Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2005MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m. Room CC -2 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Building, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. Information regarding TTM 53430 (Stanley Cheung Project) 1. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low, and Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee and Tony Torng. Commissioner Dan Nolan was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. A. Information Regarding TTM 53430 (Stanley Cheung Project) ICDD/Fong gave a brief overview of the proposed project and introduced John Bostick, Millennium Enterprises who introduced his team and gave a slide presentation depicting the layout of the project located directly south of Rocky Trail Road and Alamo Heights Drive and west of Horizon Lane. Mr. Bostick responded to Chair/McManus that in general the lots are one -acre 20,000 square foot flat pads, well above or more than the minimum density requirement. Mr. Bostick explained that the lift station for servicing the sewer system would be funded by the homeowners' association. The majority of the retaining walls were eliminated by improved grading techniques. However, there are a couple of areas of concern that may have to be addressed if the applicant were unable to negotiate the easement for grading. Mr. Bostick stated that Millennium Enterprises held one meeting with the residents along Alamo Heights, one meeting with "The Country Estates " Homeowners' Association and one meeting with the City. Three to four homeowners attended each of the meetings and Dr. Wu, Professor of Architecture asked to provide his expertise to the project regarding grading and other architectural features. Mr. Bostick said he believed that the architectural features agreed upon between the applicant and staff would serve to mitigate the view of the walls. He showed examples of walls that Millennium intends to use. The walls include features such as composite rock that is natural to the area, planters and DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION irrigation lines. He explained how the cut and fill would be done to accommodate the correct ratio roadways. ICDD/Fong responded to comments made by Dr. Wu. Regarding the sensitive nature of the area as a habitat for wildlife, while true of hillside areas the EIR addressed that concern and recommended on-site and off-site mitigation. With respect to traffic, the project has a completed traffic study and the EIR indicated no impact because the number of trips generated by one -acre lots would be insignificant. The third comment was regarding slope stability and most certainly this was a major concern for the City of Diamond Bar. The soils experts indicated that slope stability mitigation be accepted as indicated in the EIR. Additionally, the Los Angeles Fire Department reviewed the EIR and recommended a few modifications including a recommendation that all houses would require sprinklers and that the access meet the requirements. Drainage, sewer and other like issues have also been addressed and installation and ongoing maintenance will be paid through homeowner association dues assessment along with other required fees. VC/Low asked for a status of the negotiations with the Alamo Heights property owners with regard to the grading. ICDD/Fong said that a few property owners were present for the neighborhood meeting to review the easement proposal. Staff believes that the proposal offers a win-win for the residents because it would result in re -grading and landscaping the rear slopes. VC/Low asked if the proposed 26 foot high retaining wall along Alamo Heights was accurate and ICDD/Fong and AssocP/Lungu responded that only certain sections of the retaining wall might reach a maximum height of 26 feet. Mr. Bostick pointed out a very small section at the low point that would reach 26 feet in height and the existing residences would remain above the 26 -foot wall. Mr. Bostick assured VC/Low that even with Planning Commission approval he was very financially motivated to pursue the easement with the landowners. if the landowners approved the easement there would be no need for a variance from the Planning Commission, Tom Smith of BonTerra Consulting, the City's Environmental Consultant, explained to VC/Low that levels of service calculations for traffic flow do not apply to private driveways. Traffic engineering reports are related to public streets only. Mr. Bostick said he believed the homeowner was more concerned about construction traffic. VC/Low explained her concern that residents in "The Country Estates" had increased to the point of reconsideration and wondered if there was anything that could be done to mitigate the traffic outside "The Country Estates." Mr. Bostick explained that it was an association problem that could be addressed through the annexation process. iCDD/Fong explained that the primary reason for traffic backup DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION during peak hours was a result of the security checking process and felt that the association should work with the City's traffic engineer to provide an improved access. C/Lee spoke about traffic and noise pollution problems in the City as a result of additional building. He disagreed with the EIR finding in Item 212.5 on page 16 entitled "Population Housing Description." Many residents believe that building more houses brings a significant impact to the City's traffic. How was it that the engineer determine there would not be a significant impact on the CityGeneral Plan anticipated a population increase and by what standard d'itraffic d the s movements_ Mr. Smith explained that in CEQA when impact determinations ar made a "significant stretch threshold" is used as a basis for whether an ime pact is e is not significant. The way these analyses are done is by using the General Plan as a trigger for whether or not new projects "trigger" significant impacts on the current conditions. If the project requires an amendment to the General Plan it means that the project was not fully anticipated in the General Plan and it would therefore cause an impact that the General Plan did not anticipate. The City's General Plan allows this project; there is no proposed General Plan Amendment. Therefore, the property can be built as anticipated under the City's existing General Plan. Mr. Lee explained that every developer has indicated that there are no significant impacts to traffic. However, he has observed what he believes to be significant impacts to traffic since he moved to Diamond Bar 14 years ago. Chair/McManus explained that he was involved in the writing of the General Plan and learned that most of the City's traffic problems were caused by cut -through traffic. Mr. Smith stated that when the City approved the General Plan additional projects were included in the consideration and to date, the City has not exceeded the projects that were included and contemplated in the approved General Plan. What the Planning Commission needs to address are infrastructure changes that would help mitigate unrelated traffic issues. Mr. Bostick explained that as a matter of due diligence, applicants such as Millennium Enterprises discuss the General Plan with staff and its planners. In this case, the applicant has done everything possible to remain within the boundaries of the General Plan. C/Lee said he understood the General Plan but was concerned about the impact to the residents. ICDD/Fong explained that the project was well within the density called out in the General Plan. The benefit to.the City is thatthis development would increase property value and the improvements would result in additional property tax to the City. Chair/McManus reiterated that the project was within the guidelines DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION of the City's General Plan and the Planning Commission was charged with land use issues only. "The Country Estates" needs to address their ingress/egress issues. Mr. Bostick further explained that the project is actually at 60 percent of the density called out in the City's General Plan. Mr. Bostick responded to VC/Low that there were several small faults in the area that were not considered to be active faults. C/Torng asked how long the project would take and Mr. Bostick responded that the grading would take six to nine months. Mr. Smith explained to VC/Low that if the Commission approved the project a landscape plan would be done to determine where trees should be placed to allow for maturity. Some of the manufactured slopes may not be appropriate for a large number of trees. In addition, there would be a number of off-site tree replacements. Some of the oaks are within jurisdictions where the replacement is as high as 10:1 or higher for example. The actual number will not be known until the permit process is completed. In short, it was acknowledged from the beginning of the discussions that there would be many more trees called out for mitigation than this site could accommodate. Fish and Game supersedes the City's requirement. VC/Low asked why Lot A was reduced from 11 to under eight acres. Mr. Smith explained that the original tract map design included a park -like setting and a recreated riparian system protected by retaining walls. The current design put that area in a pipe and on the surface there are other water quality features but it is not intended to be habitat. The present design achieves all of the storm water goals of the previous design but no agency would have accepted the riparian area as mitigation because it was totally recreated and would have been a huge expense for the homeowners to maintain with very little real benefit. The current project offers real environmental values. Mr. Smith explained to VC/Low that the biologists walked every inch of the property and mapped it. The report contains a detailed report in GIS mapping with detailed maps that were prepared on-site and entered into the computer. The maps included all of the various habitats. Also, every tree on the site met the City's standards for its Tree Ordinance (8" in cumulative diameter). All trees were tagged with metal tags that contain GPS coordinates, the type of tree, height, width, quality, etc. In addition, the drainage was mapped and no Fish and Game riparian jurisdiction was established outside of the drainage corridor. Very little actual wildlife usage was determined to be on the property. Wildlife traverses Tonner Canyon. Even though the property is owned by the City of Industry the property outside the City boundary is owned by Los Angeles and Tonner Canyon was designated as a significant ecological area. DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the study session at 6:59 P.M. to the regular meeting. Attest: t & Manus, Chairman Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Interim Comm ity Development Director MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low and Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee and Tony Torng. Commissioner Dan Nolan was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda K. Smith, Development Services Associate and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Study Session of November 8, 2005. VC/Low moved, ClTorng seconded to approve the Minutes of the November 8, 2005, Study Session as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Torng, Lee NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/McManus ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 8, 2005. C/Torng moved, VC/Low seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 8, 2005, as changed by C/Torng. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Torn, VC/Low, Lee NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/McManus ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-07 - In accordance with Code Section 22.48, this was a request to construct an approximate 10,650 gross square foot three-story single-family residence with balconies, six car garage and site retaining walls to a maximum six-foot height. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 2729 Steeplechase Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Alfred and Kuolin Yui 1330 Red Bluff Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Andy Wang 14658 E. Valley Boulevard Industry, CA 91746 DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-07, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Andy Wang said he and the applicant read staffs report and concurred with the conditions of approval. DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. VC/Low moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review No. 2005-07, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan 7.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2004-11(l) - In accordance with Code Section 22.66.060(2), this was a request to modify the architectural style of an approved structure that would house an indoor swimming pool. The Planning Commission approved the single-family residence and swimming pool structure on July 13, 2004. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 2601 Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Li Zhao 1066 Iron Shoe Court Walnut, CA 91789 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-11(1), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Torng that the neighbor might be able to see a small portion of the structure because it was higher than the tennis court fencing by about five feet. Neighbors on either side may be able to see the structure and that is why staff asked for additional landscaping to mitigate the view. Such enclosures are common to "The Country Estates" as well as other areas of Diamond Bar. Ed Wilbur, California Custom Sunrooms, explained that the patio was a full glass enclosure with fully insulated low E "Smart Glass 90" dual pane vinyl windows and wall panels. DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Wilbur confirmed to Chair/McManus that the roof skylights open to eliminate fogging and the front contains operable windows. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2004-11(1), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Torng, Lee, VC/Low, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan 7.3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-39, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-15 AND TREE PERMIT NO. 2005-11 - In accordance with Code Section 22.48, 22.68, 22.56 and 22.38, this was a request to remodel and construct approximately 6,446 gross square feet to an existing 3,392 square foot single family residence with a five car garage, site retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of seven (7) feet, and swimming pool. Additionally, the applicant requested Minor Conditional Use Permit approval to allow the continuation of a legal non -conforming 22 -foot front yard setback and Tree Permit for the removal and replacement of preserved/protected trees. PROJECT ADDRES: PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: 2601 Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Karambir S. Bhullar 2601 Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ron Whittier 2512 Cedar Ridge Lane Corona, CA 92881 DSAISmith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-39, Minor Conditional Use Permit DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION No. 2005-15 and Tree Permit No. 2005-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Low asked if DSA/Smith was comfortable with the Arborists' report since it was dated December 2, 2002, and DSA/Smith responded affirmatively because nothing had changed at the site. C/Torng asked why the applicant had landscaped to the street and DSA/Smith explained that "The Country Estates" homeowner's property line runs to the centerline of the existing street. Ronald Whittier, applicant, stated that he and Dr. Bhullar read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval and Dr. Bhullar would like to move forward with the project. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. Ron Everett, Rocky Trail, said he had safety concerns during construction about the setback because the easterly garage was close to a turn. He felt that all construction vehicles and equipment should be kept off the street. He asked that the new garage be set back as far as possible from Wagon Train. He said he supports the project. He would like to see low landscape in the front yard area so that it would not impede visibility for vehicle travel on Wagon Train. He said he was also concerned about view protection because his view would be invaded by the project. He also requested that no second stories be allowed on the garages. ICDD/Fong responded that the traffic engineer reviewed the plans and made no comment that there was a safety issue. The new garage sits back further than the existing building and is short only by a foot and three-quarters from the 30 -foot setback. Regarding the landscaping, a condition could be placed upon the project requiring that landscaping within the front yard should be low level shrubs and that trees should be moved back closer to the building. She again stated that the City does not have a view preservation ordinance that would require applicants to conduct a study on view sheds. C/Lee moved, C/Torng seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2005-39, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-15 and Tree Permit No. 2005-11, Findings of Fact, and Conditions of Approval as listed in the resolution subject to the addition of a condition requiring shrubbery in the DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION front yard setback to be low-level. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Torng, VC/Low, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan 7.4 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53430, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2005-03Z CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-0.1, VARIANCE 2005-03 AND TREE PERMIT NO. 2005-10 - In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance — Title 21 and Development Code — Title 22, Sections 22.70, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38, this was a request to subdivide approximately 80 acres into 48 single-family residential lots for the eventual development of single-family custom homes. The Zone Change is related to changing the existing zoning from R-1-20,000 to Rural Residential (RR). The Conditional Use Permit was related to grading and development within a hillside area. The Variance was related to retaining walls that were proposed at a height greater than six feet. The Tree Permit was related to the removal/replacement/protection of oak and walnut trees. PROJECT ADDRESS: Directly south of Rocky Trail Road and Alamo Heights Drive, and west of Horizon Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ John Bostick APPLICANT: Millennium Enterprises 3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the following to the City Council: Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003052202) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53430, Zone Change No. 2005-03, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-01, Variance No. 2005-03, Tree Permit No. 2005-10, Statement of Overriding Consideration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolutions. DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Low asked when the amount of contributions toward a park would be determined and ICDDIFong responded that typically, the amount is handled prior to issuance of permits based on the appraised value of the proposed project. ICDDIFong explained that the pad sizes are about an acre and in this particular zone the lot coverage is 30 percent so that there is less infringement into the natural slope (restricted) areas. This project as in the case of all projects within "The Country Estates" requires homeowners' association approval. John Bostick, Millennium Diamond Road Partners, showed a copy of the Tentative Tract Map provided by property owner Jerry Yeh, showed a photo of the proposed site and 3-D depictions of the completed project. He explained the proposal in detail and showed the location of the streets and proposed lots on the other side of Horizon Lane. He stated that the applicant is working with the Alamo Heights residents to obtain a slope easement in order to eliminate the retaining wall required by the construction of Alamo Heights Drive. VC/Low asked for further comment on the EIR with respect to wildlife. Tom Smith, BonTerra Consulting, explained to VC/Low how the project does not impede habitat and wildlife corridors. The finger canyons off of the ridgeline of "The Country Estates" provide some opportunity for wildlife to move back and forth from Tonner Canyon into the side canyons a bit. However, there are no actual connections for wildlife movement in the area. He said that his staff spent several days mapping the entire site and surveyed every tree on the site that met the City's Tree Ordinance standards. The conclusion was that the loss of the trees and the habitat could be mitigated was based on compliance for the City's Tree Ordinance and requirements for recreating the habitat and replacing the appropriate number of trees onsite and offsite. In addition, the biological surveys determined that the Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game as well as the Regional Water Quality Control Board have jurisdiction on this property relating to the drainage. Permits will be obtained from those agencies and all mitigation required by those agencies will be satisfied as required before the City's issuance of a grading permit for development of the site. As with any project in the City and as required by CEQA, there is a five-year mitigation monitoring system in place during implementation of the project. DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION In response to VC/Low, Mr. Bostick stated that staff met with "The Country" Homeowners' Association regarding approval and future construction of the project and agreed to work with the association regarding hours of operation. He said he speaks with Steve Solis, President of the association at least twice a week about the project. The access to the construction site is through Alamo Heights. The current anticipated value of the project upon completion is $1.1 million per lot. Mr. Smith explained to C/Lee that the animals would move out of the area once the grading began. As previously mentioned, the 70 acres of development is a very small area in comparison to the over 1000 acres in the Tanner Canyon significant ecological area and biological resources area. Any animals on the site will move on their own out into other areas and most especially Tonner Canyon. For small animals with low mobility, the mitigation monitoring program requires biological monitors to be placed on-site before the first piece of equipment starts to move. This process has taken place in Diamond Bar and other cities for many years. The biologists move rattlesnakes, small lizards and other animals that are unable to get out of the way of the equipment. The most valuable place for animals is in Tanner Canyon and not on this project site because the site is surrounded on three sides by other development. The mitigation program requires that the acres of habitat be recreated offsite under the watchful eye of a five-year monitoring program. At the request of C/Torng Mr. Bostick explained that the park fees are determined after approval and engineering. The appraisal is based upon the finished product and Millennium is prepared to pay the park fees for the 8.9 - acres. .lames Claude, Neblitt Associates, engineering consultant for the project, stated that his firm follows state, county and city guidelines as well as industry standards for slope stability calculations, seismic hazards analysis and other geotechnical analyses. Mr. Smith confirmed to Chair/McManus that a wildlife habitat is open at both ends and one that is not is often referred to as a mortality sink for the animals. VC/Low asked if Mr. Bostick was comfortable with the City's fees and Mr. Bostick confirmed that he was. DECEMBER 13, 2405 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. Bili Liu, 2855 Bentley Way, said that if this procedure requires Crystal Ridge HOA to be involved it should have input into the project. He asked whether the City required approval from the Crystal Ridge HOA. 1CDD/Fong responded that this project asked to annex into "The Country Estates." The Crystal Ridge HOA is a separate association and cannot ask the City to require that this project be annexed into "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association because the City merely grants the entitlement and does not regulate whether an association annexes into "The Country Estates." Therefore, this is a private matter between Crystal Ridge and "The Country Estates." Mr. Liu responded to C/Torng that the Crystal Ridge homeowners are confined to using the Steeplechase entry only. Ron Everett, Rocky Trail Road, stated that this was a complex and very good project and that the community engineering was a major problem. He appealed to the Commissioners to devise a way to make sure that the matter of homeowner association relationships were established priorto completion of this project. The developer and "The Country Estates" are in continuing discussions but there are other issues that need to be resolved. He said he was concerned about three or four associations involved in sharing roads that would create "human- interest" concerns. ICDD/Fong said that for tonight's meeting the advertisement was for entitlement of this project and not to discuss the association concerns. David Leong, Kicking Horse Drive (adjacent to the proposed Alamo Heights) asked the applicant to reiterate the height and length of the wall along Alamo Heights. He wanted to know if it was true that the homeowners on Kicking Horse Drive were legally obliged to grant easement for half of the width of Alamo Heights. The creek running along Alamo Heights that accommodates animals is not referred to in the EIR. ICDD/Fong responded that the property has a 40 -foot easement, a drainage easement and a maintenance easement. If the applicant stays within the 40 -foot easement theywould have to construct a retaining wall in order to build Alamo Heights. If built, the wall would extend the length of eight homes and the wall could range from 0 to 26 feet at its highest point. The applicant showed plans that depicted how the retaining wall and landscaping would appear. If the eight property owners DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION granted a grading easement of about 50 feet in width the applicant could use the entire 90 feet for grading a 2:1 gradual slope to meet the height of the street and avoid building the retaining wall. If the additional 50 -foot easement were granted it would provide more of a natural landscape. The applicant has proposed an underground box for the water flow with catch basins and drains. Tom Smith referred the speaker to pages 3.3-11 and subsequent pages as well as Figure 3.3-1 that showed the location of the drainages and talked about the wildlife and habitat values in the area. It is true that there is runoff in the creek now and it is his belief that a lot of the runoff is "nuisance" water from irrigation on the surrounding development. As indicated, the water will continue to pass beneath the surface of the site and ultimately discharge into Tonner Canyon at approximately the same location that it discharges today as required by the City and by the regulatory agencies. ICDD/Fong responded to Mr. Leon that Alamo Heights has a certain grade. The approval of the Jerry Yeh subdivision extended Alamo Heights and established certain grades requiring gradual grade reduction of the extension. The retaining wall concept is to hold up the street because of the significant drop in the elevations in a short span of roadway. Staff would prefer to have the applicant grade the slopes at the back of the homes to create a gentle slope that rises to meet the street and not require the high retaining wall. Dr. Hofu Wu, licensed architect and Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, 22368 Kicking Horse, felt that with all of the requirements placed on the project it was not an insignificant impact to the EIR, that there would be a vast amount of cut and fill and that the pads would actually be at 50 percent lot coverage and not 30 percent. He offered what he felt was a better solution to the proposed retaining wall that he believed would be 600 feet long rather than the 100 feet previously indicated. Fred Guido, 7530 Rocky Trail Road, said he did not have an opportunity to look at the EIR. He asked what size, types of motors and sound suppression would be implemented forthe sewage pump station located at the cul-de-sac joining Rocky Trail Road; asked for a definition of a Statement of Overriding Consideration as it related to grading; and whether grading would be confined to the City of Diamond Bar or infringe on L.A. County property and whether that possibility was taken into consideration during the preparation of the EIR. He asked if Rocky Trail Road would be used as an access road during the course of construction and what requirements/mitigation measures/conditions were placed on the project to keep access streets clean DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION and free of muddy debris. He said that in his opinion, the City should be developing this project in accordance with the contours of the land because Crystal Ridge turned into a cookie cutter box -style housing tract and the houses are out of character with the general setting of "The Country Estates." ICDD/Fong responded that staff was unaware of the size of the pump and that it would be reviewed by LA County. The pump will be housed in a structure to minimize noise pollution and should not impact the residents. Additionally, the pump was located close to the southern boundary of the project site and not any where near the cul-de-sac of Rocky Trail. Through CEQA and the EIR process if all impacts have been identified and can be mitigated to a point of "less than significant" the project can move forward. However, if one impact exceeds that standard a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be adopted in order for the EIR to be certified and for the project to be approved. In this case the only impact at issue is PM10 that deals with the inability to meet the air quality standards during construction. Once the project is completed there are no long-term impacts at issue. ICDD/Fong said she was unable to discuss regional air quality matters because they were not City of Diamond Bar issues. With respect to grading, the EIR reviewed the project within the project boundary only. The city, county, state and Water Quality Board have regulations regarding dust, mud and debris (NPDS) and the developer must make certain that no mud and debris washes into the drainage system. During grading water trucks are set in operation to mitigate dust impact to surrounding residences. The variance is for the height of several retaining walls. Staff has been working with the applicant to reduce the number and height of the retaining walls. Staffs preference is for the applicant to work with the adjacent neighbors so that there would be no retaining wall along Alamo Heights. VC/Low said she visited the project site today and found it to be ambitious and the views breathtaking. She felt that Mr. Wu's recommendations while not necessarily better than those of the applicant were worthy of consideration. She said she was concerned that if the Variance were granted today there would be no incentive for the applicant to continue negotiating with the landowners for the easement. VC/Low moved that the hearing be continued to January 10, 2006, to allow the applicant time to obtain permission from the remaining landowners for the easement. C/Torng seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: DECEMBER 13, 2005 D -13 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Torng, Lee, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan PLANNING COMMSSIONER COM MENTSIINFORMAT 10NAL ITEMS: VC/Low wished staff and residents Happy Holidays and a Merry Christmas. CILee said that Mr. Smith did a very good job explaining the project and answering his questions but he was still concerned that although the City's population had doubled since 1980 the streets had not been widened. The Millennium project is only for 48 houses but it does increase the population which in turn increases pollution, traffic and adverse conditions. He would prefer to see the project discussed as a private matter with a more detailed discussion at the next meeting. ClTorng thanked the developer, staff and the consultant for their presentations. He said Happy Holidays to everyone including his fellow Commissioners. Chair/McManus wished everyone a Merry Christmas. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. ICDDIFong reminded the Commissioners that the December 27, 2005, meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum. 1CDDIFong reported that at its December 6, 2005, meeting the City Council approved the Country Hills Towne Center project with additional conditions. CM/Lowry and the City Council are considering economic development for the City and are looking at several sites. The Mayor may request an Economic Development Task Force and may ask two members of the Planning Commission to participate. ICDDIFong responded to VC/Low that at the December 6, 2005, Council meeting Mr. McCarthy expressed that he would most likely be signing an agreement to bring a market to his shopping center within 10 days. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. DECEMBER 13, 2005 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, VC/Low adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. to January 10, 2006. Respe Nancy Fong Interim Comm ity opment Director Attest: Joe cManus, Chairman