Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/25/1993Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, stated that she was offended that the South Pointe Master Plan item was placed last on the agenda of the February 22, 1993 meeting, obliging the majority of the audience to wait late into the evening, and then announcing that, in consideration of time, the consultant's detailed report would not be given that evening, but at a continued public hearing meeting. She stated that the consultant, Hardy Strozier, continually conferred with the developers, yet failed to confer with the public, and that the public has not been justly represented. She stated that Jan Dabney had CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 251 1993 1 CALL TO ORDER: D Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at the Coast Air Management 7:13 p.m. at South Quality District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chair/Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Li, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Grothe was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CA/Curley reported that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to present, to the Commission, the substantive project of the South Pointe Master Plan. The Planning Commission directed staff, at the meeting of February 22, 1993, to prepare a Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the environmental document. It was not a final action, and the document will be back before the Commission, subject to further review, or recommendation. C/Li, in response to CA/Curley, stated that he will be listening to the tape of the meeting of February 22, 1993 prior to the next Commission meeting. MATTERS FROM Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, THE AUDIENCE: requested that the public hearing portion of the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) be reopened to allow more opportunity for the concerns raised to be addressed, and to assure that the public and the Commission are fully informed of all the issues in the document. He also stated that, because he did not get a copy of the EIR until two hours prior to the February 22, 1993 meeting, he felt that he did not have.sufficient time to review the document. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, stated that she was offended that the South Pointe Master Plan item was placed last on the agenda of the February 22, 1993 meeting, obliging the majority of the audience to wait late into the evening, and then announcing that, in consideration of time, the consultant's detailed report would not be given that evening, but at a continued public hearing meeting. She stated that the consultant, Hardy Strozier, continually conferred with the developers, yet failed to confer with the public, and that the public has not been justly represented. She stated that Jan Dabney had February 25, 1993 Page 2 indicated to her that he too felt unrepresented at the February 22nd meeting. Evan Shanaught, residing at 1820 Peaceful Hills Road, expressed her concern that the Commission is not listening to the concerns raised by the public. It appears that the interests of the residents are not being served. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder Road, inquired why the consultant is paid for by the City, yet recommended by the developers. He too complained of the process by which the February 22, 1993 meeting was abruptly ended, and then continued to tonight, without further notification to the public. He stated that he feels that the EIR is neither complete nor accurate, and that the South Pointe Middle School is being held hostage by the City so that this project could be railroaded through. Gerald Fong, residing at 20879 Missionary Ridge, reviewed the following concerns outlined in a letter he sent to the City: noise level; traffic impacts, a 30 acre commercial site in an area that currently has many vacant business centers; a 26 acre park is not needed especially when most parks are usually unoccupied; the children of these developments will heavily impact the elementary schools that are presently overcrowded; the stability of the hillsides; a decrease in the existing property values; and Sandstone Canyon should be preserved. Eileen Ansari, residing at 1823 S. Cliff Branch Dr., concurred that the EIR should be further studied and discussed. Since Sandstone Canyon is part of a cougar corridor connecting with Chino Hills and Whittier Hills, the City should preserve the area, and investigate alternatives to obtain funding to preserve it. It appears that the project is being pushed through, and forced upon the citizens of Diamond Bar. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that, based upon the Commission's review of the project, the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR may be modified. Everyone's comments will be taken into j consideration, including the approximately 200 letters received in favor of the project. The Commission will not be taking any position regarding the project until the entire project has been presented, and all public testimony and February 25, 1993 Page 3 comments from other public agencies have been received. C/Plunk inquired if Mr. Dabney was indeed offended by the process that occurred at the February 22, 1993 meeting. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, explained that he, like the developers and the public, was somewhat offended by what appeared to be a breakdown of communication by staff during that meeting. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Plunk, explained that the City's fee for service policy requires developers to pay the costs of the services to be provided by staff. The developer, in this particular case, has paid application fees to the City in order to process the entitlement requests. Additionally, the developer is paying the City for the costs associated with the City's hiring of two independent contractors, the environmental expert, and the project manager. C/Plunk, in response to a comment made by Mr. Fong, pointed out that the parks, at times, are heavily utilized, even though at certain times of the day it appears that they are never used. VC/Meyer noted that the review of the EIR, and the entire project, will be duplicated before the City Council, which includes additional public hearings. CDD/DeStefano stated that, unlike most cities, it is Diamond Bar's policy to require projects, such as this one, to come before the Planning Commission for it's review and consideration, at the tentative stages, before coming to the City Council in which the process is then duplicated. CA/Curley stated that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines have been fully met at the Commission level. Since public hearings are not required at the CEQA level, the public hearings given already exceed legal requirement. The statutes are quite clear that there must be a circulation period, a review and a comment period, as well a period of finality to the EIR document. In response to a series of inquiries made by VC/Meyer, CA/Curley made the following comments: the Commission may recommend certification of the EIR and then recommend denial of the entire project; the Commission can recommend certification of the EIR, then recommend modification of the February 25, 1993 Page 4 project less than what is proposed; the CommissionI' can recommend certification of the EIR, and recommend conditions which exceed the range of the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR, within the legal premise of the entitlements; and the Council's final certification involves finding that the EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA, and that the final EIR was utilized in assessing the project and coming to a conclusion. VC/Meyer stated that specific issues regarding the EIR can be addressed during the process of review and consideration of the Master Plan, the tentative tract maps, and so forth. There is ample opportunity for the public to offer their comments for the conclusions drawn in the EIR. Tom Van Winkle, a resident, pointed out the reason there is a referendum on the General Plan, and a law suit against the City, is because there have been projects, in the past, that have been packaged poorly, sent on to the Council from the Commission level, and then made worse at the Council level. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:02 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:16 p.m. CONTINUED Hardy Strozier reported that the review period for PUBLIC HEARINGS: the EIR has been tentatively completed, and the Commission has directed staff to begin preparation General Plan of a Resolution recommending certification of the Amendment 92-2; EIR. The next process is to begin consideration of DA 92-1, 92-2, the various entitlement actions presented by the 92-3; Vesting project proponents. These entitlements include the TT Map 5140, following: a General Plan Amendment involving a CUP 92-8 & redesignation of the Water District parcel to Oak Tree Permit planned development; two vesting tentative tract 92-8; Vesting maps; one tentative tract map; the Hillside TT 32400, CUP Management Ordinance; three CUP's; and three Oak 91-5, Zone Tree Removal Permits. The three CUP's and Oak Tree Change 91-2 & Permits will be incorporated into three separate Oak Tree Permit draft Development Agreements, which will be 91-2; TT Map presented to the Commission on a future date. 51253 & CUP Hardy Strozier then directed the remainder of his 92-12; Oak Tree presentation to the slides exhibited before the Permit 92-9; the Commission and the audience. The 78 slides to be South Pointe presented is outlined in the staff report, entitled Master Plan; & "Slide Presentation", which was submitted to the EIR 92-9. Commission by Mr. Strozier. The following is a brief summary of Hardy Strozier's presentation,;?; highlighting some of the points mentioned: Slide 2 ..�a,:�''?�Ivai I � February 25, 1993 Page 5 o Demonstrates the location of the two blue line streams within the project site area found in the Sandstone Canyon Water Shed and the Sasek Corporation property. Slide 3 o An aerial view of the site, highlighting Sandstone Canyon, Rapid View Dr., the Arciero property, existing building pads, the large pad site for the water tank, Larkstone Dr., the location of an ample stand of oak trees on the Arciero Tract, the pristine area of Sandstone Canyon, the location of the two Homeowner Association ownerships, the RnP property, the Patel property, the school site, the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt, and Morning Sun Ave. Mr. Strozier, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding the open space parcel located in the middle of the residential tract on Peaceful Hills Road, suggested that the question be held until the end of the presentation. f Slide 6 t o The view south to north, standing on the northern part of the Arciero Tract, just above Rapid View looking towards Pathfinder. The area contains the majority of the Oak woodland. Slide 7 o The view north to south, standing just above Rapid View, looking southerly, and viewing the school site and the graded portion of the site. Slide 8 o The view just above Larkstone looking east. The area contains ample stands of the oak woodlands. Slide 10 o Viewing the east side of the site, which was previously graded, as well as viewing the remnant stands of Oaks. The Arciero's 44 acre ownership identifies 333 Oaks on the site, in which 156 Oaks are identified in good condition, 110 Oaks in fair condition, and 67 Oaks in poor condition. Slide 11 �T o There are 449 Oaks located on the RnP site. The condition of the Oaks will be provided in later staff reports. The large heritage Oaks m are located primarily in this area. Slide 12 February 25, 1993 Page 6 o The Patel property has 53 Oaks on site. He pointed out Morning Sun and the blue line stream. Slide 13 o He reviewed the enclave areas: the Arciero tract taking it's access off of Brea Canyon Road; the 31 acre commercial area that has an emergency access from the Arciero tract; two to three points of access off of Brea Canyon Road from new Street A; and the school site providing a drop off point access for school buses and cars off of Larkstone. Slide 14 o There is a large open space corridor moving up through the park site and into the school site, in which there is 75 to 90 acres of open space that would be renaturalized active open space area upon the Master Plan approval. VC/Meyer inquired if the developer has submitted an alternative that would provide either no access, or emergency access only, to Morning Sun, as was requested. Hardy Strozier stated that the developer has not submitted such an alternative, however, it will be analyzed. If the Commission desires to restrict access to Morning Sun, it can be restricted the same way it was recommended on Larkstone. VC/Meyer stated that he wants to be sure that staff has that type of information available to analyze such an alternative. Slide 15 o There is access for emergency vehicles to the school site through Larkstone Drive. Slide 16 o There is ample composition of active areas on the school site with large play fields, track, baseball fields, tennis, volleyball, and so forth. Slide 17 o There -has been discussion with the School district about taking the gymnasium and moving it to provide a better relationship to the proposed City Park. Slide 18 o There is a total of 28 acres that would be dedicated to the City, if the Master Plan is approved, of which 10 to 12 acres would be active play area. The illustrative plan is in the EIR to illustrate the holding capacity of D February 25, 1993 Page 7 this park, and it demonstrates that there could be three full size adult softball fields, and one regulation soccer fields, as well as an amphitheater, utilizing parking access along Street A as well as the commercial area. Slide 21 o The Arciero tract takes it's major access on the collector road from Brea Canyon Road. He stated that there is a gas valve in the area that is noisy, however, there are mitigation measures that can attenuate that noise. Slide 22 o There are 91 dwelling units on 44 acres proposed on the Arciero tract, with a lot minimum of 7,200 square feet with a pad minimum of 6,000 square feet, which is consistent with the adjacent tracts. Slide 23 o It is possible to have through access from the Arciero tract on to Rapid View, and upon Commission direction, that alternative will looked at in more detail. Slide 24 o Most of the noise attenuation from the freeway, in the Arciero tract area, is accomplished by the natural terrain, however, there are 6 homes identified in the DEIR that may need some noise attenuation. That noise attenuation can be accomplished by a six foot block wall, and it is suggested in the DEIR that a site specific noise study be included with the final maps determining the height of the wall, if it is needed at all. There are a variety of lot sizes beyond the 7,200 square foot lot sizes in the Arciero tract. There are a lot of grade breaks, employing a lot of the contour grading concepts from the Hillside Grading Ordinance. Furthermore, it was also suggested that the Oak woodland composition contain a variety of trees other than just Oaks. Slide 25 o The commercial layout of 31 acres does not represent any type of plan presented, but rather a model of the type of intensity of development that could occur, and the type of traffic impact that could occur in the area. Slide 26 o The lot minimum is set at 8,000 square feet, with a pad minimum size of 6,900 square feet. All the lots have a lot depth recommendation of 100 feet minimum, and a foot width of 60 feet, side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 feet, February 25, 1993 Page 8 with a 20 foot front yard setback from the back of right-of-way. There are three to five different tract alternatives, for the Patel property, in the DEIR. Slide 27 o There is an existing easement located in this area. It is suggested that the access point be kept in that easement, enlargening it for transportation purposes. Slide 28 o The original plan submitted by the applicants shows a through access into Larkstone. Slide 34 o It also illustrates possible trail systems that could occur. Slide 37 o It illustrates the original submittal by Sasek in this location. Planning and Engineering staff have reviewed this submittal and identified the following problems with the technical engineering of this tract design: it doesn't take into account the large hill; and 27 lots will not work. Slide 38 o The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that this configuration is not a desirable situation. Slide 39 o The Master Plan is trying to ensure that each developer can develop both together and/or independently, without adversely affect one another, and maintaining some vintages of a Master Plan in terms of a circulation system, and ---consistent design standards when it comes to the lotting and grading arrangement. Slide 44 o This concept plan illustrates Street A teeing into Morning Sun, with a cul-de-sac coming from the RnP property, with 18 lots proposed. Slide 41 o This concept plan shows Street A teeing into Morning Sun, with a different variation of the cul-de-sac, with about 20 lots proposed. This concept plan, at this point in time, is staff's preference, and it more closely fits a better traffic engineering relationship in the Master Plan guidelines. Slide 43 o Concept Plan B would require little reciprocal grading between the RnP tract and the Patel tract. VC/Meyer noting that there were attempts, on some of the other proposals, to salvage some natural February 25, 1993 Page 9 areas, yet it does not appear that the Concept B proposal attempts to salvage any of the existing oak trees. Hardy Strozier explained that none of the proposals, on the west side of the Master Plan, have ever proposed preservation of the Oaks. Slide 44 o It shows a better view of the homes that exist off of Morning Sun. All these homes that would be built in this area would not take access off of Morning Sun, and there would be internal cul-de-sacs. Therefore, the homes along Morning Sun would maintain a high degree of privacy, and the only impact they would see is an additional amount of traffic moving on to Morning Sun. Slide 45 o It will be our recommendation that we bring some of the mitigation required into this existing permanent open space area to try to re-establish the property owned by the Homeowners Association. VC/Meyer directed staff to approach the Homeowners Association regarding the open space area. Slide 47 o There does appear to be an existing corridor located in this area that could allow, in the future, some animal activity moving to and from other open space areas that occur off site. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:36 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m. C/Plunk suggested that the slide presentation be continued to the next meeting to allow the Commission time to digest what has already been presented. The Commission concurred. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, the Engineer and Planner representing Arciero, RnP, and, when appropriate, Mr. Patel, stated that his presentation will be lengthy, and he will defer his comments until all the information has been presented to the public and the Commission. Jim Butkey, the Engineer representing Mr. Patel, with the firm Butkey Design, 5 Wrigley, Irvine, pointed out that the 3 or 4 alternatives shown on Mr. Patel's 7 acres was informational in nature. February 25, 1993 Page 10 Armed Patel indicated that he did not have an opportunity to review the slides presented tonight regarding his property. Hardy.Strozier stated that the 3 slides presented tonight for Mr. Patel's property were three of the seven alternatives taken from the EIR. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 10:20 p.m. due to poor health. Don Schad requested that the public comment portion of the EIR be reopened because the comments made by the Department of Fish and Game were not made available to the public until late in the process. He pointed out that since the Tree Ordinance does not address all trees, the EIR is incomplete. The i He then presented another alternative layout on Mr. Patel's property, confined strictly to his site, which addresses some of the traffic concerns going out into Morning Sun, keeping the lot size at an 8,000 square foot minimum, the pad size at a 6,000 square foot minimum, and with the same constraints as indicated in the Master Plan. The following are some of the elements in the proposal: there is no direct through traffic access from the RnP property out to Morning Sun; the RnP street is cul-de-saced; the lots are located around the cul-de-sac; there is a 20 foot emergency access/ easement, with a sewer connection; there is an existing storm drain inlet; there are 23 lots around Mr. Patel's site; there is a cul-de-sac on the south, with a little longer cul-de-sac on the north that are lined up; the layout is all within the tract property line, with the exception of about 10 feet; the entire site is utilized, with no intent to preserve the trees, or the canyon; the lots do not take frontage off of Morning Sun, and are all within the tract development; there is a slope bank that is fairly insignificant; and there is a considerable slope by the ridge that is unavoidable given the physical constraints that exist on this site. Hardy Strozier stated that this alternative plan was just submitted, and staff has not had the opportunity to review it. Mr. Butkey's staff will be presenting a more thorough review for the next Commission meeting. Because the EIR evaluated 27 lots in that area, the plan is within the environmental parameters of the document. Armed Patel indicated that he did not have an opportunity to review the slides presented tonight regarding his property. Hardy.Strozier stated that the 3 slides presented tonight for Mr. Patel's property were three of the seven alternatives taken from the EIR. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 10:20 p.m. due to poor health. Don Schad requested that the public comment portion of the EIR be reopened because the comments made by the Department of Fish and Game were not made available to the public until late in the process. He pointed out that since the Tree Ordinance does not address all trees, the EIR is incomplete. The i February 25, 1993 Page 11 EIR should be as thorough as possible. Furthermore, the South Pointe Middle School should be separated from the project. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the DEIR does acknowledge that the destruction of the oak trees are significant, however, staff feels that the Tree Ordinance mitigates this by requiring a replacement ration of 2:1. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff has received correspondence daily, regarding the EIR and the Master Plan, and has immediately presented them to the Commission and the consultants. All letters have been, and will be, made part of the public record, and is available to the public. Hardy Strozier pointed out that there have been two additional mitigation measures added to the EIR upon review of the letter from the Department of Fish and Game by the Planning Commission. All comments made have been researched and responded to in the Response to Comment document. For example, on page 4-60 of the Response to Comment document, it responds to a concern, made by Mr. Schad regarding the Monterey Blue Butterfly, and indicates that the Department of Fish and Game has confirmed that there is no record of this species of insect found in the California Natural Diversity Data Base, nor is it listed in the Endangered Species Act. Staff has gone to every extent to respond to technical concerns. Oscar Law, residing at 20511 Pathfinder, stated that he feels that Mr. Schad's suggestion to preserve Sandstone Canyon, making a childrens museum and an observatory, should be acted upon by the Commission. If the project is to be built, then it should be built with the minimum amount of effect to the canyon, protecting the wildlife, nurturing the flora and the fauna in the area, and maintaining the balance of nature. Air quality is a significant issue and vegetation is needed to keep the air clean. He also stated that the City's building inspector, as well as the School District, should have insisted that the developer move the dirt. In response to VC/Meyer's inquiry, he stated that he would support a bond to acquire the property to preserve it. Hardy Strozier, correcting a statement made by Mr. Law, pointed out that the environmental consultant did find that there was significant, unavoidable effects, and that the project should not move ,iii miuih ..I iii�a.m_.� February 25, 1993 Page 12 forward due to the adverse effects on the region. A Statement of Overriding Considerations would have to be made to that environmental finding in order to approve the project. CDD/DeStefano, in response to a comment made by Mr. Law, explained that the Walnut Unified School District is an autonomous agency that does not need, nor are they required, to come to the local City for building inspection, construction, or a plan check. Furthermore, the City was not incorporated at the time of the construction of the. school. All of the remaining dirt is on the School District property. Hardy Strozier explained that the school was developed prior to the City incorporating, and therefore, prior to the City's grading ordinance. The School District's EIR indicates that the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt must be moved either down Larkstone Drive or put into the Canyon. The School District is required by law to conform to the City's grading plan. Jan Dabney, representing there was an agreement District and Arciero to m as agreed to by the Count, incorporated, the City grading plan as stipulate the issue existing today. Arciero, explained that made between the School )ve an "X" amount of dirt, r. However, when the City lid not concur with the ad in that contract, thus Max Maxwell made the following comments: the Planning Commission should not be discussing this project until the General plan issue is resolved; the City and the School is holding the construction of the Middle School hostage; no one is willing to consider some of the other alternatives mentioned regarding preservation, or an alternative haul road for removing the dirt; the consultant, Hardy Strozier, appears to be defensive on the comments presented; there appears to be internal conflicts occurring among the developers and the consultants; a Response to Comment document was not given to him upon his request; the School EIR was finalized approximately 5 years ago; and the EIR should be tabled until all questions and comments have been adequately answered. CDD/DeStefano stated that the document was noticed within the newspaper, sent to a wide variety of people, and made available at the City offices and the library, and made available for loan for those individuals that did not wish to purchase the 0 m. � .,,, ....,..._ ..m-..,,..,.. .. �,,••� ,.,.,-F�m�,._, i - � � �,,.r, � ,,,, �__ ,,,_._,reg February 25, 1993 Page 13 -- document. This is the 7th time, since "October of 1992, that the Commission has discussed this project in a public setting. There are going to be more hearings before the Planning Commission, and this whole process will be repeated at the City Council level in terms of reviewing the entitlement request and the EIR. Therefore, this is not a project that is being fast tracked. The Response to Comment document was presented in it's final form to the City staff last week, immediately presented to the Commission in their agenda packet, and made available to the public at the City Hall and the library, as is all agenda material. In response to Mr. Maxwell's comment regarding internal conflicts, CDD/DeStefano explained that amendments to the project are part of the process because it is intended to be a dynamic document. It is part of the City's responsibility to resolve any conflict that may exist between independent developers, and independent proposals. Part of the intent of this Master Plan is to erase the property lines and look at this area as if it is one lot of 170 acres. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the questioned raised regarding alternatives of the exportation of dirt from the project site is responded to on page D-19 of the Response to Comment document. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning Sun, referring to the response made in the Response to Comment document, on page 5-56, regarding the impact of putting Street A through into Morning Sun, stated that the response made seems poorly researched, with not a lot of thought put into it. She pointed out that because of the steep nature of the streets, cars tend to travel faster, and because there are many curves without stop signs or centerlines, cars tend to cut the corners. In response to VC/Meyer, she stated that she opposes the total project, both in the destruction of the canyon and the configuration of the houses proposed on the Patel property. The proposal will put a row of block wall fences along the street. If homes were to be developed, then they should be the same size as the existing lot sizes. She indicated that she would support a bond issue if she were part of the City. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the development proposed by Mr. Patel is equivalent to what is currently existing. I JIId6llli,!' I —�"�" --`�--� Idll II.IIIJIIIdi II I February 25, 1993 Page 14 VC/Meyer requested staff to determine what the financial obligation would be to the tax payer to buy the site, if the answer to the entire project is to leave this site in it's existing state. Chuck Dowler, residing on Morning Sun, stated that the majority of the lots in the area are a minimum of a third of an acre. He expressed the following concerns: the block wall fence attracts graffiti; though he would prefer no development, if the homes are ,developed, they should face Morning Sun; and eliminating the street on Morning Sun, and cul-de- sacing the street assists in successful robberies. Hardy Strozier indicated that he has asked Mr. Butkey to provide staff with a, design of homes fronting Morning Sun, for the Commission's review. In response to VC/Meyer, Mr. Dowler stated that he too would support a bond issue, but if that does not occur, then he would support a maximum of 14 homes on Mr. Patel's property. Tom Van Winkle stated that the Commission needs to also consider the idea of a conservancy as well as a bond issue. Max Maxwell stated that there is. money available for a conservancy and the City needs to research the possibility. Ron Beachen, residing at 1565 Black Hawk, stated that he too supports complete preservation, and he would support a bond issue or a conservancy. Mike Holmes, residing at 1612 Morning Sun, made the following comments: his lot is about 13,000 square feet; there should be no access onto Morning Sun; it would be preferable if the area stayed in it's natural state; and if it is to be developed, then it should be done responsibly, preserving some of the trees and some of the canyon.. Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills. Road, the President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, made the following comments: a conservancy can be a good tax write off; the City should investigate dirt brokers willing to buy the dirt on the School property; there is grading occurring now, on Mr. Patel's r. property; a wall will not sufficiently mitigate the noise that will effect the properties in the Pathfinder Homeowners Association; the proposed amphitheater will effect their property as well; lT",1. T. _' .1_ _" .1 ,. -.. l _„ _ ., ” _ .." , February 25, 1993 Page 15 y and originally, Mr. Patel was to build only three homes on the 6.77 acres. VC/Meyer inquired if the Homeowners Association would be amenable to discuss with the developers alternatives to improve and enhance the open space area for natural habitat. Norman Beach Cushane explained that the reason that open space area is left in it's present state is because the Homeowners Association was told that if any improvement was done to the property, the Homeowners Association would become responsible for maintaining the property from then on. He then explained that, according to the original County plan, the empty lot on Peaceful Hills Road, as noted by Chair/Flamenbaum during the slide presentation, is an access, to where the amphitheater is now being proposed, in which two homes were to be built in that area. He stated that they are also concerned that a path, in the easement area, to the proposed park will also encourage robberies in their tract. In response to the question made by VC/Meyer, Mr. Cushane stated j that if there were to be discussion with the developers regarding alternatives to the open space area, a lot of trading would have to occur because their plans infringe on a lot of our property, and they would be represented legally. The Homeowners Association are amenable to raising money to buy this land. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding possible grading occurring on Mr. Patel's property, explained that the heavy rainfall eroded the brow drain, constructed to protect the homes in tract 271411, and the slope had failed. Since the uphill part of the slope is on RnP's property, and the downhill part of the slope is on Mr. Patel's property, there was an agreement, as a good neighbor, to restore the slope, and patch the damaged drain to protect the adjacent homeowners back yards, even though there is no legal obligation for Mr. Patel or Mr. Arciero to maintain that homeowners tract drain. Norman Beach Cushane, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding dirt brokers, stated that he has only had an opportunity to contact one dirt broker, and he was referred to C/Plunk. He will attempt to contact other dirt brokers. February 25, 1993 Page 16 Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hill Road, inquired if the approximate 200 letters received by the City in support of the project are directly affected by the development. She explained that the existing lots in the Pathfinder tract are that size was because there was an agreement that there would be spacious open space. If Mr. Patel's development occurs, then most of the open space would be taken away, increasing noise and traffic. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he has not actually counted all the signatures in support of the project, however, the petitions are part of the public record and are available for review. Jennifer Chism, residing at 1570 S. Black Hawk, expressed her support for total preservation. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing was declared closed, to be continued to a date yet to be determined. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to',Fs continue the matter to the meeting of March 22, 1993. VC/Meyer suggested that the Commission, at the next meeting, if time permits, begin review of the elements of the Master Plan to establish design standards and determine policy issues that should be dealt with. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Respectively, a es DeStefano Secretary Attes >{a Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman .,.,"—,.',. ....I 1...; "'I, -Itq,. i i'"7[+ I I t I. I k,_. __ ti _.d"G1� "`1l`,.S�Mi CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 25, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at L( 7:13 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: Chair/Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Li, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Grothe was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStef ano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CA/Curley reported that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to present, to the Commission, the substantive pro3ect of the South Pointe Master Plan. The Planning Commission directed staff, at the meeting of February 22, 1993, to prepare a Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the environmental document. It was not a final action, and the document will be back before the Commission, subject to further review, or recommendation. C/Li, in response to CA/Curley, stated that he will be listening to the tape of the meeting of February 22, 1993 prior to the next Commission meeting. MATTERS FROM Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, THE AUDIENCE: requested that the public hearing portion of the Environmental Impact Review (EIR) be reopened to allow more opportunity for the concerns raised to be addressed, and to assure that the public and the Commission are fully informed of all the issues in the document. He also stated that, because he did not get a copy of the EIR until two hours prior to the February 22, 1993 meeting, he felt that he did not have.sufficient time to review the document. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 -Peaceful Hills Road, stated that she was offended that the South Pointe Master Plan item was placed last on the agenda of the February 22, 1993 meeting, obliging the majority of the audience to wait late into the evening, and then announcing that, in consideration of time, the consultant's detailed report would not be given that evening, but at a continued public hearing meeting. She stated that the consultant, Hardy Strozier, continually conferred with the developers, yet failed to confer with the public, and that the public has not been justly represented. She stated that Jan Dabney had February 25, 1993 Page 2 indicated to her that he too felt unrepresented at the February 22nd Evan Shanaught, residing at 1820 Peaceful Hills Road, expressed her concern that the Commission is not listening to the concerns raised by the public. It appears that the interests of the residents are not being served. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder Road, inquired why the consultant is paid for by the City, yet recommended by the developers. He too complained of the process by which the February 22, 1993 meeting was abruptly ended, and then continued to tonight, without further notification to the public. He stated that he f eels that the EIR is neither complete nor accurate, and that the South Pointe Middle School is being held hostage by the City so that this project could be railroaded through. Gerald Fong, residing at 20879 Missionary Ridge, reviewed the following concerns outlined in a letter he sent to-the City: noise level; traffic impacts; a 30 acre commercial site in an area that currently has many vacant business centers; a 26 acre park is not needed especially when most parks are usually unoccupied; the children of these developments will heavily impact the elementary schools that are presently overcrowded; the stability of the hillsides; a decrease in the existing property values; and Sandstone Canyon should be preserved. Eileen Ansari, residing at 1823 S. Cliff Branch Dr., concurred that the EIR should be further studied and discussed. Since Sandstone Canyon is part of a cougar corridor connecting with Chino Hills and Whittier Hills, the City should preserve the area, and investigate alternatives to obtain funding to preserve it. It appears that the project is being pushed through, and forced upon the citizens of Diamond Bar. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that, based upon the Commission's review of the project, the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR may be modified. Everyone's comments will be taken into consideration, including the approximately 200 letters received in favor of the project. The Commission will not be taking any position regarding the project until the entire project has been presented, and all public testimony and February 25, 1993 Page 3 comments from other public agencies have been received. C/Plunk inquired if Mr. Dabney was indeed offended by the process that occurred at the February 22, 1993 meeting. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, explained that he, like the developers and the public, was somewhat offended by what appeared to be a breakdown of communication by staff during that meeting. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Plunk, explained that the City's fee for service policy requires developers to pay the costs of the services to be provided by staff. The developer, in this particular case, has paid application fees to the City in order to process the entitlement requests. Additionally, the developer is paying the City for the costs associated with the City's hiring of two independent contractors, the environmental expert, and the project manager. C/Plunk, in response to a comment made by Mr. Fong, pointed out that the parks, at times, are heavily utilized, even though at certain times of the day it appears that they are never used. VC/Meyer noted that the review of the EIR, and the entire project, will be duplicated before the City Council, which includes additional public hearings. CDD/DeStefano stated that, unlike most cities, it is Diamond Bar's policy to require projects, such as this one, to come before the Planning Commission for it's review and consideration, at the tentative stages, before coming to the City Council in which the process is then duplicated. CA/Curley stated that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines have been fully met at the Commission level. since public hearings are not required at the CEQA level, the public hearings given already exceed legal requirement. The statutes are quite clear that there must be a circu Iation period, a review and a comment period, as we'll a period of finality to the EIR document. In response to a series of inquiries made by VC/Meyer, CA/Curley made the following comments: the Commission may recommend certification of the EIR and then recommend denial of the entire project; the Commission can recommend certification of the EIR, then recommend modification of the meeting was reconvened at 8:16 p.m. project less than what is proposed; the commission can recommend certification of the EIR, and recommend conditions which exceed the range of the mitigation measures outlined in the EIR, within the legal premise of the entitlements; and the council's final certification involves finding that the EIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA, and that the final EIR was utilized in assessing the project and coming to a conclusion. VC/Meyer stated that specific issues regarding the EIR can be addressed during the process of review and consideration of the Master Plan, the tentative tract maps, and so forth. There is ample opportunity for the public to offer their comments for the conclusions drawn in the EIR. ONTINUED Hardy Strozier reported that the review period for Tom Van Winkle, a resident, pointed out the reason there is a referendum on the General Plan, and a law suit against the City, is because there have been projects, in the past, that have been packaged poorly, sent on to the Council from the commission level, and then made worse at the Council level. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:02 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS: khe EIR has been tentatively completed, and the Slide 2 ommission has directed staff to begin preparation eneral Plan A a Resolution recommending certification of the mendment 92-2; DR. The next process is to begin consideration of A 92-1, 92-2, he various entitlement actions presented by the 2-3; vesting ro'ect proponents. These entitlements include the T Map 5140, ollowin : a General Plan Amendment involving a UP 92-8 & edesi nation of the Water District parcel to ak Tree Permit tanned development; two vesting tentative tract 2-8; vesting a s; one tentative tract map; the Hillside T 32400, CUP Management Ordinance; three CUP's; and three Oak 1-5, Zone Tree Removal Permits. The three CUP's and Oak Tree han a 91-2 & Dermits will be incorporated into three separate ak Tree Permit Jraft Development Agreements, which will be 1-2; TT Map oresented to the Commission on a future date. 1253 & CUP --lardy Strozier then directed the remainder of his 2-12; Oak Tree oresentation to the slides exhibited before the ermit 92-9; the ommission and the audience. The 78 slides to be outh Pointe oresented is outlined in the staff report, entitled aster Plan; & 'Slide Presentation", which was submitted to the IR 92-9. rommission by Mr. Strozier. The f ollowin is a rief summary of Hardy Strozier's presentation, �highlighting some of the points mentioned: Slide 2 February 25, 1993 Page 5 0 Demonstrates the location of the two blue line streams within the project site area found in the Sandstone Canyon Water Shed and the Sasek Corporation property. Slide 3 0 An aerial view of the site, highlighting Sandstone Canyon, Rapid View Dr., the Arciero property, existing building pads, the large pad site for the water tank, Larkstone Dr., the location of an ample stand of oak trees on the Arciero Tract, the pristine area of Sandstone Canyon, the location of the two Homeowner Association ownerships, the RnP property, the Patel property, the school site, the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt, and Morning Sun Ave. Mr. Strozier, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding the open space parcel located in the middle of the residential tract on Peaceful Hills Road, suggested that the question be held until the end of the presentation. Slide 6 0 The view south to north, standing on the L,- northern part of the Arciero Tract, just above Rapid View looking towards Pathfinder. The area contains the majority of the oak woodland. Slide 7 0 The view north to south, standing just above Rapid View, looking southerly, and viewing the school site and the graded portion of the site. Slide 8 0 The view just above Larkstone looking east. The area contains ample stands of the oak woodlands. Slide 10 0 Viewing the east side of the site, which was previously graded, as well as viewing the remnant stands of Oaks. The Arciero's 44 acre ownership identifies 333 Oaks on the site, in which 156 Oaks are identified in good condition, 110 Oaks in fair condition, and 67 Oaks in poor condition. Slide 11 0 There are 449 Oaks located on the RnP site. The condition of the Oaks will be provided in later staff reports. The large heritage Oaks are located primarily in this area. Slide 12 February 25, 1993 Page 6 0 The Patel property has 53 Oaks on site. He pointed out Morning Sun and the blue line stream. Slide 13 0 He reviewed the enclave areas: the Arciero tract taking it's access off of Brea Canyon Road; the 31 acre commercial area that has an emergency access from the Arciero tract; two to three points of access off of Brea Canyon Road from new Street A; and the school site providing a drop off point access for school buses and cars off of Larkstone. Slide 14 0 There is a large open space corridor moving up through the park site and into the school site, in which there is 75 to 90 acres of open space that would be renaturalized active open space area upon the Master Plan approval. VC/Meyer inquired if the developer has submitted an alternative that would provide either no access, or emergency access only, to Morning Sun, as was requested Hardy Strozier stated that the developer has not submitted such an alternative, however, it will be analyzed. if the Commission desires to restrict access to Morning Sun, it can be restricted the same way it was recommended on Larkstone. VC/Meyer stated that he wants to be sure that staff has that type of information available to analyze such an alternative. Slide 15 0 There is access for emergency vehicles to the school site through Larkstone Drive. Slide 16 the school site with large play fields, track, baseball fields) termist volleyball, and so forth. Slide 17 0 There -has been discussion with the School district about taking the gymnasium and moving it to provide a better relationship to the proposed City Park. Slide 18 0 There is a total of 28 acres that would be dedicated to the City, if the Master Plan is approved, of which 10 to 12 acres would be active play area. The illustrative plan is in the EIR to illustrate the holding capacity of February 25, 1993 Page 7 this park, and it demonstrates that there could be three full size adult softball f ields, and one regulation soccer f ields, as well as an amphitheater, utilizing parking access along Street A as well as the commercial area. Slide 21 0 The Arciero tract takes it's major access on the collector road from Brea Canyon Road. He stated that there is a gas valve in the area that is noisy, however, there are mitigation measures that can attenuate that noise. Slide 22 0 There are 91 dwelling units on 44 acres proposed on the Arciero tract, with a lot minimum of 7,200 square feet with a pad minimum of 6,000 square feet, which is consistent with the adjacent tracts. Slide 23 0 It is possible to have through access from the Arciero tract on to Rapid View, and upon Commission direction, that alternative will looked at in more detail. Slide 24 0 Most of the noise attenuation from the freeway, in the Arciero tract area, is accomplished by the natural terrain, however, there are 6 homes identified in the DEIR that -may need some noise attenuation. That noise attenuation can be accomplished by a six foot block wall, and it is suggested in the DEIR that a site specific noise study be included with the final maps determining the height of the wall, if it is needed at all. There are a variety of lot sizes beyond the 7,200 square foot lot sizes in the Arciero tract. There are a lot of grade breaks, employing a lot of the contour grading concepts from the Hillside Grading Ordinance. Furthermore, it was also suggested that the Oak woodland composition contain a variety of trees other than just Oaks. Slide 25 0 The commercial layout of 31 acres does not represent any type of plan presented, but rather a model of the type of intensity of development that could occur, and the type of traffic impact that could occur in the area. Slide 26 0 The lot minimum is set at 8,1000 square feet, with a pad minimum size of 6,900 square feet. All the lots have a lot depth recommendation of 100 feet minimum, and a foot width of 60 feet, side yard setbacks of 5 and 10 f eet, February 25, 1993 Page 8 with a 20 foot front yard setback from the EIJI,' back of right-of-way. There are three to five different tract alternatives, for the Patel property, in the DER. Slide 27 0 There is an existing easement located in this area. It is suggested that the access point be kept in that easement, enlargening it for transportation purposes. Slide 28 0 The original plan submitted by the applicants shows a through access into Larkstone. Slide 34 0 It also illustrates possible trail systems that could occur. Slide 37 0 It illustrates the original submittal by Sasek in this location. Planning and Engineering staff have reviewed this submittal and identified the following problems with the technical engineering of this tract design: it doesn't take into account the large hill; and 27 lots will not work. Slide 38 0 The City Traffic Engineer has indicated that this configuration is not a desirable situation. Slide 39 0 The Master Plan is trying to ensure that each developer can develop both together and/or independently, without adversely affect one another, and maintaining some vintages of a ----------Master Plan in terms of a circulation system, and -consistent design standards when it comes to the lotting and grading arrangement. Slide 40 0 This concept plan illustrates Street A teeing into Morning Sun, with a cul-de-sac coming from the RnP property, with 18 lots proposed. Slide 41 0 This concept plan shows Street A teeing into Morning Sun, with a different variation of the cul-de- sac, with about 20 lots proposed. This concept plan, at this point in time, is staff's pr eference, and it more closely fits a better traffic engineering relationship in the Master Plan guidelines. Slide 43 0 Concept Plan B would require little reciprocal grading between the RnP tract and the Patel tract. VC/Meyer noting that there were attempts, on some of the other proposals, to salvage some natural U - February 25, 1993 Page 9 areas, yet it does not appear that the Concept B proposal attempts to salvage any of the existing oak trees. Hardy Strozier explained that none of the proposals, on the west side of the Master Plan, have ever proposed preservation of the Oaks. Slide 44 0 It shows a better view of the homes that exist of f of Morning Sun. All these homes that would be built in this area would not take access off of Morning Sun, and there would be internal cul-de-sacs. Therefore, the homes along Morning Sun would maintain a high degree of privacy, and the only impact they would see is an additional amount of traffic moving on to Morning Sun. Slide 45 0 It will be our recommendation that we bring some of the mitigation required into this existing permanent open space area to try to re-establish the property owned by the Homeowners Association. VC/Meyer directed staff to approach the Homeowners Association regarding the open space area. Slide 47 0 There does appear to be an existing corridor located in this area that could allow, in the future, some animal activity moving to and f rom other open space areas that occur of f site. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:36 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m. C/Plunk suggested that the slide presentation be continued to the next meeting to allow the commission time to digest what has already been presented. The Commission concurred. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, the Engineer and Planner representing Arciero, RnP, and, when appropriate, Mr. Patel, stated that his presentation will be lengthy, and he will defer his comments until all the information has been presented to the public and the Commission. Jim Butkey, the Engineer representing Mr. Patel, with the f irm Butkey Design, 5 Wrigley, Irvine, pointed out that the 3 or 4 alternatives shown on Mr. Patel I s 7 acres was inf ormational in nature. February 25, 1993 Page 10 He then presented another alternative layout on Mr. Patel's property, confined strictly to his site, which addresses some of the traffic concerns going out into Morning Sun, keeping the lot size at an 8,000 square foot minimum, the pad size at a 6,000 square foot minimum, and with the same constraints as indicated in the'Master Plan. The following are some of the elements in the proposal: there is no direct through traffic access from the RnP property out to Morning Sun; the RnP street is cul-de-saced; the lots are located around the cul-de-sac; there is a 20 foot emergency access/easement, with a sewer connection; there is an existing storm drain inlet; there are 23 lots around Mr. Patel's site; there is a cul- de-sac on the south, with a little longer cul-de-sac on the north that are lined up; the layout is all within the tract property line, with the exception of about 10 feet; the entire site is utilized, with no intent to preserve the trees, or the canyon; the lots do not take frontage of f of Morning Sun, and are all within the tract development; there is a slope bank that is fairly insignificant; and there is a considerable slope by the ridge that is unavoidable given the physical constraints that exist on this site. Hardy Strozier stated that this alternative plan was just submitted, and staff has not had the opportunity to review it. Mr. Butkey's staff will be presenting a more thorough review for the next Commission meeting. Because the EIR evaluated 27 lots in that area, the plan is within the environmental parameters of the document. Armed Patel indicated that he did not have an opportunity to review the slides presented tonight regarding his property. Hardy, Strozier stated that the 3 slides presented tonight for Mr. Patel's property were three of the seven alternatives taken from the EIR. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 10:20 p.m. due to poor health. Don Schad requested that the public comment portion of the EIR be reopened because the comments made by the Department of Fish and Game were not made available to the public until late in the process. He pointed out that since the Tree Ordinance does not address all trees, the EIR is incomplete. The February 25, 1993 Page 11 EIR should be as thorough as possible. the South Pointe Furthermore, be Middle School should from the project. separated Hardy Strozier pointed out that the DEIR does acknowledge that the destruction of the Oak trees are significant, however, staff feels that the Tree ordinance mitigates this by requiring a replacement ration of 2:1. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff has received correspondence daily, regarding the EIR and the Master Plan, and has immediately presented them to the Commission and the consultants. All letters have been, and will bef made part of the public record, and is available to the public. Hardy Strozier pointed out that there have been two additional mitigation measures added to the EIR upon review of the letter from the Department of Fish and Game by the Planning Commission. All comments made have been researched and responded to in the Response to Comment document. For example, on page 4-60 of the Response to Comment document, it responds to a concern, made by Mr. Schad regarding the Monterey Blue Butterfly, and indicates that the Department of Fish and Game has confirmed that there is no record of this species of insect found in the California Natural Diversity Data Base, nor is it listed in the Endangered Species Act. Staf f has gone to every extent to respond to technical concerns. Oscar Lawl residing at 20511 Pathfinder, stated that he feels that Mr. Schad's suggestion to preserve Sandstone Canyon, making a childrens museum and an observatory, should be acted upon by the Commission. If the project is to be built, then it should be built with the minimum amount of effect to the canyon, protecting the wildlife, nurturing the flora and the fauna in the area, and maintaining the balance of nature. Air quality is a significant issue and vegetation is needed to keep the air clean. He also stated that the City's building inspector, as well as the School District, should have insisted that the developer move the dirt. In response to VC/Meyer Is inquiry„ he stated that he would support a bond to acquire the property to preserve it. Hardy Strozier, correcting a statement made by Mr. Law, pointed out that the environmental consultant did find that there was significant, unavoidable effects, and that the project should not move February 25, 1993 Page 12 forward due to the adverse effects on the region. A statement of overriding Considerations would have to be made to that environmental finding in order to approve the project. CDD/DeStefano, in response to a comment made by Mr. Law, explained that the Walnut Unified School District is an autonomous agency that does not need, nor are they required, to come to the local City for building inspection, construction, or a plan check. Furthermore, the City was not incorpor 'ated at the time of the construction of the school. All of the remaining dirt is on the School District property. Hardy Strozier explained that the school was developed prior to the City incorporating, and therefore, prior to the City's grading ordinance. The School District's EIR indicates that the 400, 000 cubic yards of dirt must be moved either down Larkstone Drive or put into the Canyon. The School District is required by law to cont orm to the City's grading plan. Jan Dabney, representing Arciero, explained that there was an agreement made between the School District and Arciero to move an IIXII amount of dirt, as agreed to by the County. However, when the City incorporated, the City did not concur with the grading plan as stipulated in that contract, thus the issue existing today. Max Maxwell made the following comments: the Planning Commission should not be discussing this project until the General plan issue is resolved; the City and the School is holding the construction of the Middle School hostage; no one is willing to consider some of the other alternatives mentioned regarding preservation, or an alternative haul road for removing the dirt; the consultant, Hardy strozier, appears to be defensive on the comments presented; there appears to be internal conflicts occurring among the developers and the consultants; a Response to Comment document was not given to him upon his request; the School EIR was finalized approximately 5 years ago; and the EIR should be tabled until all questions and comments have been adequately answered. CDD/DeStefano stated that the document was noticed within the newspaper, sent to a wide variety of people, and made available at the City offices and the library, and made available for loan for those individuals that did not wish to purchase the February 25, 1993 Page 13 document. This is the 7th time, since 'October of 1992, that the Commission has discussed this project in a public setting. There are going to be more hearings before the Planning Commission, and this whole process will be repeated at the City Council level in terms of reviewing the entitlement request and the EIR. Theref ore, this is not a project that is being f ast tracked. The Response to Comment document was presented in it I s f inal form to the City staff last week, immediately presented to the Commission in their agenda packet, and made available to the public at the City Hall and the library, as is all agenda material. In response to Mr. Maxwell's comment regarding internal conflicts, CDD/DeStefano explained that amendments to the project are part of the process because it is intended to be a dynamic document. It is part of the City's responsibility to resolve any conflict that may exist between independent developers, and independent proposals. Part of the intent of this Master Plan is to erase the property lines and look at this area as if it is one lot of 170 acres. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the questioned raised regarding alternatives of the exportation of dirt from the project site is responded to on page D-19 of the Response to Comment document. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning Sun, referring to the response made in the Response to Comment document, on page 5-56, regarding the impact of putting Street A through into Morning Sun, stated that the response made seems poorly researched, with not a lot of thought put into it. She pointed out that because of the steep nature of the streets, cars tend to travel faster, and because there are many curves without stop signs or centerlines, cars tend to cut the corners. In response to VC/Meyer, she stated that she opposes the total project, both in the destruction of the canyon and the configuration of the houses proposed on the Patel property. The proposal will put a row of block wall fences along the street. If homes were to be developed, then they should be the same size as the existing lot sizes. She indicated that she would support a bond issue if she were part of the City. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the development proposed by Mr. Patel is equivalent to what is currently existing. February 25, 1993 Page 14 VC/Meyer requested staff to determine what the financial obligation would be to the tax payer to buy the site, if the answer to the entire project is to leave this site in it's existing state. Chuck Dowler, residing on Morning Sun, stated that the majority of the lots in the area are a minimum of a third of an acre. He expressed the following concerns: the block wall fence attracts graffiti; though he would pref er no development, if the homes are developed, they should face Morning Sun; and eliminating the street on Morning Sun, and cul-desacing the street assists in successful robberies. Hardy Strozier indicated that he has -asked Mr. Butkey to provide staff with a design of homes fronting Morning Sun, for the Commission's review. In response to VC/Meyer, Mr. Dowler stated that he too would support a bond issue, but if that does not occurf then he would support a maximum of 14 homes on Mr. Patel's property. Tom Van Winkle stated that the Commission needs to also consider the idea of a conservancy as well as a bond issue. Max Maxwell stated that there is- money available for a conservancy and the City needs to research the possibility. Ron Beachen, residing at 1565 Black Hawk, stated that he too supports complete preservation, and he would support a bond issue or a conservancy. Mike Holmes, residing at 1612 Morning Sun, made the following comments: his lot is about 13,000 square feet; there should be no access onto Morning Sun; it would be preferable if the area stayed in it's natural state; and if it is to be developed, then it should be done responsibly, preserving some of the trees and some of the canyon._ Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills, Road, the President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, made the following comments: a conservancy can be a good tax write off; the City should investigate dirt brokers willing to buy the dirt on the School property; there is grading occurring now. on Mr. Patel's property; a wall will not sufficiently mitigate the noise that will effect the properties in the Pathfinder Homeowners Association; the proposed amphitheater will effect their property as well; February 25, 1993 Page 15 and originally, Mr. Patel was to build only three homes on the 6.77 acres. VC/Meyer inquired if the Homeowners Association would be amenable to discuss with the developers alternatives to improve and enhance the open space area for natural habitat. Norman Beach Cushane explained that the reason that open space area is lef t in it I s present state is because the Homeowners Association was told that if any improvement was done to the property, the Homeowners Association would become responsible f or maintaining the property from then on. He then explained that, according to the original County plan, the empty lot on Peaceful Hills Road, as noted by Chair/Flamenbaum during the slide presentation, is an access, to where the amphitheater is now being proposed, in which two homes were to be built in that area. He stated that they are also concerned that a path, in the easement area, to the proposed park will also _T encourage robberies in their tract. In response to A the question made by VC/Meyer, Mr. Cushane stated that if there were to be discussion with the developers regarding alternatives to the open space area, a lot of trading would have to occur because their plans infringe on a lot of our property, and they would be represented legally. The Homeowners Association are amenable to raising money to buy this land. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding possible grading occurring on Mr. Patel's property, explained that the heavy rainfall eroded the brow drain, constructed to protect the homes in tract 27141, and the slope had failed. Since the uphill part of the slope is on RnPls property, -and the downhill part of the slope is on Mr. Patel's property, there was an agreement, as a good neighbor, to restore the slope, and patch the damaged drain to protect the adjacent homeowners back yards, even though there is no legal obligation for Mr. Patel or Mr. Arciero to maintain that homeowners tract drain. Norman Beach Cushane, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding dirt brokers, stated that he has only had an opportunity to contact one dirt broker, and he was referred to C/Plunk. He will attempt to contact other dirt brokers. February 25, 1993 Page 16 Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hill Road, inquired if the approximate 200 letters received by the City in support of the project are directly affected by the development. She explained that the existing lots in the Pathfinder tract are that size was because there was an agreement that there would be spacious open space. If Mr. Patel's development occurs, then most of the open space would be taken away, increasing noise and traffic. Chair/ Flamenbaum stated that he has not actually counted all the signatures in support of the project, however, the petitions are part of the public record and are available for review. Jennifer Chism, residing at 1570 S. Black Hawk, expressed her support for total preservation. Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing was declared closed, to be continued to a date yet to be determined. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the meeting of March 22, 1993. VC/Meyer suggested that the Commission, at the next meeting, if time permits, begin review of the elements of the Master Plan to establish design standards and determine policy issues that should be dealt with. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. Respectively, tes,WDeStef—ano a es DeStefano Secretary Attest-* Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman