Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/29/1993CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 29, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 218-65 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Community Development Director James DeStefano. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Plunk, Li, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Grothe arrived at 9:00 p.m. vice Chairman Meyer was absent (excused). Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. CONTINUED Hardy Strozier, Project Manager, reported that PUBLIC HEARINGS: staff's presentation of the various elements of the Master Plan, and the technical elements of the General Plan proposed grading concepts, concluded at the last Amendment 92-2; public hearing of April 26, 1993. The developers DA 92-1, 2, and 3; had also, during that meeting, presented their Vesting TT Map respective projects within the proposed South 51407, CUP 92-8 & Pointe Master Plan area. Tonight, staff would OT 92-8; ZC 91-2 & recommend that the Planning Commission consider a OT 91-2; TT Map consistency analysis of the proposed South Pointe 51253 & CUP 92-12; Master Plan to the City's General Plan, under OT 92-9; SP Master Ordinance #4, and then it is recommended that the Plan; & EIR 92-1 Commission review, the Master Plan. Staff has reviewed the City's General Plan, under Ordinance #4, and concluded, in the January 25, 1993 staff report, that the South Pointe Project was consistent with the City's General Plan. Chair/ Flamenbaum, noting that the public had not finished giving testimony at the April 26, 1993 public hearing, stated that he had not anticipated discussing anything related to the General Plan this evening. C/Li suggested that the public first be allowed to address their comments to the Commission, then, upon conclusion of those comments, the Planning Commission can then consider General Plan consistency. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the public also be allowed to comment about General Plan consistency. C/Plunk concurred with Chair/Flamenbaum. She then requested an executive session, pursuant to the Brown Act, regarding how this fits into the pending litigation, if deemed necessary. April 29, 1993 Page 2 Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Max Maxwell; residing at 3211 Bent Twig, stated that he would like to hear staff's conclusion on how this project relates to the General Plan, especially since the General Plan is in the process of revision. He then stated that Dr. Beier was misquoted in the letter submitted by Pacific Southwest Biology Services, Inc., regarding the conclusions made concerning the presence of cougars in the'Canyon, and that Dr. Beier will be sending a letter clarifying the proper information. He questioned why such a correspondence arrived following the review of the draft EIR. He then requested a written response from CDD/DeStefano regarding a question he raised at the last meeting concerning the status of the EIR. C/Li suggested that it would have been more beneficial if Mr. Maxwell had actually had that letter now to present to the Commission and the City so that the information can be verified. Max Maxwell explained that he recently received this information, and he will submit it to the City upon receiving it. Vinod Kashyap, residing at 21452 Chirping Sparrow Road, pointed out that the draft EIR has been available as an item of public record for some time now, and Mr. Maxwell had ample time to review the information. It appears Mr. Maxwell has been negligent in not studying the EIR, and waiting to this last moment to discuss inconsistencies for the purpose of perhaps delaying the project. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood Road, requested verification if the grading process for the project will take almost 10 years. This project is not consistent with the original General Plan, as recommended by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The General Plan, which is currently under revision and is being used as a guideline, is totally inadequate for the following reasons: the land designation recommended by the GPAC was 1DU/2.5 acres, compared to 3.2DU/acre as indicated in the current draft General Plan, which is what this present project is based upon; the General Plan recommended by -GPAC suggested clustered housing, but clustered housing has not been identified at all in this'project, nor in the current draft General Plan; and the current draft General Plan was 3.2DU/acres or plus, depending 11 r -, April 29, 1993 Page 3 upon on geological factors, and GPAC!s General Plan recommended preserving all natural wilderness areas to the extent possible so that there would be no islands leaving wildlife trapped. Ernid Gasowitz, 1644 Chapel Hill Drive, Walnut, stated that, in August of 1978, the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission denied a request for a Conditional Use permit with the understanding that the area was unstable for this type of development, and assuring a group of property owners, called Emerald Hills at that time, that there would probably be no more development in the canyons. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, he agreed to submit a copy of the article to staff. Vinod Kashyap pointed out that if Mr. Gasowitz was referring to the slip planes, that issue was addressed adequately at the last meeting. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. C/Plunk read the portion of the letter from Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., as referred to by Mr. Maxwell. She pointed out that the information provided is general information. Max Maxwell clarified that there was no conducted survey west of the 57, as indicated, and that the Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study did not come to the conclusions stated in the letter. CDD/DeStefano stated that the staff report provided to the Commission this evening is the same staff report presented to the Commission for the April 26, 1993 meeting, which is an updated version of the report provided to the Commission for the meeting of April 12, 1993. The reference discussion regarding the cougar issue from the Pacific Southwest Biological Service, Inc. was included in the April 12, 1993 report. In regards to Mr. Maxwell's inquiry regarding the status of the EIR, CDD/DeStefano explained that the EIR has not been certified, nor has the Planning Commission made a decision on the EIR for this project, but merely set aside the document in order to further study the project details. The Commission will be j revisiting the .EIR in the future, whether the project is denied or approved. Furthermore, the whole project, and the EIR, will be reviewed by the City Council. April 29, 1993 Page 4 Chair/Flamenbaum requested Hardy Strozier to review how it was determined that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Hardy Strozier referred the Commission to page 32 of the January 25, 1993 staff report which reviews a Goal and an objective analysis through the General Plan as it relates to the proposed South Pointe Master Plan. CDD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that, at the time the January 25, 1993 report was prepared, the City did have an adopted General Plan, and that on March 16, 1993, the City Council rescinded that adoption. Hardy Strozier will be outlining the goals, policies, and strategies of what is now oalled•the draft General Plan. Hardy Strozier; in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, stated that he has not been part of the General Plan revision process. He then proceeded to read the January 25, 1993 staff report which outlined the project's consistency with the General Plan. It is staff's opinion that the South Pointe Master Plan is completely consistent with the draft General Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:07 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:18 p.m. Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to page 35, appendix "A" of the January 25, 1993 staff report, the Housing Goals, inquired how the City will be complying with the Housing Element for moderate to low incomes, as required by State law, if the proposed homes are estimated to sell for $350,000 to $400,000 dollars. Hardy Strozier explained that the State law requires cities to provide a broad range of housing opportunities, to include a certain percentage of number of housing units in the very low, low, moderate, and upper income categories. The law does not require that there be components of these four housing categories in every project. This project, which provides housing opportunities in the moderate and upper income categories, does meet those goals. Low, and very low income opportunities are usually provided in cities through the attainment of apartment projects, or affordable condominiums projects. If .nr r li �fi,,, � — � •�.•.w -,— ` — _ _ -- -- ­ Ir,ln4..lw q1,[,1 iF,'n 11A, 1. VJI _ __ __ _ -. _ — _ __ — _ _ _ ,— April 29, 1993 page 5 Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if it is feasible to require mixed housing in the commercial areas of this project. Hardy Strozier explained that such land use components are usually found in very urbanized areas because they have the land value that can afford those types of building improvements to go multi story. Such a situation, or land values, are not found in Diamond Bar today. If this were required on the commercial portion of the project, in staff's opinion, the project would be doomed to failure. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the 34 unit town home project, at Golden Springs and Torito Lane, recently approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, could be an example of a project that might fit into the moderate to low income category, based upon the product type and the anticipated price range. Furthermore, the Housing Element of the General Plan, strategy 1.1.1, on page II -20, does indicate that commercial/ office developments, which propose residential components, should be considered but only where feasible and appropriate. Such a mix use concept would have to be determined on a case by case basis, and, as Hardy Strozier pointed out, those are most likely to occur in Diamond Bar's more urbanized areas. Hardy Strozier, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, explained that the policy regarding the consistency of the project to the preservation and conservation of existing housing stock is inapplicable to the project. Chair/Fla enbaum, referring to one of the goals in the Resou�ce Management Element, inquired how it was determined that grading, as well as the removal of all the trees, maintain the open space system which preserves scenic beauty and protects important biological resources. Hardy Strozier explained that, based on professional experience, it was felt that the Master Plan design has a very strong balance of open space uses, up to and including the preservation of a fair amount of existing natural areas, anc that it also had a very efficient open space linkage system. From a master planning standpoint, it was felt that this is an exemplary design of a balancing of land uses, not dwelling on the total preservation or total development, but a fine mix. The Master Plan proposes an ------ - - - - - _ —7, 711 X19 J._ 1 �I I - —..-ri—n, w-. April 29, 1993 Page 6 overabundance of open space preservation when bill'' measured against the standards set forth in .the General Plan and the local codes. Hardy Strozier then reviewed the following areas that have been preserved: there is a large existing open space expanse, Cross Section "G", that is being essentially preserved on the edges of the Arciero tract; there is approximately 60 feet of natural terrain, in Cross Section "C"; there is an area off the edge of Brea Canyon Road, in Cross Section "B", that is very natural; and there is a large expanse of natural terrain adjacent to Brea Canyon Road and the Arciero Tract. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum's inquiry as to what percentage of land mass will remain unscathed for preservation - purposes, stated that under 200 of the 78 acres owned by RnP remains unscathed, and about 20% of the 40 acres owned by Arciero was set aside in it's natural state as it adjoins adjacent property. Jim Budke, representing Mr. Patel, stated that about 5% or less of the 6.7 acres owned by Sasak will be left in it's natural state. Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to the Physical Mobility Element, then inquired if the consistency findings would remain the same if Rapid View, Larkstone, and Morning Sun were opened. Hardy Strozier stated that the City traffic engineer and the consulting traffic engineer both have indicated that there would be very little relative benefit derived from opening Rapid View because very little traffic would be utilizing that street. By putting in street "A", from Brea Canyon Road, an unloaded collector is provided for school buses and other such traffic, providing a more efficient, shorter, and a safer connection to that school, Morning Sun would be the best choice for a secondary access point, which may be required for safety purposes, because it is less attractive due to the various curves in the road. Larkstone would be a more direct route, however, if one of the objectives is to discourage through traffic through residential neighborhoods, it would be safer and more consistent to close Larkstone, and to let Street "A" serve it. It is our plan to discourage the connection through Larkstone. CDD/DeStefano stated that the General Plan does have a specific clause that discusses the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods, and the April 29, 1993 Page 7 =.. discouragement of through traffic. Opening Rapid View, which is a direct link to Colima, and opening Larkstone, which is a direct link to Colima as well as Lemon, would not be, in staff's opinion, consistent with the Goals as they have been written, and the vision as it was crafted through the various review processees of the General Plan. Rapid View and Larkstone have the potential to become another Morning Sun and Rolling Knoll/Quail Summit situation where it could become a cut through to avoid the intersection of Golden Springs and Brea Canyon Road, and to avoid the congestion of the freeway on ramp near the Jack in the Box facility. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the Sasak project, which projects no opening to the rest of the project, is consistent with the General Plan. CDD/DeStefano stated that the Sasak property, which is on the boundary line of Diamond Bar and Rowland Heights, and is on the boundary of the Walnut and -, Rowland Heights School District, would probably be iinconsistent with the General Plan because it does not have access, or design orientation, towards these larger areas. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Joyce Hill, residing at 1836 Shaded Wood Road, made the following comments: residents on Shaded Wood road overlook the canyon, and a wall will not help mitigate problems associated with construction; if the park is to be a noise mitigation measure, as indicated at the April 26, 1993 meeting, does that mean that the park will be higher in elevation than the commercial area; if the park will be that much higher than the commercial, than why is the hill being cut off since it is currently a noise mitigation measure for existing homes, not the proposed home; and should the project be recommended for approval since air quality standards will be exceeded, and health hazards will be present. Carolyn Elfelt, residing at 2119 Silver Cloud, r emphasized how critical it is to get the South Pointe Middle School built immediately to help our �> children become healthy, happy, productive adults. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning Sun, responding to the video shown at the April 26, 1993 meeting demonstrating the conditions at the South April 29, 1993 Page 8 Pointe Middle School, stated "that though the Pi`''' condition of the school is a concern, the real issue involves the aspects of the project. Many of the schools in the area consist of portables, and many have traffic problems, making it the norm not the exception. Vinod Kashyap stated that because the problems associated with the South Pointe Middle School exist elsewhere, does not make it the norm. Children should not be taught to accept substandard conditions. Delaying the project, as some are attempting to do, hurt the children_. The project should go forth expeditiously. George Barret, residing at 1880 Shaded Wood Road, pointed out that 90% of the schools are substandard, and most have the traffic problems associated with the South Pointe Middle School. Adding 200 more homes will not improve that traffic problem, but increase traffic and the amount of students in our already over crowded schools. There does not need to be a development in order to get the school constructed. The Walnut School District is aware of this and will be in court with Arciero on June 22, 1993. Clair Harmony, residing at 24139 Alfamado Lane, expressed the following concerns: though the Hillside ordinance was designed to preserve hillside, and the Oak Tree Ordinance was designed to preserve those trees, the, City keeps issuing CUP's allowing developers an opportunity to get around those ordinances, thereby defeating it's purpose; the tract maps, related to the Pathfinder's Homeowners Association, indicate that those parcels are not to be built on, and have been dedicated as open space; such a dedication was a trade off for the density allowed for the Pathfinder development, therefore the project is actually developing double density over the permitted use of density, which is not consistent with the General Plan; and the Walnut School District has the responsibility to maintain it's facilities. Sherry Roberts, residing at 2660 Broken Feather, inquired if it is illegal for motorists to enter into the Quail Summit neighborhood., Chair/Flamenbaum explained that it is not illegal to enter into the Quail Summit neighborhood, but illegal to turn right on to Grand Ave. from Rolling April 29, 1993 Page 9 Knoll between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Sherry Roberts then expressed the following concerns: the access to the school is a safety hazard; another access to the school is needed besides the one coming off of Brea Canyon Road; and all of South Pointe Middle School consists of portables, and it does not have the equipment or facilities as other Middle Schools have that we compete with. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Li, stated that financing for the Middle School is in place, and the plans prepared by the School District have been approved by the State. The project is awaiting construction bid and a specific target date for actual construction activity. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Chair/Flamenbaum recess the meeting at 9:45 p.m.. The meeting was reconvened at 9:55 p.m.. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the Commission is prepared to discuss General Plan consistency. If the Commission is ready, he stated that he would prefer discussion not be brought to a closure since VC/Meyer was absent from the meeting, and C/Grothe missed -a good portion of the presentation and discussion. C/Li stated that he feels that the Commission should continue on, at this point, and discuss General Plan consistency. C/Grothe stated that, since he did not arrive until 9:00 p.m., he would prefer to review the tapes of the meeting prior to his arrival before making a decision on General Plan consistency. C/Plunk stated that she feels that the proposed plan is generally consistent with the General Plan. She made the following comments: she would prefer to see Larkstone open; Morning Sun should not be affected solely by the traffic; one street r servicing the School is not acceptable; the secondary road needs to be at a safe grade; the area has a public safety problem in it's current configuration, where wild land meets urban area in an interface, which is a similar condition that caused the tragedy from the Berkeley fire; it is a beautiful open space area, however, it is privately April 29, 1993 Page 10 owned and the responsibility of the developer; the conditions at South Pointe Middle School are substandard, and the traffic situation is worse than any other school in Diamond Bar; there is a concern whether the School meets earthquake standards; and there is a need to address, very specifically, the noise mitigation and the AQMD issues. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he feels that the project is not completely consistent with the draft General Plan, though it is generally consistent. Though he would prefer to leave the canyon as is, weighing the pros and cons, he concurs that it meets the requirements and that it's benefits do outweigh it's detriments. There may be a concern that as a policy issue, the City may not be doing what is right in terms of managing our resources, however, it must be recognized those resources are not owned by the City. There does not seem to be an issue regarding cougars, the horned lizard, or the gnat catcher. The Middle School is a secondary issue as far as whether or not this project should approved, however, it's development is linked to the project, specifically regarding the dirt remaining on the site. C/Grothe pointed out that the project can be interpreted either way, to be consistent or inconsistent. For example, a CUP is needed for the Hillside Ordinance in order to make this plan work. However, the trade offs to the City is a permanent School, a substantial size park, and 10 acres of commercial land, which will increase the City's revenues thereby enhancing the quality of life. In order to preserve that area entirely, the options available are to either buy the property, pass a bond issue for the City to buy it, or get a conservancy to buy it. C/Plunk inquired if a motion of the Commission is necessary. DA/Curley stated that a motion would indicate a final action, therefore, a consensus of the Commission is preferred. Motion was made by C/Li, seconded by C/Plunk and ,.. CARRIED to direct staff to draft a Resolution that the project is generally consistent with the draft ?.j General Plan, to include the minor amendments LJ mentioned. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Li. ..... , _ " µ111i April 29, 1993 INFORMATION ITEMS: ADJOURNMENT: Page 11 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer. The Planning Commission then concurred not to discuss the Master Plan tonight, but to continue that discussion to the meeting of May 10, 1993 at 7:00 p.m.. CDD/DeStefano reported that the next community workshop for the General Plan process for revision is scheduled for May 1, 1993 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at Chaparral Middle -School. He reported that a summary comment was presented to the participants of the community workshop at the April 28, 1993 meeting. Staff will provide a copy of those comments to anyone desiring one. Motion was made by C/Li, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:21 p.m. Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairmany r- , esp ti y, It � . ames DeStefano Secretary Hardy Strozier, Project Manager, reported that UBLIC HEARINGS: taff Is presentation of the various elements of the Master Plan, and the technical elements of the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION proposed grading concepts, concluded at the last CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 218-65 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. amendment 92-2; public hearing of April 26, 1993. The developers PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Community Development Director James DeStefano. A 92-1, 2, and 3; had also, during that meeting, presented their ROLL CALL: commissioners: Plunk, Li, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Grothe arrived at 9:00 p.m. vice Chairman Meyer was absent (excused). esting TT Map Irespective projects within the proposed South Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. 1407, CUP 92-8 & rointe Master Plan area. Tonight, staff would CONTINUED T 92-8; ZC 91-2 & Irecommend that the Planning commission consider a Chair/ Flamenbaum, noting that the public had not finished giving testimony at the April 26, 1993 public hearing, stated that he had not anticipated discussing anything related to the General Plan this evening. T 91-2; TT Map konsistency analysis of the proposed South Pointe C/Li suggested that the public first be allowed to address their comments to the Commission, then, upon conclusion of those comments, the Planning Commission can then consider General Plan consistency. 1253 & CUP 92-12; Master Plan to the City's General Plan, under Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the public also be allowed to comment about General Plan consistency. C/Plunk concurred with Chair/Flamenbaum. She then requested an executive session, pursuant to the Brown Act, regarding how this fits into the pending litigation, if deemed necessary. T 92-9; SP Master rdinance #4, and then it is recommended that the Ian; & EIR 92-1 ommission review, the Master Plan. Staff has eviewed the City's General Plan, under ordinance 4, and concluded, in the January 25, 1993 staff ,eport, that the South Pointe Project was onsistent with the City's General Plan. Chair/ Flamenbaum, noting that the public had not finished giving testimony at the April 26, 1993 public hearing, stated that he had not anticipated discussing anything related to the General Plan this evening. C/Li suggested that the public first be allowed to address their comments to the Commission, then, upon conclusion of those comments, the Planning Commission can then consider General Plan consistency. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the public also be allowed to comment about General Plan consistency. C/Plunk concurred with Chair/Flamenbaum. She then requested an executive session, pursuant to the Brown Act, regarding how this fits into the pending litigation, if deemed necessary. April 29, 1993 Page 2 Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing opened. Max Maxwell/' residing at 3211 Bent Twig, stated that he would like to hear staff's conclusion on how this project relates to the General Plan, especially since the General Plan is in the process of revision. He then stated that Dr. Beier was misquoted in the letter submitted by Pacific Southwest Biology Services, Inc., regarding the conclusions -made concerning the presence of cougars in the,canyon, and that Dr. Beier will be sending a letter clarifying them proper information. He questioned why such a correspondence arrived following the review of the draft EIR. He then requested a written response from CDD/DeStefano regarding a question he raised at the last meeting concerning the status of the EIR. C/Li suggested that it would have been more beneficial if Mr. Maxwell had actually had that letter now to present to the Commission and the City so that the information can be verified. Max Maxwell explained that he recently received this information ' and he will submit it to the City upon receiving it. Vinod Kashyap, residing at 21452 Chirping Sparrow Road, pointed out that the draft EIR has been available as an item of public record for some time now, and Mr. Maxwell had ample time to review the information. It appears Mr. Maxwell has been negligent in not studying the EIR, and waiting to this last moment to discuss inconsistencies for the purpose of perhaps delaying the project. Don Schad, residing at 1.824 Shaded Wood Road, requested verification if the grading process for the project will take almost 10 years. This project is not consistent with the original General Plan, as recommended by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC). The General Plan, which is currently under revision and is being used as a guideline, is totally inadequate for the following reasons: the land designation recommended by the GPAC was 1 DU/2.5 acres, compared to 3.2DU/acre as indicated in the current draft General Plan, which is what this present project is 'based upon; the General Plan recommended by-GPAC suggested clustered housing, but clustered housing has not been identified at all in this'project, nor in the current draft General Plan; and the current draft General Plan was 3.2DU/acres or plus, depending April 29, 1993 Page 3 upon on geological factors, and GPACts General Plan recommended preserving all natural wilderness areas to the extent possible so that there would be no islands leaving wildlife trapped. Ernid Gasowitz, 1644 Chapel Hill Drive, Walnut, stated that, in August of 1978, the Los Angeles Regional Planning Commission denied a request for a Conditional Use permit with the understanding that the area was unstable for this type of development, and assuring a group of property owners, called Emerald Hills at that time, that there would probably be no more development in the canyons. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, he agreed to submit a copy of the article to staff. Vinod Kashyap pointed out that if Mr. Gasowitz was referring to the slip planes, that issue was addressed adequately at the last meeting. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Fla-menbaum declared the public hearing closed. C/Plunk read the portion of the letter from Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., as referred to by Mr. Maxwell. She pointed out that the information provided is general information. Max Maxwell clarified that there was no conducted survey west of the 57, as indicated, and that the Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study did not come to the conclusions stated in the letter. CDD/DeStefano stated that the staff report provided to the Commission this evening is the same staff report presented to the Commission for the April 26, 1993 meeting, which is an updated version of the report provided to the Commission for the meeting of April 12, 1993. The reference discussion regarding the cougar issue from the Pacific Southwest Biological Service, Inc. was included in the April 12, 1993 report. In regards to Mr. Maxwell's inquiry regarding the status of the EIR, CDD/DeStefano explained that the EIR-has not been certified, nor has the Planning commission made a decision on the EIR for this project, but merely set aside the document in order to further study the project details. The Commission will be revisiting the EIR in the future, whether the project is denied or approved. Furthermore, the whole project, and the EIR, will be reviewed by the City Council. -777777777 April 29, 1993 Page 4 Chair/ Flamenbaum requested Hardy Strozier to review how it was determined that the - project is consistent with the General Plan. Hardy Strozier referred the Commission to page 32 of the January 25, 1993 staff report which reviews a Goal and an objective analysis through the General Plan as it relates to the proposed South Pointe Master Plan. CDD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that, at the time the January 25, 1993 report was prepared, the City did have an adopted General Plan, and that on March 16, 1993, the City Council, rescinded that adoption. Hardy Strozier will be outlining the goals, policies, and strategies of what is now called -the draft General Plan. Hardy Strozier in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, stated that he has not been part of the General Plan revision process. He then proceeded to read the January 25, 1993 staff report which outlined the project's consistency with the General Plan. It is staffs opinion that the South Pointe Master Plan is completely consistent with the draft General Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:07 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:18 p.m. Chair/ Flamenbaum, referring to page 35, appendix "All of the January 25, 1993 staff report, the Housing Goals, inquired how the City will be complying with the Housing Element for moderate to low incomes, as required by State law, if the proposed homes are estimated to sell for $350,000 to $400,000 dollars. Hardy Strozier explained that the State law requires cities to provide a broad range of housing opportunities, to include a certain percentage of number of housing units in the very low, low, moderate, and upper income categories. The law does not require that there be components of these four housing categories in every project. This project, which provides housing opportunities in the moderate and upper income categories, does meet those goals. Low, and very low income opportunities are usually provided in cities through the attainment of apartment projects, or affordable condominiums projects. U"V April 29, 1993 Page 5 P7 Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if it is feasible to require mixed housing in the commercial areas of this project. Hardy Strozier explained that such land use components are usually found in very urbanized areas because they have the land value that can afford those types of building improvements to go multi story. Such a situation, or land values, are not found in Diamond Bar today. If this were required on the commercial portion of the project, in staffs opinion, the project would be doomed to failure. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the 34 unit town home project, at Golden Springs and Torito Lane, recently approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council, could be an example of a project that might fit into the moderate to low income category, based upon the product type and the anticipated price range. Furthermore, the Housing Element of the General Plan, strategy 1.1.1, on page 11-20, does indicate that commercial/ office developments, which propose residential components, should be considered but only where feasible and appropriate. Such a mix use concept would have to be determined on a case by case basis, and, as Hardy Strozier pointed out, those are most likely to occur in Diamond Bar's more urbanized areas. Hardy Strozier, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum, explained that the policy regarding the consistency of the project to the preservation and conservation of existing housing stock is inapplicable to the project. Chair/Fla enbaum, referring to one of the goals in the ResouTce Management Element, inquired, how it was determined that grading, as well as the removal of all the trees, maintain the open space system which preserves scenic beauty and protects important biological resources. Hardy Strozier explained that, based on professional experience, it was felt that the Master Plan design has a very strong balance of open space usesf up to and including the preservation of a fair amount of existing natural areas, ane- that it also had a very efficient open space linkage system. From a master planning standpoint, it was felt that this is an exemplary design of a balancing of land uses, not dwelling on the total preservation or total development, but a fine mix. The Master Plan proposes an April 29, 1993 Page 6 overabundance of open space preservation when measured against the standards set forth in , the General Plan and the local codes. Hardy Strozier then reviewed the following areas that have been preserved: there is a large existing open space expanse, — Cross Section 11G11 Ithat is being essentially preserved on the edges of the Arciero tract; there is approximately 60 feet of natural terrain in Cross Section IICII; there is an area off the edge of Brea Canyon Road, in Cross Section "B", that -is very natural; and there is a large expanse of natural terrain adjacent to Brea- Canyon Road and the Arciero Ti -act. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum Is inquiry as to what percentage of land mass will remain unscathed for preservationpurposes, stated that under 20% of the 78 acres owned by RnP remains unscathed, and about 20% of the 40 acres owned by Arciero was set aside in it's natural state as it adjoins adjacent property. Jim Budke, representing Mr. Patel, stated that about 5% or less of the 6.7 acres owned by Sasak will be left in it's natural state. Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to the Physical Mobility Element, then inquired if the consistency findings would remain the same if Rapid View, Larkstone, and Morning Sun were opened. Hardy Strozier stated that the City traffic engineer and the consulting traffic engineer both have indicated that there would be very little relative benefit derived from opening Rapid View because very little traffic would be utilizing that street. By putting in street "A", from Brea Canyon Road, an unloaded collector is provided for school buses and other such traffic, providing a more efficient, shorter, and a safer connection to that school. Morning Sun would be the best choice for a secondary access point, which may be required for safety purposes, because it is less attractive due to the various curves in the road. Larkstone would be a more direct route, however, if one of the objectives is to discourage through traffic through residential neighborhoods, it would be safer and more consistent to close Larkstone, and to let Street "All serve it. I t is our plan to discourage the connection through Larkstone. CDD/DeStefano stated that the General Plan does have a specific clause that discusses the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods, and the 1,! April 29, 1993 Page 7 discouragement of through traffic. Opening Rapid View, which is a direct link to Colima, and opening Larkstone, which is a direct link to Colima as well as Lemon, would not be, in staff's opinion, consistent with the Goals as they have been written, and the vision as it was crafted through the various review processees of the General Plan. Rapid View and Larkstone have the potential to become another Morning Sun and Rolling Knoll/Quail summit situation where it could become a cut through to avoid the intersection of Golden Springs and Brea Canyon Road, and to avoid the congestion of the f reeway on ramp near the Jack in the Box facility. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the Sasak project, which projects no opening to the rest of the project, is consistent with the General Plan. CDD/DeStefano stated that the Sasak property, which is on the boundary line of Diamond Bar and Rowland Heights, and is on the boundary of the Walnut and Rowland Heights School District, would probably be inconsistent with the General Plan because it does not have access, or design orientation, towards these larger areas. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Joyce Hill, residing at 1836 Shaded Wood Road, made the following comments: residents on Shaded Wood road overlook the canyon, and a wall will not help mitigate problems associated with construction; if the park is to be a noise mitigation measure, as indicated at the April 26, 1993 meeting, does that mean that the park will be higher in elevation than the commercial area; if the park will be that much higher than the commercial, than why is the hill being cut off since it is currently a noise mitigation measure for existing homes, not the proposed home; and should the project be recommended for approval since air quality standards will be exceeded, and health hazards will be present. Carolyn Elfelt, residing at 2119 Silver Cloud, 7-11 emphasized how critical it is to get the South Pointe Middle School built immediately to help our children become healthy, happy, productive adults. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning Sun, responding to the video shown at the April 26, 1993 meeting demonstrating the conditions at the South April 29, 1993 Page 8 Pointe Middle School, stated 'that though the condition of the school is a concern, the real issue involves the aspects of the project. Many of the schools in the area consist of portables, and many have traffic problems, making it the norm not the exception. Vinod Kashyap stated that because the problems associated with the South Pointe Middle School exist elsewhere, does not make it the norm. Children should not be taught to accept substandard conditions. Delaying the project, as some are attempting to do, hurt the children. The project should go forth expeditiously. George Barret, residing at 1880 Shaded Wood Road, pointed out that 90% of the schools are substandard, and most have the traffic problems associated with the South Pointe Middle School. Adding 200 more homes will not improve that traffic problem, but increase traffic and the a -mount of students in our already over crowded schools. There does not need to be a development in order to get the school constructed. The Walnut School District is aware of this and will be in court with Arciero on June 22, 1993. Clair Harmony, residing at 24139 Alfamado, Lane, expressed the following concerns: though the Hillside ordinance was designed to preserve hillside, and the Oak Tree ordinance was designed to preserve those trees, the , City keeps issuing CUP's allowing developers an opportunity to get around those ordinances, thereby defeating it's purpose; the tract maps, related to the Pathfinder's Homeowners Association, indicate that those parcels are not to be built on, and have been dedicated as open space; such a dedication was a trade off for the density allowed for the Pathfinder development, therefore the, project is actually developing double density over the permitted use of density, which is not consistent with the General Plan; and the Walnut School District has the responsibility to maintain it's facilities. Sherry Roberts, residing at 2660 Broken Feather, inquired if it is -illegal for motorists to enter into the Quail Summit neighborhood., Chair/ Flamenbaum explained that it is not illegal to enter into the Quail Summit neighborhood, but illegal to turn right on to Grand Ave. from Rolling P 'April 29, 1993 Pa'e 9 9 Knoll between the hours of 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Sherry Roberts then expressed the following concerns: the access to the school is a saf ety hazard; another access to the school is needed besides the one coming off of Brea Canyon Road; and all of South Pointe Middle School consists of portables, and it does not have the equipment or facilities as other Middle Schools have that we compete with. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Li, stated that financing for the Middle School is in place, and the plans prepared by the School District have been approved by the State. The project is awaiting construction bid and a specific target date for actual construction activity. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Chair/Flamenbaum recess the meeting at 9:45 p.m.. The meeting was reconvened at 9:55 P.M.. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the Commission is prepared to discuss General Plan consistency. If the Commission is ready, he stated that he would prefer discussion not be brought to a closure since VC/Meyer was absent from the meeting, and C/Grothe missed -a good portion of the presentation and discussion. C/Li stated that he feels that the Commission should continue on, at this point, and discuss General Plan -consistency. C/Grothe stated that, since he did not arrive until 9:00 p.m., he would prefer to review the tapes of the meeting prior to his arrival before making a decision on General Plan consistency. C/Plunk stated that she feels that the proposed plan is generally consistent with the General Plan. She made the following comments: she would prefer to see Larkstone open; Morning Sun should not be affected solely by the traffic; one street servicing the School is not acceptable; the secondary road needs to be at a saf a grade; the iL-0: area has a public safety problem in it's current configuration, where wild land meets urban area in an interface, which is a similar- condition that caused the tragedy from the Berkeley fire; it is a beautiful open space area, however, it is privately April 29, 1993 Page 10 owned and the responsibility of the developer; the conditions at South Pointe Middle School are substandard, and the -traffic situation is worse than any other school in Diamond Bar; there is a concern whether the School meets earthquake standards; and there is a need to address, very specifically, the noise mitigation and the AQMD issues. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he feels that the project is not completely consistent with the draft General Plan, though it is generally consistent. Though he would prefer to leave the canyon as is, weighing the pros and cons, he concurs that it meets the requirements and that it's benefits do outweigh it's detriments. There may be a concern that as a policy issue, the City may not be doing what is right in terms of managing our resources, however, it must be recognized those resources are not owned by the City. There does not seem to be an issue regarding cougars, the horned lizard, or the gnat catcher. The Middle School is a secondary issue as far as whether or not this project should approved, however, it's development is linked to the project, specifically regarding the dirt remaining on the site. C/Grothe 'pointed out that the project can be interpreted either way, to be consistent or inconsistent. For example, a CUP is needed for the Hillside Ordinance in order to make this plan work. However, the trade offs to the City is a permanent School, a substantial size park, and 10 acres of commercial land, which will increase the City's revenues thereby enhancing the quality of life. In order to preserve that area entirely, the options available are to either buy the property, pass a bond issue for the City to buy it, or get a conservancy to buy it. C/Plunk inquired if a motion of the Commission is necessary. DA/Curley stated that a motion would indicate a final action, therefore, a consensus of the Commission is preferred. Motion was made by C/Li, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED to direct staff to draft a Resolution that the project is generally consistent with the draft General Plan, to include the minor amendments mentioned. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Li. April 29, 1993 NOES: ABSTAIN: Page 11 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. Grothe. The Planning Commission then concurred not to discuss the Master Plan tonight, but to continue that discussion to the meeting of May 10, 1993 at 7:00 p.m.. INFORMATION CDD/DeStefano reported that the next community ITEMS: workshop for the General Plan process for revision is scheduled for May 1, 1993 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at Chaparral Middle - School. He reported that a summary comment was presented to the participants of the community workshop at the April 28, 1993 meeting. Staff will provide a copy of those comments to anyone desiring one. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Li, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:21 P.m. rest ames DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairmany