Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/10/1993CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 1993 ( CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:15 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: Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Nick Anis, residing at 1125 Branford Court, THE AUDIENCE: expressed his concern that information regarding Sandstone Canyon and the proposed project was misrepresented. Though he was told that the canyon was pristine, he stated that, after going into the canyon over the weekend, he found a substantial amount of trash and rubbish bath in the canyon and in the stream. Furthermore, several firemen had indicated to him that they felt that Sandstone Canyon was the greatest fire risk in Diamond Bar `= and the surrounding area. Another misnomer is that there is a deed restriction, yet upon investigation, there is actually a map restriction. Chair/ Flamenbaum stated that a letter regarding Sandstone Canyon has been submitted by Mr. Anis. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the Minutes of Minutes of April 26, 1993 to the next meeting. Apr. 26, 1993 The Planning Commission concurred not to hear any new items after 10:30 p.m. CONTINUED CDD/DeStefano reported that the South Pointe Master PUBLIC HEARINGS: Plan project represents a comprehensive land use planning effort on approximately 171 acres of General Plan primarily undeveloped land. The proposed project Amendment 92-2; is designed with a combination of residential, DA 92-1, 2, and 3; recreational, commercial/office, open space and Vesting TT Map educational uses. Approximately 80 residential 51407, CUP 92-8 & acres are proposed for construction of OT 92-8; ZC 91-2 & approximately 195 single family homes, 31 acres are 1 OT 91-2; TT Map proposed for a future commercial/office space 51253 & CUP 92-12; development adjacent to Brea Canyon Road, 28 acres OT 92-9; SP Master are proposed for a public park site for both Plan; & EIR 92-1 passive and active recreational uses, and 31 acres are proposed for the construction of a permanent South Pointe Middle School. The project would be May, 10, 1993 Page 2 developed over a, ten year period. The Planning 93 Commission has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report and has directed staff to begin preparation of the appropriate resolutions recommending City Council certification. Because approval of the General Plan was rescinded in March of 1993 by the City Council, no action or consideration will be undertaken in furtherance of an amendment to the General Plan. However, the Development Agreements, Tract Maps, and associated permits may proceed with reference to the Draft General Plan pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992). The Planning Commission concluded its April 29th public hearing by determining that the South Pointe Master Plan zoning regulations and development standards were consistent with the Draft General Plan. Staff was directed to prepare the appropriate resolutions for future Planning Commission consideration. The Planning Commission will now begin consideration of the Tentative Tract Maps. As noted within the South Pointe Master Plan development standards, the 171 acre site has been divided into five land use enclaves. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51407 (RnP) and Tentative Tract No. 51253 (Sasak Corporation) are located within Enclave 1, and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400 (Arciero & Sons) is located within Enclave 3. Each Tentative Tract map has been designed to development standards consistent with the Master Plan. CDD/DeStefano then reviewed the three subdivision specific proposals, as indicated in the staff report., It is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve "in concept" the three proposed subdivisions, and direct staff to bring back revised resolutions for formal adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting. It is further recommended that the Commission undertake specific discussion of the Development Agreements in order to permit staff to finalize the documents for future adoption. The Development Agreement establishes the terms and conditions from which the development -can proceed and provides the applicants with assurances based upon their commitment to timing and compliance with the agreements. The agreements incorporate a variety of land transfers and commitments by all parties toward the successful completion of the proposed project. CDD/DeStefano then stated that the EIR will be brought back to the Commission for final consideration as part of the final resolutions for review, at the time that the Commission begins to come to closure on this specific project to be forwarded to the City Council. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the South May, 10, 1993 Pages "3 Pointe Master Plan development standards and major elements, and that the Commission take action to approve Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407, Vesting Tentative Map No. 32400, and Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 with the draft findings and conditions contained within the attached resolutions, and that the Commission review the proposed Development Agreements. VC/Meyer suggested that, since the Sasak Corporation has presented a new iteration of the Tract Map, they should be allowed an opportunity to present their new proposal. Mr. Budke, representing Mr. Patel, reviewed the details of the proposed subdivision as follows: the recently submitted Tentative Tract Map is now in line with the City's zoning and ordinances, and meets all the criteria of the Master Plan; the adjusted 7.05 acre site is currently proposed as 21 single family units; street "B" and "D" is now a through street that goes to Morning Sun, and is 60 feet wide, and there is a short median; the map is a direct result of recommendations made by some of the Commission members; the average lot size is -� 11,821 square feet; the average pad size is 8,096 square feet; the largest lot, lot #4, has 20,962 square feet; the largest pad, lot #4, has 11,214 square feet; the smallest lot, lot #20, has 8,056 square feet; the smallest pad, lot #16, has 6,290 square feet; there is a lot line adjustment being proposed adjacent to lot #5, #6, & #7, and on the easterly side of lot #12 & #13, as an effort to make this,a seamless development, which increases the overall density of this project by 15,300 square feet, and adds 1,750 square feet to the RnP site; the gross record density, at 6.7 acres, is 3.13 dwelling units per acre, which is almost exactly what is existing on Morning Sun; the adjusted gross density is 2.98 DU/per acre; the net net density provides an adjusted density of 3.07 DU/acre; the adjusted layout exports 10,400 less earthwork; there will probably be one graded contractor for the Master Plan project; and the maximum fill is 44 feet. Mr. Budke stated that generally, in their opinion, this proposed subdivision is now in line with the other two projects. They are looking for approval on this project and the entire Master Plan. VC/Meyer inquired if there was consideration made, in the current design analysis, to connect street "B" with Shepherd Hill. May, 10, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Budke pointed out that, a proposal having that connection was presented at the last meeting, however, such a design would require an easement for sewer and emergency egress access to the proposed cul-de-sac. This current design is in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's suggestion that the other proposal not be utilized, preferring the alignment now presented. VC/Meyer suggested that the street can still be aligned with Shepherd Hill by using the current configuration, and maintaining the concept of discouraging cut -through traffic through the entire project. There is an obligation to those residents living on the Morning Sun cul-de-sac to leave the neighborhood as itis currently, if at all possible. Mr. Budke pointed out that, with the current configuration, there are only five homes along Shepherd Hills and street "A" that will be affected. The only way to redesign it so that none of the homes are affected is to have a double loaded row of lots, which is detrimental from a marketing standpoint. It had been suggested by Chair/Flamenbaum to design it so that there would be a connection right at Shepherd Hills. VC/Meyer noted that the current design also has double loaded row of lots. If it is engineeringly feasible, the design should be modified, keeping all the utilities and sewer exactly as it is currently shown through a common easement between lots #1 and #21, but moving the street to the south. This modification may result in the loss of one lot, however, it is important to leave the cul- de-sac as is, without affecting existing residents. Mr. Budke stated that, from an engineering standpoint in terms of the impact on the RnP site, and sewer and drainage, it does not make sense to connect to Shepherd Hills. our first choice was not to have a through street regardless. C/Plunk stated that it would appear that this current design is attempting to get the most while giving the least. If lots #5, #6, #7, #12, & #13, which encroach on the RnP property, were removed, the proposal would be closer to the densities proposed by the other projects. The other two projects provide more buffer, such as the school site and the park site, offering relief to the local neighborhood. However, this project packs in li 'u In.M1�d aA&lAU�xifl=F. A`b S. 4—dnLiFt'I�3� rPi:+�'. May, .10, 1993 Page 5 7 more houses right up against the existing neighborhood, offering very little relief. Mr. Budke pointed out that the density of the project is 21 DU/per acre, which is less dense than the Arciero project, and very comparable in net net density to the RnP site. C/Li explained to Mr. Budke that the Commission is concerned that the proposal has double loaded row of lots, and that someone else's property must be utilized in order to substantiate the 21 homes. The other two proposals offer open space and other amenities, thereby offering relief to the neighborhood. Mr. Budke stated that this project has met all criteria that has been established. There is actually room to put as many as 24 lots on the site. There is no room on this 6.7 acre site to offer a school or a park. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, stated that RnP has agreed upon the lot line adjustment, as long as it does not impact them dramatically, °y, and that the layout would demonstrate harmony through the Master Plan. There has not yet been an opportunity to review the actual impact being proposed, however, we were pleased with the preliminary layout of the plan. Mr. Budke, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that they have concurred to construct $18,000 worth of sidewalks, off site, in the existing Morning Sun tract, only where necessary to get the children to the bus stop. C/Plunk suggested that there be a condition that approval must be received from the existing neighborhood prior to constructing curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The Planning Commission concurred. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, explained that the plan for the Larkstone interconnection would allow it to be made into an immediate connection when desired. Two cul-de- sac's cannot come together because the bus would fi- have to drive over the curb to get to the parking lot. C/Grothe requested clarification between the differing calculations as indicated on page 7, item 2.2, of the Cost Analysis, and page 10, the last - . -- May, 10, 1993 Page 6 bullet. He inquired if condition A is calculated at 10 acres or 15.5 acres. Hardy Strozier, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, explained that Arciero's prior proposal, which was denied by the County, was a totally different concept than the one being proposed today before the Commission. AP/Searcy, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding last meetings concern that there was a possible misquote in the letter received from Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., stated that staff was informed by the firm that they were not aware of anything in that letter that would be cpntradicted by anyone in their office. As of the time of this meeting, there has been no information from them stating that there would be any retractions. { CDD/DeStefano, in response to VC/Meyer's concern, 19 stated that, though the Commission cannot take definitive action this evening, it is staff's recommendation that very specific direction on the maps be given because some of the mitigation measures in the EIR may need to change as a result of that specific action. The Subdivision Map Act indicates that the subdivision should be compatible with the objectives, policies, guidelines, of the general land use and programs contained in the Master Plan. It is staff's opinion that all of these maps are consistent with that charge. Also, the City is currently operating under Ordinance No. 4 (1992) which permits us to make these recommendations to the City Council, and to take definitive action on some other the other cases before the Commission this evening. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Dale Levandar, the author of the Fiscal Cost Benefit Analysis, stated that they have concluded that the site is good for a commercial retail complex, and that in all three alternatives, the City does not show a negative cash flow. In response to C/Grothe's earlier question, he explained that there is a typo on page 10, and it should have read "...based on 8% rate applied to a value of $435,000 dollars (43,560 square feet per acre computed at $10.00 per square foot)." .In addition to the pure economics of the situation, the projections contain some cost figures which C!"It nw rv.�.7e's, v, May, 10, 1993 Page 7 over state the proportionate share. This is a cash flow projection, not a fair share approach. In response to C/Li, Dale Levander explained that the analysis shows the cash flow to the City during the development period, which is 10 years, plus on an annual basis beyond 10 years. The discounted cash flow assumes an interest rate of 6 percent. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public, Hearing opened. Tom Van Winkle, a resident, advised the commission to move cautiously on any portion of the project since the City has no General Plan. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood, made the following comments: the EIR should address the mitigation of "Valley Fever" (Coccidioidomycossia), which is caused by the prolong dust associated with the destruction of so much soil; the EIR is incomplete because the City does not have a compatible Tree Ordinance; destroying 97% of an established area is a significant impact, contrary to what is stated in the EIR; and there are trees in the canyon that are between 250 and 500 years old, with no indication that fire occurred. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills, stated that the project not only affects the Morning Sun tract residents, but also the life of the Pathfinder community- as well, in a very negative way. Chuck Bowler, a resident on Morning Sun, pointed out that sidewalks would need to be constructed on Morning Sun, Shepherd Hill, Chapel Hill, and Tameschaner because that is the route that the children take to the bus stop. He then suggested that the homes on Patel's site face Morning Sun, moving the other homes over so that there are backyards facing each other rather than one row of homes with two streets. The road on Morning Sun should be totally eliminated, and the traffic should be run back to Colima since the subdivision is part of Diamond Bar and not Walnut. Vinod Kashyap, a resident stated that he was under the impression that the issue of the General Plan has been resolved. He then stated that, in his opinion, the needs of the entire community should take precedent over the needs of the Pathfinder community. May, 10, 1993 Page 8 . Norman Beach Cushane, President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, stated that they were promised that.this site was to be 90 acres reserved for parks. He also stated, in response to a comment made earlier regarding the fire safety of the Canyon, that there was a fire in the area, but it was in their tract and no one had to be evacuated. VC/Meyer, referring to a HOA meeting that was to be held regarding the possible use of the existing open space areas for public use, inquired what the HOA's position was on that possibility. Norman Beach Cushane stated that this issue will be presented to the HOA at the end of the month when their annual -meeting is scheduled. There is a concern, if the land is dedicated for public access to the property, regarding ownership, liability, and possible development, as is occurring now. Elizabeth Hodges, a resident, inquired if the County has given permission to pursue the construction of sidewalks since it is County property because it was her impression that the County Department of Transportation wrote strongly opposing a road being put on through Morning Sun, as is indicated in the Response to Comment section of the EIR. Hearing no further testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, stated that as long as any liability issues are resolved, they would not see a problem with potting the 2 inch oak trees to be removed and relocated to offer them to the community. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the Commission proceed as has been recommended by staff. VC/Meyer stated that he listened to the tapes of the April 29th meeting and feels that he understands what went on. He suggested that, if the review process is to be taken in a linear progression, the Commission should first revisit concerns on any issues in the $IR, in order to get closure on it. Furthermore, since the straw vote, from the last meeting, on General Plan consistency, was only a 2-1-1 vote, the Commission should perhaps revisit that issue as well. If there is not a consensus on the Master Plan issue, then there is no need to go through conditions of ._-....-,. .... ..., .. .. _, ,-....-,-�., ., .,.�.,. ..�-_..r .,. .. ,,..,..,, 1• , �., 'Ta�.q +:; �iF`rM'kb1; �k�:J�'Y'r ti}„�,a�ps'e t""'�dc 1� '�`.ri May, 10, 1993 Page'9 r I <<µ approval of a tentative tract map -and a development --agreement, and the project should be recommended to the City Council for denial. The Planning Commission concurred to revisit issues of concern in the EIR. VC/Meyer stated that he does not concur with the findings in the EIR that the replacement of Oak Trees at a 2:1 ratio sufficiently mitigates covering up 97% of the -trees to a level of nonsignificance. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare overriding considerations on the removal of the trees. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li, V C/ M e y e r, a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VC/Meyer stated that he would prefer that the Resource Management Plan also deal with the landscaping concepts, such as statements about the road, the architectural statement to be made to the medians, the architectural statement with the landscaping of the commercial facilities entry, hillside grading, etc., and to specifically locate that information in one location. CDD/DeStefano, noting that the material desired is already within the documents reviewed by the Commission, suggested that a specific section be' added called, "Resource Management Plan" within the Master Plan's zoning regulations and development standards that would deal with all of these issues, or indicate where the information can be found. Also, the conditions recommended for approval can be grouped into a section within each resolution called "Resource Management Plan" which will make that specific issue more clear to the reviewing individual or agency in the future that will help implement the project. C/Grothe stated that he feels that the areas of contour grading, bench drains, and landscaping should be taken directly out of the Hillside Management Ordinance and placed in the conditions. May, 10, 1993 Page 10 The Planning Commission concurred to place such information in the resolutions for the specific tract maps. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will also add much more of the detail of the Hillside Ordinance, along with the conditions fluent through all the other documents, and group,them into one section such as the "Resource Management Plan". VC/Meyer, concerned that there can be obstructions that reduce the clearance at the side yards, suggested that the side yard set back be modified to a minimum of 5 feet and 12 feet to guarantee access to the rear yard. Also; the front yard set back can be determined based upon if the garage faces the street or if it is perpendicular to the street, so that the homes are staggered for aesthetic purposes. Jan Dabney stated that the intent of the 5 foot and 10 foot side yard set back was to provide the homeowners access to use their rear yards. If the Commission desires 10 feet at the side yard setback then it could be stated as 1110 foot unobstructed", which is measured from the closest obstruction, rather than distance. C/Grothe stated that he would prefer that the conditions spell out exactly what the engineers standards are in regards to the street cross sections, sidewalks, landscaping, etc. ICE/Wentz stated that those conditions are normally tied into the tract map, and, if desired, that detail can be specified as part of the condition, but doing so can restrain us somewhat if we change our minds for engineering reasons. It was left with enough discretion at this time to give flexibility, yet still indicate what the street sections will be on the map. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will develop additional language to tie this thought together, and place it in the Development Standards document, or where appropriate. VC/Meyer suggested that the Commission vote again on the consistency of the Master Plan document to the General Plan since all five Commissioners are now present. The Planning Commission then discussed the issue of the General Plan and it's revision. 111 r,... ..i......i. �.r.nn a.n . -_ ri-isl..c.�_ _- _ r_Y. - _ ..r_ _`__ _ avJ6•� nlwl r.. d�L_. -__- _. May, 10, 1993 Page 11 c/Grothe indicated' that his opposition is not so much to development in the proposed area, but that he feels this is not the best Master Plan that has been proposed. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded C/Plunk and CARRIED to find that the Master Plan document is consistent with the General Plan under Ordinance No. 4 (1992), with the following modifications: to direct staff to compile the Resource Management Plan with the concept of having all these references into one document; having a side yard setback of 5 feet and an unobstructed 10 feet; creating a staggered formula to vary the front set back from the property line to the nearest structure for the purpose of eliminating the straight run of the units through the streets. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. Grothe. None. None. VC/Meyer stated that, from a design standpoint, it is better to provide as many access options as possible to help incorporate the rest of the project into the community, therefore, the EIR should indicated that Larkstone should be put through. Hardy Strozier, in response to C/flunk's suggestion that the Arciero property be conditioned to indicate, "the secondary access to a public street, other than through the commercial or through Rapid view", in order to avoid cut through traffic, suggested that such a condition may be more appropriately located in the subdivision tract map resolution. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY that the EIR documentation should be amended to show mitigation that Larkstone should be connected. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Grothe, Li, V C/ M e y e r, a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. May, 10, 1993 Page 12 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VC/Meyer stated that he is uncomfortable with the design submitted by the Sasak,Corporation. Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Li, to direct staff to work with the applicant for two weeks to redesign the plan to realign the street with Shepherd Hills. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. to allow the applicant time to consider the request. The meeting was reconvened at 10:15 p.m. Noting the .late hour of the meeting, C/Grothe withdrew his motion to allow the applicants of items 3 & 4 of the agenda to consent to a continuation. C/Li withdrew his second. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened for item 3, Variance 93-1, CUP 93-3, and Oak Tree Permit 93-1. Jake Williams, the property owner, stated that he does not object to a continuation, with the understanding that his matter will be placed first on the next meeting's agenda. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue item 3, of the agenda, to the next meeting of May 24, 1993. j Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened for item 4, Amendment to Conditional Use permit 91 - David Lee, the applicant's brother and representative, stated that they would prefer that their matter come before the Planning Commission tonight. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the meeting of May 24, 1993. VC/Meyer suggested that a member of staff explain to the applicant that there was a consensus of the Commission to continue the item. The Planning Commission then concurred to continue item 5 of the agenda, the Reorganization of the Planning Commission, to the meeting of May 24, 1993. �� � ►,� a - .r ^'fir r �T�,i i Fln", r'A,;Y.i ..A aa: �, ,. _.�-. z�1��",wi wY��ZI May, 10, 1993 Page 13 zz; C/Grothe then restated his motion to direct staff to work with the applicant for two weeks to redesign the ,plan to realign the street "B" with Shepherd Hills. Mr. Budke, the applicants representative, stated that they have worked with staff, and the current design is a product of their recommendation. The objection to the project, from the Commission, seems to be arbitrary, as does the recommendation to reduce the project to 16 lots. There have been 7 different layouts presented before the Commission showing alternates with lots on Morning Sun, and alternates with connections at Shepherd Hills. The design presented tonight fits all of the criteria, and adequately demonstrates the engineering problems associated with connecting to Shepherd Hills. There seems only to be an emotional concern for those residents on Morning Sun. He then stated that he was directed by Chair/Flamenbaum to do this specific layout. Chair/Flamenbuam stated that he never indicated that a particular road needed to be aligned in a particular spot, but that he indicated that he did not like the 24 foot wide easement, or the isolation of the tract from the rest of the community. C/Plunk reiterated the Commissions desire that the project be designed to be as considerate to the existing neighborhood as possible. The other projects are donating quite a bit in order to do their subdivisions, and there is plenty of buffer to the existing neighborhoods. C/Grothe withdrew his Motion. Jan Dabney stated that, with the restrictions that Mr. Patel has on his property, there are hardships in setting aside available open space. The map before us this evening is a vast improvement from what has been presented in the past. Moving the access road to Shepherd Hills creates a need for retaining walls which is not within the constraints of the Master Plan concepts, or the current approved Hillside ordinance. Perhaps, as an - alternative, Mr. Patel could be asked to donate something else to the community in lieu of giving up any open space. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbuam, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED to continue the matter of Tract Map No. 32576 for two weeks to give staff the May, 10, 1993 Page 14 opportunity to review the map and to make appropriate recommendations. ROLL CALL:" AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to explore the possibility of having a Tree Relocation Program, to provide 2 inch trees to the community at a nominal cost, as a mitigation measure for the removal of the trees from the canyon, and to place it in the Resource Management Plan and the EIR, if appropriate. CDD/DeStefano stated that it is staff's recommendation that the Commission review the RnP Tract Map to ensure it's in compliance with the Master Plan, and to make any suggested changes. Staff will then fine tune the resolutions, and make any appropriate grammatical or spelling changes. VC/Meyer made the following statements: the findings in support of the EIR documentation should also indicate "by the recommendation of the Planning Commission" throughout the entire document; page 24, item E, should be modified to include Larkstone; and, if appropriate, include a condition, on page 2 of Attachment "B", to include the adjacent Homeowners Association in the landscaping district if they should happen to decide to participate in this project with respect to providing open space. CDD/DeStefano stated that, if so directed, the City Engineer and he will look at creating a specific condition to deal with the issue of the Homeowners Association. The Planning Commission so directed. ICE/Wentz pointed out that the boundaries of the district can always be amended by the City Council as part of the public hearing process, and, they can add a secondary district to incorporate their participation in the overall maintenance of that area. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Grothe's inquiry as to the specific percentage of improvements to be I'M May, lo, 1993 Page 15 done by the developer, explained that the developer will be contributing towards the project as is listed within the Conditions of Approval within the Resolutions, and the Development Agreements, subject to further negotiation between the developers and the staff, Planning Commission, and the conclusive comments of the City Council. The percentages indicated in the Fiscal Impact Report was done only for study purposes in order to complete the assignment. In response to C/Grothe's inquiry regarding the specific percentage of acreage for commercial land, CDD/DeStefano stated that there is to be about a 30 to 31 acre commercial center, in which the City's ownership will be between 10 and 15, which will ultimately be a business decision of the City Council. The land use decision before the Planning Commission is the issue of whether the 30 to 31 commercial center is an appropriate land use. C/Grothe then made the followings comments: a 3:1 Oak Tree replacement ratio should be indicated in items #11, #16, #17, & #18, or keep with the bigger variety of sizes; there should be language indicating that the developers can place the quantity of trees on or off site; staff should explore the possibility of getting the School District to use contour grading, put proper bench drains, landscaping, etc. on the hillsides, on the School District site dropping on to Arciero's property, and include their property in the Landscape Maintenance District; and grading for all three project should be done at one time. Jan Dabney stated that all the improvements, on the Arciero site, will be put on at one time. All the improvements to the commercial and the park site, can be done by RnP, tying into Larkstone, and then the remainder of the RnP project to the Sasak project would also be done all at one time because of the grading for the hydrolics. ICE/Wentz indicated that a condition can be included to indicate that the phases are to be done all at once. VC/Meyer suggested that page 3, in the RnP resolution, under "Grading", include a condition for bonding. Referring to the final grading plans as indicated in condition 12, he inquired what plans have been made if there are major modifications made after the geological investigation. May, 10, 1993 Page 16 ANNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStefano reported that the workshop for the General Plan revision process is scheduled May 12, 1993. The public hearings on the General Plan revision begin May 19, 26th and June 2, 1993. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. I Respectively, ICE/Wentz stated that there is a paragraph on page four, before item #17, intended to deal with that particular issue, thaf indicates there could be an amendment to the lot configurations based upon their findings. If the proposed finals varied significantly from the approved tentative the whole process could be repeated, per the -decision of the engineer's office. ICE/Wentz then made the following response to inquiries made by VC/Meyer: the definition of an urban pollutant basis, on page 6, is a detention basin; page 7, item 51, will be addressed by the Resource Management Plan; the intent of item 55, page 8, is that the issue of the access out to Morning Sun and Larkstone may ultimately be addressed through the City Engineer's office; item 64, page 9, the utilities will be undergrounded as part of a condition of this tract, and will be adjacent to this tract on Brea Canyon; page ten, item 7 should be relocated into the Resource Management Plan and it should cross reference the Hillside Management Ordinance which talks about rip rap, muted tones, etc.; and the intent of item 19, page 12, is to try to reduce the impact of wildlife to the surrounding residential area when the grading begins. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to draft the Resolutions of Approval for RnP and Arciero tract, responding to the comments and corrections made. The Planning commission then concurred to direct staff to make the Development Agreement consistent with the current changes. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStefano reported that the workshop for the General Plan revision process is scheduled May 12, 1993. The public hearings on the General Plan revision begin May 19, 26th and June 2, 1993. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. I Respectively, May, 10, 1993 Page 17 r JJii- s` DeStefano Se etary Attest: -72 Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. at the South Coast Air -Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 t. CoRkey Drive, Diamond Bar, California. OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: commissioners: Grothe, Li, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Nick Anis, residing at 1125 Bramford Court, THE AUDIENCE: expressed his concern that information regarding Sandstone Canyon and the proposed project was misrepresented. Though he was told that the canyon was pristine, he stated that, after going into the canyon over the weekend, he found a substantial amount of trash and rubbish both in the canyon andin the stream. Furthermore, several firemen had indicated to him 'that they felt that Sandstone Canyon was the greatest fire risk in Diamond Bar and the surrounding area. Another misnomer is that there is a deed restriction, yet upon investigation, there is actually a map restriction. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that a letter regarding Sandstone Canyon has been submitted by Mr. Anis. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the Minutes of April 26, 1993 to the next meeting. Minutes of Apr. 26, 1993 The Planning commission concurred not to hear any new items after 10:30 p.m. CONTINUED PUBLIC CDD/DeStefano reported that the South Pointe Master Plan project represents a comprehensive land use planning effort on approximately 171 acres of primarily undeveloped land. The proposed project is designed with a combination of General Plan Amendment 92- residential, recreational, commercial/office, 'open space and educational uses. 2; DA 92-1, 2, and 3; Vesting Approximately 80 residential acres are proposed for construction of TT Map 51407, CUP 92-8 & approximately 195 single family homes, 31 acres are proposed for a future OT 92-8; ZC 91-2 & OT 91-2; commercial/office space development adjacent to Brea Canyon Road, 28 acres TT Map 51253 & CUP 92-12; are proposed for a public park site for both passive and active recreational uses, OT 92-9; SP Master Plan; & and 31 acres are proposed for the construction of a permanent South Pointe EIR 92-1 Middle School. The project would be May, 10 1993 Page 2 ommission has reviewed the Draft Environmental developed over a, ten year period. The Planning roval of the General Plan was rescinded in March f 1993 by the City Council, no action or onsideration will be undertaken in furtherance of n amendment to the General Plan. However, the evelo ment Agreements, Tract Maps, and associated ermits may roceed with reference to the Draft eneral Plan pursuant to the provisions of rdinance No. 4 1992. The Planning Commission oncluded its April 29th public hearing b etermining that the South Pointe Master Plan oning regulations and development standards were onsistent with the Draft General Plan. Staff was irected to prepare the appropriate resolutions for uture Planning Commission consideration. The lanning Commission will now be in consideration of he Tentative Tract Maps. As noted within the outh Pointe Master Plan development standards, the 171 acre site has been divided into five land use nclaves. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 51407 RnP nd Tentative Tract No. 51253 Sasak Corporation) re located within Enclave 1, and Vesting Tentative ract No. 32400 Arciero & Sons is located within nclave 3. Each Tentative Tract map has been esi ned to development standards consistent with he Master Plan. CDD/DeStefano then reviewed the hree subdivisionspecific proposals, as indicated n the staff report., It is staffs recommendation hat the Planning Commission approve "in concept" he three proposed subdivisions, and direct staff o bring back revised resolutions for formal do tion at the next Planning Commission meeting. t is further recommended that the Commission ndertake specific discussion of the Development reements in order to permit staff to finalize the ocuments for future adoption. The Development reement establishes the terms and conditions from hich the development -can proceed and provides the 3pplicants with assurances based upon their ommitment to timing and compliance with the reements. Theagreements incorporate a variety mitments by all parties f land transf ers and co oward the successful completion of the proposed ro'ect. CDD/DeStefano then stated that the EIR II be brought back to the commission for final onsideration as part of the final resolutions for eview, at the time that the Commission begins to ome to closure on this specific project to be orwarded to the City Council. It is recommended hat the Planning Commission approve the South May, 10, 1993 Pagdi'3 Pointe Master Plan'development standards and major elements, and that the Commission take action to approve Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407, Vesting Tentative Map No. 32400, and Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 with the draft findings and conditions contained within the attached resolutions, and that the Commission review the proposed Development Agreements. VC/Meyer suggested that, since the Sasak Corporation has presented a new iteration of the Tract Map, they should be allowed an opportunity to present their new proposal. Mr. Budke, representing Mr. Patel, reviewed the details of the proposed subdivision as follows: the recently submitted Tentative Tract Map is now in line with the city's zoning and ordinances, and meets all the criteria of the Master Plan; the adjusted 7.05 acre site is currently proposed as 21 single family units; street 11611 and I'D" is now a through street that goes to Morning Sun, and is 60 feet wide, and there is a short median; the map is a direct result of recommendations made by some of the Commission members; the average lot size is 11,821 square feet; the average pad size is 8,096 square feet; the largest lot, lot #4, has 20,962 square feet; the largest pad, lot #4, has 11,214 square feet; the smallest lot, lot #20, has 8,056 square feet; the smallest pad, lot #16, has 6,290 square feet; there is a lot line adjustment being proposed adjacent to lot #5, #6, & #7, and on the easterly side of lot #12 & #13, as an effort to make this,a seamless development, which increases the overall density of this project by 15,300 square feet, and adds 1,750 square feet to the RnP site; the gross record density, at 6.7 acres, is 3.13 dwelling units per acre, which is almost exactly what is existing on Morning Sun; the adjusted gross density is 2.98 DU/per acre; the net net density provides an adjusted density of 3.07 DU/acre; the adjusted layout exports 10,400 less earthwork; there will probably be one graded contractor for the Master Plan project; and the maximum fill is 44 feet. Mr. Budke stated that generally, in their opinion, this proposed subdivision is now in line with the other two projects. They are looking f or approval on this project and the entire Master Plan. VC/Meyer inquired if there was consideration made, in the current design analysis, to connect street 11611 with Shepherd Hill. may, 10, 1993 Page 4 Mr. Budke pointed out that, -a proposal having -that connection was presented at the last meeting, however, such a design would require an easement for sewer and emergency egress access to the proposed cul-de-sac. This current design is in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's suggestion that the other proposal not, be utilized, preferring the alignment now presented. VC/Meyer suggested that the street can still be aligned with Shepherd Hill by using the current configuration, and maintaining the concept of discouraging cut -through traffic through the entire project. There is an obligation to those residents living on the Morning Sun cul-de-sac to leave the neighborhood as it is currently, if at all possible. Mr. Budke pointed out that, with the current configuration, there are only five homes along Shepherd Hills and street "All that will be affected. The only way to redesign it so that none of the homes are affected is to have a double loaded row of lots, which is detrimental from a marketing standpoint. It had been suggested by Chair/ Flamenbaum to design it so that there would be a connection right at Shepherd Hills. VC/Meyer noted that the current design also has double loaded row of lots. If it is engineeringly feasible, the design should be modified, keeping all the utilities and sewer exactly as it is currently shown through a common easement between lots #1 and #21, but moving the street to the south. This modification may result in the loss of one lot, however, it is important to leave the culde-sac as is, without affecting existing residents. Mr. Budke stated that, from an engineering standpoint in terms of the impact on the RnP site, and sewer and drainage, it does not make sense to connect to Shepherd Hills. our first choice was not to have a through street regardless. C/Plunk stated that it would appear that this current design is attempting to get the most while giving the least. If lots #5, #6, #7, #12, & #13, which encroach on the RnP property, were removed, the proposal would be closer to the densities proposed by the other projects. The other two projects provide more buffer, such as the school site and the park site, offering relief to the local neighborhood. However, this project packs in May,.10, 1993 PZL46 5 more houses right up against the existing neighborhood, offering very little relief. Mr. Budke pointed out that the density of the project is 21 DU/per acre, which is less dense than the Arciero project, and very comparable in net net density to the RnP site. C/Li explained to Mr. Budke that the Commission is concerned that the proposal has double loaded row of lots, and that someone else's property must be utilized in order to substantiate the 21 homes. The other two proposals offer open space and other amenities, thereby offering relief to the neighborhood. Mr. Budke stated that this project has met all criteria that has been established. There is actually room to put as many as 24 lots on the site. There is no room on this 6.7 acre site to offer a school or a park. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum, stated that RnP has agreed upon the lot line adjustment, as long as it does not impact them dramatically, and that the layout would demonstrate harmony through the Master Plan. There has not yet been an opportunity to review the actual impact being proposed, however, we were pleased with the preliminary layout of the plan. Mr. Budke, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that they have concurred to construct $18,000 worth of sidewalks, off site, in the existing Morning Sun tract, only where necessary to get the children to the bus stop. C/Plunk suggested that there be a condition that approval must be received from the existing neighborhood prior to constructing curb, gutter, and sidewalks. The Planning commission concurred. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, explained that the plan for the Larkstone interconnection would allow it to be made into an immediate connection when desired. Two cul-desac's cannot come together because the bus would have to drive over the curb to get to the parking lot. C/Grothe requested clarification between the differing calculations as indicated on page 7, item 2.2, of the Cost Analysis, and page 10, the last May, 10, 1993 Page 6 bullet. He inquired if condition A is calculated at 10 acres or 15.5 acres. Hardy Strozier, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, explained that Arciero's prior proposal, which was denied by the County, was a totally different concept than the one being proposed today before the Commission. AP/Searcy, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding last meetings concern that there was a possible misquote in the letter received from Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc., stated that staff was informed by the firm that they were not aware of anything in that letter that would be contradicted by anyone in their office. As of the time of this meeting, there has been no information from them stating that there would be any retractions. CDD/DeStefano, in response to VC/Meyer's concern, stated that, though the Commission cannot take definitive action this evening, it is staff's recommendation that very specific direction on the maps be given because some of the mitigation measures in the EIR may need to change as a result of that specific action. The Subdivision Map Act indicates that the subdivision should be compatible with the objectives, policies, guidelines, of the general land use and programs contained in the Master Plan. It is staff Is opinion that all of these maps are consistent with that charge. Also, the City is currently operating under Ordinance No. 4 (1992) which permits us to make these recommendations to the City Council, and to take definitive action on some other the other cases before the Commission this evening. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:45 p.m. Dale Levandar, the author of the Fiscal Cost Benefit Analysis, stated that they have concluded that the site is good- for a commercial retail complex, and that in all three alternatives, the City does not show a negative cash flow. In response to C/Grothe's earlier question, he explained that there is a typo on page 10, and it should have read 11 ... based on 8% rate applied to a value of $435,000 dollars (43,560 square feet per acre computed at $10. 00 per square foot) . 11 , In addition to the pure economics of the situation, the projections contain some cost figures which May, 10, 1993 Pa46 7 over state the'proportionate share. This is a cash flow projection, not a fair share approach. In response to C/Li, Dale Levander explained that the analysis shows the cash flow to the City during the development period, which is 10 years, plus on an annual basis beyond 10 years. The discounted cash flow assumes an interest rate of 6 percent. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public, Hearing opened. Tom Van Winkle, a resident, advised the commission to move cautiously on any portion of the project since the City has no General Plan. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood, made the following comments: the EIR should address the mitigation of "Valley Fever" (Coccidioidomycossia) , which is caused by the prolong dust associated with the destruction of so much soil; the EIR is incomplete because the City does not have a compatible Tree ordinance; destroying 97% of an established area is a significant impact, contrary to what is stated in the EIR; and there are trees in the canyon that are between 250 and 500 years old, with no indication that fire occurred. Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills, stated that the project not only affects the Morning Sun tract residents, but also the life of the Pathfinder community- as'well, in a very negative way. Chuck Bowler, a resident on Morning Sun, pointed out that sidewalks would need to be constructed on Morning Sun, Shepherd Hill, Chapel Hill, and Tameschaner because that is the route that the children take to the bus stop. He then suggested that the homes on Patel—s site face Morning Sun, moving the other homes over so that there are backyards facing each other rather than one row of homes with two streets. The road on Morning Sun should be totally eliminated, and the traffic should be run back to Colima since the subdivision is part of Diamond Bar and not Walnut. Vinod Kashyap, a resident, stated that he was under the impression that the issue of the General Plan has been resolved. He then stated that, in his opinion, the needs of the entire community should take precedent over the needs of the Pathfinder community. May, 10, 1993 Page 8 Norman Beach Cushane, President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Association, stated that they were promised that.this site was to be 90 acres reserved for parks. He also stated, in response to a comment made earlier regarding the fire safety of the Canyon, that there was a fire in the area, but it was in their tract and no one had to be evacuated. VC/Meyer, referring to a HOA meeting that was to be held regarding the possible use of the existing open space areas for public use, inquired what the HOA's position was on that possibility. Norman Beach Cushane stated that this issue will be presented to the HOA at the end of the month when their annual -meeting . is scheduled. There is a concern, if the land is dedicated for public access to the property, regarding ownership, liability, and possible development, as is occurring now. Elizabeth Hodges, a resident, inquired if the County has given permission to pursue the construction of sidewalks since it is County property because it was her impression that the County Department of Transportation wrote strongly opposing a road being put on through Morning Sun, as is indicated in the Response to Comment section of the EIR. Hearing no further testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. Jan Dabney, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, stated that as long as any liability issues are resolved, they would not see a problem with potting the 2 inch oak trees to be removed and relocated to offer them to the community. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the commission proceed as has been recommended by staff. the April 29th meeting and feels that he understands what went on. He suggested that, if the review process is to be taken in a linear progression, the Commission should first revisit concerns on any issues in the tIR, in order to get closure on it. Furthermore, since the straw vote, from the last meeting, on General Plan consistency, was only a 2-1-1 vote, the Commission should perhaps revisit that issue as well. If there is not a consensus on the Master Plan issuel then there is no need to go through conditions of May, 10, 1993 Page 9 approval of a tentative tract map -and a development agreement, and the project should be recommended to the City Council for denial. The Planning Commission concurred to revisit issues of concern in the EIR. VC/Meyer stated that he does not concur with the findings in the EIR that the replacement of Oak Trees at a 2:1 ratio sufficiently mitigates covering up 97% of the -trees to a level of nonsignificance. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare overriding considerations on the removal of the trees. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li, V C/ M e y e r, a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VC/Meyer stated that he would prefer that the Resource Management Plan also deal with the landscaping concepts, such as statements about the road, the architectural statement to be made to the medians, the architectural statement with the landscaping of the commercial facilities entry, hillside grading, etc., and to specifically locate that information in one location. CDD/DeStefano, noting that the material desired is already within the documents reviewed by the Commission, suggested that a specific section be' added called, "Resource Management Plan" within the Master Plan's zoning regulations and development standards that would deal with all of these issuest or indicate where the information can be found. Also, the conditions recommended for approval can be grouped into a section within each resolution called "Resource Management Plan" which will make that specific issue more clear to the reviewing individual or agency in the future that will help implement the project. C/Grothe stated that he feels that the areas of contour grading, bench drains, and landscaping should by taken directly out of the Hillside Management Ordinance and placed in the conditions. May, 10, 1993 Page 10 The Planning Commission concurred information in the to place such the resolutions for tract maps. specific CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will also add much more of the detail of the Hillside Ordinance, along with the conditions fluent through all the other documents, and group,them into one section such as the "Resource Management Plan". VC/Meyer, concerned that there can be obstructions that reduce the clearance at the side yards, suggested that the side yard set back be modified to a minimum of 5 feet and 12 feet to guarantee access to the rear yard. Alsoj the front yard set back can be determined based upon if the garage faces the street or if it is perpendicular to the street, so that the homes are staggered for aesthetic purposes. Jan Dabney stated that the intent of the 5 foot and 10 foot side yard set back was to provide the homeowners access to use their rear yards. If the Commission desires 10 feet at the side yard setback then it could be stated as 1110 foot unobstructed", which is measured from the closest obstruction, rather than distance. C/Grothe stated that he would prefer that the conditions spell out exactly what the engineers standards are in , regards to the street cross sections, sidewalks, landscaping, etc. ICE/Wentz'stated that those conditions are normally tied into the tract map, and, if desired, that detail can be specified as part of the condition, but doing so can restrain us somewhat if we change our minds for engineering reasons. It was lef t with enough discretion at this time to give flexibility, yet still indicate what the street sections will be on the map. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will develop additional language to tie this thought together, and place it in the Development Standards document, or where appropriate. VC/Meyer suggested that the Commission vote again on the consistency of the Master Plan document to the General Plan since all five Commissioners are now present. The Planning Commission then discussed the issue of the General Plan and it's Wvr May, 10, 1993 Page 11 C/Grothe indicated' that his opposition is not so much to development in the proposed area, but that he feels this is not the best Master Plan that has been proposed. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded C/Plunk and CARRIED to f ind that the Master Plan document is consistent with the General Plan under Ordinance No. 4 (1992), with the following modifications: to direct staff to compile the Resource Management Plan with the concept of having all these references into one document; having a side yard setback of 5 feet and an unobstructed 10 feet; creating a staggered formula to vary the front set back from the property line to the nearest structure for the purpose of eliminating the straight run of the units through the streets. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Meyer stated that, from a design standpoint, it is better to provide as many access options as possible to help incorporate the rest of the project into the community, therefore, the EIR should indicated that Larkstone should be put through. Hardy Strozier, in response to C/Plunk's suggestion that the Arciero property be conditioned to indicate, "the secondary access to a public street, other than through the commercial or through Rapid View", in order to avoid cut through traffic, suggested that such a condition may be more appropriately located in the subdivision tract map resolution. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/ Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY that the EIR documentation should be amended to show mitigation that Larkstone should be connected. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Grothe, Li, V C/ M e y e r a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. May, 10, 1993 Page 12 COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: VC/Meyer stated that he is uncomfortable with the design submitted by the Sasak,Corporation. Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Li, to direct staff to work with the applicant for two weeks to redesign the plan to realign the street with Shepherd Hills. Chair/ Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. to allow the applicant time to consider the request. The meeting was reconvened at 10:15 p.m. Noting the late hour of the meeting, C/Grothe withdrew his motion to allow the applicants of items 3 & 4 of the agenda to consent to a continuation. C/Li withdrew his second. Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened for item 3, Variance 93-1, CUP 93-31 and Oak Tree Permit 93-1. Jake Williams, the property owner, stated that he does not object to a continuation, with the understanding that his -matter will be placed first on the next meeting's agenda. Motion was made by Chair/ Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue item 3, of the agenda, to the next meeting of May 24, 1993. Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened for item 4, Amendment to Conditional Use permit 918. David Lee, the applicant's brother and representative, stated that they would prefer that their matter come before the Planning Commission tonight. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the meeting of May 24, 1993. VC/Meyer suggested that a member of staff explain to the applicant that there was a consensus of the Commission to continue the item. The Planning Commission then concurred to continue item 5 of the agenda, the Reorganization of the Planning Commission, to the meeting of May 24, 1993. May, 10, 1993 Page 13 C/Grothe then restated his motion to direct staff to work with the applicant for two weeks to redesign the plan to realign the street "B" with Shepherd Hills. Mr. Budke, the applicants representative, stated that they have worked with staff, and the current design is a product of their recommendation. The objection to the project, from the Commission, seems to be arbitrary, as does the recommendation to reduce the project to 16 lots. There have been 7 different layouts presented before the Commission showing alternates with lots on Morning Sun, and alternates with connections at Shepherd Hills. The design presented tonight fits all of the criteria, and adequately demonstrates the engineering problems associated with connecting to Shepherd Hills. There seems only to be an emotional concern for those residents on Morning Sun. He then stated that he was directed by Chair/Flamenbaum to do this specific layout. Chair/Flamenbuam stated that he never indic'ated that a particular road needed to be aligned in a particular spot, but that he indicated that he did not like the 24 foot wide easementf or the isolation of the tract from the rest of the community. C/Plunk reiterated the Commissions desire that the project be designed to be as considerate to the existing neighborhood as possible. The other projects are donating quite a bit in order to do their subdivisions, and there is plenty of buffer to the existing neighborhoods. C/Grothe withdrew his Motion. Jan Dabney stated that, with the restrictions that Mr. Patel has on his property, there are hardships in setting aside available open space. The map before us this evening is a vast improvement from what has been presented in the past. Moving the access road to Shepherd Hills creates a need for retaining walls which is not within the constraints of the Master Plan concepts, or the current approved Hillside Ordinance. Perhaps, as an alternative, Mr. Patel could be asked to donate something else to the community in lieu of giving up any open space. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbuam, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED to continue the matter of Tract Map No. 32576 for two weeks to give staff the May, 10, 1993 Page 14 opportunity to review the map and to make appropriate recommendations. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to explore the possibility of having a Tree Relocation Program, to provide 2 inch trees to the community at a nominal cost., as a mitigation measure for the removal of the trees from the canyon, and to place it in the Resource Management Plan and the EI R, if appropriate. CDD/DeStefano stated that it is staff's recommendation that the Commission review the RnP Tract Map to ensure it's in compliance with the Master Plan, and to make any suggested changes. Staff will then fine tune the resolutions, and make any appropriate grammatical or spelling changes. VC/Meyer made the following statements: the findings in support of the EIR documentation should also indicate "by the recommendation of the Planning commission" throughout the entire document; page 24, item E, should be modified to include Larkstone; and, if appropriate, include a condition, on page 2 of Attachment "B", to include the adjacent Homeowners Association in the landscaping district if they should happen to decide to participate in this project with respect to providing open space. CDD/DeStefano stated that, if so directed, the City Engineer and he will look at creating a specific condition to deal with the issue of the Homeowners Association. The Planning Commission so directed. ICE/Wentz pointed out that the boundaries of the district can always be amended by the city council as part of the public hearing process, and, they can add a secondary district to incorporate their participation in the overall maintenance of that area. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Grothe's inquiry as to the specific percentage of improvements to be May, 10, 1993 Page 15 done by the developer, explained that the developer will be contributing towards the project as is listed within the Conditions of Approval within the Resolutions, and the Development Agreements, subject to further negotiation between the developers and the staff, Planning Commission, and the conclusive comments of the City Council. The percentages indicated in the Fiscal Impact Report was done only for study purposes in order to complete the assignment. In response to C/Grothels- inquiry regarding the specific percentage of acreage for commercial land, CDD/DeStefano stated that there is to be about a 30 to 31 acre commercial center, in which the City's ownership will be between 10 and 15, which will ultimately be a business decision of the City council. The land use decision before the Planning commission is the issue of whether the 30 to 31 commercial center is an appropriate land use. C/Grothe then made the followings comments: a 3:1 Oak Tree replacement ratio should be indicated in items #11, #16, #17, & #18, or keep with the bigger variety of sizes; there should be language indicating that the developers can place the quantity of trees on or off site; staff should explore the possibility of getting the School District to use contour grading, put proper bench drains, landscaping, etc. on the hillsides, on the School District site dropping on to Arciero's property, and include their property in the Landscape Maintenance District; and grading for all three project should be done at one time. Jan Dabney stated that all the improvements, on the Arciero site, will be put on at one time. All the improvements to the commercial and the park site, can be done by RnP, tying into Larkstone, and then the remainder of the RnP project to the Sasak project would also be done all at one time because of the grading for the hydrolics. ICE/Wentz indicated that a condition can be included to indicate that the phases are to be done all at once. VC/Meyer suggested that page 3, in the RnP resolution, under "Grading", include a condition for bonding. Referring to the final grading plans as indicated in condition 12, he inquired what plans have been made if there are major modifications made after the geological investigation. May, 10, 1993 Page 16 ICE/Wentz stated that there is a paragraph on page four, before item #17, intended to deal with that particular issue, that indicates there could be an amendment to the lot configurations based upon their findings. If the proposed finals varied significantly from the approved tentative the whole process could be repeated, per the decision of the engineer's office. ICE/Wentz then made the following response to inquiries -made by VC/Meyer: the definition of an urban pollutant basis, on page 6, is a detention basin; page 7, item 51, will be addressed by the Resource Management Plan; the intent of item 55, page 8, is that the issue of the access out to Morning Sun and Larkstone may ultimately be addressed through the City Engineer's office; item 64, page 9, the utilities will be undergrounded as part of a condition of this tract, and will be adjacent to this tract on Brea Canyon; page ten, item 7 should be relocated into the Resource Management Plan and it should cross reference the Hillside Management Ordinance which talks about rip rap, muted tones, etc.; and the intent of item 19, page 12, is to try to reduce the impact of wildlife to the surrounding residential area when the grading begins. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to draft the Resolutions of Approval for RnP and Arciero tract, responding to the comments and corrections made. The Planning Commission then concurred to direct staff to make the Development Agreement consistent with the current changes. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStefano reported that the workshop for the General Plan revision process is scheduled May 12, 1993. The public hearings on the General Plan revision begin May 19, 26th and June 2, 1993. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectively, May, 10, 1993 Page 17 Dc Jams Stefano Ole Attest Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman