Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/22/1993i__. hxn M.-mnr rr ._xxlnd.Ylf.i4lw.M...IMwrw, . . _. w—. -- m.m—+.. - ._m ., - _,__ - _. .: ^ m.. ._ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ • _ _ CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at - 7:12 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Plunk. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Li was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Oscar Law, residing at 20511 Pathfinder, inquired THE AUDIENCE: what Proposition C funding entailed. ICE/Wentz explained that Proposition C funding relates to funding that is set aside for uses for street improvements to help offset increase traffic flow for cities. Oscar Law then indicated that, through a Supreme Court ruling, the Federal, Government has acknowledged the importance of improving air quality. CONSENT CALENDAR: CDD/DeStefano reported that the General Plan Conformity Finding, involving the relocation of the General Plan sewer line for a future Arco gas station located at Conformity the southwest corner of Brea Canyon Road and Finding Diamond Bar Blvd., can be pulled off the Consent Calendar because, based -upon the project's approval by the Planning Commission a couple of months ago, and the finding of conformity with the General Plan for that approval, action is not necessary. Minutes of C/Plunk stated that, because she was not present at Feb. 8, 1993 the February 8, 1993 meeting, she will be abstaining from voting on the minutes. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe - and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 8, 1993. C/Plunk abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the certification of Environmental Impact Report 91-4, DR & CUP 91-1 Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit No. and EIR 91-4 91-1 to develop a three phase 425,000 square foot medical plaza project that will include the following services: medical office buildings, acute care hospital, hospital support, out patient services, diagnostic and treatment center, and a , 11 r _.. — February 22, 1993 Page 2 community conference and education center to be located at 887 Grand Avenue. The agency and public review comment period concluded at the January 25, 199 .3 Planning Commission meeting. The consultant is preparing the final EIR which will include all responses and acknowledgments to agency and public comments,,and will be ready for review shortly. Marc Blodgett, the consultant, presented a brief overview of the environmental review process which included the following items: the submittal of the development application; the preliminary environmental review; the Notice of Preparation; the scoping meeting for community input; the preparation of the DEIR; the Notice of Completion; Review of the DEIR; the preparation of the final EIR; and the certification of the EIR/Notice of Determination. The final EIR must consist of any revisions made to the DEIR, a Response to Comments document, a list of persons/agencies that commented on the EIR, and any other information deemed relevant by the lead agency. The following agencies provided written comments: the Walnut Valley Water District; the governors Office of Planning Research; the LA County Fire Department; Southern California Gas Co.; the California' Department of Transportation; the City of Chino Hills; Intercommunity Health Services; and a number of letters received that did not comment on the EIR specifically but stated their support of the project. He reviewed the concerns raised by residents that attended the January 25, 1993 public hearing: aesthetics impacts involving the views of the roof equipment, and the potential height of the building currently envisioned; traffic generation specifically the trip generation of Grand Ave., and the feasibility of access on Golden Springs; the noise impacts resulting from the helicopters; and the effects on property values. The DEIR has been revised to address these concerns and are reflected in the final EIR. He then reviewed the concerns identified by the Planning Commission: traffic impacts create a significant adverse impact on local streets; look at the feasibility of a secondary access to Golden Springs; air quality is a significant adverse impact; the projects potential for hazardous material spill and solid waste disposal; possibly focus the EIR on phase one, excluding phase two and three; the noise of the helicopters; contact the Highway Patrol and the Fire Department to assure that the impacts are clearly articulated in the EIR; and possible reflection impacts in the parking area. The DEIR has been revised to address these concerns and are February 22, 1993 Page 3 -il reflected in the final EIR. A third mitigation measure was added to the traffic section, upon completion of a threshold analysis, to indicate that the -applicant would be responsible for providing a Golden Springs Road access prior to the completion of phase three. The City staff has identified the dedication of this easement in their draft conditions. There will be engineering required in subsequent phases of planning to establish the precise nature, contour, and configuration of this road. Furthermore, because the EIR indicates that traffic and air quality will be significantly impacted by this project, a Statement of Overriding Considerations will be required as part of the project's certification. The guidelines developed by the SCAQMD for acceptable daily emission thresholds in terms of pounds per day were used to determine the definition of significance in regards to air quality. He displayed a chart showing the SCAQMD acceptable level of emissions compared to the project's emission level for phase one - which is below the thresholds defined by SCAQMD; phase one and two -which exceeds the thresholds defined; phase one, two, and three - which exceeds the thresholds defined; and at buildout -which exceeds the thresholds defined. He then displayed a table providing a traffic trip generation comparison of the Medical Plaza with other types of industrial uses that could conceivably be constructed on the project site. Though the project, following phase two or phase three, will generate substantially more traffic than other types of industrial or office types of uses, in phase one the Medical Plaza is not worse than any other type of use that could be seen on the site. Marc Blodgett then reviewed the following three revised mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR, which is in response to the applicants concerns: the reference to the mitigation fees for schools will be omitted; the mitigation measure No. 11, section 4.4, in Air Quality, referring to paid parking," will be omitted; mitigation measure No. 4 through 8, section 4.13, in Utilities, referring to solid waste, will be omitted because they are too specific, but it is replaced by a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to comply with all appropriate relevant provisions of the City's Waste Reduction and Recycling Element, also requiring the .y applicant to provide for on site separation of recyclables with nonmedical solid waste. CjGrothe inquired if the SCAQMD threshold numbers identified in the table for significant emissions February 22, 1993 Page 4 relates to the project size, -the square footage of n; the building, the site, or to any project. Marc Blodgett explained that the thresholds are thresholds of significance typically used to gage all development. C/Grothe expressed his concern that not having a clear level of significance makes it difficult to determine if the mitigation measures are being properly addressed. Marc Blodgett stated that, clearly, phase two and phase three would exceed the thresholds for carbon monoxide and particulates, however, in the absence of such a facility, residents would have to drive to other facilities in the surrounding area, with the corresponding increase in vehicles miles traveled. It is very difficult to quantify that offset in an EIR. He pointed out that the project does work towards achieving the City's job housing balance. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the consultant use the AQMD facility as a point of reference of comparison to quantify the significance. Marc Blodgett, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum, explained that, since the number of peak hour trips increases dramatically when phase three becomes operational, a secondary access to golden springs isn't necessary until phase three. VC/Meyer inquired if the analysis, of the significance of the trips that are generated by the facility, included the cumulative affect on a circulation system that is already marginally impacted. Marc Blodgett stated that the EIR analysis did consider development in the vicinity of the project site, and it assumed the buildout of the entire Gateway Plaza area, and acknowledged the future development in the City of Industry and the City of Chino Hills. VC/Meyer, pointing out that Grand Ave., on a number of occasions, already reaches gridlock, particularly during the Christmas holidays and during traffic accidents on the freeways, stateda;#°:, that he derived a different conclusion from the numbers indicated in the report. February 22, 1993 Page 5 Marc Blodgett explained that staff and the consultant met with the applicant to discuss the need for the access road. Because the applicant expressed concerns that the cost of the access road would be very prohibitive for phase one and phase two to support the construction of the road, the preparers of the EIR determined that, given the peak hour trip generation, it would be acceptable to just have access to Grand Ave. for phases one and two. Marc Blodgett, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that most of the Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) and trip reduction mitigation measures are included under the Air Quality section. CDD/DeStefano stated that, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission and public discussion, it is recommended that the matter be continued to the meeting of March 8, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum, no that the third phase is not expected to be, built for another 20 years, inquired if the final EIR is approved, would there be another opportunity to review the project. CA/Curley explained that there will be an opportunity to review the tiering of phases to see if there have been significant changes in the project itself, and the surrounding local. The EIR is intended to be a dynamic tool. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Lloyd Duncan, representative of Montefino Homeowners Association, made the following comments; eliminate the helipad from the development entirely, or, at least, restrict it's flight over the Montefino development or the other residential development on either side of the proposed hospital site; consider adding a lane to relieve the traff is l that is already backed up on Grand Ave.; consider adding a lane, on the side of the property, to provide access for emergency vehicles directly to the facility; and the air conditioning units on top of the building need to be addressed for aesthetic reasons. He then requested assistance from the City to get the hospital's soils engineer out to the site because an overflow developed on the slope above the applicant's property, which is owned by the February 22, 1993 Page 6 applicant, that has eroded away part of the slope holding up the Montefino development. Dick Jankowski, a resident of Montefino, expressed his concern that the height of the facility will be the same height of the condominiums., blocking all view of the residents.He also expressed his concern for the impacts, to air quality. Nancy Jankowski, a resident of Montefino, made the following comments: there should not be any more development until the traffic problem is resolved; the proposed secondary access to Golden Springs will not sufficiently accommodate the traffic increase from the facility' because the vehicles will continue to use the Grand Ave./Golden Springs intersection; contaminated waste removal needs to be addressed; air quality is a concern; and four stories are too high. Ed Hilden, in support of the project, pointed out the importance of having a medical facility nearby in case of an emergency. Furthermore, waste removal is not a concern because a hospital facility is very clean and subject to many regulations. Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove, in support of the project, stated that this project is part of a grander vision for the community. He suggested that the City work with the developer for use of their conference room as a possible senior center. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed, and continued to a later meeting. Chair/Flamenbaum reported that a petition with 110 signatures, in support of the hospital, was submitted to the City. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the March 8, 1993 meeting. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:28 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:53 p.m. DR 92-6 and PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the CUP 93-1 request, made by the applicant Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., to amend an existing Conditional Use Permit and process a Development Review in order to construct a children's play area with supervisory seating on an outdoor patio located on the northwest side of an existing one story February 22, 1993 Page 7 .., building located at 141 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. She then presented slides of the existing building, as well as a computer enhanced photograph of the proposed children play area addition. Though the design of the playground area is appropriate and compatible with the existing restaurant and the surrounding area, staff feels that the addition is not appropriate because there is not an adequate number of parking spaces for the potential occupancy load of the restaurant. It is recommended that the Commission deny Development Review No. 92-6, and Conditional Use Permit No. 93- 1. PT/Lungu, in response to a series of inquiries made by C/Meyer, made the following comments: the traffic spill out into the street would probably be manageable by the public; it would not be subject to the TDM because of their size, but it could be a mitigation measure; and with the proposed project, the applicant is deficient by 14 parking spaces using the City's occupancy load calculations. In response to Chair/ FlamenbaumIs concern for fire safety upon the elimination of the gate on the west side of the play area, PT/Lungu pointed out that there are currently two points of ingress/egress to the play area from the outside, therefore, one of them could be closed. The Building and Safety Department did not express any concerns upon reviewing this application. Mike Callahan, residing in Orange, representing Carl Karcher Enterprises, made the following comments: there would still be fire egress from the building even if one of the gates are closed; the addition is not part of the building itself, but a fenced in landscaped patio area; a revised site plan will be provided showing 42 parking spaces; most cities do not use the Uniform Building Code to determine parking, but the gross floor area, therefore the parking space requirement should be under 40 spaces; most of the it employees park off site, legally; the original CUP issued by the County required only 42 spaces; and the size of the stalls meet City standards. C/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be willing to formalize an incentive program for the employees to encourage them to use alternative transportation modes as a way to decrease the demand for parking. Mike Callahan stated that he would be willing to suggest such a program to management. February 22, 1993 Page 8 Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public " Hearing opened. Tom Ortiz, residing at 3308 Hawkwood, supported the project for the following reasons: Carls Jr. is a long time member of the City's Chamber of Commerce; they donate to the community, and sports organizations; they create jobs for the youth and senior citizens; and'they generate revenue for the City. Fred Scalzo, President of the Chamber of Commerce, expressed his support of the project. The playground area would be good for their business, and in turn, for the City. Don Gravdahl, residing at 23988 Minnequa, pointed out that the private street along side of the building is in poor condition, and perhaps the owners of the properties responsible for that street should be asked to contribute to it's improvement at the time that any improvements to their properties are proposed. In response to C/Meyer, he stated that the discrepancies in the parking area may stem from the remodeling done a ' few years ago. However, in his judgement, there does not appear to be a parking problem at that location at this time. PT/Lungu stated that the addition, of the solarium/dining area done a fews years ago, and the play area proposed now, brings up the occupancy load, thereby increasing their need of parking spaces by code. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Plunk to approve the project subject to the following list of conditions: there should be a sidewalk to get around the play area to enter the building; mount two locking bicycle facilities in the back of the building; stripe the property for 42 spaces, attempting to meet minimum standards; street maintenance on the private street is irrelevant at this time; all of the properties on Palomino should contribute their fair share toward the signal on that intersection; and there should be direct access, such as a sidewalk, into the building from the back. February 22, 1993 Page 9 Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that he feels that the request for a sidewalk may not be appropriate, and that 39 parking spaces may be adequate. C/Meyer expressed his concern with establishing a precedent by granting the modification of the standards just because the applicant is a well known, well operated restaurant. He suggested that staff and the applicant meet to discuss a way to design the parking area to meet the planning test and legal test. He noted that 39 functional spaces is better than 42 spaces that no one will use. C/Plunk noted that the addition of the play area may not necessarily attract new customers, but rather encourage regular customers to stay longer and buy more food. She concurred that the applicant should be encouraged to formalize an employee off site parking program, to install a locking bicycle rack, and to meet with staff to discuss an alternative using the suggestions expressed by the Commission. Mr. Callahan concurred to meet staff to negotiate a strategy that would be beneficial to everyone. C/Grothe withdrew his motion made earlier, and C/Plunk withdrew her second to the motion. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to meet with the applicant to draft conditions of approval taking all comments made by the Commission for consideration. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:03 p.m. ZCA 93-1 C/Meyer stated that the City Engineer did an excellent job in revising the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (TDM) in response to the comments made by the Commission during the review process. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public hearing closed. ICE/Wentz pointed out that the Monitoring Section, on page 13 on, has been amended significantly, and the entire section related to the monitoring has been eliminated giving the City the latitude to February 22, 1993 Page 10 prepare it's own monitoring program later in the process. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public hearing closed. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend adoption of the TDM Ordinance. General Plan Chair/Flamenbaum submitted, for the record, a Amendment 92-2; petition with 59 signatures regarding the South DA 92-1, 92-2, Pointe Master Plan. 92-3; Vesting TT Map 5140, Hardy Strozier, the Special Project Consultant, CUP 92-8 & reviewed the following options available to the Oak Tree. Permit Planning Commission: 1. Determine that the DEIR 92-8; Vesting and supporting documents do not adequately address TT 32400, CUP the environmental impacts of the project, and 91-5, Zone recommend that the City Council not certify the Change 91-2 & DEIR and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Oak Tree Permit Resolution; 2. Request additional information from 91-2; TT Map staff relative to the range of environmental topic 51253 & CUP covered in the DEIR, and continue consideration of 92-12; Oak Tree the DEIR until the additional information is Permit 92-9; the available; and 3. Determine that the DEIR and South Pointe supporting documents do adequately address the Master Plan; & environmental impacts of the DEIR, and recommend EIR 92-9. that the City Council certify the DEIR as adequate and direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolution. He suggested that, given the lateness of the hour, that the Planning Commission just consider the EIR tonight, following the presentation to be made by Peter Lewendowski regarding the DEIR and Response to Comments, and continue the discussion on the project to another night this week. Peter Lewendowski, Director of Planning with the consulting firm Ultra Systems, explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires governmental agencies, who have authority over particular projects, to include, in their decision making process, an analysis of the projects impacts upon the environment. The purpose of CEQA is to identify potential environmental impacts associated with that project, to identify mitigation measures that would reduce, minimize, or avoid those impacts, and bring forward, for public review and discussion, project alternatives that might minimize or avoid the environmental t February 22, 1993 Page 11 implications identified in the environmental analysis. The EIR, before the Commission, has been prepared pursuant to, and in full accordance, with the procedures established by the California Code of Regulations, which establishes a procedure that must be followed to satisfy the intent of CEQA. There are two documents before the Commission: 1. the DEIR, dated November of 1992, which contains identification of those environmental impacts identified in the initial study, as well as additional information brought forward through the analysis conducted by Ultra Systems, and comments received pursuant to the Notice of Preparation; and 2. the Response to Comments, dated February of 1993, containing revisions, changes, amendments to the DEIR, comments received by government agencies and the public, pursuant to the Notice of Completion, as well as the minutes from the Planning Commission, Traffic and Transportation Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission, of the meetings that addressed this topic. The Response to Comments, and the DEIR, in conjunction with other additional information the City might include, constitutes the final Environmental Impact Report. Prior to taking action on the project, the City is required to certify the final EIR, concluding that the EIR adequately addresses the environmental implications of the project, and provides a reasonable analysis to foster informed decision. The Planning Commission, as another alternative to those options summarized by Mr. Strozier, can provide the City Council with a recommendation that differ from the conclusions presented in the DEIR, which may include additions or deletions to specific mitigation measures, further elaboration on project impacts or project alternatives, or changes regarding conclusions on significance, as presented in the DEIR. The firm of Ultra Systems, in the preparation of this document, was to provide a clear independent and objective analysis of the projects impacts, based upon scientific empirical data. It is not the function of the environmental consultant, nor the EIR itself, to establish public policy. The EIR is an independent document of the project, and it's intent is informational, to insure that the decision makers have the environmental bases to make their decisions, and that the public has a vehicle to make their comments known through this decision making process. It attempts to represent a nonbias professional, technical opinion of the projects impacts, and is subject to change and revisions February 22, 1993 Page 12 based upon the direction provided to staff by the - Commission. Peter Lewendowski then reviewed the following additional mitigation measures to the DEIR, which is a result from the public testimony received over the last 6 week period, as identified in the February of 1993 Response to Comments document: additional mitigations concerning traffic impacts, including the widening of.Brea Canyon Road to it's full width, and 'improvements along the property frontage; alternative, solutions to mitigate post development hydrology impacts to public drain #1467, in the vicinity of Fair Lance Drive, which included three separate additional options which are on site retention, phase development, and alternative drainage solutions; based upon comments received from LA' County, additional mitigation measures were brought forward which included the annexation of the project area into the consolidated sewer maintenance district; additional mitigation measures directed towards source reduction and recycling; and additional mitigation measures that are designed to facilitate the implementation of the Oak Tree Ordinance, not only in the context of the number of trees replaced, but to ensure the' placement of those trees to facilitate the development of a replacement oak tree habitat. He then reviewed the following clarifications made to the EIR, in addition to the mitigation measures: it clearly demonstrates that the impacts to air quality are significant during the grading phase of the project, the operational phase of the project, and from a cumulative perspective; it indicates that Larkstone Drive is not intended as a through street, but only to facilitate emergency access in the event that additional access is required; reference to the Master Plan as a Specific Plan has been amended; and it identifies Tentative Tract #32400 as a Vesting Tentative Tract. In response to C/Plunk's inquiry if there is adequate water available to wildlife, Mr. Lewendowski stated that, based upon field inspection of the property, there is standing water in the creek in Sandstone Canyon representing an opportunity for wildlife in the area to obtain water and other nutrients, as well as brush to provide foliage and ground cover. However, based upon the biological analysis of the site as a potential conduit as part of a wildlife corridor, it was concluded that, based upon the surrounding development, the site does not practically 11 February 22, 1993 'Page 13 -- represent a linkage between this area and other open space areas, and that there are not any rare, threatened, or endangered species in the area. The loss of the water can be compensated through the development of the park plan, which might include such things as guzzlers, which would ensure that there would be water available should wildlife continue to be present after development. Hardy Strozier stated that the mitigation measure in the Resource Management Plan, to be presented if the project is approved, will be clarified to include necessary facilities such as guzzlers, or other watering sources, to be both on and off project site. Peter Lewendowski stated that the EIR demonstrates that, in addition to any permits that may be required from the City, permits may also be required from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. _r In response to C/Met'er's inquiry, Mr. Lewendowski stated that, in his judgement, the changes made as a result of the Response to Comments are not significant enough to warrant a recirculation of the DEIR. The Commission does have the option to add additional mitigation measures, if deemed necessary. The conclusions in the EIR represent Ultra Systems independent analysis of the project, and it is felt that the mitigation measures adequately mitigate the many impacts associated with the project, with the exception of air quality and traffic. C/Meyer inquired if additional conditions could be added reflecting these mitigation measures, if the project goes forward, without redoing the EIR. Hardy Strozier explained that the 105 mitigation measures will be translated, when the Resolution comes back to the Commission, in the form of conditions, and those conditions will be allocated amongst the various entitlements. It is felt that there are adequate mitigation measures to cover all aspects of potential environmental impacts on the project. Furthermore, staff will be adding recommended conditions in addition to the current 105 mitigation measures Additional conditions J could be added regarding future review of the project, and any design modifications that may be necessary. The certification of the EIR verifies that it is an adequate informational document prepared in compliance with State law. The project February 22, 1993 Page 14 can be approved or denied regardless of what action i is taken on the EIR. C Grothe inquired if the EIR would be impacted if / q p the project changes significantly. Hardy Strozier stated that a broad range of alternatives have been covered in the EIR, anticipating a broad range of potentialities from the Planning Commission. If there are significant changes made to the project later, there is a tiering effect where only those items relative to the modification of the project would be reviewed. Peter Lewendowki explained that CEQA establishes a basis whereby a future change in the project can be addressed after an EIR is certified. If the changes are insignificant, an addendum is included, or, if the changes are substantial, a new EIR is prepared. As long as the project does not exceed the base limits, it is believed that the environmental analysis clearly represent the projects impacts. If a much larger project is considered, then the changes of the project would have to be reviewed, focusing exclusively on how those changes differ from the information presented in the environmental documentation. C/Meyer stated that he feels that the environmental document has been adequately prepared as a foundation document, and that it adequately addresses the issues. Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Plunk to recommend that the City Council certify the EIR. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the motion is to recommend certification, with the proviso that any further mitigation measures necessary be attached to the document. C/Meyer pointed out that the document includes the potential impacts, as well as 105 mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a- level of nonsignificance, except air quality and traffic. The EIR addresses the issues and it should be passed on to the City Council for certification. Any other changes would include a new environmental tiering process. Is Chair/Flamenbaum, in response to Oscar Law, explained that discussion of the EIR is no longer open to the public for comment, however, the public February 22, 1993 Page 15 will get an opportunity to comment on the EIR before the City Council. CA/Curley explained to the Commission that the they would only be recommending certification of the EIR to the City Council, and not taking the final action. The Commission was presented with three options, which included recommending that the City Council certify the DEIR, recommending that the City Council not certify the DEIR, or requesting additional information and continue consideration of the DEIR. Since there was a question concerning guzzlers, perhaps, since this is not a final action, it would be appropriate if the Commission requested more information on the project to determine if the mitigation measures, the monitoring program, or any other elements, are appropriate, so as to give the Commission the assurance that all the information needed has been received. However, if the Commission collectively feels that all the information provided is adequate, then it would be appropriate for the Commission to proceed. C/Meyer indicated that, to his understanding from �- Mr. Strozier's and Mr. Lewendowski's comments, the mitigation measures include all the information to reduce the potential impacts of the project down to a level of nonsignificance, as we understand them now, and that the Commission could go beyond those particular measures as conditions of approval, or bases for denial, of the individual elements or components of the project. Even if the Commission recommends certification of the EIR, determining that the document has been prepared in accordance with the State law, the Commission could then deny the project. CA/Curley confirmed that the Commission can recommend certification of the EIR, and still deny the project. C/Meyer, indicating that he was under the impression that the Commission could not act on the rest of the project until a recommendation on the environmental document was given, inquired if a recommendation could be made at the conclusion of all the hearings. CA/Curley explained that the City typically has processed the elements of a development, the environmental finding, project approval or denial, etc., all inclusively in one Resolution. However, --T—--_---,-__ ..�_.- III 1C 1 �-. I�uII�I �_� February 22, 1993 Page 16 this procedure is -not cast in stone, and is -'.a decision of the Commission. CDD/DeStefano noted that the Commission appears ready to certify the adequacy of the information contained, within the EIR, but not necessarily prepared to certify the adequacy of the mitigation measures presented. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission conclude the discussion on the environmental document, 'set aside the environmental document and the 105 mitigation measures outlined, and, direct staff to begin to incorporate certification of the "EIR into the appropriate - resolutions. The specific mitigation measures can be put aside until the commission is prepared to reach a, decision on the project. C/Grothe indicated that he feels that the information has been adequately presented, even though he does not concur, with some of the conclusions made. It is time now to begin discussion of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum expressed his concern that the 105 mitigation measures outlined in the EIR document are final, and any other mitigation measure that the Commission comes up with becomes a condition, which may not have the same force and effect. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the EIR is just a starting point. The Commission has the authority to add as many conditions to the project as desired, whether it be with a conditional use permit, a tentative tract map, or the development agreement. In fact, some mitigation measures may no longer be applicable because of modifications made by the Commission. If the Commission modifies the project in such a manner that has not been analyzed in the EIR, then an addendum or a subsequent EIR may be needed. Chair/Flamenbaum requested an explanation of the difference between the "condition" and "mitigation", and their respected impacts. Hardy Strozier explained that State law requires that we turn the environmental impact report and mitigation measures, through the mitigation monitoring program, into some force of authority, and that is done through the application of conditions. Peter Lewendowski explained that there is nothing in the document which is locked in concrete. The u„ wnl . wuMn1,41tNUNIdNImw....F-_i---- February 22, 1993 Page 17- I 1 !,. mitigation measures represent recommendations for subsequent conditions of approval until such time as the document is certified, the project is approved, or modified in some way. Those mitigation measures are ultimately incorporated as conditions of approval. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he is somewhat confused because he was under the impression that once the EIR is certified, additional mitigation measures may not be added. However, now Mr. Lewendowski has indicated that those mitigation measures become conditions upon certification of the EIR. If they're called something else, there is a reason for it. CA/Curley explained that the mitigation measures, the mitigation monitoring program, are the broad definitions that can be fine tuned to respond to individual circumstance for entitlement specific approval. +C/Meyer, concerned that it appears that the direction from staff is not in total agreement, withdrew his Motion recommending that the City Council certify the EIR. C/Grothe inquired if the mitigation measures in the environmental review document can be changed or left out from the project. Hardy Strozier explained that, upon certification of the EIR by the City Council, staff must demonstrate legally that each one of these mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, or a statement of overriding consideration must be submitted. Furthermore, there is a mitigation monitoring program in the DEIR that identifies where all the mitigation measures are found, such as the CUP, the tentative map, or the development agreement. C/Meyer expressed his concern that the Commission may not be allowed to make a condition because it wasn't in the EIR. He suggested that the meeting be continued to a date certain, allowing staff time to go through the legal ramifications, and come back with a recommendation. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the Commission is only directing staff, and no official action is being taken at this time. Changes can be made at a later date if deemed necessary. February 22, 1993 Page 18 Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 11:06 p.m_. to allow time for staff to confer on their recommendation to the Planning Commission. The meeting was reconvened at 11:24 p.m. CA/Curley stated that it is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to begin preparation of a Resolution that would indicate that the Commission is recommending that the City Council certify the environmental document. This would not be a final action by this Commission, and it will be brought back to the Commission to make any appropriate changes is so desired. C/Grothe requested that the full set of motions and resolutions be brought back to the Commission a minimum of a week prior to the meeting. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR document. The Planning Commission -concurred to continue the public hearing to Thursday, February 25, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectively, i lies DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman LN, CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Plunk. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Li was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStef ano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Oscar Law, residing at 20511 Pathfinder, inquired THE AUDIENCE: what Proposition C funding entailed. ICE/Wentz explained that Proposition C funding relates to funding that is set aside for uses for street improvements to help of f set increase traf f is flow for cities. Oscar Law then indicated that, through a Supreme Court ruling, the Federal, Government has acknowledged the importance of improving air quality. CONSENT CALENDAR: CDD/DeStefano reported that the General Plan Conformity Finding, involving the relocation of the General Plan sewer line for a future Arco gas station located at Conformity the southwest corner of Brea Canyon Road and Finding Diamond Bar Blvd., can be pulled off the Consent Calendar because, based -upon the project's approval by the Planning Commission a couple of months ago, and the finding of conformity with the General Plan for that approval, action is not necessary. Minutes of C/Plunk stated that, because she was not present at Feb. 8, 1993 the February 8, 1993 meeting, she will be abstaining from voting on the minutes. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 8, 1993. C/Plunk abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the certification of Environmental Impact Report 91-4, DR & CUP 91-1 Development Review, and Conditional Use Permit No. and EIR 91-4 91-1 to develop a three phase 425,000 square foot medical plaza project that will include the following services: medical office buildings, acute care hospital, hospital support, out patient services, diagnostic and treatment center, and a February 22, 1993 Page 2 community conference and- education center to be located at 887 Grand Avenue. The agency and public review comment period concluded at the January 25, 199.3 Planning Commission meeting. The consultant is preparing the final EIR which will include all responses and acknowledgments to agency and public comments„and will be ready for review shortly. Marc Blodgett, the consultant, presented a brief overview of the environmental review process which included the following items: the submittal of the development application; the preliminary environmental review; the Notice of Preparation; the scoping meeting for community input; the preparation of the DEIR; the Notice of Completion; Review of the DEIR; the preparation of the f inal EIR; and the certif ication of the EIR/Notice of Determination. The final EIR must consist of any revisions made to the DEIR, a Response to Comments document, a list of persons/ agencies that commented on the EIR, and any other information deemed relevant by the lead agency. The following agencies provided written comments: the Walnut Valley Water District; the governors Office of Planning Research; the LA County Fire Department; Southern California Gas Co.; the California Department of Transportation; the City of Chino Hills; Intercommunity Health Services; and a number of letters received that did not comment on the EIR specifically but stated their support of the project. He reviewed the concerns raised by residents that attended the January 25, 1993 public hearing: aesthetics impacts involving the views of the roof equipment, and the potential height of the building currently envisioned; traffic generation specifically the trip generation of Grand Ave., and the feasibility of access on Golden Springs; the noise impacts resulting from the helicopters; and the effects on property values. The DEIR has been revised to address these concerns and are reflected in the final EIR. Hethen reviewed the concerns identified by the Planning commission: traffic impacts create a significant adverse impact on local streets; look at the feasibility of a secondary access to Golden Springs; air quality is a significant adverse impact; the projects potential for hazardous material spill and solid waste disposal; possibly focus the EIR on phase onef excluding phase two and three; the noise of the helicopters; contact the Highway Patrol and the Fire Department to assure that the impacts are clearly articulated in the EIR; and possible reflection impacts in the parking- area. The DEIR has been revised to address these concerns and are February 22, 1993 Page 3 ref lected in the f inal- EIR. A third mitigation measure was added to the traf f is section, upon completion of a threshold analysis, to indicate that the _applicant would be responsible f or providing a Golden Springs Road access prior to the completion of phase three. The City stat f has identif ied the dedication of this easement in their draft conditions. There will be engineering required in subsequent phases of planning to establish the precise nature, contour, and cont iguration of this road. Furthermore, because the EIR indicates that traffic and air quality will be significantly impacted by this project, a Statement of Overriding considerations will be required as part of the project's certification. The guidelines developed by the SCAQMD for acceptable daily emission thresholds in terms of pounds per day were used to determine the definition of significance in regards to air quality. He displayed a chart showing the SCAQMD acceptable level of emissions compared to the project's emission level for phase one - which is below the thresholds defined by SCAQMD; phase one and two -which exceeds the thresholds defined; phase one, two, and three - which exceeds the thresholds defined; and at buildout - which exceeds the thresholds defined. He then displayed a table providing a traffic trip generation comparison of the Medical Plaza with other types of industrial uses that could conceivably be constructed on the project site. Though the project, following phase two or phase three, will generate substantially more traffic than other types of industrial or office types of uses, in phase one the Medical Plaza is not worse than any other type of use that could be seen on the site. Marc Blodgett then reviewed the following three revised mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR, which is in response to the applicants con-cerns: the reference to the mitigation fees for schools will be omitted; the mitigation measure No. 11, section 4.4, in Air Quality, referring to paid parking," will be omitted; -mitigation measure No. 4 through 8, section 4.13, in Utilities, referring to solid waste, will be omitted because they are too specific, but it is replaced by a mitigation measure requiring the applicant to comply with all appropriate relevant provisions of the City's Waste Reduction and Recycling Element, also requiring the applicant to provide for on site separation of recyclables with non-medical solid waste. C/Grothe inquired if the SCAQMD threshold numbers identified in the table for significant emissions February 22, 1993 Page 4 relates to the project size, -the square footage of the building, the site, or to any project. Marc Blodgett explained that the thresholds are thresholds of significance typically used to gage all development. C/Grothe expressed his concern that not having a clear level of significance makes it difficult to determine if the mitigation measures are being properly addressed. Marc Blodgett stated that, clearly, phase two and phase three would exceed the thresholds for carbon monoxide and particulates, however, in the absence of such a facility, residents would have to drive to other facilities in the surrounding area, with the corresponding increase in vehicles miles traveled. It is very difficult to quantify that offset in an EIR. He pointed out that the project does work towards achieving the City's job housing balance. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the consultant use the AQMD facility as a point of reference of comparison to quantify the significance. Marc Blodgett, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, explained that, since the number of peak hour trips increases dramatically when phase three becomes operational, a secondary access to golden Springs isn't necessary until phase three. VC/Meyer inquired if the analysis, of the significance of the trips that are generated by the facility, included the cumulative affect on a circulation system that is already marginally impacted. Marc Blodgett stated that the EIR analysis did consider development in the vicinity of the project site, and it assumed the buildout of the entire Gateway Plaza area, and acknowledged the future development in the City of Industry and the City of Chino Hills. VC/Meyer, pointing out that Grand Ave., on a number of occasions, already reaches gridlock, particularly during the Christmas holidays and during traffic accidents on the freeways, stated that he derived a different conclusion from the numbers indicated in the report. February 22, 1993 Page 5 Marc Blodgett explained that staff and the consultant met with the applicant to discuss the need for the access road. Because the applicant expressed concerns that the cost of the access road would be very prohibitive for phase one and phase two to support the construction of the road, the preparers of the EIR deter- mined that, given the peak hour trip generation, it would be acceptable to just have access to Grand Ave. f or phases one and two. Marc Blodgett, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that most of the Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) and trip reduction mitigation measures are included under the Air Quality section. CDD/DeStefano stated that, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission and public discussion, it is recommended that the matter be continued to the meeting of March 8, 1993. chair/ Flamenbaum, noting that the third phase is not expected to be built for another 20 years, inquired if the final EIR is approved, would there be another opportunity to review the project. CA/Curley ex Iained that there will be an p i opportunity to review the tiering of phases to see if there have been significant changes in the project itself, and the surrounding local. The EIR is intended to be a dynamic tool. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Lloyd Duncan, representative of Montefino Homeowners Association, made the following comments: eliminate the helipad from the development entirely, or, at least, restrict it's flight over the Montefino development or the other residential development on either side of the proposed hospital site; consider adding a lane to relieve the traffic that is already backed up on Grand Ave.; OonE adding a lane, on the side of the property, to provide access for emergency vehicles directly to the facility; and the air conditioning units on top of the building need to be addressed for aesthetic reasons. He then requested assistance from the City to get the hospital's soils engineer out to the site because an overflow developed on the slope above the applicant's property, which is owned by the February 22, 1993 Page 6 applicant, that has eroded away part of the slope holding up the Montefino development. Dick Jankowski, a resident of Montefino, expressed his concern that the height of the facility will be the same height of 'the condominiums, blocking all view of the residents. He also expressed his concern for the impacts to air quality. Nancy Jankowski, a resident of Montefino, made the following comments: there should not be any more development until the traffic problem is resolved; the proposed secondary access to Golden Springs will not sufficiently accommodate the traffic increase from the facility because the vehicles will continue to use the Grand Ave./Golden Springs intersection; contaminated waste removal needs to be addressed; air quality is a concern; and four stories are too high. Ed Hilden, in support of the project, pointed out the importance of having a medical facility nearby in case of an emergency. Furthermore, waste removal is not a concern because a hospital facility is very clean and subject to many regulations. Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove, in support of the project, stated that this project is part of a grander vision for the community. He suggested that the City work with the developer f or use of their conference room as a possible senior center. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed, and continued to a later meeting. Chair/Flamenbaum reported that a petition with 110 signatures, in support of the hospital, was submitted to the City. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the March 8, 1993 meeting. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:28 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:53 p.m. DR 92-6 and PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the CUP 93-1 request, made by the applicant Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., to amend an existing conditional Use Permit and 'process a Development Review in order to construct a children's play area with supervisory seating on an outdoor patio located on the northwest side of an existing one story February 22, 1993 Page 7 V building located at 141 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. She then presented slides of the existing building, as well as a computer enhanced photograph of the proposed children play area addition. Though the design of the playground area is appropriate and compatible with the existing restaurant and the surrounding area, staff feels that the addition is not appropriate because there is not an adequate number of parking spaces for the potential occupancy load of the restaurant. it is recommended that the Commission deny Development Review No. 92-6„ and Conditional Use Permit No. 931. PT/Lungu, in response to a series of inquiries made by C/Meyer, made the following comments: the traffic spill out into the street would probably be manageable by the public; it would not be subject to the TDM because of their size, but it could be a mitigation measure; and with the proposed project, the applicant is deficient by 14 parking spaces using the City's occupancy load calculations. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum's concern for fire safety upon the elimination of the gate on the west side of the play area, PT/Lungu pointed out that there are currently two points of ingress/egress to the play area from the outside, therefore, one of them could be closed. The Building and safety Department did not express any concerns upon reviewing this application. Mike Callahan, residing in orange, representing Carl Karcher Enterprises, made the following comments: there would still be fire ogress from the building even if one of the gates are closed; the addition is not part of the building itself, but a fenced in landscaped patio area; a revised site plan will be provided showing 42 parking spaces; most cities do not use the Uniform Building Code to determine parking, but the gross floor area, therefore the parking space requirement should be under 40 spaces; most of the 11 employees park off site, legally; the original CUP issued by the County required only 42 spaces; and the size of the stalls meet City standards. C/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be willing to formalize an incentive program for the employees ive transportation to encourage them to use alternat modes as a way to decrease the demand for parking. Mike Callahan stated that he would be willing to suggest such a program to management. February 22, 1993 Page 8 Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the Public -Hearing opened. Tom Ortiz, residing at 3308 Hawkwood, supported the project for the following reasons: Carls Jr. is a long time member of the City's Chamber of Commerce; they donate to the community, and sports organizations; they create jobs for the youth and senior citizens; and they generate revenue for the city. Fred Scalzo, President of the Chamber of Commerce, expressed his support of the project. The playground area would be good for their business, and in turn, for the City. Don Gravdahl, residing at 23988 Minnequa, pointed out that the private street along side of the building is in poor condition, and perhaps the owners of the properties responsible for that street should be asked to contribute to it's improvement at the time that any improvements to their properties are proposed. In response to C/Meyer, he stated that the discrepancies in the parking area may stem from the remodeling done a few years ago. However, in his judgement, there does not appear to be a parking problem at that location at this time. PT/Lungu stated that the addition, of the solarium/dining area done a Pews years ago, and the play area proposed now, brings up the occupancy load, thereby increasing their need of parking spaces by code. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Plunk to approve the project subject to the following list of conditions: there should be a sidewalk to get around the play area to enter the building; mount two locking bicycle facilities in the back of the building; stripe the property for 42 spaces, attempting to meet minimum standards; street maintenance on the private street is irrelevant at this time; all of the properties on Palomino should contribute their fair share toward the signal on that intersection; and there should be direct access, such as a sidewalk, into the building from the back. February 22, 1993 Page 9 Chair/ Flamenbaum indicated that he f eels that the request for a sidewalk may not be appropriate, and that 39 parking spaces may be adequate. C/Meyer expressed his concern with establishing a precedent by granting the modification of the standards just because the applicant is a well known, well operated restaurant. He suggested that stat f and the applicant meet to discuss a way to design the parking area to meet the planning test and legal test. He noted that 39 functional spaces is better than 42 spaces that no one will use. C/Plunk noted that the addition of the play area may not necessarily attract new customers, but rather encourage regular customers to stay longer and buy more food. She concurred that the applicant should be encouraged to formalize an employee of f site parking program, to install a locking bicycle rack, and to meet with stat f to discuss an alternative using the suggestions expressed by the Commission. Mr. Callahan concurred to meet staff to negotiate a strategy that would be beneficial to everyone. C/Grothe withdrew his motion made earlier, and C/Plunk withdrew her second to the motion. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct stat f to meet with the applicant to draft conditions of approval taking all comments -made by the Commission for consideration. Chair/Flamenbaum. recessed the meeting at 9:50 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:03 p.m. ZCA 93-1 C/Meyer stated that the City Engineer did an excellent job in revising the Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (TDM) in response to the comments made by the Commission during the review process. Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public hearing closed. ICE/Wentz pointed out that the Monitoring Section, on page 13 on, has been amended significantly, and the entire section related to the monitoring has been eliminated giving the City the latitude to February 22 1993 Paae 10 hair/Flamenbaum submitted, for the record, a [Amendment 92-2; etition with 59 signatures regarding the South prepare it I s own -monitoring program later in the process. 'ointe Master Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. 2-3; Vesting Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public hearing closed. lardy Strozier, the Special Project Consultant, Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend adoption of the TDM Ordinance. UP 92-8 & Ireviewed the following options available to the General Plan Oak Tree -Permit :11anning Commission: 1. Determine that the DEIR 2-8; Vesting nd supporting documents do not ade u tely address T 32400, CUP he environmental impacts of the project, nd 1-5, Zone ecommend that the City Council not certify the han a 91-2 &Ihe EIR and direct staff to prepare theappropriate ak Tree Permitesolution; 2.—Request additional information from 1-2; TT Maaff relative to the range of environmental topic 1253 & CUPvered in the DEIR, and continue consideration of 2-12; Oak Tree DEIR until the additional information is ermit 92-9; thevailable; and 3. Determine that the DEIR and outh Pointeupporting documents do adequately address the Master Plan; &nvironmental impacts of the DER, and recommend IR 92-9. at the Cit Council certi the DEIR as adequate nd direct staff to prepare theappropriate esolution. He suggested that, given the lateness f the hour, that the PlanningCommission just onsider the EIR tonight, followingthe resentation to be made by Peter Lewendowski �eqarcling the DER and Response to Comments, and ontinue the discussion on the project to another i ht this week. Peter Lewendowski, Director of Planning with the consulting firm Ultra Systems, explained that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), requires governmental agencies, who have authority over particular projects, to include, in their decision making process, an analysis of the projects impacts upon the environment. The purpose of CEQA is to identify potential environmental impacts associated with that project, to identify mitigation measures that would reduce, minimize, or avoid those impacts, and bring forward, for public review and discussion, project alternatives that might minimize or avoid the environmental February 22, 1993 Page 11 implications identified in the environmental analysis. The EIR, before the Commission, has been prepared pursuant to, and in full accordance, with the procedures established by the California Code of Regulations, which establishes a procedure that must be followed to satisfy the intent of CEQA. There are two documents bef ore the Commission: 1. the DEIR, dated November of 1992, which contains identification of those environmental impacts identified in the initial study, as well as additional information brought forward through the analysis conducted by Ultra Systems, and comments received pursuant to the Notice of Preparation; and 2. the Response to Comments, dated February of 1993, containing revisions, changes, amendments to the DEIR, comments received by government agencies and the public, pursuant to the Notice of Completion, as well as the minutes from the Planning Commission, Traffic and Transportation Commission, and the Parks and Recreation Commission, of the meetings that addressed this topic. The Response to Comments, and the DEIR, in conjunction with other additional information the City might include, constitutes the final Environmental Impact Report. Prior to taking action on the project, the City is required to certify the final EIR, concluding that the EIR adequately addresses the environmental implications of the project, and provides a reasonable analysis to - foster informed decision. The Planning commission, as another alternative to those options summarized by Mr. Strozier, can provide the City Council with a recommendation that differ from the conclusions presented in the DEIR, which may include additions or deletions to specific mitigation measures, further elaboration on project impacts or project alternatives, or changes regarding conclusions on significance, as presented in the DEIR. The f irm of Ultra Systems, in the preparation of this document, was to provide a clear independent and objective analysis of the projects impacts, based upon scientific empirical data. It is not the function of the environmental consultant, nor the EIR itself, to establish public policy. The EIR is an independent document of the project, and it's intent is informational, to insure that the decision makers have the environmental bases to make their decisions, and that the public has a vehicle to make their comments known through this decision making process. It attempts to represent a nonbias professional, technical opinion of the projects impacts, and is subject to change and revisions February 22, 1993 Page 12 based upon the direction provided to staff by thecommission. Peter Lewendowski then reviewed the following additional mitigation measures to the DEIR, which is a result from the public testimony received over the last 6 week period, as identified in the February of 1993 Response to Comments document: additional mitigations concerning traffic impacts, including the widening of,Brea Canyon Road to it's full width, and 'improvements along the property frontage; alternative' solutions to mitigate post development hydrology impacts to public drain #1467, in the vicinity of Fait Lance Drive, which included three separate additional options which are on site retention, phase development, and alternative drainage solutions; based upon comments received from LA County, additional mitigation measures were brought forward which included the annexation of the project area into the consolidated sewer maintenance district; additional mitigation measures directed towards source reduction and recycling;,and additional mitigation measures that are designed to facilitate the implementation of the Oak Tree Ordinance, not only in the context of the number of trees replaced, but to ensure the placement of those trees to facilitate the development of a replacement oak tree habitat. He then reviewed the following clarifications made to the EIR, in addition to the mitigation measures: it clearly demonstrates that the impacts to air quality are significant during the grading phase of the project, the operational phase of the project, and from a cumulative perspective; it indicates that Larkstone Drive is not intended as a through street, but only to facilitate emergency access in the event that additional access is required; reference to the Master Plan as a Specific Plan has been amended; and it identifies Tentative Tract #32400 as a Vesting Tentative Tract. In response to C/Plunk's inquiry if there is adequate water available to wildlife, Mr. Lewendowski stated that, based upon field inspection of the property, there is standing water in the creek in Sandstone Canyon representing an opportunity for wildlife in the area to obtain water and other nutrientsf as well as brush to provide foliage and ground cover. However, based upon the biological analysis of the site as a potential conduit as part of a wildlife corridor, it was concluded that, based upon the surrounding development, the site does not practically February 22, 1993 '—)—'age 13 represent a linkage between this area and other open space areas, and that there are not any rare, threatened, or endangered species in the area. The loss of the water can be compensated through the development of the park plan, which might include such things as guzzlers, which would ensure that there would be water available should wildlife continue to be present after development. Hardy Strozier stated that the mitigation measure in the Resource Management Plan, to be presented if the project is approved, will be clarified to include necessary facilities such as guzzlers, or other watering sources, to be both on and off project site. Peter Lewendowski stated that the EIR demonstrates that, in addition to any permits that may be required from the City, permits may also be required from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. In response to C/Meyer's inquiry, Mr. Lewendowski stated that, in his judgement, the changes made as a result of the Response to Comments are not significant enough to warrant a recirculation of the DEIR. The Commission does have the option to add additional mitigation measures, if deemed necessary. The conclusions in the EIR represent Ultra Systems independent analysis of the project, and it is felt that the mitigation measures adequately mitigate the many impacts associated with the project, with the exception of air quality and traffic. C/Meyer inquired if additional conditions could be added reflecting these mitigation measures, if the project goes forward, without redoing the EIR. Hardy Strozier explained that the 105 mitigation measures will be translated/ when the Resolution comes back to the Commission, in the form of conditions, and those conditions will be allocated amongst the various entitlements. It is felt that there are adequate mitigation measures to cover all aspects of potential environmental impacts on the project. Furthermore, staff will be adding recommended conditions in addition to the current 105 mitigation measures Additional conditions could be added regarding future review of the project, and any design modifications that may be necessary. The certification of the EIR verifies that it is an adequate informational document prepared in compliance with State law. The project February 22, 1993 Page 14 can be approved or denied regardless of what action is taken on the EIR. C/Grothe inquired if the EIR would be impacted if the project changes significantly. Hardy Strozier stated that a broad range of alternatives have been covered in the EIR, anticipating a broad range of potentialities f rom. the Planning Commission. If there are significant changes made to the project later, there is a tiering of feet where only those items relative to the modification of the project would be reviewed. Peter Lewendowki explained that CEQA establishes a basis whereby a future change in the project can be addressed after an EIR is certified. If the changes are insignificant, an addendum is included, or, if the changes are substantial, a new EIR is prepared. As long as the project does not exceed the base limits, it is believed that the environmental analysis clearly represent the projects impacts. If a much larger project is considered, then the changes of the project would have to be reviewed, focusing exclusively on how those changes differ from the information presented in the environmental documentation. C/Meyer stated that he feels that the environmental document has been adequately prepared as a foundation document! and that it adequately addresses the issues. Motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Plunk to recommend that the Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the motion is to recommend certification, with the proviso that any further mitigation measures necessary be attached to the document. C/Meyer pointed out that the document includes the potential impacts, as well as 105 mitigation -measures to reduce those impacts to a- level of nonsignificance, except air quality and traffic. The EIR 'addresses the issues and it should be passed on to the City Council for certification. Any other changes would include a new environmental tiering process. Chair/Flamenbaum, in response to Oscar Law, explained that discussion of the EIR is no longer open to the public for comment, however, the public February 22, 1993 Page 15 will get an opportunity to comment on the EIR before the City Council. CA/Curley explained to the Commission that the they would only be recommending certification of the EIR to the City Council, and not taking the final action. The Commission was presented with three options, which included recommending that the City Council certify the DEIR, recommending that the City Council not certify the DEIR, or requesting additional information and continue consideration of the DEIR. Since there was a question concerning guzzlers, perhaps, since this is not a final action, it would be appropriate if the Commission requested more information on the project to determine if the mitigation measures, the monitoring program, or any other elements, are appropriate, so as to give the Commission the assurance that all the information needed has been received. However, if the Commission collectively feels that all the information provided is adequate, then it would be appropriate for the commission to proceed. C/Meyer indicated that, to his understanding from Mr. Strozier's and Mr. Lewendowski's comments, the mitigation measures include all the information to reduce the potential impacts of the project down to a level of nonsignificance, as we understand them now, and that the Commission could go beyond those particular measures as conditions of approval, or bases for denial, of the individual elements or components of the project. Even if the commission recommends certification of the EIR, determining that the document has been prepared in accordance with the State law, the Commission could then deny the project. CA/Curley confirmed that the Commission can recommend certification of the EIR, and still deny the project. C/Meyer, indicating that he was under the impression that the Commission could not act on the rest of the project until a recommendation on the environmental document was given, inquired if a recommendation could be made at the conclusion of all the hearings. CA/Curley explained that the City typically has processed the elements of a development, the environmental finding, projectapproval or denial, etc., all inclusively in one Resolution. However, February 22, 1993 Page 16 this procedure is -not cast in stone, and is-'. a decision of the Commission. CDD/DeStefano noted that the Commission appears ready to certify the adequacy of the information contained within the EIR, but — not necessarily prepared to certify the adequacy of the mitigation measures presented. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission conclude—the discussion on the environmental document, set aside the environmental document and the 105 mitigation measures outlined, and direct staff to begin to incorporate certif ication of the " EIR into the appropriate resolutions. The specific mitigation measures can be put aside until the Commission is prepared to reach a decision on the project. C/Grothe indicated that he feels that the information has been adequately presented, even though he does not concur with some of the conclusions made. It is time now to begin discussion of the project. Chair/ Flamenbaum expressed his concern that the 105 mitigation measures outlined in the EIR document are final, and any other mitigation measure that the commission comes up with becomes a condition, which may not have the same force and effect. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the EIR is just a starting point. The Commission has the authority to add as many conditions to the project as desired, whether it be with a conditional use permit, a tentative tract map, or the development agreement. In fact, some mitigation measures may no longer be applicable because of modifications made by the Commission. If the Commission modifies the project in such a manner that has not been analyzed in the EIR, then an addendum or a subsequent EIR may be needed. Chair/Flamenbaum requested an explanation of the difference between the "condition" and "mitigation", and their respected impacts. Hardy Strozier explained that State law requires that we turn the environmental impact report and mitigation measures, through the mitigation monitoring program, into some force of authority, and that is done through the application of conditions. Peter Lewendowski explained that there is nothing in the document which is locked in concrete. The February 22, 1993 Page 17 mitigation measures represent recommendations for conditions of subsequent asapproval until such time the document is certified, the project is or modified in some way. approved, Those measures are ultimately incorporated as of approval. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he is somewhat confused because he was under the impression that once the EIR is certified, additional mitigation measures may not be added. However, now Mr. Lewendowski has indicated that those mitigation measures become conditions upon certification of the EIR. If they're called something else, there is a reason for it. CA/Curley explained that the mitigation measures, the mitigation monitoring program, are the broad definitions that can be f ine tuned to respond to individual circumstance for entitlement specific approval. C/Meyer, concerned that it appears that the direction from staff is not in total agreement, withdrew his Motion recommending that the City Council certify the EIR. C/Grothe inquired if the mitigation measures in the environmental review document can be changed or left out from the project. Hardy Strozier explained that, upon certification of the EIR by the City Council, staff must demonstrate legally that each one of these -mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project, or a statement of overriding consideration must be submitted. Furthermore, there is a mitigation monitoring program in the DER that identifies where all the mitigation measures are found, such as the CUP, the tentative map, or the development agreement. C/Meyer expressed his concern that the Commission may not be allowed to make a condition because it wasn't in the EIR. He suggested that the meeting be continued to a date certain, allowing staff time to go through the legal ramifications, and come back with a recommendation. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the Commission is only directing staff, and no official action is being taken at this time. changes can be made at a later date if deemed necessary. February 22, 1993 Page 18 Chair/ Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 11:06 p.m. to allow time for staff to confer on their recommendation to the Planning Commission. The meeting was reconvened—at 11:24 p.m. CA/Curley stated that it is recommended that' the Planning commission direct staff to begin preparation of a Resolution that would indicate that the Commission is recommending that the City Council certify the environmental document. This would not be a final action by this Commission, and it will be brought back to the Commission to make any appropriate changes is so desired. C/Grothe requested that the full set of motions and resolutions be brought back to the commission a minimum of a week prior to the meeting. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare a Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR document. The Planning Commission-concurred to continue the public hearing to Thursday, February 25, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:35 p.m. etelc1vJ_ Respec ive es DeStefano s t e DeS Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman