HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/2010April 27, 2010
700 P.M.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Government Center Building - Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Tony Torng
Kathleen Nolan
Kwang Ho Lee
Steve Nelson
Jack Shah
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on
file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at
21625 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding
an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours.
Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission
meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at
21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title I/ of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any�person in need of any
type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation (s) in order to communicate at a
City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at
(909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
The
Please refrain from smoking, eating or
drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same
City of Diamond Bar
Planning Commission
1:111:1111021-ki
The meetings of"the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the
public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of
which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request
to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the
Commission.
As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair.
However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be
requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit
individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time
allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of
the Commission.
Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner.
Comments and. questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the
Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council.
In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be
posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject
matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission
may act on item that is not on the posted agenda.
INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION
Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of
the Community Development Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City
Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below.
Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are
available for a nominal charge.'
ADA REQUIREMENTS
A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the
public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services
are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please
telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Friday.
NAZI11M z
Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030
General Agendas (909) 839-7030
email: info(a)-ci.diamond-bar.ca.us
Next Resolution No. 2010-09
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Tony Torng, Vice -Chairman
Kathleen Nolan, Kwang Ho Lee, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place- for the general public to address the members of the
Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an
opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a
Speaker's Card for the recording Secreta[y (completion.. of this form is voluntary.
There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are
approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the
agenda by request of the Commission only:
4.1 MinutesofRegular Meetin April 13, 2010.
5. OLD BUSINESS: None.
6. NEW BUSINESS: None.
7.1 Site ccl)" Sp Act; Title 21 — City's
Specific —Pursuant to the Subdivision Map
Subdivision
Ordinance; and Title 22 — Development Code Sections 22.60 and
22.70, the proposed project is to recommend approval of the following to the
City Council. (Continued from April 13, 2010):
General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 — A request to change the land use
designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C-1) to Specific
Plan
I :rATC] I
Zone Change No. 2007-04 — A request to change the zoning districts from Low
Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan.
Specific Plan No. 2007-01 — A request to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for the
approximately 30.36 -acre site for the construction. of 202 residential dwelling
units at a density of 20 units per acre; 153,985 gross sq..ft. of commercial use
at 10.35 floor area ratio; and approximately 10 acres of open space areas,
easements and rights -of way. . -
Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 — A request to establish separate residential,
commercial,, and open space parcels;. create an internal circulation system and
common open space areas; and establish easements and other rights-of-way
for utility and other purposes.
Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-02 — A request to certify the Final
EIR, which provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts
associated with the development of the Specific Plan area. The EIR includes
mitigation measures for the project, addresses project alternatives, and
identifies the environmentally superior project alternative.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations — A request
to determine that implementation of the Site D Specific Plan would result in'
identified economic and 'social benefits that will accrue. to the City, the School
District, and the region, and important public policy objectives will result from
the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan such that the proposed
Specific Plan's identified benefits override the significant environmental impacts
that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels.
Project Address: Site comprised of approximately 30.36 -acres located at the
southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar
Blvd. (Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Numbers
8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-
093, and 8714-015-001).
Applicant: Walnut Valley Unified School District and City of Diamond
Bar
Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the
following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report, approve the Mitigation Reporting and
Monitoring Program, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of
APRIL 27; 2010
A
91
im
PAGE 3 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Overriding Considerations for the Site D.Specific Plan and related Zone
Change, General Plan Amendment, and Tentative Tract Map;
2. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve General Plan
Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use designations from Public
Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C) to Specific Plan (SP); and Zone
Change No. 2007-04 to change the zoning map designations from Low
Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific
Plan; and
3. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Specific
Plan No. 2007-01 to establish land use and development standards, to
facilitate and govern the development of up to 202 residential dwelling units,
up to 153,985 gross sq. ft. of commercial floor area; and approximately
10.16 acres of open space areas, easements and rights-of-way; and
Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 to establish separate residential,
commercial, and open space parcels; create an internal circulation system
and common open space areas; and establish easements and other rights-
of-way for utility and other purposes.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS I INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
STAFF COMMENTS I INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future Projects:
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING:
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION MEETING:
PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION MEETING:
Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 6:30 p.m.
Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
Tuesday May 11, 2010 — 7:00 p.m.
Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 7:00 p.m.
Government Center/ SCAQMD
Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive
Thursday, May 28, 2010
Government Center/ SCAQMD
Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive
irl7T
h".
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 2010
Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Shah led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Steve Nelson, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy
Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng.
Absent: Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee was excused.
Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad
Wohle'nberg, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David Alvarez,
Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant.
Consultants: Mark Rogers and - JoAnne Sturges, TRG Land; Peter
Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Sciences.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 23, 2010.
C/Nelson moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of March 23, 2010, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
Nelson, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng
None
Lee
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 2
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Site "D" Specific Plan — Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act; Title 21 —
City's Subdivision Ordinance; and Title 22 — . Development Code
Sections 22.60 and 22.70, the proposed project is to recommend approval of
the following to the City Council
General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 —A request to change the land use
designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C-1) to
Specific Plan (SP).
Zone Change No. 2007-04 — A request to change the zoning districts from
Low Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to
Specific Plan (SP).
Specific Plan No. 2007-01—A request to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for
approximately 30.36 -acre site for the construction of 202 residential dwelling
units at a density of 20 units per acre; 153,985 gross square feet of
commercial use at 10.35 floor area ratio; and approximately 10 acres of open
space areas, easements and rights-of-way.
Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 — A request to establish separate arate
residential, commercial, and open space parcels; create an. internal
circulation system and common open space areas; and establish easements
and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes.
Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-02 —A request to certify the Final
EIR which provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts
associated with the development of the Specific Plan area.
Project Address: Site comprised of approximately 30.36 -acres located at
the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and
Diamond Bar Boulevard (Los Angeles County
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-
901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002,093, and 8714-015-001.)
Applicant: Walnut Valley Unified School District and
City of Diamond Bar
Lead Agency' City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
C/Nelson said he would recuse himself from deliberation on this matter
because the company he works for, PCR Services Corporation provided the
archaeological and biological assessments for the project and he was
personally involved in the project.
r; r
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Torng laid out the ground rules for the meeting protocol and public
speaking.
CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning
Commission open the public hearing, receive public testimony regarding the
staff EIR and all land use entitlements, and continue the public hearing to the
April 27, 2010, meeting.
Mark Rogers provided a history of the site and details of the proposed Site D
Specific Plan that included lower level commercial stepping up to residential
pads adjoining existing single-f6mily residences. He described the planning
principles that have been incorporated into the Specific Plan and
supplemented his presentation with a PowerPoint presentation and display
boards.
Nancy Lyons, 22536 Ridge Line Road and President, Walnut Valley Unified
School District (V\fVUSD) Board of Directors, stated that the original intent
was to develop the site as aschool. At this point, the district has enough
school sites with a declining number of students. WVUSD needs money
instead of another school because the district has ' s received less money every
year for the past three years with a total enrollment decrease of 20 percent.
This substantial decrease in income has led to drastic cuts in programs,
teacher layoffs, cancellation of programs including elementary music, etc.
The district hopes to get the property entitled and sell it to provide the district
with additional funds. She asked the Commission to recommend City
Council approval.
Chair/Torng opened the public hearing.
Donald Daneault, 3 154 Castle -Rock Road, asked where students living in the
200 units this project would attend school. The school district says student
enrollment is declining; however, the elementary school on Castle Rock
Road is overcrowded. He was very concerned about additional student drop
off and pickup congestion close to his home because he finds it very difficult
to get to his house under the current conditions.
John Martin, 1249 S.. Diamond Bar Boulevard #432, felt that since this
project was on an entrance to the City, everyone in the City should hav(4
been provided the Notice of Public Hearing. He said he did not know who
had been noticed but with the number of residents present at tonight's
meeting, it seemed important to him that for the next meeting that everyone
in Diamond Bar should be noticed and given an opportunity to learn about
the plans. This is the same plan that was presented previously as well as, a
W.
L-0 14 U & a
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
time prior. Nothing has been changed. It is obvious to him that the City and
the school district want the most money possible from the sale of this land.
The best way to get money for a property is to have commercial and
residential property. However, if the commercial is eliminated, the berm with
the 100 year old trees is kept in place, and the homes are set back about
135 feet from the street, it would solve many problems including elimination
of neon lights from the commercial area. As stated in the report, the purpose
of commercial is to have it at street level which would be an eyesore at a City
entrance. The EIR contains one potentially significant impact; however, he
counted eleven. The expectations he has for living in Diamond Bar is that it
is a beautiful City and the City of Diamond Bar and WVUSD is saying it
wants to put a commercial area at the heart and entrance of the City which in
his opinion, was the wrong. thing to do. He asked that the City consider some
alternative to this Specific Plan because the DEIR states that of all of the
alternatives, this plan is the worst environmental alternative.
Christopher Chung, 21470 Cold Spring Lane, said he saw two different
desires and alternatives. He wondered if the motive and intent of a public
hearing was to actually get public input,or
or to do the minimal legal obligations
the City is required to perform under CEQA. He felt the documents and
reports this evening were telling in that normally a scoping meeting takes
place prior to issuing of an EIR or any document and is intended to be a time
for in -put from the community. In this case the document was prepared first
and then the City asked for input. It is telling him that the applicant indicates
its purpose is to make money. He understands development. He has 20
years in this business and understands EIR's, traffic studies, etc., and he is
pro -development and pro this project., If his concerns were addressed he
would not be speaking tonight. His concerns include a flawed, inconsistent
and outdated traffic report that does not include impacts of the stadium in
Industry, cumulative impact from tenants at the H -Mart shopping center; and
impacts at school intersections like Cold Spring Place and Brea Canyon
Road or Cold Spring Lane and Castle Rock. Anyone who drops their kids off
in the morning knows there is a 10-15 minute wait. If 202 units are being
added, there will be additional impact that has not been analyzed. He
understood there was an applicant that had a desire and fully believe that
people who own property have the right to develop their property as they see
fit but they need to do it in such a way that it does not adversely impact
everyone else. In addition, he saw no traffic analysis of ingress/egress from
the site. Projects are market-driven and actual analysis cannot be done until
the site has an actual development plan so there should be a project first
before determining the impact of import/export of dirt, for example. Also, in
his opinion, certain assumptions about daily trips are incorrect. Under
CEQA, the document needs to indicate that the mitigation measures will
actually happen. The City cannot just say it will put money in a pot.
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations versus City of Los Angeles
has declared an EIR similar to the EIR for this project to be in violation of a
CEQA mandate because the City did not include those mitigation measures.
Chair/Torng asked the speaker to put his concerns in writing and present
them to staff. Mr. Chung said he did not believe the Commission had
sufficient information to move this project forward and should send the plan
back to staff for further research.
Michael Hasegawa, 21502 Cold Spring Lane, felt 'there were a lot of
questions that needed to be answered including the availability of mass
transit to handle the increased demand and whether the trees and water
canal would be retained. These questions are guidelines, and residents do
not know whether the developer will follow these guidelines because this
project is market driven. It seems to him that this is a very haphazard plan
because he sees no guarantees for the people who live in the area. What
will happen with the screening, for example. If the schools are over packed
now, why not keep the site for future school use. He knows the City is down
$20 million; however, commercial real estate is not a sure thing. The large
movie theater on Diamond Bar Boulevard is large commercial property that
has not yet been purchased. There is no assurance anyone will buy this
property. He was told by his Realtor when he purchased his home that the
view was worth an additional $40,000. Will the home values decline in the
area once there is a commercial development and the views are gone? His
grandfather was a planner for Los Angeles County and helped to design
Rowland Heights and surrounding communities including Diamond Bar. He
says that the planning was based. on population feasibility studies in
designated commercial and residential zoning. Has there been an analysis
of how this plan would affect those studies. -
Judy Leung, 21175 Running Branch Road, said that according to what she
understood, proceeds of the sale of this land could be used for capital
improvements only, therefore, would not help the district with operating
expenses. There have been no public information meetings on the EIR and
the plan, and its details, and she feels the City and school district owe it to
the residents to explain this plan in greater detail. Only the residents living
within 1000 feet of the site receive meeting notices and the people she has
spoken with who live across the street from the project did not receive
notices. Only 200 residents received the notice. She believed that many
more residents would have come to the meeting tonight to express their
feelings if they knew about this project. She wants to know why this project
has been kept a secret. The consultant forgot to mention the 1991 D81A
Resolution about this plan that was discussed and declined. The EIR is a
large document that requires a college degree to understand and
comprehend. She is just an ordinary resident and three week's notice about
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
this meeting is not a sufficient amount of time to try and understand a 1000
page document. Again, where is the public information meeting that should
have explained more in depth about what this proposed project is all about.
Section 7.0 of the Specific Plan (General Plan Consistency Analysis) states
that "this specific plan provides a site specific detailed description of
regulations, standards and guidelines for implementing General Plan goals
and policies. To achieve this, the specific plan must
t be in conformance with
and be consistent with the General Plan. The California government code
states that a specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the
specific plan to the General Plan and further, that it may not be adopted and
amended unless found to be consistent with the General Plan." The vision
statement under land use reads "it is the overall goal of the land use element
to ensure that the land uses and development decisions of Diamond Bar
maintain and enhance the quality of life for its residents." Does anyone
actually believe that this project will enhance the quality of life? If so, she
and others would not be here. Residents are trying to let the Commissioners
know that this particular plan is going to decrease and lower the residents'
quality of life. With very limited notice to the residents, everyone cannot be
present tonight to let the Commissioners know how they really feel and this is
very, very sad. She said she hoped the response from the City about public
comments would not be a comment that the response was "acknowledged"
only, because that will serve no purpose.
Mary Rodriguez, 3419 Pasado Drive, said she would like to know about the
1991 DBIA Resolution as well and would like to see alternative plans that
would not include destruction of 100 year old California Walnut trees. At the
August 2009 meeting she asked about Copper Canyon not showing up in the
traffic report and it is not included in this report. Since 1991 it seems like the
Commission and Council are not listening to the people. Members of the
public speak up and no one pays attention because the same plans continue
to be presented with no alternative plan to save the area.
David Busse, 21455 Ambushers Street, owns commercial property in the
San Gabriel Valley and wanted to warn the Commission that the commercial
real estate business is no place for a school board or a City Council to be
messing around at this time. The WVSUD Public Hearing Site D report from
March 11, 1991, when there was an attempt to build homes in the area, the
timing of the school board speculating on that land was so bad that if that
had gone through the school board would have lost a great deal of money.
He asked that the WVUSD Site D Public Hearing report from March 11,
1991, be entered into the record which clearly indicates that people in the
neighborhood wanted this property used for public use. Politics is the art of
compromise and he has not seen any compromise on this plan or in
discussions. The EIR is impressive but full of errors. The traffic study is
APRIL 13, 2010
PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
flawed. One can hire a traffic engineer to say anything they want him to say.
Common sense tells one that 220 units of housing traffic cannot be made
better by using a bunch of stoplights. Section 4.9 of the EIR, page 4.9-12,
the Angeles National Forest is a national forest under the US Department of
Agriculture, not the National Parks Service (Department of the Interior).
When he opened the EIR to the first page and saw that mistake he
wondered how many others were included in the report that he did not know
about. Every time one drives the SR60 and experiences the debacle at the
SR57160 they should remember that a registered professional traffic
engineer signed off on that project. Traffic is a nightmare and the concept of
putting more cars on the street and saying that everything will be fine, it has
not been addressed in this EIR and it makes no sense. There needs to be a
lot more thought put into the project and more importantly, from the property
owner and the developers and everyone else, he wants to see plan
alternatives. He understands the schools need money. Kids live in the
neighborhood already and there needs to be a lot more thought given to
what is being proposed other than making the most money possible. He has
served on jury duty many times and he has always been impressed by others
who serve at their ability to use common sense to solve complex problems.
Don't be fooled by a bunch of material in an EIR compiled by people who
allegedly know what they are talking about. He urged the Commissioners to
look for themselves and ask themselves if this proposal makes sense and is
it for the betterment of the community.
Mary Hasegawa, 21502 Cold Spring Lane, said she has a beautiful view from
her home and does not want to wake up every morning to look at a
development. And to think the area will be filled with apartments is
disheartening. She said she intended to die in her home and will most likely
be killed by the smog. Where are the animals going to go? She gardens on
her hill and it is like sand. The earth comes down and what assurance is
there that when a developer starts grading the hill, those houses won't
tumble down? When she bought her home there was apparently a
disclosure about Site D which she never bothered to read because she was
enthusiastic about her house. She would not have bought her house if she
had taken a minute to read the disclosure. She walks every day and she has
to go very early or very late because of the smog. It is dangerous at night
and she wants to feel safe and secure walking in her neighborhood.
Jeff Leighton, 3703 Crooked Creek, said when he was before the
Commission a year ago he saw the same presentation and agreed that no
one was listening to the residents. He agreed that there are fewer people
present tonight because fewer people were notified. He sent a letter to
CDD/Gubman after the last meeting and was told he would be notified of
tonight's meeting. However, he did not receive a notice about tonight's
g. d IV 9 T
PAGE 8 - PLANNING COMMISSIOF
meeting. He said he was concerned about the increase in traffic generated
by this proposed high density housing and commercial use plan. In essence,
Diamond Bar is a single traffic thoroughfare City. Because of its geography,
the City will always be in this condition. The added congestion that will be
generated on the south end of town will dominate the southern gateway to
the City. The proposed 202 plus units and the 800-900 additional cars, 400
rush-hour cars, will likely occur at the same time that the commercial area
may see the most traffic. Another concern is increased air pollution as
pointed out on ES -11. Statements like "violation of air quality standards and
considerable increase in criteria pollutants" are bone -chilling and should be
enough to stop the Alternate 5 project plan now. How can the City that
houses the AQMD facility consciously support a plan that increases bad air
at a portion of the City that is already severely affected by a parallel freeway
a block away from the proposed site? Again, it can only be assumed that the
intent is to maximize sale price and I think that fact has been made apparent
tonight. The northerly view on Diamond Bar Boulevard will change
dramatically from the country living atmosphere present today. The
proposed plan for Site D calls for abrupt changes at the southern gateway to
the City. In order to accommodate a large commercial area on the south tip
of the site, the hills must be reduced to street level in order to achieve this
and still maintain the maximum area above the strip mall for housing. This
plan must call for huge retaining walls as shown on the plans. The plan must
call for a huge retaining wall behind the commercial buildings similar to the
midtown Target location. Although the Target wall is somewhat camouflaged
and set back from the street it is still unsightly and an eyesore. The wall that
will need to be planned for Site D will be much less pleasing and more of a
focal point than the Target wall. The site of it will be the first thing seen by
people entering the City from. the south. In addition, the plan calls for
removal of 75 100 -year old trees that border Site D. In all, it would be a
horrific sight and give a lasting impression of how Diamond Bar chooses to
represent itself to, its residents and visitors. In summary, the residents
understand the need for progress but the City must remember that it needs
to take into account the need to give preference to the residents who live in
Diamond Bar, pay their taxes and elect the officials who are supposed to
represent them. A short-sighted plan to maximize revenue generated at the
expense of the residents as voiced by every speaker here tonight and also
by speakers who spoke a year ago is an indication of the disdain felt by the
residents who will most be affected by the proposed project. The City needs
to take another look, please.
Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek, said it is pretty bad when a City
throws out CEQA in order to accommodate the goal of obtaining money.
Over the years the school district has had its ups and downs and the student
population increases and decreases. The school district will continue to
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
survive and will continue to be a good school district with or without the sale
of this property because of the teachers and administrators. If people want
to live in a place that looks like Irvine they can move there. Other cities like
Anaheim and Brea seem to be following suit. People who live here want
open space. He does not see where the consultants tried to minimize
anything. The Commission does not have to recommend that this be
approved by the City Council. In fact, he believes it is the Commission's
responsibility not to recommend approval. He has heard it said that if this
master plan is not accepted 2200 homes will be built on the site. He said he
felt it was the Commission's responsibility was to decline this plan. This is
land designated for general public use and no one can put anything on the
land without the Council's approval. He believed the City could develop a
plan that met the intent of the General Plan and meet the CEQA
requirements. The seller may not get as much money for the property but at
least it would be more user-friendly to Diamond Bar. I thinkthe City can do a
better job.
Robert Velasquez, 24336 Seagreen Drive, said the Planning Commission
and City Council have done a lot of good things for Diamond Bar. It is a safe
place to live; there are nice trails and a brand new recreation center and he
believes residents appreciate the City's efforts. Diamond Barwas based on
a country living style with more open space and reduction of traffic and the
trend of more building is disturbing. The NFL Stadium will affect the City and
he believed that the City should have a long term goal of what it wants to
look like 10 years from now and he believed it was the job of the Planning
Commission to plan ahead. Walnut was up in arms about the NFL Stadium
and they should understand that the residents of Diamond Bar will be left to
the consequences of a project like this proposal.
Christopher Chung returned to the podium to state that the mitigation
monitoring report must, when approved, include all mitigation measures that
are required of the project. What he stated previously about not including
the mitigation measures, if those are not included in the document and more
mitigation measures are found the document will have to be re -circulated.
He said he truly believed that the document is very full of holes and is easily
challenged. Residents do not want to have to challenge this project and
hope that the Commissioners determine that the document poorly considers
all of the ramifications. If all of the comments that were provided did not
make it into the mitigation report, something is wrong.
Mary Rodriguez returned to the podium to ask if the Commissioners had
read all of the letters and comments that were submitted and Chair/Torng
.responded yes, that the document under consideration includes "response to
comments on the DEIR Site D Specific Plan." Chair/Torng said that
A
PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
Ms. Rodriquez's letter is in the document. VC/Nolan assured Mary
Rodriguez that she read all public comments, emails and letters that have
been provided to the Commission.
Chair/Torng closed the public hearing.
RECESS: Chair/Torng recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Torng reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
X911kIIIIII'Lill
8.1 Development Code Amendment No. PL2010-78—An Ordinance of the City
of Diamond Bar amending the zoning regulations governing group residential
uses in residential zones and amending the Diamond Bar Municipal Code,
and providing reasonable accommodation provisions for the disabled,
pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(d). (Contin'ued from March 23,
2010)
Applicant: . City of Diamond Bar
CDD/Gubman stated that at the March 23 meeting, the Commission
expressed concerns primarily having to do with the "distance" criteria
proposed for group homes and separately for parolee or probation housing.
With respect to group homes, staff proposed that not only would a
Conditional Use Permit be required for group residential and group homes
for more than six clients, staff also limited zones for those uses to the multi-
family districts and specified a 300 -foot minimum separation between such
uses. The Commission was concerned with the 300 -foot distance in that it
might facilitate an over -proliferation of such uses. Staff based the 300 -foot
separation on state licensing criteria for group homes like daycare or adult
daycare facilities licensed by the State Department of Social Services. The
City is not bound by that criteria and looked at pushing the buffers wider.
Staff is comfortable recommending that the distance separation be increased
from 300 feet to 1320 feet which significantly reduces the overall number of
group homes that would be potentially available for those uses.
CDD/Gubman reported that the Commission's second issue was the
recommended spacing of 5000 feet between parolee/probationer housing.
Staff learned that with the additional requirement that such uses be located
no closer than a quarter.of a mile from schools, parks and the library, it
effectively resulted in not being able to get them closer than 10,000 feet
apart. As a result, staff changed the distance requirement from 5,000 to
10,000 feet and added a requirement that there shall be no more than two
A ]f, 77
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
(2) parolee/probationer housing facilities operating in the City at any one
time.
CDD/Gubman indicated that the third issue voiced by the Commission was
that there was not any ongoing monitoring of group homes in the ordinance.
Staff responded that conditions of approval could be included that would
mandate ongoing monitoring. However, staff added a standard that states
"these shall be subject to periodic monitoring" so all Conditional Use Permits
will need to specify how frequently the facilities are monitored and what kind
of reporting requirements would be included. Still left to the discretion of the
Commission on a case by case basis is the matter of how frequently it would
like a facility to be monitored.
The fourth and final issue from the Commission was about the, lack or
absence of the requirement for onsite security at parolee/probationer homes.
The ordinance stipulates onsite supervision but not onsite security. After
conferring with the City Attorney, staff believes that to require security for
these facilities would detract from the residential character of the
neighborhoods in which these facilities are located and staff is concerned
that that perception of an unsecure environment that would require officers or
security personnel would in themselves be a detriment to the community so
staff would recommend that the standard previously endorsed for onsite
supervision rather than security would be the most appropriate measure to
be taken if the Commission elects to approve a Conditional Use Permit for
parolee/probationer home.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend City Council
approval of Development Code Amendment No. PL 2010-78 as presented
this evening.
C/Shah asked about the difference between onsite security and onsite
supervision. CDD/Gubman likened supervision to a hall monitor or resident
advisor in a dormitory to make sure everyone is accounted for and make
certain all are following the rules of the house and to ensure that peace and
order is maintained in the residence rather than having a "security guard" on
the premises making sure that individuals are remaining on premises and not
causing problems by venturing about unsupervised. C/Shah said he
concurred with all recommendations as long as supervision be defined as
24/7 onsite supervision.
VC/Nolan agreed with C/Shah that the intent of the Commissioners
comments was not to provide armed guards. She felt staff did a great job of
revising the numbers.
UMMUMM
RM
i U1
Chair/Torng asked if 10,000 was the maximum and CDD/Gubman said that
he spent a lot of time discussing this matter with. the City Attorney's office
and their advice is to go out farther than 10,000 feet would be reducing the
likelihood to possibly zero that there would be any facility that could locate in
the City. There might be a possibility for one; however, the City Attorney
advised that it is somewhat risky to confine it down to one, especially when
the one proposed location might not work given that a group home nearby
would disqualify the site. Staff wanted to provide at least two possible sites
that could accommodate a parolee/probationer facility and whether the City
would ever actually get two such facilities would be questionable.
Chair/Torng opened the public hearing.
With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Torng closed
the public hearing.
C/Shah moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to recommend City Council approval of
Development Code Amendment No. PL 2010-78. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng
None
Lee, Nelson
PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/Shah complimented staff on its Site D documentation and report for the Site D
Specific Plan. He appreciated the Planners Institute and wished there had been
more for him to learn.
VC/Nolan said she appreciated staff's report on the proposed Site D Specific Plan.
She would like to have staff continue the public hearing as if there had not been a
break so that staff would have an opportunity to ask questions. She said she would
put her questions in writing prior to the next meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
+4--
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future Drolects.
As listed in tonight's agenda.
PAGE 13
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 9:25 p.m.
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 27th day of April, 2010.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Gubman
Community Development Director
Tony Torng, Chairman
C T
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
01 ME I I 1011114
ITEM NO. 7.1
DATE: April 27, 2010
CASE/FILE NUMBER: CONTINUED "Site D" specific Plan -
General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03, Zone Change No.
2007704, Specific Plan No. 2007-01, Tentative Tract Map
No. 70687, and Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 (SCH
No. 2008021014).
PROJECT APPLICANT: Walnut Valley Unified School District and City of
Diamond Bar
LEAD AGENCY: City of Diamond Bar, Community Development
Department
PROJECT LOCATION: Site D is comprised of approximately 30.36 acres locaed at
the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diatmond
Bar Boulevard (Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902,
8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001).
APPLICATION
REQUEST: To recommend that the City Council take the following
actions:
1. Certify Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 which provides a detailed analysis
of potent ' ial environmental impacts associated with the development of the Specific
Plan area. The EIR includes mitigation measures for the project, addresses project
alternatives, and identifies the environmentally superior project. alternative. Because
the project will result in environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than
significant levels, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be
required before the City Council can approve the Specific Plan.
2. Adopt Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Site
D Specific Plan based on findings that the Specific Plan would result in identified
economic and social benefits that will accrue to the City, the School District, and the
region, and important public policy objectives will result from the implementation of
the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore the proposed Specific Plan's identified
benefits override the significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated, to
less -than -significant levels.
3. Adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use designations
from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C) to Specific Plan (SP).
4. Adopt Zone Change No. 2007-04 to change the zoning districts from Low Density
Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan.
5. Adopt Specific Plan No. 2007-01 to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for the
approximately 30.36 -acre site for the construction of up to 202 residential dwelling
units; up to 153,985 gross sq. ft. of commercial; and approximately 8 acres of open
space areas, easements and rights-of-way. The Specific Plan contains development
standards and guidelines tailored to take into account the physical characteristics of
the property and its context, and to prescribe design criteria that will govern the
future build -out of the site.
6. Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 to establish separate residential,
commercial, and open space parcels; create an internal circulation system and
common open space areas; and establish easements and other rights-of-way for
utility and other purposes.
SUMMARY:
The Planning Commission continued this item from the April 13, 2010 meeting after
receiving testimony from eleven speakers who raised concerns over air quality, traffic,
conservation of open space, removal of existing trees, and visual impacts, among other
things. The April 27, 2010 meeting has been scheduled to allow the Commission to
resume discussion of the matter, begin the deliberation process, and formulate its
recommendations to the City Council.
As of the writing of this report, staff received five written communications in opposition
to the proposed Specific Plan, which are included as Attachments 5 through 9.
The project was continued from the April 13, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, and
therefore no further noticing was required. For the April 13, 2010 public hearing, notices
were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site on March
22, 2010, and the notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Tribune and San
Gabriel Valley Tribune newspapers on April 2, 2010. The project site was posted with a
notice display board, and a copy of the public notice was posted at the City's three
designated community posting sites. The draft Specific Plan and Environmental Impact
Report were also po sted on the City's website, and hard copies are available for review
at City Hall and the Diamond Bar Branch of the Los Angeles County Library.
Page 2 of 4
CD: StaffReports - PC/Site D Specific Plan PC Staff Report 04-27-2010.docx
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council
certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, approve the Mitigation Reporting and
Monitoring Program, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the Site D Specific Plan and related Zone Change, General Plan
Amendment, and Tentative Tract Map;
2. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Council
approve General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use designations
from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C) to Specific Plan (SP); and
Zone Change No. 2007-04 to change the zoning map designations from Low
Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan; and
3. Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 3) recommending that the City Council
approve Specific Plan No. 2007-01 to establish land use and development standards
to facilitate and govern the development of up to 202 residential dwelling units, up to
153,985 gross sq. ft. of commercial floor area; and approximately 10.16 acres of
open space areas, easements and rights-of-way; and Tentative Tract Map No.
70687 to establish separate residential, commercial, and open space parcels; create
an internal circulation system and common open space areas; and establish
easements and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In addition to staff's recommendations, the following alternatives have been identified:
Alternative Environmental Actions
1. Recommend that the City Council Certify the Final EIR, but determine that the
Findings of Fact do not warrant the adoption of the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, continue the matter to May 11, 2010 and direct staff to prepare the
necessary resolution.
2. Identify the reasons why the Final EIR should not be certified, specifying deficiencies
in the environmental analysis and/or conclusions, and recommend that the City
Council direct staff to revise the environmental analysis accordingly, continue the
matter to May 11, 2010 and direct staff to prepare the necessary resolution.
3. Continue the item for additional information or revisions.
Page 3 of 4
(-.n- RtnffRenorts - PC/Site D Speciflc Plan PC Staff Report 04-27-2010.docx
Alternative Proiect Actions
-.----Recommend-that-th e-C.ity-Co-u.nci.1-d.en-y-the-Si.te-D—Specif i d
[clan Plan all
land use applications as described in the attached resolutions (Attachments 2 and
3), state the reasons for the recommendation, continue the matter to May 11, 2010
and direct staff to prepare the necessary resolutions.
2. Recommend that the City Council approve one of the project alternatives listed in
the Final EIR (Public Facilities, Community Commercial, Low -Density Residential, or
High -Density Residential), continue the matter to May 11, 2010 and direct staff to
prepare the necessary resolution.
3. Recommend that the City Council approve another project alternative, or a modified
version of one of the alternatives listed in the Final EIR (including the Project
Alternative), continue the matter to May 11, 2010 and direct staff to prepare the
necessary resolution.
Prepared by:
err, •
Grace S. Lee
Senior Planner
Attachments:
wr
?"POWE
LWO]9-112-llplall _lvr_l ..
1 Draft Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Recommending Certification of the DEIR and
Adoption of the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program)
2. Draft Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Recommending Approval of GPA and ZC)
3. Draft Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Recommending Approval of SP and TTM)
4. Draft PC Minutes of April 13, 2010
5. Letter from Mary Rodriguez dated April 13, 2010
6. E-mail from John Yang on April 13, 2010
7. E-mail from David R. Busse on April 14, 2010
8. E-mail from Judy Leung on April 15, 2010
9. E-mail from Chris Chung on April 15, 2010
Page 4 of 4
CID: StaffReports - PC/Site D Specific Plan PC Staff Report 04-27-2010.docx
Attachment 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO.
2008021014) AND RECOMMENDING
THE
FINDINGS MITIGATION OF
REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM AND ADOPT
FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70687 FOR A
SITE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL
NUMBERS 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 and
8714-015-001).
A. RECITALS
1. On July 1, 2007, the property owner/co-applicant, Walnut Valley School
District, and property owner/co-applicant/lead agency, City of Diamond
Bar, executed a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the parties
agreed to collaborate in the planning of the future land use for the
approximately 30.36 -acre parcel property located at the southeast corner
of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard, City of Diamond Bar,
County of Los Angeles, California so that both parties may each advance
their respective objectives for the disposition of the property.
2. The following approvals are requested of the City Council [Items (a)
through (d) below are collectively referred to as the "Project"]:
(a) General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use
designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C) to
Specific Plan (SP);
(b) Zone Change No. 2007-04 to change the zoning districts from Low
Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to
Specific Plan
(c) Specific Plan No. 2007-01 to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for the
approximately 30.36 acre site to facilitate the development of a
maximum of 202 residential dwelling units; a maximum of 153,985
gross sq. ft. of commercial floor area; and approximately 8 acres of
open space areas, easements, and rights-of-way;
(d) Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 to establish separate residential,
,,p.a.ce-parcels.;-create-an--internal--circula.tion ------ --
system and common open space areas; and establish easements
and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes; and
(e) Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 to
certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, which provides a
detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with!
the development of the Specific Plan area. The Final EIR includes
mitigation. measures for the project, addresses project alternatives,
identifies the environmentally superior project alternative, and adopts
a statement of overriding considerations;
3. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on
April 2, 2010. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners
within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site and public notices were
posted at the City's designated community posting sites. In addition to the
published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display
board and the notice was posted at three other locations within the project
vicinity; and
4. On April 13 and April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony
from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1 The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth .in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct;
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in
this Resolution required an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). EIR (SCH
No. 2008021014) has been prepared according to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated
thereunder. The 45 -day public review period for the EIR began June 25,
2009 and ended August 10, 2009. Furthermore, the Planning
Commission has reviewed the EIR and related documents in reference to
the Project;
3. The Planning Commission based on the findings and conclusions set forth
herein, hereby finds and determines that conditions have been
incorporated into the Application, which mitigate or avoid significant
adverse environmental impacts identified in Environmental Impact Report
2
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Certification of EIR)
(SCH #2008021014) except as to those effects which are identified and
made the subject of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which this
Planning Commission recommends to City Council and finds are clearly
outweighed by the economic, social, and other benefits of the proposed
project, as more fully set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations; and
4. The Planning. Commission hereby
certify the to be EIR complete and
Facts and Statement of Overriding
and Monitoring Program attached
hereby incorporated by reference.
The Planning Commission shall:
recommends that the City Council
adequate; and adopt the Findings of
Considerations, and Mitigation Report
herein as Exhibits "A" and "B" and
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, 'by certified mail, to:
Walnut Valley Unified School District, 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut,
CA 91789.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27h DAY OF APRIL 2010, BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
M -
Tony Torng, Chairman
1, Greg Gubman, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted,
at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of April, 2010, by
the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
ATTEST:
Greg Gubman, Secretary
3
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Certification of EIR)
���.���
�^�v,�x^o� ��
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT — "SITE 0^SPECFlC PLAN
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 20O8021014
Section 2iO81 8Dd21081.5. California Public Resources Code
Sections 15091, 15092, and 15083, Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location
The approximately 30.36 -acre project site is located within the corporate boundaries ofthe City
Diamond Bar (City or Lead Agency), an incorporated community. situated along the western
edge of Los Angeles County (County). The project site is located in the southwestern portion of
the City on the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. The
project site is bordered on the north by Diamond Bar Boulevard, on the west by Brea Canyon
Road, and on the south, east, and southwest by existing single-family detached dwelling units.
Existing engineered slope areas, including v -ditch drainage features, separate the project site
from existing homes on the south and west. Commercial and office professional uses are
located to the north of Diamond Bar Boulevard and west of Brea Canyon Road.
The project s�e is generally located east ofState Route 57 (SR -57 F and Brea C8OyOO
Road
""d southeast of the intersection of the SR -57 Freeway, Diamond B8[ Boulevard, and
Brea Canyon Cutoff. The project site is located to the north of the terminus of Castle Rock
Road and PasedoDrive.
1.2 Project Description
The City Of Diamond Bar (City or Lead Agency) and the Walnut Valley Unified Sc
hoO| District
`WVU«`or District) own separate -propertiesvithin the corporate boundaries of the City,
sep8n8t8d by an open flood CnOtrV| channel /BFn8 Canyon Storm Drain Channel) operated by
the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LA)FC[Or CouOtv), a division of the Los
Angeles COUDb/ Department of Public Works (LA -[PV). The VVUSD's governing body has
determined that the District's approximately 28.71 -acre property (Site D or District Property) is
unnecessary for future school use and hes declared it to "surplus property." The City's 0.98-
8c[e property (City was acquired so that City would have access to property to
address future t[8 �c impacts as well as the existing traffic issues iDthis area. The Brea Canyon
Storm Drain Channel (Brea Canyon Channel), which runs generally parallel to Brea Canyon
lO8d'separates the District Property from the City Property. The LACFCD's approximately
067-"CF8 facility (~nU'' Property) is presently an pen box culvert. In accordance with the
LAu"O'S "Guidelines f-[ Overbuilding and Air Rights," in combination with such other
standards and procedures as may be established by the County, leasehold interests in the ^a|[
rights" above the channel CVU|d be CoOVaynd to 8 non -County entity, thus allowing the channel
to be covered and the lands situated above that facility used for other purposes.
On July 1' 2007 the Cityand theVVUSD executed a"KenO[8ndUO 'o
fUOdo[Standing" /WOU\
whereby the parties agreed to a collaborative planning pn}Cmsn for the District PnDpmdv and the
City Property whereby oothentities could advance their respective objectives for the disposition
of those land holdings. Under the terns of the M{U' as authorized under the provisions of
Code ((�GC\
Sections 0545O-O5457ofthe (�o|if0rnieGovernr0entC o e , ,. the City agreed to prepare
and process a plan" for the combined properties for the purpose nfestablishing d8a' D
FH
d-d8V8lA�e[G4bF4h8-UG8-Qf�h0S8'pFQpePb8 ~
The proposed ". Site [Y Specific Plan" (SDG encompasses approximately3O.30-acnea
and COnt8�ys 8 OuDlbGrOfrelated e�HD8DtG including both C�C actions �
. Dg G�8 �[J0DS8n activities which
are presently before the City ofDiamond Bar (City OrLead Ao8Dc«\ and later activities which
can be reasonably anticipated as a result of those actions presently under review. From e
p|eDOiDg perspective, the Lead Agency is considering the possible adoption of proposed
specific plan (Specific Plan No. 2007-01) authorizing the development of 202 dwelling units and
153.985 gross /eaGaab|e square feet of commercial use within the 30.36 -acre specific plan
boundaries. From a project perspective. it in assumed that the project site VVou|db� developed
to accommodate those permitted and conditionally permitted land uses authorized under the
specific plan and developed to the maximum intensity allowable thereunder.
Based on the site's existing "City ofDiamond Bar General Plan" (General Plan) and zoning
designations, the proposed project includes e General Plan amendment (GPA . 2007-O3\
from"PUb|io Facility /P�Y �Dd "���K�na| Commercial ([3" tu "Specific'
c ' ��P\" with '
corresponding zOD8 fh]Ol "[OVV Density Residential /R -j 1.O \." and
"Neighborhood Commercial /C-1\" to "Specific Plan (8P)." Also proposed is the approval' of
tentative subdivision map (Tentative Tract Map NO. 70687) establishing separate residential,
CO[O08[Ci8l' and open Sp@C8 p8[C8lG and creating an internal circulation GVSt8UU and
establishing easements and other rights-of-way for utility and other pU[pODBS. FO||OVViOg the
adoption 0fthe specific plan, the City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District (VUVU8DO[
District) may enter into 8transferable development 8gneeOneDtfor the purpose Offacilitating the
inlp|8DleDb3t!oO Of the specific plan and the d8v8|OpOO8Ot Of the project site. In addition, the
District and the City will CO0pa[8t8 in the Sa{8 of the District's holdings (District P[Op8d«\ and the
City's holdings (City Property) to one or more d8VG|Ope[S. 08Ot6r builders, end users, or other
parties.
1.3 Project Objectives
AS more thoroughly described in the BE|Fi both the City and the District have established
specific objectives concerning the proposed project and/or the project Site. ItiSthe objective Of
the City to promote and facilitate the attainment of those go8|G' objectives, plans, and policies
as contained iDthe General Plan. Sp8Cific8||y, those objectives iOo|Ude' but are not limited to,
the following BXCe[ptG from the G8O8F8/ Plan: (1) Require that new development be compatible
with surrounding land uses (Strategy 2.2.1.Land Use B8Ol8nt);and /2\Balance the retention of
the natural environment with its conversion 0nurban form (Strategy 3.3.1.L8OdUSeBeOleOt).
The City has elected to prepare and process 8 specific p|8O for the proposed project for the
purpose Ofdefining the types 0fpermitted and conditionally permitted land 4aea that the City
believes tObeappropriate for the p 'eCtSitQ8DUthep 'e[dG8ttiOg.tOde�O8[G@GO|8b|e|i0/
to the iDt8O6ih/ and density of those US8S. and to establish the design and d8Ve|OpDle.t
standards for those US8S. The fo||OVViDg additional broad project objective CaO be derived from
88CtiDD 22.8U.O2O//\pp|iCabiiity\and GeObOD 22.60.060 (Adoption of Specific Plan) in Chapter
22.O8 (Specific Plans) of the MunicipalCode: Prepare a specific plan which provides for
flexibility, HOCoUraAeS the iDDnVatiV8 use Of l8Od, pn]Vid8S for the �8V��O��Dt of variety Of
h0USiDQ and other deYe|OpDlenth/peG assists in t�� comprehensivet8 | i f^�
. ` . master O the
png8Ctsite, and i8consistent with the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies Ofthe
IN
GiOC8 the MOU between the City and the District constitute 8 declaration Of the intent Of both
p8rU8S' that document contains information that can be utilized in the formulation Ofproject
Oh^8Cti`~S' The following additional Ohi8CtiV8S can be derived from that document: /1\ District
desires the disposition Ofthe School Property to yield 8nO@OlUOl[8i �d th Xi tU[O to the District for the
benefit of its constituents and its educational mission; and (2) City desires that the School
PnDp8dV manner t�8 City �8 �8V8iOp�� �O 8 8nOg[ 8S to 8GSU[8 compatibility with 8Odh]
Property ` ^
meet the needs Ofthe surrounding area and to provide a desirable level ofsales tax revenues to
the City.
As further indicated in the MOU.of the usable acreage, it is explicitly specified that 8minimum
of 50 p8[C8Ot of the pPOp8'dv will be
designated for residential d'8V2opn8rt and
5
O percent will
be designated for CO808'8| use, BXo\UGiVe Of necessary infrastructure. Based on those
actions, the following additional objectives can be established: /1\ With F8g@[dG to the project
site, pursue t�8 establishment O/GitoS 8Cific |@Dd-USe policies that 8UOV' in r8@sOD8b|y
comparable 8C're8g8.the development of both coR0orCi@| and residential USSG Of the property;
accommodating' the p/u � in of additional housing opportunities and the ('OtnDdUCtiOO Of
reVeDUo-g8O8n8t\Dg USmS' and /2\ Establish 8 specific plan as the guiding land -use policy mechanism b]define the O80F88D intensity od �i t8 itv ffuture development and h3establish design and
development pG[80et8rS for the project site, so as to 8\|OVV cOOV8y8nCe of the SUhieCt property
to one or more developers and/or ^ master builders and provide to the pU[Ch8SBrs r8aSOnob\8
assurance as to the US8s that would be authorized OO the project site and the nature of those
exactions required for those uses.
1.3.1 Future Growth Needs
It is o further �� {� � Diamond Bar to 0���r�@� of the ��� �U��
--'--- City
Assessment i5 8 key tool for local gOvo[OnleDts
D88�S �h8 ReoiODo\ HnUS|D0 Needs S (RHNA) , �_'
' n�� ot8d rOVVtl The RHNA qUaOt�GSthe anticipated need for housing within
to p�GD fOr8[�uo|Po the
hod fnzrD January t0 July 2014 {|OnOnnUOhiea then
each 'Ur\�diCtiOO for 8 yz-ye8r pm .
determine how they will address this OBad through the process of updating the Housing
Elements oftheir General Plans.
The current RHNA was adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments
(8CAG) in July 2007. The future need for housing is determined primarily bythe forecasted
` newg pOmth�in households in @ c0rnrnUnitv Each O�household created by a child moving out of a
parent's home or by a family moving to m community for employment creates the need for o
level" Using Unit The hoUSiDg needfor'evVhoUseho|ds'\StheOad'Ustedtn 0oiOtmiD o d8si[8b|e
'"O'VoCo''cytopno[nOtehousing choice and nlobiUh/.AnadjUStnlentiealso nlBdotoaccount
"UD�s expected to be lost due to d8r0O\\tioO, natural disaster, or conversion to non -housing
""~h� r-- of these factors — household growth, vacancy n3ed, and r8p\oceUleDL need —
uses. ' sum
determines the construction need for a community. Total housing need is then distributed
among four income cBtngo[ioSoD the basis ofthe county's income distribution, with adjustments
to avoid an over -concentration of lower-income households in any community.
In July 2007 SCAG, adopted the final RHNA growth needs for each of the county's cities p|US
the unincorporated area. The total housing growth need for the City of Diamond Bar during the
2006-2014 pioDO\ng period is 1,090 units. Site D is one of the Very few available s1baS in the
City that can significantly contribute toward meeting Diamond Bar's RHNA obligation.
1.3.2 Senate Bill 375
SB 375 (Steinberg) is California state legislation that became law effective January 1, 2009. It
prompts California regions to work together to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
cars and light trucks. This new law would achieve this objective by requiring integration of
planning processes for transportation, land -use and housing. The plans emerging from this
process will lead to more efficient communities that provide residents with alternatives to using
single occupant vehicles. SB 375 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARE) to
develop regional reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks GHG emissions. The
regions, in turn, are tasked with creating "sustainable communities strategy," (SCS) which
combine transportation and land -use elements in order to achieve the emissions reduction
target, if feasible. SB 375 also offers local governments regulatory and other incentives to
encourage more compact new development and transportation alternatives.
In order to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals set out in California Assembly Bill 32:
The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), S13 375 focuses on reducing vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and urban sprawl. AB 32 was the nation's first law to limit greenhouse gas
emissions and SB 375 was enacted thereafter to more specifically address the transportation
and land use components of greenhouse gas emissions. Through the implementation of
regional SCS plans by 2020, the goal of S13 375 is to see a significant decrease in gree nhouse
gas emissions for the environment and an increase in quality of life for residents.
There are two mutually important facets to the SB 375 legislation: reducing VMT and
encouraging more compact, complete, and efficient communities for the future.'
SCAG and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Govern ments—t,he subregional planning
organization of which Diamond Bar is a member—are in the process establishing the
parameters for an SCS.for the subregions comprising the SCAG region. Although the SCS is
not yet adopted, many local jurisdictions are making efforts to encourage developments that
reduce VMT. The Site D Specific Plan furthers the objectives of SB 375 by facilitating horizontal
mixed use with pedestrian connections between the residential and commercial components. In
the absence of transit infrastructure (other than bus routes), mixed use developments can play a
significant role in local efforts to reduce VMT.
2.0 INTRODUCTION TO FINDINGS
2.1 Format of Findings
These Findings have been divided into a number of sections. Those sections and the
information presented therein are briefly outlined below.
Section 1.0 (Project Description). This section provides an overview of the proposed project,
describes its location, and identifies the project's stated objectives.
Section 2.0 (introduction to Findings). This section provides an introduction to these Findings,
and describes their purpose and statutory and regulatory basis.
Section 3.0 (General Findings). In addition to the specific findings presented herein, this section
identifies the general CEQA findings of the Lead Agency
1 Excerpts from Senate BN 375 Factsheet published by SCAG (2010)
11
Section. 4.0 (Findings Regarding the Significant or Potentially Significant Environmental Effects
of the Proposed Project which cannot Feasibly be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance).
This section sets forth findings regarding the significant or potentially significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project which cannot feasibly be mitigated to a less -than -significant
level based on the threshold of significance criteria presented in the FEIR and which will or may
[0GUlt from the 8pp[OV8' CoRStnJCUOO, h8bitGtOO, and/or use of the p/"le^` and/or,., r,x,__
site.
(Findings Regarding the Significant or Potentially Significant EOVnDnOOent8! Effects
of the Proposed Project which can Feasibly be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance). This
section sets forth findings regarding the significant or potentially significant environmental
impacts of the proposed project which either do not manifest at a level of significance based on
the threshold of significance criteria presented in the FEIR or which can feasibly be mitigated to
a less -than -significant level through the imposition of standard conditions of. approval and/or
those, mitigation measures included in the FEIR and adopted or likely to be adopted in the
project's "Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program" (MRMP).
Section 6.0 (Findings Regarding the K8Ng8tiOD Reporting and W1OOitOhng Program). This
section contains findings VVi|hP8ga[dStotheW1FlK4P.
Section 7.0 (Findings Regarding AitG[DabVeS not 38|8oted for Implementation). This section
provides findings regarding those alternatives to the proposed project which were examined in
the FEIR and which were considered by the advisory and decision-making bodies of the Lead
Agency as part of their deliberations concerning the proposed project but which were not
selected by the City Council for implementation following those deliberations.
Section 8.0 (� (Project Benefits). This section presents e number Of identifiable communityattributable to the proposed project.
benefits
Section 9.0 (Statement of Overriding Considerations). This aooUon contains the Lead Agency's
Overriding COO8id8[etiOOs'' (SOC) setting forth the City's reasons and rationale for
"Statement of i | \ social, technological, and other considerations associated
with or attributable to the proposed
finding that specific economic,gQa ' project u `/ `«Ub��igh the project's sigDificeDt Or potentially
significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
As applicable for each of the above referenced sections, the significant or potentially significant
vi[nOrneR�8\ ��eCtS identified in the FE�\R have been referenced therein. Following each
8D t � effect, the Lead AqBnoy hes identified the findings and facts that
referenced eO«�roDnOeD8 8 c' ' actions. The findings set in each of the
constitute the bases for the Lead Agency's 8 oOG. d . nt
fo(lovViDgsections are sUppohadministrative pn�� .
The referenced findings and facts presented herein may have relevancy bnth in the context of
the specific environmental effect for which those findings and facts are indicated and for other
environmental a��cte identified in the FE|F� and in these Findings. For the purpose Of U[ev|ry.
�n t � herein are not duplicated UOdg[ multiple topical issues but
should be assumed to collectively constitute those findings and facts PF8SeD� �rex\t t the factual basis utilized by the decision-making
body Ofthe Lead Agency iOmaking these Findings.
Except as otherwise noted in the FEIR, the threshold of significance criteria utilized by the Lead
Agency toassess the significance ofproject-related 8ndcUrnu|ativeinOp8otsar8basedonthOee
N
criterion C0OtgiO8d in Appendix G of the State CEQA GU|d8|iDeG and constitute C[itehDD which
8At8thoA-pre
Lead Agency for other projects within the City and by other jurisdictions throughout California.
2.2 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following at8tenleDtoffacts and findings (FhldiOgs)has been prepared hvthe Lead Agency
in aCCO[d8Oc8 with the provisions Of the California EDVirOOOl8Ot8l C}Ualhn Act ([|__)' as
codified in Section 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), and the
Guidelines for the Implementation of the California EDVin]DOn8nta| C>ua|ih/ Act (State CE{}A
Guidelines), as codified in Section 15000 et seq., in Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR), for the G[)8P project and for any and all discretionary actions reasonably
associated therewith. For planning purposes, the Load Agency, the Governor's [)ffioe of
Planning and Research - State Clearinghouse (SC|H)' and/or other responsible 80eD:iao have
or may assign C8G8 or file OUDlb9[G to certain 8CtiODS OOVV contemplated by the City, by the
8CH' and/or by those responsible agencies. Those case or file numbers (and the assigning
agency) include, but may not be limited to: (1) 8CHNo20U8O21O14(GCH); (2) Environmental
I0paCt Report 2007-02 (City); /3\ General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03(City); /4\ ZOOB
[|h@Og9 NO. 2007-04 /}itV\' /5\ Specific Plan No. 2007-01 (City); and /6\ Tentative N8� N
O.
70687.
Reference to the SD8P herein is intended to be inclusive of: (1) each of the above referenced
discretionary 8CdODG; /2\ such additional discretionary and ministerial 8Cti0DG as may be
required for O[associated with the construction, habitation, occupancy, use, and maintenance Of
the SU8Fzand the real property thereupon for the residential, DOO-[BSid8Otial.and infrastructure -
related UGeS proposed within the geographic area examined inthe "Final EDViF0008Dtal Impact
Report- 'Site D'Specific Plan, G[}H No. 2O08OZ1O14'/FEiR\.whether o[not included within the
geographic area encompassed by the GDGP; and /4\ those standard CODditiODG' mitigation
nO8gSuroS. and Oih8[ conditions Of 8ppFOV8l as may be imposed th8[8UpOD by the City's
decision-making bodies and the decision-making bodies of those F8SpnOSiblG agencies with
jurisdiction thereupon.
The State CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out aproject
for which GD eOxiFOD0HOt8| impact report (EIR) has been completed which identifies one or
more significant environmental effects OO the 8nvi[ODDlSOt that would occur ifthe proposed
project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more written findings
for each Ofthose significant effects. This document presents the findings Offact and substantial
8Vid8Dma that must be Dl8d8 by the City Of DioDlnDd Ba[ City COUOCi| (City Council), acting in
that body's c3p8City8G the Lead Agency's decision-making body, prior to determining whether
tocertify the FE|Rand approve O[conditionally approve the GDGP.
The possible findings specified in Geotk]O 15091 of the State CEChA Guidelines, VVhk:h Sh@U be
supported by substantial evidence in the record, include:
/1\ Changes 0[alterations have been required in, Orincorporated into, the projectthat avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental offeota' as identified in the Dna! BR.
[This finding. shall bereferred tnherein 3S"Finding (1)"]
(2) Such changes or 8K9[8toDS are vVUhiO the responsibility and jurisdiction Of another
public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should, be adopted by such other agency.
[This finding shall bereferred to herein as"Finding (2)^]
`B\ "r~`"'~ economic, —"al' social, technological, orother considerations, including
considerations for the p[ovsion of ��ok—vneoo� opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR.
[This finding Sh8\| be referredtO herein as "Finding (3)"
With respect tothose significant effects that are subject tOFinding (1)the agency shall also
8dOot@ program for r8porUOg on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the
project '^� O[ 8d� a condition of approval to avoid or lessen significant environmental effects.
�^` made
With respect bJ those significant effects that are subject to Finding (2)t
he findings shall not be
made ifthe agency making the findings has concurrent jurisdiction With another agency tOdeal
with identified feasible mitigation 0eGgU[oS O[alternatives. With respect to those significant
effects that are SUhieCt to Finding (3). the findings shall describe the specific reasons for
rejecting identifimitigation measures alternatives.
.
In accordance with Section 15091 Of the State CEQA Guidelines, the. City Council 08k8G the
following findings for each significant Or potentially significant environmental effect identified 'in
th8 FE|Fl. Those impacts are categorized under the corresponding topical headings presented
b h8F8iO8[��S�[8neOt8di�theFE|Rond
iOthe F��|R ��oferenCGtOnO\�g8tioOnOe8sU[8nUr0 8[S
may differfrom those OUrOberS or notations that may be subsequently assigned should the City
Council elect toapprove O[conditionally approve the GDSP.
As indicated iDSection(��i�D�Q3Od or Potentially 8igOhiC@D1 EDVinDDnO8Dt8| Effects which (Significant
Cannot Feasibly be Mitigated tO Below baV8l of Significance) he[8\O'
Q number Ofsignificant
8DViPDDDeOt8\ effects are identified
in the FE|Fl which n8ODOt be avoided or substantially
lessened.In recognition of the continuing existence of significant unavoidable 8dv8[Go
environmental offecta' ostatement OfOV8[h[)
diOgcODe\d�[8tinDo(�(�\.SUppD�edbySUbSt8Oti8\ evidence in the record, is, thHr8f0F8. required in order for the City to 8ppnOV8 the SD8P.
The
(StatementOfOVB[�diDg (�OnSid�[G�oOn\ herein
SD(�fD[th8 GD8P is p[�a�Ot9d in ' .
`---------\ OOdit\OD8�Gpp[oV@\Dfth8�POpOSodpR�oct
and presents the rationale for the C\t�a8pp[OV8 o[C
' d
despite the CoD�nUiOgexistence Ofthose unavoidable @ V e[n8 mOYinoOrn8nta| effects.
2.3 Record oƒProceedings
For purposes Of CEQA8nd these Findings, eta DniD\rOU[O, the record of proceedingsfor the
FBRconsists Ofthe following documents and other evidence. All references tothe FE|Rherein
shall be assumed to be inclusive of each of the following documents and such other
accompanying evidence 8smay bRidentified bythe City Council:
U\ "|O�eStudy," including all documents cited therein;
` ' 'v'
/2\ "Notice Of Preparation" (NOP), "Notice ofCu/mp|etk�D" (N[C)' "Notice of Availability"
/NlA\. "Notice of Determination" /
(NOD), end oU other notices issued by Lead
"uen"x �i"O~conjunction with this [
E]A process;
(3) "Draft Environmental Impact Report —'Site D"
Specific P\en, SCf No. 2008021014" and
"Technical Appendix -Dr8ftEnv/nDDO8nto\iDp8otReport—'SiteD'Sp8cifitP\un.GCH
No. 20O8-2101OBR\.including all documents incorporated h«reference therein and
all written comments sDitted
Uypublic agencies and other stakeholders during the
public [ovevy periods established by the NOP and NOA; d exhibits not included in
(4\ [)th8[ site-specific and/or p '8c�speCUiC technical studies oD �
` ' the FBRbut explicitly referenced therein;
(5\ "Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report 'Site D' Specific` ' P|eD. GCH No. 2008021014." including all written comments submitted by public
U
agencies and other stakeholders during the public review period established by the
(6) "Minutes of the City of Diamond Bar Neighborhood Forum of Site "D" Specific Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report, Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon
Road, Diamond Bar, August 3, 2009," as prepared by the City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department (Department);
(7) All written and verbal public testimony presented during noticed scoping meetings and
public hearings for the proposed project at which public testimony was taken;
(8) "Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program" (MRMP), as presented in the DEIR and
as subsequently adopted by the City Council;
(9) All agendas, staff reports, and approved minutes of the City's Planning Commission and
City Council relating to the proposed project;
(10) All maps, exhibits, figure, and text comprising the "'Site D' Specific Plan";
(11) Matters of common knowledge to the City including, but not limited to, federal, State, and
local laws, rule, regulations, and standards;
(12) These Findings and all documents expressly cited in these Findings; and
(13) Such other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings under Section
21167.6(e) of CEQA.
2.4 Custodian and Location of Records
The following information is provided in compliance with Section 21081.6(a)(2) of CEQA and
Section 15091(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The documents and other materials constituting the administrative record for the City Council's
actions related to the FEIR are located at the City of Diamond Bar, Community Development
Department, 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765-4178. The Community
Development Director is the custodian of the administrative record for the proposed project.
During the regular business hours of the City, copies of the documents constituting the FEIR's
and the SDSP's record of proceedings are available upon request at the offices of the
Community Development Department.
3.0 GENERAL FINDINGS
In, addition to the specific findings identified herein, the City Council hereby finds that:
(1) Under CEQA, the City of Diamond Bar is the appropriate "Lead Agency" for the
proposed project and during the project's CEQA proceedings no other agency asserted
or contested the City's "Lead Agency" status;
(2) As part of the CEQA process, in compliance with the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 18
and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research's (OPR) "Supplement to General
Plan Guidelines — Tribal Consultation Guidelines" (2005), the Lead Agency notified the
appropriate California Native American tribe of the opportunity
portunity to conduct consultation
for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural places, referred the
proposed action to those tribes that are on the Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) contact list that have traditional lands within the agency's jurisdiction, and send
notice to tribes that have filed a written request for such notice;
(3) In recognition of the fact that the real property examined in the FEIR includes separate
properties owned by the City, the District, and the County, the Lead Agency conducted
extensive consultation with those agencies, in combination with other agencies identified
by the Lead Agency in the. FEIR, are identified as "Responsible Agencies" under CEQA;
N
(4\ COp.8s of the IDHjB\ Study, NOP, DBF{ and �JO(� were provided to those Responsible
`�' Agencies identified inthe FE\Rand each such agency was provided 8specified review
period tOsubmit comments thereupon;
VfOE(�A�O[tOth8Ce��C@�OD
(�) \n CO0�|�8Dc8VVith Section 21US�'�(8) d its 'E-�|�8St1Od8VS�
of the FEi[�' the Lead Agency pPDV0ewritten proposed p8SpODG8 to those pUb\\C
agencies that submitted comments tOthe Lead Agency Onthe DE(R; i
/O\ The FEiF< and all environmental notices associated therewith were preparedO
` '
COn0p\i@OCe withCEC}A and the State CEC)A GUid9|(D8G and in 8nCD[d8OC8 with the
city's local guidelines and
'pPDCedUrgG;
(7) The City COUDC(\ has independently
r8Y\eV8d and
8D8\yZed the FE|F8Od the FEiR
reflects the independent judgment ofthe City COuOC\!;
`R\ n ,RMP has been prepared for the proposed project, identifying those feasible
mitigation 08aSU[8S that the City.Council has adopted or will likely adopt in order to
.
reduce the potential eOV(rOO[O8Ot8\ effects Ofthe proposed project to the maximum
extent feasible;
`
'
(0) The mitigation measures adopted o[\ikm\ytobe8dOphsdbyth8Qtv
Council will b8fully
implemented in accordance with th8WRWP' verification ofcompliance will be
doCU08Ot8d' and each 0sU[8
can reasonably be expected to have the efficacy and
produce the post-mitigated consequences assumed iOthe FEiR; raisediO
/1O) Each ofthe issues tOb8resolved, aSid8D��ediOthe FE\Rand/or subsequently
` ' cornnoeDtS r8o8iV8d by the City dU[\Dg the deliberation Of the City's advisory and
decision-making bodies, have been resolved tOthe satisfaction otthe City Council;
�
The pOtBDt\8| environmental impacts of the proposed pr�eCthBVebe8O8OG|yZedtOth8
exhDtfeGsib|�8tth�tinn8Ofce�ifiC8tioOOfth8FBR;
'�"s
tU8ited
/12\ The City Council reviewed the comments received On the FEiR, including, but no
to, those comments received fOUOV\Og*the dissemination of the DE|R8Dd RTC, and the
d h determined th3t Oeithe[ the comments Feoe\*ad nor the
responses thereto and 8s
inƒO[Dlo�oO under Section 15088
.5 e�U significantnew.5Ofthe State
CEC)AGUide|iDes'
'
(13) The City (oUnQ\ has not made any decisionsC|sinDS that would constitute an irretrievable
�
commitmentof resources toward the proposed project p[idr to the certification of the
FE|"nor has the City Council previously committed to a definite course of action with
respect to the proposed project;
(14\ �incorporated by [�fe[oDCe in the FE\�� �r8 andhave been
Copies of the documents �
` ' available for FeV\oVV during the [eQU|8r bUS�OHSs hours of the City at the office of the
TheseCoODOlun\tvD�ve|oprnent"epo�nnent�o[nthecustodienofnacoFdsfOrSUchdocuOleDtn;
/15\ �mSe Findings "'e may \Ocorpor��by reference �Uoh other oS �y bB required under
` ' Sections 5454 0545�56474, 65474.4' 65853' and 65860 of the California
(�OY8[ODlentC `oOee Odth'oSeoornespoDdingfiOd\Dg[8qV\reduOde[the"CKyofDiannond
Bar Municipal Code" (Municipal Cnde);and
/1O\ Having received, reviewed, and considered all inforrnat\nnand docurnentsinthe record,
` '
the City Council has or will impose conditions, mitigation measures,
and take other
RaoSolb|e actions to reduce the nDVi[OOOeOt8l effects Of the proposed project to the
O3XiuO
extend feasible and finds oestated in these Findings.
4'0 FINDINGS REGA�D|0K�THE SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OFTHE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH CANNOT
FEASIBLY BE MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The City COUOcj| has determined that existing statUt8n, regulations, conditions of 8pp[ova.
Un\foTrcodes, project design haBtUFes, and/n[ hm@e)b\e rn\VgeUon measures included in the
9
FEIR and adopted by or likely to be adopted by the City Council will result in a substantial
Notwithstanding the existence of those statutes and regulations and the adoption of those
conditions and measures, the City Council finds that the following significant or potentially
significant environmental effects will continue to exist.
4.1 Air Quality
4.1.1 Construction of the proposed project has the potential to violate or
add to a violation of air quality standards (Air Quality Impact 7-2).
The City Council hereby makes Findings M\and (2).
Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of these
(a) and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed inSection 4.7
(Air Quality) in the FE|R and that analysis is iDDo[pn[GtRd hgF8/D by [Gfe[8nC8.
(b) The air quality 8O8lVGiS was CODdUCt8d in 8CCOnjGDoe with the methodology
pF8S8Dt8d in the South Coast Ai[ Quality K88O8geDleDt District's /8CAClM[>\
^CEQAAir Quality Handbook" (8CAQN1D' April 1993), "Localized Significance
Threshold Methodology" (SCAC}W1O. June 2005), and Vpd8i8S included OD the
bC8QyNU Internet vVeU site. The analysis [n3keo use of the URBEM|G2007
urban e[OiGGiODS UlOdR| (V8[SiOO 9.4.2) for the determination of daily COOStrVotiOD
and operational 8Dli8GiOOS. the United 8t8t8S EDV/FDD08nt8l P[O1eCtiOD Agency's
(UGEPA) 8CEEN3 Dispersion model for localized construction impacts, the
pnOViSiODS Of the California D8p8dDl8Dt Of T[8DGpOd8ti0D'S /C8|t[BDG\
"T[8OGpOd8tiOD Project -Level Carbon K8ODOXidB Protocol," and CA[|NE4
computer model of on -road carbon monoxide (CO) dispersion modeling.
(C) Air quality impacts will occur during Site preparation and construction activities.
Major 8oUhn8S Of 8DliSS(ODS during CODSt[uCtiOn include exhaust 8DliSSinOG,
fugitive dust generated aSaresult Ofsoil and material disturbance during grading
activities, and the e0iSSiOD of reactive organic gases /ROGS\dU[iOg site paving
and the painting Ofthe structures.
(d) The terms "reactive organic A8O88" (ROGa). "[83CtiV8 organic compounds"
(FtOCS)' and "volatile organic compounds" (V[)Co)are used interchangeable in
th8OBFl.
/e\ Based ODthe SCAQyW[}'srecommended threshold criteria, URBEM|G CO0pVt8[
DlDd8| results iDdio8ba that Fl{JG erOiGsiOOS associated with the 8pplio8bOD of
p8iOh] and coatings oOU1d [83Ult in 8 potentially significant short-term 8i[ quality
impact. Because the construction phase ooUN create R[>{] emissions is
8XnSed8OCe Ofthe SCAQyWD'S [eCOnDOleDded significance threshold, the Lead
Agency has formulated a number Ofmitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 7-
1and 7-2\tOreduce that impact tOthe extent feasible.
/D In addition to those mitigation 0o8SU[eS identified by the Lead Agency, all
projects constructed in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are subject to standard
conditions and uDifO[n0 COdnS. Compliance with these pn]ViGiODS is rD@Dd@tOry
and, as such, does not constitute mitigation under CEC)A. Those conditions
mandated by the SCAClMD include, but are not limited to, the following: /1\ Rule
4O3 F8qUi[eS the use of Best Available Control Technologies (BAC[) during
construction and sets requirements for dust control associated with construction
`
activities; (2) Rules 431.1 and 431.2 require the use of low sulfur fuel for
stationary construction equipment; (3) Rule 1108 sets limitations on ROG content
in asphalt; and (4) Rule 1113 sets limitations on ROG content in architectural
Coatings.
(g) Notwithstanding the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures
and the project's adherence to applicable standard conditions, uniform codes,
and SCAQMID rules and regulations, other than through a substantial reduction in
the size of the proposed project and/or reduction in the daily concentration of
asphalt and architectural coatings applied, projected construction -term ROG
emissions would remain at levels in excess of the SCAQMD's recommended
threshold criteria.
4.1.2 Environmental Effect: Operation of the proposed project has, the potential to violate or
add to a violation of air quality standards (Air Quality impact 7-3).
Findings: The City Council hereby makes Findings (1) and (2).
Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of these
findings:
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated herein by reference.
(b) The major source of long-term air quality impacts is that associated with the
emissions produced from project -generated vehicle trips. With regards to mobile
source emissions, based on the findings of the traffic analysis, the proposed
project is estimated to produce 9,276 average daily vehicle trips (ADT).
(c) Emissions associated with project -related trips are based on the URBEMIS2007
computer model and assumed site occupancy in 2009. Since emissions per
vehicle are reduced annually due to tightening emissions restrictions and
replacement of older vehicles, the use of 2009 emission factors presents a worst-
case analysis with regards to operational air quality impacts.
(d) Operational ROG, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions
are projected to exceed the SCAQMD recommended threshold of significance
values and the impact is potentially significant. Because project occupancy is
projected to create ROG, NOx, and CO emissions in excess of the'SCAQMD
suggested daily criteria, the Lead Agency has formulated a numbe'r of mitigation
measures (Mitigation Measures 7-3 through 7-7) to reduce that impact to the
extent as feasible.
(e) implementation of those measures would not be expected to reduce ROG, NOx,
and CO emission levels to a less -than -significant level. There are no reasonably
available mitigation measures than can reduce projected operational ROG, NOx,
and CO emissions to less -than -significant levels.
4.1.3 Environmental Effect: The proposed project, in combination with other related projects,
has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutants
(Air Quality Impact 7-6).
Findin : The City Council hereby makes Findings (1) and (2)_
Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of these
findings:
11
(Air Quality) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated herein by reference.
(b) Since ROG emissions associated with the application of asphalt, paints, and
coatings and ROG, NOx, and CO mobile source emissions are expected to
remain significant, the project will add incrementally to the cumulative air quality
impact produced by other related projects.
(c) ROG and NOx are criteria pollutant precursors and go on to form secondary
criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reaction in the
(d) The SCAB is classified by the State as "extreme non -attainment" for ozone.
Ozone is one of o number of substances (photochemical oxidants) that are
formed when ROCSand NO%react with sunlight.
/e\ Mitigation for the CU0Ul8tiVe impact is as specified for COOst[U[tiOO and
Dp8C8tiDD8l impacts. H0VV8Ve[, eV8D with the adoption of the [8COOO[D8Oded
OleasU[8G' 8i[ quality i[Dp8Ct8 will [8Dl8iO cumulatively significant. No mitigation
OoeaaUraa, formulated specifically to address the project's potential iDCr8[D9Dta|
cODt[ibU|iOD to cU0U|atiV8 8i[ quality i0p8CtS. are deemed to be re8SOD8b/V
5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANT 0FKPOTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH CAN
FEASIBLY BE MITIGATED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
The City Council has determined that existing statutes, regulations, standard conditions, uniform
COd88' project design features, in combination with those oODditiODS of approval and feasible
mitigation nl8aSu[8D included in the FEIR and adopted hVO[likely tO be adopted by the (|ih/
Council, will result in a substantial reduction of the following environmental effects and that each
of the following eDvinDO[D8Dtg| effects will either OCCUr at or can be effectively [8dUCHd to b8lOVV
8level Ofsignificance.
5.1 Land Use
5.1.1 and recreational land US8S could iOtpzdUom |8Od
use compatibility issues between the proposed Uses and those existing and reasonably
[V[8G8e8b|e future land uses that now and which may exist in close proximity to those
uses (Land Use Impact 1-1).
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding,: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) and cumulative lam1-US8 impacts are addressed in Section 4.1
(Land Use) iOthe FBRand that analysis isincorporated hvreference herein.
(b) yd1hOUgh DO COnO08[Cial site plan has been presented for the Lead Au8Dm/s
consideration, once development plans are fornlU|8ied' those plans are subject
to the City's deVH/OpDleDt [GVieVV pFDCeGG and OlUSt COOfO[rn to applicable
property development and use standards.
(c) Chapter 22.48 (Development Review) in Title 22 (Development Code) of the
Municipal Code establishes pPOcedUF8S for reviewing residential, commercial
industrial, and institutional development to facilitate review in a timely and
12
' and to BOSUP8 that development projects CO0pk/ with all
��iCk�Ot O0�OD�� 8 �^cu/p p`o ��
epp|\nob|e design guidelines, standards, and r0iDiOn(ze 8dV8[Ge effects OO
SU[PDUDding properties and the eOVi[OOOleDt. ��8C�DO22.10.O8O(��nrB8O\Dgand
Buffering) in Chapter 22.6 /G8ne[8i Property Development and Use Gt8OdgndS\
therein p'-sSDtG the City's iOi0UOstandards for the GC[88OiOg and buffering of
adjoining land uses, equipment and outdoor storage ana8G' and SUrf8C8 parking
areas with respect toboth multi -family and non-residential land uses.
/d\ 8�~gl8�GOlily@(18Ched 8Rd/O[DlUlti�GODUy residential �eV8�o��Ot is proposed
` ' 8~r3C8Dt and in C|OSe proximity to existing single-family detached residential
areas (OC8t8d to the north, south, and 88St Of the project site. Although
residential densities between the two housing product types may vary, both
�existing and proposed residential Uses would be expected to possess similar
operational Ch8r8ct8�GtioSand use expectations.
�g� ' PBC[8@t�OD8\ �D� O�8D spaces Uegs are compatible
(8\ The �FOp�� residential, . .
` ' w�he:�S�n� and proposed development Vv{th\Dthe general. pr�eCtarea.
(f\ Although D"OeOfthe threshold C[ite�8VVOU\db8exceeded, the Lead Agency has
`�' identified 8-OunOb8r of standard conditions of approval (Conditions of Approval 1-
1 and 1-2) designed promote land -use consistency and compatibility.
/g\ Since none Ofthe threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
` ' / U\d beless than significant and DO additional standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended orrequired.
51 2 The prOnO�ed mixed-use project, including the iGOd uses,
� ' adopted development standards DoVv under consideration, could conflict with the
densities,
|�Da8OdpO�CiBoofth8[|\tv(L8OdUse|OOpoCt1-2).
The City Council hereby makes Finding M\.
Facts in S u port of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
ky Project -related and oun�u|atkxs land -use impacts are addressed in Section 4.1
`-/ P '- (Land Use) in the FB�� and that 8Oa\yniS is incorporated by reference herein.
/b\ 'proposed project is generally consistent with the policies Of the "City of
` ' Diamond BarG8ne[8P\aO"((�8nen3\Plan).
/n\ In addition to General n ' Do\GtenCy, the projectcompliancekis subject compliance withwith`-' applicable~~'-b|� p siono of the Municipal Code, including those contained in Chapter
222'H\USi--WoD8ge0eOt\ofthe D8Ve|Op[OeDtCode. |naccordance with the
—iOS-of eC�OD2222.'4O(OeOaity)\nT\U�22(Dev8\opnneDtCode) ofthe
r~`�'�-a! de. 8 total of 524 �VveUiOg units could be developed on the site.
Muniis cipal
which^— General amendment and/or change [�C\vvouN be
kj\ A��OUg�e nw | ` � ` ,__,
`-' required to accommodatethepn]n»ned [eSNoDtia| use, the proposed densities
8[R~|'~'--'8 in the City. Subject to R GPA oDd/OrZC. the residential portion of
the project would be deemed consistent with the "City ofDiamond Bar General
Plan" (G8De[o|P{aD\.
/e\ BaSe`OnG�S�Dg''zoning and assuming o\o�|ineadiustn7onttobet��requate the
` ' 8xjS�-g zoning with the site's dema|OpOOeOt potential, as specified in 88c�oD
22 1~'O20 (Purpose Of (�nOlnneFci3\/|Dduat�8l Zoning Districts) in Chapter 22.10
(C''--o��`|/|DdUatho\ Zoning 0sthcinTin Title 22 (Development Code) of the
` ~'^'' - t
KAuDioip8| Code, the allowableallowablefloor-area-ratioio (FAR) /FAR\ fo[ non-residential
development in the "Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)" zoning district shall be
13
from 0.25 to 1.00. In accordance therewith, 8 range of between 109.880 and
The 153,985 square feet of commercial use now being proposed fails near the
lower end (0.35 FAR) of the allowable FAR range and would, therefore, be
consistent with the City's land -use policies.
The proposed project is generally consistent with the applicable core policies of
the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) 2008 "Regional
Comprehensive Plan — Helping Communities Achieve a Sustainable Future"
(n)hDOngDfthethreaho|dcritehaxYoU|dbmeXceedad.theLeadAoeDcyhaa
identified a G1aDd8Pd condition of 8pp[OV8l (Condition Of Approval 1 -3 -designed
to provide DObfiC@tinD to SCAG Of projected growth within the C.b' SO as to allow
S[AGtomore effectively update naQioDa| plans.
(h) Since OOD8 of the HlFeShO}d criteria would be eXCe8ded, the identified impact
VVOU|d be less than significant and no additional 8t8Od8nd COOditiOOS and/or
mitigation measures are recommended o[required.
5.1.3 implementation requires a General Plan amendment,
adoption Of aSpHcifiC plan, ZODG change, subdivision Of the project site, and other
discretionary actions tOaccommodate the proposed land uses. Each Ofthose actions iS
subject to specific findings by the City Council and/o[ by other responsible agencies
(Land Use Impact 1-3).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\.
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(@) P and mJ0OVlatkxe impacts are addressed in Section 4.1
(Land Use) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein.
/b\ ASp8Cifin plan is 8 regulatory tool, 8VthO[bsed under the provisions of Sections
65450-65457 of the CGC' VVh|Ch is intended to guide the development of a
|Oc8/iBad area and serve as G tool for the 8yGt808tiC i0p|S08OtatiOD of the
g8n8[8| plan. A specific plan document establishes 8 l/Dh between the
iOOp|8nlSDting policies contained in an agency's general plan and the individual
'
development proposal in 8 defined area. No specific plan may b8adopted or
aO08Dd8d Vn|8Gs the proposed plan Or aOn8Ddr0gOt is consistent with the
agency's A8n8[8| plan. No public works project, no tentative map, and no zoning
OPdin8OC8 may be approved, adopted, or amended within the area CoVSRad by
specific plan unless consistent with the adopted specific plan.
/C\ AS indicated in Section 66474' a legislative body of city or COUOty shall deny
approval of a subdivision map if finds that: (a) the proposed map is not consistent
with applicable Q8D8[gl and specific plans; /b\ the design or iDDpn]meOleOt of the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
/n\ the site is not physically suitable for the type Of development; /d\ the Site is
not physically suitable for the proposed density Ofdave|oprneOt;/e\� �adeeigOof
the subdivision or the proposed iDlprOV8OleDtO are likely to cause substantial
�
environmental damage orsubstantially 8n�avoidably injure �shOrVYi|d|ife or their
habitat; /Dthe design Ofthe subdivision o.type Ofimprovements islikely tocause
serious pUb||C health pnDb|8O0S; and/or (g) the design of the subdivision or the
type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at
14
—�ro8— . for 8oneSS th[OU-�h or use D[ pwithinwithinthe psubdivision.
Section `" 66473.5 restricts local agencies from approving ofiO@| subdivision map
for any land use project VO|9SS the legislative body finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the general p(8D or any specific plan. A proposed SUhdiViSiOO
shall be consistent with 3 g8OB[8l plan or 8 specific p|8D only if the (OC8l agency
has officially adopted such e plan and the proposed subdivision or land use is
Dlp8Ub|8 with the OheCtiY8S, pOUCiBS' geO8[8| land UOGS' and programs
specified therein.
(�\ PU[SUGDt to the General Plan, it is the policy Of the City to "k9lnCoUr8ge the
` ' iDOOV8tiV8 use of land PSaOU[CeS and development Of8 variety of housing and
other development tVp8S' provide @ means to coordinate the public and private
pn]ViSioD8 of services and facilities, and address the UD\qU8 needs of certain
lands by recognizing Specific P\8O (8P) OVG[laV designations: /8\for large UpC8l8
development areas in which residential, commercial, P8C[a8tiOO8|' public f8oiti8S
'
and other \8Dd UG8s may be permitted; and /b\ large eCFR8g8 pnnpedv(i8a) in
d to b� �OD8X8d \OtO the (�itv'' (Strategy
eXCRsS of ten �CF�s that are �FopOSe ' `
1.1.9, Land Use E\9O0nOt\.
(e\ Tinformation presented in the FE|>� may be used, in VVho!B or in pod' by the
` ' ^— 'd by other FeepODS\b|g agencies to support specific findings as mandated
City and
law and by agency requirements and p[OCedU[e5' both as may be
by State under {G�(}' and 8- may be required in support of other aC\\oDS that
may be �taken by the City and byother agencies with
[8g@ndS to the proposed
project or any aspect thereof. In the event that the {ih/ and/or other FeSpoDS\b\8
agencies
are UD8bl8 to make requisite findings, those discretionary approvals
asaojoledvviththose findings cannot b8issued. |nthe absence Ofthe issuance
Of requisite pe[n0\t5 and approvals, no physical changes to the project GiteVvoU|d
` � OOnl�Oio\ i[O�8otSVVoU\d [�SUUthH[�fn]rn
b�aOtidp8t�dtOOnCu[�D Doenvironmental .
U�' ] Although none ofthe threshold criteria VVOU|dbeexceeded, the Lead Agency has
` identified 8 St3Ddg[d condition of approval (Condition of Approval 1-4) designed
to ensure an appropriate nexus between the project's environmental review and
any resulting land -use entitlements.
(g\ Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
` ' vV0Uld be less than significant and DO 8dditioOe| standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended O[required.
5.1.4 Environmental Effec : Cumulative residential development within the City and the
population increase associated with the introduction of new dwelling units could exceed
the 2005-2010 population growth forecasts presented in the "Regional Transportation
Plan — Destination 2030" (SCAG, 2004) and which serves as a basis for regional
transportation planning (Land Use Impact 1-4).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in SuPPO : The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(e) P'-'jeCtfe�|`et'md and cumulative land -use impacts are addressed in Section
4.1
(Land Use) \Dthe FBRand that analysis iSincorporated byreference herein.
(b) Implementation of the proposed project in combination with those other na\mtod
projects will result in further ofUlegeDena|p 'oc[aFee.iDdUdiOg
the conversion ofvacant nr under -developed properties tohigher-intensity uses
.
15
None of the land uses that are identified, however, constitute uses U[activities
—that -are -not -cu rrently-present-with in-the-Gity-or-the-reg ion.
(C) Anticipated residential development in the City exceeds the pOpUl[diOD growth
.
estimates formulated by!SC/\G. SCAG'G projections are Used as the basis for
88t8bUShiDQ regional t[8OSpOrt8tiOD plans. By UDd8F8sti[D8tiDg interim local
d808Dd8' regional plans may not he as effective in responding to aPeaVVid8
interim transportation needs.
/d\ Although none Ofthe threshold criteria would b8exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified 8 standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 1-3) dSSiQO8d
to apprise 8CAG Of projected growth within the Citv, so as to a||oYV SCAG to
more effectively update regional p{8OS.
/e\ Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
VVOVld be l8G8 than significant and DO additional Gf8Od8nj conditions 3Dd/O[
mitigation measures are recommended o[required.
5.2 Population and Housing
5.2.1 DDOSiRJCtioD will iDC[e8Se the local labor force and, through
'Ob CFe8bOn and the possibility Of YVO[ke[ [elOC@tOD, has the potential to induce
population growth iDthe general project arg8(POpVl8t(ODaOdHOuSiOgI0paCt2-1).
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
/8\ and cumulative population and housing impacts are addressed in
Section 4.2 (Population and HOUSiDg) in the FBR and that analysis is
|DCO[pU[8t8d by reference herein.
/b\ During CODS\rUCtiOO. an estimated 73 VVOrke[S VVOUld be aSSOoi8t8d with the
project's 202 multi -family housing units and an additional 8GtiOlGt8d 49 workers
would baassociated with the project's 153'S85SqU8[efeetofCO008[oi8lUSe.
(o) The VVOrkfDPCe required for the project's COnSt[VCtioD' Oper@tiDD, and
maintenance can b8reasonably drawn from the available regional labor pool.
/d\ 3iOC8 DODe of the threshold criteria VVnU|d be eXC8ed8d, the identified impact
would be |8s3 than significant and no St8Odanj CODditiOOS and/or mitigation
measures are recommended orrequired.
5.2.2 implementation will [8SUlt in the addition of Up to 202
dwelling units to the Qty's existing housing stock and will increase theCity's population
by 8pp[OXnOato|y 062 iDdiVidU8iS' based OD the California Department Of FiO8OC8'G
existing /January 2008\ Citywide vacancy rates and average household size /3.335
penGoO8/UDii\ and vacancy [8ie (1.71 percent) (Population and Housing Impact 2-2).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\.
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented insupport cfthis finding:
(8) and cumulative population and impacts are addressed in
' G8CtiOO 4`2 (Population and HOUSiDg\ in the FBF7 and that 8O8lySia is
incorporated byreference herein.
16
(b\ As indicated in California Department of FlD8DDe eS�rRatmS' in January 2008, the
` '
City's pop u|e�On vVan estimated to be 00.30O individuals. The total �U�S[ Of
r
dwelling Units was estimated tVb810.38Ounits.
/C\ Total number dwelling VY
n�URitSOOpnDpOSed/2O2UOitG\iSlgSGth8Dth88dOptBd
` ' 4 F��K|/\ � ODGt[UCtiOO for "@�Om� DlDd�[8t8" iDDOnO8
8(�A(� 2006-201 |u/ /��vv �
households k140 units) and only slightly more than G(�/\(�'6 identified newDonStrUCtiOD`need for "moderate" income households /188 units). The project
represents 8
.--|Ut ��� p8[C�Dt of the projected housing O88dG for the period
2006-2014 Since the p'8ded iDCr88a8 8pp88[S generally CODGiStgDt with
r8giOn8\ projections,-
the project will further the attainment Of GCAG'G rgQiOOai
housing needs assessment.
/�\ Since nO�h
� of threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
` ' YVOU|d be |8sS than significant and no standard conditions 8Od/O[ Rl\tig8t\OO
measures are recommended O[required.
5'2.3
Project Ct i L8 ntatOO will result in the construction Of 153.985
square feet of commercial use, directly creating about 452 new permanent jobs
(Population and Housing Impact 2-3).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in SupPort of Findi : The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(o\ P^~'e[�Te|@tBd and cUrDU\atkxepOpU\8�ODand housing irOpUCtsare addressed. iO
`-' SectionrOD 4.2 (Population and Housing) in the FE|R and that analysis is
incorporated byreference herein.
/b\ B8aedoOth��p 'ectedOUO0be[ofdirectneVVjobs (4O2jobs) and the nUOlb8rof
` ' housing units
associated with the proposed
project /202 dVS\\\Og UOitS\. the
project's projected nO-Site'ObS-tO-hoVsiOg[8Uoia8bOUt2.3.iDdio@tOgthepng.eoi
is "jobs rich." The relatively small number Ofjobs and housing units,however, is
not significant in the bnoederregiona\ context.
The inclusion of both residential and commercial USoS OO the same site serve to
furtherattainment Of the primary intent Of jobs -housing balance, namely the
reducti^nD Of vehicle rOi|eS traveled (VKAT) and the corresponding Bir quality
benefits. of threshold ho|d nrihmrievvou|d b� exceeded, the identified impact
/o\ Since none o '
` ' vVOU|d be less than significant and no St8Odm[d conditions and/or mitigation
measures are recommended nrrequired.
5.2.4 /\bs�Dt ndiOg @Dd p[DpO�ioD8 iOCro8Go inlong-term
' cts at increase the CXhousing stook would
employment opportunities, projects u� ,h/s
contribute to the perpetuation of the existing Citywide jobs -housing ([Oba|aOm*
(Population and Housing Impact 2-4).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Fin��: The following facts are presented iDsupport Ofthis finding:
(e\ P^'�ec�Pa|@ted and cumulative population and housing iOOpactnare addressed in
` ' Section 42 (Population and Housing) in the FBF< and that analysis is
incorporated by reference herein.
17
(b) Between 2010 and 2030, the jobs-housing ratio for the City will decrease from
--onl-y-0-.86-to-0,,82.—As-a-re-sul.t,-the-Ci.ty-w-ill-rema-in—"h.ausing-ri-ch"—and—"j-o.bs-p-o.o.r
(c) Based on the projected number of direct new jobs attributable to the proposed
project (462 jobs) and the number of housing units (202 units), the project's
projected on-site jobs-to-housing ratio is about 2.3 and the proposed project
would be categorized as being "jobs rich." As a result, the proposed project
promotes the attainment of SCAG's jobs-housing policies and would not
incrementally contribute to the existing imbalance.
(d) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or mitigation
measures are recommended or required.
5.3 Geotechnical Hazards
4.3.1 Environmental Effect: Conversion of the project site from a vacant property to an urban
use will expose site occupants to regional seismic hazards and localized geologic and
geotechnical conditions. Should development occur in the absence of an understanding
of those regional and local conditions, site occupants may be subjected to unacceptable
geotechnical hazards (Geotechnical Hazards Impact 3-1).
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative geotechnical hazards impacts are addressed in
Section 4.3 (Geotechnical Hazards) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated
by reference herein.
(b), Information and analysis concerning the existing geologic, geotechnical, seismic,
and soils setting, including specific design and development recommendations
formulated in response thereto, are presented in "Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Report: Site D -Mass Grading, Walnut Valley Unified School District,
Diamond Bar, California" (KFM GeoScience, January 15 2008).
(c) The proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided that
the recommendations presented in the project's geotechnical investigations are
incorporated into the project's design and construction. Since the Applicant has
committed to the incorporation of those recommendations, they are part of the
proposed project and the project's design, construction, and operation will occur
in conformity and compliance therewith.
(d) Design and development activities will occur in conformance with applicable
Uniform Building Code (UBC) and California Building Standards Code (CBSC)
standards and requirements.
(e) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 3-1) to ensure
that each of the recommendations presented in the geotechnical investigation
are incorporated into the design, development, and operation of the proposed
project.
(f) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5 3'2 During the life Of the project, structures and other improvements
' v�U be eUh|�ctto periodic ground shaking [8SU\�ng from~~''~~~~^~- —� -- property �8 f8Ul '((��OteChO}C8�
\O�8tg� t�nDUg�DUt the F�g�On
seismic 8V�Dt3 8�Dn� 88��qU8 �s `Hazards Impact 3-2).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\.
Facts in Support of,Finding: The following facts are presented iRsUpp0tofth(SfiOdiDg:
/8\ p'~'ec�n3\8t8d and cumulative g8Ot8ChOiC8l h8Z8FdS impacts are addressed in
` ' G�On 4.3 (Geotechnical ||8Z8njS\ in the FE|R8Dd that analysis is incorporated
byreference herein.
(b) Information and.analysis concerning the. existing geologic, geotechnical, seismic.,
soils setting, \On\UdiDg specific design and dexe(OpOeDtrBCoOOgOdotiO.hs.
fO[[OU\@h3d in' response th8F8tO' are presented in "Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Report: Site [}-M@SS Grading, Walnut Valley Unified SChOO\ District,
Diamond Bar, California" (�{FK4(�eoGc(8OCe.January 152OO8\
(c\ The pPDp0SGd project iS ` feasible from 8 geotechnical perspective, provided that
`-' the recommendations presented iOthe project's geotechnical investigations are
incorporated into the project's design and construction. Since the Applicant has
committed to the incorporation of those rGnO[nDl8Od8tiODG' they are part of the
proposed project and th8 project's design, oOnStnJCtiOO' and operation will occur
in [] QnDforQ0itv8Od cODlp(i8DCe therewith.
(d\ 5iQD8Dd'8V8\OpOOoDt@otiViti8SVYiUOcCVriOcOnf0rOOaOC8VVithapp|ic8b\eUB(�
' Design
/e\ Although none Ofthe threshold c[ite�8vVoU\dbeexceeded, the Lead Agency has
` ' identified G St8Od8Pd condition of 8ppFoV8\ (Condition of Approval 1-3) to ensure
that each of the F8nOnDmeOdatioOS presented in the geotechnical investigation
are incorporated into the design, deVe\OprneOt, and operation of the proposed
project.
�-^
(f\ of threshold ho\d nht��a VVoU(d b� oXoRed8d the identified impact
Since none '
`' would be less than significant and no 8dd\t\oO8\ standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended o[required.
5.3.3 Los Angeles County is located within o seismically active region.
mahietn�oaUyncnu�edthroughout the region and can beexpected
[o
~^'~~---�`--futu d \ t8n�v\UnsthatoncU[th[oUghoutthm[BgioD including
tOOncU[inth� . BV8opnDeru '
their occupants and USm[S' will RaDloiO subject to seismic forces (Geotechnical Hoz8n1S
Impact 3-3).
The City Council hereby makes Finding M\.
Facts in Support of Findin : The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
/�) Project -related and CU0U|at\Ve geotechOic@l hazards iOnp8c\a are addressed in
` ' Section 4.3 (Geotechnical Hazards) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated
by reference herein.
(b\ Adequate cnOtn]i measures have been formulated to ensure that all public and
` ' private are constructed and maintained in recognition of site-specific,
a'----cifi'' and regional geologic, geotechnio8|. seismic, and soils conditions. /c\ Compliance vv applicable with |i b|e UBC and CSBC �band�rds and associated pennit-
19
agency requirements will mitigate any potential cumulative impacts to below a
(d) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.4 Hydrology and Water Quality
5.4`1 Construction activities may increase sediment discharge and/o[
result in the introduction Of hazardous Dl@t8[�nl
�;. oefn��8Uproducts,, or other waste
diacharQeG that could impact the qUo|ih/ o� the area's surface and QFoUDd water
resources if discharged tOthose waters (Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4-1\.
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\
Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
/a\Project-related and cumulative hydrology and VV8te[ quality impacts are
addressed in GeCtOO 4`4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in the FEIR and that
analysis is incorporated byreference herein.
(b) |DfV[Dl3tiOD and analysis ooOCg[DiOQ the existing hmj[O|OgiC and VV8t8[ quality
aattiDg, including specific design and development recommendations formulated
in n38pOOGe th8FHtO' are pnBG8Ot8d in "Preliminary Drainage Report for Site 'D'
Improvements at Intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road,
Oi8OOODd B3[. California" /PENC|[> Engineering, Inc., February 7, 2008' revised
April 8.2OO9\.
/c\ Water quality protection is ensured through preparation and i0p|8Dl8Dt8bOO of
the GtO[DlVVate[ pollution p[8meOtiOD plan (SVVPPP)' as required under the State
VV8te[ R8GoU[CgD CDDtnD| BO8Rj.S (8VVRC8) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permit for @torDlVV8ter Discharges A@GOC/at8d with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit), through Best Management
Practices (BK8PS) designed to ensure that grading and CoDDfnJCtioO Op8[8tiOOS
involving the tr8OsUO[t. GhO[aQe. use, and disposal Of 8Variety Of cnOst[UCtiOD
08[8D8|s complies with certain GtO[agB. h8DU||Dg' and transport requirements.
(C) PUrGU8Dt to the Regional VV2t8[ {]U8|ih/ COOtnD| Board, Los ADg8|8S Region's
(LAR\8/ClCB) fourth -term General National Pollutant 0SCh8FgB BiDliD8tiOO
GySksOO (NPDEG) permit /NPDEG NO. CA8004001\ for discharges to the
municipal separate Gh][[n sewer system (K8S4) in County, 8 St8Dd8Pd Ud}@D
Gto0Oxv8t8[ nlibg8hUD p|8O (GUGMP) Sho|| be n*qUi[Hd' including appropriate
B&4Ps and guidelines to reduce p0(lUt8DtS in StO[Ol water to the Ol8XiDlUOl extent
possible (MEP).
(d) The CDOstR]CtiOD General Permit and compliance with S\A/PPP@Od M84 permit
neqU|PeDleDtS CODStitU0e mandatory project Dle8SUn8S., Compliance eDGUr8S that
project -induced VY8t8FbOrOe 8nDSiUO d08S not significantly impact dOVVDGt[8aOl
drainage systems.
/e\ Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified 8 St8Dd8[d ooDdUiOD of approval (Condition Of Approval 4-2) requiring
` the City EDgiD88/S approval Of G 8u8K8P CODfp[[OiDg to the F8quiraOl8OtS of
Section 8.12.1OQ5ofthe Municipal Code.
_
20
Ul Since none Of the UlR*ghO(d criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
vvouki be ieaa than significant and no additional St8Od8[d CDRd\tiOOS and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.4.2 Environmental Eff : Project implementation will result in the introduction of impervious
surfaces onto the project site and, as a result of the impedance of opportunities for
absorption and infiltration of those waters, has the potential to increase the quantity,
velocity, and duration of storm waters discharged from the tract map area (Hydrology
and Water Quality Impact 4-2).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\.
Facts in Supp rt of Finding: loNVDgfacts are presented iDsupport Ofthis finding:
^
(a\ Prqec�[8|@[8O and CUOUhatke hydrology and water qU8.Ky :impacts
are
' addressed in G8CtioO'4.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in the FEIR and that
analysis iSincorporated byreference herein.
(b\ According to the [8oOPded plans for the BRa8 Canyon Storm Drain Channel
` ' (Private [}[8iD No. 395\. a 25 -year discharge of 2,285 cubic feet per second (�s)
G
�3hOVVD@tthe doVVOS'P88[Oside Ofthe [}(8nOoDdBar [3DU|8V8Pdculvert. The Los
~ Angeles County Department of Public Works /LACDPV\
stipulated that the
existing County-operated
and maintained d[8|D8ge system accommodate a 50 -
year storm event of 2,602 [fs
'
Ooff from the western
(c) A 50-ye8r ah]rOCFeuoeS approximately 68.38 CfG of [Uportion of the site and an existing -33-inch Ch diameter ro\OfO[CBd COnC[et8
project
pipe located to the south of the project site currently carries off-site discharge Of
8394 s. When combined with existing off-site discharge, the 50 -year storm
runoff �� h]t@|s 174.80 cf; at the Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel. The
summation Of5O-yeGrflows /2.602 + 174.80 = 2,776.8) from the project site and
from the channel total @p
pPDdOakoiy 2,777 nfs at this reach.
/d\ Drainage improvements are proposed to 8oCo0DOd8te
projected f\nVa. As
proposed, B[this the eXisUOQBrea Canyon Channel VU\b8replaced with
reinforced concrete (RCB). An b /R(}�\ n exiStiDQ tributary open channel east Ofthe
project site will be replaced with RCB' as well as the proposed entrance tothe
Si--. To convey the 50 -year discharge, the proposed channel section will be
double cells 9 -foot -wide by 8 -foot -high RCB with an average 2Ofeet ofcover.
Approximately 50 feet Dftransition box will be constructed from the proposed
FC- section tothe existing culvert section undo[ Diamond Bar Boulevard. A
'
traOsiUonstructure dnVvDst[e8noofthe proposed RCB will be construed to )ointhe
existing trapezoidal channel.
(�> The Lead Agency has identified a etand�rd condition of approval (Condition of
` ' Approval 4-1\ requiring receipt of all requisite permits and approvals from the
'
-ACDPVallowing for the overbuilding vfthe Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel.
`f\ To ensure that drainage improvements are consistent with applicable design and
development standards and that post -project d[eiDBg8 flows do not result in any
adverse pUb||C safety or other inpucts, omitigation measure (Condition o
f
aPP[oV8l 4-1) has been included inthe FE|Fand adopted orlikely tobeadopted
in the ' specifying that GU drainage facilities and i0pnDveOBDtS are subject
to design and engineering
review and approval by the Qh/ Engineer and. for
those storm drain facilities under County jurisdiction, by the LACDPW.
Ow,
Implementation of that measure will reduce identified impacts to below 8level of
significance-
----
5.4.3 Continuing urbanization of the general project area will collectively
contribute to surface flows VVUhiD the K}ig0nnd Bar Creek watershed will result in the
introduction of additional urban pollutants that could affect the beneficial uses of existing
surface and ground water resources (Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4-3\.
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented iDsupport ofthis finding:
/a\Project-related and cumulative hydrology and VV8te[ queUh/ i0D8CtG are
addressed in Section 4.4(Hydrology and Water Quality) in the FEIR and that
@D8|y8is is iDCO[pO[8ted by reference herein.
(b) CODVe[SiOD Of'the project site to a mixed-use d8x8lOp08Ot will generate
additional urban runoff that would be discharged into Diamond B8[ Creek.
Project -generated [UOOff could CODt[ihUte to potentially significant cumulative
VV8tg[ quality |Olp8CtS g8De[Gh3d by existing and fUtUP8 land USHS within the
tributary watershed area.
/C\ The proposed project and Dthe[[G|8t8d projectsVVi|| be required to implement
BK8Ps and fully comply with all applicable State xvgte[ quality laws and
nBgUl8b0OG.
(d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of standard conditions of approval (Conditions of Approval 4-
1 and 4-2\ requiring receipt of all requisite permits and approvals from the
LAC[)PVV allowing for the overbuilding of the Brea Canyon Storm OC3iO Ch8DD8|
and the City Engineer's 8ppFDVa| of GUSK8P CODfnrDiDQ to the FeqUinaDl8Dt0 Of
Section 8.12.16S5nfthe Municipal Code.
/e\ 8iDC8 OoO8 of the threshold criteria would he exceeded, the identified impact
VVUUld be less than significant and DO additional SteDd8[d condition's
8Dd/O[
mitigation measures are recommended 0rrequired.
5.5 Biological Resources
5.5`1 Construction aCUvK8S and fuel -modification [eqUi[aOl8Dta will
result in direct impacts from Veg8t8UUD [8OlOV8l Of 8bOid 30.4 acres /8C81Bd within the
tract map area. Fuel modification requirements imposed by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department could directly impact additional V8get8UOD (Biological R8SUU[CeS Impact 5-
1\.
The City Council hereby makes Findings (1) and (2).
Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of these
findings:
,-in\
' P. -"--'r------ and cumulative^~'~'~v'~~' resources '"'p""^s are addressed in
Section 5 /Biological Resources) in the FE|R8Od that'enalysis is incorporated
`
by reference herein.
, 0h\ |Ofo[Qm8tk]D and analysis concerning the existing biological resource, 8[bo[88L
and jurisdictional setting' including an assessment of p impacts; are
22
` presented in the following studieS:`'M\"Bio\OQ(Ca|ReS0UrC8GA3S88SO8Ot-Site
O' City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California" (PCR ServicesCo[pDr8tOn. JUD� 24' 2008)' /-\ "Tree Survey Report - Site [, City Of Diamond
B@[ LOS Angeles County, California" (PCR Services Corporation, December 1@
'
2007)' (3) "Results Of Sensitive Plant 8UrV8yS Conducted for the Site D Project
Site, City Of Diamond B8[' Los ADg8i8S County, California" (
P{R GerV|C8B
December 18
D \' end (4\ "Investigation of Jurisdictional
Co[poratioO' ��en oƒ ��' 2OO7' U.S.,'it8 D `' Oƒ D�8OOOOd Ba[
Wetlands and Waters 8 � ' City ' Los Angeles
CDUDh/ California" -'' `
(C) OU[iOg grading operations
(Op8c\S will occur to approximately 20.
4 8CP3 Of
disturbed/ruderal, 3'6 -C[Sf eucalyptus St8Dd/d}SiU[b8d' 2.8 8CP8S Of OUlG fat ' SCrUb' 2.1 8C[8s of California 'walnut vood|ands' O
.0ocFeofrUde[a|/«
o|d8
ObUS
h
Sc[Ub' and 0'3 8onaS Of sOUt�p[O Vi\lDVscrub. With the exception Of SOUUlo[O
V\\lOVSC[UU' none of Ul9se plant Co0DUOiti8S are COneid8P3d r8[S or of high
priority for inventory - the California NotU[8i Diversity Database /[NDDB\.
(�\ Rare DBtU[@\ CODl[OUOcommunitiesnOrOUni��S that 8[� of �S 8[8 those Cohighly '
hk/ limitedlimitedd
` ' distribution.The most current version of the California Department of Fish and
Game's "T'^8 Vegetation �8nSifio8tiOO and Mapping Program- List of California
Terrestrial Communities Recognized by the California Natural [}iYe[aitv
Natural
D8�tGb8S8"(CDF-'2003) 8rY�a8Saguide tOeach community's status.
`e\ California Va|OUt voOU|8OdS and southern Yi\iOVSC[Ub are considered high-
priority
fO[iOVeDtOry under the CNOD3 because they are experiencing decline
throughout its range. These habitats are marginal in its Vo|Ue b8o8US8 they are
withsimilar habitats) and not �X�Sot8d to
fragmented (\��.. not contiguousvV , t\
support sensitive species. Focused sensitive plant surveys VVere negative and habitat assessments for sensitive wildlife species (H.g�'
the least Bell's vireo and
southwestern willow flycatcher) dete[8inedth@t
these habitats are not suitable to
support these species. -
d|oOds and southern Vi\\oVscrub are @SsOo\8tGd
/f\ Although California VG|OUt woo
with United States Army Corps of Engineers /ACDE\' Regional Vob8[ }Uo\itv
Control Board (Ff0/OCB\. the |0nG. removal, and destruction of these plant
coOlrRUDdiesoOthep[cU
` project site wou|d neither eliminate Do[ substantially diminish
the functions and values of the on-site drainages as u regional b\o|ngio8\
resource..
(g\ The project cause the direct mortality of some common wildlife species
` ' '-,- mobile species suitable habitat no8rby.
- and the d\np\a�em�ntofmVr� mo � sp�n .
These impacts, by themselves, vVoU|d not be expected to reduce g8n8[o\ wildlife
populations below self-sustaining levels within the region.
(h\ GiOo8 none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
` ' identified impact would b8less than significant and nostandard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended orrequired.
5'5'2 The project will permanently impact approximately
2,125 linear
feet of stne8nbed' including approximately 0.20 o^pee of United States Army Corps of
Engineers `\CO -1 and Regional Water Quality COOtnz\ Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional
Vat8rs and approximately *.10 ucnao of California Department of Fish and Gene
(CDFE)\ jurisdictional stnaonnbed and associated riparian habitat (Biological Resources
Impact 5-2).
Finding : The City Council hereby makes Findings (1) and /2\.
23
Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of these
in\ `
`-, Project -related and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in
S8CUoO 4.5 (Biological ReeoV[oeo) in the FE|R and that analysis is incorporated
byreference herein.
/b\ Project implementation will FeSU|t in direct impacts to approximately 2,125 |iO88[
feet of stre3OVbed. A total of approximately 0.20 acre Of'ACOE/FB/V(]CB
'V[iadi[dioO8| waters of the United 8b3t8G /VVOUG\ and 8ppnDXirOatS/y 4.10 8CFeG
of O[}FG jurisdictional etreaDlbed and associated riparian habitat would be
impacted by the proposed development. NO direct i0np@[t8 to jurisdictional waters
are anticipated beyond the project bouDdariea.
/C\ The project will F8quinJ 8 nationwide Section 404 /CVVA\ permit from the ACOE.
g 8aotiOD 401 /CVVA\water quality certification from the RWQ[|B, and a Section
1602 ([|FGC) etkaa0bad alteration agreement from the CDFG. Impacts to
'UhBdiCtiOD8l f88tUF8S will be GUNeCt to the regulations Set forth by the /\C[)E.
RWClCB.and CDFG and will require mitigation o[result inthe imposition ofother
conditions for the identified /[Dp8CtS to 'U[)sd/CtiOD3| waters.
/d\ In recognition of the p[eSeOC8 Of jurisdictional waters, 8 mitigation 0e8GV[8
(Mitigation M888UF8 5-1\ has been /Dc|Ud8d in the FEIR and adopted or likely to
be adopted in the K8RMP specifying that, UD|eSG agreater ratio is required by
permitting agencies: (1) the on-site and/or off-site replacement of ACOE/RWQCI3
jurisdictional waters and VVet|8OdS occur at 8 2:1 ratio; (2) the DD-Gif8 and/or off-
site F8pl8C8OleDt Of [|[]FG jurisdictional GtF8a|Db8d and @GGOCi8ted riparian
habitat occur at g 2:1 ratio; and /3\ the incorporation of design features into the
proposed project's d8S(gOaDddeVSlOpDl8Dt. Implementation Ofthat measure will
n*dVoe identified impacts to be|Dvv a level of significance.
5.5.3 Proposed grading and grubbing activities will result in the neDloV8/
of 83 protected ORjiO8DC8-SiZe trees, including 75 California black walnut, six willow, and
two CO8St [(V8 oak tFe8S' which OOVV exist OD the project site (Biological R8SoU[Ce3
Impact 5-3).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented iOsupport Ofthis finding:
/8\ Project -related aOd cumulative biological r8GoU[CeS impacts are addressed in
Section 4.5 (Biological R8SoUn:es\ in the FE|R and that 8n@|VSis is iDCOqpO[86Bd
by reference herein.
(b) AtOt8| of 75 California black Vv8/Out' six willow, and two oO8St live oak trees will
be impacted by the proposed project. Each of these species is protected trees
under Chapter 22.38ofthe Municipal Code. The Oaks and Willows, however, dO
not meet the size criteria in the tree ordinance to be classified as protected trees.
As required therein, the City may require a tF88 maintenance agreement prior to
[80OV8/ Of any protected t[G8 or Co[D08nCe0eDt Of construction activities that
may adversely affect the health and survival 0ftrees tOb8preserved.
(C) The project is subject to compliance with the provision OfChapter 22.38 /T� e
Preservation and Protection) Ofthe y�UDiC/pal(�Ode. '
(d) A|thUUghDoD8ofih8thFesho|dC[i[e[iaVyoU/db98XCeeded'th8Le8dAQeOCyh8s
identified a number of standard conditions of approval (Conditions of Approval 5-
24
2th[OUgh 5-4\ requiring the preparation of an 8rbO�e�o tree study and
specified replacement requirements for qualifying trees and California w8|DUt
woodlands, and promoting vegetation removal activities outside the nesting bird
S88SOn.
/�\ Since DOn8 0fthe � thFehD|d criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
` ' would be |8SS than significant and OO 8ddhjOO8l St8Ddanj DOOd\tinnS 8Dd/O[
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.5'4 Environmental Effect: Construction activitiesiO\ti8t8ddUriOgtheDeStngse8GOO.tvoc8|k/
raptors15 to August 15 of each year, could impact nesting birds and
extending i -
ViO�3�On oft�federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Biological ReSOU[o8S |OOp8Ct
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in SUDDOrt of this finding:
/8\ P ~ 'ec�[e|8ted and CUDlU|atk�� biO\Og\C8l [8sOU[C8S impacts are addressed in
` ' Section 4.5 (Biological R8BOU[C8G) in the FBF{ and that @n8|ySiS is incorporated
byreference herein.
/b\ [}Dgsensitive bird species /C|oOp8�Sh@VVk\VV@Gobserved VVithiDthe project aF88
` ' and three additional species (white-tailed kite, sharp -shinned hovvk' and
loggerhead shrike) have the potential to occur within the study area due to the
presence ofsuitable habitat. Since these Sp8oi8S are not protected by federal or
State listings as threatened or endangered and SiOoB the |OSS of individuals
VVOU\d not threaten the regional pOpU|8t\UOo.
/C\ HoSRd OO the presence of suitable Veg8t8tiOO, the removal of vegetation during
` ' the breeding GHaSOO (typically extending between February 15 and August 15)
could constitute potentially significant impact.
/d\ Disturbing or destroying active D8StS is @ violation of the federal Migratory Bird
` ' Treaty Act and nests and eggs are protected under Section 3503 and 3513 of the
California Fish and Game Code.
(B\ AKhOUghnone ofthe threshold c�teri8vVOo|dbeexceeded, the Lead Agency has
` ' identified e standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 5-4\ promoting
vegetation removal activities outside the nesting bird season.
/f) Since none ofthe threshold criteria would be eXoeeded, the identified impact`' VxoU|d be less than significant and OO additional standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended o[required.
5.5.5Environmental Project implementation has the potential to impede existing wildlife
movement patterns across the project site (Biological Resources Impact 5-5).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(8\ Project -related cumulative and cumulative biologicalbiologicalresources impacts are addressed in
` ' Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the FBFl and that 8Do\ys\G is incorporated
byreference herein.
/b\ The project site is located to the north of the area identified by the Conservation
Biological Institute as part of the "Puente -Chino Hills wildlife corridor."
25
(c) Althoughwildlife movement corridors exist iDthe general project area, the project
-site does not serve an connectivitv or linkage role with re ards-Iq regional
wildlife movement.
(d) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.5.6 If improperly designed and maintained, the proposed on-site flood
control facilities and atnuutVna| and treatment ooO{no| Bent Management Practices
(BK8PG) CDU|d potentially provide a habitat for the propagation of 0oGqUihJ8G and other
vectors (Biological Resources Impact 5-6).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented insupport ofthis finding:
(8) and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the RE|R and that analysis is incorporated
byreference herein.
(b) Urban stOrUVVgte[ [UDoff negU|8tiOOG OOVV mandate the CODst[UCtinO and
Dla(Db9O8OC8 of s1TuCLUrGl BK8Ps for both VO|URle reduction and pollution
management. Those BK8Pa can create additional sources of standing water and
sources for mosquito propagation.
(c) In the general project area, V8CtU[ control is performed by the Greater LOS
ADg8|8a County Vector Control District /(3[/\C\/C[>\' a County special district
funded byadV8|O[UQ8property and benefit assessment taxes.
(d) Although none of the threshold Chhaha would be exceeded. the Lead Agency has
identified 8standard condition 0fapproval (Condition nfApproval 5-5)requiring
that BMP devices shall be designed in consultation with the Greater Los AOg8l8S
County \/eCtO[ Control District and Shall be Of 8'h/pe which OliOiDliZ8G the
potential for vector (public OUig8DC8\ problems. `
(e) Since none of the threshold cht8hG VYOUld be eXC88d8d' the identified impact
VVOU|d be less than significant and no additional standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended O[required.
5.5`7 Implementation of the proposed project, in oOOlbiD8tiOO with other
[8aSOO8b|y foreseeable future projects, will CUOthbUtG iDCr8DleDt8/k/ to the CODbDuiOg
n3dUCUOD in Dp8D space 8[83s in the general project area 8nd contribute to the general
decline iDspecies diversity throughout the region (Biological Resources Impact 5-7).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The fO|k]VVing facts are presented in aUpuod of this finding:
/Q\Project-related and cumulative biological resources impacts
Section 4.5 (Biological R8SOu[ceS) in the HE|Rand that aDakmks kg
bvreference herein.
'incorporated
/b\ Implementation of the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable future
projects will contribute incrementally to the continuing urbanization of the negiDn.
(C) The proposed project will impact approximately 2.1acres of California Vv@|OUt
woodland and O.3acres ofsouthern Willow snrubhabitat. Aoaresult, the project
26
will add incrementally to
`the regional loss ofplant communities considered h(gh-
'�---�for i�e�oryunder the (�NDOB.
k1\ r-'` h ���CaliforniaVV8|DUtVVOOdl8DdS and southern willow scrub are COO8id8[Gd
`-' fo[ inventory under the (�K!DC)B'these on-site habitats are marginal
in itsvalue
high-priority -b8n8USe they are fragmented and not 8Xp8Ct8d to support S8DSit\V8
@ n8S4. � incremental Sp�ni8S. A*sS |t t� i [80ent8\ reduction in these habitats would not be
cumulatively significant.
(8\ Under G�CtiOD 22.38.03U Of t�� Municipal
Code, protected trees, including
` ' "native O8k. walnut, GYC8[UOna and willow trees with 8 DE}H [diameter at breast
height] Ofeight inches org[e8t8/'Sh8(| be replaced 8t8 minimum ratio Of3:1.
� f\ Since DDn8
/ of the threshold t� � ld nrite�8VVDU|d be BXoe8d8dthe identified impact
`` VVOU|d be |8sS than significant and no standard . Rd�nd condihona and/or mitigation
measures are recommended o[required.
5.6 Traffic and Circulation
' Construction vehicleswill transport workers, construction
5G1 '
' ' materials, and construction debris along |Oo8{ and collector streets
equipment,—u1�ha|buildin~hi hvvovs within 8n� �diBc8Dtt0 established areas and
and along arterial g�--, vvun -_,residential
other sensitive receptors (Traffic and Circulation Impact 6-1).
The City Council hereby makes Finding U\
Facts in Support offinding: The fO|k]VVDg facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a\ P 'eCt�8|��xj 8�d CUnlU\e�ve traffic and [j[CUl8�OO \OOp8CtS are addressed in
Section 4.6 (Traffic ` ' �-` and Circulation) iDthe FE\Rand that analysis iSincorporated
by reference
(b) info[O8UnD and aOG\VSin concerning the existing traffic and droU|8tioO setting,
including an oGGesSOl8nt Of project -related iOOp8otS, is presented in "Traffic
Impact Analysis Report, VVVUSO Site 0 Mixed -Use Development, Diamond BB['
California" (LinSrOd'L8vV8\(�reeOspaOEngineers, Aph\23,2O0S).
/c\ Conpt[Uo[i`D tr8ffic, including vehicles associated with the transport of heavy
` ' equipment and building materials to and from the project site and construction
workers cOnnOOUtiOg to and from vVo[k' will 'inc[eoSe traffic volumes along
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road and, because site access can
be obtained from Castle Rock Road and Pasado Drive, construction workers may
elect to park along and construction vehicles could stage at those roadways.
/d\ Existing (2O 07) daily traffic V0|UneS along project area roadway amgOeOta
include: `1\ BG Canyon Road (north Of Diamond Ba[ Boulevard) - 4'898
average daily trips (ADT); (2) Brea Canyon Road (south of Diamond Be[
BOulSV8nd) - 12'OSOADT; (3) Diamond Bar BOU|GV@[d (north of Ch8[nx1a|e
Drive) -2.512ADT; and, () Brea Canyon Cutoff (west ofFallow Field -Diamond
Can' -O\ - 11,003 ADT. Since the projected 854construction trips VDU|d be
substantially |msS than those existing capacity figures and would primarily ooCU[
dU[Q off-peak
periods, construction -related traffic would not adversely affect the
existing� levels Ofservice (LJ3)
along those roadways.
(e) Compliance with and enforcement Of speed |GvS a
Dd other provisions of the
California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the safe Use and operation of vehicles by
their drivers would be expected d tO keep public safety iasU8e at e less -than -
significant level.
27
M Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
standard conditions of approval (Condition of Approvals 6-
1 through 6-4) requiring the preparation of a construction workers' parking and
equipment staging plan, construction traffic mitigation plan, and traffic control
plan, and restricting construction -term access from and along Castle Rock Road
and Pasado Drive.
(g) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.6.2 Environmental Effect: The project is forecast to generate approximately 9,276 daily two-
way vehicle trips, including 272 trips during the AM and 650 trips during the PM peak
hours, and would increase traffic congestion on local and regional roadways (Traffic and
Circulation Impact 6-2).
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are addressed in
Section 4.6 (Traffic and Circulation) in the FEIR and,that analysis is incorporated
by reference herein.
(b) The project's traffic impact analysis was conducted in accordance with the City's
"Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis Report" and, for each of
the 20 study area intersections, included an assessment of the following nine
scenarios were examined: (1) 2007 existing traffic conditions; (2) 2007 existing -
plus -project traffic conditions; (3) 2007 existing -plus -project traffic conditions, with
Improvements; (4) 2010 cumulative -base conditions (existing, ambient growth,
and related projects); (5) 2010 cumulative -base -plus project traffic conditions; (6)
2010 cumulative -base -plus project conditions, with Improvements; (7) 2030
cumulative -base conditions (existing, ambient growth, and related projects); (8)
2030 cumulative -base -plus -project traffic conditions; (9) 2030 cumulative -base -
plus -project traffic conditions, with Improvements.
(c) In accordance with City traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirements, the project's
construction of or payment of a "fair share" contribution toward the construction
costs of identified areawide street improvements serves to fully and effectively
reduce the project's traffic and circulation impacts to a less -than -significant level.
(c) Prior to implementation of any recommended traffic improvements,
ements, on a
cumulative -plus -project bases, traffic associated with the proposed project will
significantly impact nine intersections in the long-term (2030) and contribute to
the adverse service levels at three additional intersections forecast to operate at
an unsatisfactory LOS in 2030. Those locations projected to operate at an
adverse service level in 2030 include: (1) Brea Canyon Road (W) at Pathfinder
Road; (2) Diamond Bar Boulevard at Pathfinder Road; (3) Brea Canyon Road at
Cold Springs Lane; (4) Cold Springs Lane at Diamond Bar Boulevard; (5)
Pathfinder Road at Brea Canyon Cutoff; (6) SR -57 SB Ramps at Brea Canyon
Cutoff; (7) SR -57 NB Ramps at Brea Canyon Cutoff; (8) Brea Canyon Road at
Diamond .Bar Boulevard; (9) Cherrydale Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard; (10)
Brea Canyon Road at Silver Bullet Drive- (11) Diamond Bar Boulevard at Grand
Avenue; and (12) Colima Road at Brea Canyon Cutoff.
28
(d) Since twelve intersections which are forecast to operate at a poor level of service
(LOS) under 2030 cumulative -plus -project traffic conditions, a number of
mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 6-1 and 6-2) have been included in the
FEIR and adopted or likely to be adopted in the MRMP identifying associated
street improvements and the proposed project's obligations toward those
improvements and specifying that the final site plan shall include and
accommodate those traffic measures, improvements, and such other pertinent
factors and/or facilities as may be identified by the City Engineer for the purpose
of ensuring the safe and efficient movement of project -related traffic.
Implementation of the recommended improvements and "fair -share" contribution
will reduce identified traffic and circulation impacts to below a level of
significance.
5.6.3 Environmental Effect: The implementation of the proposed project, in combination with
other related projects, will collectively contribute.to existing traffic -congestion in the
general project area and exacerbate the need for localized areawide traffic
improvements (Traffic and Circulation Impact 6-3).
F1a!jjM: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are addressed in
Section 4.6 (Traffic and Circulation) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated
by reference herein.
(b) Prior to implementation of any recommended traffic improvements, the following
twelve intersections are projected to operate at an adverse LOS in 2030: (1) Brea
Canyon Road (W) at Pathfinder Road; (2) Diamond Bar Boulevard at Pathfinder
Road; (3) Brea Canyon Road at Cold Springs Lane; (4) Cold Springs Lane at
Diamond Bar Boulevard; (5) Pathfinder Road at Brea Canyon Cutoff; (6) SR -57
S13 Ramps at Brea Canyon Cutoff; (7) SR -57 NB Ramps at Brea Canyon Cutoff;
(8) Brea Canyon Road at Diamond Bar Boulevard; (9) Cherrydale Drive at
Diamond Bar Boulevard; (10) Brea Canyon Road at Silver Bullet Drive; (11)
Diamond Bar Boulevard at Grand Avenue; (12) Colima Road at Brea Canyon
Cutoff.
(c) Since twelve intersections which are forecast to operate at a poor level of service
(LOS) under 2030 cumulative -plus -project traffic conditions, a number of
mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 6-1 and 6-2) have been included in the
FEIR and adopted or likely to be adopted in the MRMP identifying associated
street improvements and the proposed project's obligations toward those
improvements and specifying that the final site plan shall include and
accommodate those traffic measures, improvements, and such other pertinent
factors and/or facilities as may be identified by the City Engineer for the purpose
of ensuring the safe and efficient movement of project -related traffic.
Implementation of the recommended improvements and "fair -share" contribution
will reduce identified traffic and circulation impacts to below a level of
significance.
5.7 Air Quality
W
5.7.1 Environmental Effect: Because the project involves a General Plan amendment and
zone change, it has the potential to be inconsistent with the applicable air quality
management plan (Air Quality Impact 7-1). 1
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein.
(b) CEQA requires that projects be consistent with the "Air Quality Management
Plan" (AQMP). A consistency determination plays an essential role in local
agency project review by linking local planning and unique individual projects to
the AQMP in the following ways: (1) it fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing
local agency decision -makers of the environmental costs of the project under
consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully
addressed; and (2) it provides the local agency with ongoing information assuring
local decision -makers that they are making real contributions to clean air goals
contained in the AQMP.
(c) Only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and regionally
significant projects need to undergo a consistency review. This is because the
AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans. Projects that
are consistent with the local general plan are, therefore, considered consistent
with the air quality management plan.
(d) As indicated in the analysis presented in the FEIR, the proposed project is
consistent with the goals of 2007 AQMP and, in that respect, does not present a
significant air quality impact.
(e) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required. .
5.7.2 Environmental Effect: The proposed project has the potential to expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (Air Quality Impact 7-4).
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein.
(b) All construction emissions concentrations for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM,o), and particulate
matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) are within their respective threshold values
and are, therefore, less than significant.
(c) Based on a CO micro -scale hot -spot analysis, predicted CO values are below the
State's 1 -and 8 -hour standards and any potential impact is less than significant.
(c) Mandatory adherence to the. SCAQMD rules would ensure that any construction
or operational impact from toxic air contaminants (TAC) associated with the
operation of the project remains less than significant.
(d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 7-1) requiring
No
that future [eSkj8Oti8l pU[ch@S8[G be notified Of the presence or potential
presence ofproximal commercial uses ODthe subject property.
(8) Since none of the Ul[eBhO!d Of significance o�t8�a would be exceeded, the
` ' id8Dtifi8d impact VVOUld be less than significant and OU additional Gt8Od8[d
conditions and/or mitigation measures are recommended O[required.
5.7.3 The proposed project has the potential to create objectionable
odors (Air Quality Impact /-5).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support offindin : The following facts are presented iOsupoortofthiafind'
(8\ Project -related: 8nd CU� u|@�mB8irqU8|dvinlp@Cts.8naaddressed in Section 4.7
`
`' �C�|�iDb'|Ro�t�8��s�i������[��D�h�O.
Uz\ —^tconstruction*` VVOU\diDVOkK� the use Ofheavy eqcreating eXh8USt
�pollutants'�[from on-siteearth movement and fromequipment transportingtransportingtransporting
mJ produced materials the site. In addition, vVUU|d b
oO' sO08 � �nO UC� from
the application of asphalt, p8\OtS' and coatings. With regards to OU\S8DDe Odors'
any 8i[ quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the odor
OU[Ce andwould be of short-term duration. Such brief exposure to nUiS8OCe
odors constitutes 8Oadverse but \8SS-th8O-S|QDifiCaOtair quality impact.
Operational/C\ �8[otiOO8( odors could be produced from on-site food preparation and from
` ' diesel -fueled vehicles operating on the project site. TheSe odors are CO00OO in
the environment and subject tOcompliance with 3CAC>01DRule 4O2(NU(SenCe).
(d\ Since DOO8 of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
` ' identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or
mitigation nnSaSUrea are r8cOn101eDd8d or required.
57/4 The construction and operation of the proposed project will
contribute to the generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) eDniSaiODS. GHG have been
linked to climate change (Air Quality Impact 7-7).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\.
Facts in Support of,.Finding: The following facts are presented iDsupport of this finding:
/a\ Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section
4.7
(Air CU8|hv\ in the FBFoDd that oDeiyGis is incorporated by reference herein./b\ At this time, greenhouse gases (primarily }Du)are not regulated on a criteria
i Ui mitmh� for thane emissions. The current
po||utantandthero are no significance �
AQK4P does not Set CEC)/\targets that can be Used to determine any potential
threshold values.
/c\ Carbon dioxide (CC)2) is the most common greenhouse gas. Construction
` ' activitieswould' consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG emissions.
COOStrUCti0D COcemissions were projected using the URBEyN|S2007 computer
model. In accordance with the projected URBEK8|S cODSt[UotiDn schedule,
approximately 1,347.095.44 pounds (673.55 tons) of CO2 would be produced
over the approximate 2S9days ofactive construction.
/d\ In the case of site operations, the majority of GHG emissions, and specifically
` ' C(}o, are due to vehicle travel and energy consumption. Results of the
31
[JRBEMIG2007 DlDdBl indicate that, DD 8V8[8ge' 87,066.64 pounds (43.53 tons)
of Cq2 would be RLcLduqed daily
per year.
(e) In accordance with the current AQMP'the emission levels iDCalifornia are
8St[D8t8d to be 473 million metric tons (521.4 million short tons) CO2 equivalent
for 2000 and 532 million metric tons (508.4 short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2010.
Year 2808 (Ula worst-case scenario year that the emissions are based on) is
then extrapolated to 526.1 million metric ioDS /578.9 short tons). �d
approximately 15'889.06 tons per year, the proposed project's operations
represent less than 0.003 percent of this State's annual CO2 emissions' budget.
/MSince DODe Of the threshold of GignU]C8DCe criteria VVOU|d be eXc8eded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended o[required.
5.8.1 Construction activities CUU|d FeGUU in 8 SUbGt8Oti8| temporary
iDC[88Se in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above {8VGlG existing without the
project (Noise IDlpaot8-1).
The City Council hereby. makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a)Project-related and cumulative noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8
/NOiS8\iDthe FBKand that analysis is incorporated by reference herein.
/b\ Noise /8Y8lo 8SSO[jated with construction activities would be higher than the
existing 8Olbi8Ot noise levels in the project area but VVOUld subside OOC8
CODStnUctiUD of the project is CO0Oplet8d.
(C) The most proximate residential St[UCtVFes include the existing SiOg|e7f8Dli|y
homes located t0the immediate south and east Ofthe project sit8. The nearest
of these homes could be on the order of 50 feet from on-site construction
activities. Adthat distance, the equivalent DOiS8 level /L8q\ noise levels would be
projected to be as high 8S89ArVVeight8d decibel sC8|e(d]A).
(d) {|ODStrUCtioO noise is regulated in the Qty UDd8[ the provisions of the Municipal
Code. The Municipal Code limits the hours Of heavy 8qUipDl8Ot operations.
Notwithstanding those provisions, construction noise may continue to be a short-
term nuisance to pnDXiDU8| OoiSe-88DSihv8 receptors.
(e) ` In r8COgDiUOD of the pn88eOCe of COOSt[UctioO noise and the proximity Ofexisting
residential FeCSptO[s' a number ofmitigation Dle8SU[e3 /yWitig8bDO Measures 0-1
through 8-O\have been included iOthe FE|Rand adopted O[likely hObeadopted
in the K4F<yWP vvhiub are designed to reduce short-term noise impacts to the
[O8Xi0U0 extend feasible. |0plR08nt8bOO Of the n3CO0[O8Od8d mitigation
Dle8SuF8S VVoU(d PSduC8 CODStrVCtiOO OOiS8 iOOp8CtS to a less -than -significant
5`8.2 may [e3UK in an gXC8edaDme of noise
SlaOOanOS 8Gi8b||GkeU in the General P|8O and/or yWVOiCipa| Code or applicable
standards formulated byother agencies (Noise Impact 8-2).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\. '
32
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(8\ P 'e[t'ne|otBd and cumulative DOiS8 impacts are addressed in 88CtOD 4`8
` ' (Noise) �8�iDtheFE|R8ndth2t8OakmiSiS\DCO[pO[8tedh«refB[8DC8h8r�D.
(b\ `�8 ' Municipal Code GBtS 8 goal (8V8\ of 55 dB/\for mobile -source D0iS8 intrusion` on sensitive, multi -family land uses. The General P\oD /Noise Element) 8|lOVVS
o[8 COOdUUoD8Uy acceptable exterior noise level 0fUp'tO 65 dBA community
/
DOiS8 8qUimll8Ot level (CNEL) for residential USeS as 1oDg as the dwelling UOi{G
are ��edwith forced air
'ventilation Or8i[COnditiOning. Assuming the inclusion Of
fD[C8d air ventilation, COnlDlerCi8\ UaGS have an 8Xt8riO[ QO8| of 65 dBAONEL
and aconditionally acceptable level of7OdBA CNEL.
(C) Based on ptraffic tr�C Vn|U08S. the 65 dBA C�y�E�L 8{OOg Diamond B8[
` ' 8OU|8V8[d would fall at 8 distance Of about 130 feet from the centerline Of the
road. Jhe placement Of any residential units within this diShSDC8 could then
expose future residents to 8KCeSSiVe noise \8VGlG and [8SU\t in 8 potentially
significant impact. Since any commercial structures that VvoU{d lie between the
FeSid8Db8i units and C>i80oOd Bar Boulevard could serve as an effective sound
VYo|( ifthey were to shield the residents from a view of the nD8d t[8ffiC. the 13O-
footdistance iGconsidered 8Sconservative.
/d\ The 65 dBA CNE�Ld8en0ed suitable for residential development, equipped with ' forced air ventilation, VxOUld f8)\ 8t8 d\Gt8Oo8 of about O3Ofeet from the freeway.
/e\ The 70 dBA CNEL VVoU|d tB\| at distances of about 60 feet from the centerline of
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
U\ The Lead Ao�Ocy has identified o standard condition of approval (Condition of
`' Approval 8~\. as required under Title 24 St8nd8[dS. requiring forced air
ventilation in 'ep[opOsed residential development, thus allowing site occupants
to leave windows closed and reducing interior levels by in excess of 20 dBA.
/e\ Based on the potential presence Of significant noise �p8C1S. a number Of
` ' mitigation measures (��\bgationK8e8sU[eS8-7and R-8) have been included iDthe
FE|Fl and adopted 'r likely to be adopted in the W1F{W1P specifying that no
residential UR\tS shall be located within 83Ofeet nfthe 8R-57 Freeway's nearest
travel lane unless additional sound attention is provided and no commercial units
shall be located within OO feet of the centerline of DiennDOd B8[ Boulevard.
ir8p\enn8OtaUoO of the rooOrn[DeOded mitigation [DeanUn*s would reduce
construction noise impacts (maieso-than-significGOtlevel.
583 Project implementation may result in a substantial permanent
increase in ambient � ' noise levels in the project vicinity above |eVe|S existing without the
project (Noise IOlp8nt 8-3).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of FbA[Dq: The following facts are presented iOsupport Ofthis finding:
(�) Project -related and cumulative noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8
` ' (Noise)intheFBReOdthotane\yeis\siOnOqponahadbyrofnRaDceh8Rain.
(b\ nvo\UOOes in the general project urBa increase, UlnSe areas located in
` ' proximity to the area's arterial highway system will experience increased traffic
33
/d The TIAindicates that the project would add 9,276ADT tOthe roadway network.
Modelina indicates that the noise increase _Along- all access roads would not
exceed 0.7 dBA CNEL. The project's contribution to ambient noise levels would,
therefore, be less than significant.
(d) The dominant sources of noise through the project area are from freeway traffic
and traffic along Diamond Bar Boulevard. Noise attenuates with distance and
intervening objects and obstacles serve to further impede the transmittal of
sound energy. The structures associated with the proposed development would
serve as a partial sound wall reducing this noise at the existing residential
location. The introduction of intervening structures could benefit adjacent
residents by further reducing line -of -sight propagation of mobile source noise
along adjoining roadways.
ho\ Since nOD8 Of the threshold Of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would bRless than significant and DOstandard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.8.4 Environmental Effect: Short-term construction and long-term operational noise
associated with the proposed project, in combination with other related projects, will
contribute to both a localized and an areawide increase in ambient noise levels in
proximity to those projects and along those roadways utilized by project -related traffic
(Noise Impact 8-4).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
/a\Project-related and cumulative noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8
/Noie8\iDthe FEIR and that analysis isincorporated h«[8fg[enCghe[eiO.
(b) Construction noise impacts are g8O8[8|ly |OCaUZ8d and limited to each [8|8t8d
project site and those 8[88s pPJXi08l to those CODSt[UCtiOD operations.
Cumulative CODStrUCtiOD noise impacts will be generally localized to each such
project and
'eotond the roadway network along which construction traffic travels.
(C) As traffic VO|UOO8S in the g8D8r8| project area iOCnn8S8 over time, those ana8S
located in proximity to the area's arterial highway system -will SXpo[iBOoe
iDC[eGS8d t[8fOC noise. Existing [O3dVV8y VOluQO8S vVOU|d, hOVVeY8[, need to
double iOorder tOproduce 8perceptible noise increase.
/d\ Large-scale projects that contribute substantially to traffic vo|uOl8S along the
area's arterial highway system are subject to CEC)A CV0pU8OC8. Similarly, the
noise element Ofeach agency's general plan specifies those PO8dVVgya that are
SUhi8Ct to eXC9SSiVe DOiG8 levels. AS deemed appropriate, beyond those
[8qUina08DtS already imposed by each 8QeOoy'S noise ondiD8OC8. |8Dd-USe
entities have the ability to |0pOO8 additional mitigation FOeasU[8S and/or
conditions Ofapproval ODeach project inoR]8[tOnadUC8pOtGnti8|ShDrt-t8[Dl8nd
long-term traffic noise impacts.
/e\ Since OnO8 Of the threshold of significance criteria VVOVld be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended OFrequired.
5.9 Public Servicesand Facilities
34
5'9' 1 During construction, heavy equipment, materials, and other items
of ,"'"~ will be brought to the project site. As buildings are erected, prior to site
OCCUp8nCy' StnuotUr8G may remain uDS8CU[ed and 8USD8nhb\8to UD8UthOriZ8d 8Dhm
.
d it d items OfV8iU� COU\� result in theft and V8Od3|iSn0
The presence Of8DUOS8cU[eSeBDfOrC8rD8Ot8��O[j8S/UbliCGerViCeS\Rlp8[tS-
t�GtCoU\�iOCFB88�d8Ol8DUGUp0n|�VV�D `
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(8\ P"'eC�re|8t8d and cumulative public services and facilities impacts one
` ' @«[eSS8d iRSection 4.9(Public
'Services and Facilities) iDthe FE\Fland that
analysis iSincorporated hvreference herein. :
/b\ SiOCB the project ��8 is '[8SeO8yvacant and since no public use Js authorized
` ' �-` ' presently h�k� �'8Dy' �8Dl8nd ubo� eX�UDg
thereupon, the r8SR�—, places . ,
' property ^ ' /\O increased demand for no|\oe service will occur
police protection services. An ,
during the construction phases.
(C\ Provision Of such services would not require COO8tnUCtiOO of any new Los
` ' Angeles COUOtv Sheriff's Department (LACGD) Or California
Highway P
atro|
/[HP\facilities —r necessitate the physical alteration Ofany existing facilities.
(d) Although none ot the threshold criteria would be exceeded,the Lead Agency has
identified 8number Of standard conditions Ofapproval (Conditions OfApproval g-
1 and 0-2\ naqU\|iDg the p[op8[8tiOO of n oOnSt[UotiOD S8CUr\tv
plan outlining the
activities that will be instituted to secure the CnOst[UCtiOD Site from potential
criminal incidents
and providing the LACGO the opportunity to rmV\eVV and
comment upon building plans and the configuration Ofthe development.
(e) Since n0OR of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
' Ui
identified impact would be less than significant and DO additional standard
conditions and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5. 9.2 9 2 Project implementation will reSUltiD th� int�xjUction 0feqUipnlmDt
m(�oUntv-designated5� hazard area phortothe provision
materials, and manpower' -
of Vv8t8r system improvements designated to respond to on-site and near -site fire
hazards (Public Services Impact 9-2).
The City Council hereby makes Finding U\.
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
/a\ P"jectfe|8t8d and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
` ' addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the FBRand that
analysis isincorporated byreference herein.
(b\ The proposed project must fully comply with all applicable provisions of the
` ' "UDifOrDlBuilding Code" (UOC\and ''UOifO[OOFire Code" (UFC).aSOOOdUied'and
other GppUo8b|provisions ' the "Los Angeles County Code" (County Code)
established to address fire protection and public safety.
(c) The project is subject to compliance with the Los Angeles
COUDtv
Fire
Department's /LA(F) "Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines for Projects Located in
Fire Z`.~ 4orVery High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" requirements.
/d\ Although none ofthethreshold criteria would beexceeded, the Lead Agency has
35
identified a number of standard conditions of approval (Conditions of Approval 9-
--.-----3-through-9=5)-re.q.uiri.ng--th.e-Los-Ang.e.i.es-,Co.unty-Bre-D-ep-ar-tm.e-n.ts-(LACED-)-.--------
approval of fire protection program and workplace standards for fire safety, a fuel
modification, landscape, and irrigation plan, a final water improvement plans, and
associated building plans.
(e) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional standard
conditions and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.9.3 The public school located closest tuthe site ioCastle Rook
Elementary School (2875Castle Rock ROad). Construction activities could constitute aO
attractive nuisance to children located near or passing by the project site and
construction traffic could impose 8safety hazard tOchildren and/or become disruptive tO
school activities and operations (Public Services Impact S-3\.
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) and cumulative public S8[Yic8G and facilities impacts are
addressed in 8eCUOn 4.8 (Public Services and Facilities) in the FE|R8Dd that
analysis is incorporated byreference herein.
(b) Since DO substantial increase in the DUFObe[ of new hOUoehO|dS within the
g8D9[8| project area would b8 anticipated in order to accommodate the project's
COD8t[UCtiOD. DO direct construction -related impacts OO WVUGO facilities have
been identified.
/d\ Construction traffic accessing the site from Cold Springs Road will cross Castle
Rock Road in the ViCiDifv of CgSt|B FlOCk E!808Dt8[y School. Construction
VehiC|HS Vvi|1 transport equipment, building Dlah8ri8|S. and could discharge
cOOGtFuCt/OO debris 8(ODg streets adjacent to established r8Sid8OU8l 8[8GG'
including the school, where children would hepresent.
/8> COOGt[u[tiOD activities may present an attractive OUis8OC8, defined as any
condition which is unsafe or unprotected and, thereby, dangerous to children and
which may reasonably be expected to attract ChiidF8O to the property and risk
injury by playing with, in, or on it.
Ul Although none ofthe threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of standard conditions of approval (Conditions of Approval 6-
2, 0-3' 6-4' and 8-6) restricting construction traffic 8|OOg C8St|n Rock Road and
PGG8do DhV8, requiring the preparation of oUOSt[UctioD traffic safety plan and 8
t[8ffin coDin3| plan, and requiring the fencing and signage of the CUDstrUCtinD site.
(g) Since none Of the threshold Of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact VVOU|d be l8SG than significant and OO additional standard
conditions and/or mitigation measures are recommended O[ required.
5.9.4 With a resident population Ofapproximately 8G2 p8[SOOG and BD
existing LAC8O staffing natio of one sworn officer for each 1'082 resideOta, in order to
08iDt8iO existing staffing levels, the LACGD would need an additional 0.61 SVm][D
`deputies (Public Services Impact 9-4).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\.
36
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented iDsupport of this finding:
k�\ � � and CV[OU8�Ve public services and fBC�tkeG i[0DGCtS are
`-' Project -related � *d �- �S�Ct�O 4 9 (�Ub\�C S8n�C�G and F@C|i��S\ in the FE�|[� and that
8OOrBGs�o m � , Facilities)
8nnk»�S is !ODOrpOr88vreference herein.
'
(b\ i needs mj�| b� determined OV8[�nl� /\CtU���O|iQ3�PJt�Ct�OD�8nSOOD8 D�� .
b8S8U on
` ' that department's experience with the project's residential and CDO0[UePn[a\
DDOOpOn8OtS' @F88VVide incident trends, and other factors, and not derived pUF8lV
through 8 projection of the DUOlbe[Ofon-site residents.
/C\ There is no^ formal basis to quantify p '8d�[8i8h3d law enforcement impacts, no
` ' established msXUG allowing for the
'collection Of d8Y8lOpo[ impact fees for police
development protection services' and no direct linkage between approved eve\0p0*n and
the expansion of police neSOUrc8G, the pUPCh3S8 and new O[the replacement of
existing equipment, and the hiring of new sworn and non -sworn personnel.
/e\ �J8ith8[the LA(�S<]nor the (���Phave not 6Gt8bUD\
ShBdBfUDCtiOO�\�Ch8OiGr8fOr
` ' the collection Of [ACGD Or CHP impact fees and there exists DD formal basis to
quantifyp project-relatediOOpadsuponpo|iceprobacbonaervicen.
(f\ Because funding for LA{|8Opersonnel, eqU\p[Dent'and f8Cili�8SiGd8�V8dthrough
`�' 8d Y8|c["nO taxation and based OD yearly allocations by the CDUOb/. the COUOh/
has the 8bUitVtOefheCtive\yrespond tOLA(�SDresource dm[n8Dds.
/g\ Although none Ofthe threshold C�t8h8VVOU|dbeexceeded, the Lead Agency has
` ' identified standard condition Ofapproval (Condition ofApproval 9-2)specifying
that, prior to the issuance of building permits, the LACGD [GV\eVV and comment
upon building plans and the configuration Ofthe development.
(h\ 8\RCe OODe of the threshold of significance o�te[io would be exceeded, the
` ' identified impact would be \eSS than significant and no additional standard
conditions and/or mitigation measures are recommended O[required.
5.9.5 introduction of 202 new residential dwellings and 153'985
square�--'of new commercial use will increase existing demands on LACFDf8cjUUes.
equ/pnu/u' and personnel, predicating an iOonsDoOt@| need for facility exp8Ds\OD. the
purchase Of new and/or replacement eqLjp[UgDt and contributing to the need for
addition LACFD personnel (Public Services Impact 9-5).
Findi : The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of FIDAjDg: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
ks\ Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
`-' addressed in Section 4,9 (Public Services and RsCi|iUen) in the FBR@Dd that
analysis iaincorporated byreference herein.
(b\ Water service to the project site will be provided by the Walnut Valley Water
` ' District (VV\N�D\. Via existing water mains. The LACFD [8qUin*S a minimum fire
flow of `.25O gallons per OOiOUto /gpOl\ at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) for a
two-hour duration. Existing Vvat8[ nl8iOs are capable of delivering those
[DiOirnu[n flows to the project site.
i \ projects, the LA(�FD stipulates that the nniDinnUODfire
/c\ With [88a[dS to conn[O8[C8 pn4s.
` ' fi0Vv and fire hydrant requirements shall be determined by the fire chief or fire
marshal.
/d\ Although none ofthe threshold c[Ke[iavVouNbeexceeded, the Lead Agency has
` ' identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 9-5) specifying
37
that, prior to the issuance of building permits, the LACFD review and approve
final water improvement plans and building plans.
(e) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional standard
conditions and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.9.6 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will increase enrollment within the Walnut
Valley Unified School District by an estimated 31 new students, including approximately
11 new elementary school students (Grades K-6), 8 new junior high school students
(Grades 7-9), and 12 new high school students (Grades 9-12) (Public Services Impact 9-
6).
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the FEIR and that
analysis is incorporated by reference herein.
(b) For the 2009-2010 school year, Castle Rock Elementary, Evergreen Elementary
Schools, and South Pointe Middle School have the available capacity to
accommodate 103, 117, and 62 additional students, respectively. Although no
available capacity has been identified at Diamond Bar High School (a shortfall of
80 students is projected), any excess pupil enrollment at that facility will be
temporarily housed in leased portable classrooms (in space made available by
reducing existing programs and in space reconstructed on existing sites) until
more permanent measures can be taken.
(c) As indicated in the WVUSD's current fee justification study, based on the
application of the State -approved cohort survival method, it is estimated that
student enrollment within the WVUSD will decrease from 15,485 Grade K-12
students in the fall of the 2008 school year to 15,414 students in the 2011 school
year, representing an increase of 75 Grade K-6 students and a decrease of 79
Grade 7-12 students. Alternatively, based on the application of the pupil per
dwelling unit multiplier method, it is estimated that student enrollment will
increase from 15,485 Grade K-12 students in the fall of the 2008 school year to
15,599 students in the 2016 school year, representing an increase of 49 Grade
K-6 students and an increase of 50 Grade 7-12 students.
(d) The WVUSD's current fee justification study concluded that no new school sites
would need to be acquired and no new school facilities would need to be
constructed to accommodate projected student population projections through at
least 2023.
(e) Payment of applicable fees to the WVUSD or, alternatively, execution of an
Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 mitigation agreement acceptable to the WVUSD
constitutes full and complete mitigation of project -related impacts on the
provision of school facilities from the proposed residential development.
(f) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 9-7) specifying
that, prior to the issuance of building permits, the City be provided with a
certificate of compliance or other documentation demonstrating complied with the
District's School Board resolutions governing the payment of.s,chool impact fees
W
Orhas entered into GDAB 2926 authorized school fee mitigation agreement O[is
not aub|acttothe school impact fee eXaCbon.
subject
(A) 8iOCG nOO8 Of the threshold of significance criteria VOU\d be exceeded, the
identified impact vOU\d be \eSS than significant and no 8dd\ti8O8\ St8Od8nd
conditions and/or mitigation measures are recommended O[required.
Project will increase [ankj8Dt of the
5'S'7 t iOC[eOO8Otaiincreasing
population existing spatial
City, including "'~^~^'~~' — school-age OiBOloDd B�[ PU�h� Library (��Ub|iC G8n�o88
8nd [�SOUrC� demands o\8C8U OO t�8 ,
Impact 9-7).
The City Council hereby makes Finding M\.
'
` The following facts are presented iOsupport Ofthis hDdiOg:'
/8\ Project—related and CUnUl8tke public services8[d facilities impacts
are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and in the FE|Rand that
8O8k'miG is incorporated hvr8f8F8no8herein.
/b\ �heDloOd Ba[ []b[8' is 9'935 gross SqU8[e feet in SiZS and houses 8
` The
books and other library nl8t3ha|S. (c) The County L|bnan'/SCUOcurrent service \8Ve{ guidelines for planning pUnpOS8s are 8
OiOiDU"~'O^Ugross 3q.a[8 foot of library facility Sp8C8 per capita and 2.75
items (books and other library D8te[i8|S\ per capita. Based on an estimated service area population from United StatesDD Of 5O.233 �erSOnS. 8o 8
Census data, the Diamond Bar Library would need @28,115square foot facility
and 154G4Uitems iOorder tomeet that standard.
(d\ T�e pFV'poSed project is projected to add about 662 new residents to the City.
` ' \d create additional demand for library service and
That population increase would
Cn�a '� ability adequately serve the existing
VvoU\dfU�h�ro��ottk�CoUnyL\D[8ry ',tv
and future residents Of the OiaDODOd Ba[ Lib[8n/S service area. E9eSed on the
Countv Library's service level gUidH|iDes, based on project -related demand, the
Diamond Bo[ Library would require an additional 331 gross square feet of facility
sp8oand8noddiUVV
Ona\1.H2On�ite[Os(bOoksaOdoth8[\ibcarynnateria\o).
°
(e) Since. none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact wouldb less than significant and Dostandard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended orrequired.
5'9,8 Project i0p\ennBntatioDwiUinc[e8aethe[eSkj8DtpopukstioDofthe
' cted need for 212 �o[�s (approximately
City Of Diamond Be[ and generate 8 png8 ., 'k/
92,390 square feet) of additional parkland within the City (Public Services Impact 9-8).
The City Council hereby makes Finding M\.
Facts in Su : The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
im\ Pr '8ntf8|ateU and cuDlu|oUvo public services and facilities impacts are
`-' 8"«[oss8d in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Faci\h]8e) in the FBFtand that
oDGkmiSisincorporated by reference
(b\ 8e-��n 31 32O4O (Po' Lend Dedications and Fees) in Chapter 21.32
` ' (S°""\vi�io'S\ — e` Municipal {�ode'providea for the dedication of Raa\ property
(Subdivisions) '' ' - of —
and/or the payment oT in -lieu fees to the City for pork and recreational purposes.
WO
In aCcO[d8DCe therewith, the proposed 202 dVVHUiDg units (assuming the
----class
2.12 8c[BG (approximately 82.380 square feet) of additional parkland within the
_ity.
/n\ As specified in Section. 2j V2\' only the payment of fees shall be
required in subdivisions of 50 parcels or l8GS. 8XCgDt that when 8 COOdOOOiDiuOO
project, stock cooperative, O[community apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling
UDitG. dedication Of land may be required 8V8D though the OUOOb8[ of actual
.parcels may b8less than 5O. Although the pn]pOSgd development plan does not
include public FeCFH8tiOOal COnlpOR8Dt. the City is authorized to F2qUi[8 real
property dedication rather OriDaddition tOthe payment Dfpark fees.
/d\ Although none of the threshold criteria.would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition Dfapproval (Condition 0fApproval 0-8\specifying
that, prior to the approval Of the final subdivision Olap, pursuant to GgCtiOO
21.32.040 (Park Land Dedications and Fees) in Chapter 21.32 (Subdivisions) Of
the Municipal COde, in -lieu park fees shall be paid to the City in the manner and
inthe amount authorized thereunder.
/8\ Since DDDe Of the threshold Of GigDifiCGDC8 criteria VVpUld be 8XCSed8d' the
identified impact VVOUld be less than significant and no additional standard
conditions and/or mitigation measures are recommended Orrequired.
5.9.9 The approval ofother reasonably foreseeable future development
projects within the g8Da[8| project area will iOCr88Se existing demands DD the LOS
ADg8|8S County Sheriff's Department and OO the [OG Angeles CnVO[v Fire D8p8rtOl8Ot'
increase the number Ufschool-aged children served bythe Walnut Valley Unified School
Uist[iot, and iOCn3@8e the demand for p8d\ and recreational facilities within the City
(Public Services Impact 9-9).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\.
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(@) Project -related and CUDlU|atiVe public GenviC8S and facilities impacts are
aUU[eGD8U in 8eoUOD 4.9 (Public Services and FaCi|ifi8s) in the FBR8Od that
8Oa|VsiG is incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Based On a Statewide, regional, 8ne8VVide, or local assessment ofneed, public
agencies have the ability to construct new facilities, pU[ChaG8 new 8qVipOleO1.
and add p8[SODne| in response to identified demand. Local 8QeDCiBS have the
ability to deny or condition iOdiVidU8l development applications based on their
assessment ofpotential project -related impacts UpOD law enforcement and fire
protection agencies, facilities, and personnel. Public agencies have the ability to
respond to those changes through* increases or decreases in 8OOUal budgetary
8||OCatioOS provided to police and h[8 protection 8geOCi8G, including the L/\CGD
and LACFD.
(C) As indicated in the VVVUOU's current fee 'uStifiu8bOD StUd.' based On the
application of the State -approved cohort survival Olethod, it is estimated that
student enrollment within the VVVUGDwill decrease from 15.485 Grade K-12
students |Othe fall Ofthe 2UU8school year tU15'414students iOthe 2Oi1school
year, F8p[oG8OtiOg an iOC[e8sm of 75 Grade- .O stVd8OiS and B deC[8@sH of 79
Grade 7-12 students. Alternatively, based on the application Of the pupil per
dwelling unit multiplier method, it is estimated that student enrollment will
aut
increase from 15'485 Grade K-1 2 StUd8OtS in the fall of the 2008 school year to
15,599 students in the 2010 school year, representing an iDo[aaoe of 49 Grade
K-Ostudents and 8Dincrease Of5OGrade 7-12students.
/d\ The V�V\]SD'S current fee 'USti�C8�OO Sy tUdoDDC|Uded that OO new school SihBS
` ' ~ facilities
VVOUld D88d to he acquired and no new 8Ch� OO would D88d to be
constructed tOaccommodate projected StudeOtpOpUl8tionp'8CtiOOSthnDUghat
least 2023.
/�\ All qU8\ifviDg [8S[dBDti8\ and ODn-F8Sid8Oti8| deV8\Opr�eOt projects located within` ' the VU---'8D'S district hOUOd8[\8G 8[G required to pay 8ChOOl impact fees.
Notwithstanding the findings Of the VVV[)SD'S fee justification 8O8|ySiS' the
impact fees or the execution Of an AB 2926
payment OT 8��\\Cob\8 So�Oo( i
'—btUt8S full and oDnOp\ekz mitigation for pr '�c�re|ated
mitigation 8gP�8OlenIn CODS « ^x
impacts OOWVi]GDfacilities.
Ml |n November 2007' the 8[e8'S VOt8rS ap.PDV8d General Obligation BOD�
`�' NY88GU[8 S, /$84.O 0iUiOn Academic Facilities Measure) 8DdK8o8sUre \, ($15.2
million Physical EdUc8hOn Facilities K4e8SU[e). AS 8 naSU|t of those ballot
nOe8sU[8S' W\/USD schools will receive needed PBp8i[S and upgrades.
/g\ Since OoO8 of the threshold Of significance C[it8[i8 would be exceeded, the
` ' identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended 0[required.
5'10 Utilities and Service Systems
5'10.1 Wastewater collection facilities do not presently exist On the
8Ve|ab|e Un�\ the iDf�\etnJctUna improvements required to
project' -'- -- '-
accommodate the proposed land uses are constructed(Utilities and Service Systems
(OOp8Ct 10-1).
Find : The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Findin : The following facts are presented in support ofthis finding:
(a\ P'`x�8otfe|8ted and CUrnU}abVe UU|hieS and aen�oe nveteORs impacts are
`-' enaSo8d in Section 4.10 (Utilities and Service 8ySh*[ns) in the FBReOd that
analysis isincorporated byreference herein.
(b\ The provision of potable vvaterand toilet facilities is required under United States
` ' Department of Labor occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (29
CFR 1926.51\ and California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of
Industrial Ga'y(Cai/DSHA\/3mut\OD1524-152O'CCFl\ntaDda[de.
c\ Since none of the threshold
of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
` ' identified impact mOU\d be less than significant and no standard conditions or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
Th project's Skj8nh@\ and m]rnOnonCi8| components are
5 1O2 »]� � `�
� � approximately 89.435 gallons of wastewater per day K).OS nlgd\.
projected« ~ generate f / y the peaked be aboui241 475 gallons of
App|yingopeGkiOghgntOro2� . ep8o e ,
wastewater per day (0.25 mgd) (Utilities and Service Systems Impact 10-2).
Findin ' The City Council hereby makes Finding U\.
Facts in Support of FinqjM: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
41
-----(a)--Projec-t-related---a.nd—Gu m u lati-v.e—utilities--and—ser-v-ice—s.yste m s ---i m pacts_ -are----.---_.
addressed in Section 4.10 (Utilities and Service Systems) in the FEIR and that
analysis is incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC or Districts) has
formulated average wastewater generation rates for a variety of land uses. The
CSDLAC projects that for "condominium" units, each unit will generate
approximately 195 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd). Based on that
generation rate, the project's 202 dwelling units are projected to generate
approximately 39,390 gpd of wastewater or 0.04 million gallons per day (mgd).
(c) For the purpose of this analysis, a "shopping center" has been assumed. The
CSDLAC's sewage generation rate for a "shopping center" is estimated to be 325
gallons/day/1,000 square. feet (ft). Based on shopping center containing
153,985 gross leasable square feet, an estimated 50,045 gpd (0.05 mgd) of
wastewater would be generated daily. When projected residential and
commercial wastewater estimates are combined, approximately 89,435 gpd (0.09
mgd) of wastewater would be generated daily.
(d) Peak daily flow rates are higher than daily rates and serve as the basis for facility
planning. Applying a peaking factor of 2.7, the peak flow rate would be about
241,475 gpd (0.25 mgd).
(e) The project generally gravity flows sewage toward the west portion of the
property. The wastewater flow originating from the proposed project will
discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the CSDLAC, for
conveyance to the Districts No. 21 Outfall Trunk Sewer, located in Brea Canyon
Road at Via Sorella. This 18 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a design capacity of
12.3 mgd and conveyed a peak flow of 4.9 mgd when last measured in 2005.
Assuming that peak flow rates have not changed substantially since 2005, even
with the proposed project's projected contribution (0.25 mgd), sufficient capacity
exists in the Districts No. 21 Outfall Truck Sewer to readily accommodate the
proposed development.
(f) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 10-1)
specifying that, prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a sewer area study,
prepared by a licensed civil engineer. registered in the State of California, be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and the County.
(g) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional standard
conditions or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.10.3 Environmental Effect: Implementation of the proposed project and other related projects
would impose cumulative impacts on those sewage collection and disposal facilities
located in the general project area (Utility and Service Systems Impact 10-3).
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative utilities and service systems impacts are
addressed in Section 4.10 (Utilities and Service Systems) in the FEIR and that
analysis is incorporated by reference herein.
(b) At the project -specific level, local agencies require project proponents to assess
M
the impacts of proposed projects on existing sewer facilities, on an as -needed
basis. Those analyses are conducted to identify any site-specific or project -
specific improvements that may be required to the local and/or CSDLAC's sewer
systems that may be needed to handle increased 'sewage flows attributable to
each project. As required, all related projects must construct any requisite local
wastewater improvements needed to handle their respective flows.
(c) CSDLAC facilities are sized and improvements phased to serve population and
economic development in accordance with forecasts adopted by SCAG. Projects
that are consistent with SCAG growth forecasts can be adequately served by
existing and planned CSDLAC facilities.
(d) In order to fund planned improvements, each new project within the County is
required to pay connection fees to the CSDLAC. These fees are used to finance
future expansions and upgrades to the regional trunk sewer system. and
wastewater treatment facilities.
(e) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no standard conditions or mitigation measures
are recommended or required.
5.11 Cultural Resources
5.11.1 Environmental Effect: Construction activities can result in the irretrievable loss or
damage to any prehistoric, historic, or paleontological resources that may exist within the
area of proposed disturbance (Cultural Resources Impact 11-1).
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative cultural resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.11 (Cultural Resources) in the MR and that analysis is incorporated
by reference herein.
M information and analysis concerning the existing cultural resources setting,
including an assessment. of project -related impacts, is presented in "Phase I
Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment of the Proposed Site D
Development, Los Angeles County, California" (PCR Services Corporation,
January 24, 2008).
(c) No prehistoric archaeological resources have been previously recorded within
one mile of the project site and no prehistoric resources were identified on the
subject property during the pedestrian survey.
(d) Results of the historic aerial photograph and topographic map review revealed
that a structure (HS -1) was once located within the boundaries of the project site
that was associated with the historic Diamond Bar Ranch Headquarters
Compound. The Compound included the residence of Frederick E. Lewis, who
owned and operated the Diamond Bar Ranch. There is a moderate potential for
the site to retain buried domestic or ranch maintenance components such as
trash pits, privy holes, and similar features.
(e) Results of the pedestrian survey revealed the identification of a historical
archaeological site, consisting of more than 15 non-native eucalyptus trees and
concrete debris concentration likely associated with the former location of HS -1.
The significance of that site with respect to CEQA is considered to be
undetermined.
43
�
M Based on the potential presence of significant cultural resources impacts, a
been included in the FEIR and adopted or likely to be adopted in the MRMP
requiring that, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified archaeologist
be retained to monitor all vegetation removal and ground disturbance to a depth
of three feet within specified areas. If cultural resources are identified during
monitoring of the ground disturbing activities, the archaeologist shall temporarily
divert or redirect grading or excavation activities in the vicinity of those resources
in order to make an evaluation of the find and determine appropriate treatment.
If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction excavation
and grading activities, Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code (HSC)
requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Section
5097.98 of the PRC. Implementation of those measures will reduce identified
impacts to below a level of significance.
5.11.2 Ground disturbance activities could result in |Oop8CLs 03 OD-8ik*
pal8ODtO|OgiC8| [BSoUrC8G' including fossil [8Dl8iDG' from the PU8DtH FD008tk}D (Cultural
Resources Impact 11-2).
The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented insupport Ofthis finding:
(a) and cumulative cultural resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.11 (Cultural R8GoU[C8G) in the. FEIH8Od that analysis is iDCO[pO[8t8d
by reference herein.
/b\ Results of the paleontological resources records search revealed that the study
�
area is underlain by the Puente Formation /8|GO known as the Monterey
FO[Dl8tiOO in the '[8giOD\' which is G formation kDOVYD to COOt8iO diverse and well-
preserved Dl8riO8 vertebrate fossils. The [8Su[[s Of the pgd8St[i8O sUn/gy
confirmed the exposure Ofthe Puente Formation oDthe project site identified four
fossil localities in b8Ckdi[tpiles from geotechnical core sampling. The project site
is considered to be highly sensitive for paleontological [8SoU[Ces.
/o\ Based on the potential presence Of significant CU|tu[a| F8SOUPC8s iDlp3nt8' 8
number of mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 11-4 through 11-8\ have
been included in the FE|[�and adopted or likely to be adopted in the ' FlMP
requiring that, prior to the i8GuaDC8 0f8grading permit, a qualified p8|8oDtn|Ogiat
meeting the qU8lifin8t/ODS established by the Society Of Vertebrate
Paleontologists be retained to d8V8|Op and implement 8 paleontological
monitoring plan. A pa|uonto|ogica| monitor, supervised by the paleontologist,
shall monitor all excavations in the Puente FD[nlatiOO or 8Xo8VatiODe anticipated
to 8XtgOd into the Puente Formation. The paleontologist shall prepare a final
report on the monitoring. If fossils were identified, the report shall contain an
appropriate description Of the fossils, t[RatDl8Dt' and CUFaf/DD. /\ copy Of the
report shall be filed with the Qtyand the Natural History K4UG8UFOOfLos /\Dg8|e8
County and shall accompany any CU[8ted fossils. |rOp|8rDSDt8tiOD of those
measures will reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance.
5.11.3Grading activities conducted on other sites |no8t8d within the
may be located thereupon. In addition, earth -moving activities conducted on other
undisturbed sites containing the Puente Formation could result in the loss of recoverable
paleontological resources (Cultural Resources Impact 11 1 -3).
FioLdin : The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative cultural resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.11 (Cultural Resources) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated
by reference herein. main subject to site-specific environmental review
(b) All cumulative project activities re
and must fully conform to and comply with all applicable local, State, and federal
requirements. Compliance with those requirements will ensure that all related
project -s *pecific and cumulative impacts upon prehistoric, historic, and
paleontological resources are mitigated to a less -than -significance level.
(c) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no standard conditions or mitigation measures
are recommended or required.
5.12 Aesthetics
5.12.1 Environmental E Excluding those areas that will be retained as open space, the
project site will take on a distinctively urban physiographic character as existing
vegetation is removed, construction equipment introduced onto the site, hillside areas
recontoured, new uses are introduced, and other physical modifications occur (Aesthetic
Impact 12-1).
Findin : The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative aesthetics impacts are addressed in Section 4.12
(Aesthetics) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The proposed development will consist of three mass -graded "super pads,"
including one proposed commercial pad (with an area of about 10.09 acres) and
two proposed residential pads (ranging in area from about 4.02 to 6.05 acres).
The pads will be developed by balanced cut and fill grading. Cuts will range from
less than five feet to about 40 feet high. Fill slopes will range in height from a few
feet to approximately 60 feet down-slope from the upper residential pad to
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
(c) City policies encourage the use of contour grading and landform grading
techniques in order to create more naturalized engineered slope areas.
Proposed grading activities seek to apply these contour grading principals to the
proposed engineered slope areas, creating, where practical, curvilinear features
that produce a visual transition between engineered and natural open space
areas.
(d) Although construction is short-term in duration, it serves as precursors to the
long-term visual changes that will occur as a result of those activities. During
development, construction activities may appear disharmonious with the current
perception of the existing property as an open -space area. At the end of the
M
CODGtR]CtioO t8[0, the site will take OD 8 distinctively urban character and ShgU
(e) Based on the City's interpretation and general application of the visual resource
assessment methodology outlined in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)
"Visual Resource Management Program" (bLM, 1986), construction -induced
changes would be considered adverse but less than significant.
M Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact VVOUld be keSS than significant and OO project conditions or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.12.2 The implementation will aKB[ the site's existing
topography and necessitate the COOGtnJCtion Of OU[O8nDUS [8t8|OiOg VV8US (Aesthetic
Impact 12-2).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\.
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
ha\ and cumulative aesthetics impacts are addressed in Section 4.12
(Aesthetics) in the FEIR8Dd that analysis is iDCOFpD[at8d by reference herein.
/b\ Variable height LUfe| (LOfhelGtH/D) retaining walls, [8DgiOQ from SgVe[3| feet to
about 23feet high, are proposed near the mid -slope Ofthe 2:1fill slopes between
each of the GUp8[ pads. Although the proposed retaining Vv8llS 8Xc88dS the
height limitations specified in Sections 2220.040. 22.22.080(b) -/C\' and
22.52.O2OOfthe WYUDiCip8l Code, the proposed walls would be authorized UDd8[
the provisions Ofthe proposed specific plan.
/C\ Large retaining walls, absent integrated landscaping and i[hgatiVD. can become
dominant visual elements that produce a sharp contrast between retained natural
f88tUn3S and introduced CU|tU[al modifications. All VVa||G over eight feet in height
are C[ibVV8llS designed to incorporate landscaping 888O integral design 8|e0eD[
(d) Although none ofthe threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified 8 St8Dd8Pd condition Of approval (Condition Of Approval 12-1\
specifying that the specific plan include design details, acceptable to both the
City Engineer and to the Community [)8Ve|0p0eDt DiP3CtO[' for all proposed
retaining walls. Retaining wall plans shall include landscape and irrigation details
sufficient to ensure that each of those elements are, as approphate, integrated
into VV8i| design and that the interrelationship between those elements are
COOSid8[ed from Gt[VCtU[8l integrity and aesthetic viewpoints.
/o\ Since DoO8 Of the threshold Of significance Cht8ha VVoU|d be GXc8eded, the
identified impact would be l86G than significant and no additional Sb3Od8nd
conditions and/or mitigation measures are recommended orrequired.
5.13.3 The introduction Ofnew residential and COOlDlerc8| uses will add
.new sources Ofartificial lighting to the project site and could result in light trespass
extending beyond the project boundaries (Aesthetic Impact 12-3).
Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1).
'
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented iDsupport ofthis finding:
��
(a) Project -related and cumulative aesthetics impacts are addressed in Section 4.12
(Aesthetics) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. '
(b) The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) has established
recommended outdoor lighting illumination levels. Lighting that conform to those
standards would be assumed to produce a less -than -significant impact.
(c) As defined by the IESNA and the International Darksky Association (IDA), a
widely used light trespass standard specifies that an appropriate standard is to
limit the exterior lighting originating on a property to a maximum of 0.5 horizontal
foot candles (HFC) at a distance of 25 feet beyond the property lines.
(d) Based on the potential presence of significant aesthetic impacts, a mitigation
measure (Mitigation Measure 12-1) have been included in the FEIR and adopted
or likely to be adopted in the MRMP requiring that pole -mounted or wall -mounted
luminaires installed for the pwrpose..of illuminating commercial- areas, parking
lots, roadways, and driveways, conform to appropriate lighting standards and
demonstrate that light trespass not exceed 0.5 HFC, as measured at the project
boundaries abutting any existing residential use. Implementation of that measure
will reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance.
5.12.4 Environmental Effect: Much of the San Gabriel Valley is already highly urbanized and
the area's remaining open -space areas take on greater visual significance as a respite to
the dominance of urban development (Aesthetic Impact 12-4).
Findin : The City Council hereby makes Finding
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative aesthetics impacts are addressed in Section 4.12
(Aesthetics) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The City and other municipalities located within the County formulate long-range
planning documents with the intent of directing development and redevelopment
activities to those areas most conducive to growth, based on a variety of planning
considerations. Separate formal planning and environmental review processes
exist when a development proposal seeks to modify those adopted long-range
plans.
(c) No development is authorized to occur in the absence of compliance with
adopted agency plans and policies and in the absence of appropriate
environmental review. Compliance with and conformity to adopted plans and
policies helps to mitigate the potential cumulative impacts produced by the visual
changes to existing landscapes associated with future development and
redevelopment activities. While the further intensification of the region may
constitute an adverse impact, the incremental and inevitable changes resulting
from those activities would not be deemed a significant cumulative impact on the
region's existing visual resources.
(c) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
5.13 Growth Inducement
5.13.1 Environmental Effect: Because the project includes both an amendment to the "City of
Diamond Bar General Plan" and the adoption of a specific plan, the project may result in
47
on-site development. activities that 8XC8ed OJ[ReOt development 88GUOOptiOOs and
nn nd—the—p
boundaries (Growth Inducement Impact 13-1).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\.
Facts in Suppo rt of Finding: The following facts are presented insupport ofthis findino:
(o) and cumulative growth -inducing impacts are addressed in Section
4.13 (Growth |DdUm3DlenM in the FBR and that analysis is incorporated hv
reference herein.
'
(b) California State law requires that every city and county prepare and adopt a long-
term, comprehensive general plan The general plan
G8nv8G as 8 "constitution for development" and the fOVOdat)OD UpDD which all
land -use decisions iD@city orcounty are tObebased.
(C) |Dlp|808DtatiOO of the pn]p0G8d project will Ch@Dg8 8XiSt(Og land -use policies
with regards to the 8|/ovVob|e use of the project site, reoU|tiOg in an intensification
of uses within the City beyond that now envisioned in the Qh/ General Plan.
Since planning for public services' is, in whole or in p8[i. based OO existing and
projected demands for those 88[ViCeS. changes in public land -use policies have
the potential to impose additional UOp|8DDed d80@DdS upon those services and
facilities.
(d) Although the site is designated for public facilities, the public facility provider
whiCh owns the majority of the project site has declared the property to be
surplus and not F8qUiF8d for public facility use. AS such, although project
VVU1 result in 8 modification to existing land -use policies, the
resulting use is not anticipated to necessitate the provision of unplanned services
and facilities beyond the project boundaries.
/8\ 8iDC9 none Of the threshold of significance criteria VVoU|d be 8XC8ed8d, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended D[required.
5.13.2 Environmental Effect: (Growth Inducement Impact 13-2).
The City Council hereby makes Finding /1\
Finding:Facts in Support.,of The following facts are presented iOsupport Ofthis finding:
/8\ Project -related and CUDlU|8tiVe growth -inducing impacts are addressed in 8eCUOO
4.13 (Growth |DdUce08Dt\ in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by
reference herein.
(b) The COnSt[UCtiUO of 202 dYVB||iOg units and the introduction Of 153.985 SqU@[8
feet Ofcommercial use will iDo[e8Se the City's p0pU|8tiOD by an estimated 062
individuals and directly. create an estimated 462 new permanent ' -Obs.
/c\ The size and duration of the proposed project is not sufficient to predicate any
substantial in -migration of new workers into the QeDen3| project area. The
project's incremental contribution to localized, regional, and national employment
opportunities would not create substantial significant secondary impacts.
.48
(d) Project I implementation will, therefore, not result in the removal of economic,
physical, and/or political constraints affecting either the project site or other near -
site properties.
(e) With the exception of off-site traffic improvements, the project does not include
the expansion of any infrastructure systems that would accommodate additional
off-site development. The traffic improvements identified as mitigation measures
herein serve to accommodate the proposed project, ambient growth, and other
related projects.
(f) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
The City Council has adopted or will likely adopt the MRMP set forth in the FEIR. The City
Council hereby finds that the MRMP meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of CEQA and
Sections 15097 and 15126.4 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
7.0 . FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
The City Council recognizes that the SDSP will result in significant unavoidable environmental
impacts that cannot be feasibly reduced to below a level of significance. The City Council finds
that: (1) due to specified economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations, each
of the project alternatives examined in the FEIR are infeasible; (2) each of the project
alternatives examined in the FEIR will not fulfill the identified project's stated objectives; and/or
(3) each of the project alternatives examined in the FEIR will not feasibly result in the avoidance
of any of the unmitigable significant or potentially significant environmental impacts associated
with the proposed project.
7.1 Alternative No. 1 ("No Project" Alternative)
Alternative Project Description: Under this alternative no physical changes to the project
site would occur, the property would be remain in its present condition, and no new
development activities or other public improvements would occur thereupon. No grading
or other landform modifications would occur. Maintenance activities, including weed
abatement, would routinely be performed and the existing level of use would continue
generally in the manner now experienced. In keeping with the general intent of this
alternative, one possible variation would involve the use of a sufficient portion of the City
Property to allow for the development of street improvements to the Brea Canyon
Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard intersection.
Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed.EEgiect: The
City Council finds that the "No Project" alternative" is "environmentally superior' to the
proposed project since it would, at least in the short term, result in the avoidance of
those significant construction, operational, and cumulative air quality impacts associated
with the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support . of this finding:
MA
_ (a) The City's analysis Of project alternatives is p[8GgOt8d in Section 8.0
l-y-sis)-R-thG-FE|R-8D iS-iRc8rp8rated- peO
' -
herein.
/b\ Under this alternative, DO new housing units and no new*commercial
footage would be constructed on the
project
/C\ The "OO project" '8�'alternative generally reflects the COOditiODG and 8GGVcj8t8d
eDNFDDDl8Otal impacts that VVOUld predictably occur should the Lead Agency
8l8Ci to either deny the pnDpO8gd project or fail to take affirmative 8CtiOO OD the
proposed application, resulting in, at least, the short-term retention of the site in
its existing DDOdiUOO. The denial of the current d8V8lOpOleD1 application or the
C8SSatiOD of current process would, hnVVeV8[, neither preclude the submission Of
@ subsequent development application either bythe current p ' 'ectp[oponeDtoF
another nor ensure the site's retention aaaVopen space area.
(d) With [GQanjS to oOOnt[U{tiOD 8i[ quality iOlp@[tS. under the proposed project,
combined a0iaaiuna or reactive organic goaao /ROG\ were estimated at 13.02
pounds/day. Since that value exceeds the G \C)K4 |'s recommended threshold
o[iby[ia. construction impacts VVoU|d be deemed to be significant. SiDce, under
the "On project" alh8[D8tiV8' no development would occur on the site, CODGtrUCtiOO
80i8GiODS VVOVld be eliminated and short-term @i[ quality impacts VVOU(d be
reduced iO8l8nS-th8D-GiQO/fiCaDtlevel.
(8) With regards to op8[8tiOO8| air quality impacts, the pnOpUG8d project is projected
to create Fl0��' oxides of nitrogen (N(�X). and C8[bOD dioxide (' ) emissions in
^eXCeSS Of 8CAQ�WD'S suggested daily threshold criteria. Since,
' under the "no
project" alternative, OO development would occur on the project Git8' Op8[atiOD8|
e0iGGi8DS would be eliminated and long-term 8i[ qU8U,impacts VVOVld be
reduced tOa less -than -significant level.
(f) With regards to CU0U|8tiVe air quality impacts, independent of the Lead Ag8OC«'8
actions CoOc8[OiOg the project site, related project activities will continue� ~tO
incrementally contribute to regional a}[ emissions within the SCAB. HoxV8V8[.
- S|Dc8 ait8-Sp8CUiC COOthbUti0OG will not add to those conditions, cumulative air
quality impacts would be deemed to be less than significant.
Effectiveness in Meeting Proiect Obiectives: The City Council finds that the "No Project"
alternative would not substantially meet the stated project Ohi8Ctiv8S.
Although 8 8UbSY8Otk]| portion of the project site is owned by the District, the
District has declared the District Property surplus and seeks to dispose of their [ea/
property holdings in order to [8i88 funds for other eligible expenditures. As stipulated in
the MOU between the City and the District, upon the approval of the specific plan for the
development Of Site D (if such 8ppFUV@l were, to OCCUF). the "District agrees to use its
best efforts to sell the School Property as entitled by the City for the fair market value, in
accordance with the pnDVi6ioOa of California Education [|Odg cODlDl8OCiDg with 88CtiOD
17455. City agrees to use its b8G1 efforts to S8|i the City Property for the fair 08[k8t
value. The p8[1i8a agree to cooperatively work with each other to coordinate the G8|8 of
Site D." in the 8bS8OC8 Of public 8Dd/O[ private pUrnh8S8 of the project Site for the
ensure
the long-term
pn3se[V8UOD of the project site iD an UDd8V8|Op8d condition. AS 8 Fe8Ult, absent that
participation, the "No Project" alternative iodeeDled to be infeasible. '
go]
7'2 Alternative No. 2("PubYYcFacilities" Alternative)
Alternative Project Descriptio : The District Property is presently designed "Public
Facilities (PF)" in the General Plan. Although there exists no corresponding zoning
designation which relates exclusively to public facilities, this alternative is predicated
upon the geographic expansion of that General Plan designation across the entire
project site and the development of the property in accordance with the declared intent
of that General Plan designation. For the purpose of this alternatives analysis, under
this alternative, it is assumed that the estimated developable area of the project site
(20.2 acres) is developed at a floor -area -ratio of 0.25. Under this alternative, a total of
220,000 square feet. of public facilities use would be developed on the project site. For
liance, the FEIR assumed the sale of the project site to a
the '~''~~- of --- '8r�\�'Q organization �
�rk�d8VOt��.SVCD8S iOUSO| 8D� anJChi@| SChOO\.
.
� VVOUkj �� to iD(�Ud8 8 73OOO square
Under this �UB Ul8 p���nl site u�v�mp�" `
'r~~`~'
foot (�500-S(Ud8nA`private school and G 147.000 SqU8[8 foot (2'500-SG8t) church.
A
fellowship area would be developed within the sanctuary building which would be made available for public use 8s @ �',.ImprovementsaDqU banquet Improvements would iDn(UdG 8 poPOohi8|
SChOOl C8OOpUS including C\essroODln. library, and approximately 12'000 SqU8[* foot
'
(1`000-Geat Cop8Citv) -multi-purpose auditorium, outdoor neC[8RboD8| facilities-,
O1nBS
and administrative facilities, O@inteO8DC8 area, and caretaker's r8Sid8OCS. The
gymnasium VDU\d serve the private sChOO\ and be @V@iiab\8 for the CODDUOih/ for use
after school hOU[S` including after SChOOl p[og[8OS administered by the Boys and Girls
C[Ub o[similar organization. In addition, once operational, other on-site activities are
8sSU[O8d to |OdUd8 non-residential ch\\d-o8[8 services, hBnOi|y-QaPe services, activities
and uses catering to youth groups, DOUn\c and d[@Ol8 ministries, C0UOse|iDg' p[ey8[
meetings,bible StUdy, nutrition pnDg[aOOS, homeless outreach and assistance p[og[onls'
and Otho8sSoCi8te�'8dUC8t\oD@). 'obtr@iOiDg. and community services activities. The
' - tG\\ f i
C8OlpUsVVoU|dalso contain 0'DODsquare feet o [8 USeS(book store).
omparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed ProLect: The
Public Facilities" alternative is "eDvi[oDnlenta\\ysVpehor't0
uuY u""''^'' finds"'^~~^�— it would result inthe avoidance or substantial reduction of
the pnDpoS�U P[O)Scr since /8([tv impacts 3sno[joted with the proposed project.
thoa�sigOif\n8Dtop�raUoD�| qua//.' -
Facts in Support of Finding : The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
/m\ The City's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section Ol
(AlternativesADo|\S\ in the FEIR and that analysis
is incorporated by reference
herein.
/h\ \[noka''^Ot8UnD of this alternative will roresultin the generation of approximately
`-' 2,478 daily trips during eweekday, �nkday including 336 AM peak -hour
'-'` ~~' d' project is forecast to generate 8pproxj[D8ha\y
9.276 daily tmo-VYayvehicle trips, trips. \D comparison, �N: P[oPoS�iOc/uuiDg 272 trips during the weekday AM and
O5Otrips during the PMpeak hours.
(C\ Based on the nature of this a|18[Oat|vm' trip generation characteristics would differ
` ' between weekdays and on Sunday.
Based on the OUDd8y oper8tioO, this
alternative would generate approximately 5,508 daily (Sunday) vehicle i[ipS.
including 1'412 /Kpeak-hour trips. In comparison, the proposed project is
forecast tOgenerate
approximately 9.276 daily two-way vehicle trips, including
272trips during the weekday AK8and O5Otrips during the PyWpeak hours.
51
(d) With regards to construction air quality i[Doaota. WDd8[ the proposed
~^.'d_..~"^""'.or.=-estuo puuuuy/uuy,-Smce-tD|S--------_
va|ue exceeds the SCAQK8[)'s recommended threshold criteria, construction
|Dlp8[tS would be deemed to be significant. Although, Und8[thiS8lheOlatiV8' on-
site development a CtiViti8g[DaVbeFBduC8d/22O.0003qUaP8feetOfpUbUCfaCilitV
use as compared to 153.985 square feet ofneighborhood-serving commercial
use and 202 dwelling UDitG\. Dla%i00UOl daily oODStrU(tiUO activities' would be
anticipated to be similar. As G F8SU/t, COOGt[UCtiOD 8i[ quality impacts would be
assumed tobesimilar tothose associated with the proposed project and would
Fe[O8iD significant.
/g\ With regards to operational air quality i0p8CtG, the pn}pUG8d project is projected
to create R]G' NCX' and CO emissions in excess of the 5[AQKD suggested
daily threshold criteria. IOlpl8OlgD18tiOn of this alternative VVOUld result in the
generation of approximately 2'478 daily vehicle trips during a typical weekday
(compared/Co�8P�d tO S.27O �8i�V two-way vehicle trips aGGOCi8t8d VVit' the pPDpOS8d
project), including 836 AM peak -hour trips (COOlp8[8d to 650 PM peak -hour trips
associated with the proposed project). As o renU|t. under this alternative, mobile
SDUrC8 8OliG8inDG VVVUld be substantially reduced. For the pU[pOSa Of this
d|tg[O8tiV8s aO8|ysiG, it is aS8u[Ogd that operational air quality i[Dp8CtG VVOU|d be
reduced tOGl8GG-th8O-SignifiC8Dtlevel.
/D With regards to CUOlU|@tiV8 @i[ qU8|ifv impacts, [elated project aCtiViti8O, in
combination with this alternative's construction and operation, VVDU|d
incrementally contribute to [8g|ODal air enliSsiODS within the SCAB. [JOd8[ the
8CAC>MD'S [8Co00SOd8d methodology, deV8/Op0GDt activities that generate
significant 8i[ quality impacts are also aGGUDUed to g8D8[8te significant
cumulative air quality impacts.
Effectiveness in. -Meeting Project Objectives: The City Council finds that the "Public
Facilities" alternative would not substantially meet the stated project objectives to
facilitate residential development on a minimum of 50 percent of the usable acreage,
and commercial development on 50 percent of the usable acreage. Moreover, insofar
as public facilities are owned and run by tax exempt entities, development pursuant to
the "Public Facilities" alternatives would not only fail to provide a desirable level of sales
tax revenue, but may also cause the property to be removed from the property tax rolls.
Excluding economic considerations not addressed in the FE|R.
the City Council finds that the "Public Facilities" alternative is feasible.
7.3 , Alternative No. 3 ("Community Commercial" Alternative)
` Under this alternative, the project site would be
developed for commercial use /Daccordance with the "Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)"
,standards outlined in Chapter 22.10 /CUDlpOenci8�I|dUSt�a| Zoning Districts) ` the
Municipal Code. AS specified in Section 22.10.020 /Pu[pOS8 Of CO00erCi8|/|'dUet[ia1
Zoning Districts) therein, the C-1 zoning district is applied tOareas appropriate for 8 wide
range of retail 'hopping and service uaoa, primarily intended to serve the needs of City
residents. The a||ON0b|8 floor -area -ratio (FAR) for DOD-[8SidBOti8| development shall b
from 0.25 to 1.00 (Section 21.10.040). Based OD a FAR ofU.35 applied to the estimated
net acreage (20.2 net acres), 8 total of 307,969 spUare feet ofCOmnl8rcial use would be
developed on the p 'oCt sit8. The site would be deVe|0p8d as 8 DlU|U-t8naOt center
including one or more "big -box" uses and a number of out -pads. Except as provided in
52
the Municipal Coe, building heights would not exceed 35feet. On-site parking would be
provided eta ratio of one space for each 300 square feet ofQroeefloor area p|US one
space for each .'OOO SQU@PB feet of outdoor display area (Section 22.30.030). The
alternative -specific grading p|@O could C\O88(y replicate that associated with the SDGP.
Comparison of the,Effects of..the Alternative to the Effects.of the Proposed Project: The
City Council finds that - the "Community Commercial" alternative is Pot "environmentally
superior" to the proposed project since it would not result in the avoidance or substantial
reduction of those significant construction, operational, and cumulative air quality
impacts associated with the proposed project.
Facts in Support of Findin : The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
/8\ The �.aD8km'iS Of project alternatives is F8S8nt8d in Section 6.0'
` ' A\t8[O City'sAnalysis) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference
h8[gO.
(b\ With regards to construction @\[ quality impacts, under the, proposed project,
` ' combined g0\5e(OnS O[R[>Gwere estimated at 136.02pDUndG/day. Since this
Y@|U8 exceeds the GC/\C}M[>'a [8Co[OnOeOded threshold criteria, COOstrUoUOn
impacts VVOU|d be deemed to be significant. Under this @lkarO8tiV8' on-site
development activities may be iOc[88e8d (307,969 square feet Ofneighborhood-
serving C000[O8[C\8| use as CODlp8[8d to 153'985 SqUoP8 feet of comparable
CODl[De[C\o\ use and 202 dwelling units). HOVV8Ver. bmC8USe Dl8Gs grading of the
project site would be required to create building pads and an on-site circulation
SySter'0 08Xi0U0daily construction activities would b88Ddoip8tedtobesimilar.
/\o o ` |� construction air quality impacts would be assumed to be similar to
result, ' VvOU\d [8r0aiDsigO��C8Ot
those associated VViththe proposed project and.
�C\ With regards to Opg[8tiDO8l air quality i0p@CtS, the proposed project is projected
` ' tocreate ROG, N[)X. and COemissions iDexcess Ofthe GCA(]M[)suggested
daily threshold criteria. Under this 8\t8[O8tive. the resulting retail shopping neDto[
is projected to generate substantially greater vn|urnee Of peak hour and daily
vehicle ' trips that the pFnpoSed residential and commercial development.
Notwithstanding SteDding the n|i[n\DmtioD of 202 dwelling uOits, the doubling of the square
footage Ofon-site coDnOOe[c8 Ua�o
commercial would r8sU\tin 8 net increase in the number
of peak hour and daily vehicle trips generated under this alternative. Based on
that increase in alternative -related treffio, operational air quality impacts would be
projected to narn8iD significant.
(d\ VV'~r regards to cumulative @\r quality impacts, related project activities, in
` ' combination with this o\hs[Oat(Vo'S construction and Operoti0O, would
iD^-r--r0eOtsUy contribute to regional air 8n0ios\nDs within the SCAB. Under the SCAC}yWO's recommended methodology, d d development activities that generate
significant air quality impacts are also assumed to generate significant cumulative
air quality impacts.
Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectiv : The City Council finds that the "Community
ercial" alternative would not substantially meet the stated project oNncUvms in that
it --''lj notprovide for the requisite percentage ofresidential development.
Excluding economic considerations which are not addressed in the FE\F{,
Feasibility: U finds t� that "(�oOOnOuD\tv (�mnOnnmr�i8[ a|hs[n��m� is feasib\8
th�C\tyCouD� a , .
53
7.4 Alternative No. 4 ("Low -Density Residential" Alternative)
Project Description: The eastern portion of the project site is zoned "Low Density
Residential (R-1-7,500)" on the City's Official Zoning Map. This alternative is predicated
upon the geographic expansion of the "Low Density Residential (RL)" zoning designation
within the estimated developable area of the project site (20.2 net acres) at a density of
3 dwelling units per acre. Under this alternative, a total of about 60 single-family
detached and/or single-family attached units would be developed on the project site.
Under this alternative, the alternative -specific grading plan could closely replicate that
associated with the SDSP.
Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Proiect: The
City Council finds that the "Low -Density Residential" alternative is "environmentally
superior" to the proposed project since it would result in the avoidance or substantial
reduction of those significant operational air quality impacts associated with the
proposed project.
Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
/8\ The City's analysis Of 8lt8Ol8tiVeS is presented in Section 0.0
(Alternatives Analysis) in the FEIRoDd that analysis is incorporated hv[8fe[GDce
herein.
'
Nb\ With regards to COOStRJCtioO 8/[ qUa|)fv /0pGCts' UDdS[ the pnDpDSgd project,
'
combined emissions O[ ROG were estimated E� 13O.O� �OUDdG/d8pounds/day.S�O&8this
value exceeds the 8CAQMD'S FeCDOOn08Dded threshold Qit8ri8' CDDGbUChOD
|Dlp8CtS would be deemed to be significant. Under this alt8[D8tiV8' on-site
development activities may be substantially decreased (OO dwelling units
CO0pg[8d to 153.985 square feet of commercial use and 202 dwelling units).
However, because mass grading of the project site would be required to create
building pads and an OO -site CinCu|8tiOO 3ySt8rn. Dl8XiDlUDl daily CoOSt[UCti0D
8CtiYib8G would be anticipated to be similar. AS 8 result, C0D8t[uCtioD 8i[ qU8|ih/
impacts would be assumed to be sinli|artothose @aGOCi8ted with the proposed
'
project and would, th8[8fon2, Ra0O8in significant.
/c\ With regards to operational air quality iCOp8CtS' the pnDpOG8d project is projected
to C[88te R(]G' N[)X. and CO emissions in 9XCeSa Of the 8OAQMD suggested
daily threshold criteria. Residential projects generate substantially |Owo[ VU08s
of peak hour and daily vehicle trips that comparably sized retail shopping center
projects. Similarly, although some differences exist based OD the type of
[8Gid8Oti8| development proposed, projects with fewer dwelling UO|tS GD be
8S8U0ed to generate 8 lesser number 0fpeak hour and daily vehicle trips that
pprojects.�gctS with 8 greater OUDlbe[ Of dVYelUOQ units. As @ r8SU|t. under this
8|terO8bV8' mobile SOUPne eDliSSiOOS VVOo(d be substantially reduced. For the
purpose of this 8|te[O8tiVeS analysis, it is assumed that operational air quality
impacts would be reduced t08 less -than -significant level.
(d) With regards to cumulative air quality impacts, related project activities, in
CO[ObiO8tiOO with this 8!t8rO8tiV8'S CODG[rVctiOD and operation would
|OoPeDl8Dt8l|yCOOt[ibUt8 to regional air emissions within the SCAB. UOderthe
8C/\C)MD'S mm
D's development 8otiViLi8S that gene
`rate
SkJDifio8Ot air quality iDOp8ntG are also aS8U[Red to generate significant
cumulative air quality impacts. `
54
Effectiveness in Meeting Project, Objecti The City Council finds that the "LoVVDensity Residential" alternative would not substantially meet the stated project
objectives in that it would not provide for the requisite percentage of commercial
development. Moreover, as a result of Diamond Bar's very limited land inventory, a low
density alternative would not only cause the City to lose substantial ground in fulfilling its
housing growth need on a site properly suited for higher density housing, but it would
increase the burden on other available and potentially available (i.e. those which need to
be rezoned during the current Housing Element period) sites to reach the City's RHNA
-
Feasibili �KCU�ing 8CDDOiCconsiderations VVhiCh Rr8 not addressed in the F�]R'
-------- DO[i|finds that "LoVvUensitvF�eeideObai"a|ie[naUvaio#amaib|8
[h�QtVCOUD a - ' .
7.5 Alternative Nm^5 (^Hi0h+Dmmsitv0eoidemtiap
" Alternative)
'
Under this alternative, the project site vVOUk1 be developed for
residential use in eCcOrd8n0a with the "High Density Residential" (RH)' standards
OUtUOGd in Chapter 22.08 (Residential 2bDiOg Districts) Of the Municipal Code. AS
specified, the [OnXr0UnO G|loVY8b|e density in this district is 20 dYV8UiOg units p8r8cro.
Based On the estimated net nC[88ge /20.2 net 8C[eS\. 8 total Of approximately 404
dwelling units COU|d be cOOStnUCt8d on the property. Under this 8lt8rO8tiV8. the
8\te[OatiYe-specificQ[8diOg p|8O could closely replicate that aSSOniet9d with the GDSP.
project.Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The
City Council finds that the "High -Density Residential" alternative is "environmentally
superior" to the proposed project since it would result in the avoidance or substantial
reduction of those significant operational air quality impacts associated with the
proposed
Facts in Support of.Finding : The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a\ The City's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section OD
` ' (Alternatives Analysis) in the FBR and that analysis is incorporated by reference
herein.
/b\ ASsUpU|otediDSeC�oO2222D4O(DmnS�«)ofthe yWuDi[jpa|Code, the maximum
` ' number of units that may be a\(nvved on a given pG[omi subject to the hillside
management ordinance is calculated in cOrnp|iGDoe with specified requirements.
In 8cCOndaOoe with the City's hillside management ordinance, a Ol8XiDlUOl of 524.
dwelling units can be constructed within the project area. The DUrnbe[ of
dwelling UO)tS that would be constructed under this alternative /404 UDitG\ is less
than the number allowable under the City's hillside management ordinance.
(n) Implementation of this alternative will.result in the generation Of approximately` ' 2.368 daily vehicle trips during a typical weekday, including 178 AM peak -hour
trips and 210 PM peak -hour trips. In cODlp8risOn, the proposed project is
forecast to generate approximately 9,276 daily two-way vehicle trips, including
372trips during the weekday AMand G5Otrips during the PK4peak hours. .
(d\ With regards to construction air qV8\itv i0pec{S. under the proposed project,
` ' combined HnOiSeioDo or R[)G were estimated at 138.02 pounds/day. Since this
V@(Ue exceeds the SCAC>MD's recommended threshold o[ite[i3, construction
impacts VvoU|d be deemed to be significant. Under this 3|ternotiYe, on -Site
development activities would consist of4O4 attached dwelling unita, compared to
55
153,985 square feet of neighborhood -serving commercial use and 202 dwelling
units. Because mass grading of the projecfi site would be req u'red_to__create____
building pads and an on-site circulation system, maximum daily construction
activities would be anticipated to be similar. As a result, construction -term air
quality impacts would be assumed to be similar to those associated with the
proposed project and would, therefore, remain significant.
(e) With regards to operational air quality impacts, the proposed project is projected
to create ROG, NOx, and CO emissions i I n excess of the SCAQMD suggested
daily threshold criteria. Because this alternative would generate substantially
lower volumes of peak hour and daily vehicle trips that associated with the
proposed project, mobile source emissions would be substantially reduced. For
the purpose of this alternatives analysis, it is assumed that operational air quality
impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
(f) With regards to cumulative air quality impacts, related project activities, in
combination with this alternative's construction and operation would
incrementally contribute to regional air emissions within the SCAB. Under the
SCAQMD's recommended methodology, development activities that generate
significant air quality impacts are also assumed to generate significant
cumulative air quality impacts.
Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives: The City Council finds that the "High -
Density Residential" alternative would not substantially meet the stated project
objectives in that it would not provide for the requisite percentage of commercial
development.
Feasibility: Excluding economic considerations which are not addressed in the FEIR,
the City Council finds that the "High -Density Residential" alternative is feasible.
8.0 PROJECT BENEFITS
The City Council finds the proposed project would result in a number of identifiable community
benefits. Those benefits include, but may not be limited to:
(1) Adoption of the proposed SDSP will serve to define the types of permitted and
conditionally permitted land uses that the City Council believes to be appropriate for the
project site and for the project setting, define reasonable limits to the type, intensity, and
density of those uses, and establish the design and development standards for those
uses.
(2) Adoption of the proposed SDSP will serve as a valuable regulatory tool for the
systematic implementation of the City's General Plan.
(3) Adoption of the proposed SDSP will impose reasonable development controls and
standards designed to ensure the integrated development of the project site.
(4) The proposed project will facilitate the District's efforts to sell surplus District Property by
providing a subsequent purchaser reasonable certainty as to the type, intensity, and
general configuration of allowable on-site land uses.
(5) Adoption of the proposed SDSP will optimize the benefits of the District sale of surplus
District property for the benefit of its constituents and its educational mission.
The proposed project will result in the production of 202 new housing units within the
City, thus helping the City respond to the identified housing demand outlined in the
current "Regional Housing Needs Assessment" (RHNA).
:69
(7\ The construction and sale Of attached residential condominium units future
` ' homebuyers with additional purchase options and price variations allowing homebuyers
tobetter match housing choices with household needs and demands.
/8\ ThgCr88�OnOf8OliX8d-USed8me|opOlent0j\\pPorOOt8th88t�\iR[n8DtOr[SgiOO8l` ' jobs -to -
housing ratio nhi8CUV8g established by regional gOm8rnOO8Ot8l entities and pn]dUCH
corresponding environmental benefits.
(S\ Project appnove|vY\Ua\(oVvforthep[oduct|vaUoenfaOUOde[Ut\UZed prOpe�viDthe City's
` ' o89n@\ Pl8O. convert teX-8XBOnpt property to 8 private use, and iDtnOdUC8 @ \8Dd use
that will. generate sales and other taxes for the benefit Ofthe City and its constituents.
(10\ Improvements to the Diamond B8[ BOU(eV8nj/��[e@ Canyon Road iDhS[S8Cti0D will ' irnpn]Ve traffic flow in and through that intersection.
/11\ P8y[OeDtofschool inupact'park, and t[af�cinnpectfees and other exactions VVi(|facilitate
` ' the ability ofthe City and other agencies to undertake improvements to specific public
facilities.
/12\ AdODt�OOfthe GDGPmjUfu�he[the intent of��B375h»f8Cl�8tOgho�ZODt8lmixed use
` ' VVith' pedestrian connections between the residential and commercial components..
Without transit infn3St[UCtUP8 (other than bus routes), nniXod use developments can play
8 greater [o|8 in local efforts to F8dUceVK8T.
9.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
As described abOV8' the proposed project VVoUN produce significant unavoidable adverse
impact in the fDUOVVOg three h]p\ma\ a[8eS: (1) 4j[ Quality /CoDS\nJCtioD Impact); /2\ 4j[ QU3\Uv
/0p8r8toO@| Impact): and /3\ Air Quality (Cumulative Impact). Each Of those identified-
`igOi�oaOteOVinoODl'Dta) � VVi|\cORtiDUetnOl@DifeSt8SSigDKlC8Ot(nOpectsOotNithSteOdiOg
the City Council's adoption or likely adoption of those mitigation measures identified in the FEIR.
In O[d8[ to determine whether the proposed project's potential enviFDDnn8Dtai impacts are
8oCeoteb|y OV8rhdd8D by the project's anticipated benefits, Section 15093 of the State {�E�C)A
(�Uid'|ineorequires theCitvtoba|8nCethepoteOh8lbeOefitsOftheproposedp 'eCtagaiDGtthe
project's potential unavoidable significant environmental impacts.
The City Council �Odsthat the previously stated benefits outweigh the significant unavoidable
adverse environmental
eDvirnDrnent8( inOp8cts of the proposed project. Each of the separate and distinct
benefits of the proposed project is determined to be, in themselves and independently of any
other identified benefit, a basis for overriding all unavoidable environmental impacts, as
identified iOthese Findings.
The {|hy Council has identified economic and sOoka| benefits and important public policyh. objectives'that will result from implementation of the proposed project. The City Council has
sought to benefits against the sigDdio�Ot
no ba|ance these substantial economic and socialeOe�'
unavoidable adverse environmental effects ofthe proposed project. Given the substantial social
and economic benefits that will accrue to the City, to the [}iSthCt. and to the region from the
implementation of the proposed project, the City Council finds that the proposed project's
identified benefits override the project's idenUfiedsignificaOteDVi[oOOOonte\i0paotS.
57
a
74,71M
0, 'D
0 -1
CD U)
a) C11 w
L) (1)
C: 'D E cu Yo CL 0 D 0)
a) C: M
En IL
cu a) 0 o- En cun
nO 0 to cn u)
cp IL a) <
U)
m m m in
O
a)
E 0 ay
(D t 2
CL
E 0 �1
0 .-.s 6 ,D) a) C: E o lo - L5 00)
a) cn
r- > U) w cz 0 (D
> w
0
C) a)
co a)
a (a .:'2 0
0 CD Co
a) 3:
E a) 0•o
M,- 2 = 0)-*- U)
C: -0 a) -0- r- c w c CL
O.D a
- - comn .2 Lu .0 0 m 2 m o o a) C: 0
rm.2- a) a) c) " q 0(- -, m C) w �r:- i�'u co T En
DC7 (D 0 :3 0 a) C) X -
r— 07 E (D a) C) a) 0
--0 E cn m q
'0W O a) v) r,, u- 0 a M O� - w z, -o a)
C: (D (a a) cn C
M M 0 UJ C) M 00 E M a
.r- M co -0 ca M
U) 0 (D M ca) 0
" tn 0 -- 0 � (a ry - cts -
a) a) tp C) o a) Er- -2 a) ca > ca
0) r- - D- M
o E a) < o co - 0 M -a cn 0
I = = (a a) U) > co a)
a) E ' a) (D a) U)
.G co a) c 0-0 �c E M -
cn (D (D cn 0 .2
M - E ao) M M r- - 0 (), (D (D
c a) _j LO :3 - �:, 0 a)
w 0 , O—M E lu (D 0) r -
M 0 M. a) 0 0 cm fy a) a-- U)'o
0 co - > E co E 2
c '2 E > tn a)
_0 V) Co U) - = o -
a) a) a 0 r CL
2 0 --M M o " cn CU D- 0
O�Mn rn 0 p - ry CL (,0 M > 0� (D M r- a) -�; --
0 -075— - cn -:p U) cr
> C> a) >1
0 Co aa.2 -
U- a CO ca U) a) E 0 0 to
- 0 o o - 0 C14 . - - - -; 'a. -
C) r o 0 Ems u) a) :3 L) =s -0 a) 0
E w -0 -cD 40-- C) a)
(D cn (a 20 (D 0
< E -5 .-- rn T - 0 (M 0 a) .0 co
0 0 cn co M , -'0
E it- co c ia E Cl a) M M
(D cn a) M -0 a) W 0) a - - 2
0 0 E - 0
0- a) O� - C: f o a) in
CO a) u) 0- E 0 cu Co 0
cn 0 -0 a) — co c C) E a) 4-- E a) a: No
= M 0 -r- 0 -
0 C: :t-- -0 0 to cu > 0 :3 (D — rz
SO co - Co (n < C13 0) C: V) rz
a) 0 0 0 M U) M
*_- 0 a) C: Co C: M >,- '0 .- C)
0 0� Ir- c :t-_ 0 - - M 0- 0 M M C: c(s c E n
0 M U)
0� w 0 U) (1) ' E w - 0 0
CL N
oCj<--- I . -Z-- -a - 0 CL
N U) c -r- (.) (D -r- 0)
w .5; 0to S7 0 O NNS - CL 0 (1) Co - a) P- >, < 0
QM U) " M w a) co :t-- =3
M co o S) - -r- - 0
-a) w 15 - 6 cu
Co -0 a) a) CL Z) U)
a) 0 CU 0 �o 8
D-- E 05 _0 cf a)
E c -L 0) a) w > o
, -6 -o , L, (1) E
C) a) 0 0a) E
M .- M j= 0- E n 0
(1) cf 0- - CO E 3: 0 E -S) :0' (o a)
0) a- -0 - - :L-- E - 0 [1, -
*FD t6 " 0.2
0 -0 (a (D 0 0
n 0- (3 a) w C
-) ED 0 M C: C)
E D� - m E w
a) n- — co C= c
- 0 w M c
.2 0 0) L: 0- C > -7 0
U) U) -0-0 co 1) 4=- co o
19 .2'0 - 70 M L) :3 - U) 0)
tllO-C - - I'- - C: (1) a) 0 -0-
< - 0 C cn (L) Lo w 0 U) L) U)
-0 — 0 Q) (a E c3 0--o (1) ul C: , > E '0 1p �F= M 0 t:
-i= _c: q rY w :3 =- -0 _rz -
0 -0" au) (D 0 c -J 0 75 -T -5 0 Cl) w 0 m E 0
c: cu -0 E 0 00
U- .- �: -0 c (1) co , 0)
0 0) r E -a c i:,:* co 0
15 -0 - -ia
M (D C) 0) r S2 'Fn o r- > (D -,a 0 c'3 -0 E 0 (1)
U) - (a
u) E (u 0 a) .0- 0- >0 > 0- ca s ---o (D 0 U:3) L)
(1) 0 (1) U) 'D U) c 0- 0 > - M
L) �5 - - 0- to -0 tv -Z5 0� - w M --6 �3 0 (1) a) (n
(D 0 cu -0 u) -:3 -0 E --5 -0 0 -0 (1) r- 0 V) r - > CL
:3
mono JZ- (1) E o CC r- > co ui O� 0 E
-75- o
0 (1) > CO CZ a) 0 0
-0 a) EQ W o
(1) U- 0 (1) (-) �: -a- o E > M 0)_
C) tZ moa) (D -0 -0 -0— (a
C3 Cu �p A -Z co - C, - - q) E p
M - Co L) m :3 i3 -2 -6 M - 2:7 'Fn -0 .2 m C: - " o
c -Fu .0 C: '0 a) "0 -5 E: a) -0 cu .2� 5
w 0-0 � 0
cz .0 n -O.'F rr c: 0 (D -O a) cL r o -o
c o < o
-0 a) 0 o cn M a) E :3 0 a) E
0 > 0 r- - E
0 0 0 0- c
.2 -0 E
M E uj (D .0 E u) 0 > E E a) M n
E `-o 15 r- a) (D 0
0 E o a) '0 m o > 0 C) A_- M Q) L-
0 0 o (D 0 co C) C) a) co 0 CU 0> _r_ a) U)
0 x �-- j5 o cr () 5� E < 0 > a)
C) < a) En >
>x
W
co (D
0 w
co
O ca
m
W
0
a
(D
V
m
a
E
tuw
c m
E E
C E
0 p
L U)
C }
W
ca
0W
t
0
O
O
O_
hr
«._�
a
^.(.r,•n';O.i',i.
U N
p
CL C
U E
•O
O E
•O
U E
O E
CD
O
C
O O
O_
�..0
U m
O O.
I1 o
o
c
%
Ca
�
C
ca
�
cu
Cc
O
'6 �
N I-
C
N i-
C
N ~
C
U)
C
m
aU
U)
aia)
0
0
0
0
�U)
maoi
v�
LL
c
()
c
0) o
o) o
v
O)o
S U
D)o
5 v
a)
a)
m a)
m o
c E
1v?
am
vo
acv
=o
Urn
��
Eos
me
me
me
W
Ute❑
cmc`a
c
��
va
C
o
m E
U aaf
•6
�C .m
L
'
L
}'
c
C m
ca
a
i3
ii
o
m
o m o
ca
c
�a)
�CL
a)
m
(D_
0
a) .fn
a) E
N
0 v-
U)
C a)
[a
OLa)
N
-a
cn
C
/•1
V
i4,a7,.?0ilt,5 �
N -L)
•C
O L a)
C
m
C O
O
m
m
} a)
E u)
a) � •a)
• p
`�
a)
=
O
L
m
}
C3
o
o C
m
c m a
a a)
E
a
c
cn
v m
m
m
y�
p
`L�w
mica)
a) _ ++
a)
cum
Eo
c
o
ro
v
CQ
prtrt'.
C
zv7o
G
c
aiE
N
w
O C
C
C
a
C
�.
ca
0
a
-Q a) m
o
N
o
m con a[iSi
m
c
'O C N
a) a) =
C
o
o
++ E "''
E
_
v!
_ o
Y
E O u
o
C C_
n
E
N>;1
.,:.,:
-i`:
a) •o
c u� a
U
'-
a
*- c E
c
Y
a) v
o o
o cn
a c et
a
ca
o
W
3;at;q);;2.
��tirU: Cala::.
a) c
a) Y
C
_
•+�
cn Ca p•
a)
o
c o
O
o
m C
ami >
L
a)
n`
y, ,;ia4
-.0
v+ -
c
m
L
L c
a
m
ca a
-P
c.2 m
ti
C
G2Q:N(:
ccs
m
a)0o
O O)
a)
�E
a)
o -O
��
LO'
R3. W
Q) a) a
'y C
—
''•'
to
c
—
C
ai •0
to
N
N
-
�-
(n
p
..0
C
a C
C
m
c
a)
a)
c ro
U) •�
a
L
m —
U N a
8
o
� c
E
mnY
en
a
v
`)
C a)
E
.o m
U)
L:16 a)
N
O
NT
o
•V
C
cN6
c
O
rn
A
21m
C
C
C a)
C .m
0
V
[ifl ft'•
,� Y
C N
C
C U) Q
•ta
a)
(a (a
N a)
•'�
- v-
0
'+
O
Ha
a) c
m
o
E
o
o�
c= o
O
c) o
c.
_
coi C
a) C O
E�a
C`
oa)
C
o
N p 0
0-
T
o
E O
mt�
y=-+ L
a)E
-c:
C
s1 r � ,
c'!%"
ca
E
-ca
U
a
•iq
a
N
ac
-
S'
U
(a E
w
Ia
C >, a)
CL
E
CL
U
`
0)
--
ca
irde:'9
a) C
(n U
C
rn
C
�-
a
o o
a n
(n o-
— to
c
m
m
a)
(a
N v- CO
a
a)
cu (a
a)
(a L m
p
0—
O.
" •
-
O
-C
cn
p_
ao•_
cn C
(n _C
O O
�� c
a) a -0
+'
L o
O 6 C
L �o
p m
c
a)
a) iJ
Q
it7t: •Ss�iftt'C'
0
N C "�
� N
(Q'
y=. T ?.
CL
.Q ai.
C T.�
C N
0=
a)
s 0
N L
to
C (6 }
— a)
L
M
—
CC
m m
c p a
O
Cras
— C
-
O C O'
c) m m
0
c
�=rnoa)
Q
Q
c
iNs
Y c
c =
n m
c
U)
Y
� m m
a)C
=m Coe�
.-ao-
op
ccmc-
c
Z.2
W
a)
0c oc
a
Oc
Nffi
m
!i re i� �
^• +
U W
o
45
(a Q
ap)
CP
a)a
a c
cz
N
n n
C
n o
C
a)Qav
a mE
O a)
0
j
a
N
o }.=
U
}rU0
m
o
OO
(6
p U N
o
-
a)
=.
p
C)
—
'=
a)E
c
L�
_
C(a
a
F•- m
f
Z
C 00 =
_—
Q
_
Q N
-C C
f-• �S m
.0 a o
�-' 00
' O
C.i
O p
Z cn
O
Z
Fro Cj1
(0
!
CO
s
N
r
N
t0
to
t`
W
L1
r
r
r
oo
s
CID
00
ao
,
m
w
co
t
00
co
O ca
m
W
0
a
(D
V
m
a
E
tuw
c m
E E
C E
0 p
L U)
C }
W
ca
0W
I
m co
0-
0
CL C'4 U)
o 0 w
0, CE a (D
� CY) E z
46O
0)
0 ca CO
CUD C: :6 E a) u)
co (a a) o) r_
(1) 0 , — C) c 0
C)
0
U_
O)o O)o
0
r- E 0
G E -0 a)
E '6 'n
E o a) E oLL CL
m C) cm Z U)
p> D O> 6
(D
_0
0
a) C) 0
5
a) J) U)
_0 65 a) C
C) CU AL)
CC a) E .2 76 o
0 r- U)
-0
0 r_ 0 0
a) tT (1) C)
0 0 M -0 m a) 0
4-- a) a) c
cn 75 a U) 0 rL,
ca u) cl) WE u) o a) E
CL (D - 0 (D E -0 -a io a) a) - [)�
co 0) O)p 0= " 0 F= go (1) a) of 0 a)
(D L) (1) _0 2 0
(D a > C:
a)
0 t-2- N
ID 0 a) •
0 0 (D LL ca 0 >
E 0 .2 N
U a) u) o a) U) 46 :z= co
0 ca a) z
0 a) M, Co M a) -a -o tp a I
a5i; 0 wo'D
� �E - CL
0 a) a) a)
CL= a) 0 U) � 9 :3 n -
CL 0.0-0 o a (D "a 0) 0) 0 CD -0 .0
a)0 0 C)
0 16 E m > a)
> 0 t-_
w < - 73 a o) n- o r- o EU
a) 0-6 o o a a -ffi o �o 0 n
0 M
C) 0 a 0 0 CO a)
a) a) u) a) 2 a) a) o a a)
-1-0 0=
0 0-- 0
0 _ffi
0Com..,co C)
>, (D > Co 0) (n MU) CL -0 "P m
-0-0 0ca
-' �: 0 2 -- 0 w �i 0 0 0
0 m
:!�' •C: 0) C( 0 - CL tn - " 0
D C: .- a) E >, 0 (D (D
C w n .- - 0-0 :3 0 M
C: (D 0 a) - ca > 0 0 a) 0) Cl
-o a) -r- j= a) - -0 a) -0 0 a) 0
4- 0 E .2 LO
co 0
z a) 0 (D
, co 0
0 a) m m - a) (D 0 E Ca 0 c
0 a) co 0).r- a) A-- U) I-- > D z
U) -0 a) CO J --
C) E ca (1) (1) 0 c 0 0 >' or 0 0 W :t-- 0 0 C'3 0 0
co E a) a)
.0 xs-- a) -s
0 a :E-: ca CO co C - a) o
CV Z 0 - = --a — u) .j -0 CL 0 0 -L 4 > E:5 0 u) u) a
0 a) <E
c 0 0 U
(a 4-: (1) b m a) C: C 0 0 Ca *P EU (n 0
U) F_
>' ca C13 0 �r_ -(a 0
a) a) _0 -Fu a) iz E - m - a) So 21) (1) c: M a)
> C:
NQ
L) a) C)
C: C) -0 E S 0 (1) m co >
'0 <
:3 _0 ca —
A2 c: . (1) (.5 m (D -0 C :3 C:
0)-- 0 n ca a_).2 E cu . I
:3 U) C) a) CL w 0) a w :3
EL E Fn 0 (1) -:7
00
LIJ cz __O �' 0) u) ca U) S: cl) U) c U) ="3 .
vi
0 0) C M O)o (1) ca (1) a) 0- - C -0 �C:
N :3 — 0� w u) O'Ox- 0L m 0 a) 0 (1) m
(1) in - (1) .- - 0 0-
E ca -0 = �: - 0 16 w 0 0 0 0 < 0 0) "
C: U) 0 0) (IS > *r- r) :3 c: E'Ui ID E
Z a3 E Az- r- - fy (o >,"o 0 U) (a
0 M —,5; 0 0- — M 0- r- w :3 o-(-- o jp < _ (1) a)
:5 o 0 0 0-6-0 -0 Ox 0- *.ro-- -w cL•tf .- w E
E13 -0 a) Oo o a) a) i>" cu =3 I En
rz 0 > E a)
> 0 - a) cL ca E En --- .0 -0-
(1) o C'3 ol CO 0) CL_ 0) ca 0) 0 C, -.p 0-01--
0 C: C: -
- , (3) p ry 0 C: 0 0 (n m cu
a) E -0 0 c:
U E - w cG m
a) (D 0 a) co ca If -a
0 0) (D o (D
a) co a) :t-_
0 :3 0 U) c: -c 0 1- (D E a) r- ca -a 0 0)-
r-' E- tn '- = -c- — = c 0 o m
0 n 0 0 o D o 'a E a- c - - =1 D ca a) - m (D -
0 Iz- m co U_ 0- cm 0 C:
m i5- a) 3: E q) E 0.- S__
0 0 En I -n x (1)
ca L) 0) 0) -0 0 E i5 .0 cL tn n'c-
0 0 (1)
0(l) Q) .�= ol -
co co :6 (1) o 0 all
a) m ca 0-0 C :3 r
U) 0)__ c a) a) -a CL C: 0 J_ -
LL (1) L) =3 -6 cf3 'u-) 101) .0
- — - o
(1) 0 n -0 - c (1) (1) . o_ — S_ a) c
ca a) :3 Ca w m E -o 2 o q o
> x_- > a)
0id cu n -0 L6 co - E
En C:
a) Ca a) a) o a)
a) 5 -0 m O` — c C 0 0 0 M LO E
a) a) a)
M co CO M 0 0 0 > > *P .0 U) r
-0
0 a) o co m a) a) E -N�
a) a LD m
0 :6'0 a) C) Z a) - 0
0 a) u)
:3 - a) a) a) J_- ca 0) co 0 t- -0 a) a) 0
'E -0 A cn a)
c-0 - a) a)
'0 0)0- M C " > -a w a).> -0 CL
a) ca E U) D_'- CL.- - �5 U) t-' a) Cl c o) o -Fa r- __ -a
0 0 CD
E - U." O'o W -0 (D > a3 co M
(D �O
- >' C: U) z
> 0 a) a) c m = - c: a) 0 0
0 - co 0) 0 CL -0 0 Ca - _ 0 a) L' , ,
(D , — C U) w 5
U) 0 A-_ 0 ca a) (5c) -0 L) 'E ) cn
U) a) 0 - --r- c W
IZ (a _.U) 2 - w (n CL
0- ca w -o (D - .- "0 a) 2 oj-- 0
C: 0 u) C) .0 p o :3 a) a) co a 0 E
m (D C: Ch V) 0 0 E
5 :3 > M 0
0 �o o E > 0- -0 -
c.) a) D_ E 0 (D a) 76 (D
- o 0 u) L_ -ui 0) 0 ED c E > a) C:
V) u) tn a) q: a) S_ S- 0 D
.03 �p . o Co 0- c o - - -.2 -z' E - a) 0 'o
a) ry-I
t" 0) > co r_ a) E
as w a) 0 :3
> - 0) 0 "Oa) c" c(D- -a a) E u) w
:3 0
ch W CD :1 ;� -�2
=1 § �5 o.D.E -a cL
63 0 m 2 8) E En N. c: u) tn
0 ; 0-1-0 0 p tn. (D Mn a) 2 046 0
:3 GL= D P (D 0� _0 ri) >
0 0 0 0-,2 .2 -0 < ca E :F c)
C) CL as
uj
N c? ZI-I
cz
c6
t ZZ
rA
m
E
E
=3
U)
(D
a)
x
W
0
0
0
0
0 a
:t*!
E
C?
(L
o E
a)
m Fo
co ca
a)
'0
m C:
CD Co
U)
:3 (D
a)
CD a.
C:
L
(D U)
C: :3
0
E 0
a -6
0)
�, a)
a)
>, a)
i-
O)o
C: -
CEO
a)
:3 E
MIMI, V,
E o a)
:t-- C=
C) 0)
C:
'CM
CL
0
E o
CL
E o
o >
a)
w
w
U)
M a
0 6
E
(D
-0 a)
C:
.0 0
01 je
CU a)
CL
o
EU —
OC
W
C)
z
ca
E 0) a)
0 C: LD
0 a)
(n w
C: U)
>
'o a)
=M
F
(D
C U) =
U)
0
ca
U) Q
a)
0)
-0
cL a) U)
=
C-
a) 0) a) (5
0
a)
'0 U)
U)
HE
a 0)(1)
M-W"g-P
U) (1) ::3 C
a)
CL
2
-C- o
>
a) m 'o
C:2:
U)
CL
0)
CD=
0) 0 -;
M -
6
U U) U)
- .-
a)
a) -•X
m -0
-0 Ca cu 0
r-
C: CU c
C.- a)
0 C))
�c .2
a) U)
E co a) a)
Z
a)= (D
CU > U) C 4!
Iz—
.2
-
= E- E
cu -0 ca
0
E
0 C: C:
J o a = =3
cr - a) U)
co �o
CL
.0
> -0 — (D
CU c D
a) 5.
-0
0 (a 0)
CAE
C: z
0
CL �l
a) io-a - ca
co 0
co
x 0--
a)
-
a) (lj
'C7 Yr 0
a)
0) -a c a) C:
Ca
a) '0 ca
a)
0
CIO
co CL
:3
0 Ca
E 10 ca a)
ca C:
t-- E a
0 (D a)
a)
E
o
0 En 0 0
- CL
CM 0-
cn CL E
to 0 0
S
-a.- 0
c L
W
E Z 0
0
a)
0 ul a) ca
'o 0 o
Z�-
0' -0-0
ill O-0
tn CL a)
'ED
0
w
0
0
E �P
- 0
< m
-
a)
CL
C) -.r- 0 =1
o < - :� U)
.0
w
ca
6),-z Co
V) cc Es a)
o- o a)
cc w
4 a) 0
'0 C-
0
ca
r_ .2
U) 0 -
.0
a -0 �3
C: +)
0)- cn
C: 0
a)
I_-
- �P; o cu
'0
CL.
N m E 0
E -0
o)- a) E
=03 ca
a)•p -a
-
(U -0 0-
CL
0
C
0 C)
0
E
C :.D) :3
0- CL
a) o
cz a)
0)
a)
E
.2 LL
c 0 0 �o
(D a) 0)
CU r
a) > E fn
N 0 In
a) a
a)
0-
a) a) E
-0
a) 0- ca C:
04-
=3 a)
0)
co --3 a) m
0- n-
(D tn
E S?
0 0
-0
a) o
>
(D
E
co
a) �o
a) a) c
(D
0
CL p ca
w -0 u)
a)
-0
.2
.0
I-
CL a) cm
- a
:3
CO
-7 L CL— 0
co
cu
0 (D
2- <
-
U) .2 ca cu
a) a)
EL
en aS
0-)
N cd
ZI
a) �o 0
-Ui 0
-j
cu E -0
c 0 U) 'a
0-9.2.OL o
0
- 2
CL
co
o
A c C:
W
E
0 0
-E
(a Ca
s
a) 0
a) 0 tp
ca '0 0
a) a) p
0
:3 0 CL
:3
'a 0 0
lu
-0
E ca
C:
0 -05
CF) a)
a)
cn
m
K- a)
a) 0 U)
a)
-.r ca a)
c C)
0
a) u.cu
(a -C cm-
C:
En
>
-a a)
0 a) 0)
o �5
, .0
o 0 o
- oul 0 o
0 U)
CU
cu
0
ca -
C: 0 0
(a 1p i>,
E �O
CD
a) 0 0-
0 (a
0
0
0
E co
w ` -
co cu
C 0 0
ru a) 'r-
0)
0
A2
U) a)
t
r- 0
:3
:3 (D
0)
Co
0 �O N
0
w
U) t�
U) a) U)
-2 co
0
.0 u) a (D
0) -0
0
> (u U)
0)0)
C) 0)
C a)
0 O. -
-6
.2
.2 Co
-co
0 Co
w j_- -a
- +,5
C) 00
(1) 0
C:
0 0
(1)
0
(1) ai
0
7;� cu
> tfi.a
c r-
a) z
U)
0
Z3 m
.2
a) E a 1�
a) o o
U)
76 a
0--
ca
0-
C) CU a) -0
a) 0 �p C:
L°
"a a (D
c
Q)
m
0 >1 to
E a)
.2 'a.T a)
0
a)
a) tj
r-
C,3
W =3
I-- U)
75 X *7� r-
a) .- a)
CL
a) ca
a)
d) u)
-6 cc p a)
U)
< 0 m
A2 C c:
F- ca m
<
a- 2 a)
L?
co
N
Attachment 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-03 AND ZONE
CHANGE NO. 2007-04 FOR PROPERY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY
30.36 ACRE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON
ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
(ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-
902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001). -
A. —RECITALS
1. On July 1, 2007, the property owner/co-applicant, Walnut Valley School
District, and property owner/co-applicant/lead agency, City of Diamond
Bar, executed a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the 'parties
agreed to collaborate in the planning of the future land use for the
approximately 30.36 -acre parcel property located at the southeast corner
of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard, City of Diamond Bar,
County of Los Angeles, California so that both parties may each advance
their respective objectives for the disposition of the property;
2. The following approvals are requested to the City Council:
(a) General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use
designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C) to
Specific Plan (SP);
(b) Zone Change No. 2007-04 to change the zoning districts from Low
Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to
Specific Plan;
(c) Specific Plan No. 2007-01 to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for the
approximately 30.36 acre site to facilitate the development of a
maximum of 202 residential; 153,985 gross sq. ft. of commercial; and
approximately 8 acres of open space areas, easements, and rights-
of-way;
(d) Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 to establish separate residential,
commercial, and open space parcels; create an internal circulation
system and common open space areas; and establish easements
and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes; and
(e) Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 to
certify the Final EIR, which provides a detailed analysis of potential
environmental impacts associated—with—fh–e—d 'eve Ib_pffie_ff__6ftffe-----
Specific Plan area.
3. In accordance to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Section 15168 et seq., an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
has been prepared for the project which found that the proposed project
may have remaining significant impacts that requires adoption of "Findings
of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations." Per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15090, the EIR is being reviewed concurrently with the
approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 and Zone Change
No. 2007-04 and must be certified by the City Council before project
approval;
4. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 through 15093, a
resolution recommending certification of the EIR, adoption of a mitigation
reporting and monitoring program, and adoption of "Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding, Considerations" to the City Council for the project
is being reviewed by the Planning Commission concurrently with this
resolution;
5. The approval of Specific Plan No. 2007-01 (Site D Specific Plan) that is
being reviewed concurrently with this project, includes a land use plan that
divides the property into three sub -planning areas (Residential,
Commercial, and Open Space/Circulation) and includes standards and
guidelines for future development of the specific plan site;
6. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San,
Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on
April 2, 2010. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners
within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and public notices were
posted at the City's designated community posting sites., In addition to the
published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display
board and the notice was posted at three other locations within the project
vicinity;
7. On April 13 and April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony
from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date;
8. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed General
Plan Amendment and Zone Change represents a consistent, logical,
appropriate and rational land use designation and implementing tool that
furthers the goals and objectives of the City General Plan; and
9. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the
2
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of GPA & ZC)
City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning
Division, 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
B. RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1 The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this'Resolution are true and correct;
2. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the Planning
Commission hereby finds and recommends as follows:
a. City Council approval of.a General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 for
the Site D Specific Plan based on the following finding, as required
by Section 22.70.050 of the Municipal Code and in conformance with
California Government Code Section 65358:
The amendment to the General Plan is internally consistent with the
adopted goals and policies of the City and is in the public interest.
General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 will permit residential and
commercial, rather than public facility, in an area adjacent to an
existing residential and commercial development. The General Plan
Amendment promotes the following:
Land Use Element Vision Statement states: It is the overall goal
of the land use element to ensure that the land uses and
development decisions of Diamond Bar maintain and enhance the
quality of life for its residents. Goal 1 states: Consistent with the
Vision Statement, maintain a mix of land uses which enhance the
quality of life of Diamond Bar residents, providing a balance of
development and preservation of significant open space areas to
assure both economic viability and retention of distinctive natural
features of the community.
The Site D Specific Plan is a mixed use development that
provides quality higher -density residential housing within proximity
to a neighborhood -retail center, and open space. The Site D
Specific Plan also incorporates physical design elements that
reflect the unique topographical characteristics of Diamond Bar
through the creation of a landform grading design that emulates
natural topographic contours and undulations, and incorporates
native woodland species indigenous to the site.
Land Use Element — Goal 2 states: Manage land use with
respect to the location, density and intensity, and quality of
3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of GPA & ZC)
--____ --development. Maintain consistency with the capabilities of the
City and special distrEfiFto —providb- essential –se—rvi-6e–g-"-WhrC4---
achieve sustainable use of environment and manmade resources.
The Site D Specific Plan project is located at the corner of a major
and a secondary arterial in the Diamond Bar area identified by the
City's General Plan as a prime location for mixed-use
development. This Specific Plandocument will guide the build-
out of Site D in a manner which is consistent with City and State
policies and standards and assures that the project is developed
in a coordinated manner.
Land Use Element - Goal 3 states: Maintain recognition within
Diamond Bar and the surrounding regions as being a community
with a well planned and aesthetically pleasing physical
environment.
The Site D Specific Plan is consistent with the needs of the
Diamond Bar community by offering housing and employment
opportunities in an integrated, aesthetically pleasing, mixed-use
development. Additionally, the commercial -retail facilities will
provide service to both residents of the City of Diamond Bar and
surrounding regions.
Land Use Element – Goal 4 states: Encourage long-term and
regional perspectives in local land use decisions, but not at the
expense of the quality of life for Diamond Bar residents.
The Site D Specific Plan sets the precedent for a new and vibrant
mixed-use development in the City of Diamond Bar. Interweaving
higher -density residential housing with a centrally located
commercial -retail center, and open space, will allow Site D to be a
quality mixed-use development that will positively contribute to the
City of Diamond Bar.
Housing Element Vision Statement states: It is the overall goal of
the housing plan that there is adequate housing in the City, both
in quality and quantity, to provide appropriate shelter for all
without discrimination. Goal 1 states: Consistent with the Vision
Statement, preserve and conserve the existing housing stock and
maintain property values and residents' quality of life.
The residential component of the Site D Specific Plan proposes
up to 202 high-quality residential units to help fulfill Diamond Bar's
portion of the region's housing needs. The criteria for residential
developmentincorporate an internal circulation system that is not
reliant on those of the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and
4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of GPA & ZC)
ensure that new residential community will coexist harmoniously
with the adjoining, established neighborhoods.
Housing Element — Goal 2 states: Provide opportunities for
development of suitable housing to meet the diverse needs of
existing and future residents.
The higher -density residential housing of Site D project area
meets the fiscal and culturally diverse needs of both future and
existing City of Diamond Bar residents by offering an alternative
to the predominantly detached single-family residential market
largely found in the City of Diamond Bar.
Housing Element — Goal 5 states: Encourage equal and fair
housing opportunities for all economic segment of the community.
The Site D Specific Plan will provide higher -density residential
uses in the form of attached housing, which can accommodate
various economic segments of the Diamond Bar community and
its residents by supporting the variation in character of the
Diamond Bar housing stock.
Resource Management Element Vision Statement states: It is the
overall goal of the resource management element to provide and
maintain adequate open spaces in the City to serve the diverse
recreational needs of its residents, while fostering the wise use of
limited natural resources. Goal 1 states: Create and maintain an
open space system which will preserve scenic beauty, protect
important biological resources, provide open space for outdoor
recreation and the enjoyment of nature, conserve natural
resources, and protect public health and safety.
The Site D Specific Plan preserves approximately 8.0 acres of
30.36 acres as open space, which includes vegetated slopes,
residential amenities, and pedestrian pathways.
Public Health and Safety Element Vision Statement states: It is
the overall goal of the plan to provide a safe and healthy
environment for the residents of Diamond Bar. Goal 1 states:
Create a secure public environment which minimizes potential
loss of life and property damage, as well as social, economic, or
environmental disruption resulting from natural and manmade
disasters.
The Site D Specific Plan will provide a safe and secure
environment for City residents by promoting the policies and
ideals particular to the City of Diamond Bar. Specific standards
5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of GPA & ZC)
are included in the Site D Specific Plan regulating development
wiffififf-the -project area, --wKich�will-minimize--Votential-l-ass-of-life--
and property damage. Additionally, each stage of development
permitted by this Specific Plan will adequately provide vehicular
access, public facilities, and infrastructure for public health and
safety.
Circulation Element Vision Statement states: It is the overall goal
of the plan to provide a safe, adequate and environmentally
sensitive transportation system to meet the circulation needs of
the citizens of Diamond Bar. Goal 1 states: Enhance the
environment of the City's street network. Work toward improving
the problems presented by intrusion of regionally oriented
commuter traffic through the City and into residential
neighborhoods. Consider programs to reinforce the regional
transportation and circulation system to adequately accommodate
regional needs.
The Site D Specific Plan's improvement of interior roadways and
circulation will ensure safe, direct, and convenient vehicular and
pedestrian access to and through the project's various land uses.
Because the site is bordered by existing and improved roadways
(Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road), no major
exterior roadway modifications will be developed by this Specific
Plan. To the extent possible, existing lane configurations and
right-of-way improvements on exterior project roadways will be
retained. However, minor landscape and parkway improvements
shall be provided along these roadways as well as additional
strategically placed entrances, which will make Site D project area
an easily accessible location for residents of the City of Diamond
Bar.
Circulation Element - Goal 2 states: Provide a balanced
transportation system for the safe and efficient movement of
people, goods, and services through the City.
The Site D Specific Plan will contain a strong internal circulation
network that will serve to provide direct and efficient access to the
site. While the automobile Will be the predominant form of travel,
the Site D Specific Plan recognizes the importance of alternative
modes of transportation. A convenient and easily accessible
transit system becomes an essential element of a mixed-use
development such as Site D. Bus stops are located adjacent to
Site D and facilitate alternative modes of transportation. Transit is
expected to be provided by the Metropolitan Transit Authority
(MTA), Foothill Transit, and the City's fixed -route transportation
system.
R
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of GPA & ZC)
Circulation Element — Goal 3 states: Maintain an adequate level
of service on area roadways.
The Environmental Impact Report associated with the
development of the Site D Specific Plan includes an analysis of
project area roadways and existing and build -out levels of service.
Appropriate mitigation measures shall be provided if area
roadways are found to be operating under the required level of
service as a result of the Site D development.
Circulation Element — Goal 4 states: Provide or regulate the
provision of the supply of parking to. meeting the needs for both
residents and commercial businesses.
The Site D Specific Plan mixed-use development will be
consistent with Chapter 22.30, Off -Street Parking of the Diamond
Bar Municipal Code.
Public Services and Facilities Element Vision Statement states: It
is the overall goal of the plan that the City acquire and maintain
adequate resources to meet the needs of its resident. Goal 1
states: Provide adequate infrastructure facilities and public
services to support development and planned growth.
Public services and utilities, including water, sewer, gas,
electricity, telephone, and cable will be extended into the Specific
Plan area to support the Site D development.
Public Services and Facilities Element — Goal 2 states: Achieve a
fiscally solvent, financially stable community.
The Site D Specific Plan area will contain a high-quality, mixed-
use development, composed of commercial -retail, higher -density
residential, and open space land uses. The provision of
residential uses on-site creates an immediate market for retail and
service uses, thereby enhancing the potential for establishing a
successful mixed-use master planned development. Additionally,
Site D Specific Plan will provide housing and job opportunities to
the City of Diamond Bar residents, which will generate property
and sales taxes that can be used for improvement of public
services and facilities. Due to the project's convenient location
and site planning, Site D presents an economically viable plan
that is good for the City of Diamond Bar and its residents.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with all of
these goals. Therefore, the General Plan Amendment is consistent
with City policies and is in the public interest;
7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of GPA & ZC)
b. City Council approval of Zone Change No. 2007-04 for the Site D
------ ---Specific-Plan-based-on-tha-following---find-ing,--as.--required--bySection
—
22.70.050 of the Municipal Code and in, conformance with California
Government Code Sections 65853 and 65860:
The amendment to the Zoning Map is internally consistent with the
General Plan and the adopted goals and policies of the City. The
Zoning Map does not presently reflect the General Plan designation
for the property. Zone Change No. 2007-04 will place the City's
Zoning Map in conformance with the General Plan by designating the
Property as SP (Specific Plan), with sub -areas corresponding to
those in the Site D Specific Plan. The existing approximate 30.36
acres located at the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and
Diamond Bar Boulevard (Assessors Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900,
8714-002-9011 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903, and 8714-015-001)
shall have a zoning designation of SP — Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail,'to:
Walnut Valley Unified School District, 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut,
CA 91789.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF APRIL 2010, BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Tony Torng, Chairman
1, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 27th' day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
8
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of GPA & ZC)
ATTEST:
Greg Gubman, Secretary
9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of GPA & ZC)
Attachment 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX
it 1 •' s' • • 1 � 1. " •. � : i`.I
• ; '� ',�' : • 1. , •, ':i ` 'i' .•. ,. :- 1 1. ♦ ` '. '• ., i •. J , � .1.. ,,.
1. On July 1, 2007, the property owner/co-applicant, Walnut Valley School
District, and property owner/co-applicant/lead agency, City of Diamond
Bar, executed a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the parties
agreed tocollaborate in the planning of the future land use for the
approximately 30.36 -acre parcel property located at the southeast corner
of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard, City of Diamond Bar,
County of Los Angeles, California so that both parties may each advance
their respective objectives for the disposition of the property;
2. The Application is being reviewed by the Planning Commission
concurrently with General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03, Zone Change
No. 2007-04, and Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-02 (SCH No.
2008021014);
3. In accordance to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Section 15168 et seq., an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
has been prepared for the project which found that the proposed project
may have remaining significant impacts that requires adoption of "Findings
of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations." Per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15090, the EIR is being reviewed concurrently with the
approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 and Zone Change
No. 2007-04 and must be certified by the City Council before project
approval;
4. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 through 15093, a
resolution recommending certification of the EIR, adoption of a mitigation
reporting and monitoring program, and adoption of "Findings of Facts and
Statement of Overriding Considerations to the City Council for the project
is being reviewed by the Planning Commission concurrently with this
resolution;
approval of Specific, Plan No. 2007-01 (Site D Specific Plan) that is
being reviewed concurrently with this application, includes a land use plan
that divides the property into three sub -planning areas (Residential,
Commercial, and Open Space/Circulation) and includes standards and
guidelines for future development of the specific plan site;
6. The following approvals are requested to the City Council:
(a) General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use
designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C) to
Specific Plan (SP);
(b) Zone Change No. 2007-04 to change the zoning districts from Low
Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to
Specific Plan;
(c) Specific Plan No. 2007-01 to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for the
approximately 30.36 acre site to facilitate the development of a
maximum of 202 residential; 153,985 gross sq. ft. of commercial; and
approximately 8 acres of open space areas, easements, and rights-
of-way;
(d) Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 to establish separate residential,
commercial, and open space parcels; create an internal circulation
system and common open space areas; and establish easements
and other right-of-way for utility and other purposes; and
(e) Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 to
certify the Final EIR, which provides a detailed analysis of potential
environmental impacts associated with the development of the
Specific Plan area.
7. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley.Daily Bulletin newspapers on
April 2, 2010. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners
within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and public notices were
posted at the City's designated community posting sites. In addition to the
published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display
board and the notice was posted at three other locations within the project
vicinity;
8. On April 13 and April 27, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony
from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date;
and
K
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of TTM and SP)
9. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the
City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning
Division, 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1 The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct;
2. In accordance to the, provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), Section 15.168 et seq., an*.'En*viron mental Impact Report (EIR)
has been prepared for the project which found that the proposed project
may have remaining significant impacts that requires adoption of "Findings
of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations." Per CEQA
Guidelines Section 15090, the EIR is being reviewed concurrently with the
approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 and Zone Change
No. 2007-04 and must be certified by the City Council before project
approval;
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that,
having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth
below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into
and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application,
there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project
proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life
resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon
substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the
presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations;
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the Planning
Commission hereby finds and recommends as follows:
a. The Site D Specific Plan is to allow vacant land comprised of
approximately 30.36 acres located at the southeast corner of Brea
Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard (Assessors Parcel Number
8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-
015-001) with 202 residential dwelling units; 153,985 gross sq. ft. of
commercial use; and approximately 8 acres of open space areas,
easements, and rights-of-way;
b. The current General Plan land use designations for the site include
Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C). General Plan
3
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of TTM and SP)
Amendment No.. 2007-03 being considered concurrently with this
—appH.cati.an-pr-op.o.ses-tQ-c.b.ang.e-f h�e-land-u.s.e-de.si.g,rjati.o.n--fo-r-th.e-site-to---..
Specific Plan. With approval of the General Plan Amendment, the
Application will be consistent with the General Plan land use
designation;
c. The project site is within the Low Density Residential (RL) and
Neighborhood Commercial (C-1). Zone Change No. 2007-04 is being
reviewed concurrently with the Application that requests that the City
Council approve the zone change from the current zoning to Specific
Plan for General Plan compliance;
d. The project site is generally surrounded by single-family homes to the
north, south, and west, and a gas station and professional office
buildings to the east. The site is bordered on the north by Diamond
Bar Boulevard, and Brea Canyon Road to the west. The Brea Canyon
Flood Control Channel runs roughly parallel to Brea Canyon Road and
cuts through the western portion of the property.
e. The application involves a request for the following: Adoption of the
Site D Specific Plan for development of the site with 202 residential
dwelling units; 153,985 gross sq. ft. of commercial use; and
approximately 8 acres of open space areas, easements, and rights-of-
way.
Tentative Map Findings: Pursuant to Subdivision Code Section 21.20.080
of the City's Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council. make the following findings:
f. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design
and improvement, is consistent with the general plan and any
applicable specific plan;
The proposed project involves the subdivision of the site with 202
residential units, 153,985 gross sq. ft. of commercial use; and
approximately 8 acres of open space areas, easements, and rights -of -
ways. The General Plan land use designations for the site include
Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C). General Plan
Amendment No. 2007-03 being considered concurrently with this
application proposes to change the land use designation for the site to
Specific Plan. With approval of the General Plan Amendment, the
Application will be consistent with the. General Plan land use
designation.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the concurrently proposed
Site D Specific Plan document, as conditioned.
4
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of TTM and SP)
g. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of
development;
The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the amended General
Plan land use designation that is being considered concurrently with
the application. The proposed land use designation will be Specific
Plan that will allow for the development of 202 residential dwelling
units, 153,985 gross sq. ft. of commercial use; and approximately 8
acres of open space areas, easements, and rights-of-way. The
buildings will have minimum setbacks requiring 15 feet from Diamond
Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road, 85 feet from the southerly
property line (which abut residential), and 30 feet from the easterly
edge. Visual analysis was performed to understand how the building
massing of both commercial and residential would look from the street.
This analysis led the City to expand some of the building setbacks.
Additionally, the EIR prepared for TTM No. 70687 reviewed the map's
suitability for the project site, access, circulation, grading, aesthetics,
land use, etc. The review concluded that the proposed subdivision
would not have a significant effect on the environment and/or with the
incorporation of mitigation measures would be reduced to a level of
less than significant.
h. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not
cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat;
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Section 15168 et seq., and Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) has been prepared for the application and found that the
proposed project may have remaining significant impact that requires
the adoption of "Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding
Considerations." Per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090, the EIR is
being reviewed concurrently with the Application and will be certified by
the City Council before Application approval.
L The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause
serious public health or safety problems;
The proposed subdivision will create three elevated building pads (one
commercial and two residential). The grading will be constructed,
operated, and maintained in accordance with the recommendations
contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation to assure that
geotechnical stability is maintained or increased. Detailed drainage
and hydrology studies will be completed, including the potential for
debris flows, and the proposed conditions and mitigation measures will
likely prevent any significant increases in erosion and flood hazards.
5
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of TTM and SP)
The development will also have traffic improvements to mitigate
conditions and cumulative traffic impacts,
j. 'The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or
use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
The site does not have any access easements on-site.
k. The discharge of sewage from the proposed subdivision into the
community sewer -system would not result in violation of existing
requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board;
The proposed subdivision has been analyzed under the Environmental
Impact Report and was not found to violate any requirement of the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. To reduce water
quality impacts to a level less than significant, the proposed
subdivision is required to comply with mitigation measures that include
compliance with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Federal Clean Water Act, and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program, implementing construction -
related Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Standard Urban
Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) criteria. With project design
features related to the storm drain system, conditions of approval and
mitigation measures, potentially significant water quality impacts would
be reduced to a levels less than significant.
I. A preliminary soils report or geologic hazard report does not indicate
adverse soil or geologic conditions; and
The grading will be constructed, operated, and maintained in
accordance with the recommendations contained in the preliminary
geotechnical investigation to assure that geotechnical stability is
maintained or increased.
m. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable provisions of
the City's subdivision ordinance, the development code, and the
subdivision map act.
The proposed subdivision is consistent with the concurrently proposed
Site D Specific Plan and will be required to comply with the City's
subdivision ordinance, subdivision map act, and applicable
development code.
Specific Plan Findings: Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.60 of
the City's Municipal Code and California Government Code Section
65451, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council make
6
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of TTM and SP)
the following findings:
n. Shows the distribution, location and extent of the land uses proposed
within the area covered by the specific plan, including open space
areas;
The Site D Specific Plan document contains plans showing the
distribution, location and extent of the uses of land, including open
space areas.
o. Shows the proposed distribution, location, extent and intensity of major
components of public and private drainage, energy, sewage, solid
waste disposal, circulation/transportation,. water and other essential
facilitieg'pr'oposed to be located within the specific plan area and
needed to support the proposed land uses;
The Site D Specific Plan includes the proposed distribution, location,
extent and intensity of major components of public and private
transportation and all other essential facilities will be reviewed upon
submittal of a development proposal.
p. Includes standards, criteria and guidelines by which development will
proceed, and standards for conservation, development and utilization
of natural resources, where applicable;
The Site D Specific Plan includes standards, criteria and guidelines by
which development will proceed, and standards for conservation,
development and utilization of natural resources.
q. Includes a program of implementation measures, including regulations,
programs, public works and financing measures necessary to carry out
the proposed land uses, . infrastructure and development and
conservation standards and criteria; and
The Site D Specific Plan includes a program of implementation
measures, including regulations necessary to carry out the proposed
land uses, infrastructure and development and conservation standards
and criteria.
r. Includes a discussion of the relationship of the specific plan to the
general plan.
The Site D Specific Plan includes a statement attesting to the
consistency of the specific plan with the City's General Plan.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the Planning
Commission hereby finds and recommends that the City Council approve
Specific Plan No. 2007-01 and Tentative Tract Map No. 70687, subject to
7
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of TTM and SP)
the following conditions, the attached Conditions of Approval and the
Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program:
1. This approval for Site D Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No.
70687 shall be null and void and of no effect unless the EIR (SCH
#2008021014) is certified, the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring
Program, Facts and Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations are adopted, and General Plan Amendment -No.
2007-03 and Zone Change No. 2007-04 are approved;
2. The development shall comply with the Mitigation Reporting and
Monitoring Program for EIR (SCH #2008021014). A copy is
attached hereto and referenced herein; and
3. The development' shall comply with the Conditions of
Approval/Performance Standards in the Site D Specific Plan. A
copy is attached hereto and referenced herein.
b. TENTATIVE TRACT CONDITIONS
1. The development shall provide parcels, easements or rights-of-way
for streets, water supply and distribution systems, sewage disposal
systems, storm drainage facilities, solid waste disposal and public
utilities providing electric, gas and communications services;
2. The development shall mitigate or eliminate environmental
problems identified through the environmental review process,
except where a statement of overriding considerations has been
adopted in compliance with CEQA;
3. The development shall, carry out the specific requirements of
Chapter 21.30 (Subdivision Design and Improvement
Requirements) and Chapter 21.34 (Improvement Plans and
Agreements) of the Subdivision Ordinance;
4. The development shall secure compliance with the requirements of
the Subdivision Ordinance and the general plan;
5. Any designated remainder parcels shall not be subsequently sold
or further subdivided unless a certificate or conditional certificate of
compliance (Chapter 21.28) is obtained in compliance with the
Subdivision Ordinance;
6. The development shall dedicate additional land for bicycle paths,
and local transit facilities (including bus turnouts, benches, shelters,
8
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of TTM and SP)
etc.), in compliance with subdivision map act chapter 4, article 3,
where required by the general plan; and
7. The tentative tract map shall be modified to be consistent with the
land use plan adopted as part of the Specific Plan.
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to:
Walnut Valley Unified School District, 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut,
CA 91789.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th 'DAY OF APRIL 2010, BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
No
Tony Torng, Chairman
1, Greg Gubman, Planning . Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 27th day of April, 2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
ATTEST:
Greg Gubman, Secretary
9
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of TTM and SP)
0 ui
LID
0
(D --a)
4c -
; 6
ci-
0 C:,
-0 0 0
M
-S---
a) -
U) r-
w (a a)
=
c C%j
.2 (D
�o - -
Co >' CL 70
a) c
CL
CL
CL
3:
Z;
Eli
r- >
U) -0 - CO
- a)
t(D
<
:3
CL a)
<
a)
z
to
C
CL EU a)
0 0)
— a
a) U)
Co (a
0.(1)
Q) (L) -
I_-
a)
(1)
L
�o
L)
a
Cc: 2 =-3r-
0
-0
.7
cn
Cu
0)
a)
it -?�'
0 L)
- CL r
0) - as
�2 -
0 m 0 U)
E r_ c
a)
CID
'2 o a)
-
>
2
-
to cc r_
CO a)
0 a) m 0
m - 0)
=
w -r-
W 0
E
2
U) CL
O
.c
a) u) r- E
cd ca
N CL W "a
Q(6
C:
0) 03 0 S)
Y'
r-
a) 0
a) Q c
CIO <
IX) (D cn 0
M -0
CL -6
r— a) (D
'0 a
Co Cy
- a)
jIU
M"D
C--
r >
U) a
L.� _a .(D E
(D
(a
- Mn
O)o
(a Of
O
0 M
ccj (D
C:
a) S2
ca 0. a)
a)
w a)
.>
a)
c a)
a)
a E CD C"
:B -
o 0
0 n -
"
N a)
E
CY) ac):
< E 0
a a 0
r- cn = --
LU ca I- Eu
(a 0
a) - U)
0
C?- c
a 0
lye 1:
0
0 4i-
cu "o a)
to
w a q)
0) (o 75 'D
c U) -0
'E
L) (L) U)
C: C.) L) CO
M -0 L)
—
CU
AD
J4t3
'0
a)
a) in
a) w a)
a) a) c:
-j E - U-)
iE (L) M
a)
00-10--
CL* a)
:3 0 M -a
cn
>
p:
'T.ilm4t
0
Q-
C) o :R
CIL
o
(a
0
.2
0
-o'O - -
(D
a)
" - 0 0
a) a)
U) 0
(1) LL 0 M
C:
C14 - o c
0 ca
ca 0 -
0- 0
c
M E
a)
q cu
U)
'o
0
FL cr ca
N
-0 0 :t! CIJ
0 c: M
a)
a3:
c:
0
ca
0 U) m
a)
En
m 0
a) E
(D V)
. E -a
0 E
.2 >
w
Al; 1.
0
0
LD
CL
a) co
0 CO (D
X rn 0
46
cu
CL c I, CL
W a O)o
0- C.) 0
0
Z' o
C) U)
O
0
'6 a)
I,
a) �:'
c a-
a)
0 M .0
'0
En E -F, m
E
a)
Co
uj
M 0
c
(D co 0
U) - CL
CL
C: 70 0
E a) u)
�' a c "
a) a 0 0 0
:t:
:?
_a
a) m m
- -2 c:
CIO
I= o
-0
ca *0 -
cu a)
o >
c o Cr
a) - a)
w :D
0
a)
a)
•r- a) E (D
(n --6
a) 0)
-OD U)
(a 0
E c: a)
0� a) C:
w
C13
a) Ez >
*— (D
0 w w
.--75 —
-1 0) (n
ca CU e r- m
0
- -
0 C: 0)
-5 t:f r-
(D '0
Ce) LL
(n E E
ca C
0 -0
W
o
U) -a A=:
- L)
0 a)
0) E
In 0 CO
a)
> CID W OL
a)
02
U)
C
In
a) ca
0
oro 'D
LID
CL
0
0
a) 5)
0- U;
D Ca
Ern (D
-) -
Q) 0
(D
0)
a) z
(a 6
a)
ca
E &-
-(J)
a) rz m
a) w u -
Q) a)
0-
a) U)
0
1. ,,, c'
'6 <
a) :3 >
*
-D
a
c: < 8
' - a) a)
- ) u) E
> -- r- a)
p co U)
— =3
0
-0 (D a)
Cj
r
ca
a) Cl
Cl
E uo) —c
=1
a) 0 a)
=
Q)
CU
(D
0 a)
u) (D
0 75 a) C 5-
a)
a) w > -
Co Cd
rn 6
0 ij
M
a) r- 0
0 .2 1,
r- -E
J-- a) 0 0-
E
o
1qI;V*'q"--'
a)
(D (a
=1 '0 0 0
cc IM -0
0 = 0-0
0 c:
a) :5:
_r_ 0
w E
M :3 -
-0
a) - Co
E
IM <
Ul)
0 CL
0o
0
7U:t-- a)
o r
(n - U)
c >, co a) u)
o '0 U) n a
< a) a) E
c, E In
M 0 CL
C�
0
0 m
0 :3 (D U) 0
cL
a) 0
0-
U)
a) 0
r- - C:
0 w
a) 0 ca a)
a) ul
a)
a) (D 0
C:
r- Q) :3
0
— c
0.-
M -
CL
M o c
(a
"a
E ca 0 E c
0 a) u)
>1
E E 0 ch -
N
"z E
- oro
E
a)
0 =3
fn
(1) a) c
0 o
-
'0
0— 4-� V)
0
o ca
a) a) �C
- C
:3 0
a) C) :r-
CL cr
E o
U)
E-
'C)
CL CL
m ca
cu
<
(D
r- (D
O:e
M -
0
(D z, a) w :3
"a -C U)
cr, Ca
-
0) U) a) 1- (D
-0
0 >
a) c--
-0
(D
rn a)
0- <
a) a)
ca 0 ::t, ca
n -0 r- E
> 0
0
L)
a) a)
'a
ca
a) cp CL
'i3LIF"v",
0 a)
C J-:
2 a)
1-- - V)
(a U)
C
a)
16 c-
En --o
a a) 2
a) 01
CU) C
0 (a
0-
c
o a)
a E C'
•U)
U) 0-
cL!!=
CO
o
0 a) •:2 0
Im.c 4� 0 75
0
cu
T� .4 o -Fu
0) E a)
-6 2 E
ca -
0) Z3
W 0-
(D 0
(D 0
r-
(� 0
o 'E
S� (a fn
-0-0
cm - >
-c E p
[2
0
E 0
a)
.0 U3
'o 0
C:
-
M 0 c
J-_ 0
-0 -'a *:E
C: --0 1
M -
73 a) a
in.
O)o 0
0 -6
0
'0
=1 0.-
0 03
-co --
a) U)
cu (D E - -0
U)
0) 0 a) co
0 G E
f'j-
c: a)
ca >
-0
C ca
L-
> :3
o 0
> w c
M -r- 0
,
M
a)
0 w
a) 2 cn
0 M
(D
Im :t--
c CO
0
a) (n
,If.
.7i
0 cf)
U)
U) CO
() D- �o
.
(D -0 ca
0--o CL
N
0 c C:
C: U) (n
M
0
(D 0
L) Z)
r -
a.
(D a)
>
m
CL
co j- 0
a)
-a w c E
E
0 UJ 0
-0
. :!.:!
'6
-
C: 0
- C
(1) C) 0 Q)
- a) Cc - 0
U) 0 IM
-
0
0
D M -ffi :
0)
0 C) C:
U)
(D
cu
";t:
a)
CO
ca
:P CL
a)
0
-0
0
a
7C3 -0
C: 'E
0 0) —
CL (1)
U)
CL 0
c 0 E
D a) Ca
0
(D
E a) E
0)
2
M:6
0-0 V)
E
0
;1ITIZLY61
-0
r-
In
u) a)
a) >
—C
< (D
0 US C)
4
ca
:fR -0 a)
rn
Im o
=3 ca 6-
0
0
2 E
0 a) 0
0
-0
0 0
E
0
0= 0
0)
E
CU(
CIS
6
-0
-r 0 Q-
o
0 t�
_C --o
U- —N cq
-a
11-6 E
F M
(D
0 a) "0
2 CD
>'
-r- ca (D
r- > a)
0 - >
- :t-, a)
0 -
0
o "o
CL E 0
0
41
1?
Nco
C0
(b
W
co
En a)
co
0 C: a)
0 0 0) 0
C:
ca ip -0 0.- 0 ca
0 > a) ca
cn En a) E
in -0 (D r- CO 0 (D 0 in CL
L. a) -a) c o o a a) E 0
cl) a) (a co 0 E N a) (D 0 o 0
U) 0 0 a) Ca a) r 0- U) (D r a)
u) a)
0 0)0-0 a) a) E 0 0 --z a) a)
4--: (D E ca a) ca
0
0
N
0
E (LD
a, �o
�C,
M:L-- ca -rz
1_5
0
20 9 E
FF
a) a 0 0 0 C 0- o-, U) 0 U) C: c to �o .0 CL (a
r_ r "
--y CD - a) co
a) 0 D� O. co a) -0 a) a) o tm 0 0 M in
ca - a) E w r -
a) a) E E CL a) in 0
-a a>) —.0 cis in r-
-r- a) co U) a a) U C 0) r_ a)
0r- — LL (D 0 r- , a) :P cL = a) 5 S -0 0 -
ca a) Co a) U)
a) p E o 0 -a— o w o N`
0
0
a) (D r- 0 > 0
-C a) Q�) Er-
a r 0- _. 2
cn E-< C: ca 0- a w E .0
CU) .0 0) cn a) u) r
=3 , a) U) (D CU U) r- a) a a 0
N 5 c a) E :5 (D E -0 -0 a) E
ca a) C: 0-0
- - a) E - 0
- -t - r U) 0 - -.0 0 0
Q) Q- �5- _a E
ca m p -0- 0� 0
co ca S-- E ::3 o 0 in
E'o E ca a) E ca 1.2 (D L) -0 D- E
o = a) 0-0 0) 0
C-) — o .r- -0 0),tm " — - 0
U,
-0 a) cu 0 U? c -C a) r 0
a) �o (an) �o C" 0 a) En a) 0 Co (D c: --
CL U) CL 0
o r- C0
Co r (1) : a) 0 0 u 0
(1) C) o 16 E :6 C-) L) U
0 :3 0 C= q Co a)
L) 0 0 0 a) U)
x- t9 .a -0 -a 0 (a a 0
a) a) 0 (1) (L) U) — -
- (i) p) a) 0 ca o
-o E a) La �o U) C n. = 'r,
'D (1) - a) a) 0.0) w a) - a) 0 M
J- m 0 c ca a) r
CL C3 m cu -a
ta.
o a) b E C)
2 J- :1 a) a) E a) :3 m a) m
u) p. a) CL r-
0 < (a U)
.0 -0 b a) u
-QCAaEo
0 - :Ei Z3 '6 :5 E E
En 0 D a = -'0 '0 CU - r- a) (n (D CL r- (D
a) >,
E E s-
> in o Co a) -�6 a) _0 0 m C 0
rn o 'o cn S-- C) -0 = - 0 o C: m '6 D)o
th 0 EU
m r = 0 - - a) E cL co a.)
_0 r- c E - - :5 0 ca (D Z3 r- (M 0 C:
= 015 a) 0 D•M M a) j- r- in a) u) cn o 0 (D m
U)
c t�
m E c: a) a) r En .2
> 0 0 cn a) q) O)o O�
D j- — , >— 2--
L _ 0� a) 0 r- M .0 C) co m a) 0) ca C)
�j < E
0 0 > - 0 C13 0 D)o
a) a) 0 C C: -
ca o CU U D 0) - 0— U)
0 Co U) 'a 0 — — 0 CL r- o U) o U) :I-- a) o
0 0 c -a U, ca m
CL Co Co 0) > (1) - 0 'o (13-0 U, > co L) a) a)
:i- cu Ca r -0
L) ca a) - a) -0 - c: a) - 0 0-0 0
H = o c cam. ,x to o > Z.) a) >, 0) - S- C:
0 0-24- E 0 0 > cr-a - o- =0
CL C n M = -
G) :3 t)- a) -Q u) E 0 CL -0
L)co -= a) E a) '�--
2-, -r- o a) 0 W - 0 c - (D
a) < CO a) w CL M 0 0 N a) �o a) u) a) ot� 0 :3 a) E
O
16 b �5 a) ca a) a) 07 N 0
a) CL CL'uj U) C: 0 (D a) 0
Z5 C: o a U) 0 - = 0
E .6 z-- o �H 0
ca m ca -co co 0 C C -0 J_ -
a) E o) rn - :3 a) c-: a) cu m -0 a) E:5 c: 0 M C
0 a) C� a) -a 0 c C CL w m - - V) -
12 a) -o (D ai 15 E 0 'a -Lo- --
U) co a) Co E o) a) r -0 = w E I
a) a) ?r CL m U) m (D
M 0 a) -0 c) �� rl a) :3 in 0) o
0
E E w 6 :3 0 a) m ch a) (D 0 a) 0O
-
co = cu
U- E a) -- --
U) (D > a) . a) r c" o a) 0 n.
N a) Co Co > Co 0 ul
0- C: C, - =
o 2 i6 (n ca a) u)
0 in 5 Do tu 0
W 0) E -E 0
03 cy , U) - ca)= W u
4' C. c6 Y) a) u) o c �a CL a)
ro a) co u)
U) W
a) a) o -c�- a) -- - - I = '
-0 ca (D C: C :,- co -0 cn C: 0
z TD 0 En
- 0 m 0.0 .0
W C0 (D :3 4(- FE �a)
0 0.2 U, Ca :3,= Q a)
(D E c: I in U; M M En C— 0 U) 0�
a) C.) a) (D cL E 0 3: (D a) a)
U) U) w .- = c:
N o) 0 u) :5 - a) -q- - - 0 0
��; 0 r -
ca E a) (D -c- ir-, a) -0 in 6 a)
-a < �o E :3 Co 0 -r dam - 0
J U) C: -a c: 0 -
CL E C, a) w cu 0 w
r C: 0) Q) Co M U) cm a- 0 - I
co (D c: a) E P (D u) - E
a) ca
- 0)- C: r- a) c-- E,O u) E IP 1 0 E - o
z 0 -0 :t-- (a CU 0 0
a) r- In D 0 cz a) D- in
(D -0 E .2 cou- a) cn in a) a) o (0 a) cL a) in E 0 U)
-a a) a) -co (D 0 C: CU U)
a) -0) m a) -c) E'O
-0 c
co (a --r- CL 0) 0 (L > a) U)
(1) C: in H-2 U) 0 - 0-
0�- 0 m (D - 0 > 0 ca a) cL
a) cq.U) < -1 C-4 C: 0-0 :t-- 0� V) M - ia.:) -i H -k
M - -LL 0 0 E cu L) C)
w (D u) o)=- r- E -o 0- m cl- >, ;-- V)
CL- C) . - :3 0 M (D C: - En a) 0
0� 0 — C: (a (D 0-
iu - w 0 C: 0 0 -.p- CL co E m -o u) r- a) 0) ---a (Cn , 0- -0 a) E >0
(D -E :3 0 0- (1) 1-- a) o
M a) U) C: CL U) - 0-
_0 (1) c < 'o - (1)
J-- > (D 0) 0 0 0 M 0— o (D
-o a) �5- ch E � - a) -�= a) c) 0 E o 0- D I U) 0 -
P a) in CL D -J-- :3 �;5 - w a) EQ0o0 0)
-- cy 0 0 0 0)- 0 0 0 W 0 >, CU
CL LL co a) E E (D ac) 0 - 0 0- OE)
C:
(D D_- in 0- m '0 -,t m a) In L > - E -- co C) v) a) 0
-0 0) M a) 0 0-0 �5 in C: M 0 a -0 Co
0 a) cu 0) r U) a) a) o
(D r- - U) L) a) m a) 0 u) E
:3 , a) x- C: -- 0 �5; 0 0) in U) E
,T 0) (D V) CL (D - 0 w m 0 E > c:
- -r- !� a) c a) 0
rz Co 0 a> a) M to a) J- X
C: 0) - 0
E 0 - C-)
.0 -0 �: -a a)
cz a) CL O� * CL- r- --15 - (D �: (6
C) < o oL a) a) - (D C13 >
C) 0) En 0
0 0 a) a) -r- a) = a) 0 co
L) 0 0 0 CL co - a) ca U)
o -s-- C. Lo -0 -0 -r- (D
N -j -t E E a) L) a) EL w a) U)
F- 0--- Co F- cl L) in
C) Cf) (D
a) E .0 0 0 a) -0 r -
a) (a a) o 0 in a)
U) 0 0) a) -0 a) 'in- u) s_ -
u in cu --- o a) a) 3: a) . > m :3 in a) :03- 00
>
C7 a) a) u) cL - z- 0)0 ca o o 0 M
0 0 C,) CL C) CL CL :3 — a) m a)
0 - in a)
0 U) 0
a)
U) co 0-0 -0 0
E :3 En w 0 a) 0) -a) c: -c a) C: (D
— , co a) 1
a) u) E -- m E U) :1 Q- = (D - a) LO E in 0 ca 0)
IU to -12 > 0 a) C: 0,-
-0 a) 0
0
co
0 0-o C: > c a) o -0-0 L) cu
O 1: a) 76 =3 0 (D
L) co 0) U)
0 a) 15 '6 :, o a) o
-0 cu =;
'2 2 a) a a) 0 D)S-- 2 a a) -
a 0 r- a) oc E 0 E 0- D m
23 , �5
c < cl. a)
a) -0-0 1p EL (D C: _0
C) > U) �i= �E c=a 0 -
o 0 0 'FZ (D Wo �E5 M -r- E -Z5 a) 0
o 0= n 0 76 2 m c U-
0 -R3 in (D a) 0 -0 0 0) 0 :3 0 C:
a) 0 as
T, 2G w F- CL m 0 E -o B� E C13 0 < 0 c M m ow Cc) C E
C?
Lo Lo
0
- -ji
iz - W
0
= "a a)
a) C)
a) - - (D
0 ti)
ca = C:
Q 0 0 -=4
(1) ca �, 5
r- -
B-:7 - ca -
ca a)
----
0
g
ul -
0) u) > r m
0).r
CD 0 ca C:
CO M lb
0 ca Ca ca
cis �O a) TL
rL
-5 U) ui a) o u)
a) S-6 -t�
a)
ca Ca
0 a) a-
c = (D
W 6 6a). a) R 1--
'F
C(S (1)
u) E
0) X�l
r- 0
0 �O a) a) >
C.) , a) n (D
2-0
.2 a) , -14
5
a) Ch a) �j a) a) co
> ca 0 a)
0 (D CL
> 0 (D ca
w cc r_ -0
-0 CM cm 0
c
D- CU
N
> > a) - C:
C 0 M -0 0 0
r M
(a 0
CL< Z,4
cn
-j a)
0) r to
E 0)
s .111:CL
a)
>
0 0)
row a
E >, .1
ca Ca a)
0 T -a
M 0
a) -0 (U -
a
40- a) Cn
CL.T
(D 2
-0 CL
ca
=3 r- r- a)
-T Z E < 0-
a 'Fu m 12
E
U)
-0 D 0--a a) c:
2.2
=m E
_a-.- 0 =3
u) " m r- -r- - a) a) cD
ca 0
cn C: C) U) -
-a) a) co a
fnto U) C)
:3 a)
CIS U)
a)
c a) ca :3
a) a)
Ca -
a)
W (D
c >
CO
:3 C E 6
U 0 2:, -,
Q'O
C) .2 c 0 0
0)
a E
co a)
a) 0
0
0 >, M .0
'0 2 a a)
m .0 0 U) r (a
- M- m C:
-=
a) ca
0
= 0 a r= a) --- r
0
.0
0 E 0
c = 6 -E•C
(D
T'O
CL " . p - .-
�O a) :3 'D a) =) 0)
O
0 co r 0
w (D ca C:
cu
-0 0 E w
CL
0 M 4T
(D (D
m
m
0 -5
- w
E n Wcz mos
a) a) E C.)
O'D - 0),
-0 < 0 "
ca a)
0
E t zL 6 c
.0 =3
Es a)
a) U)
E a)
cD
a) -0 U) >, 0) =$ �
0 ca a 0
cn -C
to
-4 E
a) - - 0
o a)
:3 �O
U) a I:f (D 0
0 0 0
0
-t-- 0 i8
CU -0 CD
cn
U)
C: ca a)
(D u) a) � a) a) m - (D
g a)
0 4e
a) I_f
a)
- 0 � 0-= -
(a 0 a 0
CL 0) C
a) En >
02
0
a) 0) -6 0 a) 3r
3: -5 ca -7 0
0 ca
-0 -0 CL
U) -0
C- >� r 0
cn 0
70 0 a) CL
0 0-5
CL >
ca
Ca
075
C a) 0 Cl) C: 0
-a -.2)u (D a) a) cu (D a) a
'0
(1) q a) ca
E = 0 (n 0
4 -
CL
M co :1 :3
0 C:
c "
- a* -
a in m 0) C: -0 a) E d
m a) a) t
m L- c-
0) a. a to E
a) c: A T (n c6 0
(D
0
L) (0-0
(D -ja
EL j-- > p a)
U)
a) r -
IL
C a)
Co
0
>
m cn (a �
E - c w p cL
0 0. c U.
0 0 a)
c.2 t p 5 =
CL F- C: a) - U)
< cu -0 ca
=3 �D
ca M .0
U) ca
E -
0 0-
.0 0 ca 0
0� =
m Z, (n
m E c: 6 m 0 cn c m
0 0 n
a) -
3r E 0 cu i>-'-�3 -0
a) >, tr C: a) M
C-- -0 (a L3 4�1
ca
a) -
a) a)
CL
�O (0
-a 0 CL 0 = 0
M > m R) en U) U) a)
< 0 .0- w 0
-
> .-
U) 00
0
�3
(a 0 L) A-- r-
U) - -
a) U) (a CO 'D -
0
(D 0
C- m m C)-
CU <
a)
CO
ca Cl)
a)
a
75
0
C:
E 0-
a) :3 0 cn
:j-- a) (D
0- u)
.0
ca M i3 -
CL
D ca
ca E
00 a)
0 W Ca cm �O CD
CLi->, 0 ca a)
- -
a) - 0 .0
=1 E
CL
-On
CL= (n --a
a) Ca C O
o a)
IS 02
2 E
cel LL
0 a
n
a) -
0� - a) E a
c a) .0 CU a) ca E
< a) r- a) = M
cn =S n CO
- ca c -i= c.) 0
m U r- 0
E (D 0) a)
E c:
u, E E
ch 0
w U)
1,
ca
>
(j) -O EU -0 A 070 0
-0 u) E2 - ::, a
(1) 0 CL
c) �5; ch
v) - a) -d
Ca - -0 0 ty-O C)
0
0 tm ca a)
(D c a)
0 ca ca
z
4.,
�Ir.�tj
=
C) (1) C� - (D
> z - ca n
:t.! 1- - = a) u) 0 ca
a) C:
Y) - r- (1)
Ca c (1) 4-- (a
1:� (D
U) (1) j ->, U)
:p
C's
0
(D
a)
E u) CL a) L: j-- (D
(D a) 0 a) - u) m
DL a)•
'r� a) =3
L2 0- �O 'F;
_ = _ u)
CL CU
-
1 > a) a)
0 2 C) ca
a) :3 >
ca 0
a) a) �c
2 0 = -!= *t a w m
OL > ca U) 0.- 0 w
0)1- L, 0 CL
CO .2 won
< 0016 c I- -a
�:, 0- J:l 0)
c 0-'0 a W
ca 'F--
E u.) =4)
=s -6 �O
Z
c �O
0
c 0 m E U) C-: a).-
- 0- W
"0 a
cD E 0-1-- =, .0 a) a)
En " F-- = -
- (D
cu a) 0) w
- = >
0 U)
0.-
"0
0
.2
i5
(D 0 - 0 0 CL
co A-- D� 0 ca
_ W- M
r
m J- U) -
" C: :3 cr
'3
0 M 0
- a) .�4 a
U) D- " .-
�O
2 a)
O cr
E o L:
a) U) 0 a) a)
o �O
E
ul c) -
ca a) M CU
a
V)
a) 0 5L=
- - c 0).r-
U. 8 o n
W - .-
E a) -0
E. 0 0 co
W a)
U)
0
-6
0 a)
U -a
02 0 - < M a
a) a) m a) a) U)
CL= Ot >,
a)
0 a =
5-
ID
U) U) O
z
fr
r-
'F 0 ca -0 E
:3 ca
-- o a, U E
W a) a) >,
-
a) 0
LLI
m
a) ca a) w CL
> (a -
O En
(a EU 0):5 CO
0
2" '6 cr r-
m
0 U)
N
> (D
U) ca c 0 -0
u-) - c a)
CLn =3 - "
CD a 0 0 0 0 c
.-. 0
0 0
-
N
cu
0) CL
CLO_ Cn- M CL 0
a) (D CL -C L)
0 0 'Fu 0 m ca ca
a) rn m
a)
-m- :3 a-
0.- Ca 0 -C
M
0 W w 0 0
0.1--- a) n
-
a) a) E
C=
C a)
w X0
=1 a) 0 rn
0 M- a 'a 0 a) U) M .0
- U) - - -F,
-E 15 u) :M3
a) c >1
u o - a) ca o a)
0 E cu
0-0 M 0
0 C D_
a) c a)
a)
0
2" (D
0) U) . - -
CL
C U) C)- U) a) -
0 Ca < 2.2 '
0 0 :3
c 0 �� 0 �: 0-0 E
0 CD Ca -0
c: m LO u)
CD G) -O
-a
a) C)
0�
G)
CD llf
.2 0
E a) a) ) a) a) .
J:-- a) �5 T:) CL
:3 n ca a) a) cl,
U) a
CD
U) 2 C,4 '5 m
U) G
46 -�
Ca
2
tm
4=- ca 0) tt-- I- U) '6 75 CL
m a) a)
a) c E cu
a) a) 0 ca a)
a)
- fn
ca U)
"0 m
C. - r 0 U) 0
O. U) r- 0 0
c: cn - -
a) 6 a) o) E
- a)
.�= 0
:5 a cl- r-
(a 211
0-
P, Wfijz
.0
'a co
o) a a)
IL 0 M 0 0 0 0 -'a n
5 u) w -E 0--
o c: c:
0 '0
- 0
a) =3 .-
0 ia 2 =;
W .- O. -
a) U) a)
U)
ca 0-
a) 0
A`
a) (a -1
> 0
0- 1
- 2) a)
N ca - a) *
46 0) _ '0 ::3 >,.a
6) c z; a) o
- a) Cc: -a -a '6
0 .0
(D < >,- =a :3
0 p -0 cl: �O n
r 6 r- 0 c E
a) .0 (D
'a 0
=3 0 .--
.0
EL C:
a. M
N CD 0 CL
C/5
U) �O E - 0-2 m (D 'D '-
O - E
-
w M M w -
E
-
0- 0 0- ca D
- () 0 - C:
a) Q) u)
.
U)
C: -
w
CU
.0 C
C a 0- U) r
0
q= 0 C13,5 a) :t! LL
m -'% u) a)
,
E 0
> C/) - a) (D
cu (D En
= C: a)
-6
,,A
M (D
0
:3 0
ca o U) 0' cu
0 C/)
F- 0)
0a)
a_ 0 m
0-00 a) M F- a)
FL -0 :3
0 E
m
C5 ca
CU
0
a) ca 0
a) -'D -
> cn c E zl :6 5 cL
�2
> CL
2 a) E Z5
C: (a C - 0
c :3
F -!4
rn -0
C:
0
00-0
CL
-;�
CO 4 - I <
-0 a) 0 --f- a)
'6 O�Z (a --
COm c a)
0 O - U. M >C'
m a) a)
E E
ca a)
-0 L3
CL
cr-
u) a) a)
U)
(D J (1)
n 0� 0 ca - >1
-- cu u) E �O Ca ia 4 -
U) a)
a)
0 CL - S-- - m
0 0 W-
_0 E E
0 9) 1p 0
w
U) r -
r ,2.2
cu
C.)
(D M
m �F
fn OL M
, - c �b a) 2
(a
0 =' -t 0 0-0 2 :3
cr ca
- >
4=
0 0 Q.
0 m C: 0
0
< N f6
a) a)
0
m
C) U) fl E a) -6 :E 42 ',;5 2
0 0
c.)
NOUN =Q < m
U) :3 :i--
cr M Q.
Jz 0
No
6.
L?
(0
1
61
CD I
r
I
0
U3 0
0
COw
(D C111
CU =3
—cu '0-) E
(D
> a) ca 0) A --
a) o a) a) tP 0) CO
E, E C
a) 0) Co 0 a) C: (a
a) 13
0)
E ca)r E 0 > U) [2 cn
m En .10 E w N
(D (D
CD C) r- 15 uo) -0 a) (D 0
C X- 0 0) (D = V) 'a c �w .2) 0
L Co a) CL - -
a) a) 0- 0_0 a) C 0 0
s- U) 0
a) ca 10 0
a) a) C: co E
)gip a) ca 3: 0) 'n
-o, a) (D
a) a �o
ca U) o 0 M U) U) 0 C C (D
(a
-(D n- C: 'a U- U) 0
0 (D >, rz 0
C: 0 CL a) 0
U) o C13 Ca CU -r a) E -e -
0 -.2
co_
a) 7a =3 0
3: a) 0 0 ELM
ca 0 > Ca _Q) CL ca a) (D 0 <
C 2-- 0)'0 10 C) Cc 0 R a)
'0 co a) 0 E x a)
> 0 a) x
n a) CL =3 0
0 0 0) 0 'D a: a) u) a) — p c " — , -
(D 0 4C = E -0 0 a) o- a)
�s a)
0 (z =3 L) -ZD- E ca a) a) ui CL"D
C\l U) 0.0 cn 0) N Co C:
.0 a) u) E
a) a) o a) r_ cts -0 0 ca .
a) -6 (D -�6 Q) 5, L) r -
a .0 CL U) CL ca Co M a) U)
o —M < — M c O. E M
E a) U) C: (1) 2 -
-2 a) (D A-- O� cm > 0 r- a)
0 > 0 a) U)
_j CO -
N 0
'a E a) . C: CL
a) C) a) -a
0 a) E .(D C: 0
o- * a) O)o --a
5) a) ca .0) co U)
a) -1 0 E m a) CL - =3 o o N
0 a) 0 0 co Eu 0 b -0
-A-- ca cn a) 0
ca (D ij 0 L, 3j :L-- R 'M a =
CL Q. ca 0 (D a) - >10) fa) 'CFO, Its,
a) 0 a) L)
E
0 .0 CU S-- -0 U) 0 .�= > > CIO �o
0— , C — LL a) 0 0) C)
a) E ` F-
CU 0 (n -111: 0 - M Ca > .14 C)
a) CL C: M a) (1) " ,
Z, c: = L) . - - C.)
>Q o a) U) C zs .§ 3: 0
(1) =; 0 =
CL (n o :3 DL 0() 'D
(1) - — :3 m
> -0-0 >, 0 — 'z
0 C: c) z -E
W a) a) co 00
Cj a) E
c:: U
0 ca a) a) c) 41E 0 a))
u) E E 0
V) 76 a) , c
W cu .0 -0
E CL CO 0) (D C cy
m 0 :L- 0 0 (D 0 r (n > E
r-,= C: 0 0
a) C: L) a) 0)— ca CU a) 0-0
0
0 'F
Sz- M 0 a) n
LL .0 CL co
Co CL
o E C: 0.-
.1 En, C: >
0 CL 0 0) -a 0 E U) 0 Co a) 'a (D
a) M•a C - 0 D� C.- w 0 0
Zn = cu a) 0 Co ca E -0 r -
C: :3 C:
N zl ,
W U) a) o (D in 0 0 0- CD U- $D a) u) co
LM ca .0 a) 0) (D q a)
= �5 �o as — (1) 0
CL. < — Iz- a -0 cn a) E
(D - M c U -
a) a) ccn: — E 0 0 a) U) 01 a)
f) DEQ
E -< C- c A- > co a)
CU 0- -C- 0 (D 0 CL ca m w 0 r- - M
.S 0 — 0
— m 1- 0 CL w
0 "o 0� U- co ca N
a) -5 a) 8- < 5 r_ —.2
C� o— E b a) U) c
E c cn -
U;
S)O (D
--
P 0) 0- -0 (n
c: > o C) m
0 E m E
U .> a) E o a) CU ca cu r- (U
> U� 0.2 T C) 0 a) co C: I-
0 t = — E - - 0 m
� R �p CL a) A- M C) a)
M.C'o J7Z U) (D
Fu 0� - w - - CL QL -0 a) X. c 0 o w 0-
O� (D ca C m a) (D
a)
co to 0
0 n (D
o E U) -F
a) c: 2
a)
-o
(D (D < U) o E E a) < 0 < E
0 C:
a) Z) 0 a) E> a) (D
0 (D o m
r C:
E 0) CU
(J) 0 a) > 0
M 0- (1) C6 :3 W M vi 0-
0 a)
-Fa CL 0- CL in 0) E 0) E o C: :t:f >
'E a) a) L; --
E E 45 c E
6i o L ca - ca (o -r-
o -0 a) IZZ 0-0 0 a)
T 10 :3 CL c - O)o CL 3: C\1 (o a)
ca :3 -FB 0- LN -6 _0 0) = - r
0 CL vi 0) -0 0) a) CY)
U) C: C14
U) Q) A= -a
En 0 C: o 0
CL _0 a) ox_ -
0 (D
Cu C: 0 0 j2 E 75 0 co m
;> 0).- a)
.2 a) m :3 - a) :5
= 6 co
(D .0 2' a) m -0 CO > co ca n
a)
E =3 co -a) R u) E (z a 0 - (D —0.0
a) -- 0'C3 W C- , (a < 0 0 w 0 0 0 E 0 m (D
O.
0 En _0 0 3: a) a) a) - a) a) a) - CL .2
0 c 1= a) 0 0 W .0 > E w >
0-1- L) C: 0 -r-- a) C: E (n > 0
0 a) 0 C 0 0 C: 0
co - c E > �l Q- CO 0 M 0 < C- D-
v E :3 ca a) a) M - co a) w
dA -0 n 0- E (n cn 0
U) E 0 0 o E - a)
CO - a) (n a) a- 0 C: in D- En (D a) U) ra C'i =m
c - n cn An m D > D co -0 cn ca co
6-0- E C)
0
> a) ca -23 Q) cL a) U) (1) - (a 0 j (1)
0 0 W co
If -r- CL -0 -0 -0
a) ui cl) -r- '(D a) E m a) 0 a) 0 m -0 0 C CU
-0 U) 0 > =0 o
-0 _0 ci
CL -0 0 M 0)
0 .2 f LL- CLL u) .2 P) 0 c.)
-Fn E a c: 0 a) 0 CL
2,0 a _0 - 0 a) .2 .2
= b -a 2 .2 0 0 0 M 0
U) a) to .7 < :3 c:
.0 0 CL V " a) L a)
:3 C: L - r_ - _j (D n- 0�o -0 a_ < a) 0- U) <
CL m o J- CL -n
(L
Cl v L? 0'3 C?
6
0) 7)
. :Y:,
C)
00
A
O
ca
m
-0
CL C
0
E
ca
0
CD CD
a)
m
a)
ca 0 M > *04
0 0 0
cT a)
a) CL 0 Ca
Ca CL 0
EU
ui
0 0 co 2-
- CL
0 ca. 0
a) 'u c0 0 E
a) - o
6 a) c, cu uj to a)
�,'.� a) (D '6 - -Z
0-. —
a) w 6 Cl -0 c rz
r
'Z C= CaC: U)
a) a)
a) - 0
> r -r, 0 E E
a) a) a) 0—
CL a) -0
'? a) a) Co
o -a
m cn 4)a N (D
w
0
U) CL 0 0
a) ca CL
C)) 'D.0 0- V)
0 a)
r- CO (D
Ly. r- U U) (I 'F
0
a "a CL
a) a) a) S&
(D U)
>, C:
> ca C
cn 0 a) "a c
a) m E
co
0 :3
a) 0 r_ a) Ca a)
(n
r_ CL a (D -0
cu 0 a)
(D a) a)
LL
a) (D o a) E -r-
0
CL •C
a
0
=`- a)
-o — a) o Z -
W
ti
N
Z §;` p
ca
cu cu
U) a)
a)C
ca 0) a) - a) o ca 0)
cL c 0 0 -0 E 6 a)
a) = E
>,o o 0 = - r -
ca 0 a) 0 (D
M 4-,
a) m a)
E U) V)
Ca 0 t a) ca 0) 0
U)
m (Ma 0 a)
)
EO = - a)
a) c)-
aa)) (D
(Da) a)
(1) c) 5; fn a) C) q -
a) o M
ca '0
c
Cl) Q) U) U)
I Ui 0 -0 C: c: CL FU u)T -0 rZ
:t-- -J O 0 0 0)
ca co
a) :P E o
U)
(D 75 1 o 46 0) � .2
Ca —
0 (1) 'D zi 'F5 a) r-
a
(n L) 2
w cu _-a 70 o lu
0)
-C-
_0 (n
cn
0 0- a)
V) C: . a) 0 - (a ? 0 :5
r CLO
Q 0 (.)
- a)
O w ca 0- < w
(D -J ca J4�
C) F
cC:a a) >, a) E 0) cu
C/) in a) m cis 3=. 0 Ca
Ca Cp
a) a
0 ca 0 ca
ffi E a) ca u)
A-- -0 tj
v) o 0 a) *0)—
CaIr-
0
U) W cu
CX 0 w
to ca a) E -0 0 ca o
U) F
t
0
CL
0
ca
m
E
ca
r—
CD(a
E E
CE
0 =3
.!= U)
>
a > a)
UJ
ca a)
X
w
,a
E
CL ca
C)
cc
CL c
C
E
Q'C
a)
U)
C a)•
0�� C
0
(D
`a t
ca
in (D IL
U)
o C
co >
EL o
a)
CL
m ro in<
F7 C�) P
(D a) a) a)
0) 4) 0
D-
m M
CoC= CoC: r— =;
U) U) U)
:3
m m m m
0 CD
0
0-1
w
a) w
a)
:3 0)
--:) cc
IL
:t:! (D
E.R
a)
E 0 a)
0-15
LL 0
E o (D
CU 6s CU 0
E o a) C"
E -6 -L- C:
E
O>
w
0 >
a)
s.'
(D
0
a)
A_-
'2 0
0, 0
E o -.;,
ca
a) C-4 a: ca
0 a)
cm .2 j--
0— 0
CP M C:
a) rn
, _0 -
0 in 1-- -0 M U) 0
r- Ca 0 0 (D
O om p m ;C�:
a)
Q-
F
CL
-
U)
C9
a) a)E=
a)
(a co 0
a) 0 CO a) 00 r- (D
>,
.0 2) C U)
0 _0 (a
-0 U—C) as Dip
- 0
ca :3
o� M 0L E U) m aca
a) 'a
>
as P uj ca
CD in
U p Eca
CO C) -
C:
0
0
0 - 42
a) 0 o
M 0
0 Co CU co
a)
-6 a) (a
CL
> E
a) 0) 0
a) E
E 9) 1�
o ca
m in
Co
U3
m (D a)
0
S; w (D
a) (D (D rn 0
[a E
En a) U) > cis a)
o A --
-1:1 co
CD
W'a (1)
C: 0 (U.-
in LO Z) -
'=- , o m
E a)
:L-
tz-
-0
0
CIS
0 >
- E
cr- M G =3
ca to C cf) E > u)
CO
-a -ET U)
E E = - W
O.
