Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/24/1995t=APRIL 249 1995 7:00 I.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditoriums. 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Bruce r/'ri,// Bob Huff Daidd Don /aI nk-lin 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* re f rain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium The City of Diamond Bar uses recycf ed paper and encourages you to do the same. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, April 24, 1995 Next Resolution No. 95-6 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL*. COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Bruce Flamenb * aum, Vice Chairman Bob Huff, David Meyer, Don Schad, and Franklin Fong 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission 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 Completion of this form JQ voluntaryl. There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. 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: 3.1 Minutes of April 10, 1995 4. NEW BUSINESS: None 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None 6. PUBLIC HEARING: 6.1 Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1 and Oak Tree permit No. 95-2 TPM No. 233 (pursuant to Code Section 21.24) is a request to subdivide a 2.55 gross acre parcel into four residential lots ranging from .55 acres to .90 acres. The tentative map also includes the following: Conditional Use Permit No... 92-1 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56.215 and the Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992)) which is required to protect resources contained in a significant ecological area and for hillside management kv 7. in areas where grades are in excess of ten percent; and Oak Tree Permit No. 95- 2 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56, Part 16) which is required to preserve e and protect an existing oak tree. APPLICANT: Hunsaker and Associate Inc., 10179 Hunnekens Street, San Diego, CA 92121 PROPERTY OWNER: Warren Dolezal, 4251 South I-Eguera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3,000 block (North side) of Steeplechase Lane between Hawkwood Road and Wagon Train Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project requires a Mitigated Negative Declaration. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for this project to May 8, 1995. OLD BUSINESS: 7.1 Certification of Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map. No. 47850, located easterly of Steeplechase Lane and South of Windmill Drive Adjacent to the private gated community known as "The Country". At the joint session on April 6, 1995, consideration of the project was continued before the Planning Commission for their review and comments. APPLICANT/OWNTER: Diamond Bar Associates, Inc. 3480 Torrance Blvd. #301, Torrance, CA 90503 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project requires an Environmental Impact Report. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the project and direct staff as appropriate. 8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS 11. ADJOURNMENT: May 8, 1995 I MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Meyer. ROLL CALL Pr . esent:- commissioners: Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Huff, Meyer, Schad, Fong. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; Bob Rose Community Services Director; Larry Ryan RJM Design Group, Laura Stetson Cotton\Beland\ Associates; and Recording Secretary Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dr.* Donna Ernhdrt, Veterinarian, Village Animal Hospital, Golden Springs Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the change in signage ' at the Diamond Bar village Shopping Center. She asked what would be needed to request a variance for the three 6 -foot signs to be enlarged to 15 foot signs which would allow for a tenant listing. Chair/ Flamenbaum responded that this item was reviewed by the Planning commission several months ago. The current Diamond Bar Sign Ordinance limits signs to a height of six feet. In this instance, a variance was granted for the 10 foot high signs. He suggested that if Dr. Ernhart wishes to seek another variance she would need to direct her request to the landlord/ landowner who would make the application to the City. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, AstP/Lungu stated the three 10 foot signs are for tenant identification. Only use of the space is determined by the landlord. April 100 1995 Page 2 Planning -Commission Dr. Dan. Buffington, a Diamond Bar resident representing Diamond Bar Associates* (DBA) regarding Tract 47850 asked the. Planning commission how the DBA can assist the Commission in reaching a favorable conclusion during their review of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Comments portion of the meeting closed. Chair/ Flamenbaum stated that the city Council is sending Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 back to the Planning Commission for its comments. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CDD/DeStefano stated that on Thursday, April 10, the City Council determined that the proj ect should be returned to the Planning Commission for review of all of the items that the commission raised as questions or comments requiring additional study. The Planning commission's meeting is not a public hearing. The project has been referred to the commission pursuant to a section of the government code that does not require a public hearing. However, it has been the history of this Planning Commission to encourage public input which would be at the Commission's discretion. city Council continued their public hearing to May 16. VC/Huff indicated his belief that the commission could review the entire project and stated he would like to see the project put through the usual Planning commission process. C/Schad concurred that the project should be reviewed in its. entirety as quickly as possible. C/Fong stated that the project should be review through the normal process of the Planning commission including a public hearing. C/Meyer stated that at the direction of city Council, he will seriously review the entire project. Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that it is his understanding the City Council has directed the Planning commission to review the entire project and return their comments to the Council. ICA/Montgomery told the commission he was involved in the original agreement and he believes the City Council wants a complete review of the project by the Planning Commission. April lot 1995 Page 3 Planning commission V In response to the Planning Commission, Dr. Buffington stated he would make an informed presentation on the 24 questions for the Commission at the April 24 meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. M . inutes of April 10, 1995. A notion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to approve the minutes* as submitted. The motion was approved unanimously. OLD BUSINESS —None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Precise Alignment Feasibility Study for Citrus. Valley Medical Center. AP/Searcy reported that the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review applications for the Citrus Valley Medical Center on October 24, 1994. As a condition of approval, the commission required the 'applicant to prepare a precise• alignment feasibility study and to transmit the study to the Traffic and Transportation Commission for their review and comments. The study has been completed and transmitted to the Traffic and Transportation Commission for review. An ad hoc committee was . created to analyze the- study and to provide comments to the Planning Commission. The, conclusion of the report recommends that the Planning Commission discontinue further consideration of a third or alternative access point. The costs would be prohibitiveand the benefits are project to be minimal. Mr. Searcy referred the Commission to the written report .prepared by Traffic and Transportation commissioner Todd Chavers who headed the ad hoc committee. AP/Searcy continued that following preparation of the report, staff met with members of Citrus Valley Medical Center and Calvary Chapel and both parties concur with the findings of the Traffic and Transportation Committee. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file the report., April 10r.1995 Page 4 Planning Commission C/Meyer stated he had originally requested the precise alignment which was intended'to result in a realistic mitigation measure for the long term traffic impacts resulting from the Citrus Valley Medical Center facility and the Calvary Chapel Church affecting the intersection of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue. He indicated that if this report had been presented during the public hearings for the church and the hospital, he would have argued against approving either project. 'He further stated that he is disappointed and dissatisfied with the report and, in his judgment, there had not been any realistic solutions from the professional staff associated with either project. In addition, he cited the commercial potential at the corner of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue which * will further impact the intersection. From a planning standpoint, a financing program for improvements should be initiated by the City's Engineering Department. Craig Beam, development consultant for Citrus Valley Health Partners, 2745 West Chapman, Suite 203, Orange, stated his firm concurs with staff's conclusion. Responding to C/Meyer, he indicated they have been reluctant to move forward with development until they are certain all of the conditions have been met and if the question of a precise alignment is going to be an open condition, it places an undo burden on the project. Jeff Subcheck, Dasco Development; stated his firm is concerned that an access road would place an additional burden on the intersection of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue. He indicated he concurs with staff's conclusion. Responding to C/Fla-menbaum, AP/Searcy stated the Citrus Valley Medical Center has complied. with the conditions of Phase I Conditional Use Permit. CE/Myers stated that the study points out the cost of such a roadway would far outweigh the benefits. The impact of traffic to the intersection of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue is a regional problem that extends to the freeways and inter -city travel. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to reject the Precise Alignment Feasibility Study for Citrus Valley Medical Center as inadequate and to refer it back April 10,-1995 Page 5 Planning Commission to the City's Engineering Department. The notion was approved 4-1 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schaal Fong, VC/Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT:- COMMISSIONERS: None A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by VC/Huff to concur that Citrus Valley Medical Center has complied .with the conditional Use Permit for Phase I of the project. The motion was approved unanimously 5-0. 2. 1995 General Plan - City Council referral of specific proposed modifications pursuant to Government Code Section 65356 for review and recommendation. CDD/DeStefano reported that the City's Planning commission, on October 17, 1994, recommended a Draft General Plan to the City Council for consideration.and adoption. The City Council has considered the'Planning Commission's recommendation, received public testimony and initiated additional changes through the course of their review. In accordance with Government code Section 65356, and at the direction of the City Council, the matter has been returned to the Planning Commission in .order to review four areas of modification that the Planning commission had not previously discussed or contemplated. These four areas are:, 1. The establishment of a RH, High Density! Residential (20 du/acre) Land, Use classification; 2. The addition of Residential uses at a density of I unit to 2 acres within the Agriculture (AG) designation; 3. Revisions to the Land Use Element text regarding- the Planned Development classification and areas so designated; and 4. Modifications to the Land Use Map reflecting the above. April 10.,.1995 Page 6 Planning commission With respect to the High Density Residential (20 du/acre), establishment of this new class affects. both the Land Use Element and the Housing Element. the City Council considered 54 sites for this new designation. The majority were deemed not to be appropriate or sufficient for housing purposes. The City Council felt that by establishing the 20 unit per acre density, the City would come 'much closer to meeting the housing goals established by the State of California. A new designation of Medium High . Density maximum (16 du/acre) was created - for the former maximum level of density in the General Plan. The second area of Residential uses at a density of 1 unit to 2 acres with the Agricultural (AG designation applies only to the Sphere of Influence. The City Council concluded that a Specific Plan overlay would be most appropriate for future land use planning of this property. The General Plan consultant pointed out the need to establish a density or intensity maximum for this Land Use classification. The City Council concurred with the property owners to establish a Land Use classi- fication consistent with the County zoning of A2/2 (residential uses at a maximum density of 1 unit. to 2 acres). With respect to revisions to the Land Use Element text regarding the Planned Development classification' and areas so designated, the City Council, incorporating the Memorandum of Understanding between Bramalea -and the City, specifically designated that 750 of the 400 acre, Bramalea property would be set aside as Open Space dedicated to the public, that a maximum of 130 dwelling units be permitted on the site and that a two acre site be created eated at Gold Rush Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard for Commercial purposes. Planned Development Area #3 was established for the corner of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive. Planned Development Area #4 has been established for the Sandstone Canyon area. Site D at Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard has been designated Planned Development Area #5. The Land Use Map identifies the Planned Development areas, properties identified as High Density Residential, properties re -designated Medium High Density Residential, the change to the Sphere of Influence to Agricultural (AG) with a Specific Plan overlay and other changes April 10, 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission associated with the Land Use and Housing Element modifications outlined. Pursuant to Government Code 65356, City Council has established a report due date of April 27, 1995 for the Planning* Commission's review and recommendation. The City Council will conduct a public hearing on May 9, 1995 for adoption of the General Plan. Although this is not a public hearing item, the Planning commission is not precluded from receiving testimony regarding* the changes being reviewed. He referred the commission to a letter dated April 10, 1995 received from the Boy Scouts of America wherein they request 'consideration of a text change regarding Specific Plan and for map changes that were overlooked in the modifications of the General Plan. CDD/DeStef ano recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed changes and provide recommendations to the city staff for assistance in evaluating the proposed city Council changes. Chair/ Flamenbaum stated the Planning Commission would receive public testimony regarding the proposed General Plan changes. Tom Kolin, Chief Financial officer, Boy Scouts of America, Los Angeles area Council, referred to the April 10 letter stating a particular area of concern is Page.I- 13 of the Housing Element and requested that the following language under a. Specific Plan Area 1 be excluded: "create fiscal benefits for the City and enhance its infrastructure," so that it now reads: 11 SP -i incorporates the Sphere of Influence area. This 3600 acre multiple ownership area contains unique biological and open space resources. The formulation of a future Specific Plan should incorporate provisions to protect existing resources while minimizing future adverse impacts to both the human and natural environment of the City, as well as the region (see Strategy 1.1.4 of the Circulation Element)." Seeing no one else who wished to speak, Chair/ Flamenbaum returned the item to the Planning commission for deliberation. April 10, 1995 Page 8 Planning Commission The Planning commission reviewed the four items proposed for modification by the City Council and made the following recommendations: With respect to Item. #1, "The establishment of RH, High Density Residential (20 du/acre) Land Use classification;", a motion was made by VC/Huff and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to accept staff's recommendation. The motion was approved unanimously. Regarding Item #2, "The addition of Residential uses at a density of 1 unit to 2 acres within the Agriculture (AG) designation;" A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to approve staff's recommendation. The notion was approved 4-1 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Chair/Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None The following revisions were proposed for item #3 "Revisions to the Land Use Element text regarding the Planned Development* classification and areas so designated; and" as follows: - A notion was made by VC/Huff and seconded by C/Fong to approve the recommendation to accept Planned Development Areas 1, 2 and 3 on Pages 1-19 and I-20. The motion was... approved unanimously. Following discussion regarding Planned Development Area 4, Chair/ Flamenbaum moved that the following recommended wording for Page 1-20 be approved: "PD -4 consists of 78 vacant acres and is located west of Brea Canyon Road, north of Peaceful Hills Road and south of South Pointe Middle School. Land uses appropriate for this planned development area include single family detached residential, public facilities and open space. A maximum of 165 dwelling units may be permitted incorporating a minimum of 30 percent of the 78 acre site (which shall be located on. the eastern portion of the site) set aside as open space. The most sensitive portion of the site (located on. the eastern Portion) shall be retained in permanent open space. The site plan shall incorporate April lot 1995 Page 9 Planning commission the planning and site 'preparation to accommodate the development of. Larkstone Park of a suitable size and location to serve the- neighborhood as approved by the City. The development of Larkstone Park shall be in addition to the 30 percent set aside as open space." The motion was seconded by C/Schad. The recommendation was approved unanimously. A notion was made by C/Fong and seconded by C/Schad that the commission recommend that PD -5 retain the previous designation of Public Facilities (PF) . The notion was approved 3-2 with the following roll call: AYES:* COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad, VC/Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Chair/Flamenbaum ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None' A - motion was '. made by C/Meyer and seconded. by Chair/ Flamenbaum to approve Item 114 "Modifications to the Land Use Map reflecting the above." The 'motion was approved unanimously. Chair/Flamenbaum requested Commissioner's comments regarding the entire General Plan. C/Meyer indicated he preferred the original recommendation by the Planning Commission regarding the SASAK property. The conditional approval of the Tentative Map was conditioned to be part of the entire Master Plan. The original project of 20 units standing on its own was contrary to the surrounding neighborhood,, and made no sense on its own merits and only marginal sense as part of the overall project. C/Fong stated the park area designated as Private Recreation within "The Country Estates" is now designated as Open Space. He indicated he feels it is more appropriately designated as Private Recreation. C/Fong further stated he is concerned about the strip along Brea Canyon Road adjacent to PD -4 designated Commercial. He indicated he believes the hill should be retained as a sound barrier for the homes to the west of the SR 57 and should be part of PD -4. . April 10, 1995 Page 10 Planning Commission C/Fong -continued that he _objpcts to changing the RNP property designation to RR from OS. C/Schad stated he agrees with C/Fong's comments and in particular, those regarding the Commercial strip along Brea Canyon Road. He indicated he likes the first General Plan that was put together by the citizens. C . /Huff concurred with the statements regarding the SASAK property indicating the citizens would like more open space and fewer houses. He stated the new designation seems a clear. opportunity to allow development. For the City Council to change the number of houses on the unit without any significant trade-off to the City makes no sense. He asked that the city Council reconsider this item. Chair/Flamenbaum stated he concurs with the SASAK property position voiced by other Commissioners and wishes the city Council would reconsider their decision. Secondly, he indicated the RNP property should be left as Open Space. He,noted that the YMCA is ' indicated "Private Park" and "The Country Estates" park is noted as open Space and should be listed as Private Recreation. He commented that he is not in favor of the Housing Element as rewritten.. C/Meyer asked about the Multi -Family designation indicated on the map for the park on the north side of the Pomona Freeway at Golden springs Drive. CDD/DeStefano stated that this is a graphic error which will be correct to indicate "Park". 