote depictions of the site including; USGS 7.5' regional topographic maps, Thomas Bros. Maps, Assessor's Parcel Maps of Diamond Bar, aerial photographs of 1:79200 and 1:1200 scales, satellite images of Southern California, and maps of areas designated as Significant Ecological Areas (SEA) by Los Angeles County. These sources were reviewed from a regional perspective (within 15 miles of the site) in order to identify large areas of natural land and potential obstacles separating these areas from the site. We reviewed these sources from a local perspective (within 2 miles of the site) in order to identify smaller patches of natural land which might be a part of a wildlife corridor. SOUTH POINTE (94018) 2 7 JUNE 1994;lfertc Madro QO corrultanl+ Field surveys were conducted by Steve Ogg and John R. Easton on May 10, 13, 16, 19, and 20, 1994 for a total of 33 man-hours. For the regional perspective, our field reconnaissance included a search for corridors traversing State Highway 60 and 57, and an evaluation of the larger areas of natural land. From a local perspective we performed two perimeter surveys of the site. The first was conducted on foot. We looked for culverts and unfenced areas which might serve animals to traveling through the site. We mapped these potential corridors in preparation for the second perimeter survey. The second survey was conducted from within a car and on foot along the streets and lots in the local area. We expanded upon our earlier findings by conducting an extensive search around the unfenced areas to see if they were a part of a corridor connecting to other natural areas. In addition to our geographic surveys, we identified animal species presently using the site. Our methods included direct observation, a search for animal sign (tracks, scat, fur, remains, and dens), a review of literature and a focused survey of animal tracks. We identified tracks by surveying wet ground near water sources. Additionally we set up five baited, tracking stations near potential wildlife .corridors near the perimeter of the site. Track identification was confirmed through the use of standard tracking techniques (measurements of individual tracks, determining the gait pattern, and observing other sign such as scat). Tracking guides (Mune 1974 and Lowery 1990) were used as an aid in identifying tracks. We chose four animals from our list of detected species as examples of how the project would affect local wildlife. SOUTH POINTE (94018) RFSULTS Regional Perspective One of the first steps in wildlife corridor studies is to "identify habitat areas the corridor is designed to connect" (Beier and Loe 1992). From the regional perspective, the South Pointe project site is located near the San Jose Hills, Chino Hills, and Puente Hills (see Map 2.). The site is located in the northern portion of the Puente Hills south of State Highway 60 and west of State Highway 57. For purposes of this report, natural areas east of State Highway 57 is addressed as the "Chino Hills". San Jose Hills The San Jose Hills north of the site includes approximately 3100 acres of natural land containing a wide variety of plant communities. The San Jose Hills are separated from the South Pointe project site by about 31/2 miles of developed urban areas. An additional 800 acres of undeveloped land is within the hills in the City of Industry, north of State Highway 60. The vegetation on these hills is primarily grasslands with minimal brush cover. The City of Industry hills are separated from the site by about 34 of a mile of developed urban areas. Additionally both areas are separated from the site by State Highway 60. From the regional perspective it was important to examine State Highway 60 as one of the most formidable barriers separating these hills from the site. We conducted field surveys along State Highway 60 between Fairway Drive and State Highway 57. The two streets that cross under this section of the highway are 7 JUNE 1994 ilwa Modrs0 3 ConvAoMa 6/3/94: mp Lemon Avenue and Brea Canyon Road. Both streets are about 100 feet wide with four traffic lanes. The underpasses are cement and dirt lined and do not contain vegetation cover. The land immediately to the north and south of the underpasses are well-developed urban areas and lack any substantial amounts vegetation which might be used by animals as cover. These underpasses do not contain resources necessary to function as wildlife corridors. The only other passages under the highway were 18 -inch and 24 -inch diameter drainage pipes which were blocked by the highway's chain link fence. These drainage pipes are not considered to be useful as wildlife corridors. Puente and Chino Hills Whittier Narrows, Puente Hills, and Chino Hills represent the northwest extension of the Santa Ana Mountain Range. Whittier Narrows and Puente Bills form a peninsula containing roughly 16 square miles of diminishing and fragmented natural land ranging in width from 500 feet to 3 miles. To the east, the Chino Hills retain a wider overall width and contains roughly 60 square miles of natural land. Large areas of natural land in the Puente Hills and Chino Hills are essentially divided from each other .by State Highway 57 and Brea Canyon Road. From the regional perspective we examined State Highway 57 as a potentially formidable barrier to wildlife movement between the two hills. We examined a one mile wide band along either side of this highway, from the urban areas of Los Angeles County near State Highway 60 to the urban areas of Orange County beginning at the city of Brea. The portion of State Highway 57 from around Brea Canyon Cutoff northward is within the incorporated portion of the city of Diamond Bar. About 60% of the land in this area is developed commercial and residential land. The natural land in this portion of the city, including the South Pointe project site, is all within 1/ mile of developed urban land. South of the city of Diamond Bar and north of the Los Angeles/Orange County boundary, the land near the highway is predominantly within SEA 15. SEA 15 covers about 1300 acres of natural land to the west of State Highway 57 and about 3900 acres east of the highway. To the west of the highway, urban development is present in the narrow strip between the northern border of SEA 15 and the southern border of the city of Diamond Bar. Another development project presently in progress is Tract 44478. This 114 acre community is located immediately south of Brea Canyon Cutoff next to State Highway 57 and is partially within SEA 15 (MBA 1990). To the east of the highway are the central portions of Tonner Canyon and most of the Firestone Boy Scout Reservation. This relatively undeveloped canyon contains a USGS-designated intermittent stream and forested, areas of California Walnut (luglands calffibrnica). A radio -tagged Mountain Lion was recorded using part of this canyon as his home range in 1991 (Beier 1989-92). This canyon contains features that make it a valuable asset to wildlife movement in the area. The Orange County portion of Brea Canyon north of the city of Brea is predominantly a combination of oil fields and natural land. The lower portion of Tonner Canyon and the accompanying stream cross under the State Highway 57 SOUTH POINTE (94-018) 6 7 JUNE 1994 Timm MOS° O C-*-* bridge which spans the canyon at a height of over 75 feet and width of about 400 feet. At the time of our survey, the stream was flowing at a width of about 5 feet and depth of about 6 inches. The riparian area under this bridge contains a wide strip of vegetation which could be useful as a wildlife corridor. We found six passageways across State Highway 57, potentially linking the Puente Hills with the Chino Hills. A viable wildlife corridor was found where Tonner Canyon passes under the State Highway 57 bridge in Orange County. This passageway was by far the widest and least constricted of those surveyed. It connected two large areas of relatively undisturbed natural land and contained a wide strip of riparian vegetation which could be used as cover by animals traveling through this corridor. Another potential corridor is the Brea Canyon Road underpass in the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County. This underpass connects two large areas of relatively undisturbed natural land. The passageway consists of a four lane road and a wide parkway to the south of this road. Animals could cross between the two sets of hills by using the parkway in this culvert. The remaining passageways (3 underpasses and 1 overpass) are not considered to be viable wildlife corridors. They are associated with a high degree of human activity within moderately developed residential and commercial areas in close proximity to highway onramps and offramps. Local Perspective ulv Tierra Madre Consultants examined the perimeter of the site in an effort to locate underpasses or "culverts" leading away from the site, which might be used by animals moving to and from the site. We located 12 drainage pipes ranging in size from 20 inches to 67 inches in diameter. Nine of these pipes spanned distances of over 100 feet and led into darkness. The remaining five pipes spanned a distance of about 75 feet into areas lit by manway grates. Beyond this point the pipes led into an extensive drainage pipe system which led into darkness. None of these drainage pipes are considered to be useful as wildlife corridors. Unfenced Areas We identified 9 -unfenced areas around the perimeter of the site. Seven of these areas were essentially short peninsulas of habitat that were not connected to larger areas of natural land. Two of these areas connected with undeveloped open spaces which could be used as potential corridors connectipg the site with the larger expanses of natural land in the Puente Hills to the south (see Map 2 and Exibit 1). A potential corridor was found near Shaded Wood Road and Pathfinder Road in the southeastern portion of the site (see Map 3). Animals using this part of the corridor could follow a t 140 -foot wide strip of land with a moderate amount cover provided by of landscaped vegetation and sloped terrain. This strip is interrupted once by a ±30 -foot wide driveway which connects a low -traffic residential street on the east, with a parking SOUTH POINTE (94-018) 7 7 JUNE 1994 7$wO CorruMoMs lot for an office building on the west. Human activity around the office building may be minimal when many wildlife species are active (dawn, dusk, night). From here the animals would need to cross Pathfinder Road (a 4 -lane road) to enter about 150 acres of natural land containing a moderate amount of vegetation cover. This land follows a circuitous route along the west side of State Highway 57 from Pathfinder Road southward, around the houses near Silver Cloud Drive, and continues to Brea Canyon Cutoff near Fallow Field Drive. From here the potential corridor becomes limited by the current activities associated with the construction of Tract 44478. This 114 -acre tract is located south of Brea Canyon Cutoff near Corporate Terrace Drive. Animals able to pass beyond this area would then be in the contiguous natural lands of the Puente Hills. A second potential corridor was found in the southwestern .portion of the site, west of the Missionary Ridge Road cul- de-sac near the Diamond Bar city boundary. This corridor begins at a ±50 -foot wide strip of vacant land cutting between the back fences of residential tracts. The vegetation is fairly dense in this area and throughout the ± 130 -foot long corridor strip. At the end of this strip, the corridor opens up into a canyon shared by a gated low-density ,residential community and about 65 acres of natural land with diverse vegetation (see Exibit 2). This canyon is separated from additional natural land by Brea Canyon Cutoff (a 4 -lane road), north of Pathfinder Road. During our five site visits we found road kills of two Opossum and a Grey Squirrel here, indicating that animals do attempt to cross this portion of the road. On the southwestern side of this road there is an additional ± 100 acres of natural land near SOUTH POINTE (94-018) Noble Canyon Way. This land is partially separated from additional natural land by the residences along Joel Drive. We found a break between these houses on Joel Drive near Thelma Lane (see Exibit 3). The five- foot tall block wall along this 35 -foot wide strip may provide some cover for wildlife traveling through this area. This ±75 -foot long strip connects to a ±500 -foot wide canyon between Robert Road and Joel Drive (see Exibit 4). The only impediments between this canyon and the large areas of natural land of the Puente Hills are Pathfinder Road (a 4 -lane road) and Mary Ann Lane (a 2 -lane road). The natural land on either side of these streets in this area are not lined with houses at the present time. Effect on Wildlife We identified 47 animal species which occupy or otherwise use the site. These animals were identified from tracks, scat, and direct observation. This included 11 mammal, 32 bird, and 4 reptile species. We have identified 10 additional rodent species expected to be present on the site, based on the result of small mammal surveys of a nearby site (TMC 1992). Bobcat was detected in earlier surveys (Ultrasy4tems 1992) and is also included in our list. We found no evidence of Mountain Lions (Cougar) on the site. Their average home range varies from about 50 square miles (female), to about 200 square miles (male). Given the relative isolation and small size of the site, we do not consider the development of the site to have a significant impact on the species. The diversity of animal species found on site is probably related to the presence of water in the intermittent stream, and the amount of cover provided by the dense Herta Madre 8 7 JUNE 1994 co -b Qp U ST iTA rgyoVRRf r��� *1 6 4� V4 Q� AR �1 r. CAU SPS\N y 051\9 -i IP50 0. R yr E DK `i;,u° �� OP• o0. C',yy? .a FVE RG S •`, RD20599 I q4' n m:.r • 7R $ rA7�p IL fA, r' EDVIEW �Q4 �•r. RR f • �C MISSIDM,R M1 sslow RV m ( 9753Q ?' . + �' ;• �? RfO6F a� D RI R ■ 21 rte($ ,l�uSE�f !r�/L� "-Fp_CC t rwi f ''1°A d RlDf •Am MIDM C%NTRT DR P W "��( Rt}f�� 7 •f • DR_ DI,IM .RELY# \° �T11A ?rte TO'""� Q; LN \GAL .t EM sr�Fe+R (yam o�_,�' EcNsr2FOU"'+yr �$ SR : T �� oo Lv g N •� 9-4NrDq� r'pi C O sp GEDAIL 'l ssL a 4r k k � wy 1rs, o � `J�` � q •°� , � R/ P PE O W bylo/ � � � c,�a�+ � Rr�r ey 9,1 i 29 440 4 �aSY♦ �P CARp �yy CD ArE �,k rE1?1 E D T GP R 4gdT � " �o! pJ2 � `I p�NGi •' _moi PL/ MAP 3. SOUTH POINTE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR STUDY: Local Corridor; ® South Point Project Site Unimpeded Wildlife Movement Route Impediment to Wildlife Movement O 2000 Tierra Madre 0 MAP SOURCE Thomas Bros. Maps, 1994. TMC #94.018 FEET ConSUltants O 5131/94.•mP vegetation. An intermittent stream transects the site from the southeast portion near Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Roads to the northern central portion near Rapidview Drive. The immediate source of this stream is a 48 -inch diameter storm drain pipe located within the southeastern part the. site. It is probable that the more distant source of this water is primarily from runoff from the city streets. During our survey of this stream, we found many animal tracks from Mule Deer and Raccoon, and a few tracks from Striped Skunk and Domestic Cat. Few aquatic insects were observed, no fish or amphibians were detected in the stream. Water samples were analyzed by Aquatic Quality Consultant Paul Beaty on June 4, 1994 (see Appendix 1). The on-site inspection included tests of pH, conductivity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, color and odor. Microscopic inspection of the water sample revealed a normal freshwater plankton community. The results of these tests (Appendix 1.) indicate that the water quality is suitable for wildlife, however the inconsistent quantity of water may be a limiting factor for wildlife. The vegetation communities are described in the site's Environmental Impact Report (Ultrasystems 1992) as: Inland Sage Scrub, Oak Woodland, Annual Grassland, Mixed Chaparral, California Walnut .Woodland, Mulefat Scrub, and Disturbed Areas. In most locations the vegetation was dense and relatively undisturbed by human activities. This may be related in part to the prevalence of Bristly Ox -tongue (Picris echioides) and Poison Oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Bristly Ox -tongue was found in thick patches in the Annual Grassland community. This plant contains fine prickles along most of its three-foot height. Poison Oak was found in almost all of the plant SOUTH POINTE (94-018) communities, often in very dense patches. Poison Oak is a native plant in this area and serves to protect wildlife in two ways. The toxic effect as a skin irritant probably helps to reduce human activities within the site. Additionally, it grows in thick patches which can be used as cover by animals. DISCUSSION Regional Perspective From a regional perspective we determined that the San Jose Hills are cut off from the site by State Highway 60. Although there may be a corridor elsewhere which connects the San Jose Hills with the Puente/Chino Hills, we have determined that the South Pointe project site is not a part of this connection. We located two potential corridors connecting the Puente Hills with the Chino Hills. The majority of wildlife traveling between these ranges probably use the Tonner Canyon underpass. A much smaller percentage of wildlife may use the Brea Canyon Road underpass as a corridor. These two corridors do not connect with the site. Local Perspective The two potential corridors we identified connect with the Puente Hills to the south of the site. The Puente Mills end of.these corridors are within about one-half of a mile of each other, whereas the site is located about three miles north of these areas. We have concluded that the site may be a destination for animals moving along corridors through a suburban environment, rather than being part of a large-scale corridor between extensive areas of natural lands. 10 7 JUNE 1994 TNWC bbdn 0 Corneonts � Effect on Wildlife The proposed project would substantially diminish habitat on the site as is described in the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, Technical Appendix (Ultrasystems 1993). The document states: "It is infeasible to completely avoid this significant effect, due to the economic, social and other considerations more thoroughly described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations." The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (Appendix G) state: "A project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species." The project alternatives, as described in the Draft EIR (Ultrasystems 1992), would retain a corridor within the southerly portion of the site thereby linking adjacent areas of open space, by which wildlife could continue to move through the surrounding suburban neighborhoods. The corridor which would be retained should be of equal or greater value than the existing corridor which traverses residential neighborhoods to the southwest. The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of resident or migratory wildlife and therefore will not result in a significant adverse effect on wildlife movement corridors. Open space in the site should remain connected to the off-site corridors to facilitate the movement of large predators. In the natural environment there is an interconnection between large predators (Coyote, Bobcat, etc.), mesopredators (Grey Fox, Striped Skunk, Raccoon, Opossum, etc.), and small animals (birds, reptiles, rodents, etc.). Sould et al.(1988) suggest that this balance can be disturbed by a phenomenon known as "mesopredator release". Their study stated that the elimination of large carnivores in an area can lead to a significant increase in the number of mesopredators, who thereby eliminate a large percentage of small animals in an area. When the small animals become scarce, mesopredators such as raccoon and skunk may be forced into urban areas to find food sources (such as trash cans, pet food, etc.). If these urban food sources are protected (by dogs, covered trash cans, etc.) the mesopredator population may decrease significantly. Therefore, the cumulative effect from the elimination of large carnivores from a site could lead to a decrease in many of the site's animal species. Herta Madre O SOUTH POINTE (94018) 11 7 JUNE 1994 c"09AN b O ,ZECO,,,�DATIONS 4 We recommend that future landscaping throughout the site maximize the plant species. A partial list of � open_ use of native If the site is developed, potential plants can be found within the draft should remain connected by BIR (sstems 1992 corridors. These corridors should y, page 4-63) space areas also be that within with the existing off-site corridors 5 All lighting, including along connected should be minimized in the southern portions of the site. we private yards, minimi adverse make the following specific the corridor boundaries to P�in�s We recommendations to assure that corridor impacts to nocturnal lighting be habitat is minimally impacted by adjacent recommend that no street land uses. installed within 100 feet of the boundaries; en we . which would be if lighting is absolutely necessary, recommend screening to prevent influence to 1. The corridor rec retained should be of equal or greater value the corridor areas. We also ommend that corridor which traverses approval of the tract map prohibit use -of than the existing Ming on lots adjacent to residential neighborhoods to the sout hwest. bright outdoor lig We recommend that the two Openp site remain the corridor. the southern portion of the a 150 to 200 connected to each other by northern edge 6 We recommend that clesmetc be vehicles (including motorcycles foot -wide corridor along the time. of Peaceful Hills Road and Shaded. Wood allowed within the corridor at any to soil erosion and Road. Vehicles contribute and vehicle noise vegetation disturbance, disturbances may be disturbs wildlife. These corridor incompatible with long-term functions. Project approval should include measures for revegetation of disturbed land, and enforcement of vehicle restrictions. 7. Ml fencing within the corridor should allow for the movement f V arge �in�s, while excluding a barrier of fencing is needed, we suggest with the top bar three horizontal steel d ars level, middle bar at 42 inches above groun 32 inches, and bottom bar at 20 inches. 2. No grading, construction or vegetation removal (including fuel modification zones intended for fire -safety) within the corridors or should be permitted buffer areas. ifedesignated uori encroach easements) corridors, then building envelopes or other measures ad adverse ould be applied to effectively prevent impacts to corridor habitat. 3. We recommend against any attempts to systematically eliminate Poison Oak from the site. This native plant is and an important commodity for the local wildlife by providing cover and restricting human activities. Healthy communities of native plant species cumulatively reduce the invasion of non-native plant species. TWWG nAod►e 7 JUNE 1994 0 SOUTH POINTE (94-018) 12 LITERATURE CITED Beier, P. and R. H. Barrett. various dates i 1989-1992. Quarterly Report.n range County Co-operative Mountain LionO Study. For Department of Forestry and Resource Management, U. Calif. Berkeley, CA. Beier, P. and S. L.oe. 1992. in Experience: A cheeklist for MY impacts to wi1dtiife movement +corrivatingdors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20-434-440. England and Nelson. 1976. County Significant Ecolo . � Angeles For Los Angeles eles Countylid Ama. Study. Regional plarinin impartment of nmental Systems Research Instituute Riverside, CA. Lowery, 1. C. 1990. Tracking Workbook, With Common Animal Tracks Of Southern California. Earth Skills. San Pedro, CA. Michael Brandman Associates. 1990. Oak Tree Assessment; Brea Canyon Tentative Tract No. 44478, County of Los Angeles. For Significant Ecological Areas Technical Advisory Committee. Los Angeles, CA. Murie, O. J. 1974. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. Soule, M. E., D. T. Bolger, A. a Alberts, J. Wright, M. Sorice, and S. Hill. 1988. Reconstructed Dynamics of Rapid Extinctions of Chaparral -Requiring Buds in Urban Habitat Islands. Conservation Biology, 2:75-92. Thomas Bros. Maps. 1994. Angeles/Oran a Los Angeles/Orange Counties Street Guide and Directory. Irvine, CA. SOUTH POINTE (94.018) 13 Tierra Madre Consultants. 1992. Olinda Heights Specific Plan and Sub -area Biological Baseline Study. For Cotton/Beland Associates. Pasadena, CA. Ul>r,uystems Engineering & Constructors, Inc. 1992. Draft Environmental Impact Report) South Pointe Master Plan; Atate Clearinghouse No.. 92081040. For City to Diamond Bar. Vie, CA.of 7 JUNE 1994:TeM Mad o O APPENDIX 1: WATER QUALITY TEST RESULTS P.01 01 MEATY+Southu�st Aauatias 6193410104 Paul R. Beaty & Associates i Aquatic Consultants i I June 5, 19941 Jock Eeston Tierra Madre Consullants,lnc. l 1$9 1owaAvinue Suites E & F Riverside, California 92507 Via Fax to: 90'3-784-5647 (original to follow vie U.S. Mail) Dear Mr. East n: nd wn The intent of this Iterinspeis to ion was rt thetfindings i-iriune nti 994MY vbetween ISI the hours oil t 00 AMsits , and on your map. 12:30 PM. Stlandard limnologicel field equipment has used to determine the data shown below. Dissolved Oxygen - 1.5 ppm PH - 7, 3 IColor - none, clear Conductivity - 2300 micro Celsius Odor - none detected Tem peel ature - 20 deg' 1 n levels are 'ow to These date indicete ,he wales is most stable fc relatedtothe factthatsampled p0o1 was located support fish s?ecfes, talion that little light y unde�scEo ve�assemblege of freshwater aquatic plankton sample ud toIthe leboretory'eveeladanormareas peaeto -C haontntnsalgae we$ amammannd sunlight. Nuarsbird SWICswere heardand seenn lin the area, Bott reptilianspec�es were also sighted. These animate undoubtedly depend on this source 0f.water. � ,ibullthequantity. No The only potsillial problem observed relates not the quality of water. water owsfeidi�suspect the area receivthe time es some irrigatf the tnspeion !utnoff fromesurrounce �din9 housing high fl ialn channels et the upper portion of the property were dame, but no water tracts. Concrete df was flowing. Please don't hIsitate to contest me if you have any questions about the reported irformation. S"cerely, Paul R. Beelyl P"DI I I t I I i p,a. gar 13212 • Polus Desert, Calif6m;e 922,55 • (619) 566 -5499 SOUTH POINTE (94018) 14 Herta Madre 7 JUNE 1994 C�*� Q APPENDIX 2: SPECIES LIST VERTEBRATES REPTILIA kuanidae Sceloporus occidentalis Uta stansburiana Anguidae Elgaria multicarinatus Colubridae Pituophis melanoleucus AVES Cathartidae Cathartes aura Accipitridae Buteo lineatus Bureo jamaicensis Falconidae Falco spanwius Phasianidae Callipepla californica Columbidae Columba Livia Zenaida macroura Trochilidae Calypte anna Calypte costae Picidae Picoides nuttallif TyMnnidae Sayornis nigricans Myiarchus cinerascoens Hirundinidae Hirundo pyrrhonota SOUTH POINTE (94-018) REPTILES %uanids Western Fence Lizard Side -blotched Lizard Alligator Lizards Southern Alligator Lizard Colubrids Gopher Snake BIRDS Vultures Turkey Vulture Hawks, Eagles, Harriers Red -shouldered Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Falcons American Kestrel Grouse and Quail California Quail Pigeons and Doves Rock Dove Mourning Dove Hummingbirds Anna's Hummingbird Costa's Hummingbird Woodpeckers Nuttall's Woodpecker Tyrant Flycatchers Black Phoebe Ash -throated Flycatcher Swallows Cliff Swallow 15 7 JUNE 1994 n�d'fte Corvidae Aphelocoma coeruleescens Corvus bradtyrhynchOs Corvus corax Aegithalidae psaltriparus minimus Troglodytidae Troglodytes aedon Mimidae Mimus polyglottos Toxostoma redivivum Ptilogonatidae phainopepla niters Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris Emberiadae Dendroica occidentalis Wilsonia pusilla Pheucticus melanocephalus Pipilo erythrophthaImus Pipilo crissalis Melospiza melodia Molothrus ater Icterus galbula Fringillidae Carpodacus mexicanus Carduelis psaltria MAMMALIA Leporidae Lepus californicus bennettii Sciuridae otospermophilus beedieyi Seiurus griseus Geomyidae nomomys bottae SOUTH POINTE (94018) 16 Crows and Jays scrub Jay American Crow Common Raven Bushtits Bushtit Wrens House Wren Mockingbirds and Thrashers Northern Mockingbird California Thrasher Silky Flycatchers Phainopepla Starlings European Starling Spews, Warblers, Tanagers Hermit Warbler Wilson's Warbler Black -headed Grosbeak Rufous -sided Towhee California Towhee Song Sparrow Brown -headed Cowbird Northern Oriole Finches House Finch Lesser Goldfinch MAMMALS Hares and Rabbits San Diego Black -tailed Hare Squirrels California Ground Squirrel Western Gray Squirrel Pocket Gophers Botta Pocket Gopher 7 JUNE 1994 n Heteromyidae Pocket Mice t Perognathus fallarfallax ** San Diego Pocket Mouse t Perognathus californicus dispar California Pocket Mouse t Dipodomys agilis Pacific Kangaroo Rat Cricetidae Rats Mice and Voles t Reithrodontomys megalotis longicaudus Western Harvest Mouse t Peromyscus californicus insignis California Mouse t Peromyscus maniculatus gambelii Deer Mouse t Peromyscus boylil rowleyi Brush Mouse t Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego Desert Wood Rat t Neotoma fuscipes macrotis Dusky -footed Wood Rat t Microtus californicus sanctidiegi California Vole Canidae Foxes, Wolves and Coyotes Canis familiaris Domestic Dog Canis latrans Coyote Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray Fox Procyonidae Raccoons Procyon lotor Raccoon Mustelidae Weasels and Skunks Mephitis mephitis Striped Skunk Felidae Cats Felis cavus Domestic Cat t Felis rufus Bobcat Cervidae Elks, Moose, Caribou, Deer Odocoileus hemionus Mule Deer SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS: t Species expected to occur on the site. * Non-native (introduced) species. ** Sensitive species. Unless otherwise noted, the animals on this list are animals detected during our visits to the site in May of 1994. These animals were identified from tracks, scat, and direct observation. We have identified 10 additional rodent species expected to be present on the site, based on the result of surveys on a nearby site (TMC 1992). Although we did not detect Bobcat in our surveys, the site contains suitable habitat, and sign was detected in earlier surveys (Ultrasystems 1992). We have included this animal in our list since it isoften mistakenly identified as a Mountain Lion (Cougar). This list is not intended to be a complete list of vertebrates using the site. Berta Madre SOUTH POINTE (94-018) 1 7 7 JUNE 1994 Coraulronts �O SOUTH POINTE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR STUDY Exhibit 1. Constriction point along corridor near Shaded Wood Road and Patntinaer Road. FRI Exhibit 2. View of gated -community towards Brea Canyon Cutoff, near southwest corner of site. Date of Photography: 5/20/94: JE TMC #94-018 6/8/94: mp n Qo SOUTH POINTE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR STUDY Exhibit 3. Constriction point along corridor at Joel Drive near Thelma Lane. Exhibit 4. View of canyon between Robert Road and Joel Drive, from Pathfinder Road at Rudy Street. Date of Photography: 5/20/94:JE TMC #94-016 6/8/94: mp Tierra Madre Qo coruWra,ra SOUTH POINTE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR STUDY Exhibit 1. Constft ion point along corridor near Shaded Wood Road and Pathfinder Road. x��3 `< 04- `1 �� ��� Exhibit 2. View of gated -community towards Brea Canyon Cutoff, near southwest corner of site. Date Of Photography: 5/20/94: JE 6/8/94: mp Tkvra Madre Op CoruuUaft TMC #94 -ole Next Resolution No. 94-19 Next Ordinance No. 03(1994) 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Werner ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Papen, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony and Mayor Werner ROLL CALL: Commissioners Bruce Flamenbaum, Franklin Fong, Don Schad, Vice -Chairman Lydia Plunk and Chairman Meyer 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-3; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - This is a joint public hearing of the City Council and Planning Commission to consider a request for approval of a mixed use project, known as South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commerical, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Pathfinder Rd., west of Brea Canyon Rd., east of Morning Sun Dr., and south of Rapid View Dr. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 sq. ft.; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission receive a presentation from City Staff and project developers; open the public hearing; receive testimony; and take appropriate action. Requested by: M/Werner 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 4. ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) The Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, located at 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May , Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, TOMMYE A. NICE, declare as follows: I am the Deputy City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy of the Notice for the Joint Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council and Planning Commission, to be held on May 2, 994 was posted at their proper locations. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Notice and Affidavit was executed this 29th day of April, 1994, at Diamond Bar, California. /s/ Tommve Nice Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk City of Diamond Bar VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL f TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERKC. ' DATE: �'�C` �" `i I� ^� CSA" i >f a PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature L113on recognition from the Mayor, lE� V �JJ nt (.QTY COUNCIL roc:E) p y p .ase walk to the microphone and state your name and address p ed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to the Mayor will recognize any member o thea audience who. Foilowin and wishes to 9 peak on'the on as b eCnd or to a You ire welcome to attend all City Council meetings and o is �3ppreciated• Your interest in the conduct of public business VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL 7t* TO: CITY CLERK �Q FROM: ©C`^" DATE: S 2. q ADDRESS: PHONE: S s 2-� I ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. - l Signature �'___. A ____;iSONS MAY ATTEND MEETINGS AND ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS FORIrOiM IS COUNCIL TO ASSIST THE MAYOR IN ENSURING THAT ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL �IFIE RECOGNIZED AND TO ENSURE CORRECT SPELLING OF NAMES IN THE MINUTES. ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL Upon recognition from the Mayor, please walk to the microphone and state your name and address and procEed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. Following discussion and prior to a vote, the Mavor will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. You are welcome to avend all City Council meetings and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciatecl. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: DATE: ADDRESS:13�q�a.err dJ1zvLrP_ PHONE: ORGANIZATION: �J AGENDA WSUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. let_ Signature -- 'r .r r r r r �� ✓ V V V u . 1 . INTENDED TO ASSIST THE MAYOR IN ENSURING THAT ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ARE RECOGNIZED AND TO ENSURE CORRECT SPELLING OF NAMES IN THE MINUTES ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL Upon recognition from the Mayor, please walk to the microphone and state your name and address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. Following discussion and prior to a vote, the Mayor will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. You are welcome to attend all City Council meetings and your interest in the conduct of public business is appreciated. D TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: - PHONE:W %gol- 10 I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. 7- Sig ture iTE: ALL PERSONS MAY ATTEND MEETINGS AND ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS FOR'1/'_ 6 FENDED TO ASSIST THE MAYOR IN ENSURING THAT ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE iUNCIL ARE RECOGNIZED AND TO ENSURE CORRECT SPELLING OF NAMES IN THE MINUTES, ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL on recognition from the Mayor, please walk to the microphone and state your name and address. and )ceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. Following discussion and prior to a te, the Mayor will recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. u are welcome to attend all City Council meetings and your interest in the conduct of public business appreciated. L DATE 05-02-94 TIME 22:10:22 AGENDA ITEM 1 INVALID INVALID BOARD MEETING; INVALID HARMONY YES �oy� Maker i ANSARI YES Q ! PAPEN YES Second: WERNER YES MEYLR INVALID PLUNK INVALID SCHAD INVALID FONG INVALID FLAK MAUX INVALID TOTALS 4 0 0 THIS AGENDA ITEM HAS -------------» FA e Yn e k�*_- Gzba_fLd�0rl ✓n ea1fi 7 N (MOTION) e"�SA aL a h J �T��S �'►-a�`e ccs v Yvd nes �rnn�P� S��%(ter `{'+ ru�c�ote44 P..e-an n rh rr� c s.�c art Czm.j-7 n 9- 9a r, n Co rx rn I . 2. Next ResoiuJ_1V11 L. - - - Next Ordinance No. 03(1994) CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCES Mayor Werner Council Members Ansari, Papen, ROLL CALL: Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Harmony and Mayor Werner ROLL CALL: Commissioners Bruce Flamenbaum, Franklin Fong, Don Schad, Vice -Chairman Lydia Plunk and Chairman Meyer 3. ry PUBLIC HEARINGS: VE 2.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT G NO - TRACT TRACT MAP NO. 5140 , VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. T NO. CONDITIONALVESTINGTENTATIVE NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; ERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE NT LIVE PTRACT MAP NO 51253 AND TREE PERMIT NO. 92-3iTREE PERMIT NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAKANDENVIRONMENTAL 92-9i THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; is a joint public hearing IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - of the City Council and Planning Commission to consider approval of a mixed use project, known as a request for aster Plan, consisting of land uses which South Pointe M include residential, commerical, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of PatSunnDrr,Rand west of Brea Canyon Rd., east of Morning south of Rapid View rretail/office spaceProposes top of290, 000 30 acres of commercial sq. ft.; approximately 200 single-family detached park; pk; residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborho and the construction of a middle school. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission receive a presentation ro ect developers; open the public from City Staff and p and take appropriate action. hearing; receive testimony; Requested by: M/Werner ANNOUNCEENTS: l ADJOURNMENT: 2� I CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA NO, 2.1 AGENDA REPORT TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager REPORT DATE: April 26, 1994 MEETING DATE: May 2, 1994 Community Development Director FROM: James DeStefano, A regiment Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional Use TITLE: Developmentg Tentative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Vesting No. 51253 and Conditional Use Permit -1. 92-12, 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3; Tentative Tract Map rt No. 92-1. Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Repo request of the Ci Council and Planning Commission to consider a eq SUMMARY: This is a joint public hearing City of a mixed use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan,sconsisting te is pp Of ximattely 171 acres in size for approval space and school facilities. The project residential, commercial, park, openp Sun Drive, and south of and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning 000 square lin units, l et acre neighborhood feet; approximately park; and the Rapid View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commerciaretail/office space of 29 , 200 single-family detached residential we g construction of a middle school. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and �1anve publicT testimony mission receive antake RECOMM developers; open the public hearing; presentation from City Staff and project appropriate action. X Public Hearing Notification LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: R tafResolution(s) _Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other - Letter from J. Dabney & Associates dated March 25, 1994 EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution) ordinance or agreement been reviewed N/A _Yes — No by the City Attorney? MAJORITY 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? 2L Yes _ No 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? — Which Commission? the report? X Yes No 5. Are other departments affected by PUBLIC WORKS Report discussed with the following affected departments: RFI;IEWED --_ Frank M. Ush�anager errence . Melange City Manager Assistant City es DeStefan Community De lop ent Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. 2.1 MEETING DATE: May 2, 1994 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative SUBJECT: Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3; Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12; Oak Tree Permit No. 92- 9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1. ISSUE STATEMENT: The applications submitted request approval of a mixed use project, known as the south Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Pathfinder Road,and south of Rapid View Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. RECOMMENDATION: presentation is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the staff and project developers; the Public Hearing, receive public testimony, and take appropriate action. 1 South Pointe Master Plan has been proposed to guide PROJECT SUlMN ARY: The the development of 171 acres in the South Pointe Middle incorpor- School/Sandstone Canyon area. The ; the Citer Plan not Diamond owned by f ive entities; y ates property prciero and Bar, Walnut Valley Unified School District► oration. Sons, Inc., RNP Development, Inc. and Sasak Corp project of record, if approved, will The proposed pro j residential acres for 82 consist of approximately homes, 30 acres construction of 200 single family 28 acres proposed for a future commercial/ offi ark site, and 31 proposed for open space as a public p acres proposed for the constct "All) of theASouth esent y Middle School (see Exhibited over a contemplated, the project will be develop year period. Under the Proposed projected ten y units, development plan, all of the residential dwelling site one-half of the commercial/office use, and the p will be completed within a projected five year period. office use is projected to be The remaining commercial/ ear period. completed within the remaining ten y ro osed land uses, a number of To accommodate the P improvements are required. These circulation system impro include the creation of new ad to the accessfrom Brea project site, a new access on Road, and area Canyon Road, improvements to Brea Canyon off-site street intersection modifications including new signalization. project will require the approval and The proposed pro j implementation of Development Agreements ado t on ofbatMaster Plan, the project applicants, P Subdivision Conditional Use Permits, Oak Tree Permits, ort. The approvals and an Environmental Impact Rep Commission has reviewed the proposed project and Planning has recommended City Council approval. project are: PROJECT APPLICANTS: The applicants for the proposed Inc. 4439 Claremont (1) RNP Development, CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Sons, Inc. 950 CA 92807 858 W. (3) Sasak Corporation, 91785 21660 (4) City of Diamond Bar, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Rhodelia Dr., North Tustin, Anaheim, 9th Street, Upland CA E. Copley Dr., Ste. 100, rhe property owners within the boundary of the master plan area include the applicants and the Walnut Valley Unified School District. Ownership boundaries are identified within Exhibit "B", attached. BACKGROUND: On July 27, 1993, the City Council adopted the General Plan. Prior to the General Plan's adoption, Ordinance No. 4 prohibited the hearing and consideration of the South Pointe Master Plan. On September 14, 1993, the City Council began the public hearing process to consider development applications for the South Pointe Master Plan project. The Council received a presentation on the proposal from the City Staff and a summary of the environmental review process from the City's environmental consultant. The public hearing on the project was continued to September 28, 1993, October 5, 1993, November 16, 1993, and January 4, 1994. As a result of the City Council action of December 14, 1993, to repeal Resolution 93-58, which adopted the General Plan, the project was tabled. Subsequently, actions were taken to develop a new General Plan and A State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Extension letter was obtained which enables the city to process certain previously applied for development projects. The Walnut Valley Unified School District has recently asked the City for assistance in order that the district may begin construction of the middle school facilities. At issue is the removal of approximately 400,000 cubic yards of earth from the school site in order to facilitate construction of the permanent South Pointe school. The South Pointe Master Plan contemplates the relocation of the earth from the school site to Arciero's proposed subdivision site. Considerable community input has been received for and against the project. As a result, the private developers have discussed the submittal of an alternative proposal for consideration along with the project now before the City Council. The Planning Commission has been asked to participate in the public presentation such that they may deliberate and comment, as appropriate, upon any proposed modification to the project not previously considered by the Commission during its earlier public hearings. Time is of the essence in regards to the WVUSD school project, specifically as regards State Capitol funds ($8 million) and construction contract considerations. If any contemporaneous assistance to the WVUSD is to be accomplished, it is necessary to move the decision making process forward, therefore, providing a response to the requests from the school district and developers. It should be noted that the WVUSD cannot remove the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt without the permission of the authoritative governmental body, which is the City Council of Diamond Bar. 3 PROJECT REVIEW: DeVelORer Proposal The South Pointe Master Plan weaves five public and private ownership interests into a comprehensive land use plan designed to provide a mixed use neighborhood compatible with the built environmental. The 171 site FOR IIIC CITY U( UIAH" 0AI1 JTI I PO INH Ell PLANNCU COMMUNITY 1NO1 -al IMI"TIO SCI,m INISI.Ic IY o OII.OINI 010 N -I 11(1(I OP (NI INC. iC 11 NO C SONS INC. S. COWMIM aAiGr AOLWAW Master Plan project proposes.11 the subdivision of a primarily undeveloped acre site to -accommodate the phased development and subsequent use the for residential, commercial, park, open space, and school purposes. As depicted in Exhibit "C", the project site has been divided into five (5) planning areas or enclaves. clave. ProjectEach tentative tract developmentstandards has dbeen h ave been en proposed for each en designed consistent with the proposed development standards. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400 Vesting Tentative Tract No 32400 is proposed by Arciero and Sons and consists of 93 lots on 47.44 acres. 91 single family homes are proposed with two lots totaling approximately 6 acres (2.58 and 3.34 acres) set aside for commercial purposes. (See Exhibit "D") The project indicates a residential density of approximately 2.2 units per acres. Preliminary Title Reports indicate no unusual characteristics. The site is zoned R-1-15,000. 4 The proposed map is located within Enclave 3. The minimum lot size proposed for Enclave 3 is 7200 square feet with a minimum pad size of 6000 square feet. The proposed project contains lot sizes that range from 7200 (lot #31) to 15,095 (lot #14) square feet. Pad sizes ranges from 6,070 (lot #69) to 13,365 (lot 145) square feet. Primary access is from Brea Canyon Road with a secondary access point through the future commercial development. Earthwork quantities indicate 1.795 million cubic yards of cut and 1.810 million cubic yards of fill. The proposed map is consistent with the design and development standards contained within the Master Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 51407 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 is proposed by RNP Development, Inc. and consists of 84.20 acres containing 90 single family residential parcels with 28.13 acres proposed for recreational open space and 21.9 acres proposed as a commercial center. This map is located within Enclave 1, as described within the Master Plan development standards. Minimum lot sizes for this Enclave are 8,000 square feet with minimum pad sizes of 6,900 square feet. The proposed residential neighborhoods within this Enclave are designed to be compatible with the existing style and type of development pattern adjacent to the project. The property is zoned RPD -10,000-6U. VTM 51407 provides for an overall density of 2.59 units per acre on the 34.62 acre residential site. Lot sizes range from 8,977 sq. ft. (lot 024) to 18,679 sq. ft. (lot #34). Pad sizes range from 7,079 sq. ft. (lot 126) to 13,322 sq. ft. (lot 030). 28.13 acres have been set aside for open space/recreational purposes (lot #91). Three commercial lots are proposed ranging in size from 3.40 acres to 13.05 acres for a total of 21.45 commercial acres. Earthwork quantities indicate 2,567,000 yards of cut and 2,571,000 yards of fill for the proposed map. The circulation pattern consists of a residential collector, street "A", from Brea Canyon Road to the middle school site, and a residential street "B" proposed extending through to Morning Sun Drive. The project proposes six residential dwelling units facing Larkstone Drive on property presently owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District. The proposed map would supersede previously filed Tract Map No.'s 32576 and 35742. Those maps dedicated the right to prohibit the construction of residential units within certain lots. That right was accepted by the County and is valid and enforceable against any development request. In 1979 an offer to dedicate the property as a "future park" was rejected by the County. The developer is currently limited to a total of two dwelling units. Other restrictions on the property relate to flood hazard and restricted use areas. This proposed map, if approved, would supersede and erase the existing development restrictions placed upon the property. (See Exhibit "E") There are other parcels in the community which are also subject to similar development restrictions. Properties with such development restrictions have been re -subdivided by Los Angeles County. The applicant has specifically requested approval of this application package which permits the City to evaluate the change in entitlement on the merits of the proposed project. 5 Several tract maps, approved prior to incorporation, contain development prohibitions or restrictions upon a portion of the property. Although these properties have been retained as open space, they were not dedicated to the County as open space. Therefore, depending upon the specific circumstances, a property owner could request the removal of the development restrictions and development approval. The decision as to whether or not development should be permitted is of major significance to the community. The Subdivision Map Act provided the vehicle for a property owner to seek abandonment of these property restrictions. The Map Act also appears to give the City considerable latitude to decide if abandonment is consistent with present or prospective city policy. Consideration of development upon the restricted properties is a matter of public policy. The City has no obligation to remove the restrictions. The developer has, it would appear, no inherent "right" to the abandonment or project approval. The benefit(s) of abandonment of the restrictive map language should be carefully examined (i.e. provision of significant community amenities). The Interim City Attorney has determined that the restrictions constitute an "open space easement". In order to abandon an open space easement, pursuant to Government Code Section 51093, the City Council must refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a noticed public hearing and report; cause the county assessor to determine the full cash value of the land as though it were free of the open space easement; determine an abandonment fee, payable to the county; and find that: 1. there is no public purpose in continuation of the land as open space; and 2. the abandonment is not inconsistent with the purposes of open space law; and 3. the abandonment conforms with the General Plan; and 4. the refusal to abandon will cause a substantial hardship upon the landowner. Tentative Tract No. 51253 This 6.7 acre site is currently proposed as a 21 lot, 3.13 units per acre, single family residential development by Sasak Corporation. The proposed project as presently designed is consistent with the Master Plan development standards for Enclave No. 1. Lot sizes range from 8,241 square feet ( lot #1) to 20,962 square feet (lot #4). Earthwork quantities indicate 145,800 cubic yards of excavation, 98,300 cubic yards of embankment, and 47,500 cubic yards of export. The proposed subdivision provides for an extension of street "B" as shown within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51407 designed to connect with Morning Sun Drive. Title reports indicate this Tentative Map contains the same basic development restrictions as the previously discussed map and currently would permit a total of 3 dwelling units. The Subdivision Map Act 6 or provides a means to remove such restrictions. If a resubdivision the reversion to acreage of the tract is subsequently filed for approval, previously rejected is terminated upon the approval and offer of dedication p See Exhibit "F") recordation of the new map. Master Plan �� propose to guide the overall development. The The use of a Master Plan is pro p components of the plan include permitted uses and development standards. The via proposed zoning regulations and development standards will be implemented The the use of development agreements for the RNP and on nt of the Tentative standards are attached to the Sasak proposal as a comp n the reviously Map conditions. The complete adomca tertplan contained tool implementing the prepared report. The use o between General Plan policy and zoning General Plan and often bridges the gap standards for the property under consideration for development. De..., .,.nnt AareementS t 10 The use of Development Agreements are proposed for the Arcis utilized s and RNP a development project. The Development Ache H llside Management regulationseementt document to incorporate the Master Plan, the Oak Tree Permit, the Development Standards with reference to the Cities are provided with the ability to enter into Tentative Tract Maps. ro Development Agreements are Development Agreements with any property y owner. ublic agency and a private essentially a negotiated contract between a p lishes the S developer. The Development Agreement estb rov des the app 1 cants twith a from which the development can proceed p and compliance with the assurances based upon their commitment to timingto land transfers, contract agreements. The proposed agreements incorp toward the successful completion of zoning, and commitments by all parties report the proposed project. Attached to this a result of project Y re as maps which illustrate e existing and future ownership o property implementation. The Hillside Management Ordinance requires a conditional use permit approval osal. The hillside management standards and for each tentative tract map pro P guidelines have been incorporated within each development. The im ort W f the e Draft Environmental Impact Rep ithin project grading is analyzed in th es the earth resources and aesthetics sections. ak hehi hTisn eight inchesrir an Oak Tree permit for the removal of any genusEact diameter as measured four and one-half feet rees which would requireabove the natural r removal. proposed subdivision site contains oak t In accordance with requirements of the Code, an oak tree inventory as conducted for each subdivision site. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51407 contains 449 oak trees. Tentative Tract Map 51253 contains 53 trees scheduled for replacement. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 32400 will require the removal of 276 oak trees. The Draft Environmental Impact Report indicates that 92 percent or 768 of the 835 inventoried oak trees will be removed as a result of the proposed grading activities on-site. All oak trees removed as a result of the proposed project are proposed for replacement at a 2:1 ratio. The Developers' proposal provides potential benefits to the community in the form of facilitating the construction of the permanent middle school, development of a publicly held park and open space, creation of a freeway oriented commercial site and numerous area -wide traffic improvements. Action Required: 1. Certification of the Environmental Impact report along with Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Abandonment of the dedicated right to restrict construction of residential buildings upon RNP and Sasak properties pursuant to Government Code (§51903). 3. Approval of each tentative tract map, Development Agreements, Conditional Use Permits, Oak Tree Permits, and the Master Plan. (The Council must make written findings pursuant to Government Code 565360, and 565361, and the conditions of the extension letter, that there is little or no probability that the project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with that plan). 4. Recordation of EIR Certification 5. Completion of approved conditions, as required, for issuance of grading permits (including the applicant obtaining an Army Corp of Engineers, Section 404, permit and a California Department of Fish and Game, Section 1601-1607, permit for alteration of the stream). 6. Recordation of final documents, maps, etc. 8 Alternative iNorth/South CaUR *,reservation An alternative to the propoe�hero�eServatias oneofproposed Sandstoneconsideration area and is designed to encourageP heir for open space purposes •hThe e middle school, hool involves for helero and sonswesterly 35± trading of the property, adjacent to t Arciero would develop 103 homes on the RNP Development, Inc. property.Brea Canyon former RNP site and include wa new ould incorporate access sthe from cess earth scheduled for middle school. The proposal export from the school site. (See Exhibit "G") RNP would not build upon Arciero's former site, nor their remaining acreage. RNP's offer of dedication of this 75± acre Sandstone Canyon site t i the City, m would be conditioned upon the removal of existing P s on property, owned by RNP, located adjacent to Grand Avenue. Any future Cit development proposal for the Grand Avenue site would be subject to all a regulations for environmentalview at alew laterddateelopvtentialSbe�nefits ofivision planthis would be submitted for proposal include, but are not limited to, the facilitation of the school construction, preservation and dedication of Sandstone Canyon to the public, and substantial reduction of environmental impacts. Action Reauired oject to Planning Commission pursuant tc 1. Referral of revised pr Section 65857 for a report and recommendation along with Finding: of Fact and a Statement of over Considerations. aration of ai 2. Certification of the ElRental Impact Report, p P addendum or supplemental 3. Preparation of revived application roconditions nconservationeneasement lo: Alternative 1 (1 PPlicat on building rights restriction upon former Arciero, Tract 32400 site) . 4. Planning commission and City Council consideration suant to Governmen Avenue site for removal of map restrictions (p Code §51093). 5. Approval of revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51407 and it associated CUP, Oak Tree Permit and Development Agreement Tract 51253 (Sasak) and related Approval of Parcel Map e permits Approval of Tentative 24031 for r RNP Grand Avenue SiteCounci uant to Government Code §65360, ar must make written findings purs §65361, and the conditions of to extension letter, that there little or no probability that the project will be detrimental to c interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the project ultimately inconsistent with that plan)• permits, recordati� 6. completion of conditions required for grading p of maps, etc. Although an intermittent blue- sscho 1 site upon the mearth may wester portion of Tract 51407, a significant amount of processing of the 404 and 160 relocated to Tract 51407 concurrent with the p g 1607 permits. Alternative 2 - East/Rest Canyon preservation Another design concept to consider is the maintenance of an east -west open space amenity by only permitting the development of Arciero's Tract 32400 site. Arciero previously proposed a subdivision of 75 homes upon their acreage utilizing a previous tentative map. The 1991 tentative map consists of 85 lots on 47.6 acres. 75 single family lots are proposed on 19.5 net acres and range in size from 7200 square feet and average 11,660 square feet. The earthwork quantities indicate the need for 393,151 cubic yards of import (presumable from the school site). 21.2 acres are set aside as open space with the balance of the acreage, 6.9, devoted to streets. Arciero's property is encumbered by a "blue line" stream. An U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit and California Department of Fish and Game permit would be required prior to any modification to the existing streambed. This alternative provides the opportunity to facilitate the school development, preserve the east -west canyon. (Exhibit "H") Action Reauired 1. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report along with Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Addendum. 2. Rejection of VTM 51407 (RNP) and TM 51253 (Sasak) with appropriate findings and conclusions. 3. Preparation of revised map, conditions, and agreements to facilitate 75 unit Arciero subdivision. 4. Referral to Planning Commission pursuant to Section 65857 for report and recommendation. 5. Approval of new VTM 32400 with associated CUP, OT and Development Agreement (The Council must make written findings pursuant to Government Code §65360, and $65361, and the conditions of the extension letter, that there is little or no probability that the project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with that plan) . 6. Completion of approved conditions, as required, for issuance of grading permits (including the applicant obtaining an Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404, permit and a California Department of Fish and Game, Section 1601-1607, permit for alteration of the stream). 10 Alternative 3 - No Proieot A 'no project" alternative, if selected, would require the off-site exportation of the surplus soil presently found on the South Pointe Middle School site in order to facilitate, immediately, construction of per manent school buildings. As proposed, the existing excess soil will be used within the project boundaries. Depositing or supplement to the alternative off-site location could require an addendum District's previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Middle School. The transportation of the soil, outside of the project boundaries, would require an estimated 26,000± truck trips upon local streets. The additional time and cost of this alternative would be borne by the School District. Alternative 4 Certify the EIR, Deny projects, or specific components. Alternative 5 Continue discussion of the South Pointe Master Plan for further environmental analysis or investigation of additional alternatives. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City ha determined that an Environmental Impact Report shouldbe prepared oto The asses and analyze the environmental effects of the proposedInc. pas? c in Th enden Cit engaged Ultrasystems Engineers and Constructors, consultant to prepare the environmental documents. An Executive Summary o the environmental review record is attached (Exhibit "D"). PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: The South Pointe Master Plan project was publicly noticed in accordance wit State and local requirements. Advertisements were published within the Se Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on April 11 az April 22, 1994. Notices were mailed to property owners within a 5001f99; radius of the project boundaries on April 8, 1994 and April 21, Several hundred additional notices were mailed to interested citizei providing public awareness of the proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: ublic study sessions and public The Planning Commission conducted numerous pwas tour hearings on the proposals. A walking held in October of the sand December 1992n December 13, 1992. Study Sessions we in January, February, March, April and May, Noticed public hearings were held recommended City Council approval of all 1993. The Planning 24, 1993. project components on May PREPARED BY: James De Stefano Community Development Director Attachments:Exhibit "A") MAPS I. South Pointe Master Plan 2. Project Boundaries (Exhibit "B") 3. planning Enclaves (Exhibit "C") 4. VTM 32400 (Exhibit "D") 5. VTM 51407 (Exhibit "E") 6. TM 51253 (Exhibit "F") 7. Revised VTM 51407 (Exhibit "G") 8. Previous (1991) VTM 32400 (Exhibit "H") 9. Environmental Review Record Minutes 10. City Council Staff Reports and Meeting Minutes 11. Planning Commission Staff Reports and Meeting 12. Notices of Public Hearing 13. OPR Extension Letter dated 1/31/925 94 14. Letter from J. C. Dabney dated 3/ / 15. Walnut Valley School District for Letter outh a rote/Middle School 16. Timeline of Con 1994-1995 17. Sierra Club Letter received 4/21/94 17 94 18. Letter from Frederick & FrancesStrunc dated 4/17/94 Canyon 19. 6 page Petition signed by 102 persons 1993 Canyon 20. List of correspondence for and against January 19, June 8, 1993 previously transmitted 21. Draft Environmental Impact Report { iroP act Repo] 22. Response to comments on re previously transmitted al Imp Draft Env dated February {act Re ora 23. Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental ansmitted p Volume II dated November 1993 { previously Comments on the Dra 24. Technical appendix -Response to 1993 { previous Environmental Impact Report dated May transmitted CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 1 L. Belanger, City Manager TO: Terrence REPORT DATE: April 26, 1994 MEETING DATE: May 2, 1994 Community Development Director FROM: James DeStefano, Use TITLE: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative Tract Map NO. 51407, Use Conditional No. Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8, Vesting Tentative 51253 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12; 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3; Tentative Tract Map rt No. 92-1. Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Repo of the Ci Council and Planning Commission to consider a request SUMMARY: This is a joint public hearing South CityMaster of land uses which include for approval of a mixed use project, known d school facilities The projectplan�si consisting approximately 171 acres in size residential, commercial, park, open space Sun Drive, and south of and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east r Morning Opp square Rapid View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of mm a 2g°e neighborhood fice space o9park; and the feet; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling construction of a middle school. ATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission receive a RECOMMEND the presentation from City Staff and project developers; open public hearing; receive public testimony; and take appropriate action. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: R Staff Report X Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other - Letter from J. Dabney & Associates dated March 25, 1994 EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: N/A _ Yes_ No MAJORITY X Yes _No —Yes X No X Yes No PUBLIC WORKS Frank M. Usher James DeStefano Terrence L. Belanger Community Development Director City Manager Assistant City Manager PUBLIC HEARINGlip NOTICE ® CA 9n65 (909) 396-5676 1 Drive, Suite 190. Diamond Bar, 2!�WCit�y=��of ar���E_Cap eY TO: Property Owners within a 500 foot radius of subject site FROM: Community Development Dept., City of Diamond Bar a whether t to State tAw, that a public hearing Fill be held by the City Council to determin BY GIVEN' Purees revisions of State Law and the NOTICE IS IiERE City of Diamond Bar as follows: or not the subject request(s) s shall be approved wader the p 7:00 p•m• DATE AND TSIE OF SEARING: Monday, May 2, 1994 SOUTH COAST AIR QUAI•� MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PLACE OF HEARING: Auditorium Bar, CA 91765 Copley Drive, Diamond 21865 E. Copy t No. 92-8 No. 51407, Conditional Use permit Vesting Tentative Tract Map t 5IA 91-5, and Oak Tree permit No. 91-2; ABJECT: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Conditional Use Perrin r Plan; Tentative Tract No. 32400, t No. 92-9; the South Pointe Masts and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Vesting No. 92-12; Oak T� permit Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and Conditional Use Permit act Report No. 92-1 of land uses and Environmental Imp roximately 171 acres in size and , known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting This is a request for approval of a mixed use project e oct site is app 17 View Drive. The REQUEST: inial opea space and school facilities. Th project Drive, s of Rap le -family which include residential, commercial, Pte' on Road, east of Morning Sun Drifeet, approximately 200 sing is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canretail/office spate of 290,000 sof are Proposes to develop 30 acres acre of commercialand the construction of a middle school. Project units, a 28 acre neighborhood P�� detached residential dwelling Claremont, CA 91711 1 R -n -P Development, Inc" , `4439 Orth Tu a Court, Anaheim, CA 92801 APPLICANTS: (2) Arciero and Son's, Inc., 950 North Tustin, 91785 Corporation, 858 W. 9th St.,Upland,Bar, CA 91765 (3) Sasak � le Dr. Ste 100, Diamond (4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E• Copy A the City has of California Environmental Quality Act I )� (SCH No. ATION: Pursuant to the terms t Report has been Prepared ENVIRONMENTAL' DETERMIN act Report. An Environmental Impact determined that this project requites an Environmental Impact 92081040), and is available for public review. Published in: San Gabriel Valley Tribune: 4111/94 Bulletin: 4/11/94 Public input. Inland Valley Daily d to allow optimum The May 2+ 1994+ meeting isbeing held to focus attention on this projectan PLEASE ATTEND AND MAYOUR AWS KNOWN S Development Department at (90S lease contact the Community only those you or someor materials or for further information on this subject ou may be limier the City Council at, or pn, To review case ma Challenge this RPplication and project m court+ y correspo 396-56If you public hearing described in this notice, or in written else raisdelivered to ed at the p to, the public hearing- SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN The South Pointe Master Plan has been proposed to guide the development of 171 acres in. the South Pointe Middle School/Sandstone Canyon area. The Master Plan, incorporates property owned by five entities: the City of Diamond Bar, Walnut Valley Unified School District, Arceiro and Sons, Inc., RNP Development, Inc., and Sasak Corporation. The project site is generally located west of the Orange Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, north of Pathfinder Road, and south of South Pointe Middle School. The proposed project, if approved, will be developed, in phases, with primary land uses of residential, commercial, park, open space, and school. Approximately 82 residential acres are requested for construction of 200 single family homes, 30 acres are proposed for a future commercial/office use, 28 acres are proposed for open space as a neighborhood public park site, and 31 acres are proposed for the construction of the South Pointe Middle School. As presently proposed, the project will be developed over a projected ten year period. Under the proposed development plan, all of the residential dwelling units, one-half of the commercial/office use, and the park site will be completed within a projected five year period. The remaining commercial/ office use is projected to be completed within the remaining ten year period. To accommodate the proposed land uses, a number of circulation system improvements are required. These improvements include the creation of new local streets within the project site, a new access road to the school from Brea Canyon Road, improvements to Brea Canyon Road, and a number of off-site street and intersection improvements including new signalization. The proposed project will require the approval and implementation of Development Agreements between the City and the project applicants, adoption of a Master Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Oak Tree permit, Subdivision approvals and an Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended City Council Approval. The City Council has scheduled a public hearing to review and provide input on the South Pointe Master Plan on Monday, May 2, 1994. For additional information, please call the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676. �/•(�(:��%.: s.. _ " I �` •�`` a[tlarr aar sari •! i4';: �' '" • • wars rrnT acrrK 40 n ACNES a 30 a Acats ' 87 ACasTso `!• • • i �I ITA 1CL•'! .i''�• 1.10AC� ♦' 1 V� � L . t`• Ams Eoc 23 gqT s fl 113 ACNES ! ... Ji « • � N0. 3514 •• / cr 18 ACRES v � ,• ," — « L01 )r IN 35)11 • 1+T 11 65 Aa*s N . W i • • I COMMERCIAL o SOURCE: J.C. DABNEY A A33OCTATO soca Poo" Mawr pus 4664\DM MUAE 3 SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN PROJECT ROUNDAMES s-10 cc U Q m r N 0 Z Z Z ~ = J o a z� 0 0 W¢ e o O o m Z Z N¢ O G p 5_ dWY Title 5 gity in which Div. 1 OPEN -SPACE EASEMENT ACT OF 1974 § 51093 Historical (Vote ' Stats.1977, e. The 1977 amendment substituted "coon- ty, cit!, or nonprofit organization, for "county or city". § 51093. Petition to governing body for abandonment; approval by resolution; findings and other conditions; fee (a) The landowner may petition the, governing body of the coun- ty or city for abandonment of any open -space easement or in the case of an open -space easement granted to a nonprofit organization pursu- +:sacinns l 962 et ant to this chapter, for approval tion, as to all of the subjecland. ofabandonment governing by such approve the abandonment of an open -s body may aPProve dry owner finds: Pace easement only if, by resolution, it ,.profit organi- (1) That no �trofit o , that Public purpose described in Section 51084 will be served by keeping the land as open space; and cement upon Vnual renewal (2) That the abandonment is not inconsistent with the u tten notice is of this chapter; and p rPoses the open -space (3) That the abandonment is consistent with the local general Section 51081. plan; and runty, city, or (4) That the abandonment is necessary to avoid a substantial fi- rake a written nancial hardship to the landowner due to involuntary factors unique F, or nonprofit to him. te, withdraw No resolution abandoning an open -space easement, or approving the abandonment of an open -space easement o a l' Stats.1977, c. organization Pursuant to this chapter , shall be f nal ytadoptedpuntil the matter has been referred to the county or city planning commis- sion, the commission has held a public hearing thereon and furnished a report on the matter to the governing body stating whether the abandonment is consistent with the local general plan and the govern- ing body has held at least one public hearing thereon after giving 30 days' notice thereof by publication in accordance with Section 6061 of the Government Code, and by posting notice on the land. Ment of non- (b) Prior to approval ing the abandonment of an open -space og pprov- easementlution athe c unty assessor te landowner of the county in which the land subject to the open -space easement is n -space ease- located shall determine the full cash value of the land as though it effect for the were free of the open -space easement. ocution or the such value by 25 percent, and shall certify product to the govern be. ing body as the abandonment valuation of the land for the purpose of or Stats.1977, c. determining the abandonment fee. (c) Prior to giving approval to the abandonment of any open - space easement, the governing body shall determine and certify to the 503 § 51093 CITIES AND COUNTIES Title 5 the abandonment fee which the land - county auditor the amount t treasurer upon abandonment That fee owner must pay the county shall be an amount equal to 50 percent of the abandonment valuation of the property. suant to (d) Any sum collected pt r the State hConis troller and be depositedtion shall be ted by the county in the State General Fund. (e) An abandonment shall not become effective until the aban- donment fee has been paid in full. ( Added by Stats.1974, c. 1003, p. 2154, § 2. Amended by Stats.1977, c. 1178, p. 3861, § 13.) Historical Note The 1977 amrted --or in i case of an open -space easement granted to a nonprofit organo`al of abandonment n pursuant to this chapter, for aPP h%, such organization," in the first sen- tence of subd. (a); inserted ", or aPProv- ing the abandonment of all open -space easement granted to a nonprofit organiza- tion pursuantagrail` Oflsubd- (a): and inserted e see and approving "or apProv'ng the abandonment of" in the first sentence of subd. (b). Cross References Corporate income tee ax,rohibited, termination of open -space easement, see Abandonment fee adjustment prohibited, Revenue and Taxation Code § termination of open -space ease - Disallowance of deduction for abandonment § 24441. ments, see Revenue and Taxation Code § Personal income tax, see Revenue and Taxation Code § 172Rev- Abandonment fee deduction, disallowed, space easement Abandonment fees adjustment prohibited, open termination, see Rev- Abandonment and Taxation Code § 18052.2. § 51094. Recordation of certified copy of resolution of abandon- ment Upon the recording in the office of the county recorder of a cer- tified copy of a resolution abandoning or approving the abandonment of an open -space easement and reciting compliance with the provi- reto shall be sions of Sectionand the covenantse land ect ofof the ownedeemed ta ned re- lieved of the easement no certi' therein shall be deemed terminated; provided, however, thetaband n- fied copy of any resolution abandoning don- ment of an open -space easement shall be recorded until the abandon- ment fee has been paid in full. 2 Amended by Stats -19.77. c (Added by Stats -1974, e. 1003, p. 2154, § 1178, p. 3862, § Historical Note The 1877 amendment inserted ` or aP- two proving the abandonment of" places. 1 504 O M h C. e; s; 11 d t h 1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 2.1 TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: May 2, 1994 REPORT DATE: April 26, 1994 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TIME: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3; Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1. SUMMARY: This is a joint public hearing of the City Council and Planning Commission to consider a request for approval of a mixed use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission receive a presentation from City Staff and project developers; open the public hearing; receive public testimony; and take appropriate action. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report X Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other - Letter from J. Dabney & Associates dated March 25, 1994 EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed N/A _ Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? —Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _No Report discussed with the following affected departments: PUBLIC WORKS "'",VIEWED errence . Belange City Manager Assistant City Manager es DeStefan Community Dev lopment Director i MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ISSUE STATEMENT: CITY COUNCIL REPORT May 2, 1994 AGENDA NO. 2.1 of the City Council Honorable Mayor and Members Commission Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager and 2; Vesting Tentative went gment Nos. on it No. 92-8 and Develop Aree, Conditional Use Perm Tract Map No. 5140792-8; Vesting Tentative 'tract T Tree Oak Tree Permit No. it No. 91-5, and and Conditional Use Perm No. 51253 32400, 92_3; Tentative Tract Map No. Oak Tree Permit No. 92 - Permit 92--12' ental Impact Conditional Use Permit No. and Environm 9. the South Pointe Master Plan; Report NO- of royal of a mixed submitted request apP Master Plan, The applications as the South Pointe knOWn include residential, use project, of land uses which The consisting ark, open space and school fa ci Size and is commercial, P approximately 171 acres in Brea Canyon project site is apP west of Vie .and south °f "' located north of PathSundD�iVe Road, 30 acres of _fid Gast «o£ Marna roposes to develop are feet; Drive. The project P ace of 290,000 square office space detached residential commercial ret ii/office ark; and the approximately neighborhood p dwelling units, a 28 acre construction of a middle school. e City Council receive a 'on from the staff and project developers; open It is recommended that the and take RECOMMENDATION: Pub' testimony, t presentation Hearing, receive p the Public appropriate action. A PROJECT SUMMARY: The South Pointe Master Plan has been proposed to guide the development of 171 acres in the South Pointe Middle School/Sandstone Canyon area. The Master Plan incorpor- ates property owned by five entities; the City of Diamond Bar, Walnut Valley.Unified School District, Arciero and Sons, Inc., RNP Development, Inc. and Sasak Corporation. The proposed project of record, if approved, will consist of approximately 82 residential acres for construction of 200 single family homes, 30 acres proposed for a future commercial/office use, 28 acres proposed for open space as a public park site, and 31 acres proposed for the construction of the South Pointe Middle School (see Exhibit "A"). As presently contemplated, the project will be developed over a projected ten year period. Under the proposed development plan, all of the residential dwelling units, one-half of the commercial/office use, and the park site will be completed within a projected five year period. The remaining commercial/office use is projected to be completed within the remaining ten year period. To accommodate the proposed land uses, a number of circulation system improvements are required. These include the creation of' new local streets -within the -- project site, a new access road to the school from Brei, Canyon Road, improvements to Brea Canyon Road, and area off-site street intersection modifications including new signalization. The proposed project will require the approval and implementation of Development Agreements between the City and the project applicants, adoption of a Master Plan, Conditional Use Permits, Oak Tree Permits, Subdivision approvals and an Environmental -Impact Report. -The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended City Council approval. PROJECT APPLICANTS: The applicants for the proposed project are: (1) RNP Development, Inc. 4439 Rhodelia Dr., Claremont CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Sons, Inc. 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th Street, Upland CA 91785 (4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste. 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 W, The property owners within the boundary of the master plan area include the and the Walnut Valley Unified School District. Ownership pplicants a attached. boundaries are identified within Exhibit "B", the City Council adopted the General Plan. On July 27, 1993, prohibited the hearing BACKGROUND: , tion, Ordinance No. 4 P 1993, Prior to the General Plan's adop On September 14, public hearing process to consider development and consideration of the South Pointe Master Plan. P council received the City Council began the p project- The C Staff and a summary of the applications for the South Pointe from the Plan1city nmental consultant. The a presentation on the propos 199g� October 5, environmental review process from the City's env tember 28, public hearing on the project was continued to Sep As a result of the City 1993, and January 4, 1994. which 1993, November 16, 1993, to repeal Resolution 93-5,actions were Council action of December 1 ro project was tabled. Subsequently, adopted the General Plan, the p 7 n letter was obtained which develop a new General Plan and A State of California Office Of taken to d P development Planning and Research General Plan Extension applied for asked the enables the city to process certain phas recently 'lets. The Walnut Valley Unified School District ct mayin construction of the prod approximately 400,000 City for assistance in order At that is the iremovalbof aPP itate construction middle school facilities. cubic y The South Pointe Master Plan yards of earth from the school school.ln order to aci site to Arciero's of the permanent South contemplates the relocation of the earth from the school ,,roposed subdivision site. for and aganst the project. community input has been received the lsubmittal of an Considerable c ers have discussed As a result, the private develop with the project now before the Commission has been asked to participate in the alternative proposal for consideration along as may deliberate and comment, City Council. The Planning that they y project not previously public presentation such Time is of appropriate, upon any proposed modification to public hearings. PP the Commission during its earlier P specifically as regards considered by SD school project, p the essence in regards to the WW it is funds ($8 million) and construction contract considerations. State Capitolproviding cess forward, therefore, p n contemporaneous assistance to the yNUSD is to be accomplis e . n any ers. necessary to move the decision making P 000 cubic yards of to the requests from the schoolle remove the body, 00o cubic a response which is It should be noted that the WWSD c governmental body, dirt without the permission of the authoritative g the City Council of Diamond Bar. 3 PROJECT REVIEW: Developer Proposal The South Pointe Master Plan weaves five public and private ownership interests into a comprehensive land use plan designed to provide a mixed use neighborhood compatible with the built environmental. MIC CI IT W 01ANNU BAIT H -I POINTE PLANNN COMMUNITY r".1111 A 1110 Sawa mm, .I'pi. 1.M Of.rI TKMI IMC, B C SMS IMC. CGVC 11BM :r ~VA.Cr The Master Plan project proposes the subdivision of a primarily undeveloped 171 acre site to -accommodate the phased development and subsequent use of the opsit `-For resident a. , -commercial ;,•parry• open" epece: .and -school• poses,:. -- , As depicted in Exhibit "C", the project site has been divided into five (5) planning areas or enclaves. Project specific development standards have been .proposed for each enclave. Each tentative tract map has been designed consistent with the proposed development standards. Vesting Tentative Tract No 32400 Vesting -Tentative Tract No 32400 is proposed by Arciero and Sons and consists of 93 lots on 47.44 acres. 91 single family homes are proposed with two lots totaling approximately 6 acres (2.58 and 3.34 acres) set aside for commercial purposes. (See Exhibit "D") The project indicates a residential density oF-- approximately 2.2 units per acres. Preliminary Title Reports indicate n. - unusual characteristics. The site is zoned R-1-15,000. 4 The proposed map is located within Enclave 3. The minimum lot size proposed for Enclave 3 is 7200 square feet with a minimum pad size of 6000 square aet. The proposed project contains lot sizes that range from 7200 (lot 131) to 151095 (lot #14) square feet. Pad sizes ranges from 6,070 (lot 169) to 13,365 (lot 145) square feet. Primary access is from Brea Canyon Road with a secondary access point through the future commercial development. Earthwork quantities indicate 1.795 million cubic yards of cut and 1.810 million cubic yards of fill. The proposed map is consistent with the design and development standards contained within the Master Plan. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 is proposed by RNP Development, Inc. and consists of 84.20 acres containing 90 single family residential parcels with 28.13 acres proposed for recreational open space and 21.9 acres proposed as a commercial center. This map is located within Enclave 1, as described within the Master Plan development standards. Minimum lot sizes for this Enclave are 8,OOO square feet with minimum pad sizes of 6,900 square feet. The proposed residential neighborhoods within this Enclave are designed to be compatible with the existing style and type of development pattern adjacent to the project. The property is zoned RPD -10,000-6U. VTM 51407 provides for an overall density of 2.59 units per acre on the 34.62 acre residential site. Lot sizes range from 8,977 sq. ft. (lot 124) to 18,679 sq. ft. (lot #34). Pad sizes range from 7,079 sq. ft. (lot #26) to 13,322 sq. ft. (lot 130). 6.13 acres have been set aside for open space/ recreational purposes (lot e91). Three commercial lots are proposed ranging in size from 3.40 acres to 13.05 acres for a total of 21.45 commercial acres. Earthwork quantities indicate 2,567,000 yards of cut and 2,571,000 yards of fill for the proposed map. The circulation pattern consists of a residential collector, street "A", from Brea Canyon Road to the middle school site, and a residential street "B" proposed extending through to Morning Sun Drive. The project proposes six residential dwelling units facing Larkstone Drive on property, presently owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District. The proposed map would supersede previously filed Tract Map No.'s 32576 and 35742. Those maps dedicated the right to prohibit the construction of residential units within certain lots. That right was accepted by the County and is valid and enforceable against any development request. In 1979 an offer to dedicate the property as a "future park" was rejected by the County. The developer is currently limited to a total of two dwelling units. Other restrictions on the property relate to flood hazard and restricted use areas. This proposed map, if approved, would supersede and erase the existing development restrictions placed upon the property. (See Exhibit "E") There are other parcels in the community which are also subject to similar development restrictions. Properties with such development restrictions have _been re -subdivided by Los Angeles County. The applicant has specifically equested approval of this application package which permits the City to evaluate the change in entitlement on the merits of the proposed project. 5 Several tract maps, approved prior to incorporation, contain development prohibitions or restrictions upon a portion of the property. Although these— properties have been retained as open space, they were not dedicated to the County as open space. Therefore, depending upon the specific circumstances, a property.owner could request the removal of the development restrictions and development approval. The decision as to whether or not development should be permitted is of major significance to the community. The Subdivision Map Act provided the vehicle for a property owner to seek abandonment of these property restrictions. The Map Act also appears to give the City considerable latitude to decide if abandonment is consistent with present or prospective city policy. Consideration of development upon the restricted properties is a matter of public policy. The City has no obligation to remove the restrictions. The developer has, it would appear, no inherent "right" to the abandonment or project approval. The benefit(s) of abandonment of the restrictive map language should be carefully examined (i.e. provision of significant community amenities). The Interim City Attorney has determined that the restrictions constitute an "open space easement". In order to abandon an open space easement, pursuant to Government Code Section 51093, the City Council must refer the matter to the Planning Commission for a noticed public hearing and report; cause the county assessor to determine the full cash value of the land as though it were free of the open space easement; determine an abandonment fee, payable to the county; and find that: 1. there is no public purpose in continuation of the land as open space; and 2. the abandonment is not inconsistent with the purposes of open space law; and 3. the abandonment conforms with the General Plan; and 4. the refusal to abandon will cause a substantial hardship upon the landowner. Tentative Tract No. 51253 This 6.7 acre site is currently proposed as a 21 lot, 3.13 units per acre, single family residential development by Sasak Corporation. The proposed project as presently designed is consistent with the Master Plan development standards for Enclave No. 1. Lot sizes range from 8,241 square feet (lot 11) to 20,962 square feet (lot #4). Earthwork quantities indicate 145,800 cubic yards of excavation, 98,300 cubic yards of embankment, and 47,500 cubic yards of export. The proposed subdivision provides for an extension of street "B" as shown within Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51407 designed to connect with Morning Sun Drive. Title reports indicate this Tentative Map contains the same basic development restrictions as the previously discussed map anL currently would permit a total of 3 dwelling units. The Subdivision Map Act 6 or If a resubdivision the filed for approval, ently on the approval and provides a means to Of the the tract restrictions. subsequent ,Hated upon reversion to acreagepreviously rejected is term ffer of dedication P See Exhibit "F") recordation of the new map. Master Plan The �� proposed to guide the overall development. The The use of a "Master Plan is P P implemented via went standards, lan include permitted uses and develop components of the p The zoning regulations and development standards prcieroe proposals_ m proposed component of the Tentative the use of development to the Sasak pr oP°S s a .c ed within the previously standards are attached complete document ianCOStal tool for implementing the Map conditions. The comp master p and zoning ort. The use of a a between General Plan policy prepared rep bridges the g P went. General Plan and often property under consideration for develop standards for the Development Aareements f°utilized as the Arciero and RNP contract The use of Development Agreements are proposed The Development Agreement is management regulations, development project. the Hillside to the document to incorporate the Master Plan, to enter into the Development Standards with reference the Oak Tree Per' Cities are provided with the ability regiments are owner. Development Ag private `entative Tract Maps.public agency and a P ilevelopment Agreements with any property terms and conditions essentially a negotiated contract enttestablishes the applicants with developer. The Development c proceed and provides the app went can p and compliance with the from which the develop orate land transfers, contract assurances based upon their commitment to timing completion of The proposed agreements incorporate agreements. all parties toward the successful cillustrate the zoning, and commitments by ort are maP t• of _yprgject. the proposed project. Attached to s report as -,.a ;-.:restL and- future owner -r h%"p implementation. Hillside Mana ement Ordigement Ordinance requires a conditional use p ermit approval The Hillside Manag The hillside management standards and proposal. development. The impact of the for each tentative tract r orated within each ental Impact Report within guidelines have been incorporated The Development Code requires grading is analyzeaesd in the Draft Environm project g eight inches in oak genus which is g rade. Each the earth a permit sfor the removal f any ns. above the natural g an Oak Tree pewand require removal. diameter as measured site contains Oak trees which would roposed subdivision 7 In accordance with requirements of the Code, an oak tree inventory as= - conducted for each subdivision site. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51407 contains 449 oak trees. Tentative Tract Map 51253 contains 53 trees scheduled for replacement. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 32400 will require the removal of 276 oak trees. The Draft Environmental Impact Report indicates that 92 percent or 768 of the 835 inventoried oak trees will be removed as a result of the proposed grading activities on-site. All oak trees removed as a result of the proposed project are proposed for replacement at a 2:1 ratio. The Developers, proposal provides potential benefits to the community in the form of facilitating the construction of the permanent middle school, development of a publicly held park and open space, creation of a freeway oriented commercial site and numerous area -wide traffic improvements. Action Required: 1. Certification of the Environmental Impact report along with Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Abandonment of the dedicated right to restrict construction of residential buildings upon RNP and Sasak properties pursuant to Government Code (851903). 3. Approval of each tentativetract map, Development Agreements, Conditional Use Permits, Oak Tree Permits, and the Master Plan._ (The Council must make written findings pursuant to Government CodE 865360, and 865361, and the conditions of the extension letter, that there is little or no probability that the project will be detrimental to or interfere with the future adopted General Plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with that plan). 4. Recordation of EIR Certification 5. Completion of approved conditions, as required, for issuance of grading permits (including the applicant obtaining an Army Corp of Engineers, Section 404, permit and a California Department of Fish �.. _ ... .., and Game-, ,.�Sectai�o�:1f U1-]:�7. , 6. Recordation of final documents, maps, etc teratiar�. of. the .stream} .... 8 Alternative 1 - orth South Can on RrBserratioU alternative to the proposed project has been proposed for consideration .11 and is designed to encourage the preservation of the Sandstone Canyon areir a for open space purposes. The concept school, for telves lero* and Sons trading westerly 35± acres of the property, adjacent to the -middle s RNP Development, Inc. property. Arciero would develop 103 homes on the new road Road to the former RNP site and include would incorporatestheo excess earth Canyon Breascheduled for middle school. The proposal export from the school site. (See Exhibit "G") RNP would not build upon Arciero's former site, nor their remaining acreage. RNP's offer of dedication of this 75± acre Sandstone Canyon site t i the Citon would be conditioned upon the removal of existing map future property, owned by RNP, located adjacent to Grand Avenue. Any development proposal for the r re iewenand ue sdevelopmentite would e subject Sbdivision 1plans regulations for environmental would be submitted for review intat a limited eto, athe facilitation te. Potential e of lthe oschool proposal include, but ar dedication of Sandstone Canyon to the public, construction, preservation and and substantial reduction of environmental impacts. Action Required 1. Referral of revised project to Planning Commission pursuant to Section 65857 for a report and recommendation along with Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report, preparation of an addendum or supplemental EIR. 3. Preparation of revised project conditions and agreements outlining Alternative 1 (i.e. application of conservation easement or building rights restriction upon former Arciero, Tract 32400, site) . 4. Planning Commission and City Council consideration (pursuant to Government P Grand Avenue site for removal of map restrictions Code §51093). 51407 and its 5, Approval of revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map _ associated CUP, Oak Tree Permit and Development Agreed ement. Approval of Tentative 2 03ra 1 for RNP Grand ct 51253 kAvenue Site t(The Council Approval of Parcel Map must make written findings pursuant to Government Code §65360, and §65361, and the conditions of the extension letter, that there is little or no probability that the project will be detrimental to or interfere withothe future adopted nsistent with that plan). al Plan if -the project ultimately incpermits, recordation 6. Completion of conditions required for grading p of maps, etc. ly Although an intermittent blue -line stream exists upon the school site mearth may portion of Tract 51407, a significant amount of .relocated to Tract 51407 concurrent with the processing of the 404 and 1601 607 permits. 9 Alternative 2 - East/West Canyon preservation Another design concept to consider is the maintenance of an east -west open space amenity by only permitting the development of Arciero's Tract 32400 site. Arciero previously proposed a subdivision of 75 homes upon their acreage utilizing a previous tentative map. The 1991 tentative map consists of 85 lots on 47.6 acres. 75 single family lots are proposed on 19.5 net acres and range in size from 7200 square feet and average 11,660 square feet. The earthwork quantities indicate the need for 393,151 cubic yards of import (presumable from the school site). 21.2 acres are set aside as open space with the balance of the acreage, 6.9, devoted to streets. Arciero's property is encumbered by a "blue line" stream. An U.S. Army Corp of Engineers permit and California Department of Fish and Game permit would be required prior to any modification to the existing streambed. This alternative provides the opportunity to facilitate the school development, preserve the east -west canyon. (Exhibit "H") Action Required 1. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report along with Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding considerations and Addendum. 2. Rejection of VTM 51407 (RNP) and TM 51253 (Sasak) with appropriate_ findings and conclusions. 3. Preparation of revised map, conditions, and agreements to facilitate 75 unit Arciero subdivision. 4. Referral to Planning Commission pursuant to Section 65857 for report and recommendation. 5. Approval of new VTM 32400 with associated CUP, OT and Development Agreement (The Council must make written findings pursuant to Government Code 565360, and §65361, and the conditions of the extension letter, that there is little or no probability that the _.. ., _.-- -..-.rojeat<,will be -detrimental, to -or- interfere with- the future adopted General Plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with that plan) . 6. Completion of approved conditions, as required, for issuance of grading permits (including the applicant obtaining an Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404, permit and a California Department of Fish and Game, Section 1601-1607, permit for alteration of the stream). 10 --8lternative 3 - No Proiect A 'no project" alternative, if selected, would require the off-site exportation of the surplus soil presently found on the South Pointe Middle School site in order to facilitate, immediately, construction of permanent school buildings. As proposed, the existing excess soil will be used within the project boundaries. Depositing the soil at an alternative off-site location could require an addendum or supplement to the District's previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Middle School. The transportation of the soil, outside of the project boundaries, would require an estimated 26,000± truck trips upon local streets. The additional time and cost of this alternative would be borne by the School District. Alternative 4 Certify the EIR, Deny projects, or specific components. Alternative 5 Continue discussion of the South Pointe Master Plan for further environmental analysis or investigation of additional alternatives. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared to assess and analyze the environmental effects of the proposed project. The City engaged Ultrasystems Engineers and Constructors, Inc. as an independent 00-n91&1ta to-prA*gwe-thk-_•envi-ror mental- 4ocuments. ,, A ,.,Exeoutive.bSUM-yot, the environmental review record is attached (Exhibit "D"). PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: The South Pointe Master Plan project was publicly noticed in accordance with State and local requirements. Advertisements were published within the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on April 11 and April 22, 1994. Notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project boundaries on April 8, 1994 and April 21, 1994. Several hundred additional notices were mailed to interested citizens providing public awareness of the proposal. 11 PLANNING CONNISSION ACTION: The Planning Commission conducted numerous public study sessions and public hearings on the proposals. A walking tour of the site was conducted on December 13, 1992. Study Sessions were held in October and December 1992. Noticed public hearings were held in January, February, March, April and May, 1993. The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of all project components on May 24, 1993. PREPARED BY: James De Stefano Community Development Director Attachments: MAPS 1. South Pointe Master Plan (Exhibit "A") 2. Project Boundaries (Exhibit IlB") 3. Planning Enclaves (Exhibit "C") 4. VTM 32400 (Exhibit "D") 5. VTM 51407 (Exhibit "E") 6. TM 51253 (Exhibit "F") 7. Revised VTM 51407 (Exhibit "G") 8. Previous (1991) VTM 32400 (Exhibit "H") 9. Environmental Review Record 10. City Council Staff Reports and Meeting Minutes 11. Planning Commission Staff Reports and Meeting Minutes 12. Notices of Public Hearing 13. OPR Extension Letter dated 1/31/94 14. Letter from J. C. Dabney dated 3/25/94 15. Walnut Valley School District Letter dated 4/4/94 .South_- Pointe. Middle. 1994-1995 17. Sierra Club Letter received 4/21/94 18. Letter from Frederick & Frances Strunck dated 4/17/94 19. 6 page Petition signed by 102 persons re: Sandstone Canyon 20. List of correspondence received from January 19, 1993 through June 8, 1993 - both for and against 21. Draft Environmental Impact Report { previously transmitted 22. Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated February 1993 { previously transmitted 23. Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Volume II dated November 1993 { previously transmitted 24. Technical appendix -Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report dated May 1993 { previously_ transmitted 12 3 3Yp�b� LS AVN3383 LS _ life] 11-- s- EXHIBITS c caca 0 a 0 z� O N O O m O z H LLJ z? c v Z Z -5 ai� Q o wsos UJ _ Jt�tAO 0-'O>c.2 L L�COU Q I— w -C M cn YVSVI W O crQ c i N d Lu ¢ cr Q _ CD AVN3383 LS _ life] 11-- s- EXHIBITS OMENAs dust Wling 71 XCRIS ar —. .�. .0m■ . SOURCE: J.C. DABNV & ASSOMTES Sowh 70,w W"t Plan ra rn Farad ��#I alsralcw al a. io ac; a T ' tt q W �I��IE�'WI'F11E1]Y Iqt 77.63 &CRES J 6 S 2 EPC IAL " NN 1 J' t7 1 ONO FIGU SDUTH POINTE MASTER PL PROTECT BOUNDAR 0 L Z z 0 0 2W 400' SOURCE: THE PLANNING ASSOCIATES FIGURE 4 gj t 1 PLANNING ENCLAVES South Pointe Maxtor Plan 2-11 4694XDEIR Ao- - ,fi:. �'" a. �i - ►n4 A rte, a �._ Y./tra� i � t�-? �� p J , 1•f• j.� i, —I r Ittt� li tT ti: i1t;i1 pFatil4-t!3 E •��p 1 � - �_._ ,_ '—� 71 rr ;t���::i iifi2ii �]iip i;it:2l p= _I- r UUU _- - I I- - _ 1 - +,lam• � i � � _ : ✓ ��M.�- _ , s ` — \_ tl, Vii: �1 e t £ yah 6 � 2 � •� �_� ` x : � , •� N ry _ 41 s �Gi C b z W ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW RECORD: Adoption of the South Pointe Master Plan, including those discretionary approvals as may be required for the development of that site (e.g., Development Agreements, CUP, tentative tract maps), constitutes a "project" pursuant to CEQA and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines). In compliance with CEQA (codified as Section 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code) and the State CEQA Guidelines (codified as Section 15000 et seq. in the California Code of Regulations), upon receipt of an application for a discretionary action (e.g., South Pointe Master Plan), the City, acting in the capacity of "lead agency," determined that the proposed action was neither statutory nor categorically exempt. To determine whether the development and implementation of the South Pointe Master Plan had the potential to produce a significant effect on the environment, either directly or indirectly, and to focus any subsequent environmental assessment upon those topical issues which may be adversely impacted by the project, the City prepared an Initial Study. The Initial Study and accompanying administrative record revealed substantial evidence that the project had the potential to produce significant environmental effects. Based upon that determination, the City concluded that an environmental impact report (EIR) would be required to fully address the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the Project, prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and provided notice in that manner prescribed by law. Receipt (via certified mail) of the NOP by the Office of Planning and Research, in that agency's capacity as State Clearinghouse, on August 10, 1992, commence a 30 -day public agency comment period during which State "responsible agencies" were authorized to submit comments for consideration as part of the EIR. In disseminating the NDP, the City provided direct notice (via certified mail) to all responsible agencies, to those trustee agencies responsible for natural resources affected by the project, to those transportation planning agencies and public agencies which have transportation facilities within their jurisdiction which may be affecte4 by the project, to neighboring cities and counties and to those individuals and organizations formally requesting notice. In addition, the City (acting through its environmental consultant) disseminated a Notice of Early Consultation (NOEL) to those governmental agencies, special districts; Uity Purveyors.and.other..parties- possessing -either jurisdicii4cgLhy,lamL c& pnmssing ..w...., ..._- specific information relevant to the project's environmental assessment. During this mandated comment period, the City (acting through its environmental consultant) undertook the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan, addressing those topical issues identified in the Initial Study as augmented by the comments received on the NOP and the independent judgementof the lead agency. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan and Notice of Completion (NOC) was disseminated by the City on November 30, 1992, pursuant to the noticing obligations delineated in the State CEQA Guidelines, commencing a 45 -day governmental agency review period which concluded on January 14, 1993. For projects involving receipt of draft documents by the State Clearinghouse, the public comment period is required to be at least as long as the review period established by the State Clearinghouse. Based upon legal notices published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Bulletin, the public review period began on December 3, 1992 and concluded on January 18, 1993. The Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan provided a thorough analysis of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of both the project and other related projects which, in combination with the project, had the potential to produce significant environmental effects. The Draft fi' Environmental Impact Reportfor the South Pointe Master Plan concluded that, with the exception of air quality (long-term and cumulative) and traffic (cumulative) impacts, all significant and potentially significant environmental effects could.be mitigated to a level determined by the City to be less than significant. On January 7, 1993, the City's Parks and Recreation Commission held a noticed meeting to discuss the project and the Draft Environmental Impact Reportfor the South Pointe Master Plan. Additionally, on January 14, 1993, the City's Traffic and Transportation Commission conducted a noticed meeting to review the project and the project's environmental documentation. Noticed public hearings were held by the City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission (Planning Commission) on December 14, 1992, January 25, 1993, February 8, 1993 and May 10, 1993. A number of written and oral comments were received both during the review period, extensions authorized by the City and at the noticed public hearings. Based upon comments received upon the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan and the additional analysis incorporated into the environmental review record, the Planning Commission subsequently revised that document to conclude that the following impacts could not be mitigated to a level deemed by the City to be less than significant: (1) construction -related, long-term and cumulative air quality impacts exceed threshold criteria as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District; (2) cumulative traffic impacts would contribute to projected congestion at a number of project -area intersections, producing level of service (LOS) conditions of LOS "E" or LOS "F" at specified intersections; (3) the removal of a significant number of oak trees and the loss of the existing biological resources now present on-site; (4) loss of Riversidean sage scrub from the project site will contribute to the regional reduction in coastal sage scrub and will, therefore, indirectly affect the habitat of the federally designated "threatened" coastal California gnatcatcher; (5) loss of native and non- native vegetation and its concomitant impacts upon those plant and animal species which presently inhabit the site; and (6) landform alterations will significantly affect the existing aesthetic character of thc,-project_site_ and.. transform .the.project area. frpm that _i0dicative., o f rural setting to that more characteristic of an urban area. On May 17, 1993 and May 24, 1993, the Planning Commission conducted noticed meetings to consider the project (including its associated entitlement), the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan, the Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Reportfor the South Pointe Master Plan (Response to Comments Vol. 1), the Technical Appendix - Response to Continents on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan (Technical Appendix) and the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program (prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code). On May 24, 1993, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar (City Council) approval of the project, certification of the environmental impact report and adoption of the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program. In taking that action, the Planning Commission, through separate resolution, established the Findings of Fact as required under Section 15091 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and Statement of Overriding K Considerations (pursuant to Section 15093 of the CCR) for those environmental impacts which could not be mitigated to a level determined to be less than significant. To finalize the CEQA process relative to the project, the City Council has elected, but is not obligated, to conduct hearings for the purpose of soliciting additional public and government agency comments on both the project and environmental review record. Noticed public hearings on the project's environmental documentation were held on September 14, October 5 and November 16, 1993. Comments which were received at the September 14. and October 5, 1993 public hearings, responses to those comments and other relevant information regarding the project's potential environmental impacts have been included in that document entitled Volume II - Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Response to Comments, Vol. II) included herein. At least ten days prior to certifying the EIR, the City is required (Section 21092.5 of the Public Resources Code) to provide to each of the public agencies which submitted comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan with a written response to those comments. Each of the public agencies which submitted written comments to the City, as identified in the Response to Comments, Vol. I and/or this Response to Comments, Vol. ll, were transmitted (via certified mail) draft responses to those comments on October 7, 1993. Pursuant to' Section 15088(c) of the CCR, where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the environmental impact report, the lead agency is authorized to either revise the text of the EIR or "include margin notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments." In compliance herewith, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan has been supplemented to contain margin notes which refer the reader to those applicable comments and/or technical responses or further environmental analysis resulting in changes, amendments or associated modifications to that document. The revised Draft Environmental Impact Report - South Pointe Master Plan, hereinafter referred to as the Annotated Draft EIR, in combination with the Response to Comments, Vol. I, Technical ....,Appendix,,..Response-to-ACommentsr.Yol.-..11, and other- documents. as- may_be.adder„b_y.tbe..,lCily.,,....,—., constitutes the Final. Environmental Impact Report - South Pointe Master Plan (Final EIR) for the proposed project. In addition, should the City Council elect to approve the project, as proposed or as subsequently modified, the City Council will be required to adopt Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration and a Monitoring Reporting and Monitoring Program as required under the CCR. Subsequent to the certification of the Final EIR for the project, a Notice of Determination (NOD), as required under Section 15094 of the CCR, shall be filed with the County Clerk and shall start a 30 -day statute of limitations on any subsequent court challenges to approvals under CEQA. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR: 3 The completion of the CEQA process, which includes the certification of the Final Environmen- tal Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan (Final EIR) and the posting of a Notice of Determination with the County Recorder, can be viewed as independent of any subsequent actions which the City or other governmental agencies may take on the project. Section 15121 of the CCR specifies that a project's environmental impact report (EIR) is only an "information document," designated to disclose the potentially significant environmental effects of a project, identify mitigation measures to lessen or avoid those effects and evaluate the comparative impacts of project alternatives which have the potential to minimize a project's potential environmental consequences. Referencing that statute: (A) An EIR is an information document which will inform public agency decision -makers and the public generally of the significant environmental effect of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects, and describe reasonable altema- tives to the project. The public agency shall consider the informa- tion in the EIR along with other information which may be presented to the agency. (B) While the information in the EIR does not control the agency's ultimate decision on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making findings under Section 15091 and if necessary by making a statement of overriding consideration under Section 15093. (C) The information in an EIR may constitute substantial evidence in the record to support the agency's action on the project if its decision is later challenged in court. Certification of the Final EIR does not obligate the City or any other governmental agency possessing discretionary permit authority over the project to: (1) approve the project addressed in the Final EIR or any component thereof; (2) issue any permits or associated approvals, as may be required for project effectuation; (3) convey any land use entitlements to project applicants other than as may exist in the absence of that environmental documentation,• and (4) obligate the City to invest or otherwise convey public funds for any improvement involving the project site or surrounding area. Each of those actions are separate from the certification of the Final EIR and would, therefore, necessitate separate approval(s) by the City or other responsible agency(ies). Although certification of the Final EIR is independent of those subsequent actions, other than denial of the project and each of its associated elements and permit obligations, no discretionary approvals governing the project site or portions thereof can occur until such time as the CEQA process has been completed. For those projects for which an EIR has been prepared. Certification of the Final EIR (and posting of the NOD) completes the CEQA process. Notwithstanding the City's subsequent action on the project (and its individual components), the City should first consider whether the project's environmental documentation "provides decision - 4 makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of [the project's] environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible" (Section 15151, CCR). If, in the City Council's judgement, the project's environmental review record fulfills the above referenced standard of adequacy, certification of the Final EIR would validate the analysis conducted to date and may minimize the potential duplication of that work effort if project changes are subsequently contemplated or if individual elements of the project are ultimately approved. If, in the judgement of the City Council, the environmental review record fails to facilitate informed decision-making or adequately allow environmental accountability in that decision-making process, the Council can request future technical analysis prior to considering the Final EIR. For example, removal of the stockpiled soil now located on the site of the South Pointe Middle School would necessitate the issuance of a grading permit by the City and may further require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (if impacts upon watercourses and their associated biotic resources are required). None of those permits or approvals may occur until the permitting agency has considered the information presented in the project's certified EIR. CERTIFICATION BY THE LEAD AGENCY: The City, acting in the capacity of lead agency, must certify that (1) the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and (2) the Final EIR was presented to the decision- making body of the lead agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained. in the Final EIR prior to approving the project. FINDINGS OF FACT: No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects unless the public agency makes one or '.more written findings for Each of those significant effects,, accompanied by..a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The findings must contain three elements: (1) the agency must make the findings called for in Section 15091 of the CCR; (2) the findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the public record; and (3) the agency must present some explanation linking the findings with the facts in the record. If the City elects not to "approve or carry out" the project or the City elects to defer action on the project to a subsequent date, adoption of the Findings of Fact can be deferred pending further consideration of the project. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS: Where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of significant environmental effects which are identified in the Final EIR but which are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its actions based upon the Final 5 EIR and other information in the public record. As with the Findings of Fact, the Statement of Overriding Considerations is not a part of the Final EIR, but a separate process after the Final EIR has been certified and prior to an action on the part of the public agency which "allows the occurrence of significant [environmental] effects." As a result, should the City elect to defer that action, the Statement of Overriding Considerations can be adopted at a later date. COMPONENTS OF FINAL EIR: The following environmental documents contain the information required to comprise the Final EIR: (1) Annotated Draft EIR; (2) Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan; (3) Technical Appendix - Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan; and (4) Volume II - Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan. In addition, the City has the authority to introduce other documents into the project's environmental review record and incorporate those documents as part of the Final EIR. n CITY COUNCIL REPORT ISSUE STATEMENT: This is a request for approval of a mixed use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the development proposal. It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the City staff, City consultants, and project developers, open the public hearing, receive public testimony, and continue the public hearing. PROJECT SUMMARY: The South Pointe Master Plan has been proposed to guide the development of 171 acres in the South Pointe Middle School/Sandstone Canyon area. The Master Plan incorporates property owned by five entities; the City of Diamond Bar, Walnut valley Unified School District, Arceiro and Sons, Inc., RNP Development, Inc. and Sasak Corporation. The proposed project, if approved, will be developed, in phases, with primary land uses of residential, commercial, park, open space, and school. Approximately 82 residential acres are requested for construction of 200 single family homes, 30 acres are proposed for a future commercial/office use, 28 acres are proposed for open space as a public park site, and 31 acres are proposed for the construction of the South Pointe Middle 1 AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 14, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and Tract 2; Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree permit No. 92-8; Vesting Tentative 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. Tract No. 91-5, and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-2; Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and Conditional Use Permit No. 92-12; Oak 9: the South Pointe Master Plan; and Tree Permit No. 92- Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1. ISSUE STATEMENT: This is a request for approval of a mixed use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the development proposal. It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the City staff, City consultants, and project developers, open the public hearing, receive public testimony, and continue the public hearing. PROJECT SUMMARY: The South Pointe Master Plan has been proposed to guide the development of 171 acres in the South Pointe Middle School/Sandstone Canyon area. The Master Plan incorporates property owned by five entities; the City of Diamond Bar, Walnut valley Unified School District, Arceiro and Sons, Inc., RNP Development, Inc. and Sasak Corporation. The proposed project, if approved, will be developed, in phases, with primary land uses of residential, commercial, park, open space, and school. Approximately 82 residential acres are requested for construction of 200 single family homes, 30 acres are proposed for a future commercial/office use, 28 acres are proposed for open space as a public park site, and 31 acres are proposed for the construction of the South Pointe Middle 1 School (see Exhibit "A")• As presently proposed, the project will be developed over a projected ten year period. Under the proposed development plan, all of the residential dwelling units, one-half of the commercial/office use, and the park site will be completed within a projected five year period. The remaining commercial/office use is projected to be completed within the remaining ten year period. To accommodate the proposed land uses, a number of circulation system improvements are required. These improvements include the creation of new local streets within the project site, a new access road to the school from Brea Canyon Road, improvements to Brea Canyon Road, and a number of area off-site street and intersection improvements including new signalization. The proposed project will require the approval and implementation of Development Agreements between the City and the project applicants, adoption of a Master Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Subdivision approvals and an Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended City Council approval. BACKGROUND: The South Pointe Master Plan project proposes the subdivision of a primarily undeveloped 171 acre site to accommodate the phased development and subsequent use of the site for residential, commercial, park, open space, and school purposes. The South Pointe Master Plan project represents a comprehensive land use planning effort. The proposed project is the culmination of a multi-year effort by landowners to produce a balanced development plan for one of the remaining large undeveloped properties in the City. The applicants for the proposed project are: (1) RNP Development, Inc., 4439 Rhodelia Dr., Claremont CA 91711 (2) Arciero and Sons, Inc., 950 North Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807 (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th St., Upland CA 91785 (4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste. 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 The property owners include the applicants and the Walnut Valley Unified School District. Ownership boundaries are identified within Exhibit "e" attached. Approximately 82 residential acres are proposed for construction of approximately 200 single family homes. A future commercial/office development of 30 acres is planned adjacent to Brea Canyon Road. A 28 acre proposed neighborhood public park site is proposed which would consist of both passive and active recreational uses. The remaining 31 acres are.proposed for the _ construction of a permanent South Pointe Middle School. The proposed project, as presently contemplated, would be developed over a projected 10 year period. To accommodate the proposed land uses, a variety of circulation system improvements are being considered. They include the creation of new local streets within the project site, and a new main access road to the school from Brea Canyon Road. A variety of public improvements to both Brea Canyon Road and other off-site street and intersections improvements will be required as a result of the project. As graphically depicted in Exhibit "C", the project site has been divided into five (5) district. planning areas (or enclaves). Project specific development standards have been proposed for each enclave as a part of the South Pointe Master Plan. Each tentative tract map has been designed consistent with the proposed development standards. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 is proposed by RNP Development, Inc. and consists of 84.20 acres containing 90 single family residential parcels with 28.13 acres proposed for recreational open space and 21.9 acres proposed as a commercial center. This map is located within Enclave 1, as described within the Master Plan development standards. Minimum lot sizes for this Enclave are 8,000 square feet with minimum pad sizes of 6,900 square feet. The proposed residential neighborhoods within this Enclave are designed to be compatible with the existing style and type of development pattern adjacent to the project. Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407 provides for an overall density of 2.59 units per acre on the 34.62 acre residential site. Lot sizes range from 8,977 square feet (Lot 124) to 18,679 square feet (lot #34). Pad sizes range from 7,079 square feet (Lot 126) to 13,322 square feet (lot 130) . 28.13 acres have been set aside for open space/ recreational pure oses (Lot #91). Three commercial lots are proposed ranging in size from 3.40 acres to 13.50 acres for a total of 21.90 commercial acres. Earthwork quantities indicate 2,567,000 yards of cut and 2,571,000 yards of fill for the proposed map. The circulation pattern consists of a residential collector, street "A", from Brea Canyon Road to the middle school site, and a residential street "B" proposed extending through to Morning Sun Drive. The project proposes six residential dwelling units facing Larkstone Drive on property presently owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District. The proposed map would supercede previously recorded Tract Map No.'s 32576 and 35742. Those maps dedicated the right to prohibit the construction of residential units within certain lots. That right was accepted by the County and is valid and enforceable against any development request. other restrictions on the property relate to flood hazard and restricted use areas. This proposed map would supercede and erase the existing development restrictions placed upon the property. There are a number of other parcels in the community which are also subject to similar development restrictions. Other properties with such development restrictions have been re -subdivided by Los Angeles County. The applicant has specifically requested approval of this application package which permits the City to evaluate the change in entitlement on the merits of the proposed project. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 51253 This 6.7 acre site is currently proposed as a 21 unit single family residential development by Sasak Corporation. The proposed project as presently designed is consistent with the Master Plan development standards for Enclave No. 1. Lot sizes range from 8,241 square feet (Lot 11) to 20,962 square feet (Lot#4). Pad sizes range from 6,906 square feet (Lot #20) to 11,214 square feet (Lot #4). Earthwork quantities indicate 145,800 cubic yards of excavation, 98,300 cubic yards of embankment, and 47,500 cubic yards of export. The proposed subdivision provides for an extension of street "S" as shown within vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 to connect with Morning Sun Drive. This Tentative Map contains the same basic development restrictions as the previously discussed map. The Subdivision Map Act provides a means to remove such restrictions. If a resubdivision or reversion to acreage of the tract is subsequently filed for approval, the offer of dedication previously rejected is terminated upon the approval of the new map by the City Council. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400 Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400 is proposed by Arciero and Sons and contains 93 lots. 91 single family homes are proposed with two lots totaling approximately 7 acres set aside for commercial purposes. The proposed map is located within Enclave 3. The minimum lot size proposed for Enclave 3 is 7200 square feet with a minimum pad size of 6000 square feet. The proposed project contains lot sizes that range from 7200 (lot #31) to 15,095 (Lot 114) square feet. Pad sizes range from 6,070 (lot #69) to 13,365 (lot 145) square feet. Primary access is from Brea Canyon Road with a secondary access point through the future commercial development. Earthwork quantities indicate 1.795 million cubic yards of cut and 1.810 million cubic yards of fill. The proposed map is consistent with the design and development standards contained within the Master Plan. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS: The use of Development Agreements are proposed for the Arciero and RNP development project. The Development Agreement is utilized as a single contract document to incorporate the Master Plan, the Hillside Management regulations, the Oak Tree Permit, the Development Standards with reference to the Tentative Tract Maps. Cities are provided with the ability to enter into Development Agreements with any property owner. Development Agreements are essentially a negotiated contract between a public agency and a private developer. The Development Agreement establishes the terms and conditions from which the development can proceed and provides the applicants with assurances based upon their commitment to timing and compliance with the agreements. The proposed agreements incorporate a variety of land transfers and commitments by all parties toward the successful completion of the proposed project. HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND OAK TREE PERMIT: The Hillside Management Ordinance requires a conditional use permit approval for each tentative tract map proposal. The hillside management standards and guidelines have been incorporated within each development. The impact of the project grading is analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report within the earth resources and aesthetics sections. The Development Code requires an _ Oak Tree Permit for the removal of any oak genus which is eight inches in diameter as measured four and one-half feet above the natural grade. Each proposed subdivision site contains oak trees which would require removal. 4 In accordance with requirements of the Code, an oak tree inventory was conducted for each subdivision site. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 contains 449 oak trees. Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 contains 53 trees scheduled for replacement. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 32400 will require the removal of 276 oak trees. The Draft Environmental Impact Report indicates that 92 percent of the inventoried oak trees will be removed as a result of the proposed grading activities on-site. All oak trees removed as a result of the proposed project will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. MASTER PLAN: The South Pointe Master Plan represents a comprehensive land use planning approach designed to provide a mixed use neighborhood comprised of residential, open space/park, and commercial/ office land uses which blend with the adjacent built environment and coincide with the natural resource values currently associated with the project site. The Master Plan weaves five private and public parcels with different ownership into a land use strategy which provides for a full range of land uses and therefore a balanced neighborhood. It also contains specific development standards to guide the future implementation of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared to assess and analyze the environmental effects of the proposed project. The City engaged Ultrasystems Engineers and Constructors, Inc. as an independent consultant to prepare the environmental documents. An Executive Summary of the Environmental review record is attached (exhibit "D" ). PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: The South Pointe Master Plan project was publicly noticed in accordance with State and local requirements. Advertisements were published within the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland valley Daily Bulletin on August 12, 1993. Notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project boundaries on August 12, 1993. Several hundred additional notices were mailed to interested citizens providing public awareness of the proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The Planning commission conducted numerous public study sessions and public hearings on the proposals. A walking tour of the site was conducted on December 14, 1992. Study Sessions were held in October and December 1992. Noticed public hearings were held in January, February, March, April, and May 1993. The Planning Commission concluded its activities on May 24, 1993 by recommending City Council approval of all project components. A summary of the Commission activities is attached. A CONCLUSION: The scheduled public hearing of September 14, 1993 is intended to introduce the City Council to the South Pointe Master Plan. PREPARED BY: James Destefano Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: 1. Exhibit "A" - Land Use Plan 2. Exhibit "B" - Ownership Map 3. Exhibit "C" - Enclave Map 4. Exhibit "D" - Environmental Review Record 5. Planning Commission Resolutions, Condition B (for each tract), Development Agreements, Condition A (for all tracts), Condition C (for all tracts) 6. Project Tract Maps 7. Public Hearing Notice 8. Draft Environmental Impact Report dated November 1992 (previously transmitted) 9. Response To Comments on The Draft Environmental Impact Report dated February 1993 (previously transmitted) 10. Technical Appendix - Response To Comments On The Draft Environmental Impact Report dated May 1993 (previously transmitted) F: \WP511WORK\AOFNDMAG&RPT.FRM 6 CITY COUNCIL REPORT - AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 28, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council TO: FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Tract Map No. 51407, Permit No. 92-8; Vesting Tentative Tract No. Oak Tree 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-5, and Oak Tree 51253 and Permit No. 92-3; Tentative Tract Map No. No. 92-12; Oak Tree Permit No. 92- Conditional Use Permit 9; the South Pointe Master Plan; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1 continued from September 14, 1993. ISSUE STATEMENT: This is a request for approval of a mixed use project, Master Plan, consisting of land known as the South Pointe which include residential, commercial, park, open uses and school facilities. The project site is space approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Road, east of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The Morning Sun project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial feet; approximately retail/office space of 290,000 square 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consultants, and y presentations from the staff, the Public Hearing, receive project developers; open public testimony, and continue the Hearing. PROJECT SUMMARY: The South Pointe Master Plan has been proposed to guide in the South Pointe Middle the development of 171 acres The Master Plan incorpor- School/ Sandstone Canyon area. owned by five entities; the City of Diamond ates property .Bar, Walnut Valley Unified School District, Arciero and Corporation. Sons, Inc., RNP Development, Inc. and Sasak The proposed project, if approved, will be developed, in phases, with primary land uses of residential, and school. Approximately commercial, park, open space, are requested for construction of 82 residential acres 200 single family homes, 30 acres are proposed for a future commercial/office use, 28 acres are proposed for open space as a public park site, and 31 acres are the South Pointe Middle proposed for the construction of Exhibit "A"). As presently proposed, School (see project will be developed over a projected ten year the period. Under the proposed development plan, all of of the residential dwelling units, one-half the park site will be commercial/office use, and completed within a projected five year period. The remaining commercial/office use is projected to be completed within the remaining ten year period. To accommodate the proposed land uses, a number of circulation system improvements are required. These improvements include the creation of new local streets within the project site, a new access road to the school from Brea Canyon Road, improvements to Brea Canyon Road, and a number of area off-site street and intersection improvements including new signalization. The proposed project will require the approval and implementation of Development Agreements between the City and the project applicants, adoption of a Master Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Subdivision approvals and an Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended City Council approval. BACKGROUND: On September 14, 1993, the City Council began the public hearing process to consider development applications for the South Pointe Master Plan project. The Council received a presentation on the proposal from the City Staff and a summary of the environmental review process from the City's environmental consultant. Anticipated developer presentations were postponed to September 28 at the request of the applicants. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: On September 14, 1992, the City Council opened __the Public Hearing on the stated project and the Draft Environmental Impact 'leport (DEIR) . The Public Hearing for both the project and the DEIR was -ontinued to September 28, 1993, for further public comment and possible action to certify or deny the DEIR. It should be noted that, in accordance with the Public Resources Code, "At least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report, the lead agency (City) shall provide a written proposed response to a public agency on comments made by that agency which conform with the requirements of this division... Copies of responses or the environmental document in which they are contained ... may be used to meet the requirements imposed by this section. ' The Public Hearing has not closed and, therefore, action on the DEIR would be inappropriate at this time. PROJECT REVIEW : The proposed South Point Master Plan contains several entitlement requests as more fully described within the Staff Report prepared for the September 14, 1993 City Council meeting. Upon conclusion of the environmental review the council should begin to consider the specific entitlement requests. General Plan The 1993 General Plan designation for the properties is PD, Planned Development. The purpose of this designation is to encourage the innovative use of unique properties, incorporate various land uses, coordinate public and private facilities, and integrate the proposed project into existing development patterns. The proposal has been designed to meet the requirements -7f the General Plan. Consistency with the adopted General Plan is required by ,tate Law in order to approve the project. The general rule for consistency determination is, after considering all its aspects, will the project, on balance, further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. Master Plan : The use of a "Master Plan" is proposed to guide the overall development. The components of the plan include permitted uses and development standards. The ,aroposed zoning regulations and development standards will be implemented via :he use of development agreements for the RNP and Arciero proposals. The standards are attached to the Sasak proposal as a component of the Tentative Map conditions. The complete document is contained within the previously prepared report. The use of a master plan is a tool for implementing the Genaral Plan and often bridges the gap between General Plan policy and zoning standards for the property under consideration for development. subdivisions : Please refer to the previous report regarding the proposed tentative tract its, oak tree permits, and the Draft maps, hillside conditional use perm Environmental Impact Report for a detailed review of each map and their cumulative impact upon the environment. Cross sections illustrating the proposed grading (cut and fill) activity are attached. Development Agreements: Development agreemnets are proposed as reviously indicated. Attached to this report are maps which illustrate the existing and future ownership of property as a result of project implementation. FINANCIAL SUMMARY : A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared for the proposed projct. The Levander Company, Inc. analized the proposed project and two alternative —levelopment scenarios. The report indicates that each development sceniaro studied yields a positive cash flow to the City. The potential 30 acre commercial center proposed by the project proponents is estimated to provide an annual net surplus of $684,000 begining in the 11th year, the projected first year after full development. The complete report is attached for review. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: The public hearing for the South Pointe Master Plan was publicly noticed in accordance with State and local requirements. PREPARED BY: James De Stefano Community Development Director Attachments 1. Land Use Plan 2. City Council Staff Report dated September 14, 1993, (without attachments) 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 5. Tract Map No. 51253 6. South Pointe Master Plan - Sections 7. Existing ownership map 8. Future ownership map 9. Levander Fiscal Impact Analysis - dated April 21, 1993 10. Correspondence received to date in favor of and against the South Pointe Master Plan./ CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager. MEETING DATE: October 5, 1993 REPORT DATE: September 29, 1993 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8; Vesting Tentative -Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. Oak and Oak Tree Permit he 92-3; Tentative Tract Pointe Masterlan;and Environmental Impact Report No.. 92-1p No. 51253 and Conditional Use lcontinued Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South from September 28, 1993. SUMMARY: This is a request for approval of a mixed use project, known as the South Pointe Master Plan, consisting of land uses which include residential, commercial, park, open space and school facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in size and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres of commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; approximately 200 single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 28 acre neighborhood park; and the construction of a middle school. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive presentations from the staff, City consultants, and project developers; open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony, and continue the Hearing. LIST OF ATTACHMENTULStaff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) 2L Other EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Library SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed N/A _ Yes _ No by the City Attorney? LORI TY 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? 3. Has environmental impact beassessed? 2L Yes _ No an 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Yes _ No Which Commission? PLANNING COMNIISSION 5. Are other departments affected by the report? PUBLIC WORKS Yes —No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: I � TerrJnce L. Belanger City Manager %Wes DeStefano Community Developitent Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA N0. MEETING DATE: October 5, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council TO: FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2; Vesting Tentative Use Permit No. 92-8 and Tract Map No. 51407, Conditional Permit No. 92-8; Vesting Tentative Tract No. Oak Tree 32400, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-5, and Oak Tree 51253 and Permit No. 92-3; Tentative Tract Map No. . 92- Permit No. 92-12; TreePermit No. Conditional Use act the South Pointe Master Plan; nd 9; 1993. Report No. 92-1 continued from September 14, ISSUE STATEXENT: This is a request for approval of a mixed use project, South Pointe Master Plan, consisting known as the rk, open include residential, commercial, uses which space and school facilities. The project site is is located h of approximately 171 acres in size and Road, west of Brea Canyon Road, eau of Pathfinder Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid View Drive. The of commercial project proposes to develop 30 acres of 290,000 square feet; approximately retail/office space units, a ntial 280 acre )neighborhood. park; andched the construction) of a middle school. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive City consultants, and presentations from the staff, the Public Hearing, receive project developers; open public testimony, and continue the Hearing. PROJECT SUMXARY: The South Pointe Master Plan has been proposed to guide in the South Pointe Middle the development of 171 acres The Master Plan incorpor- School/ Sandstone Canyon area. by five entities; the City of Diamond ates property owned ey UnifiedBarg WaNP Val1Development S CorporationArciero • Incl and SasakDistricti Sons,Inc.,, The proposed project, if approved, will be developed, in of residential, phases, with primary land uses and school.. App roximate commercial, park, open space, of are requested for construction 82 residential acres or a 200 single family homes, 30 acres are proposed for future commercial/office use, 28 acres are proposed and 31 acres are open space as a public park site, proposed for the construction of the South Pointe Middle School (see Exhibit "A"). As presently proposed, a projected ten year - project will be developed over the development plan, all of the period. Under proposed residential dwellinq units, one-half of the 'park will be commercial/office use, and the site completed within a projected five year period. The remaining commercial/office use is projected to be completed within the remaining ten year period. To accommodate the proposed land uses, a number of circulation system improvements are required. These improvements include the creation of new local streets within the project site, a new access road to the school from Brea Canyon Road, improvements to Brea Canyon Road, and a number of area off-site street and intersection improvements including new signalization. The proposed project will require the approval and implementation of Development Agreements between the City and the project applicants, adoption of a Master Plan, Conditional Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, Subdivision approvals and an Environmental Impact Report. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended City Council approval. BACXGROUND: On September 14, 1993, the City Council began the public hearing process to consider development applications for the South Pointe Master Plan project. The Council received a presentation on the proposal from the City Staff and a summary of the environmental review process from the City's environmental consultant. Anticipated developer presentations were postponed to September 28 at the request of the app s. ENVIROMUMTAL IMPACT REPORT: On September 14, 1993, the City Council opened the Public Hearing on the stated project and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The Public Hearing for both the project and the DEIR was continued to September 28, 1993, for further public comment and possible action to certify or deny the DEIR. It should be noted that, in accordance with the Public Resources Code, "At least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report, the lead agency (City) shall provide a written proposed response to a public agency on continents made by that agency which conform with the requirements of this division... Copies of responses or the environmental document in which they are contained ... may be used to meet the requirements imposed by this section. " The Public Hearing has not closed and, therefore, action on the DEIR would be inappropriate at this time. PROJECT REVIEW : The proposed South Point Master Plan contains several entitlement requests as more fully described within the Staff Report prepared for the September 14, 1993 City oiacipf environmental review the council should Council to consider the specific entitlement requests. General Plan : The 1993 General Plan designation for the properties is PD, Planned Development. The purpose of this designation is to encourage the innovative use of unique properties, incorporate various land uses, coordinate public and private facilities, and integrate the proposed project into existing development patterns. The proposal has been designed to meet the requirements of the General Plan. Consistency with the adopted General Plan is required by State Law in order to approve the project. The general rule for consistency balance, determination is, after the objectives and policies all Its A aspects, the general plan and on not balance, f obstruct their attainment. The use of a "Master Plan" is proposed to guide the overall development. The components of the plan include permitted uses and development standards. The proposed zoning regulations and development standards will be implemented via the use of development agreements for the RNP and Arciero proposals. The standards are attached to the Sasak proposal as a component of the Tentative Map conditions. The complete document is contained within the previously prepared report. The use of a master plan is a tool for implementing the Genaral Plan and often bridges the gap between General Plan policy and zoning standards for the property under consideration for development. Subdivisions : Please refer to the previous report regarding the proposed tentative tract maps, hillside conditional use permits, oak tree permits, and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for a detailed review of each map and their cumulative impact upon the environment. Cross sections illustrating the proposed grading (cut and fill) activity are attached. Development Agreements: Development agreemnets are proposed as reviously indicated. Attached to this report are maps which illustrate the existing and future ownership of property as a result of project implementation. FINANCIAL SMOMY : A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been prepared for the proposed projct. The Levander Company, Inc. analized the proposed project and two alternative development scenarios. The report indicates that each development sceniaro studied yields a positive cash flow to the City. The potential 30 acre commercial center proposed by the project proponents is estimated to provide an annual net surplus of $684,000 begining in the 11th year, the projected first year after full development. The complete report is attached for review. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: The public hearing for the South Pointe Master Plan was publicly noticed in accordance with State and local requirements. PREPARED BY: James De Stefano community Development Director Attachments 1. Land Use Plan 2. City Council Staff Report dated September 14, 1993, (without attachments) 3. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 4. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 5. Tract Map No. 51253 6. South Pointe Master Plan - Sections 7. Existing ownership map 8. Future ownership map 9. Levander Fiscal Impact Analysis — dated April 21, 1993 10. Correspondence received to date in favor of and against the South Pointe Master Plan./ C C a N CO Z G Z S zo y o r7 _ CL Q z0 W b H- i_255 � ,s d Ali vll �11 lea 4L L., z u z 1 0 j E-4 9 SIN �11 W H z O a W H c� o� N m LL O l 0 1 r v� \ L L J� r I� i I i i ,r I I r 3 � � 1 c 1 � • 1 A-1-- I �j Fri' 1 _7 11 SFr i 741.1!� KF. L,,(,AnON 6F r--Wf -Tef�W PE— CF I-100, loo. /I 1 9Gn — p/ a01 r6 ciuVE.1 T5N7. Tppy-T No. Pf 1 `{ - ?CIO I�!oo - 700- - 600- /6 411 co — I /K PJQ�2" r glY wFf-t of-- �OOATION or E xiyilhlU TRFAM u 9040" IbMt7 MMe1F �1M �.�. �XI5tIN6 OWNC�.�HIP aaav ooh oa0 �0000�� o��oo v��v��o04 � ��o �.o� voFl�p '�•' a do 0'0°°" O�:�v poQ�o d�a� O ,+'AND p00,�aP�s' Op QQ:,do (0400 0 0 OOV11oo o�d 00 ea p90 voIv 4 00-�0 Ov �- 0.0\°oo0�av o0��000_0 0O O o� vo °00�0� � �� oaDO O00 o;� daQ X04 a 0°000d13 QO OV um 0 o�o�eoe4d0° �P 'v�•- -,r0 O��i�oQ �dac 7D�a v o A to `o vo=Q � goo aa6� OS v a�ioa�d �0��\d�s44e0o � - voo�W70oaa��aa�aaoao� ov Luga Qpp���oe0000doo 0 `� oop0 oao 9040" IbMt7 MMe1F �1M �.�. �XI5tIN6 OWNC�.�HIP NVUSD sear! P912T IC3e8L 30.64 +CAES 131.66 1CFE61 sea na Las sell 40. n ACRES CI TT IF el leele eA! ! i ► e!T!LOPBaeT IAC - - S. eo ASE: - - CITT eP ! !A! ! a P 1612LWOUT IBC e4 13 ACNF4 13. $D ACRES AA •1 r • y� 15. 18 ACRES 4 L07 34 TA 35711 PANT( • a r� 21.55 A&M i " �\• 1• CCMMEACIAL Ip11m FOR R -N -P OEVELOPwE�' — , nnirm ftu r sotrFW PbMMt MMrIF � s.�e fi—UtUf� OWNC►P�NIP THE LEVANDER COMPANY, mc. 2SS50 Hawthomo Boulevard, Suite 310, Torrance, CA 90505 (310) 375.8611 FAX (310) 375.9981 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS & OTHER BENEFIT -COST CONSIDERATIONS SOUTH POINTE SPECIFIC PLAN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA Prepared For The Planning Associates April 21, 1993 economics and management consuthnts THE LEVANDER COMPANY, mc Introduction .. , . 25550 MawthOma Boulevard, suite 310, Torrance, CA 90505 INDEX (310) 375.86 FAX (310) 375.99, ................................... 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............ . (1) Overall Conclusions (2) Projected Financial Returns to the City,.. .. .... ..... .. 2 (3) Other Benefit -Cost Considerations ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • • • •3 ......................6 2. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 3. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REVENUES .... . 4. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXPENDITURES ........... 5. DETAILED COMPUTER PROJECTIONS AND FISCAL MODEL ............ . Appendix .................. acononrica and ftWtmV wt conautt nta THE LEVANDER COMPANY, mc. 25550 Hawthorne Boulevard, Sesta 310, Torrance, CA 90505 (310) 375.881 i FAX (310) 375.9981 MEMORANDUM To: The Planning Associates Date: April 21, 1993 From: Dale H. Levander File: 1408 Subject: FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS & OTHER BENEFIT -COST CONSIDERATIONS. - SOUTH POINTE SPECIFIC PLAN At the request of The Planning Associates in behalf of their client, the City of Diamond Bar, we have prepared this fiscal impact analysis of prospective development of the South Pointe Specific Plan area (identified hereafter as South Pointe). The specific plan calls for development of the 171 -acre South Pointe area for 31 acres of commercial facilities and 200 single-family residential units, with added development to include a park, a middle school, circulation improvements, and open space. Our analysis considers three alternative development scenarios involving variations in the amount of commercial development, as follows: o Alternative A--MaxiMum Commercial Development, Development of the full 31 -acre commercial site for 290,000 square feet of commercial facilities, primarily major highway -oriented retail types, with such development assumed to occur 50% in Year 5 of development and the balance in Year 10. o Alternative B --Mid- ange Commercial Development, Development of 50°x6 of the commercial site (15.5 acres), with the remaining site area to remain in open space, resulting in 145,000 square feet of commercial facilities, also primarily of highway -oriented retail types. o Alternative C-- i MUM Commercial Develo2M=. Development of only 5.0 acres of the commercial site, the remainder to remain in open space, with development to involve primarily an extension of commercial office now found to the south of the area and also minor strip -commercial retail, with a total of 61,000 square feet of building space. In the preparation of this analysis, we have utilized information from the following sources: o Personal inspection of the South P,: : n : e area and its neighborhood setting. o Discussions with City of Diamond :� x- --fficials, identified in Appendix E. o Review of the City's 1992-93 _ : ze,, with computer analysis thereof documented in Appendix D. economics and m817890ment cona~ts o Property tax rate breakdowns from the Los Angeles County Auditor - Controller's office. o Current assessed values of the area from the Los Angeles County Assessor. o Development program estimates from review of the South Pointe EIR and discussions with The Planning Associates. o Current population data for the City of Diamond Bar from January 1992 estimates prepared by the State Department of Finance, with 1990 Census Data for surrounding neighborhoods as compiled by City staff. o Survey of single-family housing pricing in nearby neighborhoods by our staff. o Our experience in the preparation of more than 150 local governmental fiscal impact analyses during the past five years. It should be noted that we have not undertaken a detailed market analysis of development marketability and timing. However, based on our experience we have Of logical commercial development expectations for the South Pointe property. ared estunates This report is summary in nature. Additional research material are available from our files upon request. In our judgment, maximum commercial development as reflected in Alternative A is in the City's best long-term interest from a financial standpoint, and this development will also provide several non- quantified benefits as well, as subsequently discussed. The potential 31 -acre commercial site»by virtue of its size, configuration, freeway access, and freeway visibility --is a logical site for future highway -related retail with possible including such facilities as a discount department store, home improvement louttl tans, furniture stores, and the like. Maximum dial development will have a highly beneficial impact on City finances, with a Projected net surplus to the City of $16.5 million during a 20 - and an annual net surplus of $684,000 startingat Year 11 the Y projection period full development (these dollars � projected firn year after expressed in 1993 current dollars). While the lesser development alternatives reflected in Alternatives B and C will also yield positive cash surplus to the City, the amount of such surplus is well below that to be obtained under 2 maximum commercial development --less than one-half that of Alternative A : the case of Alternative B and less than one-third in the case of Alternative C. Our judgment of prospective development potentials are viewed in light of the City's long- term potentials, and in this regard our projections cover a 20 -year time frame from date of first occupancy, probably two or three years hence. We are aware of the current economic downturn, but we can point to similar downturns in the 1970's and 1980's which were followed by periods of major economic growth. We do not profess to be able to predict exactly when the major commercial development can occur, but we believe our five- year delay in projected growth over first residential occupancies is probably conservative. The key point is that the City of Diamond Bar has a property within its boundaries which is suitable for major commercial development at some point in the future, and as such represents a future financial resource to the community. (2) Projected Financia Renu* LO the QV Table 1 immediately following presents a summary of 20 -year financial projections under the three development alternatives considered. During the full 20 -year projection period, Alternative A's projected $16.8 million surplus will result from the following: o Projected revenues of $19.7 million, including $9.0 million in property taxes grid $7.3 million from commercial ground lease rental revenues. o Operating expenditures (costs) of $2.8 million, including park maintenance, police protection, street maintenance, and other smaller items. Specific revenue and expenditure (cost) factors utilized in the projections are discussed in detail in Sections 3 and 4 of this report. Detailed annual projections for Alternatives A, B, and C are found in Appendix A, B, and C respectively. Table 1 also provides summary Projections of City cash surplus under the assumption of ongoing inflation averaging 4.0% annually in these computations, we have increased operating revenues and costs at the 4.0% figures, with assessed values and resulting property taxes increased at 2.0% for commercial and 2.5% for residential, consistent with Proposition 13 limitations and consideration of residential turnover. Property growth limitations rwtwithstanding, City cash flows under inflation assumptions continue to strongly favlac Alternative A over other alternatives. The above net ash surplus projections reflect deduction of all ongoing operating costs associated with commercial and residential development, including police Protection, street maintenance, recreation services, park maintenance, and administration. in addition, they reflect coverage of the following somewhat special costs: 3 u M ^ • � Ya � I e�we�.rr rr'1� My V_w.l r _ _ O= ^' V i O r V �br1 1 A_ 1'f O NV V ^ _ N O y 1 1 lill�i 1 1 1 1 1 i � NN I I r i i n .�I�w err _4w e e o 1 1 1 Y 1 ^IOWN,r 1► A O N •= _. on nq 1 1 � 1 1 i i rxw �A r�•�+.1��+ Iw I _ I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 40 O• • O e 1 wy • 1 w Y 1 1 3 ' r• 11 V A r M N _ rr� r 1 1 A • A 1 � � 1 1 1 '�1w•yi�l 1 1 V = 1 N qm • A m eV A 11 F�il F 1 1 1 �i Iq V 0 r Table I SMUT Pltlotilb 117RI1 to ClIf N IANN W llteruttaa 1--------- 311.1 Ant Cemmarciall --------- Alternative /--------- (IS.S Agree dmreiall lltertativo C--------- ( 3.1 Arse Commerriall leGl total ]I -Tor 11 -Tor Total ]•-Tear full !1 -Tear Total Total Mjoctiet Ieulsp't hrfal Tear 11e mmMseld"'t Year Il 20 -Tor 11 -Tear Ivied Uta M) Paled (Attu Mt) hejeetio Oneloe•t Teo Ilriel Period PeriN (lila Aloof-------- ft 1NpL IIPLATIM 1111........ ------------------- ------------------ ----------------------- IIOIIIA [TNS fauna ?alar} Tae 111 133 13 CoI" in See tomme lLs Ilrel I'm MAI 2,]1! ASSll lis /,m 1n 1,166 ]1 119 Lai Commercial site from Aew $12 1.]!2 1,111] IN sa Ih 121 u ill p1 117 111 ASK w11,661 1,M ],111 Ste ,AK S.1]] !IS LI/1 fl1 ],ls] al 111 171 kill 1,125 11,11] ],111 111 iS2 L111 1 71 ItNNiUr" 1,511 1,71741 311 Part Wttesom S vitt l,ps 40 ]q 6]2 I,IIS All 12 Street Iaieteumee it 161 171 111 21] K I'm Ips A2 Other total 191 111 It )I 1st 111 111 111 11I] ]I II] 171 2,122 I'm 111 ],1]1 1,665 166 ISI 2.511 I1 219 7 27 lot salla HIM /,225 1.263 1,115 1,111 96 991 tsl 0411111 1lIN 1,441 TSI 725 faemmu hselolont Caetrel tae I'm 1,3I1 l Commercial lite tela 1 I 1 1,111 1,111 1 1,111 1,131 p Ithu Total1,171 )) 21 1 1 12 1 ]]1 1 1 II 1 0 1,121 t 1,117 1.11T 1 1,011 ]I 1,117 0 Iyttlituet p Ienlelent Cotral Cott1,121 1,]]I Part Imprweeate 171 ]1S 1,111 1,111 1 I,OII 1,011 p ..��� Iepw.eeN� SI 0 Alf 17S 1 ]7S 175 0 1 1 p t 0 l,lt9 1,719 p o $62,000 annual costs of maintaining 10.0 acres of finished park, even though the 200 residential units Southin stointe ardsone would require which in turn would cost dark evelopment of only 3.0 acre per City and only $18,600 annually for maintenance. o A portion of the improvement costs required for park development, assumed to be 50°x6 of total improvement costs of $750,000, the balance of improvement costs and site costs assumed to be a developer responsibility. o Costs of maintaining not only streets within the area but also an assumed widening of Brea Canyon Road to a full four nth coststimees at ofcommerciathe development (in Alternatives A and B), projected additional two lanes of $9,600 annually. Please refer to tables in Appendix A, B, and C for detailed projections and underlying development and financial factors. Non -quantified community following: Park Faciliti L As noted earlier, the prospective 10 -acre park is well above 3.0 acres which would be required for the 200 residential units alone. The park will serve a much broader 39.9 �cres of finished park, t bof the Diamond Bar e increased in present, the City currently has This the near future to 55 acres with completion of Paute anP r latter e Park - figure reflects parks of about 1.0 acres per 1,000 popits Cites standard of 5.0. South Pointe az � � City �ytowardsale to More specifically, the South P°ante. p ",tat of the 57 Freeway. approximate 7,000 Diamond Bar residents living Also, the South Pointe park will be usable City-wide by youth sports, which face a significant shortage of space. In all, South Pointe will help some 4,000 currentYOuth-sport participants find needed facilities, practice facilities in Particular c..bet_ Access. The planned Street A collector in South Pointe will provide Middle School, access which is now direct access, to the South Pointe aThis access will result only to the north via neighborhood streets. in benefits of resident time savings and safety. benefits not reflected in the financial projections include the M X 0 ry n H A .V w V 4 � Y a 77 + .~.r y y• i e• e CO e w M ► 'dl Y I f► � p,� = � y C � n a.1 � 1 • IV 1 ry •� 1 j .el, ~! M 96 I ; 1 I 1 I i 1 y ZI I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A Y � ; 1 �r A �••� M � e 1 rl i w r 1 n w y� lot t r h A n e V aft 40 1 a �` s = 1 •, � pp 1 � .i•E w� 1 � A „� �" e v r: h I i o School Replacement. South Pointe development will allow the replacement of the existing South Pointe Middle School temporary facilities with permanent facilities on an adjacent site, by virtue of grading and access benefits. We have not attempted in this analysis to discuss the wide range of non-financial matters covered by the specific plan's EIR. However, while not quantified in dollar terms,the above considerations may be considered to be of significance by many in the community. projections. SNL South Pointe development programs under the three alternative scenarios are summarized in Table 2 immediately following. Several points of note include the following: o Maximum commercial development of 290,000 square feet is a preliminary planning figure, possibly taking into consideration traffic limitations and other development considerations. Under typical Southern California development densities, we estimate that the 31 -acre site could accommodate 10% to 20% more building space, a factor which applies to Alternatives B and C also. o Under Alternative A, the City is projected to own a 50% share of the 31 -acre site, or 15.5 acres. Under Alternative B, the City site is also assumed to be 50% of the total site, or 7.75 acres. Under Alternative C, City ownership is assumed to the full 5.0 -acre site. o It is assumed that the A Street collector will be developed in Year 1 of the project, to provide full access to the South Point Middle School from the outset. Brea Canyon Road is projected for widening by completion of major commercial facilities in Year 5 for Alternatives A and B. No widening is projected under Alternative C. o _ Residential values are projected at $300,000 per unit, although our surve,, of current asking prices for nearby homes indicated a $340,000 average Commercial values are based on our files of Southern California experience o Co®mercial taxable sales are also based on Southern California experience As shown in detailed projections, our judgment is that Alternative development should yield higher taxable sales on a square -foot basis than Alternative B, which in turn should show better performance than Alternate% - C. `A Un est (1Ctts) tesidestial to111111reial Part (risisked) sckool am spec/Circelatios Total low= am= (sr� shop Ctr--b jar bail SW Ctr--lim bait Skop Ctr--ftut -toe-btail Will i Driakii bak rieucial Office 9111:111 Office Total ttsIDtl= mys 'sofa MUC STl m tun-=) mn mac Pars (um, II Coat'! DOIdm #M's) a telt DRAW ($Wee Souse: Tb Lamdar ComaI, rm. Table 2 smut OmInsIw 1LTEtt1TITEs 0 M 1 LICIT --11torartiv11 1-- (31.9 lc coal II --------------- --11ta native !----11ternative C-- (15.S-1C-C0111I)-- ( S.0 1C Coll) t9.6 10.9 11.0 19.5 10.0 16.9 11.1 5.0 32.0 32.0 10.0 11.1 17.S 31.0 171.0 171.0 11.0 171.0 111/000 fill" 25,000 11'"s 5,010 70,000 21,110 111011 11,000 -- 11,111 5.000 O 311100 HIM 0 2»,N/ 11s,/1f 30,000 61,000 200 2if sac 7'11, 7.01 4.b! 10.1 10.0 92,519 761251 silo" 21ils 10,00. o Resident taxable sales while relatively minor are keyed to housing values and Per* income estimates. We estimate that family of housing values and taxable sales are 35% of per -capita incomes. ne-third Population is estimated at 3.0 residents per unit, consistent with current Ci Population estimates and also consistent with single-famil ry elsewhere n Southern California. Y experience In the three alternatives, our anal at time of commercial development, sasl�g long-term ground the City will lease its commercial site computed at 8.0% of value, in turn computed at $io per s lease foot. annul revenues option. Another option is sale of the property, square foot. This is one City the City, whiffturnP Pe2'tY, which would result in one-time revenue to to provide ongoing eral Fund revenue. tOur com tit Y under current conditions such a projection alternative. P er model is established to handle Please refer to Tables 2-5 in Appendix A -C for detailed ro' If the three development programs and resulting P Jections and underlying g development measures. Ymg factors 3. CLTy Ongoing annual revenues to be received development will include the following; by the City as a result of South Pointe of by �e�YTSii�. 3.46986 of the $ 1.00 per $100 AV tax rate collected aY• 0 the County Auditor -Controller tax -rate breakdowns for Tax Rate Area 10067 in which the subject area is located. o Urn. _ecu_rKt or,,..:. - �•-- 1086 of securedto facilities only, based on Southern �ornia P taxes of commercial experience. o 'fib. ""% of projected taxable sales statutory 1.00% plus additional allocations from unidentified locations. by the State to the City for sales 0 5.5 cents per $1,000 of new development value, meted upon � Cites 5086 share of transfer tax computed at x1.10 per $ 1,000 of ttansfer value, under the assum P have a ten -Year ownership turnover (no considerationt that properties Property turnover),given to commercial 0 oMotoryPt, eIn-Lieu. $33.91 per capita for these taxes received from the State based upon the City's 1992-93 budget documented in Appendix Ta D1. PP Table o Eanchise F $11.11 per capita, based up on review of the Ci budget documented in Appendix Table D1. s 1992 93 ° Gas T_4N• $16.35 per capita, based upon the City's 1992.93 budget documented in Appendix Table D1. ° L°��ation Tax Proa a 25% of other sales t current budget documented in Appendix Table Dl. Per the City's ° City C01f1171PTcti91 S $34,848 per acre r Yeara land value of $435,600 per acre (43,560 square feet at $10 ' based on re foot) and an annual lease rate of 8% of value. per square Additional ongoing revenues include fines and forfeitures,vehicle code fines, and waste hauler permits, as identified in Appendix Table AS. One-time revenues to be received by the City as a result of South Pointe development will include: (1) document transfer tax on initial residential sales, computed at 55 cents per $1,000 valuation and (2) development control fees estimated at 1.5% of new developmen control costs. t value, the later a regional average and as to be directly offset by development 4. C1W OF DLAMOND n.n 2W j __ _ J Ongoing annual eqpenditures are estimatedas follows: °SW= $66.86 per capita, based upon the City's 1992.93 budget documented in Appendix Table D2 per discussion with City staff; 4.18 cents Per square foot for commercial facilities utilizi HP ng an equivalent dwelling unit aeoaeh of 4,800 square feet of commercial building space equal to one g unit with 3.0 residents. o Sheet MAIntonance. $4,000 per lane -mile, based upon regional and discussion with City staff. and o Park Mai nrZArv.. $6,200 per acre, based on review of current budget per APPendix Table D2 and review of current park subcontracts with City staff. 10 o Recreation Services. $7.74 per capita, based cn the City's current budget per Appendix Table D2. o Administration . Estimated at 15.9% of other ongoing direct costs, based upon our analysis of direct and indirect costs in the City's current budget, documented in Appendix Table D2, a conservative approach inasmuch as administrative costs for most cities are not directly keyed to direct costs. Additional ongoing expenditures include animal control, emergency preparedness, and waste management, as identified in Appendix Table AS. The principal one-time expenditures projected in this analysis is $375,000 for park improvements. Based on discussion with The Planning Associates, this analysis assumes that 50% of park improvement costs will be borne by the City, the balance by the developer. Improvement costs are estimated at $75,000 per acre, per regional experience and discussion with City staff. E-INEWNWI-RIER.3N zM 4,91 RM Colo) Detailed computer projections are contained in the Appendix to this report, as follows: o gyp& A. A full set of detailed projections covering Alternative A. o Apvendix B and A22M& C. Summary Table 1 of Alternatives B and C respectively. The computer program utilized is in the form of six individual tables, as identified in Appendix A. These individual tables have been constructed in such a form as to identify all detailed factors underlying the projections. Also, the computer program is in such a form that additional projections can be easily run under alternative development and value assumptions. Computer projections are in Symphony spreadsheet form. Each individual set of projections requires approximately 273,000 bytes of computer memory. WP33/1408R2 11 APPENDIX A. Alternative A Detailed projections --Tables Al -A6 B. Alternative B Summary Projections --Table B.1 C. Alternative C Summary Projections --Table C2 D. City of Diamond Bar 1992-93 Budget Analysis E. List of City of Diamond Bar Officials Contacted 12 Appendix A ALTERNATIVE A DETAILED PROJECTONS--TABLES Al -A6 ��� � � � 3 s �'�L'���s3 e Y r i _ t � � � r � � S . � � y V � �����i � �itStbtW�,�� � J My = � I .�r�•^wrRrMr�� r�•N iMMrr�ron^_ � n y � � � � � � `� I � � ! � _ 1 � I 11 � P }� C � I � I � *r�•r�w•Rr«••RrR•� '��i�••�"•«''fir � � L � R..�•♦«r�r«rr.srRrR ��wR••Xr•R� ^ �I « r � ^ ^ .. � � .. ( I •i�•r«rSrrr�wR•Rr! „"/«R•rR..•=x � ! ' s i ^' I � "1��•....r.rr••«••r•R „�/r.�••rr•r�x � j� i ♦ I � , 1 _ � r I r•r•+rr«r•rr«rrrx »•rrr�r•♦� « � � � { �I x � ��� ! �s�•�'•�'x^?�a=fie•"s ���"•ss•3e� � s � � � I s .s ,: t � s X s �;�� «^ � � • • � ��� � � � � � � � �� � � �� � W � t �����������3 ����� � � � �y » ♦+ r ++ 1w� r �w1 of 1� + �y y N + r «A.� M •^ � � _� �M s w�+�� � �N ^^ N w M^NR � �^.� � �+�R� �++�+��i ��� 3 3 ' _. $kg � . § i ■; � �} - - � 2 - j 4 - 7 , ■ § 2 8 � �; � --■ # _ , _ ' � k � � � . |- _ . • , | - - - , , - ■ ■ - ■ 2 @ § , ___, . . � � � � ' ' � ' \ � � � k � $ ■ § � � - � � � � � � @ - � ■ 5 ! ■ - � I �i ®__■ a _ , _ � , . ■ - ■ _.� � � 3 � � � @ _ � |� _ - ■ ■ - ■ ■ - ■ ■ @ 3 3 / � � � � � � - - - ■ ■ - ■ � � ■ - � § ■ k ) | , � ! � �� __■_ ■ --■ ■ - - § ■ , | _ S k k @ � . ■ � - � ���� ©--■-____§ £-■®------ � - ■ � � = lit ___-_____- ' _ $ ■ ■ ■ -l� _ ■- ���■___-®9 - - - AID@ ��� f-$®-__---2 2 2 § 2 • � $�} . ' ��� - 2 � ■�@ � $ I .� i!r ■_■,sa2■a■�■■■■a■■■■■■■a■a■■■■■#,a■#■■■ � � � @■■�■■■■@■■■8�■2! Y le•k At ("et ... Pope 21 A1leeae•lee k balm I i0i •.K Ie11Mke fete N tt�l•F CAN no 144t4FAl N wum FIKAL WAtIM-tlIT i 614111110 W USA K pl2F/f7 M Y N Y --- -------- Am=& Fan 11-28 --------- x h Item Far 11 Tw a •eee u Far 14 Few is Few u Few Il Few u Faef If ler — -- --- ------ ----- s --- x — '— "We ------------ x x ME -111E lum n x kvawn t1 • •1e tnrlr ta-11e • • • • • • • Y •teff FM • • • • • • • • • • • • • Y NeFtk •Itlatlm FM • • • • • • L • • • Y k1doeit tete" Fen • • • • • • • • M Cert YN bk (Mike) • • Y M N Y M letel 4.aeeea • • • • L • • • • • M /1 I.eeeelkens n u Irl Itln.eeeM. • • • • • • • • • • %U -Wella le7rwee.els 16 Ae.el.eeeel teelnl • • • • • • • • • • et u M to w w w w Idol lweMlWes • • • • • • • • • • w M rt I1r•Ia1(•alklll • • • • • • • • • • as Yt--VAN"lee I301 11142) lull IFuI IA•tl (sit) full Itul Ixri lull w W W 111111114111111111111 AY its- 1.4x I.ub I.lx 11475 I.NS 11415 I.US I.US 1.4x 1./M 117 111 I.e.eellres Iii 171 1)l 111 171 171 I71 171 1)7 Ill In 41Ie I1 It•s1.../11e J► SY1141 cm an 1llersrlvt l: Istisr isssnslsll 1.2R 111flsliss nl as 134 now WWA f11t11 bruls--tlr/ M OJIMM sausSIM lU/ ulwsl 136 Ix fit: ►r+kcllesa Itr Iers 11-2/ UAU Jay an • at OW. "1191 1x ---- x -Mr rKsis ------ W adsm" / cub fiat uf hug -- in M6/ ftbomme kw ___--_----_— It9slun.t "WSW tars S -Il ----__--_ in 14" lura Iwo ler. —'----- Qt-------- 18 Mr 1-0— —' ---- 1Rr 2 Iesr 1 lur S yew S low 5 136 -------- _--- Sar7 ler t Iter f Itr 4 11t Ix mum 1111E /Yl1Su -------- ----------- 1m•s ------ ---------— u7 -- us 251 ft,11w so— U111 up f14ws (72► lul w 171 ul 41 almtl Mord oak 6.0 t 3 42 S us bubllalla f.d. IW 0.92N 4-9mmutLou1.771N 1.224 W Msut Iwlr W adsm" / cub fiat I4 49 rpiq Iters 251 (121 251 ft,11w so— U111 (72► lul (S► 171 ul 1u in }p 7n I lt7 12171 3 1 S 1'.1 IM •1 7,x}1 5.5.11 /,Lk 1� Inl 1 J 1271) 2 2 2 2 15s Inl lul (:1 us ua u5 591 in 7n 155 151 14 111 IM 41 to aK ws 47 111 111 US In In III 1x 1n In In In 171 In 17► 177 IM In I» ul It" u7 — In LIA in U6 MM Irlf ISLLl7ls In us 1.1 fdsn Its MI Amin urm•i slts u7 us smubiA tlM• feaw Its IIs iM Isr•IM W w *$.NNW hls fl.d us u• bake Um IN ISI lu TOW iM tls 166 w Is• 1» w lu W MS >K Ms lu w as as Ila In In 171 ul Irk u Itat...ww It sllarllx •: wl.. GwssW; LR Wlltirr sNc 1/1KTN II�YT cm RM SUN Is•STY flsl•I WKU--CI" If s1Yloo, Y• M!•11u ----•— -- ANNE" )an 11-26 ------- ------ Sar 11 vow M Tw U Tar 11 lrw IS Tow It Iw U Iw I• 1w IS lar s -------- laws -- ----- s.5471 /.3114 s.1NS 6.4612 CUK GAIU /.Ln S.)Iss s.SW S.n» t•I MS I» SN SII SII at ISL Its AS3 414 tIS »► S7/ SII $IS In IIs IN w3 NlIn kIk V NpNWK Son" lik►ative A. IMrlaft Irrrelq, Ar kllrlleaaal• w 111 iWA EMU wun--CITY aNJYN on Is awAl fum a7aafu was IealaN _ Mka M kin 11-a� _ Wym Iatala — • a•rt • ". Wahl kwl SO !rI°a imam ------- w laa --- aerlar•1 rrle• lnrs 1-u--------------- Iw w laws IMM t.r1 ---- lN — 1^I♦ la -0 1 -IL tar 1 tar i VMS ►ars tar 1, l.r S tae) ler L lar f l.r ,a ltl In wJllotNirwmIw►—__"— — — Mar NW► WAW4r--- •,t& Mw♦ ! MAN tl.186411111,ha palw 7L,w L Mr BAN w.ar RWfimftm #iw Mft • 3"m S.w• n.M NI arwl•lala U64 • MOr 1•,w km •a SNAP am IAy • ♦ � Kar S,ar � altar f1►a■Iaalrl amIll• IIaSE q1}'w • afl.•s L♦ a a •• 1 ° • Jl,ar Q -+a1r aryl awif w,w "%am ukm • us,ar ami/ skit, up—SMA MM -690U m a aaw : +•.w 1•,w 11,a• saran a Uarlaa Oki aa.al• a a ! �•� a wo SAM t•,w s,ar uL.w 5a :K fkYSW rlia MM JI,r MM agar a a • a •am Sala S.aK km km S,a♦ ar Mar >M aenlal auk, IN rt.l r,r• am i� � ; • • S,� �� �� aa,ar J•,ar r.ar 711 1e1M • L • L L ' 1 alar Mar 111411111 Sala 111.4fto S.wmkm N,ar 3,@" 711 fu canary SJY IOU IJtal s♦ a a • u5,1Y Itf .ar uf.ar 11s.aa us. 1 t11,r1 lu fY. Cl, is a.1a11 M.1 of >• L 7l5 II.r p.- ".m aeWl 2N ,Ir►,a--lata IraeWl S./ •.a S.• 4.1 8.1 1.1 N.• 1.1 /.1 •.• /.• 87 LAIN a IrLlq lay L• Lf M 1.1 t.1 I.0 •.• •.6 •.• I.a A° I'S °'• a•a 1.1 1.6 N.L LS 20 flltYelal alga iN iMwl aala LS •.• 1.4 a.• AL La to 8.1 •.s 1.J •.! •.a 1A •.• •.! 1.• I.J •.• I.J L► 1.0 14 I.a A♦ a.• a.a A! 1.• 1.8 ,.J ttig JaW an —triallw AA � a to La M La AA La a • to 1.1 a 1 :; A.a• A • )s,L La L4 •.• A! •.• JAS M •.L 0.4 . ta► to N•s N.• 1164IAS, N.s ILSrwlallas u.a »t tta•Wlea Ill • L • L • a • a • L L • a • t1• r• OOUL a•11 clowlww 111 Ji! a a a • a a • s L a L • f0•Ia4aalb 2110 aa1lINNalllr '; a r r r Gann ma 30 • a ' 316'• LS 7i IIS COILMI a EsN ml to1a} s IS f1 a r # 79 >• 18 7a fu S1aal.4.wlr 715 7K 106 70 b tilaciallr 2J6 74 • • 1 2 Y Y 4 w 171 168 rw.l tY 7n I r ° ° • a • fit a IY 7r ru j u Y ao Ia1 17• IY l.• ]Y 7aD An k►k A2 SIlNlalw •: fakr t411sal•l; LM k1k12m Ails II116aI U2 LRM1fef fOBNt AIM ILL WWW fink WKU- 1191 f 1UAM Us N/Il/fl In N► III w - -- AIIwi fan 11-2L --------'-'----- IY M 21• I11• far Y f•N a 11N u f1a 14 far Is far 14 lar 17 lar Is rM IL f11r M 111 ----- SM pL IIILBIYI M1•M INNS (1fl Ml tL1A pr-MNr Mtll N► 00 a1-f11Nt Mali M Y ar-Wr• 004dm NL NI1111 abill" bub- k►limp" limp"48" M► Ea "0111• M Ma ML 11111 • • 0 L • 1. ► • L • in MI aRLAM MB NK NNE (s) M• an fM-illy am" MAW 1B.M U&M 1M.IM la ter mm 11%IW WA* mk- lM.L7• MS Mqr-iaat MW jkm M.IM IMM am fkm 11.M skm i•.M• ICM UAW IM pA-faa• rr•IMII NAM l•.M WAS 1•,M I%m 116EM Y.M 1•.M 1•.M 1•.M• w taro • triaLL tab M,M IL M M,M MAN M.M MAN s.IM M.M N.1M MAN M Fbmid 44111 11.M 1•.M NAM WM mm ILM Aim mm N.M NAL• tr 6~01 Wk. AAM y.M 21.M MAA MAN MAN MAN a.M MAA 1 MAN ► n• Ir./ • 111 .w�l 211,M • 2a,® ► M.M • MIND L M.M 1 2" • 211,M 0 MAN • MAA MAN )11 211 IaaN lr l.a raA INa$1 t.1 •.► L► I.S. 1.• LL LL LL 214 IIr t1r rN 1tls11 1.• 1.1 1.0 1.1 4.1 1.1 0.1 4.4 21S SIw qr lural Wall •.• 2111, *A* Ilr-tela •a-lMall 1.1, 1.0 LL L► 1.9 41.9 I.S. • I, L• L► IIA tam 1 Crura f" L• 4.4 LL 0.1 L.• •.• 4.4 6.4 LL •.• Lf- ►M ILL fIM01a Mtk• L► L• LL 1.0 6.1 •.• L• L► 4.1 L• 1.1 L► L• L0 LI L1 41,41 L• L! L• 41.1 M 1.9 LL 1.9 L• L► 1.0 L0 3w MN 43p 71111 IA 0.L LL 6.4 4.4 LI !.1 L• M L• !f!-i1111111f1" II.► 1L• ILI, A.► II.• 11.0 IL► ILL II.► II.• ILI IIL MB 1M M1ILTML IK ► ► L • • • m &Awl • • • • • 1 • 1 ! • • • 1 • Mt 4011a/w m M NIAA1If1► MR proms (11 IIA 11a1/:4dNr Il• rNW1-fauf ► L L L P • ► • • ► Ill 14111111 712 711 g1KAITI1 11111 volt twullm III 2a M 20 p1 2K S.glt lrilr 200 306 700 to - .. �p 2101 tOtl 700 AD 71p 700 IN 201 200 MI 1 ~ ........."" 21 .uar.e /: tlsaw. Ma us 21` c.. "i S.« wwA. w. Was "*A • •1111N w � rill o"a sou m 1 4Mfu 2111 --- IMte: ►nkell.. It Ikon 11-2, fLe511 347 31-Tw low$ tet M. WORM 111 kid an w1N A kw kw— — --------- /eeele•tM 7t al Ieta 1-11 ---- 2s It" - — -- 4/n un Vets --~ IFI I -S �— -- /eM 1 iMr 1 fM► ! kt / lets Igor 11 _--_ ----- NUMMgO LM MIS IIt1E5► - -"- ----- - —_ - ht 7 ----- let / let 11 ----- few N 2A Skak-folly 2is •mos ki4a2 N./ /.• �� ------- ---- M11 IMM 2/) LI 4./ 1 • Mfl M reit /.• 111tis x1181 IVE.IMUJ i1REs IIIc 1.8 /.• •.• 11.• 1./ 11.• a_• • /.1 •./ !./ +.• •.• 7Msls !.• 11/ flu Lrw I" (MI -saki Lr 1 i 1 11 NlWt / 111 Mor Moves. /.r .N an •.r 2 2.7! /,h 2.4 2N low 41 Me4te —iM.1/tlw Lr /'r L% J.r •.r 7.r /.Y Ln •.Y /.Y /.N 1.N 1.N 1.N ).r 7.r l.r 1.11 /.N I.a •.N 1.11 /.N for /.M Las S.n •.4•.4 1.N 1.M •.4 NRK MID Mlr 1ME/1 5.N Sof/ 11.2, •.4 13" a.N 7.r tr MAN& IM11tler 31,11-'�MWMIM N.r /.o1 Nor 6.111,ISO 2n Il•4 t••IK Ik1Y I111f e•K• r.r r.r N.r 11.411 S.rf.M 5.r LE 5-r N -r 1/.r Ill/ 7n FII y.r y.r y_r 2/► ere.l Melllw • 77e � Qr1Mlw • / 7X / • / 277 • / / • / / • • • • 171 2n it K rl 2r 316 as 2r 21J r! 2M m 219 211 2U w tselt, @ Igtellerw..........ege 21 rit 61111moe11 /lulu Nlar.11ee 6: pals., --, w: 6.0, Istlt1.I.W 7{► iWA SUM Wtlf-QR f UMM 141 s 74 ASS SASS as "Awn 716 70 712 ------ as 7111 It" lees Il Sr tl No u Few it Its► is ler It. far 11 less It ler If 1. s 712 361 RR R► 6A 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 Ra RR 6.6. 2,• 6.6 RR M l► 6.6 Ra 6.6 RI 6.6 6.6 6.0 11.6 761 6.0 6.6 aA RR 6.6. 6.6 Sts 1KK s1El N72 momoi ka*au I - Tia 716 ba Sam Ina Mag -/flet 311 Surae 6 761 In" Streit, 7611 4" 6LL S11wls 7W RM RM RM RM Rat RM Rt 6.M RM RM -4tw"" as 2.M 7.21 1.0 1.62 1.M 2.M 7.65 Las 1.62 1.0 7111 NaK" M mole mma► w 7111 Mmol lslltl.r 1M-t.�lsele. Ile Is, 86 111.10 16.M 14.411 16.26 I0.0 I2.10, 16.e► 1826 IRM Ill mom COMM 1e/u11u1 e!s 1111111I 1n nI I...1 ssau.r 2X---Qo11Mlw t a • a F L L 23 6. ► L 71► i77 SAS V$ 7M 717 7u 7111 7111 7M 7D 7M Imo ' 7M !ll to 3" Iw lel" µ 11taRalvs b WYr Cewwwldl •.$I W WkR 1eb 14NUAI in m 4MM61 SUM AA •All f gMKI#1 fACHIS ILAM MI was Intal WKW -CII{ f NMIIM YL JN 11111AMM8 IMMIC MAN i JI/ 7M 111 11• a CMBCIM 1f11ltfE•t flpfM •1.1it esr- filer Dee Sot _ 1 _ Som soln, 111 4w o� J1fti eI"___ JIM "far AReNe AsoM Ms•1 Aln•L w•M• AwwlRt M f irrt tee ! Irrt ►er W we fsRRwww fW 1seR WR• in an /Awed lsl 1111•'sl JII 40$Wsi 491 • an" 111 Jll NI la$Wsl JY lli sw sop al-rlr •eldl 111.r Itr IL 11• 0.r fM ICOM• ill "Mr-Iowa awl Iwo MAN L• iM 4.1A UI a.r 1M 11w al-Um a NNA"t 1•.w Mw L• IM I.w • • 11• Seeks 1 Cr dda Ido 31611111 •AA - Lf IM l.w AI *AM im fimp "Atte M1w 1.w Iw 91 a 1M •surd •MCN ^M MAr Li of . • • • L fA G. M /S.• Ib171, • a fit" 0, 316MLL M • Ae• MAIS 1,111, JL In 316586 5&80 • IRS INR111erge Al a1, a Mfllall 111BMf1M1 fa1M{ --hwkCMwr---NU - bWr ----tee cru• -W" INe•!e -wok an • •hrwllr whew— Irks eM fr All, lmww_ ►r Sole Aws1 hr Soft ANR• 4.dm"— for 1,r MORA s K w Irw• Arid ►o woe Ms.b a J �Ir'd 111 1111•'sl Ill 4nwsl ISIRI 401111M's1 f " e31 1 Sous all ^ltl 1n - sm ---IMI Cost" su 111 a• 1.r 61 r/ r Mtiw Will. 31600 11,66)7.60wL• RAW 3.m« 36. La n1, skrl.-f.u. • • f • • • Jr1U • 4.0 a f>M 1•.11• II.111 A.r 11,6617,r IL► i,w 1,10 LI• !L► a WOW&~ w !.M t1/ 1M >r AI fRelr: 1M wwm At1�111M hoodAwwrl 3" MM ler / lever f Iw 1 ler c ler S les R. Nr 1 ler ILL 11 JLL LM` LIM 1.00 LOW LIM LAM L� 1-fr LOW 1.1M• I.f111 1.•a JV JRI •wweielRswl•Ilwe •.ALIM !, I.MM sAr 1.r1 1.•IA 1.flr i.MM 1.•IM I.AM L IM 711 Mwwwsd �s--•n!•rIW 1-M 1.� LM 1.m 1.M 1.M 1.OM LAM IM Iswewww•MMM-•cewwrdd LM LAM Lam l.1a 1.•a I.MA f.fw Law LAM COMM LA1 1M •Io o 4ba hell we) LM 1.� LIM LIM 1.11I• $.1M• LIr ►-AM Lm L LfMI 1./fM iA Msrdk• 1, twit" ca", •.M SIR IRS M JY mus At Alitadlw L• Imisr Serweld; t.R AIISOM big 141WAl 7ll MIS~ RENK /• UK INKLfL full 1us• MMI/u 401 WUN jum uml"lll a NIIIIII, UK J16 Ilt 340 >w JM few LI 140 Far It Ui M40llalt mEau E111 fition Ja 1.0 16. SIX Tar K Ju Tew MF ILL LIIIt as LMII U& amp tt&--Mlfw tlisll all am LU-1omd awl at so a&--Imd w.rlu► Al bum & Modo I" m fimaid Ml►r -M Gomm 4"bw m a" JS► I.9040 w U44LIAewslr 40 L40LL tri Low 1.4040 JLI IAIII All. ESU M UL MfarEM FIa40t RI LAM in 1.4016 Left "I U3 I.MM I.M40 Su I.MM IN I.MIL JAS 1.Ow I.MM a& sino -Inlf/ all mulpat4edl► m ldellbwar J16 8.80 S1� JU Its WLASW ANWIM w UL in Sla JIf as tmlwr Ids J16 Imm& Illrrar►&IItld 116 Wmol ftww-4 -Ial J16 Lnar Qw1 *0 IM11 au IwdW I em" Inas W wa IslerL Fan 11-M Mm► flier: few LI vw 11 Far It lett Is Few 15, 1.0 16. Far il Tar K Tel 11 Tew MF ►.� LIIIt Ll16t LMII LMIL Lam I.M16 I.1140 ►.4040 Law I.tllt IAM LMS I.ME IAM . IAM S.&16I ►AIM IAM I.MR I.I0 L4016 I.9040 Low I.am I'm L40LL I.MM Low 1.4040 1.4040 I.MM IAIII LMM 1. LAM JAM 1.40N 1.4016 Left LMr LMIt I.MM I.M40 IAMI I.MM [.lm I.MIL 1.408 1.Ow I.MM 4L&16l •.4040 &.4016 /.Mr IAO &.MM &.4016 8.80 Law 1eat� k lltaz1Ml111 /: •1■tee� CMYIKi4ai /.K wwlas a" mesa" JSt IMLLaIM1 fYIE! Was fl1U► IMKiiitla • WA M M setK /r SLAW lens tl-x• "Mu xl MSM ft MINX ftm 4644A M iRll o 111111. p lib JLL — wuw Is11U __—____—_-- wadelyd rrt{• Tars ►-15 7N koll 7M MW bel■111 4" 70 Ike► Tom � hln t-0WWI hot Iar 1 1sr 4 VMS, Tsr ► Tt11r 7 VMS vows Ter 1• A Its+ in l)1 Al TILL MU" x1111[ Slusr- . J•1 90AMUMM IMM'{I 17• In •Maesw • a • a t•.al• II.M t4M 1{,M W.M *M !71 car tlS,aM Reim {x411• • • • S.M l aM S.M S.M S.M 1•,M sow SAOl Jx •!1• Hr -11111 wu 00 s.•M tM`w IIL� • • ♦ • • ♦ • a a a »► sIr ur-Trt a1sll.[L • • • • • • • • JAN SAN SAM 4,M JM {.•M JM 'sake a arid" 4"MAN {a.•M 411.01111• • ♦ ♦ • • • ► • • M Skerw "elm • • a • • a • • • • • • JM 4M..1 MJMe • • • • • ♦ ► ♦ ♦ a a • a Ma a"a ♦ ► • • • a • JbM n aM x./M 76.M MANMAN52-Mlr , JM 1w.t 1a.w M.w JM.w 1M JM @MN1 J11MMn7M M.M ALM 1110,10 t.sM 2.1w LM ttiM► 4lM 4Ma s,w 4,3111,7.M • • W •MW -/MIH JM arLLi11{rfmur a • a • 71111 • I,w • 2.10 • 7.11M. • 1,Ma • 4tM • {,t•• a S.w 4M 1.111111 Mf Tsw D.M X.M. 1M.5115 +M7M 111.1 I,w l.w 1.w xr,SM M 7M 7•.M u.w 7i.M » M !11 bbl tssrrclH 1 {nIM 17x.1 M.00 ra ril Mil MULL w-' ix w11I{M MR OR II/M't1 4Ma 4M 4M 4M 4M bw 4M 4M km Iib SlglrhWr N.M ► W11111,MM • • a • • • • • JN •WIINefM11r • / • 4,M sw um wow• S•.M t1,M l•.•M L.w JN M JS.MI 42,M ALM51.•M 4,11,41111JM --{uWMi1s {•.w . M.•11 N.•M ' JM w tarallta in 1K1 Sidi[ wo– M M11L M mum ILL 4"Wa) S' w 1.•M 4M• 4M 4aM /.M 4M 411• 4M 4M SM S Swlla► +AN {.M {.M1 +.w 4AN x.M {.M {.M SAN Nor Ike SIR 7 amimimam AM AW66M +.aM SAM {.IM bw 4M 41M 4M 401111, 4M 4M Im M U� a taYt1111• On O 4M 4M 640 IM VWr J SMIIb1lls +.Ma J.w +'r4.41111, {.11• 411• 4aM 4M 4M 4M Ya hila a maim 411 {.M •.•M {.IM {.w {.•M w •1111 a•arllal +.M • •,w 4M 411• 4M 4M M will 1 SIMSIr Sim 4M- S.M MM +.M +.M JM •Mr • maim 4.1M {.M SAM 4M 4M• to 1w farmm 4w MM 4M {.M SIX NR M "*it= •.w •,w {.M in 1Mr It SMItM1 4M Ix.SM 14M 11.M MdM 74M 43.8m e.M Ss M M •1/ /u 1.uL 441.00�� "Am /N ll% will no SLLtl • 1 .i. le IlrleuS ON le/et'.I ► / p 1 a • • / 11 1 1 1 V 0 1 • • 1 0 a M! 1010 M MRIMp Ma0M1 Iatendive A. swim C deli •.fi WIMtr • t, l/L WKn flu► WALT tJtt s IIMW us IMWII AS s1As1 If• 111•Ilu M6 4M -- -------- IaaAMl twa a -x ------ ---- so 40 It" Off------- - low It - M a tw is - tw 11 --- tw ►s ho ler !I mw IL tar I• roar 2! ------ --- us MUM Ml•a safs- DI Mum (Awal Ila 4x MaaraW IA ltar tlr-ia/r aelatt 11.0 s4111 N.M Mm 1t.M Ikw 411 am of—Iars 4"A a,w WE JIM ^mu,Iw am IkM skew s1.8m, skM n! Sl►ar-tics seLw.0 ♦ a • a ^m r.w u.w r,M in 4..11 4,•M 1.1114.W a kr a CM 41. k10 ! GAN a 6.m • I.r JIM • • • • • • • a • • Iw lital • • a • • • a • a / • a0 fatal 11! 11.111 st w stir MRimu.M1 a ! 52.411111112.01 ! a s2,w a wm a UAN L14ea "OW11h aea so sksm-faau• as ai•IW4aa112 7.w a LM a I,M lir ).M l,r I,M I.M i." a 1.80. I,w m IMMLr 411 I,w a I.M • I,M 1 I,r a I,w a l.M • a a Wino tela► teaaeaeW 1 halve. ss M 1+ 10 N,M SRM 5%m»,M s1,r t•.M skr st M m oil fust 2aa - a% JI• NaalaiaYb L ► 1 a • • 41• aallale faalll • / • 1 • a L a 71• fatal • • ► • 1 • • • 1 • / a 4M---em"Ive 61.011 414410 Mir M.M 40.41111 M,IO L ! / • •1! M.M• M.r M,r M.r M 1MKYIR M 1111 Mint[ mm0- 4.1 SM M MILOW 41l 4IIII'a) 11• lea► s IIallaaa In Iar 4 alattaw kin 1.8m, kin kM I,M NM kr kM kin k11! 1•• tar s Wltlr► 4.•M kin 4,•M kM I.r f.M I,r I.r /.IM 1,01 4.•M 4,10 4,•M AN Isar 4 l kbw I,w 4,•M kw kw 1.M kin 4,40 k•a 4.•0 kin 1.10 kr kin •,w w TIM swubm kall I.M kw kw 4.11M. kin 1.11• 4.01 kM1 air 4W 1w44Mllhr kM 1,11• 4,M 1.•11 kr I.w 4,10 kw 4.r 4.111M. 4,•11 kin Ma 2v 7 wash► kin kw fir kin 6.00 kin kin kr kin 1.•1• 40 Iaar a Amb as W 440 4.w G. 4.M /,r 4.411111 SAN GAN /,r kin 1.11• Mar f Ilaaa lat 4u 4ar 011atsau 16M kin kin kM 1.11• kin 4610. "m 4.1110. kr in tw aal ht... 4.r a 4.•I• a air I,w 4.m kw 410 6.10111 kr I.w Ls tela) MAN 0,10 a M.w • ff.= 1 M.MI a M,M • M,M ► MAN ► M,r • M.M INIe a Ilterrtiw As Wlr Gwrcial; a." lallatles dye lgmjl� MMK An UK fimma fKm M-Iw FIX& I91t1"111 IF NIMIL01! Irrl ren 11-19 I FICIM► -Now mot"I -ierd fktdl -fwd IUNMNI Ir11MlM Nye► MfYa 9440 KI&lED luau rill {oily AffierN<• ormim Mwl fetter: 1401, 1t 1ear 12 1w It leaf 14 Tar Is, Iew I& year 17 Tw K year N lar 19- tlwtd Tare LIMI I.GM Lm LIM I.MM I.MM Lm LIM Lm I.MM 1 11slra-420MINIA&l &AIM L. [AMI IAMB . 'AM 1,M IAMI 'AM i.GM 1.� tToMe-gwrtsld LOW LIM LIME LGM 1.MM LIM LIM I.MM LIM LIM *ad *0 Aml LGM SAM IAN L. IAM I.N a./ui I.GM LGM I.MM M told Gate I.GM I.GM SAW LGM LIM L. SAW I.GM I.GM I.MM I.GM LGM 41.r 11 -AM •.MM G -IM 4.ty1M *.GM S.MM "M 1~, 31AM "lo In 0161• a Itpllaa•...... a•ar 71 llta••l1p l: ONWA Gwrew; LK IrAutlw we Irl �JG•wEt An w um Fl" 0Oma"iO s 1111M us An MO •ew lowu am in 436 In — >♦Ms 61.4• • In rail • a,la 411 NrW 4ah1a a" M hsa ftm teas 48 Aw FI• U -S 1-a IN— – ----- — — — ia a a a IO E>< alm a M son mum INWO • I.M 411 •r aws 4MAN ANN :ti As^ an m � tai 11m a ► a IN ilia "--a IaN sa sa 1611•'•1 m • in a ♦ 256 41• tono " a • • w /M I6 --111s •s•LL mm a laim 4" ••r ar–rens a"& 4.11• • 4r1w wa l♦1• tlr6lalt 411"1wt Lm a L30 411 adwaapall"a" 4^ a 4.•w w 1Ia1a•IY as"" I.M a i.M 441 4mwoi Wir raw • 1,aw Qs Ott ► a • ar 4" slaw • J2,w Il• kW I'm I'm Y• •r11•r11 W x111 a a • 13• tlrle 1p11r M.M 6 I•.aO .0 • a a Oa 1e1e1 M•n • M.M 13J I,M 4,aM 4,M 04 1Mt1 •n •e.l W. 90,3w s 12.30 455 Lala i m taw 06 alll aOaOaFaS tact Amm 2].734 6 ► 151 F MA -10 WtAM ULLM Iw1•'61 L 14.3% at • • ► 4104srr•Is 1610 • 12.M IY 41111"Ial 46.1m • 40AN M1 is•L6•weW►Ipl• +•.M a t•,M Jit •.M I.M 11.m A" aa14um 111r1f11 tars "Wo i,M I,M ail 72.230 a a «• a.ww a a a JO ow 14awiw a • L 49 aw 14AIR&1n • • • a• f•s s AMIM • • • • 40 awr 4 Haien • • • M Os s t•atlow li,m 16.756 14.m 411 low 4 N ubm • a • 472 fpr I ngtlw t L • u1 ier t 4M1111e1 • • • .• ,.� 1 W,rlr . ..� ...�.. .... • ,• ru O ,• :w • aro •tetM•e•t reit• Van t -u LAM" KIM bte: Mleetlr► IIs 1wI 11-M a/NUq � ae•t •w, lar 1 vera fpr s 1pr 4 Mrs WWI. ver) lest lw 1 fpr la • • • • a,la • a ♦ a I,t25 • ► ♦ ua • ♦ • a us a a a a law • a • • Jaw a ► a a m • ► a ♦ 256 a a • • I.M a • a a 1.20 • • • ♦ a a a a a a • ♦ • • 4612H • a a • 44.M 4,M I'M I,M I,M I,M I'M I'M kW I'm I'm a a a • a • a a 4 a I.M I,a1• I,so bM I.M 6.01111 kM I,M 4,aM 4,M I'M I'M CM I,M 22.75• Lala i m taw CM 2].734 6 ► a L 14.3% S. • • ► 71,236 I.M I.M I.M 4.•w ♦.M 4 W 4rM 4.M 4,aw 4.M i.ata l,M •.M I.M 11.m i.M i,M I,M 4,M 72.230 a a • a a a a a a a a • • • • ♦ ► • • a a • • • • 24,70 tiara tkrA 10% 14,756 • • • • • a a • a • o • a • II.130 .,,w 1,,ra 11, 7'A 11,750 Ii, 730 12,500 Considerations (pursuant to Section 15093 of the CCR) for those environmental impacts which could not be mitigated to a level determined to be less than significant. To finalize the CEQA process relative to the project, the City Council has elected, but is not obligated, to conduct hearings for the purpose of soliciting additional public and government agency comments on both the project and environmental review record. Noticed public hearings on the project's environmental documentation were held on September 14, October 5 and November 16, 1993. Comments which were received at the September 14. and October 5, 1993 public hearings, responses to those comments and other relevant information regarding the project's potential environmental impact��a� abeen m nincluded nal 1 P in epvrt (Response entitledthat document Comments, II - Response to Comments on the Draft Vol. II) included herein. At least ten days prior to certifying the EIR, the City is required (Section 21092.5 of the Public Resources Code) to provide to each of the public agencies which submitted comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan with a written response to those comments. Each of the public agencies which submitted written comments to the City, as identified in the Response to Comments,responses Vol. � o � � comments on Octobes Response to r 7, 1993. were transmitted (via certified mail) draft espo Pursuant to' Section 15088(c) of the CCR, where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the environmental impact report, the lead agency is authorized to either revise the text of the EIR or "include margin notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. In compliance herewith, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan has been supplemented to contain margin notes which refer the reader to those applicable comments and/or technical responses or further environmental analysis resulting in changes, amendments or associated modifications to that document. The revised Draft Environmental Impact Report - South Pointe Master Plan, hereinafter referred to as the Annotated Draft EIR, in combination with the Response to Comments, Vol. I, Technical :....: _.-Appendax,...Kespo nse-to.commentsr Val. -..Il, and zther_documents.as.my: be.addesLby.tbe,-Cil c ,.. ,�- constitutes the Final. Environmental Impact Report - South Pointe Master Plan (Final EIR) for the proposed project. In addition, should the City Council elect to approve the project, as proposed or as subsequently modified, the City Council will be required to adopt Findings of Fact, a Statement of Overriding Consideration and a Monitoring Reporting and Monitoring Program as required under the CCR. Subsequent to the certification of the Final EIR for the project, a Notice of Determination (NOD), as required under Section 15094of e R, nt subsequent to approvals undewith the County Clerk r on an shall start a 30 -day statute of limitations y subseque CEQA. CERTIFICATION OF FINAL EIR: 3 �1� I�i1c .......I+eLt :l ut.elletiw �: tieite� c..w,�w: I.Ls ww a -cin s was im bi, --_-- WI ran -------_----- rerr li —----.__ tn► n Mr u tees tt res Is — --- res !L res p Twig res 1L rwr i! L.! 4.4 LIC Llai IM !q� L.! L-! L ! L ! 1.1 to mLw m ! Iwo -SSW &t r L1e'eet► NY W >tweta " n�deNw L.N 7-1/ to '-a M M N L � aLt M! ILBawl* to. to to 7.0 el�rt "Mum __ �erNe11R �� tKk11I13 AM" IL.M II.M 11.K Its II.M t1.L► WO 11 L► gilt, #I, Will 11.Li utl JWlle�e - trrlNlsr L L L L ! ! L ! L L roap 0121 AN •sVtlt $N POW ,MvRmft :T= ppm at"rwl •ssltslot njvpM* .1"PIO l at1RPw) 'rMl1aw I+ ippo t ssni WN 'w11Ms� $RI}Pw'l -$RIGA lot %3WV Mi Sod IWANI .1"WiMa► 3NIVIOp •satst MAl jvm "'4 -sgtv A', w Irp1m -w►ts1 wg w11R1=3 'w11rMMW arys*NW MMPVMA aMMinl -WI Of w4PWMO 'AV" tnrprls$s �sRnlr wssspRstRstsMlslwR: 'M11MRM1 a�isiRwl -npt a" VOW .'am,6141091 asp»al $RIGA laaaalaa4'm wf '&'r out W wit — t Iw1sRa1 t%% 91 1111M 'Ing Vv ------- --- ------------- ---- -- ------ SAW AIN w am Moo - +Mt$a1N4 !«wl all $sal VIOn AM wt J111 $al GAJ wr 3tmrjw im+um In 4WH M tttl-4lirl1 Ana! WW'S fN wmxt WAIM I w � ON "not" +IM s�Mrfrl 1�y 'M� going 'r allowm Trtl�Mt 1'91 +M1M1 par"91 • trwM� ah t6*1 swswfrlst iM _9916 POW wy witw'm' X,` aoop" vm*" 1K'r w"t owl in -JO 01 sl"t AV 1►M1'MS tr't t.0 r..y--wl 10 it it'1► $sell ap it's $sat K•t s3.011sp Wit al Isar lity -501 w w it'tt wa wt n — t Iw1sRa1 t%% 91 1111M 'Ing Vv ------- --- ------------- ---- -- ------ SAW AIN w am Moo - +Mt$a1N4 !«wl all $sal VIOn AM wt J111 $al GAJ wr 3tmrjw im+um In 4WH M tttl-4lirl1 Ana! WW'S fN wmxt WAIM I w � ON "not" +IM s�Mrfrl 1�y 'M� going 'r allowm Trtl�Mt Hbls 14 Icedimac..... 00K t) Alten011rr ►: •OOI•r• ta•erel•1: 9.R IMId10� Odc WKM HICAA L ut"lir M •1A911L 9A• AMWA icon 11-2• - UW D VW a WW Iar 14 re.r IS VCW 14 rar 17 UW I& res 11 rar 16 Isar 6.Mkm &km kow tiM 4.M A.w 4.M 4.M 4.409 •.M 4.M 4.M 4.M •,M 21.40 k�.•. MAMKIM4.M G.M a.•M •.M 4.•M km •.M• 4,M 4.M •.M •.M •,409 6,M Mar 4.40 4.409 MM j •M 4 I.M 4.M •'M 4,•M 4.409 4.M 96ar . 1.M 4.m 6.M 4m �.M 4.409 bM 4,M bM 4.40 4,40 4,40 i M 4.M 91 21•• 4.•w •.M 4.M 4,40 •.M 4.M 4,M km 4.M• 4.M 4.M 4.40 rit6•r Kimohm a.M 4.•40 4.40 4.•M 4.40• 4.M 4.M 4,M 4.M 4.M •.w IMAM 4.M •.M •,M 4.40 4.M 4.99• •.994 4.40 4.M 4.409 •.M 4.40 4.M GONG 4,M MAIM4,40 4.M 4.40 6.409 • • a • • near a M.•19 • 4•.M 49.M s NOM • 4•.40• M.w AM AM 44.M M.w wtWk 1 9rs14 92,5n 92,5•• n.M 92.50 92.50 92.5•• 92.599 92.59• 92,55 92.59• arn.n• 1• e0 lu••'.1 • • • • • • A • • • 0 • Is 0 • • • • • ed • 0 ' UE IKRAK LA 'M 9 • • • • • • 0 9 • • • • Et6strr9 w MRAM M• •u M M M• •I• ••• M• M• l4d •n us As as 717 313 A7 1,In its 1,In its l.ln 313 I.In 31J 1.12► 1 1.121 1.11L 1.127 l.ln 1.121 AMHM w 1.1>rE4•E 21.492 71.492 iI,M! 5{.492 11.492 31.492 71,492 31.492 51.492 5•,4u 31.467 5•.4u Id 610A M.MI 97.4p 5•.461 5•.4u N w s•.4u ••.w 9I.M 5•.461 •I,s» 96.71 . U-3» 92.71 •6.77• 91.51 96.71. 11,71 r I AME► • • • • • 9 • w4milr • • • • • • • • • b1 ruv . i I w .w " bw 61p .yy 6U0 0 600 • a u .w u �.uu „ � 11 u u.0 • euu 0 LW6uu wo IUM Al UAW • MIN irk As (Casusrad.......... maa 21 AYIK r craKm fACIM! 2"d FIItAI WKIS--Cli/ 1F HIND sM ON #UK WRIFU RM Alieradlec A: wllM [SUM141; $.rt kI1411N, wtt -" --- — tante ANIkd-------- Ihr rr hr for for Gnl last hr leap --- ----- -- t�� CaN1a b wit hr AF silt Ana tas ----- HOT Malar 10--rnr has I muloolu Fans NO tubed has we has (t -tial n irwc�ey � I/Y IearwewNe ral trlrsl 1.50 1.16 IL UG Anlledi.. Fev k-hpat Nelse MIN: �atltallal Aerlr. 4siraMW Ails &MC halaeslisl wits ANN, _ aw #MINNA Alga MIN. d hr 304* la, IMt Fahr. J7S,ips per tchcale. ra lch"We. Z kv hrelgaesC Is1se Asad. Appendix B ALTERNATIVE B SUMMARY PROJECTIONS --TABLE B1 Irk at Alternative l: lid-IaM Ceor.W; •.•t lalktkn •ate S11111RRT 4;11!1 fl•I WUM FIX& WKIS--HITT M DIMS W Istc: MkgieM ler tars 11 211 "M NMI[ SIKIFIC Fttl M ant f+Me. wwr Idols •anal AtfER•AIM 1159Rir laflatiee RACIt) WA use (Acres) Residealiel Cam. 121 rrt (fwskdl School IP Swcc/Circ letel Itsid"diel wits cowl Iia s► ISO SC -#ajar Actei l SC --Taal Retail SC --leo Rot Bet 'I latus A or [stab fiaeacial Mice teacrel office •Nei fetal h6 Streets IL*-li) --- owl" blow kw IsRn 101111 TMrs 1'0 1h>t 1-0 Ter 1 Year 2 Tar 3 lar 4 Ter S Ter 4 Ter ) tar a ler 9 Ter 1• —' ------- - --- --- — ------ NM's Ilm s eMr lav—•Iwrd IM us 314 • 2 1 4 1 13 Is 11 rtr Tr- a-swAw • 6 ) • IN 1.1 (N (•1 • Is 21 s 1M l,3iK 3.2p 1.•K • K 23 n 111 in 1 W • IIi • 196 • 321 Rifat •sllpRer IN • • • • • • • • • 1 • • WtMe Toa 3) N 1.3 1 t 2 i 3 1 S S ! • ) &&mer 1101-'411861110 u A N • i 1 1 2 2 2 REQ tisltle,To • • • ! • • • • a I 3 • 3 • 3 • r mask Jo4loa 311 m 314 2 < 6 11 12 14 1• li >/ a 1 Frfeilrw 1 3 1 • • ! • • • t • • • Moes 1"$ 12 n 31 • • 1 1 1 t 2 2 2 2 ck tele lima 2 4 7 • • ! ! • • • • • • IM (2146-4-11 u N I52 t T J 4 S 4 ) t 9 1• 1 treat lee -Arse A 32) 122 1,149 2 4 11 • 1111 43 AS 4) N 12 c Nowr finite S 11 I3 • • • • • I 1 1 1 1 r site freM• least us 2.1.1 ),411 • • • • Ass US US 135 135 2)9 r 1 • • • • • • • / o o • atol Alvann 2,12) 1.51S 11,K2 11 )• K 63 Ill. 391 6% 422 1311 )K Ices swr-- ft laWaMse 6" 4n I,M6 11 31 31 31 311 12 62 12 12 12 IMr-�MIr11lkti x K n • 1 2 2 2 3 1 f 1 S 111 212 /111 )K 1 t 12 111 29 2) 31 >S 39 41 ol SWAM 3 4 9 • 1 • • • • • • 1 1 Mor he•wWm 2 / 4 • • • • ! • • • • • Mrest ftidow a Ice 213 45,) 4 4 11 ! 21 n x K 27 2A ON" onese1M1 1 12 i11 / 1 • • 1 1 1 1 1 1 rum 6ellw1 • • • • • • • • • 1 6 / 11 06011,11111" 11) 221 3711 6 7 L • 12 u I9 1e 21 23 atd lopmMllres 1.4116 1.40 1.n) 41 K 111 111 M ix cel Ice 156 1" PWIllelkill 1.1112 6.151 1,715, (321 1241 11sl (1) 20 2% 216 214 213 us Win I.M2 ),Its I'll$ 1») ISO OI) (III 2M "1 m 999 1.212 1.K2 • . ,I . ., . .) •.. k: 1 a 1 a 1 u s 11.I AtfER•AIM 1159Rir laflatiee RACIt) WA use (Acres) Residealiel Cam. 121 rrt (fwskdl School IP Swcc/Circ letel Itsid"diel wits cowl Iia s► ISO SC -#ajar Actei l SC --Taal Retail SC --leo Rot Bet 'I latus A or [stab fiaeacial Mice teacrel office •Nei fetal h6 Streets IL*-li) h K Z1. 110111 ! All"IN4111 VXfJ 9111-1 rl *111 /011/1101 11'• !majam 11 UM -911 -1 a lmi"11 mu •Rf 19"Mt Is *1411 %lilt ttt'i tMS11 GK'S lit's 4tl11 fW1 111'f tit'f 11111 3.1' I" sts m m m m in sm sts in 1lrntaq/+1 1!t "1 111 "I "I "I "I "I 1/t "I sarAlrOnt ll ti tt tt tt et ti ti tt tZ K �11tuM "None OF K 19 K K K K K K K K O OMPM >M • • • • • • • • • • nammos1;1 An 11+0011 n 1. M n n 1< 1> r 110 �► I 191 (1•-101) Olmn sV sr r tr Zt t1 Zt i1 t1 t1 r 1rA 1J1I MIS" 1"11 t lap stt'tt MIS unips laAo! -11801•law!! 1St iS[ ni to rd Zu to 1St Zu v • • • 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 111'11 11/'S 41113 4 1 101101 ttt stt sit •it ttt •tt tit •fi ![t Oft *f1*1 PW" *IN 1, V*4NR 131--X t I f I t 1 1 t f t al"J*1 Altar 111'SI 1111*• 11ga1--11 Zf t1 Zt it st Z1 n ZI it it / 4W -301 ""1 tot'61 11"39 A"W-X •t of n •t •l of 91 of •r of (t fs•1:) r is) 49 so" 11-3 • 1 • t 1 t • • • • aa111 am J OK 61100101103"S" t 1 1 t t t t t i t Z ns! 0010/1 t t • • • • Sm"IfAill1 silt "m• R R t K K K K K K R K 111T1t $111K1 SIT W"1304 do t f s • • • t • • • mi a00M w Crf 141139 1 t It t t t t t t N"+9--1101 00110 111I i/14111/f) Sju • c • c • t • c [ c t t c OA am S'SI Rl*mwl 4w Ila sit fit / fit • ftt • iit f fit • fit • Gm Not MOO" 100 am 1'11 "11118139 la*+3t) „• t+ -t I 1 I t t I 1 1 I 1 MM0000k-Nl Al it 1t K K 1Z st 1Z 19 19 1t vamps—mi al 411 t,7111 1 30111lf v 111.1 --- 3,•111 -- — ------------ K apl it a11A It Jul it *asA n A" St *-A 11 +131 " A% 9140% it Oq- -- --------- -- -- 99-11 SJ93A 11r01M---------- h K Z1. 110111 ! All"IN4111 VXfJ 9111-1 rl *111 /011/1101 11'• !majam 11 UM -911 -1 a lmi"11 mu •Rf 19"Mt Is *1411 yr I nra m:. ; 11 , .. . iR SK m STS SK STS STS STS STS STS "I 1M "I MI 11t 111 NI 1H 111 MI iu to to to :u to tst to is[ au Inc) ItKI Iml 199tj IM) Intl Itxl 19141 Intl furl • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • / -- -------------- a.MM --------- -- -- ------- ------ -------- - --- - K All $1 •w n +nl ct +"• n ••+e M +nt n +"1 tt MA iR w It a% ------------- -- - x-11 TJpt tNE1--------------- I D M 111mM a All"I mil T•7.1j NX -M afq wivip, er• !i1nu "Sling -M '• a llnallTtil! ow 111iiiilK It MN"*"") 111 alwl 131 e�llt.a 1 Ntf Ilt�lia•11+•+ eaaltpau� tr 1ww" "a" l Wao »Jwi W I W I au SXNe Vol /�Il-tl �N• �llf � �! Mt1eM11• M out Trk U (com...PW 21 llterettlre /: Ut eMe teatrci li •.R Ieflmim Rats 7Mt CM HA/ i• 1EA� FMA N/KT"I 1 of vuW SIM FMIR 2ftiC X AM fttt-- frejectlees for yews I1-2• M seat Ow. Wkar Was •erel —---------- •aeeteeeent Period krs 1-11----------- shN•• •Y••M Intl ------ •at1• ice• 1ws 1-M I/->• t-2• ler 1 ter 2 fear 1 tea► 1 tew S ter a ter 7 few a kr 1 Tear to — ---- t•1/'a know Tu --ft u if feet • fit 1Itl•atlet Fees • IMM taditl Fees • Ir Uk ask it -Tie) • s s • s • s • s • 4e1 Oesetecs I,In Ices lamoeeseels dation IeMeweeeets MONO Control itl Egae•Itres �Ias/1/elkitl skier • •ISNE/ sn • sn 212 1K !/ 1,11a • 1.tu s s s s I1121 s s s s s 7 is 1s t7 (Jul Iss21 (3641 Isis) 13421 lei 121 IA I56. I.S11 • I,SN 1x:1 • 1x21 1x21 1x21 13621 a, 1•s 1,515 11,410 • • 2. sea 1. 662 4. Tu s s s s s s s s s s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • R M ! 1• 212 M !• >t >0 212 >i u u it M u u u 4s 21S 0 N 4• to 4• 212 !• 10 !• 4a 212 10 M 4< >t 212 1K !/ R 4• 212 s s s s I1121 s s s s s 7 is 1s t7 (Jul Iss21 (3641 Isis) 13421 lei 121 IA I56. $M tai l» M s12 462 Is) Lt ISI ISa w 544 22l 239 ILS Jia i ►. l i i : l 1u 211 2" 544 1.1 VAI 4A I,�1U I" u (Cwl... page 31 hit" rtIn 8: Aw-lo a q�oesidj 8.R IMlottaM A k cm FLU ?hTiM fma IfI I"Ill 8f g3NN Be •alt: MJeetisos far tura 11-26 !6111 MW WUNK #LM M seal ossa. --- !lose Tst•ta -- BesN --- -- -- laselaroed hrht Tears 1-11 --------------- - — 3Urid i1NN TNai - - dr• Ma TMS ------ -- _ 1-N I1EN h>• V-1 V-2 Ter 3 V-4 VMS Ter 4 Year? Tear i tear 1 ter l• — low* MR 30LT In 101441" •ots 131M11sa foatr L9 M 8,1418 •.NII •.8152 8.746 8.7'251+ LM4 6.3157 8.611 •.5717 bw tN Cob Float) M Itm 1.1% 2.174 3.44 (32) (121 (ul IS) 214 IN lit l77 172 333 lM Item (267) 8 (717) 3 3 3 3 3 127.1 2 2 2 2 Lot 138 2.676 3.123 Ix) (N1 (18) (2) 21i (661 1" 19 174 us 111 a1 fit to It? 1st to tit Kt ru • • e to K1 tit to t1t to 1K tet sst tit ner'e 1e+1'e y uere 110.0 tare ""v teeny vM-1 ats•e .03wl w mn "M tw••n _ :1141101 inw SAW 161 +al n wsl it jnl 11 wan t1 dal t1 J"l tf wq el n �••4 — - - -- et-11 Sal 1w" ---- ° M e�lerte !/ Ilb iUgM Vmj vm m � a1P11•I 1e'e !101U"3 aewe =1 a/1•r+atit MU no 4Vmw I1 aw---M)l to stq t