HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/23/1994MAY 23, 1994
7.00 P.M.
South Coast Air Quality -Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley, Drive
Diamond Bar, California
David Meyer.
Lydia Plunk
Bruce, Flamenbaum
D= Schad
Franklin Fong
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community
Development Office, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection.
If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 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
accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City -public meeting must inform the Community
Development Department at. (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Pfease refrain from smoking, eating or drinking The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING CONEMSSION AGENDA
May 23, 1994 Next Resolution No. 94-9
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman David Meyer, Vice Chairwoman
Lydia Plunk, Bruce Flamenbaum, Don Schad and Franklin Fong
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the, time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commis-
sion on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on
non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording
Secretary (Comvletion of this form is voluntarX) There is a five minute maximum time limit
when addressiniz the Planning Commission.
CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered
routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from
the agenda by request of the Commission only:
1. Minutes of April Z5, 1994 and May 9, 1994
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Planned Sign Program No. 94-5
A request for approval of a Planned Sign Program which includes a
proposed freestanding monument sign with legal price sign and a
legal price sign for an automobile service station.
Property location: 21095 Golden Springs Dr.
Property owner: Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 1300 S. Beach Blvd. La Habra,
CA 90632-2833
1
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environmental evaluation
shows that the proposed Planned Sign Program will not have a signifi-
cant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt pursuant
to Section 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Com-
mission approve Planned Sign Program No. 94-5, Findings of Fact,
and conditions as listed within the attached resolution.
CONTINUED PUBLIC BEARING:
3. Zone Change No.92-2, Vesting Tentative Map No. 51169, Conditional
Use Permit No. 92-3, Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3, and Environmental
Impact Report No. 92-2. Continued from March 28, 1994.
The proposed project is a request for approval of a 13 unit single
family subdivision proposed on a 20 acre site located at the southeast-
erly terminus of Blaze Trail Drive within "The Country". The pro-
posed project is located adjacent to Tonner Canyon and is within the
northernmost portion of Significant Ecological Area No. 15. The
application requests involve a Zone
Change from A-2-2, Heavy Agriculture to R-1-40,000, Single Family
Residential, one acre minimum lot size, a subdivision of the site into
14 lots (13 dwelling units and a common lot for a sewer pump sta-
tion), an Oak Tree Permit for the removal of one oak tree, a Condi-
tional Use Permit for development in a hillside management area,
and a Draft Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared
to evaluate the impacts the project may have upon the environment
and identification of mitigation measures to reduce the effects of any
negative impacts. Continued from March 28, 1994.
Property Owner and Applicant: Unionwide, Inc., 2130 Rockridge Ct„
Fullerton, CA. 92631
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In accordance with the Califor-
nia 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 inde-
pendent consultant to prepare the environmental documents. An
Executive Summary of the environmental review record is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the public hearing
be continued to the June 13, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
4. Parcel Map No. 24031
The application requests the removal of the right to restrict the con-
struction of residential buildings upon those parcels. That right was
acquired by the City in 1989. Approval of the application would re-
quire the City's abandonment of currently held Open Space and
Building Rights Restrictions on the newly created parcel. The re-
quired hearing before the Planning Commission for its recommenda-
tion of whether the building restrictions may be removed is presently
set for May 23, 1994 per notice published April 11, 1994. The future
use of the site is proposed as single family residential estate develop-
ment. The site is currently vacant and exists in a primarily natural
state. There are no oak trees within the project boundary and the
site supports wild grasses which are fed by the natural drainage from
the surrounding residential developments. The runoff is deposited
into an intermittent blue line stream which traverses the site. The
project is located south of Grand Avenue, west of Shotgun Lane and
east of Summitridge Drive and extends east to the San Bernardino
County line. The project site is currently zoned RPD -20,000-2U and
will not change as a part of this application.
Property Owner and Applicant: R -n -P Development, Inc., 4439
Rhodelia Court, Claremont, California 91711
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative Decla-
ration has been prepared.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission open the Public Hearing, receive testimony and direct
staff as appropriate.
OLD BUSINESS:
g, 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.
Project 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 Street, Upland CA 91785
(4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr., Ste. 100, Diamond
Bar, CA 91765
ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT: In accordance with the Califor-
nia 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 inde-
pendent consultant to prepare the environmental documents. An
Executive Summary of the environmental review record is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Com-
mission review the submitted request, receive public comments, and
direct staff to prepare the appropriate Commission recommendation
to the City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
ADJOURNMENT: June 13, 1994
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Ap,
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
April 25, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 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 Chairman Meyer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk;
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu;
Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; and
Recording Secretary Liz Myers
Absent: Associate Planner Rob Searcy (excused)
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of March 28, 1994
Moved by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Schad and Carried Unanimously
to approve the minutes of March 28, 1994 as presented. .
2. Minutes of April 11, 1994
VC/Plunk requested the minutes of April 11, 1994 be amended on
page 17 to indicate the proper spelling of the "Arroyo
Willow."
C/Fong requested the following corrections: correctly
indicate tract 47850 on page 13 middle of the paragraph;
indicate the proper spelling of "Leighton & Associates" on
page 13; and indicate "engineer technicians" on page 13.
Chair/Meyer abstained from voting on the minutes of April 11,
1994 because he was absent at that meeting.
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Fong and carried to
approve the.minutes of April 11, 1994, as amended.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad, and
VC/Plunk
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Meyer
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
April 250 1994 Page 2'
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
3. Planned-- Sign- Program No. -94-4-
C/Flamenbaum inquired if his recent involvement in a past
litigation matter with a tenant of Country Hills Towne Center
would pose a conflict of interest regarding Planned Sign
Program No. 94-4. He stated that he has no other financial
interest in Country Hills Towne Center, nor does he have any
preconceived determination regarding this specific agenda
item.
ICA/Montgomery stated that no statutory impropriety exists
since the source of income was not from the applicant, nor is
there a preconceived finding on the part of C/Flamenbaum on
the ultimate decision; therefore, there is no conflict of
interest in this matter.
AstP/Lungu reported that the applicant, Jacqueline Wolfe, and
Landsing Pacific Fund, the property owner of Country Hills
Towne Center, is requesting approval of Planned Sign Program
No. 94-4 for Country. Hills Towne Center located at 2801 S.
Diamond Bar Boulevard. She stated that the applicant is not
requesting new signage at this time, but rather approval of a
Planned Sign Program to prepare for future signage. She
reviewed the proposed Planned Sign Program, which is
consistent with existing signage, as outlined in the staff
report. It is recommended that the Planning Commission
approve Planned Sign Program No. 94-4, the Findings of Fact,
and conditions as listed within the attached resolution.
Chair/Meyer opened the meeting and invited those wishing to
speak to come forward.
Jacqueline Wolfe, representing the Real Estate Marketing
Management Co.. for Country Hills Towne Center, located in
Santa Anna, explained that the Planned Sign Program was
developed to have control of the signage presented. She
confirmed that the Planned Sign Program is consistent with
existing signage.
In response to C/Schad, Jacqueline Wolfe stated that all the
signs are currently illuminated internally, and will continue
to be so with the Planned Sign Program.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed
the meeting and returned the matter to the Planning Commission
for consideration.
Chair/Meyer noted that the site plan submitted by the
applicant does not show the Speedy Lube pad.
0 ii_^
April 25, 1994 Page 3
CDD/DeStefano explained that the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
approved for the Speedy Lube facility has ceased to exist due
to its nonuse, and, as a result of the Hamburger Hamlet
approval, the lot is being converted back to a parking lot
designed to simulate what was there prior to the Speedy Lube
proposal.
Moved by C/Schad, seconded by C/Flamenbaum and carried
unanimously to adopt Resolution 94 -XX approving Sign Planned
Program No. 94-4 with the Findings of Fact, and conditions
listed in the staff report.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad, Vice
Chairman Plunk, and Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBLIC HEARING: None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
C/Flamenbaum questioned the purpose of the May 2, 1994 joint public
hearing of the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider
the South Pointe Master Plan.
Chair/Meyer explained that the purpose of ,the joint public hearing
is an effort to expedite the review process of the alternative
design program submitted for South Pointe to allow the Walnut
Valley Unified School District (WVUSD) to move forward -with
construction of the South Pointe Middle School.
VC/Plunk expressed concern that, since the Planning Commission has
already reviewed this project and provided a recommendation to the
City Council, there may be an appearance of coercion resulting from
this joint public hearing, particularly since the City Council has
not yet reviewed the project and considered the Planning
Commission's recommendation, nor have they provided action.
Chair/Meyer stated that these concerns will be discussed and
clarified at the meeting on Monday, May 2, 1994 with staff, Mayor
Werner, and himself. He reiterated that the applicant has
submitted an alternate design program for South Pointe which is
substantially different from the proposal reviewed and approved by
the Planning Commission.
VC/Plunk suggested that it would have been more appropriate had the
City Council provided action to the originally submitted project
before asking the Planning Commission to review this alternate
proposal. She expressed concern that changing protocol at this
time provides a precedent for special action for other special
interest groups.
April 25, 1994
Page 4
C/Schad pointed out that the review of this alternate project must
be expedited to allow the WVUSD to remove the dirt to construct the
Middle School, otherwise the School District is in a position of
losing the funding that is available. He stated that the WVUSD
should not be considered -a -special -interest -group.
VC/Plunk inquired if a General Plan must be in place before the
Army Corp of Engineers will grant a permit to move dirt across a
blue line stream.
ICA/Montgomery, uncertain of the requirements of the Army Corp of
Engineers, stated that he is aware that permission to encroach a
blue line stream must be received from the State Department of Fish
and Game.
CDD/Destefano stated that neither the Army Corp of Engineers nor
the Department of Fish and Game will permit the developer to
encroach upon a blue line stream until the local jurisdiction has
approved the project; however, he stated that he is unaware of any
concern either entity may have regarding the General Plan issue.
He explained that the project is being processed as a result of its
vesting with the land use documents and zoning in place at the time
the map was deemed complete. He stated that the City is operating
under an extension of time allowing the City to process vesting
tentative maps, development agreements, and so forth, as long as a
finding can be made that they are consistent with the contemplated
General Plan, and will not pose any irreparable harm.
VC/Plunk inquired why the City Council desires the Planning
Commission to review the project again when the City Council has,
in the past, reviewed a modified project without bringing it back
to the Planning Commission for further review.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the Government Code allows the City
Council a certain amount of discretion over the Planning Commission
recommendation for modification; however, if the nature of the
change is deemed major, and there is a question if the issue was
appropriately discussed and debated at the Planning Commission
level, then the project would need to come back to the Planning
Commission for a quick review and recommendation to the City
council.
ICA/Montgomery stated that the applicant has submitted a revised
plan, which has the same effect as withdrawing the original plan
reviewed by the Planning Commission, and there is specific findings
that only the Planning Commission can make with respect to open
space lots that is part of the new proposal. He stated that joint
public hearings with the City Council and Planning Commission are
often held in many cities.
C/Flamenbaum stated that he may not be able to attend the joint
public hearing on May 2, 1994 because of a conflict in schedule.
He then stated that he would advise the letter drafted by the
Chairman to the City Council, as directed by the Planning
April 25, 1994 Page 5
Commission, not be forwarded to the City Council because it.would
appear that the City Council has already received the message
regarding the Planning Commission's concerns relating to the
turmoil in the City.
Chair/Meyer concurred that no positive purpose would be served by
forwarding the letter at this time. He pointed out that the letter
may be also inappropriate because it lacks recommendations as to
how to improve the situation.
C/Fong pointed out that if the Planning Commission feels a need to
express a concern relating to how City business is conducted, then
the letter should be sent.
VC/Plunk concurred that the letter, which has been written
respectfully, should be forwarded to the City Council.
C/Schad concurred that the letter need not be sent.
Chair/Meyer noted that it is the consensus of the Planning
Commission not to direct the Chairman to forward the letter.
C/Fong, referring to the scheduled joint public hearing, stated
that it would be inappropriate for the Planning Commission to feel
compromised in the decision making process because of the time
factor involved for the WVUSD to achieve their goal.
C/Schad stated that assuring minimal ecological damage to the
canyon upon removal of the dirt should be the highlight of
consideration.
C/Schad then requested the Planning Commission to review the Tree
Ordinance and recommend it for reconsideration by the City Council.
He noted that the Tree Ordinance could generate real benefits from
the Arbor Society, which can provide the City with some guidelines
and assistance.
Chair/Meyer questioned the appropriateness of sending back a Tree
Ordinance recommending City Council reconsideration when the City
Council has already debated the issue and provided action. He
stated that if the City Council desired a review of the existing
Tree Ordinance, then they would direct the Planning Commission to
review it and provide a recommendation. He pointed out that the
Development Code, which is inadequate and does not address City
needs, also needs to be reviewed, and will need to be in place
after the adoption of the General Plan; therefore, it would be
prudent for the Planning Commission to have reviewed the
Development Code and have it ready for implementation. He.then
suggested that it may be more appropriate to place on the agenda a
discussion developing a work program of Planning Commission goals
and priorities, giving consideration to staff workload.
CDD/DeStefano stated that staff can place an item on the agenda
discussing the preparation of a work program for Fiscal Year 94-95
April 25, 1994 Page 6
that would be advisory to the City Council, which would incorporate
needed staff time or consultant augmentation, and an assessment of
costs to develop documents being requested. He suggested that it
may be appropriate to prepare such a work program for the City
Council's budget review meetings scheduled in June 1994. He then
pointed out that some of the issues of the Development Code may be
hamstrung by the lack of a General Plan policy document.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
C/Fong inquired what issues should be reviewed by the Planning
Commission regarding Vesting Tract Map No. 47850.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the project will be before the Planning
Commission around the end of June 1994 after the applicant has
addressed some geotechnical issues, as indicated in the settlement
agreement. He stated that, upon concurrence between the City's and
developer's consultants that the geotechnical reports are complete
and adequate, a study session will be scheduled to bring the
Planning Commission up to date. He stated that a joint meeting of
the Planning Commission and the City Council will be scheduled to
review the geotechnical report and the findings of the City's and
developer's consultants.
CDD/DeStefano reported that the City Council adopted the Property
Maintenance Ordinance (PMO) at the April 19, 1994 meeting, as well
as Chapter 99 as an Urgency Ordinance to remain in effect until
June 3, 1994, the effective date of the PMO.
CDD/DeStefano reported that GPAC meetings have been suspended until
such time that the issue regarding developer's voting rights and
representation has been resolved.
Chair/Meyer, noting a member of the audience wishing to speak,
opened the meeting for public comment.
Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star Drive, expressed concern
that another proprietor is seeking ABC approval for a liquor
license at the establishment located at 2707 Diamond Bar Boulevard.
He pointed out that there have been many problems with repeat sales
to minors and other criminal activities associated with off -sale
liquor establishments at that site. He pointed out that the area
is designated as Professional Office, and it would seem
inappropriate to consider an off -sale liquor establishment as
"professional."
Chair/Meyer explained that the Planning Commission cannot address
Mr. Anderson's concern because it is not an agenda item; however,
if it is appropriate for discussion, it will be placed on a future
agenda for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
April 25, 1994 Page 7
Moved by C/Schad, seconded by C/Fong and carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting at 8:16 p.m. to May 2, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the
AQMD Auditorium.
VC/Plunk voted noe to adjourn to May 2, 1994 for the joint public
hearing of the Planning Commission and the City Council.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
David Meyer
Chairman
MINUTES,OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MAY 9, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:25 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 Commissioner
Schad.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk;
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong
Mayor Werner; Mayor Pro Tem Harmony; Council
Members: Papen and Ansari.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Seracy;
Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City
Attorney Michael Montgomery; and City Clerk
Lynda Burgess
Absent: Council Member Miller due to a potential
conflict of interest
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS
Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, expressed concern
that he was unable to obtain information he requested regarding the
project. He also expressed concern that these joint meetings
create confusion among the public regarding items that will be
discussed. He then suggested that staff be directed to make a
brief presentation, allowing the public more of an opportunity to
speak.
CONSENT CALENDAR - None
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING/City Council and Planning Commission Joint
Meeting
Chair/Meyer explained that the City Council and the Planning
Commission is conducting a joint public hearing in order to
expedite the review process of .the South Pointe project at the
request of the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD), which
is under a tight time frame in terms of funding and construction of
the South Pointe Middle School. He stated that the Planning
Commission had made a recommendation to the City. Council last year
May 9, 1994 Page 2 uRAFp
regarding the entitlements surrounding the South Pointe Master
Plan; however, alternatives to the project have been presented to
the City after that recommendation was forwarded to the City
Council, which now requires review from the Planning Commission.
He then relinquished the gavel to M/Werner to continue on with the
joint public hearing.
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 MAP 32400,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAR 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
M/Werner explained that the joint meeting this evening is a
study session of the City Council and the Planning Commission
and not a public hearing due to a defective noticing process,
as was explained at the last joint study session of May 3,
1994. He stated that the Planning Commission will be
conducting a public hearing on this item at' their regular
meeting of May 23, 1994, and the City Council will be
conducting their public hearings on this item beginning on May
31, 1994. He then requested the minutes of both study
sessions of May 3, 1994 and May 9, 1994 be incorporated into
the public hearing record as an information document on the
South Pointe project.
C/Flamenbaum suggested the following sixth alternative to the
project for purposes of discussion: construct the RnP project
and the. Arciero project as proposed, to exclude the commercial
and park development, and moving the road to the north half of
the canyon under the Arciero property line, but on City
property, utilizing the bottom half of the canyon as a City
owned park or open space. He then inquired if an open space
easement has been recorded on the project site.
ICA/Montgomery explained that there are no open space
easements but rather building restrictions called "open space
dedications".
MPT/Harmony suggested a seventh alternative of issuing only a
grading permit for the construction of the middle school.
CM/Belanger stated that staff will provide a report regarding
the feasibility of alternative seven for the City Council's
consideration in their deliberation.
C/Flamenbaum inquired what standards are utilized in
determining the benefits of removing deed restrictions on
properties.
DRAFMay 9, 1994 Page 3 Y
CM/Belanger stated that the Government Code section 51093 sets
forth the standards in terms of the findings the City would
have to make to abandon an open space easement.
M/Werner noted that the response from staff, as well as the
staff report, includes reference to an open space easement yet
staff indicated that there isn't an open space easement but
rather an open space dedication.
ICA/Montgomery explained that the subdivision maps recorded
for the property on Grand Avenue include open space easements.
M/Werner opened the meeting and invited those wishing to speak
to come forward.
Christine McPeak, residing at 21131 East Lariat Court, Walnut,
the Vice President for the Board of Trustees for the Walnut
Valley Unified School District (WVUSD), expressed support for
the immediate construction of the South Pointe Middle School.
Carolyn Elfelt, President of the South Pointe Community Club,
expressed support for the immediate construction of the South
Pointe Middle School, meeting the standards of the community.
Diane Singer, residing at 20881 E. Quail Run Dr., expressed
opposition to allowing any development in Sandstone Canyon
which destroys the wildlife and the natural habitat. She
pointed out that Diamond Bar cannot sustain any more retail
business.
Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, requested his
statement to be placed verbatim for the public record. He
requested a. copy of the title search showing the property
owner of the RnP property. He then requested the following
documents be made of public record on the South Pointe
project: the memorandum from Rutan & Tucker to the City
Council dated March 1, 1994 regarding the public record issues
concerning C/Miller's conflict of interest in the South Pointe
Master Plan; the memorandum from ICA/Montgomery dated February
18, 1994 to Leonard Hemple; the letter dated February 1, 1994
from Markman, Arczynski, Hansen & King to ICA/Montgomery
regarding correspondence of January 6, 1994; the memorandum
dated January 6, 1994 from ICA/Montgomery to the City Council;
a FAX dated January 5, 1994 from C/Papen to ICA/Montgomery
regarding attorney/client privileges of Council Members; the
letter dated September 24, 1993 to Markman, Arczynski, Hansen
& King from Max Maxwell; and the request letter dated August
10, 1993 and September 9, 1993 from Max Maxwell. He then
requested information regarding the events that led to the
sale of the Water District property to the City prior to the
conception of the South Pointe Master Plan. He questioned why
the Grand Avenue project is being presented at this time,
particularly when there are building restrictions. He then
referred to the following information which is of public
-MAMay 9, 1994 Page 4 F g;
record: the letter from Jan Dabney dated October 10, 1990;
the project history from October of 1990 to present; and the
letter dated November 15, 1991 from Jan Dabney. He expressed
opposition to the development of either properties indicated
in the alternatives of the South Pointe project, but allowing
the construction of the Middle School by getting a temporary
borrow permit for the Arciero property to get the dirt off of
the school site.
M/Werner pointed out that the "conflict of interest" indicated
by Mr. Maxwell in regards to C/Miller should be reflected in
the record as "alleged" conflict of interest.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne stated that, in April 1994, RnP
applied for an application for the development of a. single
family residential development 'on lots #1 and #61.
CDD/DeStefano, utilizing the overhead, showed the parcel map
that will be the subject of the Planning Commission's debate
and deliberation on May 23, 1994, - which merges two lots on
Grand Ave. owned by RnP Development Incorporated, and a slide
showing an aerial of the site.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne requested that her statement be
included verbatim for public record. Noting that the City may
not approve discretionary land use projects if it is not
consistent with the future adopted General Plan, she pointed
out that GPAC, with developers voting, has already recommended
to have the General Plan state that map and deed restrictions
will be honored and enforced. She expressed opposition to the
proposals, noting that the developers are trying to push the
project through, based on WVUSD needs, before the new General
Plan can hinder them. She expressed support of the
construction of the Middle School,.but not at the expense of
the quality of life for the residents in the area and at the
expense of the destruction of the Sandstone Canyon. She 'then
read many of the responses, in the Response to Comments
section of the EIR, which responded to concerns to the
proposed South Pointe Middle School. She noted that there are
many flaws, and a lack of completeness in the EIR, .and that,
the negative aspects of this project far out weigh the
positive aspects.
RECESS: M/Werner recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
RECONVENED: M/Werner reconvened the meeting at 9:47 p.m.
David Capestro, residing at 1652 S. Longview, expressed
opposition to the proposed development involving parcels #1
and #61 off of Grand Avenue.
Anne Flesher, residing at 20647 Larkstone Drive, expressed
support of the construction of the Middle School using
Alternative #1, as well as mitigating the traffic problems on
May 9, 1994 Page 5
Larkstone Drive, resulting from the temporary school
facilities, by providing another access road. She expressed
concern with C/Schad's participation in the deliberation,
considering his involvement the last few years opposing the
project.
Karen Capestro, residing at 1652 Longview Drive, expressed
opposition to.the proposed development involving parcels #1
and #61 off of Grand Avenue.
Michael Long, residing at 1648 Longview Drive, stated that he
bought his property because he was told the property behind
him had building restrictions.
Thomas Cooper, residing at 1552 Summitridge, expressed concern
with traffic circulation with the development of parcel #1 and
#61 off of Grand Avenue and its effect to the surrounding
neighborhoods and property values.
Harish Singh, residing at 24343 Rimford Place, questioned the
real benefits to.developing the 72 acres off of Grand Avenue.
Gordon Guber, residing at 24303 Rimford Place, stated that the
property behind his home has building restrictions and should
not be developed.
James Hickey, residing at 24320 Rimford Place, expressed
opposition to the proposed plan.
Theresa Guber, residing at 24303 Rimford Place, expressed
opposition to the removal of building restrictions and
allowing development in an area already impacted by traffic.
Haji Dayala, residing at 24324 Knoll Court, stated that the
real estate disclosure transfer statement indicates that lots
#1 and.#61 are restricted open space. He expressed opposition
to.the development of lots #1 and #61.
Joseph Shu, residing at 1820 Derringer Lane, expressed
opposition to the development of lots #1 and #61.
Mike Abeyta, residing at 1656 Longview Drive, expressed
opposition to the development off of Grand. Avenue; however, he
stated that all the pros and cons of the entire proposal
should be properly reviewed.
Stephen Nice, residing on Rising Star Drive, suggested that
the issue regarding map restrictions should be placed on the
ballot, along with the General Plan, to determine if map
restrictions should be lifted or not.
George Barrett, residing at 1884 Shaded Wood Road, pointed out
that the proposed development off of Grand Avenue have
encouraged even more residents in the City to express their
May 9, 1994 Page 6 DR
opposition to further development in the City. He, expressed
opposition to the proposals.
Frank Dursa, residing at 2533 Harmony Hill Drive, expressed
opposition to the proposals and any development because it
will destroy the City.
Rochelle Abeyta, residing at 1656 Longview Drive, stated that
the issues of the South Pointe project and the development of
parcels #1 and #61 should be considered separately.
There being no one else wishing to speak, M/Werner closed the
meeting and returned the matter to the City Council and
Planning Commission.
M/Werner returned the meeting to Chair/Meyer.
Chair/Meyer reminded the audience that the next Planning
Commission public hearing is scheduled for May 23, 1994 at
7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously
to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:40 p.m.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
David Meyer
Chairman
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
2
REPORT DATE:
April 24, 1994
MEETING DATE:
May 23, 1994
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
Planned Sign Program No.
94-5
APPLICATION REQUEST:
A request for approval of
a Planned Sign Program
which includes.a proposed
freestanding- monument
sign with legal price
sign and .a "legal price
sign for an automobile
service station.
PROPERTY LOCATION:
21095 Golden Springs Dr.
PROPERTY OWNER:
Chevron U.-S.A. Inc.
1300 S. Beach Blvd.
La Habra, CA 90632-2833
APPLICANT:
Robert H. Lee & Associates
1201 S. Beach Boulevard
La Habra, CA 90631
BACKGROUND:
The property owner, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and the applicant, Robert
H. Lee & Associates are requesting approval of Planned Sign Program
1
No. 94-5 which includes a proposed freestanding monument sign with
legal price sign and a legal price sign for an existing automobile
service station located at 21095 E. Golden Springs Drive (Parcel
Map 7207, Lot 1).
The project site is approximately 16,010 square feet. It is
located within the Commercial Planned Development (CPD) Zone with
a contemplated draft General Plan.land use designation of General
Commercial (C).. Generally, the following zones and use surround
the subject site: to the north is the Pomona Freeway; to the south
is Neighborhood Business -Billboard Exclusion (C -2 -BE) Zone; to the
west and east is Commercial Planned Development (CPD) Zone.
The existing Chevron service station offers twenty-four hour
service. It is a one-story structure with three (3) service bays,
storage area, office, sales.area, and restrooms. This structure is
approximately 1, 971 square feet.
On August 9, 1993, Administrative Development Review No. 93-8 was
approved for the project site. The approval permits minor
remodeling and up -grading of the. landscaping. The Building and
Safety Division is ready to issue a building permit for this
remodel.
The purpose and intent of a Planned Sign Program is to encourage
the use of modest signs which are harmonious with existing signs,
to assure the appropriate level of review in an expeditious manner,
and as much as feasible, bring existing signs into compliance with
the provisions of the Sign Ordinance while giving due regard for
the needs of the business community.
ANALYSTS:
The proposed Planned Sign Program includes existing signage for the
project site. It also includes a request for. a freestanding
monument sign with legal price sign and a legal price sign. Both
signs are to be located within the planter area at the corner of
Brea Canyon Road and Golden Springs Drive (see site plan of Exhibit
"A" dated 5/23/94).
The following is a comparison of the proposed Planned Sign Pro-
gram and the City's Sign Ordinance.
CITY'S SIGN ORDINANCE
PROPOSED PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM
STANDARDS
FREESTANDING MONUMENT SIGNS
FREESTANDING MONUMENT SIGN:
FOR COMMERCIAL CENTERS:
Area: 21.41 sq. ft. with
Max. Area: 24 sq. ft.
copy consisting of "Chevron",
"Auto Service", and corporate
Max. Height: 6 ft.
logo.
Max Number: 1 per frontage
Internally illuminated.
along public street.
Max. Height: 6 ft.
Special Conditions: shall not
count toward maximum sign
Max. Number: 1 located at,the
area otherwise permitted.
corner of Brea Canyon Rd. and
Golden Springs Dr.
Zone: Commercial/Industrial.
Special Conditions: Legal
price sign area - 14 sq. ft.
as required by State law
which shall be visible to
motorists on both streets of
the intersection. This legal
price sign area is incorpor-
ated into the proposed free-
standing monument sign.
WALL SIGNS•
WALL SIGNS-
Max. Area: 1.25 sq. ft. per 1
Max. Area: 1.25 sq. ft. for
lineal ft. of frontage, to
each lineal foot of frontage
max. 125 sq. ft. per use.
not to exceed 80% of front-
Sign shall not exceed 80% of
age. This site not to exceed
building frontage;
91.25 square feet in sign
face area. Existing total
Max. Number: 1 per outer
sign face area for project
wall.
site - 39.3 square feet.
Special Conditions: No permit
Location: auto service decal
shall be issued for a wall
on building; cashier decal on
sign in a multi-use building
window. Totaling to 16.9 sq.
or commercial center in which
ft.; (See Exhibit "A" pg.2 &
more than 1 sign is proposed
site plan).
without Planning Commission
review and approval.
Zone: All.
CANOPY AND AWNING SIGNS:
CANOPY/SPANNER SIGNS:
Max. Area: Limited to letters
Max. Area/Location: Existing:
or numbers no greater than 7
Logo - 2 on spanners = 3.8
in. in height designating
sq. ft.; Woodmark-"Chevron" 2
business name or address.
= 15.6 sq. ft.; Directional 4
= 3.0 sq. ft.;
Max. Number: 1 per use.
Totaling: 22.4 sq. ft.
Zone: Commercial.
(Temporary -signs:
Purpose: Advertising special
events.
Type: Windblown devices -
streamers, pennants, banners,
tethered balloons, inflatable
devices.
Max. Sign Area For Banners:
1 sq. ft. of signage per
lineal foot of property
frontage.
Max. Number: 4 permits for
any single business within a
calendar year with the cumu-
lative total of display days
not to exceed 60 days.
Max. Height: Tethered
balloons & inflatable devices
shall not exceed 60 ft. from
grade.
Temporary Signs•
Purpose: Advertising special
services;
Time: Max. 60 days. Also as
permitted by City of Diamond
Bar sign ordinance.
Shall comply with the City's
sign ordinance.
The proposed .Planned Sign Program submitted by the applicant
complies, with the City's sign Ordinance. Pursuant to the Sign
Ordinance the maximum amount of sign face area allowed for the
project site is 91.25 square feet. The existing amount is 39.3
square feet. Freestanding monument signs do not count toward the
maximum sign face area otherwise permitted.
State law requires that a business offering for sale any motor fuel
to the public, shall display on the premises an advertising medium
which complies with the requirements of Chapter 14, Article.l2 of
Business and Professions Code and advertises the prices of the.
grades of motor fuel offered for sale. The Code dictates that the
advertising medium shall be clearly visible from the street or
highway adjacent to the premises. When the place of business is
situated at an intersection, the advertising medium shall be
clearly visible from each street of the intersection. As a result
of the Business and Professions Code's requirements, the applicant
has incorporation a legal price sign into the proposed monument
sign which will be visible for Golden Springs Drive. The second
legal price sign will be visible for Brea Canyon Road. Also, the
Code dictates the minimum letter and numeral size. The applicant
complies with theses standards.
Two pole signs exist on the project site. .One of the pole signs is
located on the north side of the project site facing the freeway
with copy consisting of "Chevron", corporate logo, and "Diesel".
It has a sign face area of 150 square feet and is approximately 40
feet in height. The permit for this sign was issued by Los Angeles
County on April 8, 1982 and finaled on May 20, 1982. The second
pole sign, will be removed and replaced by the proposed monument
sign. The location for the proposed monument sign is within the
planter area, south of the turning radius adjacent to a parking
stall, at the corner of Golden. Springs Drive and Brea Canyon Road.
A legal price sign will be located within the planter area, north
of the turning radius, adjacent to a parking stall, at the corner
of Golden Springs Drive and Brea Canyon Road.
The City Engineer has reviewed the location of the proposed
monument sign and the legal price sign. According to the City
Engineer's review, the location and size of the proposed monument
sign and legal price sign will not interfere with the clear line -
of -sight for vehicle driver's entering or exiting the project site
or for right turns from Brea Canyon Road onto Golden Springs Drive.
The canopy signs, directional signs, and the proposed monument sign
are internally illuminated. Other signage utilizes decals.
The color palette for the signage consists of Dark Gray (GY-210),
Blue (BL -370-5), White (WH -835-S), Off White (WH -740-S), Red (RE -
360 -S), and Light Gray (GY-450). The color palette chosen is
consistent with the corporate colors of Chevron. The base and
support of the proposed monument sign will be constructed from
slump stone painted Dark Gray (GY-210).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed Planned Sign
Program will not have a significant effect on the environment and
is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301. Class 1 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING:
A Planned Sign Program review by the Planning Commission does not
require a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Planned Sign
Program No. 94-5, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within
the attached resolution.
Prepared by:
tAnnJ.0 u,fsirntPlanner.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution of Approval
2. Exhibit "A" = Written Criteria, Elevations, and Site Plan
dated May'23, 1994
3. Application
4. Photographs
7
RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANNED
SIGN PROGRAM NO. 94-5 AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION (SECTION 15301, class 1), AN
APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM FOR AN
EXISTING CHEVRON AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION
LOCATED AT 21095 E. GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE
(PARCEL MAP NO. 7207, LOT 1).
A. Recitals
1. The property owner, Chevron U.S.A. and the applicant,
Robert H. Lee and Associates have filed an application
for .Planned Sign Program No. 94-5 for an existing
automobile service station located at 21095 E. Golden
Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, Califor-
nia, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Planned Sign
Program application is referred to as "Application".
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized -municipal organization
of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to
the requirements of the California Government Code
Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby
adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances.
of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los
Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the
County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to
development applications, including the subject
Application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan.
Accordingly, action was taken on the subject
application, as to consistency to the future adopted
General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of an
Office of Planning and Research extension granted
pursuant to California Government Code Section 65361.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on
May 23, 1994 conducted a meeting on said Application.
5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu-
tion have occurred.
1
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that
the project identified above in this Resolution is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant
to Section 15301, Title 15 of the California Code of
Regulations.
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a
whole, including the findings set forth below, and
changes and alterations which have been incorporated
into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth
in the application, there is no evidence before this
Commission that the project as proposed by the
Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will
have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife
resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife
depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in
the record before the Commission, the Commission hereby
rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in
Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth
herein, this Commission, hereby finds as follows:
(a) The project relates to a site consisting of one
(1) parcel, approximately 16,010 square feet,
developed with an automobile service station. The
project site is within the Commercial Planned
Development (CPD) Zone with a contemplated draft
General Plan land use designation of General
Commercial (C). The project site is located at
21095 E. Golden Springs Drive, City of Diamond
Bar, California.
(b) Generally, the following zones and uses surround
the project site: to the north is the Pomona
Freeway; to the south is Neighborhood Business -
Billboard Exclusion (C -2 -BE) Zone; to the west and
east is 'Commercial Planned Development (CPD)
Zone.
(c) The project site is adequately served by Brea
Canyon Road and Golden Springs Drive.
(d) The proposed Planned Sign Program complies with
the City's Sign Ordinance No. 5 (1991).
(e) Substantial evidence exists, considering the
record as a whole, to determine that the project,
as proposed and conditioned herein, will not be
detrimental to or interfere with the contemplated
draft General Plan.
(f) The proposed Planned Sign Program will have signs
.that are legible to the intended audience under
normal viewing conditions based on the location
and the design of the visual element.
(g) The proposed Planned Sign Program will not have
signs that obscure from view or detract from
existing signs, based on the location, shape,
color, and other similar considerations.
(h) The proposed Planned Sign Program will be in
harmony with adjacent properties and surroundings
based on the size, shape, height, color,
placement, and the proximity 'of such signs to
adjacent properties and surroundings.
(i) The proposed Planned Sign Program will be
designed, constructed and located so that they
will not constitute a hazard to the public.
5. Based upon findings and conclusion set forth above, the
Planning Commission hereby approves this Application
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to all
plans dated May 23, 1994, collectively labeled
Exhibit "A" as submitted to and approved by the
Planning Commission.
(b) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose
until the permittee and owner of the property
involved (if other than the permittee) have filed
within fifteen (15) days of approval of this
grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community
Development Department, their affidavit stating
that they are aware of and agree to accept all the
conditions of this grant. Further,. this grant
shall not be effective until the permittee pays
remaining Planning Division processing fees.
(c) The Applicant shall comply with Planning and
Zoning, Building and Safety, and Engineering
requirements.
(d) Notwithstanding any previous subsection of this
resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game
requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section
711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment therefore
shall be made by the applicant prior to the
issuance of any building permit or any other
entitlement.
(h) The subject property shall be maintained and
operated. in full compliance with the condition of
this grand and any law, stature, ordinance or
other regulations applicable to any development or
activity of the subject property.
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution,
by certified mail to, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 1300 S. Beach
Blvd., La Habra, CA 90632-2833 and Robert H. Lee &
Associates, 1201 S. Beach Blvd., La Habra, CA 90631.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 1994, BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY:
David Meyer, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the
City of. Diamond Bar,. do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of May,,
1994, by the following vote:
AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:]
NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:)
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
4
0
O
e
Cl)
V
N
o
CL
cc
0
N
3
T-Wm
a'
T
Q Q
LU
J
cQ '� Z
(I) p O
=
.
a
1— Q
m
P
c
Q
0
W
LO
O
O
t—
N
a
a
A
P
o
�( �js ,� T
R
k';a e! it
t p
tl j
i F5 �v�I��aA
��
Y
+ ¢
<
E°t Y
Y
t.k
�
3� �yyi33p .p
R
Mit W L
A
J(
S
P
�
tl 9�
S
1
q
?
��
yY ix Wkk E2 iY!
�L .� flOt�`�
k�
A
A
BRFJ+CAw�
P b
q
I
I
�P
I
Sa
3s
e
I
I
1 R r
I rr.l I .....�1 �rr`I ( 1°►
o
�1
1• 1 1 • 1 1 • i l • 1
i
�
�
I 11 • I I ® 11 ® I
B
:I
(•rr�
Q
I
I
I
❑ S
I
❑ � I g
O I
J
la
C
_
I
I
s�
S �
i
I
vL-) �n :�-- ---- u ) V) V) U) V.j
>< 5Z LLI LL] xxxxx
V) LLI LLJ Z Z LLI LLJ Lli Ld Lli
V ge P-1 I S 4!
Lli
cl� 0 V) - CC)(N . LO n n n to
Lb Lo r4)
+ +
LL LL: LL
.. . .
Ll-:
0
V) U) U)
cn
<
ur) r4) 00
(D
0
0) 0) r-1)
0 00 Lr)
LO
0)
(5 .
Z <
EL
$
to Co Of
N z <
I I
m
0
cj)
:wo
co -oj z
-j
+
Z
aj 0 0
(.3 >-
Owl
t i� -
cn
F- <
Lu 11 -
<
LLJ
, Id
<
0
LJ LJ
bj
a�>
. C)
<
.0 C)
F- <
3� V) Ld
w X orf �
z ui <
2:
a
rr
co
'XVN
IHDI3H DNIINnoH 211 L-,06W
<
012.13
.E!/T 9-18 2/T le
fll
o
CL
w
>
0
Lo co
Z
o
<
LOD
Ld
00
:2
W
w
;= M
W
co
w
wh
m
z
maj
o
o
:2
<
UJ P5
-
(j)
0 rl
X
w
w
LO
CY)
S
0
Ld
-W
W
m pq
vi o
In F-
a
£0'd 'itl101
a
� ■ l S
{ ■
e
e
y
■
f
a
,
R
ZLJ
20 LW
3az
4J!
a
1(l?vW)z
-� wL
�FHH
Q
RAW :6
0
-r j
.Z
c
C4
zW � z
w
'_
�
2
•
W7-' i z 0
O �
�
z
0J
V7 -"i0
Z�Ym
tY
VS
a:
W�
Y
f
ZNVI i tl <C� wN
CON CL 00
¢
W+�
n +
'r
4 ■
s
VI C� J m � � i F [?
CL
6
W�
�``''yy
J
Z
� � Z
K
cm cr=
N
�++
4 .
U- CL
44
S�
$®
o
w
Ld w W
J�
C4 Vl
i
N
•
I
m [7
Z
� �
4
Li
J
}
�J
mm m m
a s
Jq
U�
•
�� N
w� N I I cn
�LLJO V1 1
O 1
Q +t
p�
N
Q
UC7 Q
C9
Q
M
C3
Q� U
�N Wa �� p �r~j0-20
Q
JN
zo
WWLLJ
ZY
S
.
W}. LJ d l W I 1
-03 �
w l
.cn } O<
V7
!
11t7 S V)m V) m
J • ! a ■
Vi U'
0] U VL m
l •
L,
•
.y
m 4 wax•eroW -, 1
£0'd 9208 Z06 BT£ tidab" Hn - 33-1 Wd ££:hT h66T-z6-AIJW
r ry �nw
—.—I v aeea JYTP-T9B-6fl6 1H h66T 20:hT 20/50 Q3h1333H 7
FWA q?PR 206 012 U89HH U9 - 331 'H"ti Vbb L-cl3-^QV
1
D
t
0
R
1
S
O
�
t
S
t
6
O
R
p r r.
CO
Z °
Q 11 L,V
Z 0
�
(n��
O
Q
a
<
�zy(n
-j Fo < Ln
C(
Z
C�5
Z
Qa-�
v'o�_
f11
D—mm
Ogg
O
z
-Wm
o Z� �0
WWT�-C]
r
W
W a
O 0�g
a
9
Z
i- Q
W
w
Z
z
0
z
0
U
Q
w
>
Ld
O
LO
U`tzL`
o�vi
�M:=Do
N
W oJ r
Z?� Jv
a � v
� x e a
a
a
a •
w nv..,•
R
0
P
.
R
R
P
P
7
�
R
x
R
R
e
e
w
rA
CO
?
rr
_ NLO
co
UP
R
LL
L
Z m
o
<J
d
nQ
C1) I z
W
W¢"�
-�a
.
i
cd p O
d
U
0:2LU
m
z
(~f)
og.�
c
Q
w
w
�
0
O
N
z
a
1i w
vi¢
0
S v
2 , _.... y � 2 � 0 Y Y 0 0 • �
•
Y
e
n
r
2
x
•
o Q
------------
cr-co
UW s
z W s
� u
Q z Q am
U n olP
LL:TZm atj5
w () Q W¢gu
Z Jk'g
Cd p 0 = a g
co Q Q m� p
U to MO
W �g«
w 0 Lo
m N
z
0
Q
w v .
2 � Y ' = 0 2 • m n tHu�xwrw� wi�,+o ..� awm
P
a
t
0
R
a
P
0
P
0
OW W
c
i
h
cr)
W
I
I
0
� a z
0
jo
U ,
Q�=
I
'
ua
W
Lo Co Q
a
P i
`_
—zm
R
3
I
'
r W
ai
w
_
Q
w=��
co Z
�C:R .
Icr)
0 0
= a g
I
I
G
1
I
CO<
fr
w �p
I
Q
m div
0
I
'
L
Z
W
C:IRR -
n
L
0
I,,
Q
L7
}
-2
O
J=
U
JW
Z
L�
Zzo
ti
—0
F
�Qa
LLJ Z
0a
Ix
Z cn v
O_j
CHY OF DUMOND BAR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190
(714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117
REQUEST FOR PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVIEW
Case# )y!✓" P 9� � `� �
Filed
Fee $ 5000 Dego if
Receipt Jt./ 3 LfS
By
Record owner(s) Applicant
Name�f"1/1�y,1�.1 1I��A.1N,L� FVeQltl U.SA,
Address 'G��j� r✓(1�Jy{ %Of% �j• �7�4G� {�).'
City SAR rlgMe15co LA L460tZA ( 0,4,
Zip �a 1�4 °%O(o'�2.2$31
Phone( ) i�Jl0) 4"9'` 3
Applicant's Agent VA
H60P-,k! CO,
°I06s (
(SID) e $OZ'S
Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that
the information .herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Printed Name V t %� 2G° � - -("
(Applicant or ent)
Date 4 ~ %q - q 4 -
Signed
// (Applicant or
-- - (Street address or craca.,aou
Zoning w......
HNM
List number, size and type of sign(s) requested.
(Example: 2 - 8' x 9' Freestanding, double faced signs - 6 ft.high
1 - 3' x 24' Wall sign)
X� �R��SiAIJ��pJG WY1 t�mJi StCN
C t> '' 3+X (p u X '1 �- �o L�Gh+.. �✓.z tGh- S iGn.� . _
Length of lot frontage(s), if freestanding or roof sign(s) 1 (Y 1
if roof sign, height of building N �Q
Length of building (space occupied) frontage, if wall sign N Z A,
CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this
request.
Signed Date
( l recor owners)
,�t 1 F.11l/�Il,•1,�'1� t.'.t 1
DATE: May 19, 1994
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissi oners
FROM: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
RE: Zone Change Amendment No. 92-2, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
51169, Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3, and
EIR No. 92-2
This application was heard at a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 28,
1994. At that public hearing, the Commission decided and the applicant concurred, to
continue the public hearing to the May 23, 1994 meeting in order that the SEATAC could
complete their review. Their review has to concluded and the Final Report is being
prepared.
Staff is recommending and the applicant has concurred with a continuance to the June 13,
1994.
YEH PROJECT
C RECEIVED 05/16 13:14 1994 AT 909 -RGI -3117 PAGE 2 (PRINTED PAGE 2) 1
MAY -16-1994 12'38PM FROM YEH RESIDENCE (USA) TO i9099613114 P.02
May 16, 1994
Planning Commissioners
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive
Suite 190
E6mond Bar, CA. 91765
RECEIVED COMMUmTY
DEVEL Drn+gSt1T
1i9y UAY 16 pig 2: 40
UNIONt11DE, INC.
2130 ROCKR.IDGB CP.
FULLERTON, CA.92631
Dear Sirs:
We have been notified that due to inadequate time for the city to incorporate SEATEC
comments into E.I1L for VTM 51169, the Planning Commission hearing will be postponed to
June 13, 1994, We once again agree to the postponement with reservation of all our rights.
We continue to regivtq Irraces9infl for appr4Y41 of VTM 511(,q ip, air city and rmm, To au af"6—
rights as an applioant for approval under Vesting Tentative Map-
Yours Truly.
Jerry K Yeh
Vice President
do James De Stefano
Planning Director
c/c Robert Searcy
Associate planner
UFRE
TOTAL P.02
DATE: May 17, 1994
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissi rsl
FROM: RobertSearcy, Associate Planner
RE: Parcel Map No. 24031
The attached draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for the above listed project. This
information is being provided in advance of the packet. This application is a request for the
merger of two independent lots in order to create one freestanding lot and to remove all of
the existing development restrictions. These existing development restrictions were placed .
on the lots subsequent to approval of separate development projects by the County of Los
Angeles some years ago. The City has inherited the dedicated restrictions and possesses the
sole ability to lift the restrictions if deemed appropriate.
The complete packet of information will be forthcoming with the regular distribution of the
Planning Commission packet. if you need additional information prior to that time, please
contact me at your earliest convenience.
ATTACHMENTS:
Application
Parcel Map
Draft Negative Declaration
C:\LETTER\REPORTS\PM24031.MEM
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR .
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
—21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190
(714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-7427
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
Case#/ll
Filed
Fee $RECE1VE0
Receipt Co'kIM P11
By bEi'ECCpr,(EW }
AN
Record Owner(s) Applicant Applicant's/.Agent
Names /Q�l--� I%P//y/c�r� � d11221� cl' C• ac'Ib/ e /
(Last name first) 67/ 5d Biel OV�% 5
Address �r'�9 (7/�.v�i�jg �C�{,{ (�7 A�` ✓Y�
City_i�nrfl,1; l- �L� /af�!/Y7 L%r
zip- 9/'7/! 9/7c�G7
Phone (9l)
(Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses., and 'signatures
of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.)
CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this
request.
Signed Date
(ALL recorded owners
/Qyora� AC. e!�rr.
CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that
the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Printed Name �/% W17ifU
�(App
cant or Agen
Signed Datejj
cantAgent)—
Location' Z�i
(Street a ress or tract and lot nurber)
between fJ� {/P. and 5U a2 /37/ t !G/GiIIP
(Street) (Street)
ZoningPn— %Q /3C?n �� HNM
Previous Cases
Present Use of Site
Use applied for
Domestic water Source ��,� l Company/District
Sanitation District
Method of Sewage Disposal—
Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES NO ✓ Amount
(Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (All ownership comprising the proposed lots/project) If
petitioning for zone change, attach legal description of exterior boundaries of
area subject to the change.)
Project Site. ,�,� ��LL1� F Tentative Map Number P/% Z¢G�3�
Gross Area
Lots: Existing 2 Proposed
Area devoted to Structures Open Space
Residential project' and
aGross Area No. of floors
Proposed Density 1 46g4y 'y1 C.
Units/Acre
Number and types of Units
Residential Parking:Type Required Provided
Total'
VALE T P-Wa
TI
TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP N0. 24031
IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
trtL TuciR n19. YnupuN nlO bAm[nPw rtNaq 6r6N'PAw Yf4At wttv�
u su. a w nw u.x. lec ruu o rW.. 6a ImR Ir �n u n6 mlc s oc KPam w n6 wry r w um
RECEIVED COMMUNITY
DEVEL O°P,IENT
199,'! APR 14 AN ,: 20
NOTES:
L -I. 6'fio6MFlb -TIMMS ABAMPWWEK Of ME Nl9Mi 10 mW I1 BE a NIS
LOMIIUaim a TIES TIM..1.1N63 AIFD YO BE [Wiry a Los AHIF9
1NE. FM[ a THE fM"i`N �BEM_M 90 LOSAA46EL E. LT. illFB IN
L 1NE AEA.a.WYfi4 wcr•NS IB9l) 19 L'0 AW[1
1 INE AEA a VII.1. -111. 9608 .IS fiS 6t 1.1
4 BE B. IS, THE 91.6.E PAiIEL fiPEUTEO BY INS NEPGEA IS fi610 AGES.
S. PIIPTIM a NIS PAEEL APES NE" I0 FLWBIN6 A.W6 THE IMI(MID NATULL
pUINASE I—ES
E. PPUW USE a PANE IS YAEINI 1A0.
1, PPa USE R 1P 11 19 91.6.E PANILY PESIpfNIIIL I UIIT PEA A[AL
6 —a, T. NG 19 IYO-i4 _M .
LEGEND
MOZAY a INE — BEING N DDEP BT
.NIS NIP.
FEPPESFMiB WIIEA4INE a "ISM.
MIT IT9 alum, f19f.E9rt m'SFlullt — — — —
I,NIS Num it NDIT MLL aL 11. 0.E 10 . . . . . . . .
OWNER/APPLICANT:
P -N -P DEVELOPMENT )NC.
4439 NNOOELIA AVENUE
CLAREMONT. CA 21711
CZ/M35,�, TV fi 1 �(� I p' �I
aim . to
ORECEIVED COMMUNITY
DEVEL OrP-ENT
j.C.D. i 91! WkY -2 'k -I 8: 38
J. C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS
671 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SUITE 5
WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789
909 594-7568
FAX - 909-594-5090
April 28, 1994
Mr. James DeStefano
Community Development Director
City of Diamond Bar
Reference: Parcel Map 24031
Dear Mr. DeStefano,
As the agent for the applicant, R -N -P Development Inc., I have applied for approval
of Parcel Map No. 24031 under the guide lines of the Subdivision Map Act, Chapter
3, "Procedure", Article 1.5, "Merger of Parcels", section 66451.10, paragraph b.3,
"Reversions to acreage", and paragraph b.5, "Parcel maps that create fewer lots, as
amended by Chapter 6, "Reversions and Exclusions", Article 1, "Reversion to
Acreage", sections 66499.20 1/4, 66499.20 1/2, and 66499.20 3/4.
The purpose of the application is to allow the applicant's request for consideration
by the legislative body of the City of Diamond Bar for the removal from Lot 1, Tract
No. 31479 of the right to restrict the construction of residential buildings conveyed
to the City of Diamond Bar by the County of Los Angeles at the time of incorporation
of .the City of Diamond Bar.
At the time that the offer of dedication was made to the County of Los Angeles, the
necessary cost of remedial grading and infra -structure improvements made the
development of Lot 1 financially impractical for the then record owners. The County
of Los Angeles typically .requested the offer of building dedication on larger
remainder parcels in an effort to insure that future development consideration would
require additional review to address the concerns brought out in the original map
application process. On this specific lot, the additional considerations were
indicated on the recorded map as soils considerations and flood hazards from natural
drainage courses. In my opinion, these areas of concerns can be adequately
addressed with today's development standards, ordinances and land values.
Re ctfully,
nn C. Dabney, RCE
cc: Mr. Dwight Forrister, R -N -P Development Inc.
1
DRAFT
1
1
INITIAL STUDY
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24031
1
1
1
1
.
Lead Agency:
S cY:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
121660
E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177
1
1
Prepared by:
LG&E POWER ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
2030 Main Street, 14th Floor
Irvine, California 92714-7240
'1
May 2, 1994
1
DRAFT
INITIAL STUDY
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24031
Lead Agency:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177
Contact: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
(909) 396-5676
Prepared by:
LG&E POWER ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
2030 Main Street, 14th Floor
Irvine, California 92714-7240
Contact: Peter Lewandowski, Director of Planning
(714) 955-4000
May 2, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
C,7
LIST OF SECTIONS
Section
Page
LL
1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................1
1.1
Purpose ...........................................
1
1.2
Statutory Authority ....................................
2
1.3
Statutory Requirements .................................
3
1.4
Agencies/Organizations ........................
4
1.5
Incorporated by Reference ...............................
4
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................6
2.1
Project Location ..................................... 6
2.2
Project Description ................................... 6
2.3
Statement of Objectives .................................
10
3.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES ..................... *
13
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ...............
15
4.1
Earth ............................................
15
4.2
Air ............................................
17
4.3
Water ..........................................18
4.4
Plant Life ........................................
20
.4.5
Animal Life .......................................
21
4.6
Noise ............................ I ..............
22
4.7
Light and Glare ......................................
23
4.8
Land Use .........................................
23
4.9
Natural Resources ...................................
24
4.10
Risk of Upset ......................................
24
4.11-
Population ...................................... .24
ti
4.12
Housing .........................................
25
4.13
Transportation/Circulation .................. ...........25
4.14
Public Services .....................................
26
4.15
Energy ..........................................
27
4.16
Utilities .........................................
28
4.17
Human Health ........................ ............
28
Fri
4.18
Aesthetics ........................................
28
4.19
Recreation ........................................
29
4.20
Cultural Resources ............... 4 ..................
29
4.21
Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................
30
Initial Study
May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page i
51211S
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF SECTIONS (cont.)
Section Page
5.0 MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM ......... 32
6.0 DETERMINATION .....................................34
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Subdivision Application
Appendix B: Environmental Checklist Form
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit Page
1 Regional Location Map ................................. 7
2 Tentative Parcel Map. No. 24031 .......................... 8
3 Summary of Mitigation Measures ......................... 14
4 Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program .................. 33
Initial Study
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031
SJUS
May 2, 1994
Page ii
1.0 WIRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
This Initial Study, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)t and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(State CEQA Guidelines)' has been prepared for the purpose of determining whether the
approval of Tentative and Final Parcel Map No. 24031, as authorized under the Subdivision Map
Acta and the local subdivision ordinance' will have a significant effect upon the environment.
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the City of Diamond
Bar (City), acting in the capacity of Lead Agency.' is directed to undertake an Initial Study to
77 determine if the proposed action will have a significant environmental impact. If, as a result of
that Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that there is evidence that any aspect of the project may
cause a significant environmental effect, either individually or cumulatively, the Lead Agency
shall further find that an environmental impact report (FIR) is warranted to adequately analyze
?f ti project -related effects. If, however, on the basis of the Initial Study, the Lead Agency finds that
there is no substantive evidence that the project clearly, or as modified to include the mitigation
measures' identified in the Initial Study, may cause a significant effect on the environment, the
Lead Agency shall find that the proposed action will not have a significant effect and is
authorized to prepare a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration' for that action.
Codified as Section 21000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code (PRC).
z Codified as Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 20 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
3 Codified as Section 66410 et seq of the California Government Code (CGC).
Codified as Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code.
s "Lead Agency," as defined in Section 15367 of the CCR, means the public agency which has the principal
responsibility for carrying out or approving a project. The Lead Agency will decide whether an EIR or Negative
Declaration will be required for the project and will cause the document to be prepared.
6 Mitigation, as defined in Section 15370 of the CCR, includes: (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking
- a certain action of parts of an action; (b) minimizing by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the impacted environment; (d)
reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the
action; and (e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
' Section 21064.5 of the PRC provides: "[mlitigated negative declaration" means a negative declaration
prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative
declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no
significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole
record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 1
5.120
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Presented in this document are the results of that environmental analysis required under Section
15063 of the CCR. That analysis supports the findings that, on the basis of information
presented herein, no significant environmental effects would occur as a result of project
implementation, as mitigated to incorporate those measures identified herein. Accordingly, this
Initial Study supports the issuance of a Negative Declaration' and presents, for public review
and comment, the substantial evidence supporting this finding.
This document, in conjunction with public comment hereupon, will provide the environmental
basis for subsequent discretionary actions by the Lead Agency or other Responsible Agencies'
having jurisdiction by law for this project.
1.2 Statutory Authority
Prior to initiating any action subject to CEQA, the Lead Agency is required to undertake a
3 formal environmental evaluation of the proposed action. In accordance with Section 15063(a)
of the CCR, the Lead Agency shall conduct an Initial Study to determine if the project may have
a significant effect on the environment. According to that section, the purposes of the Initial
Study are to:
• Identify environmental impacts;
• Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding
Whether to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration;
• Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse
impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a
Negative Declaration;'
• Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative
Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
$ For the purpose of this analysis, the terms Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration are used
interchangeably. Both document types represent "a written statement by the Lead Agency briefly describing the
reasons that a proposed project, not exempt from CEQA, will not have a significant effect on the environment"
(Section 15371, CCR).
"Responsible Agency," as defined in Section 15381 of the CCR, means a public agency which proposes to
carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the
purpose of CEQA, the term Responsible Agency includes all public agencies (other than the Lead Agency) which
have discretionary approval power over the project.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 2
512VS
1.0 EgMODUCTION
• Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project;
• Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
• Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project; and
• Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by focusing the EIR on the
effects determined to be significant, identifying the effects determined not to be
significant, and explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant
effects would not be significant.
Section 15070 of the CCR indicates that a Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project
when the Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment, or the Initial Study identifies potentially significant effects
but revisions to the project made or agreed to- by the applicant before the proposed Negative
Declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point
where no significant impacts would occur, and there is no substantial evidence that the project,
as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
1.3 Statutory Requirements
Section 15071 of the CCR identifies those minimum requirements for a Negative Declaration
which are necessary to meet the public participation and disclosure policies of CEQA. Pursuant
to that section, a Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include:
• A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the
project, if any;
• The location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of the
project proponent;
• A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the
environment;
• An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding;
and
• Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant
effects.
Initial Study May 2, 1.994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031, Page 3
si2vS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.4 Agencies/Organizations
The following agencies and organizations are associated with the proposed project:
,t Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 396-5676
Applicant: R -N P Development, Inc.
4439 Rhodelia Avenue
Claremont, CA 91711
(909) 594-7568
Applicant's Agent: J.C. Dabney Associates
:tea 671 S. Brea Canyon Road, Suite 5
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
(909) 594-7568
Environmental LG&E Power Engineers and Constructors Inc.
Consultant: Environmental Services Division
y 2030 Main Street, 14th Floor
Irvine, California 92714-7240
(714) 955-4000
1.5 Incorporated By Reference
Section 15150 of the CCR allows EIRs and Negative Declarations to incorporate by reference
all or portions of other documents that are a matter of public record. Where all or a portion of
another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered
to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration. Pursuant therewith,
the following documents are incorporated by reference:
® Final Environmental Impact Report for the City of Diamond Bar General Plan
(SCH No. 91041083), City of Diamond Bar, July 14, 1992.
® Master Environmental Assessment - City of Diamond Bar, City of Diamond Bar,
July 14, 1992.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 4
512uS
1.0 DrMODUCTION
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the 1993 City of Diamond Bar General Plan
(currently known as the 1994 contemplated General Plan) evaluated the potential environmental
impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the then proposed City of Diamond
Bar General Plan (City of Diamond Bar, 1993), including the further intensification of the City
and its Sphere of Influence in accordance with those land use designations represented on the
Land Use Map presented therein and the plans, policies and standards contained in that draft
document. The site's development assumptions, as presented in this Initial Study (i.e., one
dwelling unit), reflects a land use density lower than that addressed in the Final EIR.
The Master Environmental Assessment - City of Diamond Bar provided a comprehensive database
encompassing the then existing physical, social, environmental and economic conditions
influencing future planning decisions in the City of Diamond Bar. The Master Environmental
Assessment (MEA) offered both a generalized description of the community, describes those
existing conditions affecting the City, and identified issues and opportunities associated with a
number of technical areas relevant to this environmental analysis.
Each of the above referenced documents are hereby incorporated by reference pursuant to
Section 15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Copies of these studies are available for review
at the City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department (21660 E. Copley Drive,
Suite 190, Diamond Bar, California) during the regular business hours of the City.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page
512VS
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
The proposed project is located within the corporate boundaries of the City of Diamond Bar, Los
Angeles County, California. The 68.1 ± acre site is generally situated south of Grand Avenue
and east of Diamond Bar Boulevard. Specifically, the property is bounded on the north by Tract
Nos. 42555 and 42561; to the south and east by the Country Estates (Tract Nos. 24048 and
30093), and to the west by the corporate boundaries of the City of Diamond Bar.
The site's physical location_ within the City is depicted in Exhibit 1 (Regional Location Map).
The proposed configuration of the consolidated property resulting from this action is illustrated
in Exhibit 2 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031).
2.2 Project Description
Enclosed as Appendix A (Subdivision Application) herein, is the application filed by R -N -P
Development, Inc. (by J.C. Dabney & Associates) for the approval of a parcel map, combining
two existing previously subdivided parcels into a single consolidated property.
In approving the requested parcel map, the City will merge Lot 1 of Tract No. 31479 and Lot
61 of Tract No. 42557, creating a single consolidated parcel. This request is submitted pursuant
to the guidelines of the Subdivision Map Act, codified as Section 66410 et seq of the California
Government Code.10
In submitting the application, the legislative body of the City is being asked to consider the
removal from Lot 1 of Tract No. 31479 and Lot 61 of Tract No. 42557 of the right to restrict
the construction of residential buildings upon those parcels. That right or covenant was
conveyed to the City by the County of Los Angeles at the time of incorporation of the City.
At the time that the offer of dedication was made to the County, the necessary cost of remedial
grading and infrastructure improvements made development of the subject properties financially
infeasible for the then recorded property owners.
Chapter 3, "Procedure", Article 1.5, "Merger of Parcels", Section 66451.10(b)(3), "Reversions to acreage", and
Section 66451.10(b)(5), "Parcel maps that create fewer lots", as amended by Chapter 6, "Reversions and
Exclusions", Article 1, "Reversion to Acreage", Section 66499.20'/4, Section 66499.201h; and Section 66499.201A.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page (p
s12us
Y! IY $ � � Y � �,'
t G O ■ �
V 1O1s1f1� �6L�
� �
Q
`� �� h" ,� �{y �
r � j"ti °C'• p�
nrar�■��� `0.G
h
,��L
♦��C 4
'� � 3�4Mn
• wurWa`
»0 30tl3'13PW
Q,.ci •r �'�
P'
�
�
O
-o
_ M1
CH
v
0
� Q
•.Iy
h
V
L
.6>
b
'17fA907 w
■ ruor
�`�4nc
�
6S
�
ti
_ ♦ y
a
!�amp,
'oNwi
..
..
IiiD •
dt 4 y► -.
'
.
• 1O 0,118
o- n :.
��+fa " s
am • Avg
a ■■mw {
n
m g g $ 3: �J
°t
-
s
E�
.� ♦ �� �' it
Yrragf
- oq
:
on
YYa N � ... gw ♦ p �
yJ
p
1-4
i.... - t•,, d.. An.
\
- -`
A LE
TENTATIVE
PARCEE MAP N0. 24031
IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
L on.
TR. 30091
imnrvai ruiwawx°"°a� i i�'a io° 1 .1 a Ixu
tE.31a�61pE[WEO W 994 1- 1 ilN 11, .1 1.".
1.LEs
u<amEA a la cm04Cm a fog 9xafFT-
CI x4 IETii IT I. El 1(PE
@pct Xe. I l
M6Lf OEP[El CPFEIFfI Br itl�9 pAfee �T 6610 E[qi
NfFL LSE 5JB.FLI 10 ff0001n6 ELM: IN e0iE91E0 WiWt
COEAI IIEIfIMAFt-.11 N. EE9E.
Mo m.990 -r.
LEGEND
SN�EEIS I9 EEx IEe�flxF aFilTilx9
FEMi9FMiT E61T1IMi fxTFKxi le Kui-----------
IaisEk�Naii6iea xEafff° ui.Am 11x1 Pc ET
OWNER/APPLICANT:
P•N-P OEVELOPNE" INC.
4439 PPOOELIA AVENUE
CLAPENONI, CA 91711
EWMIT 2
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24031
�a
y�
NOT TO SC
771
3
NOTES:
,. A9�PA, EE gel
xCXAA 6 eEK£IT
tfi610.Si1M 6
IHF IGFIfaaLel FE
INF u6E a Let 1.
INE IEFE a ENE 51
' S Mi6F [dR5E1 E
6 ExEIIxt <5E a m
VEE a EA
SOURCE:
J.C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES
Tmradve Parcel Map No. 24M
A LE
TENTATIVE
PARCEE MAP N0. 24031
IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
L on.
TR. 30091
imnrvai ruiwawx°"°a� i i�'a io° 1 .1 a Ixu
tE.31a�61pE[WEO W 994 1- 1 ilN 11, .1 1.".
1.LEs
u<amEA a la cm04Cm a fog 9xafFT-
CI x4 IETii IT I. El 1(PE
@pct Xe. I l
M6Lf OEP[El CPFEIFfI Br itl�9 pAfee �T 6610 E[qi
NfFL LSE 5JB.FLI 10 ff0001n6 ELM: IN e0iE91E0 WiWt
COEAI IIEIfIMAFt-.11 N. EE9E.
Mo m.990 -r.
LEGEND
SN�EEIS I9 EEx IEe�flxF aFilTilx9
FEMi9FMiT E61T1IMi fxTFKxi le Kui-----------
IaisEk�Naii6iea xEafff° ui.Am 11x1 Pc ET
OWNER/APPLICANT:
P•N-P OEVELOPNE" INC.
4439 PPOOELIA AVENUE
CLAPENONI, CA 91711
EWMIT 2
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 24031
r
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Exhibit 2 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031
r=�
:p
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 8
512 VS
2.0 PROJECT DESCREMON
Should the City elect to approve the above action, the applicant will not be granted authorization
by the City or any other governmental entity to proceed with the subsequent development of the
property. Although the resulting lot merger will remove existing provisions" which limit the
site's subsequent residential use, no concomitant authority is provided under the City of Diamond
Sar contemplated General Plan or Zoning Code which conveys a legal right to the property
owner to develop the subject property at the density(ies) presented in those documents.
By approving the requested map, the City is authorizing the applicant to develop up to one
residential dwelling unit on the subject property.12 Although the densities indicated in the
contemplated General Plan and Zoning Code may create an opportunity for the applicant,
through a subsequent action independent of this project, to seek the further subdivision of the
subject property, nothing in this action obligates the City (or other governmental entity) to
approve, or conditionally approve, any future entitlement(s) which may be sought by the
applicant or any subsequent holders of real property interests upon the subject property.
Referencing Section 15145 of the CCR, "[i]f, after thorough investigation, a Lead Agency fords
that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion
and terminate discussion of the impact." Although the subsequent subdivision of the subject
property can be reasonably predicted as a logical consequence of this action, the predictability
of either the subsequent request or ultimate City action would only be a matter of speculation.
Since by taldng this action: (1) any request to construct more than one dwelling unit would
constitute a discretionary action subject to further CEQA compliance; and (2) the City is not
bound or otherwise obligated to take a predetermined subsequent action (e.g., approval of a
subdivision application), there should be no supposition beyond the rights granted under the
requested land use entitlement (i.e., one dwelling unit). Although approval of the parcel map
Those provisions included the previous dedication to the County' of Los Angeles of a right to prohibit the
construction of residential buildings on the subject property.
Section 15300 et seq of the CCR identifies specific "classes" of projects which are deemed to be categorically
exempt. "Categorical exemption", as defined in Section 15354, means an exemption from CEQA for a class of
projects based on a fording by the Secretary for Resources that the class of projects does not have a significant effect
on the environment. The new construction or conversion of small structures, subject to the limitations of Section
15303 of the CCR, are deemed to be categorically exempt. pursuant to that section, "[i]n urbanized areas, up to
three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption." Based upon this authority,
the construction of a single residential unit on the subject property would be deemed to be categorically except;
however, since a parcel map is also involved in the requested action, approval of that map constitutes an independent
action or "project" subject to further CEQA review.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 page tJ
51295
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
would result in the abandonment of underlying public easements,13 that action would, of itself,
not allow more than one dwelling unit to be constructed on the property.14
It should be noted that the approval of the requested entitlement may further have the potential
to increase the site's appraised value and tax liability. Pursuant to Section 15064(2)(f) and
Section 15131 of the CCR, economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as a
"significant effect on the environment." Citing Section 15064(8)(2):
If the Lead Agency finds there is no substantial evidence that a project may have
a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative
Declaration.. .
For the purpose of this CEQA review, any resulting economic implication of this action are
deemed, by the City, to be less than significant and, therefore, not subject to further analysis
in this Initial Study.
2.3 Statement of Objectives
Land Use Entitlement
R -N -P Development Inc. is requesting from the City: (1) approval of a tentative parcel map
(i.e., Tentative Parcel.Map No. 24031), pursuant to Section 66425 et seq of the California
Government Code (CGC); and (2) approval of a final parcel map (i.e., Parcel Map No. 24031),
pursuant to Section 66433 et seq of the CGC.15
Pursuant to Section 65871(a) of the CGC, "an easement may be created pursuant to an ordinance adopted
implementing this article, by a recorded covenant of easement made by an owner of real property to the city of
county. An easement created pursuant to this article may be for parking, ingress, egress, emergency access, light
and air access, landscaping, or open -space purposes" (emphasis added). Section 65871(6) further states that "[alt
the time of recording of the covenant of easement, all the real property benefitted or burdened by the covenant shall
be in common ownership. The covenant shall be effective when recorded and shall act an as easement pursuant
to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 801) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code."
14 The applicant's Initial Study Questionnaire, indicates applicant's intent for "future residential subdivision one
acre lots." Should that occur as proposed, the applicant could theoretically develop 68 dwelling units on the subject
property. Alternatively, the site's zoning designation of RPD -20,000-2U would allow a maximum of 136 dwelling
units to be developed on-site. In defining the "project" for analysis in this Initial Study, it should not be concluded
that the "whole of the action" presupposed the construction of 68 units, 136 units or other arbitrarily established
number of units on the project site.
" Pursuant to Section 15268(b)(3) of the CCR, approval of final subdivision maps are deemed to be "ministerial
projects." Ministerial projects are deemed to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA (Section 15268(a), CCR).
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 10
512VS
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
In taldng this action, previously subdivided parcels of real property which now exist within the
area defined by the -proposed parcel map 16 will be merged. Pursuant to Section 66499.20'6 of
the CGC:
Subdivided lands may be merged and resubdivided without reverting to acreage
by complying with all the applicable requirements for the subdivision of land as
provided by this division and any local ordinances adopted pursuant thereto. The
filing of the final map or parcel map shall constitute legal merging of the separate
parcels into one parcel and the resubdivision of such parcel, and the real property
shall thereafter be shown with the new lot or parcel boundaries on the assessment
roll. Any unused fees or deposits previously made pursuant to this division
pertaining to the property shall be credited pro rata towards any requirements for
the same purposes which are applicable at the time of resubdivision. Any public
.streets or public easements to be left in effect after the resubdivision shall be
adequately delineated on the map. After approval of the merger and
resubdivision by the governing body or advisory agency the map shall be
delivered to the county recorder. The filing of the map shall constitute legal
merger and resubdivision of the land affected thereby, and shall also constitute
abandonment of all public streets and public easements not shown on the map,
provided that a written notation of each abandonment is listed by reference to the
recording data creating these public streets or public easements, and certified to
on the map by the clerk of the legislative body or the designee of the legislative
body approving the map.
In accordance with Section 65874 of the CGC, .a covenant of easement may be released upon
consideration of the covenant at a public hearing." Referencing Section 65874(b), "[u]pon a
determination that the restriction of the property is no longer necessary to achieve the land use
goals of the city or county, a release shall be recorded by the city or county in the county where
the restricted property is located."
16 Identified as: (1) Lot 1 of Tract No. 31479, as shown on a map in Book 998, page(s) 7 through 17 inclusive
of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder; and (2) Lot 61 of Tract NO. 42557, as shown on a map in Book
1032, page(s) 50 through 54 inclusive of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder.
" Referencing Section 65875 of the CGC, "[n]othing in this article shall create in any person other than the city
or county and the owner of the real property burdened or benefitted by the covenant standing to enforce or to
challenge the covenant or any amendment thereto or release therefrom."
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 11
512175
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CEOA Compliance
Pursuant to Section 21065(a) and (b) of the Public Resources Code (PRC), the proposed activity
constitutes a "project," requiring compliance with the provision of the California Environmental
Quality Act, codified as Section 21000 et seq of the PRC. Section 15063 of the California Code
of Regulations (CCR) requires that "the Lead Agency shall conduct an initial study to determine
if the project may have a significant effect on the environment."
This Initial Study, prepared pursuant to the requirements of the PRC and CCR, has been
prepared for the purpose of determining the potential direct, indirect and cumulative
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. This Initial Study, in combination
with a Negative Declaration prepared in accordance with the findings presented herein, .
constitutes the environmental basis for subsequent discretionary actions by the City (acting in
its role as Lead Agency) and such other Responsible Agencies having jurisdiction by law over
the project.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 12
512115
3.0 SUABIARY OF NMGATION MEASURES
This section provides a summary of the mitigation measures recommended as a result of that
issue -specific analysis presented in Section 4.0 (Discussion of Environmental Evaluation) of this
Initial Study. These recommended actions, when implemented by the Lead Agency and/or
affected Responsible Agency, will reduce any potentially significant adverse effects to a level
which will not produce a significant impact upon the environment and/or will further reduce the
extent of those impacts which were determined by the Lead Agency to be less than significant.
The primary purpose in consolidating all mitigation measures into one section is: (1) to provide
a convenient format for public review of all identified mitigation measures which will require
either project modifications or the fulfillment of specific conditions; (2) to provide convenience
for both the Lead Agency and Responsible Agencies in identifying that set of conditions which,
when implemented, will minimize potential project -related impacts to a level which is not
significant; and (3) to satisfy statutory obligations for the requisite components of a Negative
Declaration.
The applicant has reviewed and agreed to implement those mitigation measures contained herein
'y and outlined in Exhibit
_ (Summary of Mitigation Measures). As a result, the project, as
modified to incorporate these conditions of approval,1B will not result in the creation of any
r significant effects upon the environment and, thereby, qualifies for a Negative Declaration
pursuant to Section 15070 of the CCR.
18 As authorized under Section 15041(a) of the CCR, "[a] Lead Agency for a project has authority to required
changes in any or all activities involved in the project in order to lessen or avoid significant affects on the
environment."
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 13
512vs
3.0 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Exhibit 3
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
• Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the City shall ascertain whether the issuance
of that permit would impact those waters, if any, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers which may exist on-site. If, by the issuance of that permit, dredged
or fill materials would be deposited within an area subject to the federal Clean Waters
Act, the applicant shall seek and obtain a Section 404 permit or such other
authorization(s) as may be required by federal or state resource agencies for impacts
upon that watercourse.
• Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City a report
presenting the results of a biotic survey of the project site, conducted by a qualified
biologist(s). If, as a result of that survey, protected plant species are identified as
occurring on-site which may be adversely affected by the proposed project, the project
applicant shall be responsible for the payment or provision of compensation for any
significant biotic impact, in a manner and form as mutually agreed upon by the City and
the project applicant.
• Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City a report
presenting the results of a zoological survey of the project site, conducted by a qualified
biologist(s). If, as a result of that survey, protected animal species are identified as
occurring on-site which may be adversely affected by the proposed project, the project
applicant shall be responsible • for the payment or provision of compensation for any
significant zoological impact, in a manner and form as mutually agreed upon by the City
and the project applicant.
• Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit, and the City shall
review and approve, an archaeological survey of the area to be potentially impacted,
performed by a qualified archaeologist(s) and assessing the presence or absence of
prehistoric or historic resources within the area of investigation.
-- Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 14
3121TS
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The following analysis contains the supportive information utilized by the Lead Agency to derive
the conclusions contained in the accompanying Environmental Checklist Form .(Appendix B).
Based upon information assembled as part of this environmental assessment, the proposed
project was evaluated against those topical issues identified in that checklist and categorized
under one of three headings.
If the project, as proposed, has the potential to produce a significant environmental impact upon
the identified topical issue, the checklist was marked under either the "yes" or "possibly"
heading. If no environmental impact upon that topical issue is envisioned to result from project
effectuation, the "no" column was appropriately checked, indicating that the project will not
manifest into a physical change upon the environment"' (relative to the topical issue identified
in the checklist) either as a result of the lack of application of that environmental issue in the
context of the proposed action or the absence of potential effects upon the environment resulting
therefrom.
For those topical areas where either a "yes" or "possibly" has been indicated and a potentially
significant environmental impact has been identified in this Initial Study, mitigation measures
have been recommended which, if implemented, would result in the avoidance, reduction or
elimination of that potential impact.
�4
Pursuant to Section 15063(c)(2) and Section 15070(b) of the CCR, these mitigation measures are
recommended for the purpose of enabling the project application (or the Lead Agency) to modify
3 the project so as to mitigate adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared. Adoption of these
mitigation measures by the Lead Agency will result in the avoidance of any significant adverse
effect upon the environment, thereby allowing the Lead Agency to adopt a Negative Declaration
_ for the proposed project.
4.1 Earth
a. Will the proposal result in unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
No No grading or related activities which may affect the site's existing geologic
substructure have been proposed by the applicant or are authorized as a direct
consequence of the proposed action.
19 Referencing Section 15358(b) of the CCR, effects analyzed under CEQA must be related to a "physical
change" upon the environment.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 15
S121IS
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Except as otherwise excluded under Section 15303 of the CCR, issuance of a
grading permit would be an independent discretionary action of the City, subject
to further CEQA compliance. Any physical impacts upon the project site
resulting from that subsequent action would be addressed as part of a later
environmental review.
b.
Will the proposal result in disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering
of the soil?
No. See Response 4.1(a) above.
C.
Will the proposal result in change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
No. See Response 4.1(a) above.
d.
Will the proposal result in the destruction, covering or modification of any unique
geologic or physical features?
No. See Response _..4.1(a) above.
e.
Will the proposal result in any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either
on or off the site?
No. See Response 4.1(a) above.
f.
Will the proposal result in changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land
adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes
which may modify the channel of constant or insermittently,tlowing water as well
as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water?
No, See ReMgnse 4.1(a) above.
g.
Will the proposal result in exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
such as earthquakes, .landslides, mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards?
No Based upon a review of existing geologic, geotechnical and seismic
-
information, including the Geologic Map of California - Santa Ana Sheet
(Division of Mines and Geology), no known earthquake faults exist within or
directly adjoining the project boundaries. Regional faults, including the Arnold
Initial Study
May 2, 1994
Page 16
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031
51211s
io
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Ranch Fault and Diamond Bar Fault (and tributaries thereto) are, however, known
to exist in the general project vicinity. Hazards,_ if any, imposed by these faults
are typical -of conditions evident upon other like properties throughout the
southern California area.
Implementation of those mitigation measures contained in the soils reports
submitted for Tract No. 31479 and Tract Nos. 42587-42561, or such other
geotechnical investigation as may be required by the City as a precursor to the
issuance of any subsequent grading permit, will effectively minimize any geologic
or geotechnical hazards affecting, or potentially affecting, the project site to a
level deemed by the City to be less than significant.
4.2 Air
a. Will the proposal result in substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambiens
air quality?
No Approval of the proposed project and the development which may occur as
a direct result therefrom, will not generate substantial quantities of criteria
pollutants, associated with either mobile or stationary emission sources. Based
upon threshold criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD), as contain in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(SCAQMD, April 1993), the project will not exceed established threshold limits
and will, therefore, not produce a significant effect upon the environment.
b. Will the proposal result in the creation of objectional odors?
No. The project will not result in the introduction of land uses which have the
potential to produce objectionable odors.
C. Will the proposal result in alteration of air movement, moisture, temperature, or
any changes in climate, either locally or regionally?
No, Based upon the size of the project site and the foreseeable development
which may occur should the project be approved as proposed, no activities are
envisioned which may affect either regional or localized air movements or
significantly alter the existing micro -climatic conditions now evident on the
project site.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 17
S12VS
A
1Y
4.0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4.3 Water
a.
b.
C.
Will the. proposal result in changes in currents or the course or direction of water
movements?
Possibly Although no physical alteration to the project site is contemplated at
this time, upon recordation of the .parcel map the site could be developed to
accommodate up to one single-family residence. Construction of that residence
may necessitate minor landform alterations to accommodate both vehicular access
and to create a building pad for the resulting use. Since no grading plan(s) has
been submitted by the project applicant and no residential use is now
contemplated, it is not possible to predict the extent to which these site
improvements, if any, may affect existing site drainage.
Based upon the limited nature of those improvements which may occur as a result
of this action (i.e., one dwelling unit), it is reasonable to assume that any
resulting landform alterations would be confined to those area(s) directly in
proximity to any requested improvements. As a result, any change in the
direction of water movement would be both localized to the areas of proposed
improvement and would be undertaken in conformance with sound engineering
practices (e.g., directing drainage away from footings). Although drainage
patterns in direct proximity to those improvements may be altered, the site's
drainage patterns and flow rates would not be significantly affected by the
proposed action.
See also Response 4.3(c) below.
Will the proposal result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff -7
Possibly. See Respgnse 4.3(a) above.
Will the proposal result in alterations of the course or flow of flood waters?
Possibly. The project site is depicted on the USGS 7.5 Minute. Yorba Linda
Quadrangle as containing an intermittent "blue dot" stream. Based upon that
delineation, a portion of the project site may include "waters of the United
States" subject to the federal Clean Waters Act of 1977 (33 USC 1251). Section
404 of that statute requires, the issuance of a federal permit prior to any action
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page IS
512Us
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill materials into jurisdictional
waters.
Since, based upon known information, it is not possible to accurately predict the
nature, extent or location of any landform alteration which may occur as a direct
consequence of this action, it is not possible to conclude that subsequent
development, it any, will not result in alterations to that watercourse. Based upon
the potential impact upon those "waters of the United States" which may exist on-
site, the following mitigation measure is recommended:
® Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, ,the City shall ascertain
whether the issuance of that permit would impact those waters, if any,
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which may
exist on-site. If, by the issuance of that permit, dredged or fill materials
would be deposited within an area subject to the federal Clean Waters
Act, the applicant shall seek and obtain a Section 404 permit or such other
authorization(s) as may be required by federal or state resource agencies
for impacts upon that watercourse.
d. Will the proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any body
of water?
No. Landform alterations, if any, and improvements to the project site as may
be typically associated with the introduction of a residential use, may affect soil
permeability and add impervious surfaces to the project site. Those actions have
- the potential to incrementally increase the rate of surface water discharged from
the site and deposited into* regional storm drain conduits. Based upon the size of
the project site (i.e., 68.1± acres) and the site's limited development potential
(i.e., one dwelling unit), the extent of any resulting increase would not
significantly increase the quantity or adversely affect the quality of surface
water(s) in any water body(ies) or adversely affect the ability of any existing
drainage system to safely convey storm water away from the site.
See also Response 4:.3(a) above.
e. Will the proposal result in discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of
surface water quality including, but not limited to, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
No. See Response 4.3(d) above.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 _ Page 19
SIMS
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONAUMAL EVALUATION
f. Will the project result in alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground
waters?
No. See Response 4.3(d) above.
r.
g. Will the project result in change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
No. Excavation activities, if any, are not anticipated to occur at depths sufficient
to affect any groundwater resources which may exist in the project area.
h. Will the proposal result in substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise
available for public water supplies?
No. Development activities, if any, resulting herefrom are not of such size or
intensity to adversely and significantly affect existing public water supplies.
i. Will the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water -related
hazards such as flooding?
No. See Response 4.3(d) above.
4.4. Plant Life
a. Will the proposal result in change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
Possiblv. Should the project site be developed to the maximum density
authorized hereunder (i.e., one dwelling unit), the introduction of that dwelling
unit and any grading activities required to accommodate that land use would have
the potential to both decrease the number of any plant species now evident on the
project site (through site clearance activities) and introduce non-native (e.g.,
ornamental) plant materials typically associated with residential development.
Presently, no detailed biological assessment of the project site has been
conducted. As such, it is not possible to predict the presence or absence of
particular plant species which may be encountered within the project area.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure will, however, minimize any
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 20
5121IS
4.0 (DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Sin
potential project -related impact(s) upon biological resources to a level which is
deemed by the City to be less than significant:
t
® Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the
City a report presenting the results of a biotic survey of the project site,
conducted by a qualified biologist(s). If, as a result of that survey,
protected plant species are identified as occurring on-site which may be
adversely affected by the proposed project, the project applicant shall be
responsible for the payment or provision of compensation for any.
significant biotic impact, in a manner and form as mutually agreed upon
by the City and the project applicant.
b. Will the proposal result in a reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants?
Possibly. See Response 4.4(al above. .
C. Will the proposal result in reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant
communities which are recognized as sensitive?
Possibly. See Response 4.4(a) above.
} d. Will the proposal result in introduction of new species of plants into an area, or
in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
Possibly, See Response 4.4(a) above.
e. Will the proposal result in reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
No. The project site is neither presently utilized for agricultural purposes nor is
the site reasonably adaptable for that land use.
4.5 Animal Life
a. Will the proposal result in change in the diversity of species, or number of any
species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shely1sh,
benthic organisms or insects)?
Possibly, Should the project site be developed to the maximum density
authorized hereunder (i.e., one dwelling unit), the introduction of that dwelling
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031
SI20 Page 21
-:3
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
unit and any grading activities required to accommodate that land use would have
the potential to both decrease the number of any animal species now evident on
the project, site through either direct loss or the displacement of existing animal
species resulting from the introduction of exogenous influences and introduce
domestic animal species typically associated with residential development.
b
C.
d
4.6 Noise
Presently, no detailed biological assessment of the project site has been
conducted. As such, it is not possible to predict the presence or absence of
particular animal species which may be encountered within the project area.
Implementation of the following mitigation measure will, however, minimize any
potential project -related impact(s) upon biological resources to a level which is
deemed by the City to be less than significant:
• Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the
City a report presenting the results of a zoological survey of the project
site, conducted by a qualified biologist(s). If, as a result of that survey,
protected animal species are identified as occurring on-site which may be
adversely affected by the proposed project, the project applicant shall be
responsible for the payment or provision of compensation for any
significant zoological impact, in a manner and form as mutually agreed
upon by the City and the project applicant.
Will the proposal result in reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals?
Possibl . See Response 4.5(al above.
Will the proposal result in introduction of new species of animals into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident species?
Possibly. See ReWnse 4.5(a) above.
Wi11 the proposal result in reduction in size or deterioration in quality to existing
,fish or wildlife habitat?
Possibl See Response 4.5(a) above.
a. Will the proposal result in significant increases in existing noise levels?
Initial Study
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031
Sl21TS
May 2, 1994
Page 22
E"7
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
E~�
No. The introduction of one new residential unit will not significantly affect the
existing noise environment in the project vicinity. Grading activities, if any, may
result in the temporary introduction of new noise sources perceptible to area
^ residents. Since those impacts will be short-term in their duration, construction -
related impacts are deemed Y the City ty
' relatem b to be less than significant.
b. Will the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels?
No. See Response 4.6(a) above.
4.7 Light and Glare
a. Will the proposal result in sign cant new light and glare or contribute
ti signUcantly to existing levels of light and glare?
,y No. Although the construction of a new residential use on the project site will
introduce both a new source(s) of light onto the project site, introduce new
reflective materials and potentially change the reflectivity of existing surfaces, the
t nature of any resulting land use and the change in luminosity will be consistent
with other adjoining properties and will not subject those properties to light
sources other than as typically encountered in residential areas.
4.8 Land Use
a. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land
use in an area?
No. Existing low-density residential uses adjoin the project site on the north
(i.e., Tract Nos. 42535 and 42561), south (i.e., Tract No. 30093) and west (Tract
No. 24046). Residential densities within those areas generally conform with the
area's current zoning designation of RPD -20,000-2U. Should the project site be
developed to the maximum intensity now authorized by the City without the site's
further subdivision (an action deemed by this Initial Study to be speculative and,
therefore, beyond the context of this environmental review), only one dwelling
unit would be constructed within the 68.1± acre site. Although reflecting a
substantially lower density than that exhibited by adjoining uses, the resulting
project would be consistent with and compatible to those adjoining land uses.
Since project implementation will not affect the existing General Plan or Zoning
Code designations of the project site, any resulting development would not
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 23
Sl2VS
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
5,12
substantially alter the planned use for the area as defined in those policy
documents.
Ai
4.9 Natural Resources
s�
a. Will the proposal result in an increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
Possibly. Although the approval of the parcel map will not increase the rate of
use of any natural resources, residential development (i.e., one dwelling unit)
which may occur as a direct consequence thereof will result in the consumption
of natural resources in the form of both construction materials (e.g., sand,
gravel), consumptive requirements (e.g., potable water) and power (e.g, fossil
fuel). Based upon the limited size of the project and the ready availability of
those materials and natural resources regionally, the rate of any resulting increase
is not considered by the City to be significant.
4.10 Risk of Upset
a. Will the proposal result in a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset condition?
rNo. Other than materials typically associated with residential uses, no explosive
or hazardous materials will be introduced onto the project site.
b. Will the proposal result in probable interference with an emergency response plan
or an emergency evacuation plan?
_ No. The project site has'not been identified as a component of the City's
emergency response plan.
4.11 Population
a. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth of the human
population of an area?
No. Although any resulting residential use will introduce human inhabitants onto
the project site, the limited number of new residential uses (i.e., one dwelling
unit) will not significantly affect the location, density or growth of the area's
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 24
512175
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
existing population or impose significant new demands for utilities or services
associated therewith.
4.12 Housing
a. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
No. See Response 4.11(a) above.
4.13 Transportation/Circulation
a. Will the proposal result in generation of substantial additional vehicular
movement?
No. Based upon trip generation forecasts developed by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE), as contained in Trip Generation: An
Informational Report (Fifth Edition), each new residential unit will generate
approximately 10 additional daily vehicular trips. Those trips can be readily
accommodated on the local and regional roadway network without significantly
impacting the existing level of service (LOS) on those roadways.
Although construction -related activities have the potential to produce higher trip
generation forecasts, the term of any resulting impact will be limited to the period
of construction activities and will cease upon culmination of those activities.
b. Will the proposal result in effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new
parking? '
No. See Responses 4.11(a) and 4.13(a) above.
C. Will the proposed result in substantial impact on existing transportation systems?
No. See Responses 4.11(a) and 4.13(a) above.
d. Will the proposal result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or
movement of people and goods?
No. See Responses 4.11(a) and 4.13(a) above.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 page 25
5120
V 4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
e. Will the proposal result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
No. No impacts upon waterborne, rail or air traffic are anticipated to occur as
a direct or indirect consequence of the proposed action.
f. Will the proposal result in increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists
or pedestrians?
No. See Response 4.13(a) above.
4.14 Public Services
' a. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered
governmental services in the following area: Fire Protection?
No. Any resulting development will conform to the provisions of the Uniform
Building Code and Uniform Fire Code. In addition, the introduction of any
residential unit will necessitate both the reduction in fuel loading now located in
proximity to that land use (e.g., clearance activities, weed abatement) and
introduce new water, sources (e.g., irrigation systems) which may facilitate fire
protection activities.
Los Angeles County Fire Station No. 120 (1051 S. Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar)
is located in close proximity to the project site. Emergency and non -emergency
response times from that facility are anticipated to fall within acceptable design
"4 parameters.
b. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered .
governmental services in the following area. Police Protection?
No. The introduction of a single residential use on the project site will not
significantly affect the regional demand presently imposed upon the Los Angeles
County Sheriffs Department or California Highway Patrol.
C. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered
governmental services in the following area: Schools?
No. The project site is located within the Walnut Valley Unified School District.
Based upon student generation rates utilized by that District (i.e., 0.769
students/unit), the project will result in the introduction of less than one student.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 26
512vs
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
The payment of any school fees, as required under the 1986 School Facilities
Legislation, will mitigate any resulting impact upon the local school district to a
level deemed by the City to be less than significant.
d. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered
governmental services in the following area: Parks or other recreational
facilities?
No. The project area is located in proximity to the Paul C. Grow Park and
Summit Ridge Park. Both facilities can readily accommodate additional
recreational demands likely to be imposed by the proposed project.
e. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered
governmental services in the following area: Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
No. The proposed project will not impose significant new demands for or upon
public facilities or significantly increase existing demands upon those facilities.
Although the construction and subsequent occupancy of the resulting residential
use will incrementally affect those facilities, the demands imposed by a single
dwelling unit cannot be deemed significant based upon the limited demands
resulting therefrom.
f. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered
governmental services in the following area: Other governmental services?
No. See Response 4.14(e) above.
4.15 Energy
a. Will the proposal result in use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
No. See Response 4.14(e) above.
b. Will the proposal result in a substantial increase in demand upon existing energy
sources, or require the development of new sources of energy?
No. Utility purveyors serving the project site can provide electrical and natural
gas services from existing systems in the project area. Development activities
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 27
S12 Vs
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
that may occur as a result of the 'proposed project fall within the growth
projections of those utilities.
4.16 Utilities
a. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to
public utilities?
No. See Resuonse4.15(b) above.
4.17 Human Health
a. Will the proposal result in creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
No. Project implementation will not expose site area residents to geologic
hazards not typical in the seismically active southern California area. No
hazardous or explosive materials are associated with the proposed site use.
b. Will the proposal result in exposure of people to potential health hazards?
No. See ResRonses 4.1(e) and 4.17(a) herein.
4.18 Aesthetics
a. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the
public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an offensive site
open to the public view?
No, Approval of the proposed parcel map will potentially result in the
introduction of a residential use on the project site. That use will physically alter
a portion of the project site and change the aesthetic character of that portion of
the property located in proximity to those alterations (and subsequent
improvements). Based upon the size of the subject property (i.e., 68.1± acres).
and the limited development which may result therefrom (i.e., one dwelling unit),
the extent of any visual change is deemed, by the City, to be less than significant.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 28
5129S
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
4.19 Recreation
a. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
No. The project site is not a component of a public recreational resource;
therefore, its subsequent development will not impact the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities.
4.20 Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
Possibly. No detailed archaeological investigation of the project site has been
undertaken. As a result, it is not possible to definitively conclude that no
prehistoric or historic resources exist within the project area. Although no such
resources are expected to occur on-site based upon both topographic constraints
and prior site disturbances, implementation of the following mitigation measure
is recommended prior to the initiation of any physical alternations to the project
site:
® Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit, and
the City shall review and approve, an archaeological survey of the area to
be potentially impacted, performed by a qualified archaeologist(s) and
assessing the presence or absence of prehistoric or historic resources
within the area of investigation.
Implementation of that mitigation measure, including any actions identified by the
consulting archaeologist should cultural resources be identified as a result of that
survey, will minimize potential impacts upon those resources, if any, to a level
deemed by the City to be less than significant.
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric
or historic building, structure or object?
Possibly. See Response 4.20(a) above.
C. Will the proposal result in a physical change which would affect unique ethnic
cultural values?
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 29
S12VS
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Possibly. See Response 4.20(a) above.
d. Will the proposal result in restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area?
Possibly. See Response 4.20(a) above.
4.21 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?
No Based upon the project size and limited extent of subsequent development
that would be authorized by the approval of the proposed project (i.e., one
_ dwelling unit), as further mitigated through the incorporation of those mitigation
measures identified herein, implementation of the project will not adversely
impact regional or localized plant or animal communities, reduce the number or
restrict the range of any protected species, cause the population of any species to
drop below self-sustaining levels or adversely affect any prehistoric or historic
resources, if any, which may exist on the project site.
_ b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
No. Implementation of the proposed project will not achieve short-term goals
while foreclosing or resulting in the forfeiture of long-term environmental goals
and objectives.
C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
No. All project impacts, including direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, have
been mitigated to levels deemed by the City to be less than significant.
d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Initial Study, May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 30
512 vs
4.0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
No. No unmitigated short-term or long-term, direct or indirect adverse impacts
are anticipated as a result of project implementation, as mitigated through the
inclusion of those measures identified herein.
Initial Study
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031
51211S
May 2, 1.994
Page 31
5.0 MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code required public agencies to set up monitoring and
reporting programs for the purpose of ensuring compliance with those mitigation measures
adopted as conditions of project approval in order to avoid significant environmental effects
.identified in EIRs and Negative Declarations, and adopted as conditions of project approval.
r> Referencing that statute:
When making the findings required by subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when
adopting a negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of
Section 21080, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program
for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project
approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The
reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during
project implementation. For those changes which have been required or
incorporated into the project at. the request of an agency having jurisdiction by
law over natural resources affected by this project, that agency shall, if so
requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed
reporting or monitoring program.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Lead Agency is obligated to establish and monitor project
compliance with those mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval for the purpose of
mitigating or avoiding potentially significant environmental effects associated with the proposed
project. A draft Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program, incorporating those
recommended mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, has been included as Exhi it
4 herein.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 32
SIM
`'LGl
aO .
<iU
� m
a��: �pv vpv vo,v va'v
bA^ R
m (a^7 m
42
07
o`8"°
w �
U A
R R R R
13
9'
G d
o eo o m ° oo c ao
o`. to P~. to woo wm
c o 0 o c
VGt UA
04 UA
� .p d ^" g •O �+ w R d O N w
t co
t.
8=cam °a � m� ouw�earna °d �' Em9El aEImSd
p�«i
3 Av8a 2 Ca
� p°24`�
to
c'ry a °� �'�� m c o'�'^ a
eR~o0vm�d'7°n ?°SRtq�a4°o
o.01 CD -,Mg m
:g �'^a; a•5.°-�� m`� °°�� .'�..' 9 E °°d°' m'""9 '�+.o`'ow�aar„ m
to >,w
"J.a"ovy �a�H �Uwv•v�p�°off ° cOU°^mdwwabU mmaTib2
y a m E w? m ..m •o a s ?. 'ao 3? •� > m a p w w a m
oa3V�oVwc�O�o�Aaa�V ..3Eo.El Em,
o`aa8a °Rema
� a> m3�ed -8a°Op o c5 m.� p Amo
93
.2 vi R°�J$ .4 '�:°�O;AOa,o o °'�N'�2 moo^i°y•Ra w
a.�•eR....
R caaa.o3 a w R cam aaN R 0.
6.0 DETERMINATION
On the basis of this draft document, the City finds that:
Revisions to the project made or agreed to by the applicant will avoid or mitigate
the potential environmental effects of the project to a point where clearly no
significant environmental effect would occur; and
The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project, as
revised to incorporate those. mitigation measures identified herein, . may have a
significant effect on the environment.
Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 Page 34
512115
APPENDIX A
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
Initial Study May 2,1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031
512 VS
I.C.D.
F� 3. C, DABNEY & ASSOCIATES
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGLNMS
671 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SUITE 5
WAINUT, CALIFORNIA 91789
909 594.7568
^ PAX • 909.594.5090
April 28, 1994
Mr. James DeStefano
Community Development Director
v• City of Diamond Bar
Reference: Parcel Map 24031
Dear Mr. DeStefano,
71
}` As the agent for the applicant, R-N-P Development Inc.,1 have applied for approval
r
of Parcel Map No. 24031 under the guide lines of the Subdivision Map Act, Chapter
3, "Procedure", Article 1,5, "Merger of Parcels", section 66451.10, paragraph b
aReversions to acreage", and paragraph b.5, "Parcel maps that create fewer lots, as
mended by Chapter 6, "Reversions and Exclusions", Article 1, "Reversion to
F Acreage", sections 66499.20 1/4, 66499.20 1/2, and 66499,20 3/4.
The purpose of the application is to allow the applicant's request for consideration
by the legislative body of the City of Diamond Bar for the removal from Lot 1, Tract
r Np, 31479 of the right to restrict the construction of,residential buildings conveyed
to the City of Diamond Bar by the County of Los Angeles at the time of Incorporation
of the City of Diamond Bar,
-At the time that the offer of dedication was made to the County of Los Angeles, the
d infra-structure improvements made the
necessary cost of remedial grading an
development of Lot 1 financially impractical for the then record owners. The County
of Los Angeles typically requested the offer of building dedication on larger
remainder parcels in an effort to insure that future development consideration would
require additional review to address the concerns brought out in the original map
application process. on this specific lot, the additional considerations were
indicated on the recorded map as soils considerations and flood hazards from natural
drainage, courses, to my opinion, these areas of concerns can be adequately
addressed wlth today's development standards, ordinances and land values.
Respectfully,
J n C. Dabney, R E
` Cc.. Mr. Dwieht Fbrrister. R-N-P Development Inc.
CITY Oi 1?iAivitiND t�3li
Y 3DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190
(714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-7427
>' SUBDIVISION APPLICATION
�"e_ 1/'� �:�. -ice-•
RECEIVED Filed
Fee $ RECEI4E1)
APR 2 9 1994Receipt CO,ti
By ��6'E(
eNv��`At 1 M�NlTY
"9' A eR � y
Record owner(s) Applicant Applicant's Agent 9
N_amsd! p tz/��r1zt' _ J c. Da6�eU �'/�sdcis
(Last name first) n '
Address �4f,�j 7�r�ia fir- 671 Sa. yl-nT 6,9yL-2
city_ Cl�rc�rarr�, ted �i�_ .fir
zip_ 91711 9/7e4;9
Phone (fef).5,94-70lo t ) lye) •5?.{-7.5�f
(Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures
of members of partnerships, joint venturesy and directors of, corporations.)
CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this
request.
Signed DateZ/2/,.�
(AtL recorded ovners
%f? 1�eue/v�r� /roc
CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that
the information herein provided is correct to the bast of my knowledge.
Printed Name L,65�0 c Z?Z, e d
ppticant or Agen
Signed Date_��L,
(App icant r
Agent) / / /
Location La-Z I Z n .. ���%�E"GDt �o �p Tf?ICt 4,766 -7
(Street address or tract and Lot nunber)
between
7!'�iJ () e and (`tre t)i T
Previous Cases
Present Use of Site V --d
Use applied for
Domestic Water SourceCompany/District
Method of Sewage Disposal ZaZ2� Sanitation District
Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES NO ✓ Amount
(Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (All ownership comprising the proposed lots/project) If
petitioning for zone change, attach legal description of exterior boundaries of.
area subject to the change.)
Project Site:�// L��,r� r Tentative Map Number
Gross Area
Lots: Existing% Proposed
Area devoted to : Structures
--- open Space
Residential project and
Gross Are, No. of floors
Proposed Density el.114 Xy e:
Um is/Acr'e
Number and types of Units _
Residential Parking:Type
Total
Required Provided
2. Street location of
project:
3a. Present use of /
site:
3b. Previous use of site or structures:
4. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this
project:
4?az/�A
5. Other related permit/ approvals required.
Specify type and granting agency.
�2P
6. Are you planning future phases of this project? /v-) N
If yes, explain: i„ X441101!1L154 CI J 5/i�r�iUl�(o�7
Staff Use
Project No.
• 7
------------------
--- --------- -------------------INITIAL
INITIALSTUDY
------------------
QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL
INFORMATION
4x
Project Applicant (Owner):
Project Representative::
F
L.
uF
NAMEm��
4439 ,Cr� / ds�r
NAME
6,7/ Se, BrCa �ar� 72�e S
AD RESS.
64
ADDRESS
917//
64 9/ 7c99
9�- S9,- 75 l
_
PHONE #
PHONE #
1. Action requested and project
adescription:_�Lrril.
!
2. Street location of
project:
3a. Present use of /
site:
3b. Previous use of site or structures:
4. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this
project:
4?az/�A
5. Other related permit/ approvals required.
Specify type and granting agency.
�2P
6. Are you planning future phases of this project? /v-) N
If yes, explain: i„ X441101!1L154 CI J 5/i�r�iUl�(o�7
7. Project Area:
Covered by structures, paving:
Landscaping:
Open space:
Total Area:
8. Number of floors:- IM
9. Present zoning:
10. Water -and sewer service: Domestic
Public
Water Sewers
Does service.exist at site? N
N
If yes, do purveyors have
capacity to meet demand of
project and all other approved 4ut6� //;7
/71 N piet
projects?
N
If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how will
these services be
provided?
Residential Projects:
ii. Number and type of units:
12. Schools:
What school district(s) serves the property?
(JAWLAT' V411 -J9 L
Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project
.needs?
YES P--' NO
If not, what provisions will be made for additional
classrooms?
Non -Residential projects:
13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use
(school, hospital, etc.)
14. Number and floor area of buildings:
15. Number of employees and
shifts:
16. Maximum employees per shift:
17. Operating hours:
18. Identify any: End products
Waste products_ 4�,Q
Means of disposal ,(1
19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous
substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals, paints, or
radioactive materials?
YES NO
If yes, explain —JV
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 yes, explain /�Q
1. Environmental Setting --Project Site
a. Existing/use/structures
b. Topography/slopes
*c. Vegetation 6,-;r /2/J7G'/
*d. Animals
*e. Watercourses
fJff
f. cultural/historical resources
Other
2. Environmental Setting— Surrounding Area
a. Existing uses structures (types, densities):
Sng�e /���� 2esider ig� 7,d. f/ar,�4- 141� Ids
b. Topography/ slopes Mr7
Z/Y S—_Z
-s-/ Vegetation 6,lys �- 7
*d. Animals
*e. Watercourses
f. cultural/historical resources
9. Other
3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees?
YES NO
If yes, type and number:
4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc.,
be changed through project development?:
YES NO
If yes, explain:
5. Grading:
Will the project require grading? YES
If yes, how many cubic yards?
Will it be balanced on site? YES NO
If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or
deposited?
6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major
geologic hazards on the property (including uncompacted
fill)?
YES NO
If yes, explain: Jec��
Tera 3/¢7Gi or�� 4ZSS7- 42J
7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area
(hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)?
YES /NO J
Distance to nearest fire station:
B. Noise: /
Existing noise sources at site:
Noise to be generated by project: Qr7C
Fumes:
Odors generated by project:
Could toxic fumes be generated?.
9. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used?
CERTIFICATION: 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.
Signature
For: /(f �CUC<�AgIW /7� L i?('-
Environmental Information Form for Residential Projects
(To be completed by applicant)
3. P oject Ad�treser' n
/�r
4. Project Assessor's Block and Parcel Number(s):
713
5. Other Identification (other recorded/map location information):
LOQ JE/47-7 ars Z zz �Z -'-�, T�r� SS'7
a
x
6-A. Does the project require any of the following actions by the City:
YES NO
variance:
Conditional Use Permit:
Zone Change: 4 --
General Plan Amendment: i
General Information:
Date Filed:
T
Pertinent Permits/Applications:
Project Information:
1�
1. Name, Address and
P/%P r /�7cr2
Phone Number of
Project Sponsor:
2. Name, Address and
Phone Number of
Key Contact Person(s):
Y=
671 So A4 .j, C
um R:;/ S:ui�e
5
3. P oject Ad�treser' n
/�r
4. Project Assessor's Block and Parcel Number(s):
713
5. Other Identification (other recorded/map location information):
LOQ JE/47-7 ars Z zz �Z -'-�, T�r� SS'7
a
x
6-A. Does the project require any of the following actions by the City:
YES NO
variance:
Conditional Use Permit:
Zone Change: 4 --
General Plan Amendment: i
6-B. 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:
HCl
7. Land Use Designations:
Adopted General Plan Designation:
ERD 2Q_ oo_�?�l f�esiia
Adopted Zoning:
Community Plan Designation:
S. Proposed Specific use of Sites
Project Description
9-A. Site D'mensiorIs and Gross Area:
9-B. Legal Description of the Project: (attach copy to this form if
necessary) O T„ f Traci/� 3�472
10. Project Detail
Attach a separate page of descriptive data for each housing type included in
this project:
a. Number of Housing Units by type.
a b. Floor Area by type (minimum,_ maximum, and average square footage).
C. Number of floors (stories) for each type.
d. Housing market targeted (demographic profile).
_ e. Estimated market sales price or estimated market rents.
f. Describe all amenities proposed (for example, landscaping,
T recreation equipment, common use facilities, trials, etc.).
g. Minimum lot size. (Net lot area, not including Right -of -Way).
h. Maximum lot size. (Net lot area, not including Right -of -Way).
i. Average lot size. (Net lot area, not including Right -of -Way).
j. Number of lots which do not meet City Standards.
11. Describe public or private utility easements, utility lines, structures
or other facilities which exist an the surface orbelow the surface of the
_ p5��r�/!7 •���L�rn/.ri
c
12. Associated Projects: (Projects or potential projects whi--h-are directly
related to this pr/ojec./t�, is:/ potential developments which require completion
of this
project) :!jry// F Y/JGI ffr- ill/�Oil"1
i
_ 13. Describe any anticipated Phasing for this project: (Number of Units &
Time Frame)
14. Attach
one copy of each of the following:
a.
Preliminary Soils Report
b.
Preliminary Geologic Investigation.
c.
Drainage Study.
d.
e.
f.
Topographic Map highlighting.any existing slopes of 25% or more.
Tract Map, Parcel Map, or Plot Plan clearly showing each area of
cut and each area of fill: all residential unit pads (if known),
and any areas with slopes 25% or more.
Photographs showing the site from different (ie: north, south,
est, west) vantage points and photographs showing vistas (is:
north, south, east, west) from the site.
4F Are the following items applicable to the proposed project or its effects?
(Discuss below all items which apply to this project: attach additional
sheets as necessary)
15. Grading:
Fx Maximum depth of excavation:_ Maximum depth of fill:
Quantity of soil moved: cubic yards.
Will there be an on site balance of cut and fill?:
16. Viewshed: Describe any change in the appearance of the site resulting
from the project as proposed'.
x ,4
4
17. Describe how the proposed project will fit into its surroundings (ie:
will the proposed project blend into and existing neighborhood? How will it
relate to the size, scale, style, and character of the existing surrounding
development?)
18. 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 permanent or intermittent surface/subsurface water change as a
= result of this project? How?: will there be any injection. wells, septic
systems, or other facilities which may affect surface or subsurface water
quality?)
19. Describe any long-term noise and/or vibration which may occur as a
result of this project: (after construction will this project directly or
indirectly cause the generation of noise and or vibration greater than any
that
/exists now?)
20. Describe any residential construction proposed on filled land (ie:
identify the lot number of each structure proposed to be built of filled
land) . Ai�f A
Lti
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 will disturb or
cause removal of any of these trees).
46 —
r_eero
221. Is the project site located in a national, state, regional or locally
designated area of historical, environmental or other significance. If so
describe. (is: is the site an area designated as a hillside management area,
significant ecological area, significant mineral resource area, etc.)
Environmental 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 land use of the project site. t
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, et.), intensity of land use (single-family, multi-
family, density, commercial, professional, etc.), and scale of development
c
(height, frontage, set -back, etc.) in the.adjacent surrounding area.
.ti 21 . 4
-c cdor��/,soui <s sa.�ok�
DI'/ (i L-� [e171.1 a,-,1 ni rr/-� - /41167CY121?�/S�r Old
=r Sa/x�S We, /d//G179 %7i%Cf cr i ! a/DS's K�D� t/Bl� /toll
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.
La _
Date: /'// � I994- Signature:.0� %�� Gk%;
For
:s
` Completion ofthis form is required to begin review of a project. Information
within this form and the required attached materials will assist the City in
determining whether a Negative Declaration may be granted, whether a Mitigated
Negative Declaration may be granted, or whether Environmental Impact Report
shall be required.
QAR 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.
[ ] 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.
(Applicant's Sig tura) Dat
21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177
714-860-2489 - FAX 714-861-3117
City of Diamond Bar
Department of Public Works
TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION
Tentative Maps shall be prepared by, or under the direction of, a
Registered Civil Engineer registered prior to January 1, 1982 in
the State of California or a Land Surveyor licensed in the State of
California. Maps shall be prepared in accordance with Title 21 of
the Los Angeles County Code and the Subdivision Map Act
(A) A completed Application Must Include:
1. $l000 deposit Fee for Each Report Review (i.e. Soils,
Geology, Traffic Impact Analysis, Environmental Impact.,
Sound Study etc.)
2. 3 copies of Completed Application Form
3. 5 copies of the Tentative Map
4. 5 copies of Each Report Submitted i.e. Soils, Geology,
Traffic Impact Analysis, Environmental Impact, Sound
Study etc.
JAY C. KIM
5. 2 copies of updated Preliminary Title Report (dated no
more than one month)
6. 2 copies of Each of All the Recorded Documents
Referenced in the Title Report
7. 3 copies of Each of the "Tie Notes" Used to Find
Reference Monuments
S. For Maps That Will Require the Signature of a
Corporation, Include 2 Certified Copies of the Corporate
Resolution Which Authorizes the Person(s) Shown On the
Map to Sign It
PHYLLIS E_ PAPEN JOHN A. FORBING GARY 0.MIMILL R GARY R ROBE y manAN NORT
M— Pro -Tem . Counalmembu
MORANGE COAST TITLE COMPAWP,VED COMMUNITY
OF LOS ANGELES - "T
14320 Firestone Blvd., Suite 300 I:;''i OR 26 P11 2: 05
La Mirada, CA 90638
(714) 522-1515 * (800) 585-1919 * (213) 625-8455
��,I •'151 111 /..� qa••,y
THE CITY OF DLAMCM BAR
21660 COPLEY DR #190
DIAMOND BAR, CA
ATTN: MARILYN
YOUR NO. R -N -P DEVELOPP,=, INC.
OUR ORDER NO. W24848-3
THIS REPORT amism OF 6 PACS DATE: APril 23, 1994
/IN RESPONSETOTHE•51 51-5 •1 / APPLICATION FOR A POLICY OF INSMANCE,
ORANGE COAST Til OF •ANGELES 15RE REPORTS THAT
PREPARED TO
OR CVJSE To BE ISSUED,ASOF 1 DAM HEREOF,
• •• OR -• OF
/ • / /' r• : I • D I/ 1 Y' • • / 51' THEREIN 151• / /• 51• 7
FORTH,ET
INSURIM AGAINST• &UCH MY BE SUSTAINM : SO • DEFECT,
OR S' : 1: • • M '• 'I • I OR REFERRED • 51 •151• ••: : 51 • CR'NOT EXCLUDED
/511
FROM COVERAGE PURSUW TO THE PRI= SCHEDULES, CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF
// POLICY FORMS.
THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS •: D EXCLUSIONS Fi• 1 07VOZAGE OF SAM POLICY OR
POLICIES ARE SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT T
ATIACHED. COPIES OF '
BE RETHE POLICY FORM SHOULD
• 1 1 �• • I OFFICI MCH i 51/ THIS • 5PO
THIS REPORT (AND ANY SUPPLEMENTS OR AMMME TTS HERETO) IS ISSUED SOLELY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF FACILITATING THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE AND NO
LIABILITY IS ASSUMED HEREBY. IF IT IS DESIRED THAT LIABILITY BE ASSUMED PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, A BINDER OR cMIITMFU SHMM BE
REQUESTED.
DATED AS OF APRI4 12, 1994 AT 7:30 A.M.
INl�ra� 51 .1.1 S l•:� Y • 99 w3
ORDER NO. W24848-3
PACE NO.: 2
THE EC&fii OF POLICY OF TYRE INsoRANm BY MIS REPCRT IS:
C[,Tp 9MMARD COVERAGE POLICY (1990) - MERS OR JOINT PRf7TECYION
THE EMM OR INIERESP IN THE IAM MMMY . DESCRIBED OR REED TO COMM
13Y THIS REPCFP IS:
A FEE
mmuNemkolMlls �. Y• r •:• 1 r�'1�. r I r • Y• 1�•JB•, �+ r�r
ERE Ir REFEBRED TO 127 MU 'J9P= IS SrffMM IN ME aXNTY OF •.. • C91E.
LOT I • • • i •. L . r c•• • • H r•r 'r.
l 17
r •I • • /• • r I • OFFICE OF 1 C=qTY RECORDER OF rr ••
EXCEPT ISI• F • • • ■ u ISI• . u • IMI• rl .• v • e•. ti BELOW • DEPTH OF
500 • I RIGHT •• RESERIM IN DEEDS OF ••• r
ORDER NO. W24848-3
PAGE NO. 3
tb
AT THE DAZE FBF EKCEFITCNS TO OOVRRPiE IN ADDITICN TO THE PRMED EXCEPrrCNS
CONTAINED TA7NED IN SAID PC LICY EM WOULD BE AS EMIJOWS:
,P
A. COAL AND SPECIAL TAXES, A LIEN NOT YET PAYABLE, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994-
1995.
N B. GENERAL AND SPECIAL COUNTY AMID/OR CITY TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1993-94
1st INSTAIIIYFT $ 5,767.29 PAID
2nd INSCALUME= $ 5,767.28 OPEN PENALTY $ 586.73 (AFTER 4-10)
PARCEL NO. 8713-001-004
C. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL
911M IF ANY, ASSESSEDPORSUAW TO CHAPTER, 3.5
T COMMENCING WITH SECTION 75 OF THE CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE.
1. BY DEED DATED MARCEI 7, 1972, EXECUTED BY DIPM7IID BAR DEVELOPMENT,
:C CORPORATION, RECORDED APRIL 7, 1972, AS DOCUMENT INTO. 2624, IN BOOK D5420,
PAGE 107 OFFICIAL RECORDS, THE DIAMOND BAR DEVELORq= CORPORATION DOES
HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT THE
II ERECTION OF BUILDINGS OR OTHER SIRUCTURES IN AND OVER THAT PORTION OF LOT 2
OF TRACT 31479, FORMERLY WITHIN THAT PORTION OF THE SOUIHWEiWEST QLTP,KM OF
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BMMRDIM MERIDIAN, WITHIN
i THE FOLLO4ItZ DESCRIED BOUNDARIES:
4
no' INNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNIER OF LOT 18 OF TRACT 24046, AS SHOWN CFI
MAP FILED IN BOOK 789, PAGES 76 TO 82 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE Or
THE COUNTY RECORDER. OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE EASTERLY AEONG THE EASTERLY
T' PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT, A DISTANCE OF 216.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHERLY PARALLEL WITH THE F.Af,'TFRTY LINE OF SAID LCTT, A DISTANCE OF
265.00 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY PARALLEL WITH SAID EASTERLY PROLONGATION 216.00
I FEE TO SAID EASTERLY LINE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 265.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
>SAID DOCUMENT AFFECTS A PORTION OF LOT 61 OF TRACT 42557.
2. AN EASEMENT AS SET FORTH IN AN INSTRU IENT RECORDED JULY 13, 1950 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 1709 IN BOOK 33670, PAGES) 62, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
FOR: PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES
AFFECTS: A PORTION OF SAID LAND.
I
3. AN EASEMENT FOR PURPOSES HEREIN STATED, AND RIOTS INCIDENTAL TH=IO AS
PROVIDED IN A DOCUMENT
P FOR: PRIVATE ROA WAY AND SLOPE
AFFECTS: A STRIP OF LAND 16.50 FEEL' IN WIM AS MOM PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED IN SAID DOCUMENT.
RECORDED: DECEMBER 21, 1951 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1974 IN BOOK 37902,
PAGE 148, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
4. PROVISIONS OF THE DEDICATION STATEMn" CSV MAP OF
TRACT: 31479
WHICH RECITE: WE HEREBY DEDICATE TO THE COLIIM OF LOS Alm=FT,E:G THE
RIGHT TO PROHIBIT THE OONS'TRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS WITHIN LOT 1.
OFS&32 NO.: W24848-3.
PACE NO. : 4
5. AN EASEPO
1= FOR PURSES HEREIN STATED, AS SEKM CxN OR DEDIC A= BY THE MAP
OF SAID TRACT
FOR: FUTURE STREET OR ALLEY AND RESTRICT THE USE THEREOF AND
INCIDENTAL PURPOSES
AFFECTS: AS SHOWN CN SAID TRACT MAP.
6. AN EASRVOU FOR PURPOSES HEREIN SLATED, AS SHOWN Chi OR DEDICATED BY THE MAP
OF SAID TRACT
FOR: SLOPE PURPOSES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES
AFFECTS: THOSE PORTICOS OF SAID LAND AS DELINEATED ON THE MAP OF
SAID TRACT.
7. THE EFFECT OF A NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES AS -%K= CSN SAID 'TRACT 31479. THE
NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES ARE SUBJECT TO FLOOD HAZARD.
8. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, (DELEIIl ANY RESTRICTICxNS
BASED CSN RACE, COLOR, OR CREED), AS PROVIDED IN A DOCUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER
30, 1981 AS INSTRUMENT LPO. 81-1274175 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
SAID CUVIIANT3, O2IDITICNS AND RESTRICTICOFTS PROVEDE THAT A VIOLATION THEREOF
SHALL NOT DEFEAT NOR RENDER INVALID THE LIM OF ANY MORTGAGE OR DEED OF
TR= MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE.
SAID COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS WERE MODIFIED BY A DOCU�1T
RECORDED APRIL 19, 1982 AS INSTRI)MEN!'NO. 82-403477 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
9. AN UffAC:ATED EASEMENT FOR THE PURPOSES mm AND INCIE)RIT ,L, PURPOSES AS
PROVIDED IN A DOCLZENT
FOR: =,ESS, EGRESS, AND INSTALLATION, bfAID7TENPNCR, AND
OPERATION OF STORM DRAINS, SEWERS, CABLES, CONIXIITS, ALL
UTILTTiC INSIALIATION.
RECORDED: DECEMBER 30, 1981 AS INSTRUv= NO. 81-1274176 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
10. AN FASRBOU FOR PURPOSES HEREIN SATED, AMID RIOTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS
PROVIDED IN A DDCLII4ENT
FOR: ROAD AND HIC PW PURPOSES
AFFECTS: THOSE PORTIONS OF SAID LAND AS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED THEREIN.
RECORDED: DECEMBER 31, 1981 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 81-1281442 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
11. AN AGREEMENT DATED DECEMBER 29, 1981, BY AND BETWEEN WEATHERFITED HAVES, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION AND DIAMOND BAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA
CORPORATION, AND THE INIAJSTRY URBAN -DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A BODY CORPORATE AND
POLITIC, UPON AND THE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND MMITIONS,
THEREIN, RECORDED DECEMBER 31, 1981 AS INSIRLJMECTT NO. 81-1281445 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS
12. AN EASSMIT FOR PURPOSES HEREIN STATED, AND RIGM INCIDENTAL THERETO AS
PROVIDED IN A DOCCIImwr
FOR: A RIDING AND HIKING TRAIL
AFFECTS: AS THEREIN DESCRIBED
RECORDED: DFZ3BER 13, 1988 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 88-1992257 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ORDER NO. W24848-3
PAGE M.: 6
• ra.
NOTE NO.
"CALIFORNIA STAIE SENATE BILL NU11BER 231.9, MMCTIVE
91, REQUIRES
►• I 91• 1 • CALIFORNIA• a<• n • 1 lal- 1 I •SELIER y ;•
AN OUT OF STATE ADDRESS, WITHHM,- 3 1/3 k OF ME 70-ijiL
W 1 a•I Y • • i • L PROVISIONS •• PRICEI
LAW AS 191' 1
O Y• 1 191r
NOTE NO.
PAYOFF1 •' I• •,
'•TE: THIS CaMPANy DOES REQUIRE Cllp' 91 BENEFICIARyDEM4DS•' TO M •. 1
IF TEE MlAND IS EXPIRED AND A CORRECr •a I• Ir aWa)T BE •: v 1 1:D • 1•
REQUIREMENTS WILL BE AS FOLLCWS:
THIS CCMPANY ACCEPTSa1-:• • r • ON 1 DEMO, r• • • AN MCUNT
E• (M TO ONE •. 1Y MORIMM 19NT- THE AM=OF ■S HOLD WILL BE OVER
AND • : • 1 VERBAL • • r THE LENDER MY HAIM• 91r
PAY OFF THE9) r 91r DEI• u•• pM= FOR MEAMEMED r a r• 1r `IHE DISCRETION
OF 1ESCROW.
NOTE NO.
TRAlN--A=--0N, CHAPTER 598, STA7JIES OF 1989 MMEATES HC)LD PERIODS FOR CHEv
DEPOSITED • ESCROW OR SU13-ESCROW ACOMTM.1 MMATORY HOLD IS ONE : S 1 I
SS
DAY 9PTHEDEPOSITED. • E CHECKS M REQUIRE A H• • PERIOD FRCM mgm To
SEVENI1 1 DAYS AFTER THE DAY DEPOSITED.
IF FUNDS • BE J)Ep•ITED W=A •' • 'ei O•AST TITLEOF OS ANMM By WIRE
TRANSFER, THEY SHOULD : ■• 91r TO THE FOLLGWINGBANK/ACCOUNT:
PLEASE REFER TO ORDER '• I • : • AND HIMM i 19f• •,. TITLE • M91•
- BANK OF AlEMCA
3233 PARKCFN ER DRIVE 57H FLwR
OMM MESA, CA 92626
ACCT. 14589-01661
ABA 121000358
MW:SS
PCi Acy- Wim BE BY
TRW TME SAN E, INC. -OR-
FIDE[= NATICNAL TITLE I SSORANrE QCMpANY
SFS: PLATS
0
G G
1-0
10
�� �.:.�. •sem ,;n .,s .:.
cAnlibf 6 A
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY - I
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The foilas mg mamas are tatWeslY excluded imm the cartage d ars policy and the CornpaM
will not pay loss or carnage. costs. attorney's tees or expenses which arise by reason a:
1. U) Any law•, oromance or governmental regulation uncfudmF but not limned to building
and zoning lass. ordinances. or regulatians sestnamg prohibiting or relating to ill the
occupancy. use. or enjoyment of the land: fill the character. dimensions or location of
am improvement now or hereafter erected on the land: liiii a separation in ownership
or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or
was a pan: or ns • errvlronmental protection, or the effect of am violation of these laws.
ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the
enforcement memoi or a notice or a dema. lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation
or alleged violation affecting she land has been recorded in the public records at Date
of Policy.
@I Any gaemmental police power not excluded by let above• except to the extent that
a notice or the evercise thereof ar a notice of a defect. lien or encumbrance resulting front
a violation, Of alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records
at Date of Po,:n.
2. Rights or emment contain unless notice of the exercise inertias has been recorded in the
- public recomi of Date of Polity. but not excludme from coverage am• taking, which has
occurred prior :o Date of Policy which would be ofndmg on ine rights of a purchaser
for value witn= Knowledge.
3. Defects. (rens. encumbrances. adverse claims, or Omer matters:
uI created. sufcstid. assumed Or agreed to b,• me mwred claimant
(be not known to the COmparry not retorted in the public records at Dale of Policy, b
known to the insured clatmam and not disclosed in writing to the Compam h• me irisin
claimant prior to the date rhe insure( claimant became an insured under this poise
Ic) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant:
tdI attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy, or
let resulting in loss Or damage which would not hese been sustained if the insured ctaury
had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy.
t. Unemorceabiliry of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inabilm or fail,
of the insured at Date of Policy, or the mabiliry or failure of am subsequent owner
the indebtedness to comply with the applicable doing business Lass or ire sate in who
the land is stuared.
i, invalidity or unerformabiffry, of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, whi
arises out of the transaction evidenced b• the insured mortgage and is based upon unsc
Or am consumer credit protection or truth in lending i-.6. Any claim. which anses out of the transaction vesting in the insured the esuteor true
insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender,
reason of the operanonoi federal bankruotcy state fnsolvency.orsimdarcrecimm rightsla
SCHEDULE 0
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage land the Company will not pry costs, attorney's fees of expenses which arise by reason of:
ea or ,
Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing
autnoriry thaw levies taxes or assessments an real property or b• the Wblic cor,
Proceedings b a public agency which may resole m razes or assessments, or notices
of such proceeaings. whether or not shown bV the records of surn agency oro the public
eco ds
AM facts, rights. interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which
could be ascenamed bio an inspection of the land or which ma• be asserted by persons
in possession Inereoi.
3. Easements. liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the pub
recordL
4. Discrepancies. conflicts in boundary lines. shortage in area, encroachments, or any o&
facts which a correct survey would disclose. and which are not shown biome public recon
5. lal Unpatented mining claims; (Of reservations or exceptions in patents or in Ac
authoirizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or tide to water. whether or r
the maters excepted under (a), lb). or Icl are shown by the Public records.
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LOAN POLICY (46-90)
AMERICAN
WITH A.L.T.A, ENDORSEMENT - FORM 1 COVERAGE AND.
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
LEASEHOLD LOAN POLICY (46-90)
WITH A.L T.A, ENDORSEMENT - FORM I COVERAGE
SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressiv euluded from the co erage of this poifcy and the Comparry
will not loss damage, fees
bf not known to the Comparry, not recorded in the public records at Date ci Policy b
on or costs, attorney's or expenses which arise by reason of:
1. tar Am law, oromance or gosemmental regulation -mcludingg but not limited to building
known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Compaw by the mouth
claimant prior to the date the insured became insured
and zoning laws, ordinances. or regulations) resinrumg, pmhfbsnng qr relating to Ifo the
claimant an under this polyp
(c) resul,ing in no loss or damage to the insured claimant
occupancy, use. or enjoyment of the land: fill the character. dimensions or location of
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy, or
am improvement now or hereafter erected on the land: (fiil a separation in ownership
or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or am parcel of which the land is
jet resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured daima
had value for the interest
or wa, a pan: or itw em•ironmental protection. or the effect of am violation of these
paid estate or insured by this policy.
4. Unenforceabiline of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failu
ran. oromances or if v mmemal regulations. except to the extent that a notice of the
enrorcemem inereot or a nonce or a detect. lien or encumbrance resulting tram a violation
of the insured at Date of Policy. or the inabflfry or failure of aM subsequent owner
the indebtedness. to comply with applicable doing business laws of the sure
or alleged violation ahectmg the land has been retarded in the public records at Date
Of Policy•
in who
the land is sruated.,
(b, Am governmental ponce power not excluded by us above, except to the extent that
S. Imnlidiry or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, whit
arises out di the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage, and is based upon
a notice or the evercise thereof or a notice of a dema, hen or encumbrance resulting
from a violation. or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public
usu
or am consumer credit protection or troth in lending law.
6. Any statutory lien for services, labor or materials for the claim of a
records at Date of Policy,
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in
priority any sututc
lien for services, labor or materials Over the lien of the insured mortgages arising fns
an improvement or work related to the land which is concocted for and
tri public recoms it Date of Policy, but not excluding imm coerage arty taking which
has
comment
subsequent to Date of Policy and is not Rmnced in whole or in pan by proceeds of d
occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser
for value without knowledge,
indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the fmurvd h
3. Defects. bens. encumbrances. adverse claims. or other matter:
advanced or is obligated to advance.
7. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction creating the fey -rest of the mortgagee imus
la, created. suffered. assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant. -
by this policy, by reason of the operation d federal bankruptcy, sure insolvency, or simil
creditor rights laws-
aws
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY (6.1.87) EXCLUSIONS
In addition to rhe Exceotonv in Schedule 8, you are not insured agamvt loss. toss. amomey's
fees ane eccrises resulting from.
1. Covernmenui po•tce Darr and the existence or violation of am lav or aoyemmem
regulation. Thi, mcwoes Dwlmng and zoning ordinances and also taws and regulations
concerning:
land use
• fmpralemenrs on the land
• land drvrvon
em,ronmental protection
Tho • s exclusion noes not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters which
appear in me public records at policy date.
This ezdus.on ones not limit the zoning coverage described in Items 12 and 13 of
Covered Tide Risks.
2. The right to tate the land by condemning it. unless:
• a notice w exemsong the right appears in the public records on the Policy Date
• the taking natipenec color to the Policy Date and is binding on vau if you bought
the land wrmour knavleoge or the taking
Title Risks:
• that are created. allowed, or agreed to IN you
• that are known to you. but not to us. on me Policy Date - unless they appeam
the public records
• that result in no joss to you
• aatfiest affect ytwrtitle aiterthe Policy Date-thisdoes no: limntne laborand mm
lien coveragein Item 8 of Carted Title Risks
Failure to Wy wfue for your title.
Lack of a right. "
• to aM find outside the area specifically described and reiermd to in Item ;
Schedule A
or
• in streets alleys, or waterways that touch your land.
This exclusion does not limit the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Title RI
SCHEDULE B
EXCEPTIONS
In addition to the Exclusions. you are not insured against loss. costs. attorneys' fees. and the
expenses resulting iron:
1. Am rights. ime gists. or claims of parties in possession of the land not shown by the
public records.
2. Am easements or bens not shown by the public records. This does not limit the lien
coverage in Item 8 of Covered Tide Risks.
3. Any facts about the land which a carred survey would disclose and which are not sh,
by the public records This does trot limit the lofted removal coeage in thin 12 of Cov
Title Risks.
4. Am water rights or claims or title to water in or under the land. whether a nth shy
by the public records. -
RECEIVED CC�"''T"tITY
MORANGE COAST TITLE COMPANY CEV• l
OF LOS ANGELES
14320 Firestone. Blvd., Suite 300 "y" 20 F;! 2:06
La Mirada, CA 90638
(714) 522-1515 : (800) 585-1919 * (213) 625-8455
THE CITY OF DIAMO0 BAR
21660 COPLEY DR #190
DIAMCM BAR, CA
ATTN: MARILYN
YOUR NO. R -N -P DEVELORVO T, INC.
OUR ORDER NO. W24851-3
ZfiIB REPW OMBISIS OF 6 PADS DATE. April 23, 199.4
r� •iaL �• • 1 • :• 71.7 o • rr'•
71; •• -• r M
•'• 'H •• • • 'G•7! 191.91. '•• i /• ••71•••711 •
•• rY• • 711 • 1 1• 171'9• •• •• •• 1 •
/ • •I / •I. 1C / ' I 11 11 1 Y• • • 1 71' 171' / 171' / ►• 71•
• • / r ' ■ • 1111 P Y• / 1711 � • �• • 171 /91
•' 71 II•• M '• 9 • I •• •71 71••711 • 7/ •171' •' 771 ••• '• 7► M D711
• • t• 71• • !! !• • 1 • ' t 911 rY 1711' •; 11 •. + 11 •: Ir •
1 V. / 1 711 7/ 071 •: 11 r N t •. '• i •• 2 •.H • /1 •• •'
•• •' / 9►� 11C Y•rY 1711 ••` • i •• •• •I ,•' 1
• / I / ' • I • M I / •i 711 1 ' 71••'
TEIS REPORT (• I• ANY • D I9f • • AMENUVENTS BEREM)711 SOLELY •' =
PURPOSE OF 1 r r ' 1 ISSUANCE OF POLICY OF INSURANCE I. NO
ASSUMEDLIABILITY IS 1-=Y. DFS= THAT LIABIL= BE ASSUVE) PRIOR •
1 ISSUANCE OF POLICY OF INSURMCE,BINDER •• OZMMITYM S-10' • C
9• 711
IXIM AS OF •P, '+21 1994 AT 7:30 A.M.
1./
MICHAEL, WHEATCIST, T'ITT.,E OFFICER
ORDER NO. W24851-3
PAGE NO.: 2
THE FCW CF POLICSC OF TITLE INSURANCE BY THIS H IS:
�x
CLIA STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY (1990) - OWNERS OR JOINT PROTECTION
3 THE ESTATE OR T IN THEA, LAND HERIII�F yIE(2
DESCRIBED OR ;;REH�2RID TOC tID
BY TfIIS REPORT, °, ,v
-r A FEE
TTI7.E TO SAID ESTATE OR INMZEST AT THE DATE EBF IS VESTED IN:
R -N -P DEVELORYMT, INC., A CALIFORNIA OJRPORATION
THE IAND REFERRED TO IN TELLS FEMRT IS SITOAT ED IN THE HOMY OF ILS ANMES,
STATE OF CFJ.., AND IS LESCR.ZFED AS FCiLM:
U)T 61 OF TRACT NO. 42557, IN THE CITY OF DIAMND RAR, AS SHOWN ON A MAP IN BOOK
1032, PAGE(S) 50 THROUGH 54 INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE 03=
>
RECORDER OF SAID COMM.
...3 EXCEPT THERE RCM ALL OIL, GAS, MUMAT S AND OTHER HYDROC MONS, BELOW A DEPTH OF
500 FEET, =CUT THE R -T= OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN DEEDS OF RECCRD.
ti
'- PARCEL NO: 8713-046-029
�-a .
_ ORDER NO. W24851-3
PAGE NO.: 3
F Lv
AT ME HEREOF 7• i71•._.. i ► • 0AY �* T!'. 1 1 Vii- • • is • • 1 i5/ �. aal• • t
A. GENERAL AND SPECIAL TAXES, A LIEN NOT YET' PAYABLE, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994-
1995.
•1:11 131• ` I/ ••' I i• •' Y• • • 1 •!•-94
Ist INSTALIblENT $ ••• • PAID
• IN3rALUv1ENT $,940.09 OPEN PENALTY •• • 31• •
PARCEL NO. 8713-046-029
C. I LIEN OF y 171 Y` TAXES,71! PURSUANT TO a I• ' 71• 3.5
M44ENCING WITH SECTIONOF 1 CALIFORNIA, REVENUE AN• TAXATION CODE.
BY DATED 1%RCH 71 1972, EM-70TED BY DIAMM BAR DEVEL01:1-M
CORPORATION,•••!71! APRILDMEENT NO. 2624, IN BOOK D5420,
PAGE 107 OFFICIAL RECORDS, THE DIM)ND BAR DEVELORMU CORPORATION DOES
HEREBYDEDICATE T• I CaWN OF •S AL=ES THERIGHT • RESTRICT THE
ERECTTCN OF B=DINGS OR OTHER SM3CIURES IN AND • 71• THAT PCRTICN OF •
OF FORMERLY u T1W PORTION OF 1 SaM= QUARTER •
SECTION• I 7 1 • 2 -=, RANGE 9 WEW, SAN : i r• - • 1 • NMIDIAN,u
THE FOLLOWING DESCRI= BOUNDARIES:
• 3 1 I 1 I '•• i • 71' • � 191• • • • • • . 7 .• I •:
31! 1 :00 • • N • 1 M �. • I• • 1 i i • r
1 a• I • .?•• • • 71' 1 1• a• I 13I 01 71• ` •; ' 1 71•
• • • • H'• • • i 'f • 13P 1 1 0 1• • • Y• •I • • • 91
191 •1 • 191• 7! 1 71' 1 I • • 1• • • Y• r •
1 • 71 191 •I 31' 71 • 1! 71' • • • •: '!'• •: 1 1
71 • • 1• 71' 121MMIMum'• • 191' • •" • /• 71• 1 I • •
71 0 I •1/ • :3 /I /'
2. • 71 /• COMMONS • i! •'(DELETING191' 91 • • •:
• al• ON RACE, •• • • • • CREED) PROVIDED 1 !• 171 a• • ! 71/ /E• 3 1: 7P
/ 1981 AS IMFMUOMU NO.OF OFFICIAL REMRD,�.
SAID a :I r• CONDITIONS •: u RESTRICTIONS PROVIDE THr• • •: 1:1.3•
-%1ALL NOTDEFEAT ••• RENDER INVALID THE LIENOF O .•G OR •7131! •
MADE IN N•• Fa= AM FOR
• a• 91 /• ••: I/ • I/ •: 31' •/ /71/ AS IY
=001= •0` 91• 9 131 •' TBE PURPOSES9 • I AND INCIDERIAL PURPOSES
PROVIDED 1 • DCCUTM
•' INGRESS, EGRESS,IO INSTAI.LATICN,P 1 7tH •1 I!
•.71•• •: • ••DRAINS,71• V•: •: • D
• / Y• •,
RECORD91! / C I: 3P • 1 :171 'O •
•RECORDS.
y CEDER ND.: W24851-3
PAM W. . 4
Wiz`_ w 11 r3ro'il 411 : :lay 191• r 9�r �• i
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION D DIAMOND EAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATTON, A GkLI
FURNIA
CORPORATION,• D UE INDUSTRY • 91 ••' 191 T AGENCY, BODY CORPORATE • Ir
POLITIC,••i AIM TO THE TERMS• D CONDITIONS, ••: Y• 1 191• 191' 1
RECORDED DECEMBER. 31, 1981 AS E=UMENT NO. 81-1281445, OF OFFICIAL
• CORD.
5. PROVISIONS 09 THDEDICATION Sw M 191 OR I• • OF
TRACT: 42557
7 r HEREBY DEDICATE T• THE COUNTY OF •S ANGELES I
RIGHT TO PRUMIT THE CCNSTRDCTTCN OR RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS WITHIN THOSE AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP AS
BUILDINC3 RESTRICTION
6.
THE FACT THAT1 • 1 191-'1 ■ • OF u LAND DOES NOTINCLUDE RIr. OF r
TO OR FRCM THE• 91 OR RIG -1 I• ABUTITNG. SAID LAND, SUCH RIG -ITS /• 1 ' :991
RELINQUISHED 1: THE 1• - OF O
GR.AND AVENUE
7. P=ECTIVE CONDITICUS,MUCH i PROVIDE r• i• 1191- OF • IN u TRACT
SH)LL NOT1 P INTERFERE WIi E ESDUMI04M DRAINAGE IN OR • 91• ANY
LOT IN• rr TRACT. INTHE. 91 NECESSARY • i I• Y: THE ESTABLISHED
DRAINAGE OVER ANY LOT, ADS�2r= PROVISIONS FOR PROPER, DRAINAGE SRUZ BE WDE.
THEREFOR. llEY• : -I 19D DRAINAGE" IS DEFINED THE r i DRAIMGE AS ME
SAME ExisTED AT aim TIME OF = ovERALL GRADING. OF r TRAcr, INCLUDING.
1
LA=CAPING OF • IN u TRACT, IF ANY, IS •• 1• 91r
RECORDED: MAY 1 ! 191 NO. OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
8. AN EASEMENT FOR R RF = HEREIN STATED, AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO AS
PROVIDED IN A DOCUMENT
FOR: THE 71Q5TATTATICE AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING, ENIRY
WALLS AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS;
AFFECTS: PORTICN OF SAID LAND
RECORDED: JUNE 12, 1984 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 84-702078 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
9. CDVEIUA=, CC!NDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS, (DELx= THEREFROM ANY RESTRICTIONS
BASED ON RACE, COLOR, OR CREED), AS SET FORTH IN THE DOCUMENT ABOVE
MENTIONED.
10. AN EASEMENT AS SET FORTH IN AN INSIRDMQTT RECORDED NCIVEMKR 13, 1984 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 84-1349927, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
FOR: PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES
AFFECTS: THE IKiFdEERLY 10.00 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 10.00 FEET OF
SAID LAND.
11. AN EASEMENT FOR PURPOSES HEREIN STATED, AS SHOWN ON OR DEDICATED BY THE MAP
OF SAID TRACT
y FOR: STORM DRAIN AND STORM DRAIN INCP= AND MESS AMID
INCIDEN`IAL PURPOSES
AFFECTS: A PORTION OF SAID LAND.
- CREER NO.: 4724851-3
PACS NO. : 5
_ 12. AN iMOCAMD EASEMU FOR THE PURPOSES SSOM AMID INCIDENTAL, PURPOSES AS
` PROVIDED IN A DDMIENT .
FOR: rrsSM T a'T' CN AND/OR MAINIE,NCE PURPOSES.
RECORDED: MAY 20, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87-796863 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
13. o7mp2 TS, CmITICY¢S AND RESIRICZims, (DELETING THEREFROM ANY RESTRICTICNS
BASED ON RACE, COLOR, OR CREED), AS SET FORTS IN THE DOOMM ABOVE
MENTIONED.
14. AN EA-cEy T FOR PURPOSES HEREIN STATED, AND RIGHTS INC EENM THERETO AS
PROVIDED IN A DOCTI=
FOR: A RIDING AND FD3= TRAIL
AFFECIS: A PORTION OF SAID LAND
RECORDED: DECKER, 13, 1988 AS INSTRLMENT NO. 88-1992257 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS.
15. ENcL ID HEREWITH IS OUR SI7MlENT OF CHARGES FOR THIS REPORT. ANY REFERENCE
HEREIN FOR A POLICY OF T= INSURANCE IS HEREBY G*KELIM.
if
ON
CL
Cns'114a s n
CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY • Mo
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The io6gwmg miners are expressly eluded nom the co mile a this policy aid the Company
I..: will not pay loss or cartage. costs. attorneys iees or expenses which anse by mason of.,
1. al Any law. oromance or gaemmenal regulation nncludinbut not limited to building
.. and zoning la,vs. ordinances. or regulations) restricting, prohibiting or relating to lit the
occuwncv, use, or em)oymeni of the land: fill the character. dimensions or location of
airy improvement now' or hereafter erected an the land: (ilii a separation in ownership
or a change in me dimensions or area of the land or any parcel at which the land is or
was a part: or .r, - environmental protection, or the effect of am violation of these laws,
ordinances or toyemmental regulation% except to the extent that a notice of the
eniorcement oseieoi or a notice of a defect. lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation
or alleged violation atieciing the land has been recorded in the public records at Date
of Policy.
lb] Any govemniental pglice.power not excluded by la) above. except to the extent that
a natrce m the exercise themoi or a notice da defect. iren or encumbrance resulting from
a violation, at aimed violation affecting the land has been retarded in the public records
at Date of Poi:p.
2. Rights of emmen: domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the
_ public records a: Dare of Policy, but not excluding from coverage am taking• which has
occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be oinding on me rights of a purchaser
for value w•imo_ knowledge.
3. Defects, hens. encumbrances. adverse claims, or outer matters:
tan created. subered. assumed or agreed to by the msuted claimant.
lb, not kmwm to the Company, nen recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, t
knowns to the insured claimant and not disclosed in wining to the Company by me irisin
claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured uneer, this polic
Ici resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant:
Idi anaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy, or
les resulting in lossordamage which would not hale been sustained if the insured claim,
had paid value for the estate or interest insured b+ this policv.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or iaih
of the insured at Date of Policy. or the.inabiliry or failure of any subsequent owner
the indebtedness. to comply with the applicable doing business laws 6" scam in whi
the land is situated.
S. Invalidity of uneniorceabiliry of the lien of the insured mortgage. or claim thereof. whi
arses out ai the transaction evidenced bvthe insured monplie and is based upon ansa
or am consumer credit protection or truth in lending Ias.
6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate Or irre
insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender.
reason oithe opernionoifederal hankmatcy. state insolvency.or similar creditor tights la
SCHEDULE B
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys fees or expenses) which arise by reason of.
PART 1
3, Easements. liens or encumbri tscm orclaims thereof, which are not shorn by the pub
records.
4. Discrepancies. conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area. encroachmerta orarty rid,
facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shows by the public recon:
5. la) Unpatented mining claims: dal reservations or mi:epnons in parents at in Ac
authoirizing the issuance thereof: Its water rights, claims or tide to water. whether or n
the matters excepted under a), Ib), or 10 are shown by the public remits.
1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing
authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or b.• the public recons.
Proceedings b a public agency which may result in taxes or assessmenm or notices
oi such proceeemgs, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public
records.
2. Ary facts. rights. interests or claims which are not shown by the public records but which
could be ascertained by an inspection of The land or which ma• be asserted by persons
in possession mereaf.
ATION i POLICY (4d-90)
AMERICAN LAND SITLE ASSOCI
WITH A.LT.A. ENDORSEMENT - FORM 1 COVERAGE AND
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION LEASEHOLD LOAN POLICY (46-90)
WITH A.LLA. ENDORSEMENT - FORM 7 COVERAGE .
SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
' The iollowmg marten are expressly excluded from the coverage or this poiicy and the Company
b not knovn to the Company, nen recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, b
r' will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorney's fees or expenses which apse by reason of:
1. las Am law. ommance or governmental regulation -including but not limited to building
known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Compam by the nnwri
clamant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this pobcq
and zoning laws. ordinances. or regulations) resmrcting, prohibiting or relating to fit the
occupancy. use. or enjoyment of the land: Oil & a character. dimensions or location of
lcl resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy, or
.am improvement now or hereafter erected on the land: (iii) a separation in ownership
land am of which the land is
fel resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claims
had paid value for the estate or interest insured by this policy.
or a change in the dimensions or area of the or parcel
or wa, a part: or uvr environmental protection• or the effect or am violation of these
laws. or regulations. except to the extent that a nonce of the
4. Uneniorceabihty of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or nen
or the insured it Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner
ordinances governmental
erupmement memo- or a nonce or a detect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation
the indebtedness. to comply with applicable doing business lam of the state in whit
or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date
the land is situated.,
5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage. or claim thereof, whir
of Policy.
oflotAry go+emmentai pulite paver not excluded by lal above. except to the extent that
arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage, and is based upon uw
a nonce or the exercise thereof or a nonce of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting
from violation aifecting the land has been recorded in the public
or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Arty statutory lien for services, labor or thiterials for the claim of priority of any saturo
a violation. or alleged
records at Date or Policy.
lien for services, labor or materials over the lien of the insured mortgage) arising fro
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in
the records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which
an improvement or work related to the land which is contracted for and commence
subsequent to Date of Policy and is not financed in whole or in part by Proneds of d
public
has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights ofa purchaser
indebtedness secured by the insured mortgage which at Date of Policy the insured Is
for value without knowledge.
±�- 3. Defects. liens. encumbrances. adverse claims, or other matten:
advanced or is obligated to advance.
7. Any caim.lvhich arises ore of the transaction cresting the interest of the mortgagee imam
a- created. suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant:
by this policy, by mason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insoivency, or sim(t
creditors' rights laws.
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY (6-T-87) EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exception, in Schedule B. you am not insured against loss. toss. attorney 's
fees and expenses resulting from:
L Governmental police poxes and the existence or violation of am iavv or aovemment
regulation. Thr, includes ouddmg and zoning ordinances and also taws aria mgulauons
conceming: -
• land use
• improvements on the land
• land divisior
• environmental protection
This exclusion noes not apply to violations or the enforcement or tnese miners which
appear in the public records at policy dam.
This exclusion noes not limit the zoning coveage described in Items 12 and 13 of
Covered Title Risks.
2. Tne right to take the land by condemning it. unless:
+ a notice or exemrsg the right appears in the public records on the Policy Dam
in
• the taking happenedonor to. the Policy Date and is binding on you if xou bought
the land xvnnout knmvleage a the taking
SCHEDULE
EXCEPTIONS
Tide Risks:
that am created. allmved. or agreed to by you
• that am known to you. but not to us. on the Policy Date - unless they APPearec
the public records
• that result in no loss to you
+
that first affect your title after the Policy Date. this does not limit the labor arid rnm
lien coverage in Item 8 of Covered Title Risks
Failure to pry value for your tide.
L of right:
• to arty land outside the area speciiically described and referred to in Item 3
Schedule A
or
• in streets. alleys, or waterways that touch your land.
This exclusion does not limn the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Title Ri
in addition to the Exclusions. you am not insured against loss, cosam not shr
ts. artorneys' tees. and the 3. Am theP public
recorrds. the This does not nnoh a cttllinectgsuent� Imrdovallose coverrage nhitt m 12 of C&A
. expenses resulting from: Title Risks.
1. Am rights. interests. or claims of parties in possession of the and not shows by the C Airy water rights or claims or title to water in or under the and, whether tar not she
public records. the blit mcors.
2. Am easements or bens not shown by the public records. This does riot limit the lien by Pu -
co erage in Item a of Covered Title Risks.
J.C.D.
J. C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS
.__.671_S..BREA CANYON -ROAD SUITE -5
WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789
969 594-7568
is FAX - 909-594-5090
= March 3, 1994
REFERENCE: SLOPE ANALYSIS DB -68; FORRISTER (P.M. 24031)
Method of calculation is the average slope analysis per the City of Diamond Bar:
AVERAGE SLOPE=0.002296 X IL/A
WHERE:
0.002296 IS A CONSTANT
1 = THE CONTOUR INTERVAL
L = THE SUMMATION OF THE LENGTH OF ALL CONTOURS WITHIN THE BOUNDARY
A = THE AREA OF THE PARCEL IN ACRES
THEN:
1 = 25 FEET
L = 34,582 FEET
A = 67.95 ACRES
THEN:
AVERAGE SLOPE = 0.002296 X 25 X 34,582 / 67.95 = 29.21 %
AVERAGE SLOPE = 29.21 %
Contour and boundary considerations are as shown on Parcel Map No. 24031 prepared by
J.C. Dabney & Associates.
Jan C. Dabney, RCE No. 43871
" (� RCE 43871))
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
�- Initial Study May 2, 1994
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I. Background
1. Name of Applicant: R -N -P Development, Inc.
2. Address and Phone Number of Project Proponents:
R -N -P Development, Inc.
4439 Rhodelia Avenue
Claremont California 91711
(909) 594-7568
3. Name, Address and Phone Number of Project Contact:
Jan C. Dabney
J.C. Dabney & Associates
671 S. Brea Canyon Road, Suite 5
Diamond Bar, California 91789
_(909) 594-7568
4. Date of Environmental Submittal:
April 11, 1994
5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal:
May 2, 1994
6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist):
City of Diamond Bar
Communi1y Development Department
7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract Number if subdivision):
_ Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031
8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination):
None
YES NO
Variance: X
Conditional Use Permits: X
Zone Change: X
General Plan Amendment: X
Other:
(Attach Completed Environmental Checklist Form)
II. Environmental Impacts:
(Explanations and additional
information to supplement all "yes" "possibly"
answers are required to be submitted
and
on attached sheets)
z
YES NO POSSIBLY
i.
Earth. Will the proposal result in:
—jL—
a.
Unstable earth conditions or changes in
geologic substructures?
X
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
R
overcovering of the soil?
V?
X
C.
Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
X
d.
The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical feature?
v
X
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
�=
soils, either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition, erosion of stream
-_
banks or land adjacent to standing water,
changes in siltation, deposition or other
processes, which may modify the channel of
constant or intermittently flowing water as
y'
well as the areas surrounding permanent or
intermittent standing water?
X
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
r
2.
Air.
Will the proposal result in:
X
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
X
b•
The .creation of objectionable odors?
X
c.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or ,any changes in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3.
Water.
Will the proposal result in:
X
a.
Changes in currents or the course or
direction of water movements?
YES NO POSSIBLY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
d.
X
X
X
X
X
b. Changes inabsorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
run-off?
c• Alterations of the course or flow of flood
waters?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in
any body of water?
e• Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality including
but not limited to dissolved oxygen and
turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g• Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water
supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
Plant Life. ?Pill the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare
of endangered species of plants?
C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat
areas or plant communities which are
recognized as sensitive?
d• Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or. in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
YES NO POSSIBLY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4.. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, ornumber
of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish, and
shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)?'
b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare
or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or in a barrier to .the normal
migration or movement of resident species?
d. R duction in size or deterioration in quality
of existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Significant increases in existing noise
levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in:
a. Significant new light and glare or contribute
significantly, to existing levels of light
and glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use in an area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
X a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
X
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition?
YES NO POSSIBLY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
b. Probable interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of
an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect:
a. Existing housing, or create a demand for
additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result ins
a. Generation of Substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or
demand for new parking?
C. Substantial impact on existing transportation
systems?
d. Alterations , to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and goods.
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14.. Public Services. Will the proposal:
a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need
for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas:
1. Fire Protection?
2. Police Protection?
3. Schools?
YES NO POSSIBLY
X
4. Parks or other recreational facilities?
X
5. Maintenance of public facilities.,
including roads?
X
6. Other governmental services?
15.
Energy. Will the proposal result in:
X
a. Useof substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
energy sources or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16.
Utilities. Will the proposal result in:
X
a. A need for new systems, or Substantial
alterations to public utilities?
17.
Human Health. Will the proposLil result in:
i
X
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
X
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
_
18.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
X
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to the public view?
19.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in:
X
a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
20.
Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
X
a. The alteration of or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
YES No POSSIBLY
X b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
X. C. A physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
X d. Restrictions on existingreligious gious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance?
X a. Does the proposed project have the
to degrade the Potential
8. quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
orwildlife 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?
X b. Does thero osed
P p project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
X of long-term, environmental goals?
C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which
are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable?
X d. Does the
project pose environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONt
(Attach Narrative)
IV. DETERMINATIONS
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.
x 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: Hay 2, 1994 Signature:
Title:
For the City of Diamond Bar, California
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3
REPORT DATE: May 17, 1994
MEETING DATE: May 23, 1994
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Parcel Map No. 24031
APPLICATION REQUEST: The proposed project is a request for approval to
merge -two (2) existing parcels, Lot 1 of Tract NO.
31479 and Lot 61 of Tract NO. 42557 to one (1)
parcel totaling 68.10 acres. Approval of the
application would require the City's abandonment of
currently held Open' Space and Building Rights
Restrictions on the newly created parcel.
PROPERTY LOCATION: The project is located south of Grand Avenue, west of
Shotgun Lane and east of Summitridge Drive and
extends east to the San Bernardino County line.
APPLICANT: J.C. Dabney and Associates
671 S. Brea Canyon Rd. Ste. 5
Diamond Bar, California 91789
PROPERTY OWNER: R -n -P Development, Inc.
4439 Rhodelia Ave.
Claremont, California 91711
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has submitted the parcel map project to the City in conjunction with the development of
alternative scenarios of an off-site project (South Point Master Plan, R -N -P Development, Inc.
property). The applicant is requesting that the City approve:
1) the merger of two distinct lots to form one new parcel totalling approximately 68 acres;
2) a reversion to acreage, thus removing all access and building rights restrictions as well as the
open -space easements.
The applicant is requesting that these approvals be granted as a quid pro quo compensation for non-
PM24031
development of a portion of.the South Pointe site by the developer as stipulated in Alternative 1 of the
South Pointe project.
Pursuant to Section 66499.20 1/4 and Section 66499.20 3/4 of the Subdivision Map Act in concert with
Section 51093 and 65874 (b) of the California Government Code (CGC), provisions for petitioning the
governing body for removal of restrictions and easements have been provided. The governing body is
required to make the required findings in order to remove the legislative constraints placed on the site.
Staff recommends however, that the Planning Commission, proceed in its review in one of the
following manners.
Method No. 1
The Planning Commission can review this project as requested by the applicant, that is, as a quid pro
quo compensation in conjunction with the approval of Alternative No. 1. If the Planning Commission
wishes to proceed in that context, staff feels that an extensive Development Agreement would be
required to protect the interests of the applicant and the City and an additional re -circulation of the
South Pointe Master Plan EIR would be required to address the new project.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition of a project, consideration of
this project as a part of Alternative No. 1 would bring this project under the envelope of the South
Pointe EIR.
Method No. 2
The Planning Commission can however review this project on the its merits irrespective of the South
Pointe project. Under this evaluation criteria the Commission can take action immediately based on
the project information and the environmental information prepared for review.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
The two independent lots were created from the subdivision of separate tract maps. Lot 1 of Tract
No. 31479 was recorded in 1981. The tract map was a subdivision of a large area encompassing the
land bounded by Lot 1, north .to Carpio Drive which is located south of the SR 60 freeway and west
to Golden Springs Drive. Subsequent to the recordation of this tract, Tract No. 42557 was initiated.
Tract No. 31479 indicates that the lot serves as a natural drainage course and is restricted for pubic
health and safety concerns related to the management of the area.
Tract No. 42557, recorded in 1982, encompasses the area south of Grand Avenue, west of the County
line, east of the entrance to The Country Estates and north of Rimford Lane. The area inclusive of
Lot 61, once again has the building restrictions maintained from the previous tract map restrictions, as
well as access restrictions to Grand Avenue.
PM24031
The restrictions on Lot 61 of Tract No. 42557 consist of building restrictions which prohibit the
construction of residential buildings or other structures and also includes prohibitions concerning
access to Grand Avenue. Lot No. 1 of Tract No. 31749 has similar restrictions which prohibit the
construction of residential structures. The result of the access and, building restrictions create non -
possessory open space easements as defined in Government Code Section 65560 (b. 3 & 4).
The zoning for the area is RPD -20,000-2U (Residential Planned Development, 20,000 square foot
minimum lot size, with a maximum of 2 units per net acre). Review of the tract maps and the
existing lot configurations indicates that many of the lots are non -conforming in the gross square
footage that they were developed with.
The RPD zone was created by the County to provide for flexibility in the design of hillside areas and
to require large expanses of open space (not less than 30 percent of the net area) and for large
separations between structures. Often, developers in the hillside areas were grantedapproval to use
clustering and lot averaging when designing their projects. The development surrounding the
application site exhibit all the elements consistent with lot averaging..
The RPD zone requires that the development provide one or more of the following:
a) Common open space for recreational purposes;
b) Areas of scenic or natural beauty forming a portion of the development;
c) Present or future recreational areas of a noncommercial nature;
d)present or future hiking, riding, or bicycle trails;
e) Landscaped areas adjacent to streets in excess of minimum required rights-of-way;
f) Other similar areas determined appropriate by the Commission.
The consolidation of the two lots and the lifting of development restrictions and the derived ability to
construct one residential unit will not in and of itself create an immediate conflict with the intent and
action of the County's approval. Analysis of the existing development reveals that currently there are
approximately 28 acres of residential development and 73 acres of open space including passive and
active uses. The existing development possesses two pocket parks, a three acre open space parcel and
the assessor's information indicates that Lot 1 and Lot 61 are traversed by trail easements.
With no development plans to accompany the application there is no base of information to determine
future impacts of relinquishing the restrictions and easements. The Commission may however
approve the lot merger and maintain the restrictions or revise the restrictions to allow the construction
of one unit. The property owner reserves the right under state law to bring additional projects or
subdivisions back to the City for additional entitlements.
Conclusion:
The parcel map application as requested by the applicant will involve extensive action on the part of
the City including the recirculation of the South Pointe Master Plan EIR because of the inclusion of
this project as part of the South Pointe project. Additionally, staff feels that the Development
Agreement approved by the Planning Commission as part of the South Pointe project would have to be
revised and would be subject to review by the Commission prior to approval of this project.
PM24031
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission review this project on its merits, separate
from the South Pointe project.
Review of the existing development surrounding the project site, as it relates to the RPD Zone
development standards, indicates that lot averaging has been implemented in the design of the
residential project. There are large parcels of open space (exceeding zone requirements) that include
the subject site and that were incorporated as required amenities for the development and to maintain
the average lot size conformity.
Approval of this project will not immediately place this balance at risk. All future development
proposals must be approved by the City via the public hearing process. The Commission may
consider removal of the restrictions on this property, amending the restrictions to allow one
residential unit, or to maintain the current restrictions although approving the lot merger and address
the issue when a definitive development project is submitted.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Staff concluded the review the initial study and determined, pursuant to CEQA, that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration was appropriate and has prepared the document and made it available for public
review.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Government Code Section 51093
(1) That No public purpose described in Section 51084 will be served by keeping the land as
open -space; and
(2) That the abandonment is not inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter; and
(3) That the abandonment is consistent with the local General Plan; and
(4) That the abandonment os necessary to avoid a substantial financial hardship to the landowner
due to involuntary factors unique to him.
Government Code Section 65874
(b) Upon determination that the restriction of the property is no longer necessary to achieve the
land use goals of the City or county, a release shall be recorded by the City or county in the
county where the restricted property is located.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony, and
direct staff as appropriate.
PM24031
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley
Tribune on May 1, 1994. Two hundred three (203) property owners within a 1000 foot radius of the
site were mailed notices of the public hearing on April 29, 1994.
PREPARED BY:
Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Application
Negative Declaration
Parcel Map
Letters from the Applicant
Public Works Memorandum
F:\NP51\LETTERS\PM24031.STY
PM24031
TAMERICA PRODUCTS INC.
20722 CURRIER ROAD
WALNUT, CA 91789
TEL (909) 594-3888
FAX: (909) 595-2119
May 9th, 1994
DIAMOND BAR CITY PLANNING COMMISION
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
21660 Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
To whom it may concern,
RE Parcel Map NO. 24031
As current resident of Diamond Bar at the targeted area, I
have a strong opposition to the development of this
natural area with the following reasons:
11. Diamond Bar is proud for her beauty in country living.
The natural looking, as well as the fresh air environment
has been proved very important to the health and the good
image of Diamond Bar residents.
22. The traffic problem has been a daily headache for all
Diamond Bar residents as well as neighboring people who
rely on Grand Avenue as the only avenue extremely heavily.
The development certainly will put more misery into the
traffic nightmare. This situation will greatly reduce the
value of overall Diamond Bar real estate value, a great
loss of the residents, current one like us or new comers
who buy the new property. I firmly believe the revenue of
this new development would be very short sighted if the
concerns of above 1122 points has not be considered and
solved properly.
Due to the need for frequent business trips, I am afraid
that I can't attend the hearings even though I would like
to, this letter serves as my serious contest on this
project. Your attention is highly appreciated.
Sincere yours,
Walter & Graih
Resident at 24331 Rimford Place
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Tel (909)860-0749 Home
(909)594-3888 Work
M
<
C)
1
10
Michael F. Scott
Regina G. Scott
1720 Derringer Lane
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
May 12, 1994
Diamond Bar City Planning Commission
C/O Community Development Department
21660 Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: .Parcel Map No. 24031
Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members:
We are in receipt of your "Notice Of Public Hearing"
regarding a request to merge Lot 1 of Tract No. 31479 and Lot
61 of Tract No. 42557 creating a single parcel totaling 68.10
acres for the purpose of constructing residential buildings.
Said hearing, it is stated, will be held on May 31, 1994.
Furthermore, .the "Notice" states that a hearing will be held
on May 23, 1994 for the purpose of determining whether to
remove the .City of Diamond Bar's rights to restrict the .
construction of residential buildings upon those parcels and
the required abandonment by the City of currently held Open
Space and building rights restrictions on the newly created
parcel should the application for the project be approved.
We are also in receipt of your "Notice Of Public Hearing",
said hearing to also be held on May 31, 1994, regarding
Development Agreement Nos. 92-1 and 2, etc., and South Pointe
Master Plan - Referral of Project Alternatives to the
Planning Commission. The literature that you mailed along
with the hearing notice states in "Alternative 1 -
North/South Canyon Preservation" that to "encourage"
preservation of the Sandstone Canyon area for Open Space
purposes, a proposal made by "RnP Development", should be
considered to "trade" their interest in Sandstone Canyon for
the right to build on the Open Space at Parcel Map 24031
(Grand Avenue Site).
First of all; we would like to register, with this letter, a
formal protest against the proposed trade of building rights
at Sandstone Canyon for the lifting of restrictions and
issuance of building rights at Parcel Map No. 24031 (Grand
Avenue Site). Such a trade could only serve to possibly
appease special interest groups or residents near or dear tc
the Sandstone Canyon site at the extreme sacrifice, loss and
expense to the property owners adjacent to the Grand Avenue
Parcel Map No. 24031 site.
The City of Diamond Bar owns the Open Space and building
restrictions at Parcel Map No. 24031, and should keep those
rights for the good of all. If there is a sensitive problem
with whether or not to build at Sandstone Canyon, the City
should solve that problem on its own particular merits, not
by "horse -trading" that problem for the destruction of the
beautiful Open Space that is adored and enjoyed by us
residents adjacent to Parcel Map No. 24031.
Secondly, we protest the abandonment of the Open Space or the
removal of building restrictions by the City at the Parcel
Map No. 24031 site for any reason, whether it be part of the
proposed trade referenced above, or the proposed application
for removal of restrictions referenced in your "Notice Of
Public Hearing".
My wife and I, and our four children, have lived at 1720
Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar, for fifteen years. Our home is
in "The Country" in Tract No. 24046 Lot 23. Our back
property line borders, to the east, the westerly side of
proposed Parcel Map No. 24031.
When we bought our home in 1979 it was our understanding that
homes could never be built in the canyon below us, that it
would always be open space. Besides, we thought, who in the
world would ever consider building homes in the bottom of the
steep canyon below us, where all the surrounding hills,
including ours, drain ferociously into during the winter and
spring ? The flattest portion of the canyon fills up with
rain water in the winter and the resultant pond is frequented
by ducks. The wild Canadian Geese fly a few feet over our
rooftop each January, cross over the temporary pond in the
canyon and land in the fields and lake in the farmlands at
the mouth of the canyon below us.
We were also led to believe that Trans -America Corporation
owned the strip of land bordering our back property line for
the purpose of providing a permanent easement and the
prevention of building on the Open Space below us. Another
popular belief within the community at the time we purchased
our home, was that the City of Industry, who owns the
farmland and reservoir thereon, was considering expanding the
reservoir and would one day include the subject parcel within
that expansion. Such an expansion of the reservoir would have
insured the preservation of Open Space, prevention of
building on the site and preserving the spectacular view
toward the east and southeast. In any event , we were
certain when we purchased our home that the Open Space, the
wildlife and the view that we paid for would be preserved by
responsible community planners, not needlessly destroyed by
money hungry developers who seek to make a quick profit by,
somehow, purchasing the title to the restricted land with
hopes of changing the City's mind about the restrictions
through administrative or political channels and the proposal
of "horse-trades".
The reasons we oppose the formation of Parcel Map No. 24031
and the application for removal of building restrictions
thereon, are, but not limited to, the following
1.) The value of our home and property would be
substantially diminished due to the loss of the Open Space,
the wildlife thereon and the unrestricted view thereof. We
have been informed numerous times by real estate
professionals, appraisers, and would-be homebuyers, that the
greatest value and asset of our fifteen year old home is.the
property that it sits on, with it's unobstructed view of the
natural Open Space and mountains and hills beyond, the
natural surrounding landscape, and the peaceful serenity and
privacy of the undeveloped land behind and below us. Our
Country Estates Homeowners Association, knowing the value of
the preservation of its hilltop and ridgeline property
owners' views, developed, by popular demand, stringent rules
that regulate the size, appearance and type of buildings and
landscaping that may be constructed on each lot so that the
valuable and desirable view of each neighboring lot owner is
not obstructed or diminished. What is the sense of
responsible citizens making responsible rules aimed at
protecting their investments and values, if the City,
planning commission, administrators and politicians allow a
private developer to reverse the citizens' efforts, decisions
and many years of hard work ? Building on the Open Space at
the rear of our, and our neighbor's, property would
substantially reduce the value of our homes.
2.) Destruction of natural hills, landscape and wildlife
habitat. Due to the rugged terrain of the canyon and the
rolling hills, massive earthmoving and storm drain
improvements would have to be accomplished to facilitate the
building of residences on the property. Such grading and
storm drain pipes or culverts mould require extensive
excavation of the natural hills, or massive importing of dirt
to fill the canyon and the natural drainage courses in order
to provide level areas for the proposed streets and building
pads,.thus replacing the beautiful and natural rolling hills,
valleys, vegetation and wildflowers with stark, ugly cut
slopes, fill'slopes and drainage devices. If the proposed
buildings were attempted without excavating the hills or
filling the valleys, they would have to be cantilevered along
the steep slopes, thus blocking the view referenced in item
1 above, andinstead, provide a view of rooftops and
unsightly high support walls, concrete columns and retaining
walls to the property owners living above the proposed
building site. The developer could hide many of his
unsightly improvements with trees and shrubbery, but such
camouflage would also act to block the existing view of the
canyon, hills and the expansive valley below.
3.) Displacement or elimination of Wildlife from the
site. The existing site, including much of our own property,
is covered with wild grasses, wild flowers and natural
vegetation which is a natural haven for the many varieties of
wildlife that inhabit it and frequent it. During the fifteen
years that we have lived immediately adjacent to the site, we
have personally observed deer, coyotes, rabbits, squirrels,
opossums, hawks, ducks, geese, many varieties of snakes, many
varieties of birds and many -types of rodents on the site.
Due to the proximity of the site to our property, many of the
animals and birds migrate to our property and observing them
provides us with great pleasure. Destruction of their
habitat by building streets and homes on the site would
certainly cause many, or most of them, to flee the site and
search for another safe haven to inhabit. As we all know,
due to the availability of food, water and shelter, a given
area of land will support only a certain number of animals.
By displacing the animals and birds from the site to a site
that is already inhabited by other animals, many of them will
die. By displacing the rabbits, squirrels and rodents from
the site, the coyotes will be forced to search for food in
other areas; and as they have done in many other communities,
may become more aggressive toward pets and humans in
developed areas in their search for food. The natural
balance is, once again, upset. Much to our dismay, the
hawks, crows and ravens will stop flying overhead because
there is no food below. The ducks and geese will stop
migrating because there is no safe place to land. The
nightly distant howling of the coyotes will cease because
their natural food source will disappear and they will be
forced to leave the area or parish. Many of the reasons for
which we live in this beautiful community will vanish
forever.
4.) Potential increase in the fire hazard to The Country
Estates Homes and the Brock Homes. As the Open Space parcel
exists now, there is plenty of wide-open access to fire-
fighters, fire trucks, bulldozers and other fire fighting
equipment in the event of a brush fire on the parcel or
adjacent properties. Constructing buildings on the Open
Space would restrict the access to the back portions of the
properties in the Country homes and the Brock homes.
Approximately three years ago there was a major brush fire on
the parcel, threatening the adjacent homes, including ours.
Fire fighters, along with their trucks and equipment, swarmed
the area via the subject Open Space parcel and narrowly saved
the Brock Homes at their back fences. If the unobstructed
access through the parcel had not been available, the homes
probably would have been lost. Likewise,.if buildings had
existed, or in the future should exist on the Open Space
parcel, the added fuel to the fire wou:l.d certainly spread
more rapidly, hotter and more fiercely to the surrounding
homes, with much less access to contain it.
5.) Potential undesirable geologic affect on adjacent
.properties. Not being geologists ourselves, it is
impossible to render a professional opinion on the geological
affect on properties adjacent to the parcel should grading
operations be performed on the Open Space parcel, but the
subject should be seriously investigated by the City. In a
Soil Engineering Report prepared by Robert Stone &
Associates, Inc., Engineering Geologists, dated December 21,
1970, it was pointed out that due to landslide and unstable
soil conditions that existed in Tract No. 24046 (The Country
tract that borders the subject Open Space parcel on its
westerly side), it was necessary to remove various landslides
and construct buttress fills and shear keys to prepare the
lots for building. The report also stated that Restricted Use
areas occur on Lots 15 through 29 (the lots that border the
entire westerly side.of the proposed parcel), presumably to
prevent building and filling on the restricted use areas that
might create adverse driving forces on the stabilization
devices. As we stated before, if building is permitted on
the Open Space parcel, a considerable amount of excavating
and filling would have to be performed. Such grading could
cause an adverse effect on the properties in The Country.
6.) Loss of Security. Due to the rugged terrain and
lack of roads on the existing Open Space parcel, the parcel
provides natural security from intruders to the rear side of
the Country and the Brock homes. The back lots of the
Country, bordering the parcel, are multi -acreage lots. Due
to the rugged terrain, It is presently unnecessary for the
property owners to fence those lots for security purposes.
Access to those lots from the rear is granted only to four-
wheel drive emergency vehicles. If grading i.s performed, and
streets constructed on the parcel, easy access will be
provided to intruders who wish to enter our homes from the
rear of our properties. The existing homeowners would have
to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to restore the
security to their homes that is presently provided naturally
by the rugged terrain of the undeveloped Open Space parcel.
In conclusion, if the City of Diamond Bar allows the removal
of the building restrictions on the Open Space parcel they
will cause great pain, suffering and expense to many Diamond
Bar residents for the sake of handing a great profit to a few
individuals who obviously do not care about the precious few
acres of land that was set aside for natural beauty,
wildlife, serenity and privacy.
In your final decision, we beg that you consider the points
made in this letter, and the basic human values that caused
the land to be set aside as Open Space in the first place, so
that the land would be protected from a few profiteers who
would ruin it at the tremendous expense of so many others.
Once the Open Space is given away for destruction, it will be
forever. We, and the other residents'of Diamond ear, will
never get it back. -
Please prohibit building on Lot 1 of Tract No. 31479 and Lot
61 of Tract No. 42557 (Parcel Map No. 24031).
Sincerely,
Michael F. Scott
��Re na G. Scott
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim DeStefano
From: Mike Myers 0Via: George Wentz
Date: May 17, 1994
Subject: ' Tentative Parcel Map 24031
Based on the Subdivision Application as submitted, staff does not
believe the request qualifies as defined by §66451.10 et seq. of the
Subdivision Map Act. However, the application and tentative map for
the subject project could be considered as an application(or more
accurately a petition) to initiate proceedings for the."reversion to
acreage"(under Article 1, §66499.11 et seq.; Reversions and
Exclusions). Also proceeding with a parcel map under this
article(§66499.20-1/4) would require an enabling ordinance
authorizing the reversion or othenvise a final(tract) map is
required (§66499.13 & §66499.18).
Should the process proceed under §66499.11 et seq.; Reversions and
Exclusions, "The filing of the map ...... shall also constitute
abandonment of all public streets or public easements not shown on
the map, provided that written notation of each abandonment is
listed .....". Apparently the concern is whether or not approval and
filing of the map by the City abandons or erases that right previously
dedicated to the County "to prohibit the right to construct
residential buildings". And, secondly, if such right to prohibit
construction is erased, is the residential density reinstated. These are
legal issues which should be addressed by the City Attorney.
Any prior approved map, from all or any portion of which the present
two parcels were formed, would not be the parcels to which these two
Tentative Parcel Map 24031
May 17, 1994
would revert. The filing of the map shall also constitute a merger of
the separate parcels into one parcel. Approval of a reversion to
acreage would not seem to uncover successive layers of prior map
approvals. It would seem that the residential density would from
hereafter be subject to the zoning and land use ordinances applicable
at the time a new subdivision was approved (or at the time
application for a building permit for this one parcel was made).
Again, these are legal issues which should be addressed by the City
Attorney.
All easements and irrevocable offers of dedication of record, not to
be abandoned shall be shown on the map to be recorded. All
easements will be checked in accordance with the Preliminary
Subdivision Guarantee when reviewing the map to be recorded.
All public easements and irrevocable offers of dedication of record to
be abandoned shall not be shown on the map to be recorded , but shall
include written notification per §66499.20-1/4 of the Map Act on the
recorded map. All such proposed abandonments should be shown on
the tentative map with a specific notation that they are to 'proposed
to be abandoned.
The TPM submitted notes only the proposed abandonment of the
right to prohibit building on Lot 1, however no mention is made
regarding abandonment of this same right to prohibit building on Lot
61.
There are no dedications, exactions or conditions for public works
improvemerits required by the Engineering Department for this
tentative parcel map. However, any future application for subdivision
of this property will be subject to review and possible dedications,
exactions or conditions for public works improvements.
Page 2 of 2
alrll� ,�l�l (!))R71��'[I)ZLiJit�
DATE: May 18, 1994
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
RE: 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.
The purpose of this review by the Planning Commission, is required pursuant to Government
Code Section 65857 which dictates referral of a project to the Commission if modifications to
the project are to be contemplated by the City Council.
The Planning Commission is therefore charged with the consideration of the project
alternatives which were not contemplated as elements of the original project. The five
project alternatives presented herein are within the maximum impact thresholds identified
within the South Pointe Master Plan Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1.
As presented to the Planning Commission at the joint public meetings held for this project,
alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 are actual project revisions which supply new information
whereas alternatives Nos. 3, 4, and 5 supply no new information.
ANALYSIS:
Alternative 1 - North/South Canyon preservation
The applicant has developed an alternative to the proposed project that has been submitted
for consideration and is designed to encourage the preservation of the Sandstone Canyon area
for open space purposes. The concept involves Arciero and Sons, Inc. trading their property
(Vesting Tract Map No. 32400) for the westerly 35± acres of the R -N -P Development, Inc.
(Vesting Tract Map. No. 51407) property. Arciero would relinquish all development rights
SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN REFERRAL
on VTM No. 32400. Arciero would then develop 103 homes on the former R -N -P site and
include a new road access linking Larkstone Drive and the middle school with Brea Canyon
Road. The Sasak Corporation holdings would also be developed as a part of this alternative.
The proposal would incorporate the excess earth scheduled for export from the school site
and provide a site capable of its deposition.
Under this alternative, R -N -P would not build upon Arciero's former site, nor their
remaining acreage. R -N -P has requested that an offer of dedication of this 75± acre
Sandstone Canyon site to the City be conditioned upon the removal of existing map
restrictions on property, owned by R -N -P, located adjacent to Grand Avenue. Any future
development proposal for the Grand Avenue site would be subject to all City regulations for
environmental review and development. Subdivision plans would be submitted for review at
a later date. Potential benefits of this 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.
This project alternative will assist in the development of the South Pointe Middle School
construction. Moving forward with the project will create a site capable of depositing the
400,000 cubic yard fill slope currently bordering the Arciero and R -N -P sites. Although an
intermittent blue -line stream exists upon the most westerly portion of VTM No. 51407, a
significant amount of school site earth may be relocated to VTM No. 51407 concurrent with
the processing of the 404 and 1601-1607 permits. Development of the project under this
scenario is likely to be the most expeditious plan for timely development of the middle
school.
Benefits of the alternative design are a reduction environmental impacts. The impacts which
become less obtrusive are related to a reduction of intensity of development (deletion of
commercial and approximately 100 residential dwelling units), and the maintenance of the
canyon floor and migratory paths that may exist on-site. The quantity of earth material
moved and reconfiguration of the topography as a result of grading will be significantly
reduced. Additionally, traffic generation will be substantially reduced as will the related air
emissions. The removal of oak trees will be reduced by approximately SO percent over the
levels proposed under the original project design.
Alternative No. 1 is however not without possible detrimental impacts. The project deletes
the commercial aspect of the development which translates into a loss of sales and property
tax revenues in the future. The project will not meet air quality standards as established by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and will require a Statement
of Overriding Considerations as required by CEQA for impacts deemed to be significant.
Additionally, the project will mandate the removal of the majority of the oak trees on VTM
No.51407 and TM No. 51253, which remains a significant impact even with the application
of mitigation measures.
A related aspect of this alternative deals with the request by the applicant for removal of
SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN REFERRAL
restrictions on two other pieces of property owned by R -N -P and the resolution of process
constraints on an unrelated Arciero parcel. For the R -N -P property, located south of Grand
Ave. and west of the County boundary, there are open space easements created with access
and building rights restrictions imposed on the land subsequent to approval by the County of
Los Angeles (circa 1981). Removal of the restrictions will'theoretically open the site for
development of at least one unit and potentially more upon submission and approval of
additional subdivision requests. The relinquishment of restrictions requested by the applicant
may have the effect of removing additional open space from the City's current inventory.
The resolution of development constraints on the Arciero property will not have the same
effect, as there are no building rights restrictions currently imposed, although there will be
an additional reduction in open space.
Action Required Pursuant to Approval of the Applicant's Request
1. Referral of revised project to Planning Commission pursuant to Section 65857
for a report and recommendation.
2. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report, preparation of an addendum
or supplemental EIR along with Findings of Fact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
3. Preparation of revised project conditions and agreements outlining Alternative
1 (i.e. application of conservation easement or building rights restriction upon
former Arciero, Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, site).
4. Planning Commission and City Council consideration of the R -N -P Grand
Avenue site for removal of map restrictions (pursuant to Government Code
§51093).
5. Approval of revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 and its associated
CUP, Oak Tree Permit and Development Agreement. Approval of Tentative
Tract No. 51253 (Sasak) and related permits. Approval of Parcel Map No.
24031 for R -N -P Grand Avenue Site (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 Pian if the project
is ultimately inconsistent with that plan).
6. Completion of conditions required for grading permits, recordation of maps,
etc.
Alternative 2 - Preservation of East/West Properties
Another design concept to consider is the maintenance of an east -west open space amenity by
only permitting the development of Arciero's VTM No. 32400 site. As an example, in
1991, Arciero proposed a subdivision of 75 homes upon their acreage utilizing a previous
SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN REFERRAL
tentative map. The 1991 tentative map consists of 85 lots on 47.6 acres. Seventy-five 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 and preserve the building rights restrictions currently enforceable on the east -
west properties now owned by Sasak Corporation (6.7 acres) and R -N -P Development, Inc.
(78 acres).
Although this alternative would retain current restrictions on the Sasak and R -N -P properties,
this action would not subsequently provide for public access to the private property nor
create a passive park open to public intrusion. Additionally, no guarantee of preservation of
the open space would be made a part of this alternative. An action to achieve this would
require additional action on the part of the applicants and the City.
Action Required Pursuant to Approval of the Applicant's Request
1. Referral to Planning Commission pursuant to Section 65857 for report and
recommendation.
2. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report along with Findings of Fact
and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Addendum.
3. Rejection of VTM No. 51407 (R -N -P) and TM No. 51253 (Sasak) with
.appropriate findings and conclusions.
4. Preparation of revised map, conditions, and agreements to facilitate the revised
Arciero subdivision.
5. Approval of new VTM No. 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).
SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN REFERRAL
Alternative 3 - No Project
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.
RECOAEVIENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the submitted request, receive public
comments and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Commission recommendation to the
City Council.
SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN REFERRAL 5
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager,
MEETING DATE: May 9, 1994 REPORT DATE: April 26, 1994
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director Revised May 5, 1994
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.
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. 924.
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
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
RF)hEWED B�':
Terrence L. Belanger ( Frank M. slieres DeStefano
City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Devel pment Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO. Q.1
MEETING DATE: May 9, 1994 Repo.=t Revised May 5, 1994
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: 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.
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, 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 a
presentation from the staff and project developers; open
the Public Hearing, receive public testimony, and take
appropriate action.
1
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 Brea
Canyon Road, improvements to Brea Canyon Road, and area
off-site. street and 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:
RNP Development, Ind. 4439 Rhodelia Dr., Claremont
CA 91711
Arciero and Sons, Inc. 950
CA 92807
Sasak Corporation, 858 W.
91785
city of Diamond Bar, 21660 E
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
North Tustin, Anaheim,
9th Street, Upland CA
Copley Dr., Ste. 100,
2
The 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'.
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.
Yl WE C." s Ob.Nm n.••
TIi PplNir_
It PLANNED UUMMUN'IY
mY rno zn�.n osm,
F"' Ax .V_r
The 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.
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.
Vestina Tentative Tract No. 32400
Vesting Tentative Tract No 32400 is proposed by Arciero and Sons and consists
of 93 lots on -47.44 acres. Ninety-one (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 #45) square feet. Primary access is from Brea Canyon Road with
a secondary accesspoint 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 MasterPlan.
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, a$ 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 #24) to 18,679 sq. ft. (lot #34).
Pad sizes range from 7,079 sq. ft. (lot #26) to 13,322 sq. ft. (lot #30).
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..
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
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 and
recordation of the new map. (See Exhibit "F")
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
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
General Plan and often bridges the .gap between General Plan policy and zoning
standards for the property under consideration for development.
Development Agreements
The :use of Development Agreements are proposed. for the Arciero and RNP
development project. The Development Agreement is utilized as a 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 land transfers, 'contract
zoning, and commitments by all parties toward the successful completion of
the proposed project. Attached to this report are maps which illustrate the
existing and future ownership of property as a result of project
implementation.
Hillside Mana ement Ordinance Conditional Use Permit and Oak Tree Permit
The Hillside Management ordinance requiresa 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.
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 (551903).
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
§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)..
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.
Alternative 1 - North/South Canyon preservation
An alternative to the proposed project has been proposed for consideration
and is designed to encourage the preservation of the sandstone Canyon area
for open space purposes. The concept involves Arciero and Sons (Tract Map
No. 32400) trading their property,' adjacent to the middle school, for the
westerly 35± acres of the RNP Development, Inc. (Tract 'Map. No. 51407)
property. Arciero would develop 103 homes on the former RNP site and include
a new road access from Brea Canyon Road to the middle school. Theproposal--
would incorporate the excess earth scheduled for 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 to the City,
would be conditioned upon the removal of existing map restrictions on
property, owned by RNP, located adjacent to Grand Avenue. Any future
development proposal for the Grand Avenue site would be subject to all City
regulations for environmental review and development. Subdivision plans
would be submitted for review at a later date. Potential benefits of this
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 Required
1. Referral of revised project to Planning Commission pursuant to
Section 65857 for a report and recommendation.
2. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report, preparation of an
addendum or supplemental EIR along with Findings of Fact and a
statement of Overriding Considerations.
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 of the RNP Grand
Avenue site for removal of map restrictions (pursuant to Government
Code §51093).
5. Approval of revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51407 and its
associated CUP, Oak Tree Permit and Development Agreement.
Approval of Tentative Tract 51253 (Sasak) and related permits.
Approval of Parcel Map 24031 for RNP Grand Avenue Site (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 conditions required for grading permits, recordation
of maps, etc.
Although an intermittent blue -line stream exists upon the most westerly
portion of. Tract 51407, a significant amount of school site earth may be
relocated to Tract 51407 concurrent with the processing of the 404 and 1601-
1607 permits.
Alternative 2 -.Preservation of East/West Properties
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. As an example, in 1991, Arciero 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 and
preserve the building rights restricted east -west properties now owned by
Sasak Corporation (6.7 acres) and RNP Development (78 acres). (Exhibit "H")
Action Required
1. Referral; to Planning Commission pursuant to, Section 65857 for
report and recommendation.
2. Certification of the Environmental Impact Report along with
Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Addendum.
3. Rejection of VTM 51407 (RNP) and TM 51253 (Sasak) with appropriate
findings and conclusions.
4. Preparation of revised map, conditions, and agreements to
facilitate the revised Arciero subdivision.
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 Project
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
consultant to prepare the environmental documents. An Executive Summary of
the environmental review record is attached.
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 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 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: (Previously transmitted within May 2, 1994 report)
MAPS 1. South Pointe Master Plan (Exhibit "A")
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
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
16. Timeline of Construction for South Pointe Middle School
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
E
J.C.D.
J. C. D A B N E Y & ASSOCIATES
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS
671 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SL`ITE 5
WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91-89
909 594-7568 ' --
FAX - 909-594-5090
Z7
1l7
March 25, 1994
'ir. Terrace Belanger
City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
Suite 100
21660 East Copley: Drive
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765-4177
Reference: South Pointe Muster Plan Processing
Dear Mr. Belanger,
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 modifieJ. 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 required opinion letter from OPR has been received by the City, and does
allow sorT!e continued processing for those vesting applications that fell within the
outlined time constraints of the OP4 opinion, we are arking that cur. ..pplicatic,;,
process be allowed to continue due to the fullowing considerations..
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 controi that are influencing the
need to have this project proceed irrmmed'i.ately.
As both you and the Council are presently aware, the State has placed time
constraints upon the Walnut Valley Unified School District which require them to
proceed with their proposed improvements to the South Pointe Middle School or
place in jeopardy tie 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,
�t�
)an� C. Dabney, RCE
President
cc: Mr. Dwight Forrister
Mr. Frank Arciero Jr.
Mr. Amrut Patel
Mr. Ronald Hockwald
J.C.D.
J. C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS
671 S. BREA CANYON ROAD SUITE 5
WALNUT. CALIFORNIA 91-89
909 594-7568
FAX - 909-594-5090
March 15, 1994
City of Diamond Bar
Reference: SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN
CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS:
I am presenting for your consideration a conceptual plan of the modified South
Pointe Master Plan.
I 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 investigated. Two routes through the Arciero 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 streetsection 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.
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,
/
• C V
an CI
RCE
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 (714) 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
VOLUME III
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
on the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
for the
SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN
SCH No. 92081040
Prepared for:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177
Contact. James DeStefano, Community Development Director
Prepared by:
ULTRASYSTEMS ENGINEERS & CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
2030 Main Street, 14th Floor
Irvine, California 92714-7240
Contact. Peter Lewandowski, Director of Planning
May 1994
Printed on Recycled Paper
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ha ter
Existing Ownership Patterns ............................
—P=
1.0
INTRODUCTION ...............................
1-1
3
Overview ..................................
1-1
4
Additional Written Comments .....................
1-2
5
Notice and Consultation .........................
1-2
6
Final Environmental Impact Report ..................
1-4
2.0
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ........................
2-1
8
Identification of Project Alternatives .................
2-1
Alternative Analysis ...........................
2-1
Additional Alternative Analysis ....................
2-3
3.0
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 - NORTH/SOUTH CANYON
PRESERVATION ...............................
3-1
4.0
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 - EASTIWEST CANYON
PRESERVATION ...............................
4-1
5.0
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 - EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL
MATERIAL ...................................
5-1
F"ieures
1
Existing Ownership Patterns ............................
2-5
2
South Pointe Master Plan ............................
2-6
3
Alternative Nos. 1, 2 and 3 - Development Overview ..........
2-11
4
Regional Location Map .............................
3-2
5
Alternative No. 1 - North/South Canyon Preservation ..........
3-3
6
Alternative No. 2 - East/West Canyon Preservation ............
4-2
7
Alternative No. 3 - Export of Surplus Soil Material ...........
5-3
8
Potential Truck Haul Route ..........................
5-6
Tables
1 Alternative No. 1 - Development Summary ................ 3-6
2 Alternative No. 2 - Development Summary ................ 4-3
3 Alternative No. 3 - Development Summary ................ 5-4
Appendix A: Correspondence
ReMooce to Con menu - Vol nI i
South Pointe Mister Plan
4684\FEIR-3.RTC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER 1.0
INTRODUCTION
Reaponae to Comments - VOL III
South Poime.Mmater Plan
4684\FEIR-3.RTC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Overview
On May 2, 1994, the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Diamond
Bar conducted a joint public hearing to consider the South Pointe Master Plan project and the
associated entitlements and approvals related thereto. Based upon public comments received by
the City of Diamond Bar (City) upon both the draft South Pointe Master Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact for the South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040 (November 1992),
including each of the supportive studies and documents comprising the totality of the project's
environmental review record (ERR),' the project applicants have submitted for public
consideration two revised project alternatives which expand upon and further clarify the
alternatives described and analyzed in the project's ERR.
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQAY
and its implementing guidelines,' the project's ERR included an analysis of a "no project"
alternative. As more thoroughly described in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040 (November 1992), the "no project" alternative
assumed the retention of the project site in its existing condition. Based upon the identified
needs of the Walnut Valley Unified School District (District) to remove the surplus soil material
presently stockpiled on the grounds of the South Pointe Middle School, a variation of the "no
project" alternative has been determined to warrant further consideration in the project's
environmental documentation. Under that variation, the project site would be retained in its
current condition; however, the approximately 400,000 cubic yards of soil material now located
on the school site would be removed to either an off-site depository or would be relocated to
another area within the boundaries of the South Pointe Master Plan project area. Once removed,
the District would proceed with the construction and subsequent operation of the approved
facility plan for the South Pointe Middle School as more thoroughly described in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for Walnut Valley Unified School District School Site, SCH No.
88112305.
' The ERR includes, but is not limited to, the following documents: (1) Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the South Poiw Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040 (November 1992), including each of the documents
incorporated thstti by reference; (2) Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report far the
South Pointe Matter Plan (February 18, 1993); (3) Technical Appendix - Response to Comments on the Draft
Environmental impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan Project (May 18, 1993); (4) Volume II - Response
to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan (November 1993); and
(5) Volume III - Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan
(May 1994). Collectively, each of the above referenced documents are referred to as the Draft EiR herein.
2 Codified as Section 21000 er seq of the Public Resources Code.
' As found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with Section 15000.
ReWonn to Comments - VOL In L-1
South Pointe Maser Plan
46841FEIR-3.RTC
As required under Section 15126(d) of the CCR, the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040 included "a range of reasonable
alternatives to the project" and presented for public review and consideration a comparative
analysis of the potential environmental effects associated with each of the alternatives described
in that document. Included among those development options were a number of alternatives
similar to those project scenarios identified at the joint public hearing.
Although similar in nature to those alternatives described therein, each of the recently
proposed alternatives present slight variations from those options included in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040. In order.
to provide both the public and the project's decision -makers with information concerning the
potential environmental impacts associated therewith, including an evaluation of their
comparative merits, each of these alternatives are discussed in this document.
Additional Written Comm
Subsequent to the date of publication of 'the document entitled Response to Comments,
Volume II, the City received other written comments addressing the South Pointe Master Plan
project and/or the potential environmental impacts resulting from that project or individual
components of that development plan. Correspondence receive by the City after that date, which
raise issued requiring a response under CEQA, have been included in Aaendix A
(Correspondence) herein.
Notice and Consultation
Section 21092.1 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) states that "[w]hen significant
new information is added to an environmental impact report after notice has been given pursuant
to Section 21092 and consultation has occurred pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153, but prior
to certification, the public agency shall give notice again pursuant to Section 21092, and consult
again pursuant to Sections 21104 and 21153 before certifying the environmental impact report. "4
* In clarification of those statutory references included in the above passage: (1) Section 21492 requires any
public agency which is preparing an EIR to provide public notice of such fact within a reasonable time period prior
to final adoption by the public agency of such EIR; (2) Section 21104 states that prior to completing an EIR for
which a State agency functions as a Lead Agency, the State Lead Agency has specific consultation obligations; and
(3) Section 21153 requires local Lead Agencies to consult with each Responsible Agency and any other public
agency with jurisdiction by law upon a project for which an EIR is being prepared and may consult with any person
prior to completing the EIR.
t_ZReqxmo to Commau - VOL M
South Poiwo Maftr [tin
46841FM 3.RTC
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION
As required by this passage, a Lead Agency must issue new notice and must
recirculate an environmental impact report (EIR) if the agency adds "significant new information
subsequent' to public review and interagency consultation, but prior to final document
certification." No further public review or consultation is, however, necessary when the new
information merely clarifies or amplifies information previously presented in the project's
environmental review record or makes insignificant changes in an otherwise adequate EIR.
The further analysis of those alternatives more thoroughly described herein, does not
constitute "significant new information" as defined under CEQA and its implementing
guidelines. Each of the alternatives identified and discussed in this Volume III - Response to
Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan
(Response to Comments, Volume III) reflect alternatives which were previously analyzed in the
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040
(November 1992). That document included a detailed discussion of: (1) a "cluster
development" alternative, in which development activities were relegated to the less
environmentally sensitive portions of the project site and a significant portion of the site was
retained for an open space or recreational use; (2) a "no project" alternative in which the project
site was maintained in its present condition with limited recreational uses; and=(3) a development
scenario (i.e., Tentative Tract No. 51253) in which only a portion of the project site was
developed, based upon existing ownership patterns.' The alternatives described herein constitute
additional variations of these alternatives, albeit the physical configurations and the precise
characteristics of the herein described alternatives were not specifically delineated in that
document.
Additionally, the alternatives presented in this Response to Comments, Volume III have
been proposed in response to public and agency comments received by the City during either
public hearings held by the City on the South Pointe Master Plan and its accompanying.
environmental documentation or submitted in response to legal notices issued by the City
pursuant to the City's CEQA obligations. Many of these comments encouraged the City, acting
in its capacity as Lead Agency, to explore both the preservation of all or a portion of the project
area and the retention of that area to be preserved in a more naturalized manner.
Based upon these direct linkages with the information contained in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040 (November
1992) and the absence of "new significant information" resulting from this augmented analysis,
no additional notice or recirculation is required under CEQA or its implementing guidelines.
s As further described in Response to Comments on the Draft EnWronmental Impact Report for the South Pointe
Master Plan (February 16, 1993), pp. D15-16.
Response to Comments - VOL III 1-3
South Pointe Mauer Plan
46841FEnt-3.RTC
i. EVMODUCTION
Final Environmental Imuact R
As required under Section 15089 of the CCR, the Lead Agency' is required to
"prepare a final EIR before approving the project." Although this regulatory requirement
mandates that the preparation of that document must precede the approval or conditional
approval of the project which is the subject of the EIR, it neither infers that project approval is
a required action by the Lead Agency following document preparation nor usurps from the local
agency any of the authority vested therein to act upon the project in that manner deemed
appropriate by the project's decision -makers.'
Since CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves
(Section 15270(a), CCR), there is no obligation on the part of the Lead Agency to "prepare a
final EIR—or make those findings specified in Section 15091 of the CCR should the Lead
Agency elect not to approve the project under review. The City, in its capacity as Lead Agency,
has the further option to prepare and certify a final EIR, but may elect to take no action on the
project.'
As defined, a final EIR "means an EIR containing the information contained in the
draft EIR, comments either verbatim or in summary received in the review process, a list of
persons commenting, and the response of the Lead Agency to the comments received" (Section
15362(b), CCR). The final EIR is required to contain the following elements:
e The draft EIR or a revision of the draft EIR;
a The City of Diamond Bar is defined as the "Lead Agency for the proposed project.
' Section 15042 of the CCR authorizes public agencies to "disapprove a project if necessary in order to avoid
one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project were approved as proposed."
Conversely, Section 15043 of the CCR, indicates that "a public agency may approve a project even though the
project would cause a significant effeet on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly
disclosed decision that: (1) there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect; and (2) specifically
identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental
impacts of the project."
8, The contents of a final EIR aro specified in Section 15132 of the CCR;, however, a final EIR is Muted
not solely by the assemblage of that material, but by an action by the Lead Agency. As required under Section
15090 of the CCR, the Lead Agency is required to "certify that: (a) the final EIR has been completed in
compliance with CEQA; and (b) 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."
14 Reqw= to Comments - VOL M
South Poute Malar Ilan
4694UMM 3.RTC
CHAFrER 1.0 INTRODUCTION
• Comments and recommendations received on the draft EER, either verbatim or in
summary;
• A list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR;
•' The responses by the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in
the review and consultation process; and
• Any other information added by the Lead Agency?
The draft EIR for the South Pointe Master Plan presently includes a number of
separately bound documents. Collectively, those documents, this volume and such other
information as deemed appropriate by the Lead Agency, presently comprise a draft version of
the project's final EIR. These documents, which are hereinafter collectively referred to as the
Draft EIR, include:
• Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No.
92081040 (November 1992); hereinafter DEIR;
• Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South
Pointe Master Plan (February 18, 1993), hereinafter Response to Comments,
Volume I,
• Technical Appendix - Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the South Pointe Master Plan (May 18, 1993), hereinafter Technical
Appendix;
• Volume II - Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the South Pointe Master Plan (November 1993), hereinafter Response to
Comments, Volume II;
• Volume III - Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the South Pointe Master Plan (May 1994), hereinafter Response to Comments,
Volume III; and
Section 15132 of the California Code of Regulations.
Response to Comments - VOL III 1-5
South Pointe Mader Plan
4684\FM-3.P-TC
CHAPTER 1.0 EgIRODUCTI®N
® Annotated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan,
SCH No. 92081040 (November 1992,.annotated May 1994), hereinafter
Annotated Draft EIR.10
10 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 draft EIR, the Lead Agency is authorized to either revise the text of the drift
EIR or "include margin notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments. " In compliance
therewith, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040 (November
1992) has been supplemented to contain margin notes which refer the reader to those applicable comments and/or
technical responses which have resulted in the inclusion of additional or amended information in that documentation.
For the purpose of the project's environmental review record, the Annotated Draft EM supplements and supersedes
the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081090 (November 1992).
1-6 Response to Commats - VOL In
South Pointe Master Man
4684UMM-3.RTC
CHAPTER 2.0
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Response to Comments - VOL III
South Pointe Master Plan
4684TEM-3.RTC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER 2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Identification of Project Alternatives
Section 21002 of the PRC declares "that it is the policy of the state that public
agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects of such projects, and that the procedures required by this division are intended to assist
public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and
the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen
such significant effects."" This public policy is further articulated in Section 15002 of the
CCR which states that "when an BIR shows that a project would cause substantial adverse
changes in the environment, the governmental agency must respond to the information by one
or more of the following methods: (1) changing a proposed project; (2) imposing conditions on
the approval of the project; (3) adopting plans or ordinances to control a broader class of
projects to avoid the adverse changed; (4) choosing an alternative way of meeting the same need;
(5) disapproving the project; (6) finding that changing or altering the project is not feasible;
[and] (7) findings that the unavoidable significant environmental damage is acceptable as
provided in Section 15093" (emphasis added).
Alternative Anti
As required by statute, the DEIR included "a range of reasonable alternatives to the
project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain the basic objectives of the
project" and evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives.12 Six distinct alternatives
were addressed in that document: (1) a "no project" alternative - open space preservation; (2)
development under contemplated City of Diamond Bar General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
policies; (3) a .reduced project size; (4) an alternative site, plan - cluster development; (5) a
maximum development alternative; and (6) implementation of Tentative Tract No. 51253, in
isolation of other approvals.t3 In addition, in response to a request from the City of Diamond
Bar Planning Commission to provide "two additional alternative analyzes, including the elimina-
it Section 15021(a)(2) of the CCR contains similar language. As indicated therein, "[a] public agency should
not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures available that would
substantially lessen any significant effect that the project would have on the enviro maent."
12 Section 15126(d) of the California Code of Regulations.
13 Representing the development of only a portion of the project site, based upon existing ownership patterns.
Response to Comments- VOL III 2-1
South Pointe Muter Plan
46841FEIR-3.RTC
CHAPTER 2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
tion of one and then the other major development project, s14 the Response to Comments,
Volume I further evaluated the potential environmental effects associated with the approval of
one or more of those individual subdivision requests then comprising the South Pointe Master
Plan project.
As indicated therein, the "no project" alternative assumed "that the project site would
be retained as a community open space resource. Development activities would either be
restricted to those areas which either facilitate passive recreational use, provide educational
opportunities or be limited to those areas with minimal biological/habitat value (and which could
be developed with minimal site disturbance). "Is Under this alternative, the surplus/stockpiled
soil presently deposited on the South Pointe Middle School site (estimated to be approximately
400,000 cubic yards) would be removed to an alternative off-site location (e.g., sanitary
landfill). The potential environmental impacts associated with the removal of that soil material,
via the local street system, was further discussed in the Response to Comments, Volume L16
Under the "cluster development" alternative, development would. be authorized but
would be "restricted to those areas of the site which would produce the least impact to Sandstone
Canyon."'? For the purpose of the resulting environmental analysis, development was assumed
to be limited to the area along Brea Canyon Road and in the western portion of the site.
Concerning the stockpiled soil materials, the document stated:
In the absence of a conceptual grading plan, both the quantity and
on-site balance of those [grading] activities cannot be determined.
Should cut and fill quantities not balance, all or a portion of the
existing 400,000 cubic yards of surplus soil presently stockpiled on
the South Pointe Middle School site would require export to an
approved landfill or other acceptable location.18
'" Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Pointe Master Plan (February
18, 1993), pp. D15-16.
63 Draft Environmental Impact Reportfor the South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040 (November 1992),
pp. 6-2 and 6-3.
16 Response to Comments, Volume I, Op. Cit., pp. D-17 and D-19.
"DEIR, Op. Cit., p. 6-18.
1e IN&, p. 6-21.
2-2 Begonee to C,on mum - VOL 1n
Sauk poamo bus" PbA
4684WM-3 XTC
CHAPTER 2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The "Tentative Tract No. 51253" alternative assumes the development of that tract
map area in isolation of Vesting Tentative Tract Nos. 32400 and 51407, which (in conjunction
with the South Pointe Middle School site) collectively comprise the South Pointe Master Plan
project area. In analyzing that alternative, the DEIR concluded that "it is not possible to
separate these projects from any cumulative impact analyses. While the individual environmental
impacts associated with each project will be incrementally reduced [when viewed in isolation],
the cumulative impacts associated with these and other known development projects will reflect
those cumulative effects identified in the Draft EIR [Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
South Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040].»19 That conclusion was further reinforced by
a subsequent analysis contained in the Response to Comments, Volume 120 which concluded that
the cumulative environmental impacts associated with the approval of all subdivision applications
within the South Pointe Master Plan area would be similar to those direct, indirect and
cumulative effects described in the DEIR (November 1992).
Additional Alternative Analyte
On May 2, 1994, the City Council and Planning Commission of the City of Diamond
Bar held a joint public meeting to consider the South Pointe Master Plan and the project's FIR.
At that meeting, an agenda report was provided to both the advisory body (i.e., Planning
Commission) and decision-maldng body (i.e., City Council). That agenda report, included as
Attachment A (City of Diamond Bar Agenda Report - Agenda No. 1) herein, included both a
discussion of the proposed South Pointe Master Plan and accompanying environmental impact
report. In addition, the agenda report identified a number of project alternative for subsequent
consideration by the public and both the advisory and decision -malting bodies of the City.
Although similar to alternatives previously analyzed in the project's ERR, a number
of those alternatives represent slightly different development scenarios that those previously
addressed. In an attempt to ensure a thorough analysis of the potential environmental impacts
associated with those development assumptions, as well as provide a comparative evaluation
between those alternatives and the proposed South Pointe Master Plan, each of the alternatives
identified in that agenda report are summarized below and discussed in the following chapters.
As a precursor to this discussion, it is important to again note that the area comprising
the South Pointe Master Plan site includes a number of distinct property owners, including: (1)
the City of Diamond Bar; (2) the Walnut Valley Unified School District; (3) R -N -P Develop -
19 Response to Comments, Volume I, Op. Cit., p. D-15.
20lbid, pp. D15-16.
Responw to Comments - VOL nI 2-3
South
Pointe Mager Plan
46841FER-3.RTC
ment, Inc.; (4) Arciero and Sons, Inc.; and (5) the Sasak Corporation. The existing ownership
patterns within -the project area are delineated in-Figurel (Ekisting Ownership Patterns).
It should be further noted that implementation of the South Pointe Master Plan, as
proposed, would involve the approval of a number of subdivision applications and associated
approvals. These subdivision applications (including the corresponding project applicant) are
summarized below:
® Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (Arciero and Sons. Inc,)
Involves the subdivision of the northwestern portion of the project site
(approximately 47.5± acres) to accommodate up to 91 single-family detached
homes and to create two separate commercial parcels (totaling approximately
5.9± acres). Project implementation would necessitate the conveyance of City -
owned real property to the project applicant.
® Vesting Tentative Tract No. 51407 (R -N -P Development. Incl
Involves the subdivision of the southerly portion of the site (approximately 84.2±
acres) for the development of up to 90 single-family detached units, recreational
use and open space (approximately 28.1± acres) and commercial development
(approximately 21.9± acres). Project implementation would include the
conveyance of public -owned (i.e., City of Diamond Bar, Walnut Valley Unified
School District) real property to the project proponent.
® Tentative Tract Man No. 51253 (Sasak Co ratio
Involves the subdivision of three existing lots (totaling approximately 6.7± acres)
located in the westerly portion of the project site for the development of 21
single-family detached units. Additional vehicular access to Vesting Tentative
Tract No. 51407 (R -N -P Development, Inc.) would be provided via this tract map
arra.
Although not representing the totality of entitlements required for the implementation
of the South Pointe Master Plan, these projects, in combination with the proposed improvements
to the South Pointe Middle School, represent the key components of that project. The physical
configuration of these subdivision maps within the subject property is illustrated in Figure 2
(South Pointe Master Plan).
24 Rnpom to Conumb - VOL In
SDU* Pou" MW" Plan
4W\PM-3.ATC
✓� 'h�IV 77691
/:,� �-* _� .•�;� NOT TO SCALE
'•�. • •
201117 BAIT iCiiil 40 71 LCKS
K'7 30 64 ACAES
z D
E
��.10 AC;'E
ACKS
-- 77.13 CFCs
�g g
=�
IS
N0. 3514 ./
'� — F € • /�
15.18 ACRES %/ Q
PA"M21 wts
'(p
i COMMERCIAL
- - -- lam• - �.,,.,.�_.--- --
�' EXISTING OWNERSHIP PATTERNS
I A Arciero & Sons, Inc.
B R-N-P Development, Inc.
C Sasak Corporation .
D Walnut valley Unified School District
E City of Diamond Bar
F Homeowners' Association
SOURCE: FIGURE 1
CrrY OF DIAMOND BAR
EXISTING OWNERSHIP PATTERNS
South Point Matter Plan RTC Vol. III
S46841RTC.3 Page 1-5
SMITH POINTE
SOURCE: FIGURE 2
J.C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES S0VM POINM MASMR PLAN
South Point Master Plan RTC VoL III
54684WTC.3
SCHOOL
lg�
71,
SOURCE: FIGURE 2
J.C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES S0VM POINM MASMR PLAN
South Point Master Plan RTC VoL III
54684WTC.3
lg�
71,
-7-
4^N'-P-
NOT TO SCALE
SOURCE: FIGURE 2
J.C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES S0VM POINM MASMR PLAN
South Point Master Plan RTC VoL III
54684WTC.3
CHAPTER 2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Equipped with this background information, the reader is better able to understand
both the physical location of the development alternatives presented in the agenda report and
summarized below (within the context of the South Pointe Master Plan) and the corresponding
actions either proposed by the project proponent(s) or required from the City for the
implementation of the following alternatives:
• Alternative No. 1 - North/South Canyon Preservation
Under this alternative, the majority of the area defined as Sandstone Canyon
would be preserved for either open space or passive recreational purposes. As
proposed, the entire Arciero and Sons, Inc. property and most of the easterly one-
half of the R -N -P Development, Inc. property would be retained for this use. In
addition, the City's property, located along and proximal to Brea Canyon Road,
would be preserved.
Development activities authorized under revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
51407 would be concentrated upon both the westerly one-half of the R -N -P
Development, Inc. property and upon the Sasak Corporation holdings. Under this
development alternative, Arciero and Sons, Inc. would. acquire from R -N -P
Development, Inc. the rights to that real property upon which development
activities are proposed and would develop up to 103 single-family detached homes
on an area of approximately 35t acres. Vehicular access to the project site
would be provided from Larkstone Drive and Morning Sun Avenue. Additional
vehicular access would be obtained via a proposed collector road connecting
Ta tone Drive and Brea Canyon Road. That roadway would cross Sandstone
Canyon (including the watercourse within that canyon) and extend onto property
now owned by the Pathfinder Homeowners' Association.
Under this alternative, the stockpiled soil material now deposited upon the South
Pointe Middle School site would be utilized on-site (i.e., within Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 51407) to accommodate the project's proposed grading
requirements. The sensitive placement of that soil material, including the
avoidance of those "waters of the United States" which may exist on-site, may
allow grading activities to commence prior to the issuance of a Section 401 water
quality certification (California Regional Water Quality Control Board), Section
1603 permit (California Department of Fish and Game) and/or Section 404 permit
(U.S. Department of the Army -Corps of Engineers) as may be required by State
or federal resource agencies for any proposed disturbance to those areas within
the jurisdiction of those agencies.
Response to Comments - VOL III 2,7
South Pointe Mager Plan
46&4%TJR-3.RTC
CHAPTER 2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
R -N -P Development, Inc. has indicated that a condition of project approval would
include the removal of existing development restrictions now. recorded upon Lot
1 of Tract No. 31477 and Lot 61 of Tract No. 42557. Those restrictions, which
presently affect this 68.1 ± acre off-site area, prevent the construction of
residential buildings upon those parcels. Removal of this restriction, which would
be accomplished through either a lot merger or such other action as may be
authorized by the City, would allow the construction of one dwelling unit upon
that property.21 Through separate action, independent of both the South Pointe
Master Plan and this environmental analysis, the property owner would be able
to pursue a separate entitlement for the later subdivision of that site.
® Alternative No. 2 - EastlWest Canyon Preservation
Under this alternative, that portion of the proposed area under the ownership of
both R -N -P Development, Inc. and Sasak Corporation would be retained for open
space and/or passive recreational use. As proposed under revised Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 32400, Arciero and Sons, Inc. would subdivide the
47.6± acre site (inclusive of City -owned land) to construct up to 75 single-family
detached units. Approximately 21.2± acres of the tract map area would be
retained as open space, with an additional 6.9± acres allocated to the internal
roadway network.
Implementation of this alternative would allow the on-site use of all or a portion
of the stockpiled soil material now located at the South Pointe Middle School.'
As proposedi an estimated 393,150 cubic yards of imported soil would be
required to implement the project's conceptual grading plan. Based upon the
limited size of the project site and the presence of an existing intermittent "blue -
line" stream (representing a predominant site feature), the on-site consumption
of the stockpiled material may not be possible prior to the attainment of
discretionary permits from both State and federal resource agencies.
21 The potential environmental impacts of the lot merger was addressed through a separate Initial Study and draft
Negative Declaration, dated May 2, 1994.
22 Implementation of this grading plan was addressed in the Final Eavlromnental Impact Report for Walnut
Valley Unified School District School Site, SCH No. 88112305 (Walnut Valley Unified School District, January 4,
1989), incorporated by reference in the DEIR. As indicated therein, "[tlhe proposed project consists of a 30.64
acre school site which will involve 997,000 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" (p. 2). The "valley" is a
reference to Sandstone Canyon; the "tract" is a reference to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400.
2-8 Respome to Commas - VOL M
sou h Point WSW Plan
4684UMM-3.RTC
CHAKER 2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
• Alternative No 3 - Ex rt of Surplus -Soil Material
In the DEIR, the "no project" alternative was defined as the retention of the
entire project site "as a community open space resource." Under that
assumption, the stockpiled soil material now located upon and adjoining the South
Pointe Middle School site would not be removed or relocated. That action (or
non -action), however, prevents the Walnut Valley Unified School District from
implementing the facility plan for the South Pointe Middle School.
Under this revised "no project" alternative, the project site would again be
retained for open space and/or passive recreational use, however, the stockpiled
soil located on the South Pointe Middle School, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
51407 (R -N -P Development, Inc.) and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400
(Arciero and Sons, Inc.) would be removed to an off-site depository. The
removal of that soil would facilitate the subsequent improvement of that school
site.
• Alternative No. 4 - Project Denial
Under this "alternative," the City would deny the South Pointe Master Plan, as
proposed or as revised to reflect those alternatives identified in the Draft EIR.
Although included as an "alternative" in the agenda report, this action does not
constitute a distinct "alternative" (separate from the "no project" alternative
previously addressed in the DEIR) under CEQA. A Lead Agency's obligations
under CEQA relate to the disclosure of environmental impacts associated with the
contemplated approval of a definable project- Pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the
CCR, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or
disapproves. As a result, no additional analysis is provided herein.
• Alternative No. 5 - Project Continuance
As with Alternative No. 4 above, this "alternative" does not constitute a
development scenario which lends itself to scientific inquiry under CEQA. While
clearly reflecting an action (or non -action) which can be selected by the City, this
"alternative" does not commit the public agency to a definitive course of action
n Implementation of the facility plan for the South Pointe Middle School was independently evaluated in the
Final Environmental Impact Report for Walnut Valley UnSyied School District School Site, incorporated by reference
into the DER?.
Response to Comments - VOL to - 2-9
South Pointe Master Plan
4684\FEIR-3.RTC
CHAPTER 2.0 PROJECT ALTERNAT M
with regards to the project. Since no new project variations are proposed under
this action, no additional environmental analysis beyond that now contained in the
Draft EIR is required herein.
Alternative Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are illustrated in Figure (Alternative Nos. 1, 2 and 3 -
Development Overview) herein. Since Alternative Nos. 4 and 5 do not result in the introduction
of new information within this project's environmental review record, these project
"alternatives" are neither addressed in this document nor graphically depicted in the above
reference exhibit.
2-10 Rupon m ui Comments - VOL in
South Pore Mader Plan
4684UMM-3.RTC
' .-`d.'', •1�VX"h�\ 1 "gel ]7ie7`� �I1;
'y
:,; "%s' : i �r } ,•' . : ` "_ oY -r�1 \, 1 NOT TO SCALE
;i r. 444 U18STOK
ca
Wum,16y •1
Flu 1" "•�," "t{
15.1li ACRES J .lxl/ c
101 31 11 35711 ' " '••" PAAK { a
. c h c5 1CIS
7j. "COMMERCIAL
LMffS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Alternative No. 1 - North/South Canyon Preservation
NOTE: The project boundaries depicted for each of
alternatives heroin am approximations only. ® Alternative No. 2 - East/West Canyon Preservation
This figure is provided to assist the reader to
utderstandiog the gencralired locations for
the project alternstives addressed in this ® Alternative No. 3 - Export of Surplus Soil Material
document.
SOURCE:
FIGURE 3
I-G&E POWER ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS INC.
ALTERNATIVE NOS. 1, 2 AND 3
Base Map: I.C. Dabney & Associates
DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW
South Point Master Plan RTC Vol. III
-
346841RTC.3
Page 241
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER 3.0
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
NORTH/SOUTH CANYON PRESERVATION
Revonre to Comments - VOL III
South Pointe Mager Plan
46"kFEDW ATC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER 3.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
NORTH/SOUTH CANYON PRESERVATION
This alternative to the South Pointe Master Plan project has been proposed in response
to comments received on the Draft EIR which have sought the preservation of the Sandstone
Canyon area for open space and/or passive recreational purposes. Under this alternative,
Arciero and Sons, Inc. would acquire the westerly 35± acres of the R -N -P Development, Inc.
property and would develop up to 103 single-family detached homes on both that acquired
acreage and that portion of their current ownership located south of Larkstone Drive. Under
this alternative, both the area comprising Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (Arciero and
Sons, Inc.) and the easterly one-half of the area of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407
(R -N -P Development, Inc.) would be preserved. Ownership of that preservation area would be
conveyed to either the City or other non-profit organizations.
As now proposed, R -N -P Development, Inc. would retain no development rights to
the project area and would not proceed with development plans within the South Pointe Master
Plan area. In exchange for the conveyance of those development rights which may now exist
or which may exist in the future, R -N -P Development's offer of dedication would be conditioned
upon the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 and the subsequent removal of existing
subdivision map restrictions on that non-contiguous 68 t acre property located adjacent to Grand
Avenue and the City's easterly corporate boundaries.0 Removal of those restrictions would
authorize the property owner to construct up to one dwelling unit upon that property. The
physical relationship between the project site and Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031 is illustrated
in Figure 4 (Regional Location Map). Any future development proposal for the Grand Avenue
site would be subject to all City regulations for environmental review and development.
Implementation of Alternative No. 1 - North/South Canyon Preservation would result
in the development of a revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407, as indicated in Figure
5 (Alternative No. 1 - North/South Canyon Preservation). As illustrated therein, the majority
of development activities will be concentrated in the westerly portion of that tract map area. To
facilitate vehicular access to the project site, a new collector road is, however, proposed linlvng
Larkstone Drive. with Brea Canyon Road. That roadway will cross Sandstone Canyon and
intersect with Brea Canyon Road southerly of the South Pointe Master Plan project area,
necessitating the conveyance of an access easement across real property presently owned by the
I The City of Diamond Bar is presently processing a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for this off-site
acreage, identified as Tentative Parcel Map No. 24031. Based upon the findings of a draft Initial Study,
incorporated herein by reference pursuant to Section 15150 of the CCR, the City has tentatively concluded that
revisions to that project made, or agreed to, by the applicant would avoid or mitigate the effects of the project to
a point where clearly no significant effect would occur and there is no substantial evidence that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment.
Response to Comments - VOL In 3-1
South Pointe Master Plan
4684TM-3.RTC
a OWN SOUTH P
MASTER
40PnS#
Al
SOURCE:
LG&E POWER ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS INC.
Base Map: 71cmas Brothem Maps
South Point Matter Plan RTC Vol. X
546841RTC.3
PARCEL MAP
NO. 2MI
MWn
0 1 2 5 . I
FIGURZ 4
RWIONAL LOCA77ON M"
Page 3-2
��O 4
_j
t�
C `"� _ .�4`j i � ta�S,-'•��'r yt� '� � ':;'III M•���....j4♦ ..�' •
iz
Y,' J ! ' II ,�; \eye• � 4
cy
.1,=�„ . �y��`'Y * �'""'i1 .. rrr,"#•r ,'i:yy"J, ui G $
z
CHAPTER l ALTERNATIVE NO.
ORTHISOUTH CANYON PRESERVATION
adjoining homeowners' association. The alignment indicated in Figure 5 (Alternative No. 7 -
North/South Carryon Preservation)has been selected to minimize site disturbance within and
adjoining the project site.
Although not illustrated, development of Tentative Tract 'Map No. 51253 (Sasak
Corporation) is assumed under this project alternative. The impacts associated with that project
component have been previously addressed in the Draft EIR.
Although an intermittent "blue -line" stream presently exists within the easterly portion
of Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and the most westerly portion of Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 51407, a significant amount of export earth from the school site may be relocated to those
portions of Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 which
are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (pursuant to Section 404 of the
federal Clean Water Act), the California Department of Fish and Game (pursuant to Section
1601-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code) and the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board (pursuant to Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act). As required by
applicable State and federal regulations, the deposition of fill or dredged material (e.g., imported
earth) may not affect either the intermittent "blue -line" stream, the water quality of that
watercourse or the riparian plant communities associated therewith prior to the issuance of all
requisite permits and approvals.
Associated approvals and related entitlements include, but may not be limited to: (1)
approval of revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 (R -N -P Development, Inc. or
Arciero and Sons, Inc.); (2) approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 (Sasak Corporation,
Inc); (3) approval of Conditional Use Permits (CUPS) as required under the City's Hillside
Management Ordinance; (4) Oak Tree Permits; (5) execution of a Development Agreement(s)
between affected parties; (6) issuance of grading and associated building permits; (7) acceptance
by the City of all real property dedications as may be associated with the proposed undertaking;
and (8) such other actions as may be required from the City for the approval and subsequent
construction and operation of the project.
In addition, a number of other discretionary permits from those Responsible Agencies
having jurisdiction by law over specific aspects of the project are anticipated. These permits and
approvals 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
(RWQCB); (2) Section 401 water quality certification(s) from the RWQCB; (3) Section 1601-
1607 permit(s) from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); (4) Section 404
permit(s) from the U.S. Army - Corps of Engineers (COE); and (5) such other permits and
3-4 Regv me to Com®eate - VOL In
South Pou9e Mager Plan
4684UgM-3.RTC
CHAPTER 3.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
NORTH/SOUTH CANYON PRESERVATION
approvals as may be required by the County of Los Angeles and/or other State or federal
agencies with jurisdiction by law over the project.
Under this project alternative, the following potential environmental impacts can be
anticipated:
Land Use: Development of the project site, pursuant to this alternative, would result
in the conversion of both the westerly 35 f acres of the R -N -P Develop-
ment, Inc. and the 6.8 t acre Sasak Corporation properties to urban uses.
The remainder of the R -N -P Development, Inc. property and the Arciero
and Sons, Inc. properties would remain undeveloped. As a result, this
alternative would result in the preservation of a significant proportion of
that area generally defined as Sandstone Canyon for open space and/or
passive recreational purposes.
Development activities which would be authorized under this project
alternative are presented in Table 1 (Alternative No. _ 1 - Development
Summary). As indicated therein, a significant portion of the Sandstone
Canyon area would be preserved. Although no development plans have
been formulated for this open space area, subsequent passive recreational
uses may be proposed which encourage the public use of this area and/or
facilitate the use of the site for educational or related purposes. For the
purpose of this analysis, only limited public use is assumed and no
physical improvements (e.g., parking area, interpretive center) are
contemplated at this time.'
Based upon the proposed lot sizes and street configurations, the
residential land uses associated with this alternative layout would be
compatible with existing land uses in the project area.
Earth: Implementing this alternative would result in a reduction in landform
alterations to the site. Total grading quantities would be incrementally
reduced below those levels associated with the South Pointe Master Plan
project. Grading activities projected to occur within the existing South
Pointe Middle School site could be accommodated under this alternative's
" Under this alternative, no development plans have been formulated for Iarkstone Park (undeveloped). That
2.9 t acre site would remain in public ownership, but would not be improved hereunder.
Response to Comments - VOL M 3-5
South Pointe Mester Plan
46841FM-3.RTC
CHAPITR 3.0 ALTERNATIVE
NORTEUSOUTH CANYON PRESERVATION
Table 1
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 - DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Approximate
Development
Land Use
AAcreaee
Assumption
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 (Revised)
35
103 units'
Tentative Tract Map No. 51253
7
21 units
Open Space/Passive Recreational Use (Revised)
952
NM
Larkstone Park (Unimproved)
3
NM
South Pointe Middle School
31
NA3
TOTAL:
171 acres
124 units'
' Single-family detached dwelling units.
2 Including approximately 43f of property owned by R -N -P Development, Inc.; 42 f acres
of property owned by Arciero and Sons, Inc.; and 10± acres of publicly -owned real
Property
3 NA - Not Applicable
a Representing an estimated net density of 2.95 dwelling units/acre (124 units/42 acres).
Source: Ultrasystems
3-6 Ravonmm to Comments - VOL In
Sash Pointe War Mon
46&4gMR-3.RTC
CHAPTER 3.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
NORTH/SOUTH CANYON PRESERVATION
revised grading plan, thereby minimizing the need for off-site soil
exportation. Landform alterations would be generally confined to the
westerly 42 t acres of the site (inclusive of both the R -N -P Development,
Inc. and Sasak Corporation properties). With the exception of the
proposed access road connecting both the school site and adjoining
residential areas to Brea Canyon Road, the remainder of the project site
would be retained in its existing undeveloped state.
In order to accommodate scheduling objectives established by the Walnut
Valley Unified School District, a phased grading plan would be required.
Under the initial phase, surplus soil material now stockpiled upon and
adjoining the South Pointe Middle School site would be removed and
deposited upon that portion of either Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
51407 and/or Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 which would avoid
potential impacts to those intermittent "blue -line" streams located upon
those properties. By avoiding those watercourses and the plant
communities associated therewith, grading activities could commence
under the authority of both a locally -issued grading permit(s) and Oak
Tree Permit(s).
The remainder of project -related grading operations, as may be required
for project implementation, would commence upon issuance of other
requisite permits as may be required by those Responsible Agencies
(e.g., RWQCB, CDFG, COE) having jurisdiction by law over specific
resources which may exist upon the project site.
Although a portion of the project area will be developed under this
alternative, the area of proposed landform alternations would be confined
to the westerly portion of the project site. Topographic variations and
existing vegetation within that area is less diverse than that associated
with the Sandstone Canyon area. By preserving the majority of
Sandstone Canyon, the project site will retain much of its existing visual
characteristics and biological diversity. As a result, the City concludes
that those landform alterations associated with the implementation of this
project alternative will not be significant.
Water: Under this. alternative, the ,intermittent "blue -line" stream and associated
plant communities in the western portion of the R -N -P Development, Inc.
and Sasak Corporation properties would be impacted during grading
Responw to Comments- VOL III 3-7
South Pointe Mager Plan
4684%MM-3.RTC
CHAPTER 3.0 ALTERNATIVE NO.
NORTEUSOUTH CANYONPRESERVATION
activities. Under this development plan, apbased gradingoperation has
been assumed. During the initial phase, the soil material stockpiled upon
the South Pointe Middle School site would be removed from that
property and deposited within the area of Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 51407. By avoiding impacts upon that watercourse, these activities
can occur under the authority of a grading permit issued by the City.
During a later phase, the remainder of grading activities would be
conducted and would be subject to receipt of subsequent permits from
other State and federal resources agencies. The intermittent "blue -line"
stream in the eastern section of the property (i.e., Sandstone Canyon)
would remain in its existing state, except in that area where the proposed
roadway (connecting Larkstone Drive with Brea Canyon Road) would
cross that watercourse.
By minimizing the percentage of the site to be covered with impervious
surfaces (e.g., roadways, dwelling units), below that level addressed in
the Draft EIR for the South Pointe Master Plan, the change in stormwater
runoff from the pre- to post -development conditions will be reduced. As
represented in Figure 17 (Pre Development Hydrology Conditions) in the
DEIR, the project site is presently comprised of three distinct drainage
areas. Based upon the then proposed South Pointe Master Playa project,
a potential drainage problem was identified within one of those drainage
areas. The storm drain facility located in the vicinity of Fairlane Drive
(i.e., P.D. 1467) presently has a design capacity of 93 cubic feet per
second (cfs). The area (presently 40t acres), which now drains to that
facility, presently contributes 25 -year runoff of 109 cfs and 50 -year
runoff of 122 cfs. These figures are likely to increase after project
development. Implementation of those mitigation measures contained in
'the Draft EIR will, however, minimize potential stormwater impacts to
a level which has been determiner) by the City to be less than significant.
Biotic Resources; Under this alternative, the project's potential impacts upon those biotic
resources which presently exist on-site would be substantially reduced.
By eliminating or reducing grading activities within Sandstone Canyon,
the loss of existing vegetation cover within that area would be minimized.
Since no conceptual grading plan has been submitted for analysis, a
precise delineation of the vegetation communities to be impacted cannot
be quantified at this time. Qualitatively, the overall number of oak trees
that would be removed through project implementation would be reduced
3-8 Roqxmm to Comma - VOL iQ
South Paine Master Plan
Mi84MM 31M
CHAPTER 3.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
NORTH/SOUTH CANYON PRESERVATION
by approximately 80 -percent; therefore, one of the major benefits of this
alternative is the retention of a significant number of oak trees within the
Sandstone Canyon area. Although the number of oak trees impacted by
this revised project would be reduced, the majority of those oak trees
located in proximity to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 and
Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 would continue to require removal.
Those impacts would, however, be partially mitigated through the
issuance of requisite Oak Tree Permits and the implementation of the
compensation measures required therein. While implementation of this
alternative will reduce project -induced impacts below that level indicated
in the Draft EIR, based upon the anticipated number of trees to, be
affected, the City concludes that impacts upon this resource would
continue to be deemed significant.
Although the Draft EIR was unable to support the supposition that the
project site functions as part of a larger migratory corridor, should that
corridor exist on-site, the retention of a significant proportion of the site
under an open space use would benefit potential wildlife movement
within the region.
Attainment of a Section 404 permit from the COE, a Section 401 water
quality certification from the RWQCB and a Section 1601-1607 permit
from the CDFG will minimize any potential project -related and
cumulative impacts upon the existing on-site watercourses and plant
communities associated therewith to a level deemed by the City to be
insignificant.
Transportation: Under this alternative layout, off-site traffic impacts would be less. than
those associated with the South Pointe Master Plan project scenario. The
elimination of the project's commercial component and the incremental
reduction in the number of residential units to be constructed on-site will
reduce the number of vehicular trips generated by the remaining land
uses. Utilizing trip generation forecasts presented in Table 7 (Traffic
Generation Forecast) of the DEIR, the number of daily two-way
vehicular trips will be reduced from an estimated 13,320 trips to
approximately 1,295 trips (i.e., 124 units 0 10.44 trips/units). Of the
1,295 average daily trips (ADT), an estimated 103 trips are projected to
occur during the AM peak hour and 138 trips are estimated to occur
during the PM peak hour (as compared against 405 AM peak hour and
Response to Comments VOL III 3-9
South Pointe Master Plan
4684\FEIR-3.RTC
CHAPTER i ALIERNATIVE e
NORTEUSOUTH CANYONe,
1,245 PM peak hour trips associated with the South Pointe Master Plan
project). Based upon this reduction in traffic volumes, project -related
traffic impacts have been determined by the City not to be significant.
As indicated in Table 9 (Long -Term Peak Hour Level of Service
Summary) in the DEIR, a number of intersections within the study area
will continue to exhibit levels of service in exceedance of roadway design
capacities. Based upon these future conditions, cumulative traffic impacts
may continue to be significant.
Primary vehicular access to the site would be from Brea Canyon Road.
Secondary access would be to the north via Larkstone Drive and to the
west via a connection to Morning Sun Avenue. The westerly access (to
Brea Canyon Road) is necessary due to requirements of Section
21.24.190, as contained in Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code,
which delineates length restrictions for cul-de-sacs. Referencing that
code provision:
A. Cul-de-sacs shall be not more than:
1. 500 feet in length, when serving land zoned for
industrial or commercial use;
2. 700 feet in length, when serving land zoned for
residential uses having a density or more than four
dwelling units per net acre,
3. 1,000 feet in length, when serving two zoned for
residential uses having a density of four or less
dwelling units per net acre.
B. This section shall not be construed to prohibit the
approval of a division of land utilizing frontage on an
existing cul-de-sac of more than the maximum permitted
length nor shall it be construed to prohibit the advisory
agency from reducing the length of a proposed cul-de-sac
to less than the maximum length permitted by this section
or requiring the elimination of a proposed cul-de-sac in
order to provide for the iffident circulation of traffic, the
future development of the neighborhood street system or
the deployment of emergency services.
3-10 Rupoon to Comte - VOL In
Swath points Massa Pon
468dUqM-3.RTC
CHAPTER 3.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
NORTH/SOUTH CANYON PRESERVATION
Although the proposed street system includes cul-de-sacs with a length
greater than 1,000 feet; implementation of those mitigation measures
recommended in the DEIR will mitigate potential project -related impacts
upon the Los Angeles County Fire Department and project area residents
to a level deemed by the City to be less than significant.
It should be noted that the easternmost end of the primary access road is
shown to cross a designated open space area presently owned and
maintained by an adjacent homeowners' association. Approval of this
alignment would necessitate the obtainment of an access easement across
that real property either through acquisition by the project proponents or
direct intervention by the City.
Air Quality: Based upon both the reduction in on-site grading activities required for
project development and the reduction in the number of new daily
vehicular trips generated from land uses internal to the project site, air
pollutant emissions associated with the implementation of this alternative
would be incrementally reduced for both the short-term construction
activities and the long-term operational phase of the project. As indicated
above, estimated daily vehicular trips are projected to decrease from
13,320 trips projected under the South Pointe Master Plan project to only
1,295 daily vehicular trips associated with this project alternative. As
indicated in Table 20 (Total Daily Build -out Emissions) in the DEIR,
mobile source emissions constitute the largest contributing factor to total
long-term emissions. Utilizing the same assumptions as presented therein
(e.g., average trip length, vehicle speed), mobile source emissions are
projected to diminish to: (1) carbon monoxide: 58 lbs/day; (2) reactive
hydrocarbons: 5.5 lbs/day; (3) nitrogen oxides: 29 lbs/day; and (4)
particulates (PM10): 6.7 lbs/days. Based upon these projections, project -
related long-term air quality impacts are not projected to exceed
established threshold criteria and, therefore, are not deemed to be
significant.
Although overall grading quantities will be reduced under this alterative,
the amount of earthwork which is likely to occur upon any given day
may not differ significantly from those estimates presented in the DEIR
(although the duration of those activities and the total quantity of earth
to be moved would be reduced). Based upon. that assumption, and as
reflected in Table 15 (Construction -related Exhaust Emissions) in the
Response to Comments -,VOL III 3-11
South Pointe Manor PLn
46841FEIR-3.RTC
CHAPTER 3.0 ALTERNATIVE NO.
NORTH/SOUTH• " PRESERVATION
DEIR, emissions of nitrogen oxides will continue to exceed established
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) threshold
criteria. As a result of this exceedance, short-term construction -related
air quality impacts will continue to be significant under this alternative.
Noise: As discussed in the DEIR, noise impacts include both the noise generated
by the project (e.g., construction activities, traffic generation, site
utilization) and the effects of external noise sources (e.g., traffic along
the Orange (SR -57) Freeway). As indicated in the DEIR, short-term
construction -related activities may produce noise levels in excess of local
standards (see Figure 4 - City of Diamond Bar Noise Standards in the
DEIR) for those existing residential receptors located in close proximity
to those grading and associated construction activities. These impacts
will be limited to the term of those operations and will be Anther
restricted by those conditions contained in any resulting grading permit(s)
issued by the City.
The DEIR further concluded that only those residential units which may
be constructed in close proximity to the Orange (SR -57) Freeway would
experience noise levels which exceeded local standards. Since, under this
alternative, no residential or other sensitive receptors are being proposed
within locations which would expose those receptors to long-term noise
sources, no additional attenuation (e.g., sound wall) will be required.
Public Services: No potentially significant impacts upon public services or utilities were
identified in the Draft' EIR. Based upon the reduced scale of this
alternative, potential project -related impacts upon those services and
systems would be reduced below those levels presented therein. Under
this alternative, however, Larkstone Park would not be developed and no
additional active recreational facilities will be made available to City
residents. As a result, increased demands will be imposed upon those
active recreational facilities which now exist within the community and
the region.
The preservation and subsequent dedication of Sandstone Canyon, as
provided under this alternative, provides the City with a unique open
space resource. Although no formal plans have been proposed for that
acreage, the site could be opened for a variety of passive recreational
uses and educational pursuits. As a result, conveyance of that site to the
3-12 Regm= to Commeds- VOL III
South Pou" Master Plan
4684MM 3.RTC
CHAPTER 3.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 1
NORTH/SOUTH CANYON PRESERVATION
City (or other non-profit entity) will potentially off -set any increased
demands placed upon other recreational facilities within the project area.
Cultural Resources: No potentially significant cultural resources have been identified on the
project site.
Aesthetics: Development of the site pursuant to this alternative layout would result
in a reduction of the aesthetic impact associated with the South Pointe
Master Plan development. Under this alternative the eastern portion of
the site would not be developed and the Sandstone Canyon area would be
preserved in its existing condition, except for the area of the proposed
access road.
Based upon the physical alteration to the project site associated with the
development of the South Pointe Master Plan, the Draft EIR concluded
that the resulting landform alterations constituted a significant
environmental impact. Although a portion of the. -project site will
continue to undergo a transformation from an open space to an urbanized
use, the primary feature of the project site (i.e., Sandstone Canyon) and
the existing vegetation located therein, will not be developed or otherwise
affected under this alternative. Based upon the proposed preservation of
that area and the retention of much of the existing on-site vegetation, the
proposed modification to the site plan will reduce potential visual impacts
to a level deemed by the City to be insignificant.
Growth Inducement: The introduction of up to 124 new dwelling units on the project site will
not impose significant new demands upon existing services or induce the
development of new commercial activities in the project area.
Additionally, the 464 job opportunities associated with the commercial
component of the South Pointe Master Plan project would not be realized
with this alternative layout. As a result, no growth -reducing impacts are
anticipated to occur under this project alternative.
Response to Commcnu - VOL M 3-13
South Pointe Master Plan
4684TM-3.RTC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER 4.0
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EASTIWEST CANYON PRESERVATION
Response to Comments - VOL III
South Pointe Master Plan
46641FEIR-3.RTC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EAST/WEST CANYON PRESERVATION
Under this alternative, the City would create an on-site open space amenity by: (1)
permitting the developmentof Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (Arciero and Sons, Inc.),
as revised; and (2) denying both Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 (R -N -P Development,
Inc.) and Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 (Sasak Corporation). Since project denial, in and of
itself, will not ensure the preservation of those sites, some additional (and as yet unnamed)
action would be required in order to either retain the site for open space use and/or allow the
public passive recreational access to that property. Those options would include, but are not
limited to, public acquisition, approval of a modified project (i.e., Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 51407 and Tentative Tract Map No. 51253, as further, revised) and/or approval of Tentative
Parcel Map 24031, as more thoroughly discussed under Alternative No. 1- North/South Canyon
Preservation herein.'b
As revised, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 would authorize the construction
of up to 75 single-family detached units on a site comprising approximately 47.6 f acres
(inclusive of publicly -owned land). The tract map area, located in the north-easterly comer of
the South Pointe Master Plan project site, would include 19.3± acres of residential use, 6.9t
acres dedicated for street improvements and approximately 21.2 f acres set aside for open space.
Based upon information provided by the applicant, the projected quantities of earthwork required
for the project indicate the need for approximately 393,150 cubic yards of imported soil. The
presence of an estimated 400,000 cubic yards of soil material stockpiled on the grounds of the
South Pointe Middle School could be utilized to accommodate this import requirement.
Soil material from the school site can be transported to the area of Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 32400 without necessitating the use of residential streets in the project area;
however, the existence of an intermittent "blue -line" stream within that tract map and the
physical limitation imposed by the site's size and existing topography may preclude the initiation
of grading activities prior to the applicant's receipt of discretionary permits from applicable State
(i.e., CDFG, RWQCB) and federal (i.e., COE) resource agencies.
Development activities which would be authorized under this project alternative are
illustrated in Figure (Alternative No. 2 - East/West Canyon Preservation) and are summarized
in Table-2(Alternative No. 2 - Development Summary) herein. As indicated in that exhibit, a
significant proportion of the project site would be retained under an open space or passive
recreational use.
The potential environmental impacts associate with the approval of TentativeParcel Map No. 24031 have bees
independently evaluated through a separate draft Initial Study, incorporated herein by reference. Based upon the
findings of that Initial Study, the City has tentatively determined that the project, as revised to incorporate those
mitigation measures identified therein, will not produce a significant impact upon the environment. As a result of
that preliminary fording, the City has prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for that action.
Reapotno to Commenu - VOL IQ 4-1
south Pointe Matter Plan
4684\FEIR-3.RTC
LE,
2
Y
tj
LE,
2
CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EAST/WEST CANYON PRESERVATION
Table 2
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 - DEVELOPMENT SUN04ARY
Land Use
Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (Revised)
Open Space/Passive Recreational Use (Revised)
Larkstone Park (Unimproved)
South Pointe Middle School
TOTAL:
Approximate
Development
Acreage
Assumption
481
75 unitS2
89,
NV
3
NA4
1
NA
171 acres 75 units5
' Including an estimated 21.2± acres of open space.
2 Single-family detached units.
3 Including approximately 78± acres of property owned by R -N -P Development, Inc.; 7±
acres of property owned by the Sasak Corporation; and 4± acres of publicly -owned property.
4 NA - Not Applicable
5 Representing an estimated net density of 1.56 dwelling units/acre (75 units/48 acres).
Source: Ultrasystems
Response to Comment+ - VOL M 43
South Pointe Mauer Pim
4694WM-3.RTC
CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EAST/WEST CANYON PRESERVATION
Associated approvals and related entitlements include, but may not be limited to:
(1) approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (Arciero and Sons, Inc.), as revised;
(2) approval of a CUP for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400, as required under the City's
Hillside Management Ordinance; (3) Oak Tree permit for the removal of those oak trees affected
by grading activities within the tract map area; (4) execution of a Development Agreement(s)
between affected parties; (5) issuance of grading and associated building permits; (6) conveyance
of publicly -owned real property to the project applicant; (7) acceptance by the City of all real
property dedications as may be associated with the proposed undertaking; and (8) such other
actions as may be required from the City for the approval and subsequent construction and
operation of the project.
In addition, a number of other discretionary permits from those Responsible Agencies
having jurisdiction by law over specific aspects of the project are anticipated. These permits and
approvals include, but may not be limited to: (1) applicable construction, stormwater and
NPDES permits from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and/or RWQCB;
(2) Section 401 water quality certification(s) from the RWQCB; (3) Section 1601-1607 permit(s)
from the CDFG; (4) Section 404 permits from the COE; and (5) such other permits and
approvals as may be required by the County of Los Angeles and/or other State or federal
agencies with jurisdiction by law over the project.
Under this project alternative, the following potential environmental impacts can be
anticipated:
Land Use: Development of the project site pursuant to this alternative would result
in the conversion of the northeastern 48t acres to. an urban use. Both
the Sasak Corporation, property (i.e., Tentative Tract Map No. 51253)
and the R -N -P Development Inc. property (i.e., Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 51407) would, however, remain in their current open space
use. Under this alternative, up to 75 single-family detached dwelling
units would be constructed within the project site. Additionally, the
Walnut Valley Unified School District would be able to implement the
facility plan for the South Pointe Middle School; however, the scheduling
of those construction activities may be dependent upon the applicant's
receipt of discretionary permits from State and federal resource agencies.
The identification of this alternative as the "east/west canyon alternative"
is a misnomer. From a physiographic perspective, there is no
"east/west" canyon within the project site. Sandstone Canyon, which
represents the primary feature of the project area, has a north/south
4.4 Regxm m to C.......ma _ VOL In
South Poimo bkom Plan
4684** 3.RTC
CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EAST/WEST CANYON PRESERVATION
trending character. Under this alternative, that portion of the South
Pointe Master Plan site southerly of the existing terminus of Larkstone
Drive and the southern boundary of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
32400 would be retained as open space and/or utilized for passive
recreational pursuits. The area to be preserved extends from the
southerly reach of Sandstone Canyon (bordered on the east by Brea
Canyon Road) westerly to Morning Sun Drive, including the existing
intermittent "blue -line" stream located in the westerly portion of the
project site.
Based upon the multiple ownership patterns that presently exist within the
South Pointe Master Plan area, approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 32400 (Arciero and Sons, Inc.) and denial of Vesting Tract Map No.
51407 (R -N -P Development, Inc.) and Tentative Tract Map No. 51253
(Sasak Corporation) would not, in and of itself, assure the preservation
of these areas. Both R -N -P Development, Inc. and the Sasak
Corporation could resubmit and process alternative design plans for those
properties. As a result, other public actions may be required should
preservation of those areas be identified as a public objective.
Preservation options may include both public acquisition of the subject
property and/or other actions through which the site's owners either
convey title to a public entity or non-profit conservation groups or
dedicate future development rights thereupon -27
Under the proposed development plan, a single access subdivision would
be created.28 Lot sizes .within that tract map area `would average
approximately 11,660 square feet, with a minimum lot size of 7,200
square feet. Based upon the lot sizes, nature of the resulting land use
n Through an independent CEQA process, the City has completed a draft Initial Study for a non-contiguous 68:t
acre site owned by R -N -P Development, Inc. That draft Initial Study, conducted for Tentative Parcel Map No.
24031, concluded that the removal of existing development restrictions governing that site would not result in a
significant environmental impact. Approval of that tentative parcel map has been identified by the project applicant
as a potential compensating action for the preservation of the applicant's holdings within the South Pointe Master
Plan project area. No similar compensation has been presently identified for the Sasak Corporation holdings.
m As indicated in Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400, a 40 -foot -wide emergency access easement to the
South Pointe Middle School site is proposed in the south-westerly corner of that tract map area.
Response to Comments - VOL III 45
South Pointc Maner Plan
46841FEIR-3.RTC
CHAPIER 0 ALTERNATIVE
CANYONER..
(i.e., single-family detached units) and circuitous nature of the proposed
street system, the residential land uses associated with this alternative
layout would be compatible with existing land uses in the project area.
Under this alternative, no active recreational areas would, however, be
established within the project site. Similarly, Larkstone Park (located
westerly of the South Pointe Middle School site) would remain
unimproved.
Once in public. ownership and/or subsequent to conveyance of the
preservation area to a non-profit entity, public use of that area may be
expanded to accommodate passive recreational pursuits and/or educational
use of that site. Since no formal development plans for those potential
activities have been proposed at this time, no physical improvements to
that site are assumed for the purpose of this environmental analysis.
Earth: Total grading quantities would be incrementally reduced below those
levels associated with the build -out of the South Pointe Master Plan
project. Grading activities projected to occur within the existing school
site could be accommodated under this alternative's grading plan, thereby
minimizing the need for soil exportation. Implementing this alternative
would result in a reduction in landform alterations to the site over that
associated with the South Pointe Master Plan project. Landform
alterations would be confined to the northeastern 48t acres of the
property; the remainder of the site (i.e.; R -N P Development Inc. and
Sasak Corporation properties) would,remain in their existing undeveloped
state. i.
Under this alternative, approximately one-half of the area now
comprising the remnant component of Sandstone Canyon will be
converted from an open space use to that more characteristic of an urban
use. Grading activities required for the implementation of this tract map
will result in the filling of that portion of the canyon upon which
developed activities are proposed. Although a greater percentage of the
site will be retained, as compared with either the South Pointe Master
Plan project or Alternative Site No. 1. North/South Canyon
Preservation, the preservation area reflects that portion of the project site
which possesses less topographic variation and biological diversity. As
a result, the landform alternations associated with this development option
have been determined by the City to be significant.
Rcgx" e to Cammems- VOL M
south Powe Master PM
468 UMR IRTC
CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EAST/WEST CANYON PRESERVATION
Water: Under this alternative, the intermittent "blue -line" stream traversing the
area of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (Arciero and Sons, Inc.)
would be impacted during grading.. That portion of the existing
watercourse south of that site (within Sandstone Canyon) would not be
physically affected. Similarly, the "blue -line" stream which exists in the
westerly portion of the. South Pointe Master Plan area (within the R -N -P
Development, Inc. and Sasak Corporation holdings) would remain in its
existing condition. As indicated in the DEIR, non -related development
activities which have historically occurred southerly of the project site
have previously impacted the potential source of surface water now
draining to Sandstone Canyon. That water is now comprised of surface
runoff from adjoining areas within the larger drainage basin.
Under this alternative, a portion of the remaining watercourse would be
eliminated and surface flows within that watercourse would be discharged
into approved drainage improvements located within (and adjoining) the
tract map area. Since the "headwaters" of this drainage basin have been
previously impacted, and drainage northerly of the project site occurs via
drainage improvements associated with the adjoining tract, a further
reduction in the size of the remaining watercourse would not result in the
generation of an environmental impact deemed by the City to be
significant.
Although project implementation will introduce impervious materials onto
the site, thereby increasing the quantity of clear flow and reducing the
quantity of buck flow, the project size (i.e., 19.5± acres allotted to
residential uses and 6.9t acres assigned to streets) and extent of open
space acreage will produce only an incremental increase in total storm
water discharge. As indicated in the DEIR (Table 6 Existing
Hydrologic Condition vs. Developed Condition Summary Table), existing
drainage facilities in the area of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400
are adequate to accommodate the higher rate of discharge associated with
the more intensive South Pointe Master Plan project. As a result, no
additional off-site drainage improvements are anticipated to accommodate
the land use improvements contemplated herein.
The DEIR, however, concluded that existing facilities located in the
vicinity of Fairlane Drive, accommodating drainage generated in the
westerly portion of the South Pointe Master Plan site is presently
Response to Comments - VOL III 4-7
South Point* Mastst Plan
4684TEIR-3.RTC
CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EAST/WEST CANYON PRESERVATION
substandard. The present capacity of that facility is estimated to be 93
cfs; however, the drainage area currently contributes 25 -year runoff of
109 cfs and 50 -year runoff of 122 cfs. Under this alternative, no
improvements to that facility would be anticipated and the existing
substandard condition of that drainage facility would remain unabated.
Biotic Resources: Under this alternative, the impacts upon the site's biotic resources would
be substantially reduced. Since grading activities would be confine to
both the area of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (less all or a
portion of the 21.2± acres of that site allocated to open space) and
stockpiled soil area located within the South Pointe Middle School site,
the extent of vegetative loss would be confined to those areas. A
previous oak tree survey conducted for that tract map area identified 333
specimen -sized oak trees. Although a limited number of those trees may
exist in areas earmarked for preservation, the majority of those trees
would be removed during grading operations. Although a precise
accounting is not provided herein, this potential loss (i.e., up to 333
trees) is significantly less than the estimated 768 oak trees which would
be removed should the entire South Pointe Master Plan project be
implemented as proposed.
Removal of on-site oak trees would be subject to the applicant's receipt
of an Oak Tree Permit(s) from the City. - As required under Section
22.56.2180 of the Los Angeles County Code, replacement oak trees are
required as compensation for any removed trees subject to that ordinance.
Although the provision of replacement resources will partially mitigate
the loss of these trees, the City has determined that the elimination of all
or part of this mature ecosystem will result in a significant adverse
impact upon the environment.
Transportation: Under this alternative, off-site traffic impacts would be incrementally less
than those associated with the South Pointe Master Plan scenario.
Primary access to the site under this alternative layout would be from the
east via Brea Canyon Road. Although there is no secondary access
shown on this alternative layout, a 40 -foot wide emergency access
easement is identified in the vicinity of the South Pointe Middle School.
Based upon those trip generation assumptions presented in the DEIR (i.e.,
10.44 daily two-way trips/unit), an estimated 783 average daily trips
4-8 ReWon to Comm ou - VOL In
South Pointe Msater Plan
4684TEM-3.RTC
CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EAST/WEST CANYON PRESERVATION
(ADT) would result from project implementation. Of these trips, an
estimated 65 trips will be generated during the AM peak hour and 83
new trips. will occur during the PM peak hour. This projection is
substantially less than the 13,320 ADT (including 405 trips during the
AM peak hour and 1,245 trips during the PM peak hour) associated with
the South Pointe Master Plan project.
Although project -induced traffic will not occur at a sufficient volume to
significantly impact area roadways, the project and all related projects
will produce a significant cumulative effect upon a number of key study
area intersections.
Air Quality: Air pollutant emissions associated with the implementation of this
alternative would be incrementally reduced for both the short-term
construction activities and the long-term operational phase of the project.
Although both the construction term and the overall grading quantities
will be reduced under this alternative, the quantity of earth that may be
moved on any single day may be similar to those projections which are
included in the DEIR. Based upon this assumption, estimated
construction -related (short-term) emissions of nitrogen oxides will
continue to exceed established SCAQMD threshold values for that criteria
pollutant.
Noise: As indicated in the DEIR, existing noise levels in the vicinity of the
Orange (SR -57) Freeway exceed established exterior standards for single-
family residential uses. As indicated therein, "additional noise
attenuation will be required for those residential receptors located in
proximity to that noise source. Based upon further noise analysis,
construction of a noise barrier of a minimum height of 8 feet (as
measured from the pad elevation of the corresponding lot), placed along
the rear property lines of Lot Nos. 34 through 42, inclusively (Tentative
Tract Map No. 43200) would effectively mitigate noise to levels below
the City of Diamond Bar's noise guidelines for residential (exterior)
areas."
m DEIR, Op. Cit., p. 4144.
Response to Con menu - VOL III 49
South Pointe Mager Plan
4684\FEIR-3.RTC
CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EAST/WEST CANYON PRESERVATION
Based upon a reconfiguration of the lot pattern in Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 43200, as revised, the lot numbers referenced in the DEIR no
longer equate with the lotsrepresented in the new tract map. Similarly,
the lot configuration, associated street system and finished elevations also
differ from those presented in the prior map. Since the DEIR
demonstrated that exterior noise levels could be effectivelymitigated and
since it is not possible to precisely predict on-site exterior noise levels
without conducting a detailed site-specific analysis, a determination of a
single design solution (e.g., sound wall, berms) may limit the range of
options available to the project proponent. Implementation of the
following measure will mitigate any potential noise impacts to a level
deemed by the City to be insignificant:
Prior to the approval of the final tract map, the
applicant shall submit and the City shall review and
approve an acoustical analysis of the tract map area.
Included therein shall be appropriate mitigation
measures which, when implemented, shall attenuate
exterior noise to levels in conformance'with established
noise criteria.
Public Services: Since this alternative does not include an active park site (as did the
South Pointe Master Plan project), project -related impacts upon those
local and regional park and recreation facilities offering active
recreational amenities are expected to incrementally increase.
Additionally, under this alternative, no improvements to Larkstone Park
are contemplated or proposed herein.
Although the future disposition of the R -N -P Development, Inc. and
Sasak Corporation sites are not clearly defined under this alterative, the
supposition used for this analysis assumes the retention of those parcels
for either open space or passive recreational uses. By expanding the
public use of those areas for limited recreational activities (e.g., native
hikes, picnicking), impacts upon other recreational facilities will be
mitigated to a level deemed by the City to be insignificant.
The current layout of this alternative has cul-de-sacs lengths in excess of.
1,000 feet, which represents the maximum allowable street length
authorized under Section 21.24.090 of the Los Angeles County Code.
4-10 Regxmw to Comm mu - VOL M
South Poime Muter Pon
4684U% R-3.RTC
CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EAST/WEST CANYON PRESERVATION
Implementation of those mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR
will, however, mitigate any impacts upon both the Los Angeles County
Fire Department and project area residents, resulting from this roadway
design, to levels deemed by the City to be less than significant.
Cultural Resources: No potentially significant cultural resources have been identified on the
project site.
Aesthetics: Development of the site pursuant to this alternative would result in a
reduction of project -related aesthetic impacts below those levels
associated with the South Pointe Master Plan project. Under this
alternative, both the R -N -P Development Inc. (i.e., Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 51407) and Sasak Corporation (i.e., Tentative Tract Map
No. 51253) properties would not be developed, but would be retained for
open space and/or passive recreational use.
Although a significant proportion of the project site will be retained in its
current undeveloped condition, the principal physiographic feature within
the South Pointe Master. Plan area. (i.e., Sandstone Canyon) will be
filled, existing vegetation removed and surface waters diverted on that
portion of the site defined by the boundaries of Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 32400. Focusing exclusively on that canyon area,
approximately one-half of that canyon will be effected by the proposed
grading operations.
The drainage area which comprises the Sandstone Canyon watershed has
been previously impacted by adjoining development, thereby affecting the
quantity and quality of surface water within that portion of the remaining
watercourse located in that canyon area. This action has resulted in the
fragmentation of regional open space resources and has diminished the
site's habitat value. A further reduction in this ecosystem will further
diminish both the site's aesthetic character and biological value.
Since the Draft EIR concluded that the conversion of Sandstone Canyon
from a natural open space area to a urban use constituted a significant
unavoidable adverse impact, a significant reduction . (albeit less than
elimination) would also represent a significant environmental effect.
Response to Comments - VOL III 4-11
South Pointe Master Plan
4684TEQt-3.RTC
CHAPTER 4.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2
EAST/WEST CANYON PRESERVATION
Growth Inducement: The 464 job opportunities associated with the commercial component of
the South Pointe Master Plan project would not be realized with this
alternative layout. Additionally, development of the 75 single-family
residential units contemplated herein are not such as to produce a new
and currently unaddressed demand for new retail/commercial activities.
4.12
Re� to Commsroa -VOL III
South Pou" MAO" phw
46S4UW-3.RTC
CHAPTER 5.0
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL MATERIAL
Reaponae to Commenw VOL III
South Poinm Mager Phm
4684\FE R-IRTC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL MATERIAL
This alternative expands upon the "no project alternative - open space preservation"
analysis provided in the DEMO and has been included herein to facilitate the immediate
commencement of grading operations upon the South Pointe Middle School site (and the
subsequent construction of permanent facilities at that location). While the "no project"
alternative analysis provided in the DEIR focused on open space preservation, this "no project"
alternative expands upon that discussion and includes an analysis of the potential environmental
impacts resulting from the exportation of the surplus soil presently stockpiled on the South
Pointe Middle School site.
If the proposed South Pointe Master Plan project or any of the other alternative
development scenarios addressed in the Draft EIR are not approved, either as proposed or
subsequently modified, then the surplus soil on the school site cannot be relocated to the adjacent
properties or utilized as a component of the grading plan for those development activities. In
order to implement the facility plan for the South Pointe Middle School, the off-site exportation
of the surplus soil presently stockpiled on that site would be required. The "no project"
alternative presented in the DEIR did not fully address, the potential environmental effects
resulting from that off-site exportation.
Inclusion of this expanded alternative herein provides the Walnut Valley Unified
School District (District) and the City an environmental basis to approve a grading plan for that
school site, independent of any other action(s) that the City may deem appropriate for the South
Pointe Master Plan or any of the alternatives addressed in that project's environmental review
record. Additionally, this analysis eliminates the need to prepare an addendum, subsequent EIR
or supplemental EIR to the District's previously certified Final Environmental Impact Report for
Walnut Valley Un fled School District School Site, SCH No. 88112305 which addressed the use
of that soil material as part of the grading plan for Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (now Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 32400). Only those environmental issues which require an expanded
analysis beyond that contained in either the Draft EIR or above referenced final EIR are
discussed below.
For the purpose of this analysis, the only discretionary approval(s) which Ware)
assumed to be required for the implementation of this project alternative is the issuance of a
grading permit(s) by the City. Any and all permits and approvals as may be required in
30 As indicated in the DEIR, should the "no project" alternative be selected, "Minimal land form alterations
would be anticipated. Surplus/stockpiled soil presently on the South Pointe Middle School site (i.e., 400,000 cubic
yards) would, therefore, necessitate deposition at an alternative off-site location (e.g., santary landfill" (p. 64).i
Response to Comments - VOL III 5-1
South Pointe Muter Plan
46a41FEiR-3.RTC
CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL, MATERIAL
furtherance of the facility plan for the South Pointe Middle School have been previously
addressed in separate environmental documents prepared by the District for that facility..
Although no development activities would be authorized hereunder, except for the
removal of that surplus soil material now deposited on and adjoining the grounds of the South
Pointe Middle School," the area of the South Pointe Master Plan project site where grading
operations are proposed is illustrated in Figure re 7 (Alternative No. 3 - Ezport of Surplus Soil
Material). The land uses which comprise this project alternative are presented in Table
(Alternative No. 3 - Development Summary) herein.
As indicated in Figure 7, the existing stockpiled soil material is not confined to only
the boundaries of the existing school site. Soil material is presently located upon both the area
of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (Arciero and Sons, Inc.) and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 51407'(8. -N -P Development, Inc.).' For the purpose of this analysis, that soil material
(and associated organic material whose removal is incidental thereto) located upon each of these
sites would be exported to an acceptable off-site location (e.g., Spadra Landfill). The extent of
grading (i.e., approximately 400,000 cubic yards) represents that grading necessary to both
implement the facility plan for the South Pointe Middle School site and to ensure adequate site
drainage for both that use and adjoining areas.
The physical relationship between the South Pointe Master Plan project site and the
Spadra Landfill is illustrated in Figure 4 (Regional Location Plan), previously referenced herein.
Under this project alternative, the following potential additional environmental impacts
can be anticipated:
Land Use: Information presented in the DEIR thoroughly addressed the potential
land use impacts associated with the implementation of the "no project"
alternative.
Earth: Under this alternative, landform alteration would only occur in
association with those improvements contemplated upon the South Pointe
Middle School site. In order to accommodate the implementation of the
facility plan for that site, in a manner which is independent of other ap-
31 The subsequent developinent of the South Pointe Middle School was independently evaluated in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for Walnut Valley UnIfted School District School Site, SCH No. 88112305 (Walnut
Valley Unified School District, January 4, 1989), incorporated by reference in the DER.
5-2
Aeapoor to Commeaa -VOL IQ
SaWh Pointe M"n Plan
4684TH-3.RTc
14
�Cd
µyH
•tj
N1
�l
awe
mow..
',`o>� .{•, m� -"r��
`d
i
Aldi
a
W
+d
a
O
CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL MATERIAL
Table 3
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 - DEVELOPMENT SuNn4ARY
Approximate
Development
Land Use Acreage
Assuml tion
Open Space/Passive Recreational Use (Revised) 1371
NA2
South Pointe Middle School 31
NA2
Larkstone Park (Unimproved) J
NA2
TOTAL: 171 acres
NA
1 Including approximately 78t acres of property owned by R -N -P Development, Inc.; 48t
acres of property owned by Arciero and Sons, Inc.; 7t acres of property owned by the Sasak
Corporation; and 4± acres of publicly -owned property.
2 NA - Not Applicable
Source: Ultrasystems
54 Rempom to Comtim= - VOL III
South Pointe Master Plan
468QgW-3.RTC
CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL MATERIAL
provals within the South Pointe Master Plan project area, the estimated
400,000 cubic yards of surplus soil currently stockpiled thereupon would
have .to be exported to an approved off-site location (e.g., sanitary
landfill, other development site with an importation requirement). Since
no specific repository has been identified by the District, it has been
assumed that the surplus soil material, including any associated organic
materials, would be exported to the Spadra Landfill (4125 West Valley
Boulevard, City of Walnut), located approximately 4.7t miles (via
public roadways) from the project site.
To accomplish the export of surplus soil, a truck haul route would have
to be approved by the City as a component of the requisite grading
permit(s). The most logical truck haul route would be to exit the school
site via Larkstone Drive, turn right on Black Hawk Drive, turn right on
Lemon Avenue, proceed north on Lemon Avenue to Valley Boulevard,
turn right on Valley Boulevard and proceed to the Spadra Landfill (see
Figure 4 (Regional Vicinity Map)). That truck haul route, which reflects
the exclusive use of existing roadways in the project area, is illustrated
in Figure (Potential Truck Haul Route).
To accommodate proposed grading operations, it has been estimated that
approximately 25,64032 truck trips (12,820 full, 12,820 empty) would be
required to haul the surplus soil off-site. It is also estimated that 240
truck -trips (120 full, 120 empty) would be made daily.33 At this rate, it
would take approximately 18 weeks .(4.5 months) to complete the export
of the surplus soil from the school site, assuming a 10 -hour work day and
a six-day per week schedule. Based upon an average trip length of 4.7
miles,34 haul vehicles would travel an estimated 120,500 miles on area
roadways. These projections do not, however, include either employee -
n Response to Comments, Volume I, Op. Cit., pp. D-19 and D-22. As indicated therein, 244on capacity trucks
were assumed for this analysis. Based upon a conversion factor of 1.3 tons/cubic yard, at maximum capacity, each
haul truck could export approximately 31.2 cubic yards of soil material per trip.
33 Assuming that a truck departs the site every five minutes.
34 In Response to Comments, Volume I (pp. D-19-22) an average trip length of 4.0 miles was assumed. Based
upon a recalculation of the distance between the project site and Spadra Landfill, a one-way travel distance of 4.7
miles more precisely reflects the distance between these two locations.
Response to Comments - VOL In 5-5
South Pointe Mauer Plan
4684TM-3.RTC
TRUCK HAUL ROUTE CONTINUES
NORTH ON LEMON AVENUE THEN
WEST TO AM VALLEY BOULEVARD
(SPADR.A LANDFILL)
T".
A.
A,
1.
E f• NOT TO SCALE
Y, y
AA
AA -ft
7
aaa sea sass
'
$may" roomy j 'I ANE6
a
Sc.:dL
30 6' ACRES
PARK
a 87 Ic
ri
ACRES
u) 1. IN MIA'
at '5 'cKs A\
Uraft qy
...
disToics,
4 10 AC
19 0 V IzC
77 13 ACRES
COMMERCIAL
LEGEND
-4*-Sommoomm-00-Poten" truck haul route
0 Proposed, flag person locations
SOURCE: FIGURE 9
LG&E POWER ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS INC. POTEN7ZAIL TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
Base Moto: J.C. Dabney & Asamiata
South Point Master Pkm RX Vol. W
5dKRj1R7r 7
•
NO 3"
Xf/1'
is td ACRES
COMMERCIAL
LEGEND
-4*-Sommoomm-00-Poten" truck haul route
0 Proposed, flag person locations
SOURCE: FIGURE 9
LG&E POWER ENGINEERS AND CONSTRUCTORS INC. POTEN7ZAIL TRUCK HAUL ROUTE
Base Moto: J.C. Dabney & Asamiata
South Point Master Pkm RX Vol. W
5dKRj1R7r 7
CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL MATERIAL
generated trips (i.e., equipment operators arriving at or departing the
work site) or truck trips required to transport heavy-duty equipment
(e.g., dozers) to or from the site.
In response to public comments indicating the existence of an alternative
haul route via the South Pointe Master Plan project site,' an alternative
haul route transporting stockpiled soil material through the project site to
Brea Canyon Road was examined. Since no improved or unimproved
accessway currently exists from the vicinity of the South Pointe Middle
School through either the area of Vesting Tract Map No. 32400 (Arciero
and Sons, Inc.) or Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 (R -N -P
Development, Inc.) to Brea Canyon Road, a temporary construction road
would have to be developed to accommodate the required export.
Based upon the volume of truck traffic generated, the access road would
require significant landform modifications in the area of that temporary
easement. Street grades would have to be such as to easily accommodate
the weight and size of haul vehicles. Street widths would need to be
sufficient to allow two-way traffic and surface material (e.g., asphalt
paving) and associated drainage improvements may be needed to avoid
water -borne erosion and minimize the generation of fugitive dust.
Since an intermittent "blue -line" stream traverses the easterly portion of
the project site, applicable State and federal permits may be required
prior to the issuance of a grading permit(s) for the disturbance of that
watercourse. Although those permits could be independently processed
by the District, attainment of all requisite discretionary approvals might
add considerable delays (e.g., 6-9 months) to the initiation of those
grading activities. Based upon both the potential environmental impacts
associated with the development of a new temporary haul route (e.g.,
landform alternatives, vegetation removal) and the need for the District
to seek expedient solutions to the exportation of that surplus material
presently stockpiled upon and adjoining the South Pointe Middle School
site, this alternative haul route was rejected by the City and no further
analysis of this temporary roadway is included herein.
'a See for example, Comment No. 106 in Response to Comments, Volume 1.
Response to Comments - VOL III 5-7
South Pointe Mager Plan
4684\FEIR-3.RTC
CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL MATERIAL
As more thoroughly discussed under "transportation" below, to ensure
the safety of area residents, monitors (e.g., flag persons) should be
placed at each of the nine residential intersections between the school site
and Colima Road.
Water: Information presented in the DEIR thoroughly addressed the potential
hydrologic and water quality impacts associated with the implementation
of the "no project" alternative.
Biotic Resources: Information presented in the DEIR thoroughly addressed the potential
biotic impacts associated with the implementation of the "no project"
alternative.
Transportation: Under this alternative, none of the long-term (operational) project -related
traffic impacts discussed in the DEIR would be realized. The DEIR did
not, however, address construction -term impacts since those impacts
would be both internal to the South Pointe Master Plan area.
Additionally, the external traffic that would be generated would be routed
through the project site to Brea Canyon Road. Short-term impacts
would, thereby, be confined to that roadway and the intersections
between the project site and the freeway ramps (i.e., Pomona (SR -60)
Freeway, Orange (SR -57) Freeway) which provide regional access to the
project area.
The DEIR did, however, conclude that cumulative traffic impacts (i.e.,
those associated with the project in combination with both those related
projects identified in the DEIR and ambient growth likely to occur in the
project vicinity) would significantly affect a number of key study area
intersections. Cumulative traffic impacts can, therefore, be anticipated
notwithstanding any other public action (or non -action) governing the
subsequent development of the South Pointe Master Plan site.
As proposed, haul vehicles would transport exported soils material by
way of existing residential and non-residential roadways located north and
westerly of the project site. Those roadways, which include (but are not
limited to) Larkstone Drive, Black Hawk Drive and Lemon Avenue,
presently provide vehicular access to numerous residential tracts. (i.e.,
Tract Nos. 32091, 33636, 33645 and 35741) located southerly of Colima
Road. In addition, both vehicular and pedestrian access to the South
s -a
Respooae to Como»a -VOL In
South Powe Mamr Ilan
4684UMM-3.RTC
CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
EgPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL MATERIAL
Pointe Middle School is confined to those roadways. All of the estimated
900 students who attended that school during the 1992-1993 academic
year, therefore, reached the school site via those roadways.
The introduction of an estimated 25,640 heavy-duty truck trips on those
residential streets have the potential to create a conflict with the existing
use of those roadways (e.g., residential traffic, pedestrian use). This
conflict has the greatest potential for significance relative to the safety of
those children who might be utilizing those roadways during periods
which correspond with haul activities. The circuitous nature of those
roadways, number of unmarked intersection and downward gradient of
those roadways introduces a potential safety concern relative to truck -
pedestrian conflicts. That potential safety concern has been
independently raised in a comment letter included in At►ve & A
(Correspondence) herein.
Based upon the objectives of the District to expeditiously commence and
complete these activities, the year-round nature of school use and permit
conditions which restrict grading operations to only daylight hours, there
is limited opportunity to restrict truck access .to periods of limited
residential or pedestrian use or direct construction vehicles onto roadways
with lesser pedestrian activities.
Traffic conflicts can be reduced, but not mitigated to a level of
insignificance, through the use of traffic monitors (e.g.) flag persons).
Those monitors would be located at each of the nine (9) intersections
located between the school site and Colima Road, as represented in
Figure g (Potential Truck Haul Route). By controlling pedestrian use,
truck and residential traffic, those individuals may be effective in
improving public safety during exportation activities.
Implementation of.the following mitigation measure will reduce, but not
eliminate, potential traffic hazards associated with this alternative.
• Prior to the commencement of any grading activities which
result in the introduction of truck traffic onto those
residential streets located between the South Pointe Middle
School site and Colima Road, the grading contractor shall
submit and the City shall approve a safety plan, including
5.9
Response to comments - VOL In
South Pointe Master Plan
M841FERt-3.RTC
CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNAT V E NO. 3
EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL MA
but not limited to the use of flag persons, designed to
minimize potential vehicle -pedestrian conflicts. That safety
plan shall be operational during all times when trucks are
required to utilize those residential streets.
Air Quality: Exhaust emissions (including fugitive dust), resulting from the
introduction of an estimated 25,640 truck trips onto local roadways,
would continue to be emitted under this project alternative. Although
total short-term (construction) impacts would be less than projected to
occur under the South Pointe Master Plan project, the extent of grading
operations that may occur on a daily basis may be similar to those levels
presented .in the DEIR.36 As indicated therein, emissions of nitrogen
oxides resulting from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment is
estimated to exceed established SCAQMD threshold values for that
criteria pollutant.
Based upon typical earth -moving operations and assuming that no
mitigation measures are employed, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) estimates that approximately 110 pounds of particulate
matter would be discharged daily into the atmosphere for each acre that
is graded.37 For the purpose of this analysis, and based upon the
limited size of the stockpiled soil site, grading activities are assumed to
be confined to an area of not more than one acre per day. As a result,
unmitigated fugitive dust emissions associated with grading activities
(i.e., 110 lbs/days), in combination,with particulate emissions resulting
from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment (i.e., 62.3
lbs/day)'31 will result in an exceedance of SCAQMD thresholds (i.e.,
150 lbs/day) for that pollutant.
Since these projections do not include fugitive dust resulting from soil
spillage onto area roadways, or dust particles emitted from haul vehicles
transporting material to an off-site location, the above projections may
underestimate actual discharge which may occur under this alternative.
96 DER, Op. Cit., pp. 4-112 through 4117.
" U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency, AP -42, 4th Edition (1985), p. 11.2.4-1.
'DER?, Op. Cit., p. 4-115.
5-10 Re Voom to Comom M - VOL In
South Fob" Maftr PIM
46841FEIR-3.RTC
CHAPTER 5.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL MATERIAL
Although the EPA has estimated that regular watering of that area upon
which grading operations occur may reduce fugitive dust emissions by up
to 50 percent,;' additional mitigation may be required to reduce these
pollutants to levels which are deemed by the City to be less than
significant (i.e., below SCAQMD threshold criteria). Implementation of
those mitigation measures contained in the DEIR (pages 4-128, 4-131 and
4-132) will mitigate fugitive dust emissions resulting from construction -
related activities to a level deemed insignificant.
Since no subsequent construction (e.g., school facility plan) or
operational (e.g., use of the school site) activities are contemplated
herein, no long-term air quality impacts are anticipated to result from the
implementation of this project alternative.
Noise: This "no project" alternative and its concomitant grading activities would
significantly increase the potential mobile -source (e.g., haul trucks) noise
along the proposed truck haul route during the estimated 4.5 months that
grading operations are envisioned. Noise levels (as measured in dBA)
associated with construction trucks range from about 82 dBA to 95 dBA,
measured at a distance of 50 feet from the noise source.
Although the implementation of those mitigation measures presented in
the DEIR (pages 4-147 and 4-148) will reduce potential noise impacts
upon adjoining residential receptors, the number of haul trips generated
by this alternative, the term of daily operations (i.e., 10 -hours per day)
and the proximity of residential receptors to the proposed haul route will
result in an exceedance of exterior noise standards for.residential areas.
As a result, implementation of this alternative will result in the generation
of significant short-term noise impacts during the period of grading
activities.
While these measures would help to mitigate the noise from the haul
trucks, the City has concluded that these short-term noise impacts cannot
be reduced below a level deemed to be less than significant.
- EPA, Op. Cit.
Response to Comments - VOL In 5-11
South Pointe Mater Plan
4684\FEM-3.RTC
CFtAPEER 5.0 ALTERNATIVE NO. 3
EXPORT OF SURPLUS SOIL MA
Public Services: Information presented in the DEIR thoroughly addressed the potential
impacts associated with the implementation of the "no project" alternative
upon those public services and utility systems which exist in the project
area.
Cultural Resources: No potentially significant cultural resources have been identified on the
project site.
Aesthetics: Information presented in the DER? thoroughly addressed the potential
visual impacts associated with the implementation of the "no project"
alternative.
Growth Inducement: Information presented in the DEIR thoroughly addressed the potential
growth -inducing impacts associated with the implementation of the "no
project" alternative.
s-12
Response to Compote -VOL In
Sash Poin s Master Rut
4694XFE R-3.RTC
APPENDIX A
CORRESPONDENCE
Reaponae to Cammenta - VOL III
South Pointe Master Plan
46841FEIR-3.RTC
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY
LEFT BLANK
— z
m
— n
`gym
.a ID o
1525 Blackhawk Dr. N =~z
Walnut, Ca. 91789
April 17, 1994
Planning Department
City of Diamond Bar
21664 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
ANGELES CHAPTER - SIERRA CLUB
3345 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD • SUITE 508 • LOS ANGELES • CALIFORNIA90010 • (213)387-4287 - FAX(2I3)337.5383
Sierra Club Resolution on Sandstone Canyon
The Angeles Chapter opposes the South Pointe Master Plan in the
City, of Diamond Bar and supports the"preservationof. Sandstone
Canyon for wildlife habitat and low impact recreational use.
- passed by the Angeles Chapter Executive Committee;
November lo, 1993.
01 cv attest:
Dick Hingson, Conservation Coordinator.
KD
ww w
LU
v o c
to
cc a
~� MOUNTAINS RECREATION AND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
RAM 3750 Solstice Canyon Road
i MA" „moo -K" Malibu, California 90265
_ (310) 456-7807
FAX (310) 456-5332
U
M
April 27, 1994 'lot h t how.
o r�ri
to { <
{s ilft(p, N t-�
00
2:
Mr. Jim DeStefano
Community Development Director
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Ave., Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Dear Mr. DeStefanoVtl
y
Thank you for making th0 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the South Pointe
Master Plan as well as the Response to Comments on the DEIR for the South Pointe Master Plan,
available for me to pick up on Friday, April 22.
We understand that there may be changes made to the South Pointe Master Plan proposed by the
developer. We would be very interested in these proposed changes and the ability of the public
to make comments. Can you tell us when the documented information of the changes would be
made available? I would like to see these documents as soon as possible. I will pick up a copy
as soon as they are available.
Sincerely,
!JANE I. BEESLEY
Program Manager
cc: Joe Edmiston
Paul Edelman
i
.r�
Fiter we �b and is r
.on Clerk
destru twCin by tY