3. Replacement Identification Signs for City Parks. CSD/Rose stated that the agenda item is in reference to park monument signs proposed for the City parks in Diamond Bar. over the past year and at the direction of the city Council, the City's Community Services Department staff and the Parks and Recreation commission have worked to .develop an appropriate replacement for the existing park identification signs that currently list Los Angeles County as the operator of the parks. The parks are actually owned and operated by the City of Diamond Bar and the City Council has directed that the Los Angeles County statement be replaced with the City of Diamond Bar. Staff and the Parks and Recreation April 10, 1995 Page 11 Planning commission Commission have reviewed a variety of options for accomplishing the task and those considered include retrofitting the existing signs with, acrylic or wood overlays, replacing the existing signs with new wood signs, and replacement of the existing signs with new concrete monument signs. I Staff and the Parks and Recreation commission have recommended replacement of the existing signs with new concrete *monument signs as being in the best interest of the community. The proposed signs provide a common theme in architecture that includes a distinctive *design, river rock footing and a bronze replica of the City's logo. The park name is featured prominently on the sign along with the verbiage, "City of Diamond Bar". The signs provide clear identification of the City's parks, provides a visible element that is consistent in each of the park sites and projects an image of a high quality that is inherent in the city's parks. CSD/Rose continued that the process used in developing the designs include review of the existing park identification signs, review of Sign Ordinance 5A which was adopted by the City in 1994 and the need to prop ' erly identify the parks in a consistent manner with a high level of quality. There is a proposed design for a 12 foot long sign and for an eight foot long sign. The 12 foot long sign is proposed to be located on the major boulevards adjacent to the parks which would include Golden Springs - Drive for Sycamore Canyon Park, and Peterson Park, Grand Avenue for the southern entrance of. Summit Ridge Park and Brea Canyon Road for Heritage Park. The eight foot long signs are proposed for the more residential streets which include Forest Canyon Drive for Paul C. Grove Park, Maple Hill Road adjacent to Maple Hill Park, Starshine Road for Starshine Park and Summit Ridge Road for the east entrance of Summit Ridge Park. Potential future signage is . pro -posed for lighting and landscape district #39 pocket parks. Pursuant to Section 112 of the City's Sign Ordinance, the design of the monument signs for the City's parks have been submitted to the Planning Commission for advisory architectural review. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed monument signs for all City Parks and prepare comments which will be forwarded to City Council for consideration. April 101 1995 Page 12 Planning commission Larry Ryan, R I JM Design Group, stated. that the sign is proposed to be a pre -cast concrete panel which would allow for fabrication and mass creation thus reducing the overall cost. The signs would be brought to the * field and erected on a concrete footing with a rock cobble base. The process envisioned a rural character with integral color concrete, sandblast finish, rock cobble base or veneered base and the bronze plaque. The lettering would be conveyed through the use of recessed formed letters to minimize vandalism. The bronze plaque is set into a recessed area in order to discourage vandalism. The overriding consideration in determining the size of the sign lettering is readability from a traveling vehicle. To that end, the module relates to a 10 to 12 foot sign increment. Responding to C/Schad, Mr. Ryan stated that lighting for the signs has not been considered. However, this aspect could certainly be added to the program. C/Schad stated he is concerned that lighting should be considered prior to setting in the concrete base or foundation for the sign. Responding to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that the.private sector would be required to provide an address on their signs. Mr.. Ryan indicated that although the inclusion of an address is not part of the sign proposal, staff has discussed adding the address of the park at the base of the sign. Inresponse to VC/Huff, AP/Searcy indicated that the.. proposed signs exceed the maximum sign height allowed for free standing signs.. However, the city would consider six inches diminimous. VC/Huff stated that if there is a specific height requirement for the commercial sector, the city should abide by the same rules. AP/Searcy responded to Chair/ Flamenbaum that the Planning Commission is acting as an advisory body for City signs. Although the project is funded from Quimby, consideration of the costs is not excluded from the commission's consideration. A notion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to recommend that the replacement identifications signs for Diamond Bar City parks will substantially comply with the height requirement, that April 10, 1995 Page 13 Planning Commission the address will be added to the sign, that bougainvillea will be planted on the back side of the sign and that lighting will be added where appropriate. The motion was approved unanimously. 4. Amendment to Planned Sign Program No. 92-1. AstP/Lunqu reported that in October, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a Planned Sign Program for Sunset Village Shopping Center located at 1241 S. Grand Avenue. The property owner has had requests from tenants for a larger color palette and larger selection in, lettering style. The existing program has white lettering only and the applicant is requesting the addition of red, green and yellow. The existing lettering styles are Helvetica Medium and Helvetica Bold. The applicant is requesting the addition of Clarendon Bold. AstP/Lungu stated this application does not require a public.hearing. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the amendment to Planned Sign Program No. 92-1(1), Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the resolution. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Meyer to approve the amendment to Planned Sign Program No. 92-1. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - None - INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Chair/ Flamenbaum thanked staff for the schedule of future events for the Planning Commission. C/Schad asked when the Planning Commission would begin authoring a Development Code. CDD/DeStefano responded that an estimate of $100,000 for budgeting of the Development Code is being forwarded for incorporation into the City Budget for 1995/1996. CDD/D ' eStefano reminded the Planning Commission will review the Capital Improvement program on May 8. Chair/ Flamenbaum suggested that consideration be given to standards for building development signs. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None April 10, 1995 Page 14 Planning Commission ADJOURNMENT: Chair/Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Community Development Director Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman I V. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY- LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND:. City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 7.1 April 19, 1995 April 24, 1995 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 The project is a request for approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and related approvals including a Hillside Management Conditional UT e'Permit and Oak Tree Permit for development of 57 lots � for` custom home development within the area adjacent to "The Country". The project is located in northern ' Tonner Canyon,. south of Steeplechase Drive and south of Windmill. Drive. Diamond Bar Associates 3480 Torrance Blvd., Ste. 300 Torrance, CA. This project has been referred back to the Planning Commission at the direction of the City Council pursuant to the action taken at the conclusion of the joint session held on April 6, 1995. The Planning Commission expressed the desire for further information to provide clarification on issues and perceived inconsistencies related. to development of the project. The Planning Commission cited a lack of familiarity with the project; as there are no current members from the 1992 Commission that approved the project. The Commission forwarded an itemized list of questions via public testimony to staff for responses. Staff has compiled answers to the expressed issues as attachments to this overview. 1 r Histo The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission in a series of public hearings beginning in September of 1991. At the October 28, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, testimony was taken from the public, staff and the applicant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission directed staff to prepare Resolutions of Approval and to amend the draft conditions of approval to most notably preserve an additional 7 oak trees in the western most canyon. The project was returned to the Commission on the November. 25, 1991. The Commission took action to certify the Master Environmental Impact Report for the purpose of approving the hillside development/SEA Conditional Use Permits and Oak Tree Permits and to recommend approval of the VTM 47850, 47851, and 48487 in addition to the Certification of the Master Environmental Impact Report (HEIR).. The City Council began deliberation on the project in January of 1992 concluding after a series of public hearing over several months. In .June of 1992 the Council certified the MEIIt and approved VTM 47851 and VTM 48487 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Several issues arose out of the public hearing that focused on the geotechnical information on VTM 47850. The Council required the applicant to provide extensive information in order to respond to the questions. In November of 1992, the Council set a public hearing to deliberate on the project. The applicant had not provided the required information to respond to the plan check review questions in time for the public hearing and requested an extension of time to respond to the issues. The Council took action to deny the requested extension of time and additionally took action to deny the application without prejudice. In doing so, the Council found that they could not approve the project without definitive information on the geotechnical issues but allowed the applicant to submit a new application for the project once the information *had been gathered. Subsequently, the applicant filed a lawsuit to appeal the decision. The lawsuit was resolved when the City and the developer entered into an out of court settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required the City to re-initiate processing of the project commencing with a Joint Session to be conducted with the Planning Commission. In anticipation of the renewed processing, a revised environmental document was prepared. The revised document updated information related to air quality and biological resources, as regulations and standards have changed, and to the geotechnical information related to the 24 outstanding issues that served as the foundation for denial of the project. The revised draft MEIR was then circulated to responding agencies and for public review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At the conclusion of the Joint Session the City Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for review. Attached is the opinion of the City Attorney representative as to the scope of review available to the Commission as a part of this review as provided in the Settlement Agreement. In short, the Settle Agreement provided for the Commission's review of "... any other new matters or alternatives which the Joint Session deems appropriate" and did not preclude the Commission or Council's review in conformance with local ordinances or state statue. K APPLICATION ANALYSIS: Project Description Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 is a 73 acre site located in northern Tonner Canyon. The 57 lot subdivision is proposed for a site which currently developed with extensive oak and walnut woodland. This project contains the most valuable biota of the three tracts proposed for development. VTM 47850 contains significant walnut woodlands that cover approximately 34 acres contain almost 700 trees. Approximately 110 oak trees are primarily found within two stands comprising 2.5 acres. The trees located in the southwest portion of the tract have been identified to be protected and contain some of the oldest and healthiest trees on-site. Sixteen oak trees have been marked for removal as a part of this project. These oak trees will be replaced at a 4:1 ratio as will all walnut trees removed as part of the project. The replacement trees have been grown from seeds collected on-site in order to ensure the continuation of the genetics of native plant community. The landscape plan for the project. has been crafted to reproduce an environment that is compatible with remaining vegetation and natural habitat to be complementary with residential development and the mitigation measures recommended by the SEATAC. General Plan/Vestin The project was submitted and deemed complete in 1989 and is vested in the standards in effect at that time. The government code (section 65360) allows actions to be taken in the absence of a General Plan with approvals of the projects requiring the City to make findings of consistency with the future adopted General Plan. The map as proposed is consistent with the zoning classifications which traverse the site. Approximately 50 percent (35 acres) of the site is within the R-1-8,000 zone classification with the remainder of the project to be developed within the R-1-20,000 zone. The project proposes development of the site with a total of 57 units, although the total number units under the zoning entitlement for the R-1-8,000 acreage (net acres) would be approximately 142 units. The applicant designed the project to conform to the 1 unit per acre density (RR/Rural Residential) classification proposed in the draft General Plan and the Community General Plan previously approved by the County of Los Angeles. If the most restrictive application of density, 1 unit per acre, were to be applied to the project, the project would be entitled to 72 units. The proposed density is .73 units per acre. The concept of clustered development has been utilized to maximize open space opportunities within hillside projects throughout the City. The subject project. does not cluster development in the sense that all of the proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum lot sizes required by the zone. The applicant has provided additional open space by simply reducing the density. The project as a whole conforms to. the land use designation (RR) as proposed within the draft General Plan. 3 Issues Staff has responded to the questions related to geotechnical and environmental issues and has provided responses which are intended to resolve perceived inconsistencies. Staff and City's professional consultants have'provided an itemization of responses that were generated by the comments made at the Joint Session. The geotechnical issues primarily revolve around soil stability and the calculations which were used to design the project. The design parameters and factor of safety for the site were calculated by using state of the art industry standards. The site has been designed to meet all design standards and the design has been reviewed and approved by • the City. The site has extensively implemented conservative measures to account for. worst case scenarios. For example, the site was designed as if materials such bentonite were found on-site . All sheer strength calculations were performed using lesser sheer strength values associated with this material. Additionally, the project will be overgraded with a 10 ft. blanket fill. The standard overfill depth is typically 3 ft. The environmental issues raised at the Joint Session reflect that staff needed to highlightthe environmental documents that include technical appendices which supplement the presentation within. the revised EIR. The primary issues staff identified as being raised are centrally related to the animals found or thought to be found on-site. All of the animals found on-site cannot be observed in the surveys that can be conducted on-site in a couple of visits therefore staff compiled lists of animals expected to be on-site or traverse the site based on historical surveys. The site may be used by certain animals at certain times but because of the development surrounding the site on three sides, the value of the site as. a primary corridor is negligible. The site does however provide limited habitat for certain animals that will be reduced as a part of the development of the site but the proximity of Tonner Canyon provides a viable area for relocation. RECONEMT,NDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the project as submitted and direct staff as appropriate. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner ATTACBAlENTS: Memorandum from City Engineer, Dated April 20, 1995 Leighton and Associates, Geotechnical Response to Citizen Comments, Dated April 19, 1995 Michael Brandman Associates, Response to City Council and Planning Commission Response to Comments, Dated April 20, 1995 Draft Conditions of Approval Memo from Robert Owen, Rutan & Tucker dated April 18, 1995 C:\LETTERS\REPORTS\VTM47850.STY A I • 0 11 ra UT DATE: April 20, 1995 TO: Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director FROM: Mike Myers VIA: George Wentz, City Engineer SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.'47850; Response to Public, City Council and Planning Commission Questions from the Joint Meeting of April 6, 1995 The following questions were noted from the Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission held on April 6, 1995. In addition to the respo*nses to these.questions herein, the City's Geotechnical Consultant (Leighton and Associates) has prepared a written response to written I questions uestions submitted at that meeting by Mr. Wilbur Smith. Their response, dated April 29, 1995, is transmitted herewith. Question: Can the proposed fill in westerly canyon be eliminated if some lots are eliminated? And, more generally, can the extent of the area disturbed by grading be reduced by reducing the number of lots? Answer: Intuitively this is a very reasonable expectation. Certainly the earthwork necessary to create the landform for access and the building pads is reduced very directly with the size and extent of the project. However, the magnitude and necessary extent of remedial earthwork can only be determined by detailed analysis of a specific proposed project. No project other than that now proposed has been submitted for review. While it is reasonable to assume that a significantly reduced project would likely require less remedial earthwork and impact a smaller area it does not necessarily follow that a project half the size of that proposed would impact half the area; it may impact somewhat more than this. And there may be a project that could be designed in such a way to impact less. Question: Can the proposed canyon fill in westerly canyon be eliminated if that proposed adjacent shear key (parallel easterly on the westerly facing slope of this canyon) is constructed deeper? Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 April 20, 1995 Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 2 Answer: It may be possible to eliminate the presently proposed canyon fill by constructing a deeper and larger shear key along the .slope. However, it is probable that the shear key "front -cut" would extend significantly further downslope toward the canyon into areas which are now shown to be undisturbed. Also, as the site presently balances and the amount of material in the proposed canyon fill may not be able to be accommodated elsewhere onsite, a significant earthwork imbalance might be created. Question: Has the Developer published any safety factors for individual lots or are safety factors cited for entire project? Answer: A. safety factor (SF) is applicable in the analysis of an entire slope and is not lot dependent. To the extent that a single lot is supported by that slope the SF is applicable to that lot. Question: How can burrowing animals be kept away from the site which is immediately adjacent to the SEA? Answer: Burrowing animals are a concern where water is directed into the burrows which can then cause a detrimental effect on the surficiai stability of slope faces. Animal burrows are not likely to be a conduit for water to depths that would cause a detrimental effect on the gross stability of the slopes. The manufactured slopes are immediately above the undisturbed natural slopes around the perimeter of the project and the natural slopes are all within an area to be dedicated to the HOA for slope maintenance purposes. Burrowing animal abatement programs are well understood and can be readily implemented by the homeowner. Such services are also available commercially. The control of burrowing animals will be required of the homeowner by the C,C & R's for this project. Question: How will a 10 feet "blanket" fill assure that water will not infiltrate from the surface into any of the lower natural joints and fissures. Answer: This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Item C. Question: if proposed structure setbacks are varied, does this affect the geotechnical stability of the site? Vesting Tentative Tract Map No; 47850 April 20, 1.995 Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 3 Answer: The geotechnical stability of this site is not affected by the location of residential or accessory structures or the setback of these structures from property lines. However, in addition to the structure set back requirements in the planning and zoning codes, thesetback of structures and foundations to/from slopes (both top and bottom) is regulated by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Question: Are "blue -line streams" affected by this project? Answer: Yes. Two intermittent "blueline" streams are within the project area (see EIR page 3.2-3). Only the westerly canyon (intermittent "blueline" stream) is affected by grading and the construction of drainage improvements. Question; Did the project Geotechnical Report analyze and make recommendations. regarding post -construction fill settlement? Answer: No. On Tract 47851 (grading recently completed) the City Staff in . . analyzing the final geotechnical report required Subdivider's Geotechnical Engineer to monitor a deep (approximately 110') fill similar, but deeper, than that proposed for this subdivision. The City has not yet given final grading approval for those lots supported by that fill and will not until a longer period (perhaps an additional 3 months) of settlement monitoring is completed. The fill on this project (approximately 80') and any requirement for settlement monitoring will be handled in the same way. Question: Can the conditions of tentative map approval require an "as -graded" plan and report and include a requirement that elevations of "bottom excavations" be shown? Answer: Yes. Conditions may be included to require this, however, the City's standard General Grading Notes require a final report and as -graded geotechnical map prior to approval of final grading, therefore Staff did not recommend a condition of tentative map approval. Question: As different geotechnical conditions may be encountered during grading, can the conditions of tentative map approval require detailed geotechnical mapping be performed during grading operations and require that any different conditions discovered be re -analyzed? Vesting Te * ntative Tract Map No. 47850 April 20, 1995 Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 4 Answer: Yes. Conditions may be included to require this, however the grading operation is subject to continuous supervision by the Subdivider's professional geotechnical consultants. The City's inspection will require that regular reports (daily, weekly and monthly) be filed by the Subdivider's geotechnical consultants. Given the requirements for a final report and as -graded geotechnical map (as noted above) Staff did not recommend a condition of tentative map approval. Question: Did Subdivider's geotechnical consultant analyze the safety factor of "back cuts"? Answer: Yes. Minimum factors of safety were in excess of 1.25 for these temporary slopes. This exceeds industry standards for these slope conditions that only exist for short periods of time during the construction process. Question: Can slope downdrains can be buried? Answer: Yes. However, buried pipes and associated inlets are more susceptible to clogging and therefore are a greater potential for creating conditions which could cause water to flow over the face of slopes. it is preferred, from maintenance standpoint,,to have such drains on the surface, readily visible and easily accessible for cleaning. Question: How were the values for cohesion (C ---,; 150) and friction angle (o = 15') established? Answer: This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's '(Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Comment Item F. Question: What were the values for cohesion (C) and friction angle (o) that were used in the adjacent development (Tracts No. 29053 and 32974, adjacent westerly)? Answer: C = 200 and o = 10'. This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated Apdl 19, 1995, Response Comment Item H. Question: Explain apparent contradiction in the project Geotechnical Report regarding report of no groundwater when Lawmaster Boring (DH -A-1) made in November, 1988 encountered seepage. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 April 20, 1995 Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 5 Answer: This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Item I. Question: Can the conditions of tentative map approval require rubberized asphalt paving? Answer: Yes. Conditions may be included to require this. Should the Council desire that rubberized asphalt concrete pavement be required in the construction of street improvements it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommended Conditions, Engineering (Road) No. 29 be modified by adding the words "rubberized asphalt concrete" before the word "pavement". Question: What are the impacts of this project on the Shebarum Trail? Answer: Grading of the project will erase portions of the present trail and on the lower portions of Lots 18, 19 and 20 make the present trail impassible. In the final mapping for Tract 47851 portions of the present actual trail. were found to be outside of the present easement dedicated to the County of Los Angeles. The present easement was abandoned with the recording of the final map and concurrently an alignment was dedicated to the City that matched the physical alignment of the existing and in some areas realigned/regraded trail. Continuity of the trail through the project was maintained and a passable trail within the easement was established. These same issues are expected in the final mapping of this project and will be handled in the same way. Question: . What provisions have been made for the grading shown offsite westerly? Answer: Grading easements have been obtained from all affected properties and recorded by the subdivider. Additionally Staff has recommended that a specific condition regarding this issue be added to those conditions of tentative map approval previously recommended by the Planning Commission. Question: Can the design of drainage swales incorporate rocks? Answer: Yes. However, this will adversly affect the hydraulic capacity of any design. Also, this will create a greater potential for trapping debris and increasing the effort in maintaining these necessary drainage facilities. MEMORANDUM CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DATE: April 20, 1995 TO: Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director FROM: Mike Myers0, 1 VIA: George Wentz, City Engineer SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.'47850; Response to Public, City Council and Planning Commission Questions from the Joint Meeting of April 6'.1995 The following questions were noted from the Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission held on April 6, 1995. In addition to the responses to these _ questions herein, the City's Geotechnical Consultant (Leighton and Associates) has prepared a written response to written questions submitted at that meeting by Mr. Wilbur Smith. Their response, dated April 29, 1995, is transmitted herewith. Question: Can the proposed fill in westerly canyon be eliminated if some lots are eliminated? And, more generally, can the extent of the area disturbed by grading be reduced by reducing the number of lots? Answer: Intuitively this is a very reasonable expectation. Certainly the earthwork necessary to create the landform for access and the building pads is reduced very directly with the size and extent of the project. However, the magnitude and necessary extent of remedial earthwork can only be determined by detailed analysis of a specific proposed project. No project other than that now proposed has been submitted for review. While it is reasonable to assume that a significantly reduced project would likely require less remedial earthwork and impact a smaller area it does not necessarily follow that a project half the size of that proposed would impact half the area; it may impact somewhat more than this. And there may be a project that could be designed in such a way to impact less. Question: Can the proposed canyon fill in westerly canyon be eliminated if that proposed adjacent shear key (parallel easterly on the westerly facing slope of. this canyon) is constructed deeper? Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 April 20, 1995 Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 2_ Answer: it may be possible to eliminate the presently proposed canyon fill by constructing a deeper and larger shear key along the -slope. However, it is probable that the shear key "front -cut" would extend significantly further downslope toward the canyon into areas which are now shown to be undisturbed. Also, as the site presently balances and the amount of material in the proposed canyon fill may not be able to be accommodated elsewhere onsite, a significant earthwork imbalance might be created. - Question: Has the Developer published any safety factors for individual lots or are safety factors cited for entire project? Answer: A safety factor (SF) is applicable in the analysis of an entire slope and is not lot dependent. To the extent that a single lot is supported by that slope the SF is applicable to that lot. Question: How can burrowing animals be kept away from the site which is immediately adjacent to the SEA? Answer: Burrowing animals are a concern where water is directed into the burrows Which can then cause a detrimental effect on the surficial stability of slope faces. Animal. burrows are not likely to be a conduit for water to depths that would cause a detrimental effect on the gross stability of the slopes. The manufactured slopes are immediately above the undisturbed natural slopes around the perimeter of the project and, the natural slopes are all within an area to be dedicated to the HOA for slope maintenance purposes. Burrowing animal abatement programs are well understood and can be readily implemented by the homeowner. Such services are also available commercially. The control of burrowing animals will be required of the homeowner by the C,C & R's for this project. Question: How will a 10 feet "blanket" fill assure that water will not infiltrate from the surface into any of the lower natural joints and fissures. Answer: This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Item C. Question: If proposed structure setbacks are varied, does this affect the geotechnical stability of the site? Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 April 20, 1995 Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 3 Answer: The geotechnical stability of this site is not affected by the location of residential or accessory structures or the setback of these structures from property lines. However, in addition to the structure set back requirements in the planning and zoning codes, the setback of structures and foundations to/from slopes (both top and bottom) is regulated by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Question: Are "blue -line streams" affected by this project? Answer: Yes. Two intermittent "blueline" streams are within the project area (see EIR page 3.2-3). Only the westerly canyon (intermittent "blueline" stream) is affected by grading and the construction of drainage improvements. Question; Did the project Geotechnical Report analyze and make recommendations regarding post -construction fill settlement? Answer: No. On Tract 47851 (grading recently completed) the City Staff in analyzing the final geotechnical report required Subdivider's Geotechnical Engineer to monitor a deep (approximately 110') fill similar, but deeper, than that proposed for this subdivision. The City has not yet given final grading approval for those .lots supported by that fill and will not until a longer period (perhaps an additional 3 months) of settlement monitoring is completed. The fill on this project (approximately 80') and any . requirement for settlement monitoring will be handle,d.in the same way. Question: Can the conditions of tentative map approval require an "as -graded" plan and report and include a requirement that elevations of "bottom excavations" be shown? Answer: Yes. Conditions may -be included to require this, however, the City's standard General Grading Notes require a final report and as -graded geotechnical map prior to approval of final grading, therefore Staff did not recommend a condition of tentative map approval. Question: As different geotechnical conditions may be encountered during grading, can the conditions of tentative map approval require detailed geotechnical mapping be performed during grading operations and require that any different conditions discovered be re -analyzed? Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 • April 20, 1995. Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 4 Answer: Yes. Conditions may be included to require this, however the grading operation is subject to continuous supervision by the Subdivider's professional geotechnical consultants. The City's inspection will require .that regular reports (daily, weekly and monthly) be filed by the Subdivider's geotechnical consultants. Given the requirements for a final report and as -graded geotechnical map (as noted above) Staff did not recommend a condition of tentative map approval. Question: Did Subdivider's geotechnical consultant analyze the safety factor of "back cuts"? Answer: Yes. Minimum factors of safety were in excess of 1.25 for these temporary slopes. This exceeds industry standards for these slope conditions that only exist for short periods of time during the construction process. Question: Can slope downdrains can be buried? Answer: Yes. However, buried pipes and associated inlets are more susceptible to clogging and therefore area greater potential for creating conditions which could cause water to flow over the face of slopes. It is preferred, from maintenance standpoint, -to have such drains on the surface, readily visible and easily accessible for cleaning. Question: How were the values for cohesion (C = 150) and friction angle (o = 150) established? Answer: This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Comment Item F. Question: What.were the values for cohesion (C) and friction angle (o) that were used in the adjacent development (Tracts No. 29053 and 32974, adjacent westerly)? Answer: C = 200 and o = 100. This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Comment Item H. Question: Explain apparent contradiction in the project Geotechnical Report regarding report of no groundwater when Lawmaster Boring (DH -A-1) made in November, 1988 encountered seepage. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 Apri1.20, 1995 Memorandum, Response. to Questions Page 5 Answer: This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Item I. Question: Can the conditions of tentative map approval require rubberized asphalt paving? Answer: Yes. Conditions may be included to require this. Should the Council desire that rubberized asphalt -concrete pavement be require ' d in the construction of street improvements it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommended Conditions, Engineering (Road).No. 29 be modified by adding the words "rubberized asphalt concrete" before the word "pavement". Question: What are the impacts of thi's project on the Shebarurn Trail? Answer: Grading of the project will erase portions of the present trail and on the lower portions of Lots 18, 19 and 20 make the present trail impassible. In the final mapping for Tract 47851 portions of the present actual trail were found to be outside of the present easement dedicated to the County. of Los Angeles. The present easement was abandoned with the recording of the final map and concurrently an alignment was dedicated to the City that matched the physical alignment of the existing and in some areas realigned/regraded trail. Continuity of the trail through the project was maintained and a passable trail within the easement was established. These same issues are expected in the final mapping of this project and will be handled in the same way. Question: . What provisions have been made for the grading shown offsite westerly? Answer: Grading easements have been obtained from all affected properties and recorded by the subdivider. Additionally Staff has recommended that a specific condition regarding this issue be added to those conditions of tentative map approval previously recommended by the Planning Commission. Question: Can the design of drainage swales incorporate rocks? Answer: Yes. However, this will adversly affect the hydraulic capacity of any design. Also, this will create a greater potential for trapping debris and increasing the effort in maintaining these necessary drainage facilities. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants April 19, 1995 Project No. 2910164-60 To: City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Attention: Mr. George Wentz Subject: Geotechnical Response to Citizen Comments Regarding (Revision No. 2) Tract 47850, City of Diamond Bar, California In response to your request, we have reviewed the letter dated March 14, 1995 (Revision No. 2), by Mr. Wilber Smith which includes comments regarding the geotechnical issues within Tract 47850. Our responses are lettered sequentially, corresponding to Mr. Smith's comments A through F. Mr. Smith's letter is attached. 4. A. This comment should be directed to the City Attorney. B. The geotechnical reports associated with the development of Tract'47850 have been reviewed by Leighton and Associates. During the review process, comments were prepared by Leighton and Associates regarding various aspects of the geotechnical report. The review comments were subsequently responded to by the developer's geotechnical consultants, Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. Through an iterative process involving our review of the responses to our comments, preparation of additional review comments and subsequent responses to those comments by Harrington, all geotechnical issues were resolved. On August 23, 1994, Leighton approved Tract 47850 from a geotechnical standpoint (Leighton, 1994e). It is our opinion that the geotechnical issues associated with the development of Tract 47850 have I ' been adequately addressed. �j C. The assumption that there will be no static ground water, table. or phreatic surface which would E would create pore pressures within the subject slopes is a valid assumption. Shear keys, f1 incorporating heel and back cut drains, will be constructed around the perimeter of the site which will effectively prevent the buildup of water. In addition, it is standard practice to overexcavate the lots located above slope stability shear keys or buttresses and replace the overexcavated L material with compacted fill The standard practice is to overexcavate the lots 3 feet. This reduces the potential for surface water seeping directly into adverse bedding planes and/or adverse joints. Within Tract 47850, the lots above the shear keys will be overexcavated a minimum of 10 feet below finish grade; in excess of the standard practice. It is, however, possible that the materials onsite will undergo fluctuations in moisture content. Strength parameters developed for the earth materials onsite, including the smectite layer, are based on saturated conditions. Thus, it is our opinion that the analyses performed to evaluate the stability of the site are appropriate. 659 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE 4, WALNUT, CALIFORNIA U.S.A. 91789 (909) 869.6382 • (800) 777-2286 FAX (909) 869-6387 /�•_1 • .i Douglas E. Moran, Inc. performed laboratory testing of a representative sample of the smectite obtained during Harrington's field investigation. They were provided with the sample and performed the test. Moran makes the following statements: "In using such parameters to represent the strength of the material tested, it is appropriate to recognize that shear strength is effectively reduced by pore water pressure which tends to neutralize confining pressure on which a significant portion of shear strength depends. This effect needs to be considered in an analysis of stability in which such parameters are used to represent material strength". - Since Moran has never been to the site or reviewed the geologic and geotechnical data associated with the development, their comments must be viewed as general in nature. In fact, pore water was considered by Harrington. It was determined that pore water pressures would not be a factor. Furthermore, the shear strength parameters used by Harrington (150 psf cohesion and 15 degrees friction angle) in the analysis of slopes onsite are significantly less than those recommended by Moran. D. In order to mitigate the potential effect of downhill bedrock creep on the development, a series of daylight shear keys will be constructed around the perimeter of the development. In effect, the creep effected material will be removed in the vicinity of the shear keys and replaced with compacted fill. To reduce the potential for water accumulating in the shear keys, drains have been incorporated in the design. Also, all lots will be capped with compacted fill to reduce the potential for surface water infiltration. In our opinion, these measures are state -of -the -practice and adequately address the drainage issues associated with stabilization of the slopes onsite. E. The City of Diamond Bar and the County of Los Angeles require, a minimum static factor of safety of 1.50 when analyzing the stability of permanent manufactured and natural slopes. This is also an industry standard. Tract 47850 has been designed such that all slopes meet the minimum required stability standards. Slope stability analyses are performed on cross-sections in areas where worst-case conditions exist. The results of the analyses are not lot dependent, but reflect the minimum factor of safety for the slope analyzed. F. As with most hillside developments, the most significant geotechnical issues with respect to the development -of Tract 45850, are those associated with slope stability. The smectite layers onsite were considered by Harrington as the material which controlled the site stability. Harrington conducted numerous laboratory tests to determine the strength of this material, both in house and by others. Based on the results of their testing program, they established strength parameters for: the smectite material. However, based on our review of the geologic units onsite and on our experience, we questioned (by review comment) whether other, weaker materials could be present onsite. After several discussions, Harrington agreed to reduce the strength parameters to those which they had originally assumed based on the assumption that the controlling material onsite was a weaker clay material. -2- _ �9 ►r1curnu eun eccnnerrt AM* Slope stability analyses were performed for the site utilizing the weaker strength parameters. Based on the analyses, shear keys were designed to stabilize the parameter slopes. The construction of drains within the shear keys and capping of lots with compacted fill are measures taken to reduce the potential for water buildup within the shear keys, as discussed in our response to Comment D. Burrowing animals can have a detrimental effect on the surficial stability of slope faces. Burrowing animals tend to loosen the upper soil on the face of slopes which can result in soil slump type failures during periods of heavy rains. It is very unlikely that animal burrows located on the building pad, within the fill cap, will have any effect on the gross stability of the slopes onsite. The future homeowners, or the homeowner's association, should develop a slope maintenance program, one aspect of which should be the control of burrowing animals. G. See our response to Comment B, above. H. Considerable laboratory testing was performed by Harrington and others onsite to determine the shear strength of the earth materials onsite, including the smectite material. The final shear strength parameters utilized in slope stability analyses in Tract 47850 are significantly lower than F4 the laboratory test results indicate. Lower strength parameters were used by S. E. Medall & Associates, Inc. during their geotechnical review of Tracts 29053 and 32974 (Mendall, 1976). However, there are no reports by Medall on file with the City of Diamond Bar which support the ~T use of the lower parameters with laboratory testing. In their October 4, 1976 report, Medall states, 'The parameters c and 4 that appear in the above equation define the strength of the material that is present along the bedding plane under consideration. Since it is not possible to determine with certainty the values of these parameters for each and every bedding plane along .e which sliding might tend to. occur, it is common practice to assume the worst, that the lowest values obtained are characteristic of each and every bedding plane. This assumption is generally cnservative°. Thus, it appears that the strength parameters used by Mendall were conservative assumptions. L Seepage was encountered in the Lawmaster Boring DH -A-1, drilled November 21, 1988 (Plate C-45, Brandeman, 1995). The seepage, encountered at depth of 71 feet, was descrn`bed as emanating from slightly open joints. This was a minor perched water condition. No static ground water was encountered. Seepage was also encountered in Test Pits S-3, TPA -1 and TPA -2 (Plates C-11, C-47 and C-48, Brandeman, 1995). These latter three test pits were excavated in, the bottom of, or adjacent to, active stream channels. We would anticipate water in these locations. This has no significance with respect to potential pore water pressure buildup and the stability of the slopes onsite. Thus, we do not see any contradiction to Harrington's conclusion - that pore water pressure need not be included in the stability analysis of the slopes onsite. -3- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. J. The burden placed upon the homeowners, or a homeowner's association within Tract 47850 is no greater than those put upon any other homeowners or homeowner's associations within a hillside residential development. It is common practice for the geotechnical consultant to recommend preventative measures to control burrowing animals, maintenance of proper drainage devices and landscaping, and prevention of excessive watering to reduce the potential for surficial slope instability and erosion. K. The shear strength parameters used by Harrington, consisting of a cohesion of 150 psf and a friction angle of 15 degrees, are more conservative than zero cohesion and 22 degrees as recommended by Morn as a lower bound. I, Harrington's conclusion that long-term creep may continue below the shear keys refers to the natural slopes downslope of the shear keys. Shear keys have been designed and recommendations provided by Harrington to mitigate the affects of long-term creep on the development. Creep affected materials are being removed and replaced with compacted fill along the daylight cut and on the building pads. Severe seasonal moisture changes which can contribute to long-term creep in expansive soils can be controlled by proper landscaping, irrigation, and slope maintenance within the development. M. No response from the geotechnical consultants required. If you have any questions, please call us at your convenience. Qpp� Respectfully submitted, o� LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. tfo. 46222 EXP. 12 W98 David C. Smith, RCE 46222 �� CN%; , Manager of Operations DCS/rsh Attachment: Appendix A - References Appendix B - Letter dated March 14, 1995 Distribution: (2) Addressee 1 -4- References Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc., 1992, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan Review, Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 91-01-0109B, dated September 3, 1992. 1993, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Report Review Response, Vesting Tentative Tract 47950, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 91- 01-0109B, dated April 28, 1993. 1994a, Response to Geotechnical Review Sheet for Vesting Tentative Tract 478 0, Diamond Bar, California, dated May 17, 1994. 1994b, Material Shearing Strength, Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, dated June 14, 1994. 1994c, Revised Slope Stability Analyses for Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 91-01-0109B, dated July 6, 1994. 1994d, Response to Geotechnical Review Sheet for Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 91-01-01098, dated August 1, 1994. 1994e, Response to Geotechnical Review Sheet for Vesting Tentative Tract . 47850, Diamond Bar, California, dated August 16, 1994. Eli Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1992, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Report dated September 3, 1992, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 2910164-19, dated October 29, 1992. 1994a, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Tract 47850, Report dated April 28' 1993, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 2910164-60, dated April 29, 1994. 1994b, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Tract 47850, Report dated June 14, 101 1994, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 2910164-60, dated June 15, 1994. 1994c, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Tract 47850, Reports dated September 3, 1992 and Revised October 16, 1992, April 28, 1993, and July 6, 1994, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 2910164-60, dated July 21, 1994. 19944, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Tract 47850, Report dated August 1, 1994, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 2910164-60, dated August 12, 1994. 1994e, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Tract 47850, Report dated August 23, 1994, Project No. 2910164-60, dated August 23, 1994. A-1 1994f, Geotechnical Response to Citizen Comments Regarding Tract 47850, City of Diamond Bar,. California, dated March 23, 1995. Michael Brandeman Associates, 1995, Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, Vesting Tentative Map 47850, (State Clearinghouse No. 90010861), Volume II, dated January 1995. S.E. Medall & Associates, Inc., 1976, Soil Engineering and Geologic Review of Tentative Tract 29053 and Tract 32974, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California for Weatherfield Homes, dated October 4, 1976. 1978a, Supplemental Subsurface Exploration, Tracts 29053, 34160 and 34161, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California for County of Los Angeles, W.O. 605D, dated March 7, 1978. 1978b, Addendum Report for Tracts 29053, 34160 and 34161, County of Los Angeles, California for Weatherfield Homes, W.O. 605D, dated May 5, 1978. 1979, Rough Grade Report; Lots 48-100, Tract 34160, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California, W.O. 605D, dated February 1, 1979. A-2 P71 1§ Wilbur G. Smith 21630Fairwind Lane Diamond'Bar Ca. 91765 909-861-0742 March 14,1995 To: City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar Ca. 91765 Attn: Mayor P.Papen,City Council Members,J.DeStefano Subject: Vesting Tentative Track Map 47850 - Revision No.2 (ten new references,six additions to ATTACHMENT B, identification of additional conflicting statements) Ladies and Gentlemen: Information (Attachment A) suppilied by the Cities Community Development and Engineering Departments has been reviewed for the.purposes of providing citizen comment at Public Bearings to he held on the Crystal Ridge Development (VTTM, 47850) and its Draft Environmental Inpact Report (Ref.5). Attachment B presents my citizen comments on the subject that I. .will present at these hearings and requests for actions to be taken by the City Council before voting on approval of the VTTM 47850. Please include this letter with attachments A and B in the, final documentation of the Public Hearings. Thank You Wilbur G. Smith City of Diamond Bar, 21.666 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 396-5676 O. Property Owners within a 504 foot radius of subject site ;RML. City of Diamond Bar ' ZOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, Pursuant to State Law, that the City Council and PIanning Commission will conduct a joint public nearing on the following item to determine whether or not the subject request shall be approved under the provisions of State Law and the City of Diamond Bar: DATE AND TIME OF HEAMG: Thursday, April 6, 1995 6:30 P.NL PLACE OF HEARING: South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUBJECT: VESTMG TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850 and ENVIRONMI;.NTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1. REQUEST: The applicant proposes a residential development on an approximately 73 acre site in the City of Diamond Bar. The proposed project, if approved, would allow for the development of 57 custom lot single-family residences. Lot sizes are proposed 'to vary from 0.44 to 5.47 acres with an average lot size of 1.05 gross acres. Pad sizes will range from 9,391 square feet to 21,391 ,sgttare fees. Overall project density is 0.78 'units per gross acre. The ect site will have two access points fibm Steeplechase Lane and will p roj four onsite cul-de-sacs. Approximately 47 acres will be graded for the lots with 16 acres include an internal loop roadway system with 4graded for a fuel modification zone. EVT:+i 47850 was a component of a three tmct development considered by the City in 1992. In May 1992.the City approved Vesting yTeatative Tract Man Nos. 47851 and 48487. In November 1992 the City denied the third map (VTM 47850) which is now being reconsidered by the City and has been the subject of additional environmental documentation, Pursuant to the terms of the California • Environmental Quality Act'. City has determined that this project requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). An EIR was ,,prepared. for this project in 1991 (SCH No. 9001086 1) and has hero revised to reflect the current project and conditions. The Revised f*EIR has lin prepared to assess the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with the development of VTM 47850 and to establish mitigation measures for those impacts. A noticed Public Workshop designed to reintroduce the project and provide a forum for public input regarding the proposal and the Revised EIR was held Saturday, March 11, 1995. The April 6, 1995 scheduled "=public hearing on the proposed development provides an additional opportunity to comment upon the project. APPLICAI'`tT/OWNER: Diamond Bar Associates, Inc. 3480 Torrance Blvd. =301, Torrance, CA 90503 PROPERTY ADDRESS: The project is located within 'Tae CountryEstates' near the intersection of Steeplechase Lane and - Wagon Train Lane. Published in: San Gabriel Valley Tribune: March 24, 1995 Inland Valley Daily Bulletin: March 24, 1995 J If you are unable to attend the public hearing, but wish to send written comments, please write to the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department at the address given below. To preview case materials or for further information on this subject ti. piece contact the Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676. c o ase -eC eJ /hg's r;s your Jas �.�a��e %U �9 f?-o,� (See reverse for Site Map) If you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else �; A n the rnihlic hearinsr described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development ATTACHMENT A 71--, REFERENCES ZIN 61. 1) Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Report Review Response for Subject Project, Dated April 28, 1994 by Barrington Geotechnical Engineering,Inc. 12-i 2) Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and -Grading Plan Review, Dated October 16,19.92 by Harrington Engineering Inc. 3) Geotechnical Review Sheet for VTTM 47850, Dated October 29, 1992 by Leighton & Associates Inc. R Harrington Geotechnical Engineering Inc. 'V-81 5) Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Map 47850 Vol 1 and 2 dated January 1995 . by Michael Brandman Associates. 6) Case No. 71 16 84 filed in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE of CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE; DATE 21 JUNE 1993. 7) Letter from DOUGLAS E.MORAN,INC to Harrington Geotechnical Engineering: Subject :Results of Shear Tests Performed Tentative Tract No.47850 dated April 14,1993. 8) Leighton and Associates letter to City of Diamond Bar: Subject: Tract Map No. 47851 dated August 2,1994. 9) Harrington Geotechnical Engineering,Inc Report NO.91-01-0109A (Tract 47851) 10) Harrington Geotechnical Engineering,Inc. letter to B.Mazur of D.B.A. dated July 6,1994. 11) Harrington Geotechnical Engineering,Inc letter to B.Mazur 4) Compilation of Geotechnical Report Review Sheets and Responses for'Vesting Tentative Track 47850 datedAugust29,1994 by R Harrington Geotechnical Engineering Inc. 'V-81 5) Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Map 47850 Vol 1 and 2 dated January 1995 . by Michael Brandman Associates. 6) Case No. 71 16 84 filed in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE of CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE; DATE 21 JUNE 1993. 7) Letter from DOUGLAS E.MORAN,INC to Harrington Geotechnical Engineering: Subject :Results of Shear Tests Performed Tentative Tract No.47850 dated April 14,1993. 8) Leighton and Associates letter to City of Diamond Bar: Subject: Tract Map No. 47851 dated August 2,1994. 9) Harrington Geotechnical Engineering,Inc Report NO.91-01-0109A (Tract 47851) 10) Harrington Geotechnical Engineering,Inc. letter to B.Mazur of D.B.A. dated July 6,1994. 11) Harrington Geotechnical Engineering,Inc letter to B.Mazur of D.B.A. dated May 17,1994. • 12) Addendum Report for Tracts 29053134160,34161 for Weatherfield Homes by S.E.Mendall and Associates,Inc. dated May 5,1978 13) Supplemental Subsurface Exploration Tracts 29053,34160 and 34161 for Weatherfield Homes by S.E.Mendall and Associates, Inc._ dated March 711978 14) Soils Engineering and Geologic Review of Tentative Tract 29053 and Tract 32974 for Weatherfield Homes by S.E.Mendall and Associates,Inc. dated Oct.411976 t 15) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT between DIAMOND BAR CITY and D.B.A , 14o.16396-00002,Fs\Doc\166\94030005.A10,dated 03-24-94 a ATTACHMENT B COMMENTS and ACTIONS REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE APPROVAL OF TRACK 47850 I A) Direct the city attorney to give a legal opinion on the liability '(degree and time periods) of D.B.A., City of Diamond Bar, J.C.Cj and Leighton Associates for losses incurred by homeowners due to geologic hazards or errors in geotechnical calculations or assumptions. B) Reference 3 contains 24 specific questions that Leighton and Associates asked regarding Track 47880. These questions were elements in the law suite(Ref 6) filled by D.B.A against the city. D.B.A. responded to these questions in Reference 1. The city should now direct Leighton to make a definitive statement on each of the responses as to its adequacy and Leightons acceptance of the respon'e. This request is consistent with the settlement s agreement between The City OF DIAMOND BAR and D.B.A. (Ref. 15, section 2 Reconsideration of VTM. 47845,page 3)which suspended the law suite. C)' Stability analysis calculations are not adequate because they assume no groundwater. and/or pore water pressure (Ref. 1 page 11). This assumption isnot valid because it is physically possible for water to reach the smectite layer. To support this,Section 4.4 (Analysis of the Smectite Layer),,page 10 states "other factors such as different topography and/or ground water buildup must also *have existed at the time of failure and contributed to the slides". A clear contradiction exists here. Page 11 states no water, whereas page 10 indicates the existence of ground water buildup in the past. Therefore the Council should require that all stability analysis and Factor of Safety calculations are made with assumptions of finite amounts of groundwater and/or pore water pressure.Supporting this opinion is the statement in Ref.7 (page 3)"In using such parameters (cohesion and angle) to represent the strength of the material tested it is appropriate to recognize that shear strength is effectively reduced by pore water pressure which tends to neutralize confining pressure on which a significant portion of shear strength depends.This effect needs to be considered in an analysis of stability in which such parameters are used to represent material strength." D) Another deficiency in the reports is that Reference 2 (page 10) identifies a condition of bedrock creep (to depth of 100 ft.) caused by 1) cyclic changes in moisture content and density due to seasonal wetting and drying, 2) water in tension/shrinkage cracks, ..... 4) deep-seated, very thin bentonite (smectite) bed. However,Ref.2 page 11 states " ground water was not encountered in any of the excavations made at the site and is not expected to be a matter of future concern to the project under normal conditions ...... .It is not reasonable to assume that because water was not encountered in these excavations that in will not occur at some future time, especially since there is evidence (land slides) that water was there in the past. Also the NO GROUNDWATER statement is qualified by NORMAL CONDITIONS. the fortunes and lives of so many people certainly should M 4. consider abnormal conditions such as adverse weather (50-100 year rainy seasons),uncertainties in geologic parameters, human deficiences in workmanship etc.,etc. The city council should require D.B.A. to conduct an error. analysis of the Factor of Safety and other stability analysis computations using reasonable uncertainties in all system parameters (presence/amount of water, efficiency of blacket fills, geologic parameters. etc.,etc.) T E) The COUNTY BUILDING CODE requires slope Factors of Safety �r greater than 1.5. The references presented Factors of Safety values of 1.5051, 1.5039, 1.5011, 1.5133, 1.5218,1.5602 ,1.6092. These values indicate that the tract design is very marginal from the.COUNTY Factor of Safety prespective. Small errors in the computational process,the data used or assumptions made could cause many.. of these values to be less x ;r; than the requirement which means the project would not be safe by .County standards. The City Council should require D.B.A. to conduct an error analysis of the Factor of Safety .1 computational process . Also the Council should require D.B.A to publish the Factor of Safety for each lot. F) The most significant aspect of Track 47850 is the presence of a smectite layer which lies from 30 to 100 ft. below the surface -If water reaches this layer earth movement(landslides) could f occur. Existing landslides are evidence of this . The developers x is to place 10 or 3 ft. earth blankets approach to preventing this on each lot to prevent the infiltration of surface water down to the smectite layer. Ref.9(page 26) states "Most of the instability of existing slopes (landslides and downslope creep) are believed to be I attributedlat least in partito the infltration of surface water into the underlying bedrock. In order to minimize ze water infiltration we have recommended that all lots pads and graded slopes be covered with at least ten feet of compacted fill." Unforunately the developer presents no analysis of the effectiveness of this measure. He strongly recommends that the homeowner eradicate burrowing animals (Ref.5 Vol II page E-5) or resort to impractical measures of filling the burrows with concrete (Ref - 5 Vol II page E-6) because the burrows; in conjunction with the many faults,cracks,fractures and joints identified in Ref -5 (VOL II, plates C-1 thru. C-58), provide easy passage for water to the smectite layer. The City Council should require D.B.A. to find pest control professionals who will state the degree to which burrowing animals can be controlled in areas that are adjecent to much larger wilderness areas (3500 acres of Tonner Canyon) where no attempt at control is made. Also D.B.A., should be required to access the effectiveness of the blanket fills in conjunction with the'many open cracks, fractures joints and faults below the fills as a means of preventing water reaching the smectite layer. G) Before approval of VTTM 47850 require Leighton and Associates to write a letter stating approval of the geotechnical conditions as was done for VTTM 47851 (Ref -8). The low Factor of Safety values of 1.5051,1.5039,1.501111.5133 values (see Ref.10) were based upon cohesion values and angles of 150 and 15 degrees respectively. Reference 12 states "...smectite these tracts .... layers of relatively weak material with significantly lower shear strenths are known to exist within other areas of the Puente Formation to date none have been identified within the limits of this project or the iidjecent adjecent tracts. to the east ....".'However, the soils reports (References 12,13,14 cq on the adjacent Weatherfield Homes Tracts to the southwest of 47850 used -cohesion values and angles of 200 and 10 degrees IN respectively and identified the presence of bentonite. The use of these values for Tract 47850 could reduce' the Factors of.Safety to something considerable less than the County required values of 1.5. Please ask D.B.A. to calculate Factors of Safety using these values and Leighton to review the results. : 2' pp I Ref.1 page 11 states "...the potential for groundwater buildup and/or pore water pressure buildup within confined smectite silt strata that could affect the stability of the site is extremely remote.. As a result, the inclusion of groundwater and/or pore water buildup was not considered appropriate for inclusion in the stability analysis performed as part of this investigation. This conclusion is based in part on the following: Groundwater was not incountered in any of the exploratory borings drilled on the site These statements are contradicted by plates C -11,C -45,C-47 and C-48 in Ref.5 VOL II which shows water and/or seepage.Also Ref.7(page 3) clearly states that pore water pressure should be considered (see statement C in this Attachment) Consideration of VTTM .47850 should not . be continued until these contradictions are resolved. J) A heavy burden is placed upon the homeowner to prevent potential geotechnical/earth movement problems by the need to 1) eradicate burrowing animals 2) have proper drainage of water from the lot 3) having and maintaining landscapeing 4) prevent excessive watering 5) proper design and maintainence (no leaks or cracks) of pools or spas. The potential homeowner should be advized that failures in the above areas could result in serious earth movement problems because they are I mechanisms whereby water can reach the smectite layers. Concerning shear strenth parameters, Ref.7 (page 3) states 11 Values on the order of 22 degrees and zero cohesion could be used as a conservative lower bound.". Please ask Harrington to calculate Factors of Safety using these recommended values and Leighton to evaluate the results. L) The Conclusions. and Recommendations section Ref.2( page 17) states " Long-term creep which might continue below the shear key should be effectively mitigated up-slope because: 1) Surface water infiltration into any tension/shrinkage cracks which now exist will be essentially eliminated, 2) volume changes in the expansive materials resulting from seasonal moisture changes will be essentially eliminated,....". This is a THRUST ME STATEMENT because the document presents no evidence that either surface water, infiltration or volume chances will be eliminated. The reality is that these can never he eli-ranated because they are controlled by the following characteristics of Nature A laws of gravity b) Seasonal moisture changes are a result of weather. The only way to isolate expansive materials from the weather is to place it in a closed system such as a refrigerator,heater,thermos,etc.,etc. c) The tension/ shrinkage cracks which are the means whereby Erg water reaches the shear planes and causes the creep are F."C' continually being formed by the seasonal temperature changes resulting from weather. It is totally impossible to isloate this entire developement from the effects of nature or . the weather. M) Reference 15 states "The Joint Session (City Council plus Planning Commission) may also consider VTM 47850 in light of the proposed General Plan". The General Plan requires a minimun of one (1) acre per dewelling unit - However VTM 47850 has lots as small as 0.43 acres. How will this difference be resolved ? Michael Brand,�an Ametates April 20, 1995 MEMORANDUM Fl,\*IR()NN!L.*ql'.'tLCO.\iPLI.%N(:r 0 PLANNING TO: Jarnes, De Stefano, City of Diamond Bar r�vu ?FROM: Torn Smith and Steve Nelson, Michael Brandman Aonociates SUBMCT. Responses to Comments on Revised Draft F-IIZ for VTM 47950 by Planning Commission and City Council at Meeting of Apo 6,1995 Michael Br . andman Associates has preparcd responses to the comments on the Revised Draft EIR (non -geotechnical comments) y.members of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission and City to refer to the commentor's City Council at the April 6 meeting. The meeting are organize question, the page number of the, April 6 meeting minutes WhcrC the question occurs, followed by our response. Steve Nelson and Jwill attend the April 24 Planning Commission, and City Council meeting in May to provide additional explanations as requested. Planning Commission Comments e ChairMamenbaum (page 11): 1. What assurances does the City have that the natural flora and fauna will not be impacted by future residents? TheTe, are no absolute assurances that the City has in this regard. This situation e?dsts throughout the, City in existing developed areas. The CC&Rs for VTM 47M could be revised to add a statement concerning this issue; the Homeowner's Association for the development could then handle any violations by residents. 2. will there, be a mitigation monitoring program and if so, who will maintain and pay for the, program? Yes, there is a mitigation monitoring program for -y-IM 47850 as required by CEQA. A copy of the program was provided to the Planning Commission and City Council in the materials for the April ,, for the implementation and monitoring of the 6 meeting. The applicant is responsible for paying program. 4 '6 5111 lied jjii RECEIVED 94/20 12:32 1995 nT 613117 rHbL. n,. ,,... APR -20-1995 12:1? P.03 3.. Does the new Draft EIR consider the impact of the wo adjacent projects? Yes, the impact of the two adjacent projects (VTM 48487 and VTM 47851) was considered in moth the revised Draft EIR as well as the original EIR In the current revised Draft EMR, the graded condition of 'VTM 47551 was considered as an impact to the natural environment; VTM 4848'7, although not graded presently, was assumed to be developed in the next 3-5 years, and its resulting impact on the natural environment, as described in the earlier certified EIR, was considered. From - - - a cumulative impact standpoint with respect to the natural environment, the prior approvals of the adjacent projects committed this area to urban uses. 4. Subsequent to the initial FIR, the Jerry Yeh project was approved. What is the impact upon this tract as a result of that project approval? Because the Seery Yeh development (VTM 51169) is north of, and not contiguous to, this development, there is no impact on this tract from that project approvaL 5. Regarding Volume I of the revised Draft EIR, page 7, Section 4,13, Mitigation Measures for Air Quality, are these the same mitigation measures that were used for the other recently completed projects and what were the results? Generally, the mitigation measures listed in this section are from the same source as air quality mitigations in other recent projects: the 1993 Air Quality Handbook, approved by the SCAQMD. Each project was evaluated using the procedures specified in this handbook; the mitigation measures listed in the revised Draft EIR are specified in the SCAQMD Handbook. The LTRs for previous projects have included shfiar mitigation measures, but not necessarily identical to those for this project, since each project is unique. 6. Throughout the BIR there is no mention of cougars or bobcats; why did the video include a shot of a sleepy cougar? As is standard practice, the EIR text summarizes the, findings contained in the Technical Biological . Report provided in Appendix A of the document. Potential use of the site by mountain lions is discussed on Page A-22 of the technical report under the heading "Wildlife Movement Corridors*. As indicated in Table 2,: Faunal Compendium of the technical report, mountains lions are expected to be on the site sporadically, but was not observed during the field surveys - Similarly, discussions on bobcats can be found in the technical report. Specifically, bobcats are mentioned on Pages A-6, A-22 and in the Faunal Compendium. Bobcats, while not observed, are expected to use the site in low numbers, 7. Are all of the animals pictured in the video at the site? All of the animals pictured in the video were either observed or are expected to use the site with varying degrees of 'regularity. jas:dbz3T2—Lie4 2 8. The EIR makes mention of numerous animals, but it also avoids a number of animals. The EIR text represents an expanded summary of the technical report $y referring to the Faunal Compendium of the technical report, the reader will see that numerous animals were observed or*are expected onsite. ChairNiamcnbaum (page 14): 9. Is this area a part of a wtddlife corridor? The EIR states that this is a secondary corridor, but it does not talk about the project's impact to the secondary corridor. -To clarify, the site may be, at best, part of a secondary corridor to and from the Tonner Canyon valley floor (sed page 4-17 of the EIR and page A-22 of the technical report). However, it is more likely -not to play a marked role in regional wildlife movement. The impact of the project on regional u4ldlife movement is discussed on Page 4-20 of the EIR, and Pages A-27, 28 of the technical report. Implementation of the project is not expected to substantially prevent or inhibit wildlife movement in the Tonner Canyon area. 10. Inasmuch as the other tract maps are not considered in the EIR, what is the impact of the other improvements upon this site? The other tract maps are considered in the revised Draft EIR. for VTM 47850 in Section 5, Cumulative Impacts. In that section, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project, when considered in conjunction with 19 other recently approved or completed projects throughout the City, were considered for the three key environmental issues evaluated in this EIR: Geology, Air Quality, and Biological Resources. 11. If the setbacks for lots are varied or not varied, does it have any significant impact in the EIR with regard to aesthetics and geology? Varying of the setbacks on lots (or not varying them) will have no impact on the geology of the site or the impact and mitigation discussion in the ETR. The, building pads are designed to accommodate building placement anywhere on the pad. From an aesthetic perspective, varying lot setbacks in a development can add visual interest when compared to repetition of identical setbacks. However, the differences are not significant on a development of this size and in this location that is visible to very few residents of the City. 12 The EIR discusses mammals - raccoons and bobcats are not mentioned. Page 4-15, and all of Table 4-4 of the EIR summarizes the observed or expected occurrence of "Special Status Species on the Project Site". Raccoons and bobcats have no special status as defined in the biological assessment On page 4-6 of the technical report provided in Appendix A, raccoon and bobcat are indicated as being expected onsite, although not observed. Bobcat is again mentioned on page A-22 of the technical report. The Faunal Compendium in the technical report indicates that raccoons are expected to be fairly common onsite and bobcat are expected in low numbers. To the best of the author's knowledge, the EIR text and technical report do not indicate that these species are not expected. ia_cdb=z: ttA 3 1. RECEIVED 04/2012:33 1995 AT 613117 ia6L 5 'trriiniau rnuc » APR -20-1995 12:19 13. The EIR refers to no impact to the mule deer, however, it refers to a toss of a bedding Because mule deer are not afforded any special status, impacts to this species are addressed under the headings "Direct impacts to Wildlife" and "Impacts on Wildlife Movement" in the EIR. In both cases, the analysis found that these impacts were less than significant. Due*to the large open spaces and available habitats within Tonner Canyon and further to the east and south of the site, the loss of the site as a bedding area was not found to be significant for wide ranging, highly mobile mule deer populations in the area. 14. Where is the project site in relation to the boundaries of SEA #15? An overlay of the SEA, #15 on the project site is needed. Such an overlay exhibit was displayed and discussed at the March it public meeting, and was available at the April 6 meeting. The exhibit will be discussed at the April 24 meeting of the Planning Commission. The technical report does discuss the project's potential impacts to SEA #15 on page A-23. These include the potential fora decline in habitat value and the potential for genetic isolation of plant and wildlife populations caused by habitat fragmentation. In response to potential impacts on the resources within SEA #15, virtually all of the 31 mitigation measures outlined on pages 4-20 through 427 of the EIR address impacts to these resources. Based on the comprehensive coverage of these measures, it is concluded that the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse impacts to biological resources. 14. What happens at the end of the 5 -year monitoring period for tree growth? The 5 -year monitoring period is a requirement used by the California Department and Fish and . Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their mitigation programs. After 5 years, and with tree growth meeting the performance standards specified in the mitigation monitoring program, it is assumed that the trees will continue to prosper as they would in natural settings. At the conclusion of the 5 year period, the trees are the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association, as is all other common areas in the development. The City has no responsibility for their continuing maintenance. 16. What is the impact upon those trees and other native species caused by the runoff from the residents' lawns and washing of cars? There should be no impact on trees or other native species from car washing or lawn irrigation runoff From residents. Pads are graded to drain toward the streets of the development. Any runoff from lots will be conveyed to the storm system and to the water quality ponds designed to catch the first flush runoff from the development. 17, Are there any blue line streams in the area? As noted in the original EIR certified for VTM 47851 and }TTM 48,•37 and applicable to the current revised Draft EIR for V111 47850, there is one blueline stream that traverses the western edge of V'I'M 47850. Appropriate permits will be obtained by the applicant from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Irish and Game for impacts to this drainage, as noted in the revised draft EIR (pages 1-3 and 1-4). jus�dWrflc.tes 4 18. no wildlife movement was studied and in another section On page A22 the EIR says that it states that there is a wildlife corridor. These statements are in conflict. If a study is not conducted, how can the report determine there is no wildlife corridor? Page A-22 of the EIR states, in relevant part: "Wildlife movement through Tonner Canyon has not been studied in detail, to the best of MBA's knowledge. However, a review of aerial photographs and topographic maps indicates that Tonner Canyon is likely a.primary corridor. The project site has limited importance for wildlife movement because the onsite drainages originate on the site near existing development and, therefore, only provide a connection with open space to the south in Tonner Canyon ,..... .Identificaiion of wildlife corridors or bedding areas was determined by the observation of wildlife and scat, tracks, and other signs of wildlife activity. On the project site, it appears that mule deer use the site as a bedding area rather than a movement corridor ---However, due to the development of the ridgeline, the site does not serve as a corridor by which wildlife move from one habitat area to another As no above, the site was evaluated with respect to its potential as a wildlife movement corridor and determined to not be one. It does appear that Tonner Canyon is a wildlife movement corridor, although this has not been studied as part of the revised Draft EIR analysis. 19. On page A-25, the FIR states that the Catalina Mariposa Lily may be present. Is it or isn't it present? This page of the EIR notes that focused studies were not conducted for specific sensitive plant species. To do so would have added considerable expense to the effortthat was not warranted, in the opinion of the MBA biologists. Instead, a habitat analysis was used to predict the potential for the occurrence of sensitive species. While the Mariposa Lily was predicted to be potentially present onsite due to the presence of supportive habitat and site conditions, the EIR concluded that any impacts to the Mariposa Lily, if it were present, would not be considered significant because "the proposed project will not remove a significant amount of. habitat for these species" (page A-25). Chair/Flameubaum, page 15: 20. Although the EIR indicates no trees shall be planted on the hillsides, the map shows that trees will be planted on the hillsides. what about slope maintenance areas, and are the hillsides being planted or are they not being planted? As apoint of clarification, the EIR does not state that trees shall not be planted on the hillsides. Mitigation measure I (Walnut Noodlands) and measure 6 (Oak Woodlands) require the preparation of revegetation programs that will specify where the replacement trees will be located, and the specific requirements to ensure their long term survival. It is anticipated that some tree replacement will occur in slope maintenance areas, as long as appropriate vvcdland habitat is assured. The mitigation measures are intended to provide for replacement of habitat, not just trees. jas:dFz 2cAts 5 RECEIVED 134/2© 12:34 1995 AT 613117 PAGE 7 (PRINTED PAGE 7) P. 07 APR -20-1995 1 20 2 y City Council Comments Mayor Papen (page 19): 1, When does the developer's 5 -year tree maintenance program begin? 'Five year maintenance/monitoring programs begin upon completion of the installation of all trees and other elements of the mitigation monitoring program for biological resources impacted by site development. 2. One of the alternatives in the HIR is that approximately 15 homes would be built on the northeast corner. Concern was expressed that an alternative'in the ETR states that 15 homes will be built on the northeast section, however, it the soil cannot withstand this , construction, is the alternative valid? This alternative was originally described in the Final EIR certified for VTM 48951 and VTM 48487 and repeated in the revised draft Elk The analysis of this alternative in the current ETR states (page 6-7) that although there would only be 15 residences built onsite, the same impacts to geological factors would occur as with the proposed project, because "the onsite soil and geologic instabi Eties on the entire site would need to be remdiated". Although this alternative is therefore valid since geological stability of the lots would be achieved, the economic feasibility of such an alternative may be questionable. ia.s:d5=2t-1tS 6 a City of Diamond Bar TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Chairman and Planning Commissioners VIA: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development SUBJECT: DRAFT PROJECT CONDITIONS for VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850 DATE: April 4, 1995 On Thursday, April 6, 1995, the City Council will conduct a Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission and begin its reconsideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850. Attached please find draft project conditions as prepared by the staff. In addition for your use and information we have provided a copy of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-23 recommending approval of the project. JDS\mco attachments N W -D I My f _$I; CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DATE: March 28, 1995 (Revised April 3, 1995) TO: Jim DeStefano, Community Ddvelopment Director FROM: Mike Myer Gorge Wentz, City Engineer SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850; Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions as Recommended By Planning Commission Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission with conditions in accordance with its -Resolution 91-23 approved November 25, 1991. The City Engineer suggests modification of those conditions as follows. Deletions are shown with "strikeout" and additions in italics. SUBDIVISION 1. All easements existing prior to final map approval must be identified. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the final map in lieu of showing its location. 2. Subdivider shall submit c -Or title report /guarantee and a subdivision guarantee showing all fee owners and interest holders must be submitted when a final map is submitted for pla-nmap check. This account with the title company must remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder.. An updated title report /guarantee and subdivision..... guarantee must be submitted ten (10) 'working days prior to. final map approval. 3. The develeT^r subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the fetal detail cost estimate of all off-site improvements, prior to approval of the final map. 4. The subdivider must submit recorded documents indicating that theythe project will have proper/adequate right -of -entry to the subject site via —mem the private streets within "The Country". 5. The tract shall be annexed to the Lighting and Landscape. Maintenance Assessment District 38,—and the City 4 A- lighting distriGt. 6. Street centerline monuments shall be set to mark the intersections of streets, intersections of streets with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 2 tract boundary and'to mark either the beginning and end of curves or the points of intersection of tangents thereof, or other intermediate points to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. New centerline monument ties set as part--of-this subdivision must be approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Standards, and centerline monument tie notes shall be submitted to the City engineer prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Where subdivision boundary monuments are not found at the time of making the survey for the final map, nNew boundary monuments must be set in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, State law, the City Subdivision"Code and City. Standards and are subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to approval of building permits. 8. If any required public improvements have not been completed batheA­^1 el -per and accepted by the City prior to the approval of the final map, the develepe= ubdivider shall enter into -ansubadi-ViE; agreement with the City to complete the improvements and shall post the appropriate security. 9. All site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street 4_mp:- sewer, water and storm drain improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. 4- 10. A detailed 9-- 11, be J Gr the issuanGe __ b3a-lding apprGved- b- tG ;_d4=Gate style, illl4minatlenl IGGa A.Gn, height, and methed---of sh 4- ties. 11. Street names 'shall be submitted for City review and approval prior to approval of the final map. These names must not be - duplicated existing street names within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip codes. 12. House numbering clearance is -i:equi by the City Engineer, is required prior to appr-eval ef the --a- issuance of building permits. 13. The detail drawings and construction notes shown on the submitted plans are conceptual only and the approval of this map does not constitute approval of these notes and details. GRADING, GEOLOGY & SOILS 14. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading ordinance #14 01940+ No. 7 (1992), Hillside Management Ordinance or as amended and Vesting Tentative ' Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 3 acceptable grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance.with the appreved• grading perk shown as a material part of the tentative map as approved. The maximum grade of , driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15-9. er geGlegist and 4 -4 -ed- at thtn' ti=tz Of ap g�-_adlng plan GheGk. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan. check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist eologist licensed by the State of California. The report shall address, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Stability- analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 .projection from daylight to slide plane; projection plane shall have a minimum safety factor of 1.5. (b) All 'soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key locations, etc.) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and.structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. (c) Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. (d) The extent of any remedial grading into natural -areas shall be cle arly defined on the grading plans. (e) Areas of potential for debris i -flow *shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. (f) Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part,. - of geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces. natural slope. (g) . Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. (h) All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 -scale final grading plan as a base. 17. Grading plan (24"x36") must be designed in compliance with recommendations of the soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the plans. 18. Grading plan must be signed and stamped by a. California registered Civil Engineer, Soils Engineer and registered Geologist. Vesting Tentative Tract map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 4 19 All identified flood and geologic hazards- areas associated with this proposed ' development must . which cannot be and r - eliminated estEiGted use areas as appreved by to the satisfaction of the City Engineer must be indicated on the final map as "Restricted Use Area". The subdivider shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas on the final map. 20. As a custom -lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a) Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed, guaranteeing completion of all grading and on-site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the rub -lie WeEks DepaEtment City Engineer prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b) Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage wat-flows that are conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and -reGG3-_ded shown on the final. map to the *satisfaction of the City'S Plabl-IG Werks Departmel-ltr Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. c) on-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties from drainage flows, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or occuring within a parcel is for which a building permit is requested. d) All slope banks in excess of five (5} feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with groundcoverfor erosion control upon completion of grading or GGMe Gth an alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. 21. Completion and stabilization of all man-made slopes, removal of all landslide materials and reconstruction of slopes must comply with the Les Angeles Gqunt-p City Building Code, all other provisions of this tentative map approval and Ordinances including those requirements for erosion protection and landscaping. 22. The geotechnical consultant of record, - Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc., must provide written confirmation of their acceptance of the .. geotechnical data and information provided previously by other consultants for the vesting tentative tracts- cts- which has been utilized or relied upon in preparation of their geotechnical reports. A 9,artle Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev.4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 5 23. The following geotechnical issues must be addressed and approved by the City, prior to approval of the grading, plan: a) Areas of potential for debris flow need to be defined and proper remedial measures recommended. b) Gress stab4:14:ty of a 159 feet high fill i;lepe In 47@51. needs te be -analyzed as part ef g eGhR!Gal repGrt. C) Stability of all proposed slopes must be confirmed by analysis. Unstable slopes shall be redesigned or stabilized utilizing slope reinforcement. d) All landslides must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map. Specific remedial measures shall be implemented pursuant to requirements of Les A!�g@les Gei4nt-y City Code and Ordinances. e) Stability of back cuts (i.e. excavation of natural slopes) must be analyzed. ROAD 24. Street improvement plans (24"x36"), prepared by, -a registered Civil Engineer, shall. be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the,'' City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval. 25. Cul-de-sacs, in accordance with all applicable City Standards,- must be constructed at the terminus ends of Hawkwood Road (public) and Steeplechase Lane (private). -26- Install street name signs at all intersections within the Tract. 27. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's office in addition to any .other permits required. vesting Tentative Tract : Recommended Changes to E No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev neering Conditions 4/3/95) Page 6 28. Street improvement plans for all pr-i*at-e- streets shall be designed with a maximum slepe grade of 12%, shall be pEev! feE rev iew and appreval by the c4:t-y Prior to. any... work being performed on the pr4AFa4e streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition* to any other permits required. I. 29.- Construct base and pavement on all streets and access roads to pump station, and the emergency access road to southerly property line in accordance with the City approved soils report and City Standards. Vehicular access must be provided to all "Urban Pollutant Basins" with a minimum width of 15', with 121 of pavement and with a maximum slepe grade no greater than 20%. 30. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall contribute $8,550-00 towards the construction of sidewalk along the east side of Diamond Bar Boulevard across from the Country Hills Shopping Center. DRAINAGE 32. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Standards. Private (and future) easements for storm drain purposes shall be offered and shown. on the final map for dedication to the City. The private storm drain facilities shall be maintained by the homeowners association and this shall be assured through the CC&R's. 33.' Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of� any storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 34. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans. shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 35. Prior to placement of any.dredged or fill material into any U.S.G.S. blue line stream bed, a 404 permit shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers must rzeva-�-�d a�-qve sueh aGtien subject to the provisions.of nation wide permit for discharges of dredged or fill materials into water ways of the United States. Not withstanding a permit to place any fill in the U.S.G.S. blue line stream bed a written permission from affected property owners must be obtained Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 , March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering. Conditions Page 7 prior to approval of the final map and issuance of a grading. permit. An agreement with the California Department of Fish and Gameshallbe obtained and submitted to the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map and issuance of grading permit. SEWER 36. Each dwelling -unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to city sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final map. 37. The subdivider must obtain a sewer connection permit from the City and County Sanitation District. The subdivision must be. annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance. District and appropriate easements for all sewer main lines and pump station must be provided and accepted by the Ceunty of Les Angelea PlablIG Werks Departs6 City, prier te- with approval of the final map. 38. Prior to approval of the final map, the subdivider must conduct an engineering analysis to determine th6 capacity of sewer lines from the site to the County Sanitation District trunk line. if the system is found to be of insufficient capacity the problem must be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 39. Subdivider, at his sole cost and expense, must construct the sewer.system including the pump station in. accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Work Department, and County Sanitation District Standards. TRAFFIC 40. shall be ---ted ment exeGuted te tl4e Sat9=St2,Gt3=GR G4� the city E,nganeer City AttGr-ney guarante—n- ZI GGmpletien_ taf these impreveme ts pri:Gr te ginal map apprGval unless Gt--lle-Ew-+ se stated 41. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for approval in conformance with adopted policy. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 8 are traff-IG 42. The . r. exit- r-9 4n aGGerdanee with G -f Cal -4 -f -Carnia M--aff!G -ppreval Gf final map. 43. Pavement striping, marking and street name signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 44. 45. 46. An additional left -turn lane shall be striped and appropriate signs installed in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. 47. A stop sign shall be installed at 'the intersection of Wagon Train Lane . and Steeplechase Lane. The stop sign shall be installed on Wagon Train along with fifty feet- of double yellow striping, Type D pavement markers, stop legend and limit line. 48. stop signs shall be installed at the intersection of Steeplechase Lane and street "A",.subject to the approval by the City Engineer. 49. Developer shall contribute $28,500-00 towards the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Shadow Canyon Drive prior to approval of the final. map . 14 . I UTILITIES 50. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the respective utility companies standards. .Easements shall be provided as required. All utilities shall be placed underground. 51. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.and placing them underground. Facilities within that easement owned by General Telephone Company shall be relocated as necessary to allow telephone company to relinquish its easement. Subdivider shall, at it's own expense, cause General Telephone Company to relinquish this easement. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev -4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 9 52. Prior to recordation of the final map, a written certification shall be submitted to the City from Walnut Valley Water District, GTE, SCE, SCG and Jones Intercable stating that adequate facilities are or will be, prior to issuance of building permits, available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the Gity and they have no objection to recording of the map. Such letter must be issued by the utility companyies at least 94 30 days prior to final map approval. VTM 47850 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 10.3i"119wisgs April, 1995 1. This approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the applicant has filed with the Community Development Department an Affidavit of Acceptance, thereby accepting all the conditions of this approval which Affidavit shall be filed within 15 days of the date of approval. 2. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1) and (2) ante). The subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers,. and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against. the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City, which action is brought within the time period provided for in. Government Code Section 66499.37. Any condition imposed pursuant to this subdivision shall include the requirement that the City promptly note the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and that the City cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 3. The property shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlements granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a refuse hauler who has obtained a permit for such refuse hauling from the City of Diamond Bar. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste hauler utilized is one which has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar. B. PLANNING REQUIREMENTS: That three (3) copies of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 presented at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "A" and conforming to such of the following conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be submitted to the C. t L ETT E R S { YI Md 7850. CON 1 Community Development Director. Thereafter, the 57 lot residential subdivision with one (1) common lot shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map. 2. The approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 is granted subject to the approval and certification of Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2. 3. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the underlying zoning of the subject property must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plan. 4. The applicant shall satisfy the Park Obligation by contributing land acreage or the in -lieu fee to the City prior to recordation of the final map per code section 21.24.340. 5. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of Homeowner's Association are required and shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City attorney for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall be created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within the CC&R's. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. 6. The project shall be designed so as to substantially comply with the CC&R's implemented by the adjacent development heretofore known as "The Country". The CC&R's should incorporate at a minimum, provisions which would establish a maintenance program for urban pollutant basins) and all mitigation measures within the Mitigation Monitoring Program, such that wildlife movement corridors are left in an undisturbed and natural state. The CC&R's will, to the fullest extent possible, be consistent with the CC&R's of "The Country". 7. A clause shall be incorporated info the CC&R's which requires disputes involving interpretation or application 'of the agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be included) prior to any party initiating litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction. The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. , 8. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Community Development Director for approval prior to the sale of the first lot of the subdivision, a C:11B71-gRSIV77t VM -CON 2 "Buyers Awareness Package" which shall include, but not be limited to, information pertaining to geologic issues regarding the property, wildlife corridors, oak and walnut tree preservation issues, the existence and constraints pertaining to SEA No. 15 and Tonner Canyon, explanatory informatiod pertaining to restrictions on use of properties as necessary and similar related matters. The applicant shall institute a program to include delivery of a copy of sEdd the "Buyers Awareness Package" to each prospective purchaser and shall keep on file in the office of the applicant'a receipt signed by each such prospective purchaser indicating that the prospective purchaser has received and read the information contained within the "Buyers Awareness Package". The applicant shall incorporate within the CC&R's a reference to the availability of the "Buyers Awareness Package" and the- fact that a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar. 9. The applicant shall obtain approval by County Sanitation on the location of the structures affecting County Sanitation easements and submit written evidence to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (LVIIvT) outlined within Master Environmental Impact Report (MSIR) No. 91-2 shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of. the grading permit. Should a conflict exist between the Conditions of Approval, the MMP as outlined in the MSIR- No. 91-2, and the SEATAC Final Report dated April 8, 1991, s6d the conflict will be presented to the Community. Development Director for resolution. 11. Prior to approval of the final landscape plan the applicant shall demonstrate that the landscaping palette for the project emphasizes the use of drought tolerant, native plant species with low water requirements adapted to the inland Southern California climate. In order to limit the potential threat of wildland fires, low -fuel volume plants shall be incorporated into the revegetative plan. The final landscape plan shall substantially comply with the recommendations of the Final SEATAC Report, MEIR No. 91-2, and the preliminary landscape plan submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and marked Exhibit "A-1" and shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building permits. Indicate fence details, tree staking, soil preparation, planting details, an automatic irrigation system .and the incorporation of xerotropic landscaping wherever feasible. 12. All irrigation equipment, slope planting and revegetated areas shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer or HOA until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that the planting is in satisfactory condition. C. (LETTERS I YT.N47850. CON 13. Exterior grading and construction activities (framing and roofing, etc.) shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except that interior building construction activities shall not be. limited. All construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 14. Transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall also be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the subject property. Dust generated by construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during grading activities. Use of reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 15. Dust control mitigation measures shall comply with MElR No. 91-2 and shall be included and enforced under the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved by the Community Development Director. Measures may include but not be limited to reducing dust by watering the soil prior to and during grading activities. Use of reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 16. The use authorized by this approval shall be commenced or construction necessary and incidental thereto shall be started on or before the time limit specified. herein and thereafter diligently advanced on or before two (2) years after the expiration of the appeal period. A one year extension may be requested and granted. 17. The applicant shall pay development fees (including, but not limited to, Planning, Building and school fees) at the established rates, prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits, as required by the Community Development and Public Works Directors. 18. Comply with all conditions of approval listed by the Engineering Dept. as exhibited on Exhibit "B-2." 19. Prior to any occupancy permit being granted, these conditions and all improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. 20. The applicant shall contribute a pro rata share for the study of Tonner Canyon and SEA No. 15. 21. All residences will be required to receive approval via the Development Review process by the Planning Commission or Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. 22. The owner shall make a bona fide application to Diamond Bar Country Estates Association to annex this subdivision to that Association. The owner shall be required to annex if all fees assessed by the Diamond Bar Country Estates C usn-6RSIyT,5fcm.cON 4 D)K •117 • .� ��� Association do not exceed the fees assessed per lot for annexation to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association for Tract No. 47722. 23. All down drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow land form slope configurations and shall not be placed in exposed positions. All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. 24. The applicant shall participate in an oak and walnut tree replacement program substantially conforming to the ratios and locations exhibited in MSIR No. 91- 2 prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 25. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Los Angeles County code and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. 26. Prior to recordation or issuance of any permits, the applicant shall pay all environmental and development fees at the established rates as required. All Mitigation Monitoring Program fees to defray the cost of implementation and monitoring by City staff and consultants retained by the City, are to be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of building or grading permits and all costs related to the ongoing monitoring shall be secured by the City prior to Final Map approval. 27. The final map shall clearly delineate and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the construction of buildings (or other structures) within those areas to be designated on the map as building restriction areas. 28. The location of the fences demarcating the construction rights prohibited area shall be* clearly delineated on the final map. 29. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 30. The use authorized by this approval shall be commenced or construction necessary and incidental thereto shall be started on or before two (2) years after the expiration of the appeal period. A one (1) year extension may be requested and granted. 31. Lot Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 34, 35, 36, 46, 47, 48 and 49 shall provide a minimum lot/street frontage of 60 feet at the property line, as C: U -&-=RSI Vt!47&SO.CON 5 defined in Title 22 of the City's Subdivision Code. All other lots shall have a minimum lot/street frontage of 125 feet. 32. All lots shall be constructed with a, minimum pad size of 10,000 square feet. 33. In compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, a qualified biologist shall determine the presence of any raptor nests prior to or concurrent with grading activities, the project applicant(s) shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game, shall obtain and comply with all appropriate procedures relative to grading operations in proximity to those nests, and shall provide verification of same to the City. 34. The applicant is to contribute_10 000 to the Los AnTeles County Fere Department in lieu o providing an alternative location for the helivad on- site. C. IL.ETTERS I VTM47M. CON 6 RESOLUTION NO. 91-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,.CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 91-2 AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 47850, FOR A 57 LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN NORTHERN TONNER CANYON, WITHIN SEA NO. 15, SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY* OF STEEPLECHASE LANE AND WAGON TRAIN LANE, IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i)Diamond Bar Associates, Inc., 3480 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, California, have heretofore filed an application for certification of a Master Environmental Impact Report and approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter -hi this Resolution' referred to as "the application". (ii) on April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. On said. date, -pursuant to the requirements of the California Gove ' rnment Co ' de Section 57376, Title 21 an(! 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 y the Cit 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, in- cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar" lacks an operative' General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the proposed *General Plan, pursuant to''the terms and 'provisions of California Government Code Section 65360. (iv) . On September 23, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted'a duly noticed public. hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on November 25, 1991. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is 'found, determined and resolved by the Plan- ning commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This 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 City Planning Commission hereby finds that the project has been required to prepare an Impact Report with the California Environmental Environmental Imp t in compliance Quality Act 0 . f 1970, as promulgated amended, and the Guidelines pro thereunder, and further, this.Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the e information in reference to the application. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, based upon the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the application, forth in the proposed project set no significant adverse. environmental effects will .occur., 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission.during the above -referenced public hearing on September . 23, 1991, and concluded on November 25, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with the terms and provision's Of California Government I Code Sections . 65360, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows.: a. The project is located within SEA NO. 15 to. thesoutheast of Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane adjacent to the - eastern boundary of the private gated community known as "The Country". b. The use is compatible with adjacent uses and is in compliance with the zoning standards, the community General Plan, and -the mitigation measures cited in the SEATAC I Final Report and MSIR' 91-2. The surrounding land uses to the north and West are single fandamily .residential and to the south and east.themulti-famlandily is primarily vacant and natural. d. Granting the vesting tentative maps with conditions and restrictions hereinafter mentioned will not be in substantial conflict with any com- ponents of. the proposed General Plan; The proposed site has adequate traffic access and said site is adequately served by other public or private service facilities which it requires, and; The * location of the proposed land use does not adversely* affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the sur- rounding area, and will not be materially Aetri- mental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of pro- perty of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, and will not jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare.., e. The City of Diamond Bar is presently reviewing its draft General Plan and the final General Plan is to be adopted within the statutory time period as extended It is reasonably probable that the -project and land uses proposed by the Applicant will be consistent with the final General Plan on the basis of comparison of the same with the draft General Plan and the comments generated in respect to the same. Given the development abutting and adjacent to the subject site, and the conditions and design standards, applied to this project proposals, there is little or no' probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the finally adopted General Plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with the General Plan. The project, as conditioned, is in compliance with I all applicable laws, regulations, policies and standards. f. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council review and certify that VIth Environmental Impact Report No. EIR 91-2 has been completed in compliance with the . California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines 'promulgated thereunder, and, further, that the Planning.Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Environmental Impact Report No. E.I.R. 91-2. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends' that the City Council approve the application subject to the restrictions and conditions listed on the attached Exhibits 11B-1, B-2, *and B-311 as to use. 6. The Planning commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and .(b) Transmit this recommendation to the City Clerk for City submittal to the Cit- y Council. (c) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Reso- lution, to Diamond Bar Associates at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THI$ THE ,f 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1991 BY THE PLANNING COMMIS ION 0 T CI OF OND.BAR.* Mc . I OF MIS BY: t44, J-ack Grothel C airman ATTEST idnies DeStef an6, Secretary I,James Destefano, Secretary -Of the Planning commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu- tion was duly Introduced, passed,,and adopted by the Planning Com- mission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning commission held on the 25th day. of November., 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:) GROTHE, HART` M, MACBRIDE, SCHEY NOES: (COMMISSIONERS:) ABSTAIN: (COMMISSIONERS:) ABSENT: (CoK',jISSI0NERS:.) LIN EXHIBIT B -IA- CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR.VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850. 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved Vesting Tract Map and plans reviewed by the Planning commission and CityCouncil as revised by these conditions of approval. 2. The approval of Vesting 'Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 is granted subject to the approval of Hillside Management and Significant Ecological Area Conditional Use Permit/Oak Tree Permit No. 89- 582. 3. The approvals incorporate all mitigation measures and, conditions listed within the SEATAC Final Report Dated April .8, 1991 and Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2. 4. A mitigation monitoring program outlined within MEIR 91-2 shall be prepared by the developer - and submitted to the City for review and approval 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. Should a conflict exist between the conditions or mitigation measures outlined within the Master Environmental impact Report, SEATAC Report on Project conditions, said conflict will be presented 'to the Director of Community Development for resolution 6. The preparation of Covenants, Conditions,. and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of Homeowners' Association are required and are subject.to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whicheyer occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. 7. The prof ect'shall be designed so as to substantially comply with the CC&Rs implemented by the adjacent development heretofore known as "The Countryll. The CC&Rs should incorporate, at a minimum, provisions which would establish a maintenance program for the urban pollutant basins, and all mitigation measures within the SEATAC report, such that wildlife movement corridors are li--ft in an undisturbed and natural state. •ted en. let Nes. 27 and 24—ef 4B. Ne -eBlIse:` be permit Traet- Z-F��W; 9. Exterior construction activities (grading, framing, etc.) shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except that interior building construction activities shall not 7) be limited. All construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. Transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall also be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All equipment staging areas shall be sited on the subject property. Dust generated by construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during grading activities. Use of reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. lo. A detailed landscape I and irrigation plan, including slope planting and -model home landscaping shall be prep ' ared by a t and submitted for City review and licensed landscape architec approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior to final map approval. Fence details, 'tree staking, soil i preparation, planting details and the automatic irrigation systems and the incorporation xerotropic landscaping shall be incorporated wherever feasible. 11. , All down drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as to not impart adverse visual impacts. 12. *All oak trees and walnut trees shall be replaced at the ratios and locations exhibited in EIR 91-2. 13. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Los Angeles County Code, and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. 14. ..Emergency secondary access from Tract 47850 shall be provided in ce with -Fire Protection District Standards and acoordan requirement of the City Engineer. 15. Prior to issuance of any permits the applicant shall pay all environmental and development fees at the established rates.. 16. The applicants for tracts 47850, 47851, and 48487 shall, contribute $20,000 as their pro rata share for the Ecological Concept Study for Tonner Canyon and SEA No. IS. 17. The applicant shall pay development fees (including, but not limited to, Planning, Building, Park, and school fees) at - the established rates prior to issuance of Building Permits, as required by the Community Development Director. 18. Street addresses shall be provided by the city Engineer of its.ter tract map recordation and. prior to issuance of building perm 19. The f inal grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 20. The final map shall clearly delineate and dedicate to the other City the right to prohibit the construction of buildings (or structures) within those areas to be designated on the map as building restriction areas. 21. The location of the fences and retaining walls demarcating the .construction rights prohibited area shall be clearly delineated on the final map and the locations line clearly shown on the final map. 22. Prior to finalization of any developmentphase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR N T E R 0 P F I C E H E M 0 R A N D U M DATE: March 27, 1992 TO: Department of Community DeVelopment, Planning FROM: Department of Public Works, Engineering ffi�/ SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.47850 DATE SEPTEMBER 19; 1991 Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 has been recommended for approval by the office of.. the city Engineer subject to the following conditions: SU'RnTVTATQN 1. All easements existing prior to final map approval must be identified. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the final map in lieu of its location. 2. A title . report/guarantee showing all fee owners and interest holders must be submitted when a final nap is submitted for plan check. This account must remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. An updated 'title report/guarantee must be submitted ten (10) working days prior to final map approval. 3. The developer shall submit to the City Engineer the total cost estimate for bonding purposes of all off-site improvements, prior to approval of the final map. 4. The subdivider must submit documents indicating that they will, have proper/adequate right -of -entry to the subject site from the Country. 5. The tract shall be annexed to the Landscape Assessment District 38; and the city-wide lighting district. 6. New centerline ties set as part of this subdivision must be approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Standards. 7. New boundary monuments must be set in accordance with the City standards and subject to approval by the City Engineer. 8. If any requir*ed -public improvements have not been completed by the developer and accepted by the City prior to the approval of the final map, the developer shall enter into. a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post-the appropriate _ security. .,. All site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street improve- 9. ments, sewer 'and storm drain improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to final map approval.. 10. Street names shall. _be_submittedmfaor.tyseevie and approval es must not be prior to approval of the final p duplicated within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip codes. 11._. House numbering clearance is required by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of building permits., 12. The detail drawings and construction notes shown on the conceptual only and the approval of this submitted plans are does not constitute-approval of these notes. map GRADING GEOLOGY & SOILS 13. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Ordinance #14-(1990) or as amended and acceptable grading practices. The final ;:. grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the s?' approved grading plan. =. _ 14. In preparation to construct the fill slope at section SG-SG', the bentonite shear plane shall the stability of the slope on the-landslide debris. be accomplished by removing 15. Creep-prone materials shall be stabilized by the construction fills of shear keys. Minimum 10 ft. thick blanket are cracks extending to the finished pad required to eliminate surfaces. The shear keys shall be extended-through the land- slide behind lots 42 and 43. 16. Grading plan (24"x36") must be designed in compliance with final detailed soils and engineering recommendations of the geology-reports. 17.1 Grading plan must be signed and stamped by a registered Soils Engineer and registered Geologist. 18. All geologic hazards associated with the proposed development as approved by the must be eliminated and restricted use areas be indicated on the final map. The City Engineer must shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit subdivider the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas. 19. All landslide debris shall, be completely removed prior to fill placement. 20. From the preliminary data and analyses presented to date, the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical point of view. At the time of application for a 40 -scale grading plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted P to the city Engineer for approval and said r --port shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the state of California. The report shall contain, but not be limited to the following: a) The locations and orientations (including the depth and extent) of the bentonite 'bed shall be delineated on a 40- scale map and stability analyses shall be provided for further evaluation. * b Stability analysis of the daylight shear keys. For daylight shear keys, a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane -shall be used in design and the projection plane shall have a minimum factor of safety of 1:1. c) All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key location, etc.) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. 21. As a custom -lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a) Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of .all- all- on-sitO, drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all par.6els to the satisfaction of the Public . Works Department -prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b) Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over adjaceiit parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the city's Public Works Department, prior to issuance of. grading permits. c) on-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d) All slope banks in excess of five (5) 'feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the -satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition,'a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. 22. Completion and stabilization of all man -made -slopes, removal of all landslide materials and reconstruction of slopes must comply with -the Los Angeles County Building .Code and for protection Ordinances including those requirements erosion and landscaping. 23. The geotechnical consultant of record, Harrington Geotechnical written confirmation of their Engineering, Inc., must provide acceptance of the geotechnical data and information provided 'A previously by other consultants for the tracts. further statement is required accepting data and information in Lockwood -Singh report dated November 31 1989 for Tract 47851 and Lawmaster reports dated July 13, 1987, May 25, and October 12., 1989 as being valid_and applicable to the current 100 - scale tract maps dated September 19, 1991. 24. The following geotechnical ssues approvalsof the grading plant be addressed : to by the City, prior a) Areas of potential for debris flow need to be defined and proper remedial measures recommended. b) Gross -stability of a 150 foot high fill slope in Tract 47851 needs to be analyzed as part of geotechnical report. c) Stability of all proposed slopes must be confirmed by analysis. Unstable slopes shall be redesigned or stabilized utilizing slope reinforcement. d) All landslides must be shown on a consolidated 'measures geotechnical map.- Specific remedial shall be implemented pursuant to requirements: of Los Angeles County Code and Ordinances. e) Stability of back cuts (i.e. excavation of natural slopes) must be analyzed. ROAD 25. Street improvement plans (241lx36"), prepared by a registered to and approved by the City Civil Engineer, shall be submitted Security shall be posted and an agreement executed Engineer. to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval. 26. Cul-de-sacs, in accordance with all applicable City Standards of the City Engineer must be and to the satisfaction constructed at the terminus ends of Hawk -wood Road (public) and Steeplechase Lane (private). 27. Install street name signs at, all intersections within the Tract. 28. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the city Engineer's office in addition to any other permits required. 29. Street improvement plans for all private streets with maximum. slope of 12%, ishall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction ' permits shall be obtained"from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required.. 30. Construct base and pavement on all streets and access roads to pump station, "and the emergency access road to southerly property line in - accordance with * the City approved soils report and city Standards. Vehicular access must be provided to all "Urban Pollutant Basins"with a minimum width of 151, with 121 of pavement and with a maximum slope no greater than 20%. 31. Prior to approval of the final ' nap, the developer shall contribute $8,550.00 towards the construction of *sidewalk along the eastside of Diamond Bar Boulevard across from the Country Hills Shopping Center. DRAINAGE 32. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the -city Engineer and in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Standards. 33. Trees *are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of . any storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge -of a mature tree trunk. 34. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed. beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the city Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map.. 35. Prior to placement of any dredged or fill material into any U.S.G.S. blue line stream bed, the Army Corps of Engineers must review and approve such action subject to the provisions of nation wide permit for discharges of dredged or fill materials into water ways of the United States. Not- withstanding a permit to place any fill in the U.S.G.S. blue line stream bed a written offsite permission to grade from affected property owners must be obtained prior to approval Of the final map. SEWER 3 . 6. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to city sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the city Engineer, County Sanitation. District. and Los Angeles County. Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final map. 37. The subdivider must obtain connection permit from the City and County Sanitation District. The subdivision must be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate * easements for all sewer main lines and pump station must be provided and accepted by the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final map. 38. Prior to approval of the final map, the subdivider must conduct an engineering analysis to determine the capacity of sewer lines from the site to the County Sanitation District trunk line. 39. Subdivider, a . t his sole cost and expense, must construct the sewer system including the pump station in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Work Department and County Sanitation District Standards. TRAFFIC 40. Traffic 'improvement plans. prepared by a registered Traffic En .gineer and signed by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the city Engineer. Security shall beposted and agreement executed to the satisfaction of the city Engineer and the city Attorney guaranteeing completion of these improvements prior to final map approval unless otherwise stated herewith. 41. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for conformance with adopted policy. 42'. The subdivider shall prepare traffic control signing and striping plans in accordance with requirements of the State of California Traffic Manual prior to approval of final -map. 43. Pavement striping, marking and street name signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. EN� 44. A separate right -turn lane -shall be striped and appropriate signs installed in the northbound direction at , the intersection of Diamond Bar -Boulevard and Shadow Canyon Drive. 45. A separate right -turn lane *shall. be striped and appropriate signs installed in the southbound direction . at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Pathfinder Road. 46. An additional left -turn lane shall be striped and appropriate signs. installed in the .southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. 47. A stop sign shall be installed at the intersection of Wagon Train Land and Steeplechase Lane. The.stop sign.shall be installed on Wagon Train along with fifty feet of double yellow ellow striping, Type D pavement markers, stop legend and limit line. 48. stop signs shall be installed at the intersection of Steeplechase Lane and street "A", subject to the approval by the City Engineer. 49. Developer. shall contribute $28,500.00 towards the installation of a traffic -signal at intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Shadow Canyon Drive prior to approval of the final map. UTILITIES 50. P . rovide separate utility services to each parcel including water, gas,. electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the respective utility companies standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 51. The developer shall 'be responsible for the relocation of .existing utilities as necessary. 52. Prior to recordation of the final map, a written certification from Walnut Valley Water District, GTE, SCE, SCG and Jones Intercable stating that adequate facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the City. Such letter must be issued by the utility company at least 90 days prior to final map approval. .t t . Yti^ =� MEMORANDUM Vi City of Diamond Bar DATE: March 29, 1995. TO: Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director FROM: Mike Myers Via: George Wentz, City Engineer SUBJECT : Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850; Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions as Recommended By Planning Commission and Other Considerations Attached is memo of March 28, 1995 regarding recommended revisions to the Engineering Conditions as those conditions were approved by the Planning Commission at its November 25, 1991 meeting for the subject vesting tentative map. Following is discussion of other issues related to Council approval of the vesting tentative map including suggested language for additional conditions. I't is understood that all streets within the development are intended to be private streets with the lots extending to the centerline of the streets. However, neither the tentative map nor the Planning Commission's recommended Conditions of Approval address this matter. It is recommended that the Council's approval of this map expressly include approval of private streets for this subdivision (except as shown on the tentative map as a public street dedication at the westerly terminus of Steeplechase). It is understood that street lights are not to be constructed within this subdivision.. While §21.32.140 of the Subdivision Code requires street lights, §21.32.150 provides that they may be waived if the Advisory Agency finds that they are not in keeping with the neighborhood pattern. The Planning Commission's resolution recommending approval does not address this matter. It is recommended that the Council's approval of this map expressly include a finding of "not in keeping and waive the requirement for street lights for this subdivision. Grading is shown offsite (westerly) and is critical to the development of the subdivision as shown on the tentative map. It is understood that the subdivider has obtained easements to grade from the affected owners. These easements should be provided for Staff's review prior to Council approval of this. subdivision. Numerous easements of record are shown and referenced on the tentative map. Many of these easements would appear to I Revisions to Planning Commission Conditions March 29, 1995 Other Considerations Re: VTTM No. 47850 Page 2 significantly affect the realization of clear buildable residential pad areas as shown. With. respect to easements shown which were offered to the public (LA County), the City has the authority under §66499..20 1/2 of the Subdivision Map Act to vacate such. These are generally those indicated on the tentative map as A, B and V. The notice of the public hearing for this map before the Council should clearly identify, as necessary to satisfy requirements for public notice and hearing on the -matter, the Council's intention to vacate these easements and offers of easements. Private easements, however, cannot be addressed in this manner. Unless these easements, many of which are for access and utility purposes along the same lines as the public easements and offers, are cleared from the property, they may subsequently affect the subdivided property owner's ability to utilize his lot. Recommend the following Condition be considered: On all lots where the effect of existing easements may reduce the usable building pad area to less than that shown on the tentative map, such easements shall be relocated or otherwise removed from the required building pad area to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to approval of the final map. It is suggested that Lot A (lift station site) be conveyed in fee to the Homeowners Association. The City Engineer will require that an easement be'dedicated over the necessary portion of this lot for sewer lines and a lift station purposes (also water lines). It is further suggested that the right to prohibit buildings and other structures on Lot A be dedicated to the City. Recommend the following Condition be considered: • Lot A shall be conveyed. to the Homeowners Association and the owner shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings and other structures thereon. It is recommended that the "Remainder Parcel" shown on the tentative map not be approved as such. This parcel does not have suitable access from existing or proposed streets. Recommend the following Condition be considered: • On the final map Lot 13, Lot 15 and/or Lot 16, as shown on tentative map, shall be modified to include the entirety of the "Remainder Parcel".- It arcel". It was noted in the public comments received in recirculating the Draft EIR that some were concerned about possible construction . Revisions to *Planning Commission Conditions March 29, 1995 other Considerations Re: VTTM No. 47850 Page 3 traffic entering the project area via Hawkwood. This access via public streets is possible to the westerly project boundary. If the City Council desires to limit these short term impacts on the existing public streets leading to the project, recommend the following addition to Condition 7 (Planning Commission Resolution Exhibit B—lA) be considered. No construction equipment nor related construction traffic shall be permitted to enter the site from Hawkwood Drive. In considering recent tentative maps, the City Council has concerned itself with the matter of reclaimed water service to the subdivision. If the Council remains concerned about this matter, recommend the following Condition be considered: As reclaimed water supply is not currently available, subdivider shall agree to design and construct, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Walnut Valley Water District, main and service lines capable of delivering reclaimed water to all portions of the subdivision and the system shall be designed to permit "switch over" of nondomestic services on each lot at such time a reclaimed water supply is available to the subdivision. Security shall be posted to guarantee the performance of this agreement. Subdivider shall install, prior to approval of final grading, a portion of the system consisting of main and service lines capable of delivering reclaimed water to those portions of the subdivision for which the homeowners association is responsible for irrigation and/or landscape maintenance. This portion installed shall provide for switchover from domestic service to reclaimed service at such time as it is available. MEMORANDUM City of Diamond Bar DATE: March 31, 1995 TO: Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director FROM: Mike Myers Via: George Wentz, City Engineer SUBJECT :Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850; Additional Recommended Condition In addition to those issues and additional conditions contained in my memo of March 29, 1995, consider the following. Regarding grading offsite westerly: The March 29 memo (page 1, 4th paragraph) discussed the necessity for Staff to review those "easements to grade" that the subdivider had previously obtained for that grading work proposed offsite westerly. The subdivider has submitted copies of those recorded documents granting permission for J.C.C.-Diamond Bar to grade as obtained from the owners of those affected properties, except for permission from the owner of Lot 1 of Tract No. 33602. These documents suffice as necessary to permit the grading offsite. However, applicant must provide similar document relating to Lot 1 of Tract No. 33602. An additional issue has been raised regarding the future repair and maintenance of -the storm drain pipes and inlets which are also an integral part of the necessary grading in this area and which are outside the boundaries of the subdivision.- These letters of permission "for the purposes of grading" (which reasonably also includes the construction of drain pipes. and inlets) may be consider as granting of a "temporary" right and therefor terminate when the work is completed. Consideration must be made for the ongoing, long term maintenance that is necessary to keep these pipes and inlets functioning properly. The HOA will be responsible to provide for the maintenance of storm drains throughout the subdivision and the requirement to maintain these facilities outside the limits of the subdivision can be included within this responsibility. However, there are no present provisions to assure that the HOA will have or can obtain the necessary access to these pipes and inlets to perform this •maintenance and repair. It is recommended that the following condition be included: Prior to approval of the grading plan and final map, I Subdivider shall submit permission to 'grade from all affected property owners outside the boundaries of the subdivision and shall submit documents granting necessary easements for maintenance and repair of inlets and storm, drains to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ��M TO: Diamond Bar Planning Commission FROM: Robert Owen, Rutan & Tucker DATE: April 18, 1995 RE: Scope of Planning Commission's Review of VTM 47850 This memorandum is, in response to a request for an opinion on the permissible scope of the Planning Commission's review of VTM 47850. We conclude that the Planning Commission may review and discuss any aspect of VTM 47850 and that it is not limited in the recommendations it transmits back to the Council. This conclusion is based upon the facts and law as stated below. As the Commission is aware, VTM 47850 was "previously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission in November of 1991 as a 57 -lot subdivision. It was ultimately disapproved by the City Council in November of 1992 due to geotechnical concerns. After litigation, the City and Diamond Bar. Associates entered into a settlement agreement whereby DBA agreed to drop the- lawsuit in exchange for City reconsideration of -VTM 47850. As part of this process, on April 6, 1995, the City Council and Planning Commission conducted a Joint Session to review the tentative map 'application. At the conclusion of this Joint Session, the Council directed that the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for review. The permissible scope of the Planning Commission's review of VTM 47850 is governed by three sources: the Government Code, local ordinance, and the settlement agreement between the City and DBA. The following is an analysis of any possible restrictions these sources may impose on the Commission's actions. Government Code § 66415, which is contained in the Subdivision Map Act, defines "advisory agency" as "an official body charged with the duty of making investigations and reports on the design and improvement of proposed divisions of real property, the imposing of requirements or conditions thereon, or having the authority by local ordinance to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove maps." If a city has an established advisory agency, then a vesting tentative map application must first be filed with that agency prior to consideration by the legislative body. (Gov't Code § 66452.) Whether an advisory agency has maps, as opposed to merely advising upon local ordinance. Pursuant to, Diamond Bar Planning Commission sery the City Council, with only advisory FS2\290\015413-0001\2142834. a04/18/95 the power to approve tentative the legislative body, depends City Ordinance No. 25 B, the es as the "advisory agency" to powers concerning subdivision maps. Pursuant to.§ 66415, the Commission is therefore empowered to "make investigations and reports on the design and improvement of proposed divisions of real property." Nothing in § 66415 limits the scope of this review. Further, there is nothing in state or local law to prevent the City Council from referring VTM 47850 to its advisory agency for review, comment, and recommendation concerning any relevant subject matter.,. including alternative proposals. However, the VTM 47850 process is also governed by the settlement agreement between the City and DBA, which must be examined for any potential constraints beyond those provided by general law. The operative provisions of the settlement agreement pertaining to future consideration of VTM 47850 are contained in. paragraph 2, a copy of which is attached. In our opinion, nothing in paragraph 2 prevents the Planning Commission from considering any issue relating to VTM 47850. A proponent of limited Planning Commission review would likely point to the second sentence of paragraph 2, which provides that "the City Council will be reconsidering the same application for VTM 47850 as was before the Council in November of 1992." Having been heavily involved in the settlement agreement negotiations, we can confidently state that DBA's purpose in including this provision was not to limit any review that the Planning Commission might undertake, but to preserve the argument that the ordinances and policies existing in 1989, when the application was originally submitted, would be effective during future City consideration of VTM 47850. Specific provisions of paragraph 2 indicate an intent that the "city may consider matters and alternatives other than those which Are contained in the specific application submitted by DBA. Paragraph 2 indicates that the Joint Session, of which the Planning Commission' is a part, "may also consider VTM .47850 in light of . . . any other new matters or alternatives which the Joint Session deems appropriate." It further provides that the Council "shall exercise that degree of discretion permitted the Council by state statutes and local ordinances pertaining to approval of a subdivision tract map." As noted above, nothing in state or local law prohibits the City Council from referring a subdivision proposal to the Planning Commission for review and comment on any relevant issue. To summarize, we believe that nothing in the Government Code, local law, or the settlement agreement prohibits the Planning Commission from considering any subject relevant to VTM 47850. We will be happy' to further discuss the matter if the Commission so desires. FS2\290\015413-0001\2142834. a04/18i95 - 2 - Settlement. This Agreement shall be effective only upon completion of all of the following: (1) execution and delivery of this Agreement by all parties hereto; (2) completion by the city of all of the actions described in Paragraph 2 herein, infra; and (3) execution and delivery by DBA of a dismissal of certain aspects the Action as described in Paragraph 3 herein, infra. It is the intention of the parties that this Agreement shall have no effect in any way whatsoever on the right of DBA to continue to prosecute the Appeal. The Appeal will survive the execution of this Agreement. Although this Agreement provides certain releases to the Council, those releases in no way diminish the potential liability of Miller and Papen arising out of the Appeal.or any of DBA's claims against Miller and Papen , which are at issue in the Appeal, including without limitation, the Sixth and Seventh causes of action of the Second Amended Complaint. .2. Reconsideration of VTM 47850. The Council shall, at its next regular meeting, adopt a motion, or resolution, to reconsider its previous action in denying VTM 47850. In adopting such motion or resolution, the City Council will be reconsidering the sate application for VTM 47850 as was before the Council in November of 1992. At some reasonable period of time thereafter, the Council and the City Planning Commission ("Commission") shall conduct a Joint Session to consider VTM 47850. The Joint Session shall review DBA's compliance with the 24 points raised in the October 29, 1992 memorandum and geotechnical review sheet prepared by Leighton & Associates, Inc. relating to VTM 47850. The Joint Session may also consider VTM 47850 in light of the proposed General Plan currently being considered by the City and any other new matters o * r alternatives which the Joint Session deems appropriate. At least thirty (30) days prior to the Joint Session, DBA shall make its professional -technical consultants available to meet with, provide information to and/or answer questions of members of the Commission regarding VTM 47850. After conducting the Joint Session or any continuance of the Joint Session meeting, VTM 47850 shall be referred to the City Council to take action on the reconsideration. Upon such reconsideration, the Council shall exercise that degree of discretion permitted the Council by state statutes and local ordinances pertaining to approval of a subdivision tract map. Further, the Council shall consider approval of VTM 47850 under the recently obtained extension of the deadline for adopting a General Plan issued by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Provided, however, that if the Council denies VTM 47850 on the basis that VTM 47850 is not consistent with the City's proposed General Plan or on any other related ground, then DBA shall have the right to challenge such decision and/or finding on 03-24-94 16396-00002 3 F:\D0C\166\94030005.A10 all available grounds, specifically including, without limitation, the ground that no such finding of consistency is required for VTM 47850. 3. Partial Dismissal of Action. Provided that this Agreement is executed by the parties as required herein, and further provided that all related documents have been executed, and that the Council at its next regular meeting adopts a motion or resolution to reconsider its previous action in denying VTM 47850: (a) Counsel for DBA shall execute and promptly deliver to counsel of record for the City, a request for dismissal with prejudice of the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth causes of action stated the Second Amended Complaint and shall take whatever further action is necessary to dismiss those causes of action with prejudice; and (b) Counsel for DBA shall execute and promptly deliver to counsel of record for the City, -a request for dismissal without prejudice of DBA's Petition for Peremptory Writ of Mandate (C.C.P. §1094.5), as set forth in DBA's First cause of action in the Second Amended Complaint, and shall take whatever' further action is necessary to dismiss the Petition without prejudice. Provided, however, that nothing herein, including without limitation, the dismissal of the Petition without prejudice or the dismissal of any causes.of action of the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, shall in any way be deemed a waiver.or otherwise limit any of DBA's rights to challenge any subsequent action of the Council or the Commi-ssion on VTM 47850 on any and all available grounds, including, without limitation, the ground that the Council need not find that VTM 47850 is consistent with the,City's proposed General Plan. Provided further, however, that nothing herein, including, without limitation, the dismissal of the Petition without prejudice or the dismissal of any causes of action of the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, shall in any way be deemed a waiver or otherwise limit any of DBA's rights to seek damages from the City and/or Council based upon any subsequent action of the Council or the Commission on VTM 47850. 4. Releases. a. Release of DBA by City. Upon the Council's action to adopt a motion or resolution to reconsider its previous action in denying VTM 47850, or within a reasonable period of time thereafter, the City and Council, for themselves, and for their successors and assigns, agree to hereby forever release, absolve, acquit and discharge DBA and all of its present and 03-24-94 16396-00002 F:\DDC\166\94030005.A10 4 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ann J.; Lunqu, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 !n"4; ef!I DATE: April 18, 1994 U."W4�s'zyzi orm. fir;' The applicant, for the above mentioned parcel map, is requesting a continuance of the public hearing. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for this project to May 8, 1995. 1%9 Fii' svf y . ,�.. on . _ ' _ . �rtI is rely for ,owning File revi a oy on my and is ready for' destruction by City Clerk