X- (1) a) O� 0
U) 'E� 0 S)
U) C)
(1) (1) 0 �L- cu ca C:
_0 cr- �� m > (1)
0'
(9 M Q- 0
6 (1)
co a) U)
U) <
LL " 0-';= Ca
0 - '65 M -a S� 8
0
U) a)
- > C:
E 0
-
0 U)
(h --
5 1
(1) Cr
LIJ
.:-;
00
6 cu: Ull HL
o o o 2 4-- E- IN -
0
- o 0 o U) (1)
0 m
C> a)
:3 a)
A.-
E E as 0 0 �= 0
Ecu :L-- o
a) Fin
M t3 E 9)
A [a
w -0
0 (on
-
< E 'a .-c-o um)
-2 w
0 •U) r- C) m m
Ca 0-
U)
U) 0)
m C=
0 w -0
-
E 4= 0• m
o m E 0 0-0 -5
Q= = a) D- - a
a) co
?:, -
(D W
E
0)
za
a)
EL Vf�
a) in m E -0 m
U) 0 - L. 0 -a a)
= Co ca 0
m C) E a)
=
z;,
o a)
E
ca
in
rz L) C
ca-
ca >
- 0 >'
:3 Q) —6)
0)
0
-;� C:
O C: 0 C: 0
±-- - = 0 (D C: (CO
0 Q'++ 1: 0
j6 (D D
C: (U - C - �:,
M Cl- co M cu
(D
ca S= US
cq 0 .-
c: -0 E
m
0
0
C :t_l
a) 2 in a)
E ca , E2
o
(D a)
COC) �5--
= in
0� (D
ca < -,U)
0 0 C: -r— Co
U) 5; 0-
'a— L) co C) >
OLD (D a) -0 r
a)
C:
0)
-�
CDL D
< 0
2 wR-
< F= in " CO 'o 0
m m o
(D
m :3 -i�, E
0 0
-
a)
0)
0. E. ca as
a) M
0-0
Cf E a)
0
c�
E M -'�6 -co
a) o o
0) a) Co >
N c: -o -0 u) a)
C
'§
E w
E
E < 0
0--- 0) CD
0) 0- -0 co
ca E 75
E -S� 0 i=- (D
- E 0
_5
0 >,
0 P -0
(u a)
M
if
LL
-FD E
6-
-or-
46 a) m M
0
0
in
ca w
o0 -x--
a)
a,i-n
C -r- E f cu
m -r- -2
E2 E W
4,-.� -0
m E
-0
M -
C)
in
w o 0 w (1)
00 0 - >
N U) a)
_
a)
G:�m -M
-C, -Z
in
C: (13 0
va �-=
C: E: I
0 .'s .2) 3:
w in
2 lu
a) .r 0 f= M c
-0
- Lo ca o
in C:
-0- 0 co E m
-0 I= C:
'E
, C, C
a) in [a t>
— a) E•a)
m
cu EFE
cu
o (D m m
cu cz U-
E C=
-r
Q) _j U) W
:3 -Ei
- %:-- a) M 0)-0
0
75 0 0
r a -
. - co
U) a) in Ca
(-- -!� !=
U)fZ
E m
- _0
0
0 w C., "0 �1.0
M Z3 a) 0 m .
Cf) C. U)
C 45 E
0 r- > (D
-Fo 0
a) -F,
-0 E 0
a)
0)
U)
a) a) E -o m () a)
2 - Ll) a r u) O -o
0 0 > co
-;,- ;.-- - 0 > U) '0
cu o� - a) MM-
;6
in C: 0
- 0 0
CL 0
W
-'§E
L) o m o
-F in f
co
73 - E 0- -5 -0 0 -0 (D
c m .��
0
- - >
Fo 1--,a 0
.-0 0 - >
CL
D
o a) o,.. >m.0 C� ca -6
LIL a) Q)
0 .- E 0 6 ry r- .>
0 C: - m o tt-- 0 "
[a in
0-- �3-
c
t 0 0-0
a) E
E
U) 0 0 ,
a) cu
(D "
.2 o E 0
Ca 4C� M
.2-
(D 0 0
>
.o ca m E
Q
-0�*E
'CS a) 0
OmC�
CL -a CU
roEfC
C15 -xo-- D n- CO) a)
0 0 -S
Fz t5 P
16)
e
C'. C:
S -0
.2 �a
0) E Ld a) ;a E En
0
0 2 w 0 0 > 0
L) E `-o
(3)
r- (D
>
= Co < 0
0 c)- E a)
a)
a) E a). M
0 0 UN
2
0 >
a) Ca 0 M 0
0) 0
E co
F)
-5)
0
U)
0 M
CL 0 m C) W U)
CL E
< 0 0)
>
>
Ct
C)
(0
X
cl w
M
E
ca 'o
t—
7
0
o
co
a)
CL L)
c
E
.0
E
.0
0
= E
a) a)
a)
L)
2-3 o
co
(D a)
DL
ca _0
o) ca
=1
a)
(D
a)
0) G5
m ca
10 T!
0) ca
0
r U)
V)
U)
tn
U)
U)
o
c cQ
0
0
0
0
0
cn
_,U)
LL
(1)
(1)
a)
a)
0
-6
O)o
G 16
O)o
16
E 0
0)
a)
0)-
a)
E 0
'a a)
'a a>
.�;
-o a)
- (D
a
— a
.7
6 m
a
E o
Co C:
fn m
ca c
rn
m a
c
w
ca
FL
E_
o � C)
n.
C) a)
co
U)
70 0
U)
a)
a)
U) M
a a)q
a)
co
0
8 2
c
E
c
ry
co
E
CL
'0
< A
o -a Na)
a)
0
_0-a
ca cM
ca
CL
•''0a
-0
Qa)
c
C,Nis
0
< >
0)
U)
= I_ -a3
0
m
0
fn 0
'0
cn
=3
a)
L,
2 w
co
a)
o 0 >
0)
a) n
A-- —
cm
-
FL
c
(a
>
E
a) a)
a)
E
0
ca
a)
z
0
(D E
— 0
CV)
-0)
ro
0
ca
>
:3
0
a)
0 0
•U)
a)
a)
m
(D —0
E
co
CY) a)
70
a
0
cu 1:
0
a) a)
c
> r
0
0
a)
a)
a) 0Co
E
Fin
a5
0
a) o -O
a)
C
a)
0
ca)
a) .5;
CL_
=j
0 m
a) co a)
ca
ca M
'D
co
0
a)
(D
—
E a) to
a)
0
a) W S
0
0
a)
E
'E
a)
a) o
a
CL L
o (n
0
a)
E
E
m
N Z
j= .= as
U)
a)
E
0
Ca
w CL
5
W
I_- tm
(D
i�i —
(D CO CY
a)
0
c
CD
c 0
0—
C=
co 0
C
a)
a) a)
0
a)
(D 0
a) a
co
N
- a)
:3
'0
Ia.
cu 0 ca
a>)
LL ❑
C:
(L
.Al (611",
�yz cu
-6 a)
a) 6 o
0
a)
c
2 E
.2 Co 0
a)
-11!
C:
U)
0 0)
cu
D
a) a)
U) 0
c:
'o (a
(D
15
a)
A-_ ca
a
ca
M
(D
0— CL
0
:3
U) E
a)
0
co 1
.6
.5
rn C
U) �D_
m
D
-0 ca
i- .0 a)
rn
—
a)
a) E
-14
U) jz ca
a)
UE
a)
c
o C U)
a)
E
a)
I tn
0 a
a) M (D
— a) -
U)
cn
- 0
I=
Q)
0)
C:
p
c
0
CL 70
P U5
2)
co
i5
E0
r- 'a)
-
S;
0
(D
(D
c U)
c
U)
L,
ca M
a) 2 (2)
a) a) 7.
-��)
>
a,
ID
:N.
n -0
(1)
a)
0 0 CL
cL
0
=$
'm
0
0 0
CD
>
O.M
o
a)
CL
OD.0
CL
C: C.)
0 a)
0
a) o o
-0 Z U)
T__
Q.
:�,
E =3
(1) U)
E
-0
C: U
LL
a)
E
i2
0 m
cx.
2
(n
0
F,
-CZ V
co)
cn
0
co
—
c >, M
M r-
0�
0
Co :L-
-a •C
a) m
CL
CU
>1
-a ca
a)
-0 ca
(D a)
0
-0
cn
a) -0 cn
E
a)
.0
cli
= M
cc
a) cn
0)
N , ca
c
O.
a)
ca ca
a)
—
ca Ca
0
15
0:5
o
a)
cu
o a) CL
w ca
a)
0
a)
ca
C
rn
(D-
co C
a)
a)
0 o
—
a)
j__
> -0-0
*5
Cr
- a)
—
EU
0
a)
a) 70
-0
a)
Q
N
tr- a)
cn
(D E
c) I= 0
19
= -0
cu
u,
0
V)
CL
cn cn
CL
cn
(D u)
CL
a)
-0
OL
4 a)
U)
CD
M'5
I_- 0
cn
Sz-
u)
:3
c:
Co
m
0-
ca
cu
5 a)
6
-
tn
(D
a) Cc
C_
U) ca
-r-
O
a) a)
0)
w
0
C: 0
u,
0
a) .0
to
a)
c
0p
O
0— o
Z3
0 U)
(D
0
v,
a3
0)
-0
m
ca
ai
CU 0
a) ca
E :f;
:3
q I=
in
0
0
0
ca
ZI
0 <
a)
EL 0
=
(5-
ui a)
U-
.2� a)
U) 0 U)
U)
:3
a) :f__
L:3 (a
E
tV
0 (D
c -0 Q5
0- C:
<
0_
<
U)
0 >,
00-
0 _2
0
>>
U,_
15
8 C)
0
0
0 0-
Cl) _0
a)
E
0
Q) =3 (U
a) cL
a)
(go—
0
a)
_0
w (D E
c
cu
0
< (D
CO
0 0
0
Z
0
z
co
CD
CC)
t—
0) co
OC C CD
CD
Co C: -
C-4 CO
0
o 0 w
CY)
0 a) c E r- a)
16 76 u 0 E p -
c: �6 E 2 a) (D :3
U) [a 'D
CD:,
0 =3 U) (D IL
c CC
iL
m 0 O)o
-E EO CE 0 r-
:3
0 CL -a a)
E 0 a) E Ca -
:3
ca M V) M
E E a)
0 > O 0 > ui
a) C)
-0 a) 0
0 W) ai
ca U3 U)
r- U) W — —'C-
a) E c($ a) 1= R ca o a
0 =3
ca 0 C13
CY m X- o
rZ 0 0 Q)
:t-- U) O. 0- 0 -0 a) US a)
0 0 -0 rz 1: a) 0 :3 -a) r-
rvo a) a)
U) U) w > a) -0 0)= 0 CL
FD 0 a) p (1) E
cn a) o a) 0) D)o C) E - 00) C-13 !LF) Ca a) .- - Ctf a)
a) w >a c 0 U) = m E (1) oc --I-- .(D 0 1-
E -.- o a) -c :t-- C) .2
0 0 a) U- w 0.- ca >
(a a) 'o o 0) o a) a) o P -�; cn o
G Z5 0 (a -- U) >,' cn il-
C) a) ca co CU (D :5 V) a) 15
C n :3 ca
-a C: -I-- (D ;t:� a 0) ca ri) 0 V) m 'CL= C—
"2 0 - - - - - o a) - Coa) " a) (1)
_:[-: 0.2-0 0 " (D a) o u) o CU 0 0) :3 CO)o -0
ca < - 0 a) E co to =3 *=1 a oi != h-- > w .2 o c o E rz a) (D
> 0 �- - 0 C) C) A -Z C -
a) C 0 Ca �o
Q) a) a) r
C, M U) a) 0- C a) 2 a) a) w a)
P a , )
3
Az- a) o 0 16 0 0 ai
a)
z 0 0
0 a) (D CL 0) C13
ca > M U) ' — CO
CO 0 0 -ca 'E E u)
0
p a) 0)
p
a) >' 0 a) (D Ca LU
-a co r- C: •U) (D E C) co =3 I-
U) 0
r O)w 0
a) a) rn - 0)
0 C2 a) Ca > 0 0 m - m -oa :3
- -a a) s- ;-- --o a) -0 0 L) CD
o - L) U) M a) a)
Ca a) a) 0 > E E w E .2 0-
C , 0- - Ila (D - 0
0- (C 't6 ca m -r- 0 M 0
a) - ca a) - a) .-- ED E
c a) 0) -r- (D -= U) =; in :3 — :t-- D- 0— > a) z
E a) m G) a) o r- 0 0 >� Cr a),- ca
C13
ca E a) o 3: a) a) a) C13 0 a) o
-0 cq z -0 U) a) 0
�a �5 ca M M - c - -- " r -
C -4 Z 0- _-a 4; a) o (D x I= a)
0 n U) -0 D- 'C' r- U) .0 > E a) w U) -C
w cn 4
a)
0 0 M (D E
Lp - - o u- 0—<
o a) (D 0 a a) o
0) U) m a) *1-- -10 a) ul 0) C)
> - cu a) Ca
z"'CL W .2 E - -0 M :3 m c: w -r ul
Nacn :3 a) 0- '0
'6) :t: coal C) a) -0 c: :3 -0 CU <.>
a):3 r- —
:3 NaU) E �2 5 .2 1 - c m "- , . -7 m
o 0 0 rn —7,
-6 - C) >, (D In c U) a M U) = C: in 2
-r- -(5 ca o a) U) a) a) a)
C) E a) U) - a) 4-4 (Z U) U) -0 , 0 '0 CL CY) a) u a) M
3:.2 - (D m o a) a)
U) :3 c 0 0
a) C: 0 CF) m J -z >
0 2 ca -0 o) -a) oc E (n E
ca En (13
o 0 0 o w EU =3 0 c < - w 0
0 0 0-6 0 0 0 0 0 0- (1) i- , E
0 cam --o :tzf X " 0 C) a) a) En
a) a) 0. (D (n 0
co 0 > L, 0 r- -0 E -0 -0— 0 > E 0
a) 0 , - m m E- 0) — *'P - .- _r
-0 0 0 r U) 0-= O'o
a) a) E 0 C ID 0 O� n' C) 0
>1 U) m
as c - Z
a) lu -i6 If > -0
a)
0 a) .2 m a) :t:: (z c 0 DO =0 E m 0"
0 D cz c — tn w
Cl) 'E — (n
E 2 0 0 0 W OIL 0 0)0
0 cy 0 -0 (D 0 0 a) 0-0 E.E c: D D Z m us-- C: co 0
0 (D — m a) ol
0_ tn
E 0 in -0 0 w 0 E 16 -0 rz -D,r- C.E
C) 0— 0) o=
r 0 o - x p).- 0 a) a)
M - 0 (D a) -- cn— = -0
LL A-- E a) a) c) =3 0 0 ca 't= o -O c :3 'r -
(D 0 V) _0 a) -0 Q. C a) m fn -0 --- OD m :3 U O'o C= '0
> En -0 - " a) 0 a)
co C '0 a) a) a) (a
(a lu to cQ -0 0 C: 0
_0 to 0- -0 -0 m E > 0 En
W-- ca= E
a) -0 2-0 ca :3 r- -Cz a) a) a) cu
$i (D 70 0) :3 0 > Lo E - Q) c
> (D - , - a) 0 c[)
U) ca
a) o m a) = a) E -S�
.2 >' C= �L- '(=D U) U-) U, < '�' co
0 a) C) a) a) n :3 p o) a) -�B
a) cn a) co a) - — 0--
, (1) J-- 0 2 ' j -- 0 u 0) m 0- c: -0 a) (L)
_0 0) 0 - > 70 —.- -0 < — ca (1) o :3
a) - m-- .- > w C) C: o)-- C: C -0 Q) .> --. -0
co E 16 . -0 � 46 — -0 (1) 0 C: Z� — a)
— C) a) -.0 (1) 0 .-- '- M 0 '0 UJ — r 'a
> ca co C3 (1) >
E In cL* - c:: " C: -- CL :j U) -- 2 M 0 0 'rO-- 4-- Z V)
0 a) (D C m o 0 --ac) rZ (j)-6 0) n O T -C-a En 0 0
(n 0 ca 0) ca - (D
t'- 0 C En a) (1) c.) 0 -0 ` U)
0� a) ca - - C Ef) (1) w
U lz C) --n . 0 m m (1) V)
En 0 0 U) = m F - CL
I m ID w E
a) 0 0 > _0 .-,a �-� E- Cc:
•D 1- - n - co En o o a) :t,.! M 0 a) a) E
o -0 �: -r- 0 - -
0 0 U) o E > w -�a a) —
O E. to U) W a) a) (D X_- (D o E CD a) a) A 0
0 0 '0 a) -� r - -r — a-) 53 E a) ca co
cr 0) 0 - — _ 0 co . , - (Z �5- C)
-:2 0 _0 U) 0" 2 -� :t-- , 0 0— (D—O-
-Fz En 0
o W a) 0)--i- 0-
_0 m W C: m (L)
?: a)
E13 2 0 w Ca to E
(I)o 0 :3 a) -'< 2 (D M-0.2 a) E U) a) (D' rnu)
o) mo 0 U) 0 0) C: -0 -0
+—_+ 0 - 0 :t:� -0 0 0 (D W —a a) 0- o -0 M 0 0 0 :3 0
:3 E u) c) = C: 0
U)> 0 :3
0- CL (D a) :3
0 0 0- n 2 D '2 �= = -r 0-
-5 0 T- -0 -0 < EU
>
Cl)
I
CC)r 0
m
E
E
X
W
0
w
IL
(D
z
R
0
—Z
-o 0
a)
5!5
C:
C: z
0
Z
W p w
a) 0
:5 0 -
ca W
z
0
p
LL
59
t
0
CL
CD
cq
m
E
to
cu
E E
a E
0
>
a >
m a)
" X
0 LU
0
0
Q)
0
a)
0
cu.,.4�,:
i5 E
0 C =
16 E
�Ei E
c
a
m M a)
M -
" a)
M a)
— a)
En �-
U) 0 0-
U) (D CL
U) CD CL
C:
U)
"o ul
U,
n
U)
0
r.
'4 Xv,
a)
m 0
(D
A-- a)
E
0-
(D
(D
'a
E o
CL
E
a
E 0
a
a
= a)
E o
E o
E —a)
0)
CL
:3 co
E
E —a)
0 > j5
w
w
c
0 > 5
0 >
a)
C) (D
0 a)
_0
(D
0 0
•0
CN
Ca a)
n
a)
E D),a)
a:
0
(n U)
U)
-0 0
cu
C.)
r
cn
LL n cq
= :E;
(ts
a) >
CL a)
(1)
Eli
as a)
a)
03
-a
a ui
a) 0) (1) cu
>
U)
C Ul
a)
ca
a) D C:
ca
>
a)
>
m
-q- a)
0— U)
2
0)
0) tp
-0
ri) U)
.- c
a) x
•
cu
0 0
a)
0
—
U) M C
a)
U)
E cu a) a)
�o ca
a) (D CU
> (n r-
.2 co:) E
cu -0 ca
!E
0
E
0 CIS 0)
:3 o q U)
rr - ca -0
>
ca
a) D-
a)
0
CL— �s
Q) CL 0- - (a
cu
X ::I U)
— a)
a) a)
a).r-0
..-C. cu " 0 0)
'm -0 c: a)
E
�ca
�o
cu
:3
cu a)
(a 0'
w CL
=3 0
0
E cu U)
(D E
C: C
a)
:t -.f
0 0
. = - O�
;t,
Cn
U) CL 0
fn 0
=3 U) a) o
7P —
43) , 0 (1)
E u F= 15
o
W
r U) CL
o U) [a
2 0 0
m cu 0
0-0-0
-0 M
'a a)
a)
o
E 0
< cu
(D C C: 'n
u) tu :3 a)
U)
CL= 0
CD — U)
a
to
0 0 0)
0 <
0
c
Ir -
Q -:=
C r
a)
-0
4 t�
U)
0
C
0
0 >, a) E
(D
-Eh E , E
-E =' m
0
a) Co
-0 E 0
0-
0
0 0 M a)
*6
0
E -0
C C
CL CL
a) cm
-0 C (D
3:
o "o
(D cu
0
a) > E u)
U)
a)
0
4-r
r- 0
CL
a) 0z
a) 0
0—
E
(D CU
c a) U)
0
(D m
0
- �o
a) (D
> 0
E
ch (L a) "0
a)
t:f E -T
cu a)
cx. a)
U) cu
ca a) cn
(D
rz
0
a) _0 C:
o a)
:3 >,
U) 0 ro (n C:
cu 0
0)
0 ro a)a)
<
U)
a)
E E
a)
a) a)
=3
cn
-0 o
ca 0
c)
U)
CU - —0
c 0 U) -a
D -M 0-0
0) L)
CL a)
ca
U) c
> a) 0
0
E c:
:3 0 a) CL
c 0 0 0 E
-0
cu
cn
a-) -5-, 0 ti:-'
ro
0-a) Ero
a) E
— 0— 0-
_0 .-0 (a
C:
M C: 0
C
-0
:3 0
CU
a)
0 U)
a) cu (a a)
0
0 M
0) a) o •cvs (D
m •OY
cn
U)
Q)
0 >
-0 a)
0)
a) :3
C
=3
o U) 0 o
LU
OCL' 0 C: o
CU —
m
0 a)
75
>, o c
E M
0
U) 0
fi)
o
(n
113
0 4L�
0 0
U cu
E o ,
0
— W
CIS (1)
-: >
:3
.0 a) M
z; a) -ja o- E
•
0)
Ca Cu
C-)
a)
Fm-
0
--o N U)
0 .-.a ,
0
U)
U) t� C)
u) a) M U)
-2 �a
0
0
-6
U) 0- a)
0) C: "o
-
0 a)
-0-0 o
> a 0)0)
XZ- C: 0 0
0)
C:
00
—
C
0
00
0 ir, 0
lu
0 CL
0
ci
0
a) 2.2
(1) (n
roc
(1) ai
Q
15 > ui•C:
0
a) o z
to 0
:p
50
0 1
-0�
ai
a) C) 0
-a
CL
CL Ca
x .5;
0-0-
;�
a) -0 a) (n
75
.0 E5 a) ID
0
E cu m
a)
a) :3
o a) :E
roma
I -z r-
0
a)
p (D
0 0 X �c
U)
CL 0- Q.
0-
U)
< 0 cu
co m
<
n- - (D
59
t
0
CL
CD
cq
m
E
to
cu
E E
a E
0
>
a >
m a)
" X
0 LU
Attachment 4 2 DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 13, 2010
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Shah led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Steve Nelson, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy
Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng.
Absent: Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee was excused.
Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad
W.ohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David Alvarez,
Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant.
Consultants: Mark Rogers and JoAnne Sturges, TRG Land; Peter
Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Sciences.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 23, 2010.
C/Nelson moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular
Meeting of March 23, 2010, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
Nelson, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng
None
Lee
APRIL 13, 2010
PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
7.1 Site "D" Specific Plan — Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act; Title 21 —
City's Subdivision Ordinance; and Title 22 — Development Code
Sections 22.60 and 22.70, the proposed project is to recommend approval of
the following to the City Council:
General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 —A request to change the land use
designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C-1) to
Specific Plan (SP).
Zone Change No. 2007-04 — A request to change the zoning districts from
Low Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to
Specific Plan (SP).
Specific Plan No. 2007-01 —A request to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for
approximately 30.36 -acre site for the construction of 202 residential dwelling
units at a density of 20 units per acre; 153,985 gross square feet of
commercial use at 10.35 floor area ratio; and approximately 10 acres of open
space areas, easements and rights-of-way.
Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 — A request to establish separate
residential, commercial, and open space parcels; create an internal
circulation system and common open space areas; and establish easements
and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes.
Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-02 —A request to certify the Final
EIR which provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts
associated with the development of the Specific Plan area.
Project Address: Site comprised of approximately 30.36 -acres located at
the southeast corner of Brea - Canyon Road and
Diamond Bar Boulevard (Los Angeles County
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-
901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002,093, and 8714-015-001.)
Applicant: Walnut Valley Unified School District and
City of Diamond Bar
Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
C/Nelson said he would recuse himself from deliberation on this matter
because the company he works for, PCR Services Corporation provided the
archaeological and biological assessments. for the project and he Was
personally involved in the project.
01 1 A FT
Chair/Torng laid out the ground rules for the meeting protocol and public
speaking.
CDD/Gubman presented staffs report and recommended that the Planning
Commission open the public hearing, receive public testimony regarding the
staff EIR and all land use entitlements, and continue the public hearing to the
April 27, 2010, meeting.
Mark Rogers provided a history of the site and details of the proposed Site D
Specific Plan that included lower I level commercial stepping
pping up to residential
pads adjoining existing single-family residences. He described the planning
principles that have been incorporated into the Specific Plan and
supplemented his presentation with a PowerPoint presentation and display
boards.
Nancy Lyons, 22536 Ridge Line Road and President, Walnut Valley Unified
School District (V\[VUSD) Board of Directors, stated that the original intent
was to develop the site as a school. At this point, the district has enough
school sites with a declining number of students. VT\IUSD needs money
instead of another school because the district has received less money every
year for the past three years with a total enrollment decrease of 20 percent.
This substantial decrease in income has led to drastic cuts in programs,
teacher layoffs, cancellation of programs including elementary music, etc.
The district hopes to get the property entitled and sell it to provide the district
with additional funds. She asked the Commission to recommend City
Council approval.
Chair/Torng opened the public hearing.
Donald Daneault, 3154 Castle Rock Road, asked where students living in the
200 units this project would attend school. The school district says student
enrollment is declining; however, the elementary school on Castle Rock
Road is overcrowded. He was very concerned about additional student drop
off and pickup congestion close to his home because he finds it very difficult
to get to his house under the current conditions.
John Martin, 1249 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard #432, felt that since this
project was on an entrance to the City, everyone in the City should have
been provided the Notice of Public Hearing. He said he did not know who
had been noticed but with the number of residents present at tonight's
meeting, it seemed important to him that for the next meeting that everyone
in Diamond Bar should be noticed and given an opportunity to learn about
the plans. This is the same plan that was presented previously as well as, a
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
time prior. Nothing has been changed. It is obvious to him that the City and
the school district want the most money possible from the sale of this land.
The best way to get money for a property is to have commercial and
residential property. However, if the commercial is eliminated, the berm with
the 100 year old trees is kept in place, and the homes are set back about
135 feet from the street, it would solve many problems including elimination
of neon lights from the commercial area. As stated in the report, the purpose
of commercial is to have it at street level which would be an eyesore at a City
entrance. The EIR contains one potentially significant impact; however, he
counted eleven. The expectations he has for living in Diamond Bar is that it
is a beautiful City and the City of Diamond Bar and WVUSD is saying it
wants to put a commercial area at the heart and entrance of the City which in
his opinion, was the wrong thing to do. He asked that the City consider some
alternative to this Specific Plan because the DEIR states that of all of the
alternatives, this plan is the worst environmental alternative.
Christopher Chung, 21470 Cold Spring Lane, said he saw two different
desires and alternatives. He wondered if the motive and intent of a public
hearing was to actually get public input or to do the minimal legal obligations
the City is required to perform under CEQA. He felt the documents and
reports this evening were telling in that normally a scoping meeting takes
place prior to issuing of an EIR or any document and is intended to be a time
for input from the community. In this case the document was prepared first
and then the City asked for input. It is telling him that the applicant indicates
its purpose is to make money. He understands development. He has 20
years in this business and understands EIR's, traffic studies, etc., and he is
pro -development and pro this project. If his concerns were addressed he
would not be speaking tonight. His concerns include a flawed, inconsistent
and outdated traffic report that does not include impacts of the stadium in
Industry, cumulative impact from tenants at the H -Mart shopping center; and
impacts at school intersections like Cold Spring Place and Brea Canyon
Road or Cold Spring Lane and Castle Rock. Anyone who drops their kids off
in the morning knows there is a 10-15 minute Wait. If 202 units are being
added, there will be additional impact that has not been analyzed. He
understood there was an applicant that had a desire and fully believe that
people who own property have the right to develop their property as they see
fit but they need to do it in such a way that it does not adversely impact
everyone else. In addition, he saw no traffic analysis of ingress/egress from
the site. Projects are market-driven and actual analysis cannot be done until
the site has an actual development plan so there should b ' e a project first
rt
before determining the impact of import/expoof dirt, for example. Also, in
his opinion, certain assumptions about daily trips are incorrect. Under
CEQA, the document needs to indicate that the mitigation measures will
actually happen. The City cannot just say it will put money in a pot.
F7.
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations versus City of Los Angeles
has declared an EIR similar to the EIR for this project to be in violation of a
CEQA mandate because the City did not include those mitigation measures.
Chair/Torng asked the speaker to put his concerns in writing and present
them to staff. Mr. Chung said he did not believe the Commission had
sufficient information to move this project forward and should send the plan
back to staff for further research.
Michael Hasegawa, 21502 Cold Spring. Lane, felt there were a lot of
questions. that needed to be answeredincluding the availability of mass
transit to handle the increased demand and whether the trees and .water
canal would be retained. These questions are guidelines, and residents do
not know whether the developer will follow these guidelines because this
project is market driven. It seems to him that this is a very haphazard plan
because he sees no guarantees for the people who live in the area. What
will happen with the screening, for example. If the schools are over packed
now, why not keep the site for future school use. He knows the City is down
$20 million; however, commercial real estate is not a sure thing. The large
movie theater on Diamond Bar Boulevard is large commercial property that
has not yet been purchased. There is no assurance anyone will buy this
property. He was told by his Realtor when he purchased his home that the
view was worth an additional $40,000. Will the home values decline in the
area once there is a commercial development and the views are gone? His
grandfather was a planner for Los Angeles County and helped to design
Rowland Heights and surrounding communities including Diamond Bar. He
says that the planning was based on population feasibility studies in
designated commercial and residential zoning. Has there been an analysis
of how this plan would affect those studies.
Judy Leung, 21175 Running Branch Road, said that according to what she
understood, proceeds of the sale of this land could be used for capital
improvements only, therefore, would not help the district with operating
expenses. There have been no public information meetings on the EIR and
the plan, and its details, and she feels the City and school district owe it to
the residents to explain this plan in greater detail. Only the residents living
within 1000 feet of the site receive meeting notices and the people she has
spoken with who live across the street from the project did not receive
notices. Only 200 residents received the notice. She believed that many
more residents would have come to the meeting tonight to express their
feelings if they knew about this project. She wants to know why this project
has been kept a secret. The consultant forgot to mention the 1991 DBIA
Resolution about this plan that was discussed and declined. The EIR is a
large document that requires a college degree to understand and
comprehend. She is just an ordinary resident and three week's notice about
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSIOT
this meeting is not a sufficient amount of time to try and understand a 1000
page document. Again, where is the public information meeting that should
have explained more in depth about what this proposed project is all about.
Section 7.0 of the Specific Plan (General Plan Consistency Analysis) states
that "this specific plan provides a site specific detailed description of
regulations, standards and guidelines for implementing General Plan goals
and policies. To achieve this, the specific plan must be in conformance with
and be consistent with the General Plan. The California government code
states that a specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the
specific plan to the General Plan and further, that it may not be adopted and
amended unless found to be consistent with the General Plan." The vision
statement under land use reads "It is the overall goal of the land use element
to ensure that the land uses and development decisions of Diamond Bar
maintain and enhance the quality of life for its residents." Does anyone
actually believe that this project will enhance the quality of life? If so, she
and others would not be here. Residents are trying to let the Commissioners
know that this particular plan is going to decrease and lower the residents'
quality of life. With very limited notice to the residents, everyone cannot be
present tonight to let the Commissioners know how they really feel and this is
very, very sad. She said she hoped the response from the City about public
comments would not be a comment that the response was "acknowledged"
only, because that will serve no purpose.
Mary Rodriguez, 3419 Pasado Drive, said she would like to know about the
1991 DBIA Resolution as well and would like to see alternative plans that
would not include destruction of 100 year old California Walnut trees. At the
August 2009 meeting she asked about Copper Canyon not showing up in the
traffic report and it is not included in this report. Since 1991 it seems like the
Commission and Council are not listening to the people. Members of the
public speak up and no one pays attention because the same plans continue
to be presented with no alternative plan to save the area.
David Busse, 21455 Ambushers Street, owns commercial property in the
San Gabriel Valley and wanted to warn the Commission that the commercial
real estate business is no place for a school board or a City Council to be
messing around at this time. The WVSUD Public Hearing Site D report from
March 11, 1991, when there was an attempt to build homes in the area, the
timing of the school board speculating on that land was so bad that if that
had gone through the school board would have lost a great deal of money.
He asked that the WVUSD Site D Public Hearing report from March 11,
1991, be entered into the record which clearly indicates that people in the
neighborhood wanted this property used for public use. Politics is the art of
compromise and he has not seen any compromise on this plan or in
discussions. The EIR is impressive but full of errors. The traffic study is
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
flawed. One can hire a traffic engineer to say anything they want him to say.
Common sense tells one that 220 units of housing traffic cannot be made
better by using a bunch of stoplights. Section 4.9 of the EIR, page 4.9-12,
the Angeles National Forest is a national forest under the US Department of
Agriculture, not the National Parks Service (Department of the Interior).
When he opened the EIR to the first page and saw that mistake he
wondered how many others were included in the report that he did not know
about. Every time one.drives the SR60 and experiences the debacle *at the
SR57/60 they should remember that a registered professional traffic
engineer signed off on* that project. Traffic is a nightmare and the concept of
putting more cars on the street and saying that everything will be fine, it has
not been addressed in this EIR and it makes no sense. There needs to be a
lot more thought put into the project and more importantly, from the property
owner and the developers and everyone else, he wants to see plan
alternatives. He understands the schools need money. Kids live in the
neighborhood already and there needs to be a lot more thought given to
what is being proposed other than making the most money possible. He has
served on jury duty many times and he has always been impressed by others
who serve at their ability to use common sense to solve complex problems.
Don't be fooled by a bunch of material in an EIR compiled by people who
allegedly know what they are talking about. He urged the Commissioners to
look for themselves and ask themselves if this proposal makes sense and is
it for the betterment of the community.
Mary Hasegawa, 21502 Cold Spring Lane, said she has a beautiful view from
her home and does not want to wake up every morning to look at a
development. And to think the area will be filled with apartments is
disheartening. She said she intended to die in her home and will most.likely
be killed by the smog. Where are the animals going to go? She gardens on
her hill and it is like sand. The earth comes down and what assurance is
there that when a developer starts grading the hill, those houses won't
tumble down? When she bought her home there was apparently a
disclosure about Site D which she never bothered to read because she was
enthusiastic about her house. She would not have bought her house if she
had taken a minute to read the disclosure. She walks every day and she has
to go very early or very late because of the smog. It is dangerous at night
and she wants to feel safe and secure walking in her neighborhood.
Jeff Leighton, 3703 Crooked Creek, said when he was before the
Commission a year ago he saw the same presentation and agreed that no
one was listening to the residents. He agreed that there are fewer people
present tonight because fewer people were notified. He sent a letter to
CDD/Gubman after the last meeting and was told he would be notified of
tonight's meeting. However, he did not receive a notice about tonight's
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSIOT
meeting. He said he was concerned about the increase in traffic generated
by this proposed high density housing and commercial use plan. In essence,
Diamond Bar is a single traffic
raffic thoroughfare City. Because of its geography,
the City will always be in this condition. The added congestion that will be
generated on the south end of town will dominate the southern gateway to
the City. The proposed 202 plus units and the 800-900 additional cars, 400
rush-hour cars, will likely occur at the same time that the commercial area
may see the most, traffic. Another concern is increased air pollution as
pointed out on ES -11. Statements like "violation of air quality standards and
considerable increase in criteria pollutants" are bone -chilling and should be
enough to stop the Alternate 5 project plan now. How can the City that
houses the AQMD facility consciously support a plan that increases bad air
at a portion of the City that is already severely affected by a parallel freeway
a block away from the proposed site? Again, it can only be assumed that the
intent is to maximize sale price and I think that fact has been made apparent
tonight. The northerly view on Diamond Bar Boulevard will change
dramatically from the country living atmosphere present today. The
proposed plan for Site D calls for abrupt changes at the southern gateway to
the City. In order to accommodate a large commercial area on the south tip
of the site, the hills must be reduced to street level in order to achieve this
and still maintain the maximum area above the strip mail for housing. This
plan must call for huge retaining walls as shown on the plans. The plan must
call for a huge retaining wall behind the commercial buildings similar to the
midtown Target location. Although the Target wall is somewhat camouflaged
and set back from the street it is still unsightly and an eyesore. The wall that
will need to be planned for Site D will be much less pleasing and more of a
focal point than the Target wall. The site of it will be the first thing seen by
people entering the City from the south. In addition, the plan calls for
removal of 75 100 -year old trees that border Site D. In all, it would be a
horrific sight and give a lasting impression of how Diamond Bar chooses to
represent itself to its residents and visitors. In summary, the residents
understand the need for progress but the City must remember that it needs
to take into account the need to give preference to the residents who live in
Diamond Bar, pay their taxes and elect the officials who are supposed to
represent them. A short-sighted plan to maximize revenue generated at the
expense of the residents as voiced by every speaker here tonight and also
by speakers who spoke a year ago is an indication of the disdain felt by the
residents who will most be affected by the proposed project. The City needs
to take another look, please.
Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooke ' d Creek, said it is pretty bad when a City
throws out CEQA in order to accommodate the goal of obtaining money.
Over the years theschool district has had its ups and downs and the student
population increases and decreases. The school district will continue to
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
survive and will continue to be a good school district with or without the sale
of this property because of the teachers and administrators. If people want
to live in a place that looks like Irvine they can move there. Other cities like
Anaheim and Brea seem to be following suit. People who live here want
open space. He does not see where the consultants tried to minimize
anything. The Commission does not have to recommend that this be
approved by the City Council. In fact, he believes it is the Commission's
responsibility not to recommend approval. He has heard it said that if this
master plan is not accepted 2200 homes will be built on the site. He said he
felt it was the Commission's responsibility was to decline this plan. This ig
land designated for general public use and no one can put anything on the
land without the Council's approval. He believed the City could develop a
plan that met the intent of the General Plan and meet the CEQA
requirements. The seller may not get as much money for the property but at
least it would be more user-friendly to Diamond Bar. I think the City can do a
better job.
Robert Velasquez, 24336 Seagreen Drive, said the Planning Commission
and City Council have done a lot of good things for Diamond Bar. It is a safe
place to live; there are nice trails and a brand new recreation center and he
believes residents appreciate the City's efforts. Diamond Bar was based on
a country living style with more open space and reduction of traffic and the
trend of more building is disturbing. The NFL Stadium will affect the City and
he believed that the City should have a long term goal of what it wants to
look like 10 years from now and he believed it was the job of the Planning
Commission to plan ahead. Walnut was up in arms about the NFL 'Stadium
and they should understand that the residents of Diamond Bar will be left to
the consequences of a project like this proposal.
Christopher Chung returned to the podium to state that the mitigation
monitoring report must, when approved, include all mitigation measures that
are required of the project. What he stated previously about not including
the mitigation measures, if those are not included in the document and more
mitigation measures are found the document will have to be re -circulated.
He said he truly believed that the document is very full of holes and is easily
challenged. Residents do not want to have to challenge this project and
hope that the Commissioners determine that the document poorly considers
all of the ramifications. If all of the comments that were provided did not
make it into the mitigation report, something is wrong.
Mary Rodriguez returned to the podium to ask if the Commissioners had
read all of the letters and comments that were submitted and Chair/Torng
responded yes, that the document under consideration includes "response to
comments on the DEIR Site D Specific Plan." Chair[Torng said that
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSIO1
Ms. Rodriquez's letter is in the document. VC/Nolan assured Mary
Rodriguez that she read all public comments, emails and letters that have
been provided to the Commission.
Chair/Torng closed the public hearing.
RECESS: Chair/Torng recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
RECONVENE: Chair/Torng reconvened the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
8.1 Development Code Amendment No. PL2010-78—An Ordinance of the City
of Diamond Bar amending the zoning regulations governing group residential
uses in residential zones and amending the Diamond Bar Municipal Code,
and providing reasonable accommodation provisions for the disabled,
pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(d). (Continued from March 23,
2010)
Applicant: City of Diamond Bar
CDD/Gubman stated that at the March 23 meeting, the Commission
expressed concerns primarily having to do with the "distance" criteria
proposed for group homes and separately for parolee or probation housing.
With respect to group homes, staff proposed that not only would a
Conditional Use Permit be required for -group residential and group homes
for more than six clients, staff also limited zones for those uses to the multi-
family districts and specified a 300 -foot minimum separation between such
uses. The Commission was concerned with the 300 -foot distance in that it
might facilitate an over -proliferation of such uses. Staff based the 300 -foot
separation on state licensing criteria for group homes like daycare or adult
daycare facilities licensed by the State Department of Social Services. The
City is not bound by that criteria and looked at pushing the buffers wider.
Staff is comfortable recommending that the distance separation be increased
from 300 feet to 1320 feet which significantly reduces the overall number of
group homes that would be potentially available for those uses.
CDD/Gubman reported that the Commission's second issue was the
recommended spacing of 5000 feet between parolee/probationer housing:
Staff learned that with the additional requirement that such uses be located
no closer than, a quarter of a mile from schools, parks and the library, it
effectively resulted in not being able to get them closer than 10,000 feet
apart. As a result, staff changed the distance requirement from 5,000 to
10,000 feet andadded a requirement that there shall be no more than two
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
(2) parolee/probationer housing facilities operating in the City at any one
time.
CDD/Gubman indicated that the third issue voiced by the Commission was
that there was not any ongoing monitoring of group homes in the ordinance.
Staff- responded that conditions of approval could be included that would
mandate ongoing monitoring. However, staff added a standard that states
"these shall be subject to periodic monitoring" so all Conditional Use Permits
will need to specify how frequently the facilities are monitored and what kind
of reporting requirements would be included. Still left to the discretion of the
Commission on a case by case basis is the matter of how frequently it would
like a facility to be monitored.
The fourth and final issue from the Commission was about the lack or
absence of the requirement for onsite security at parolee/probationer homes.
The ordinance stipulates onsite supervision but not onsite security. After
conferring with the City Attorney, staff believes that to require security for
these facilities would detract from the residential character of the
neighborhoods in which these facilities are located and staff is concerned
that that perception of an unsecure environment that would require officers or
security personnel would in themselves be a detriment to the community so
staff would recommend that the standard previously endorsed for onsite
supervision rather than security would be the most appropriate measure to
be taken if the Commission elects to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a
parolee/probationer home.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 'recommend City Council
approval of Development Code Amendment No. PL 2010-78 as presented
this evening.
C/Shah asked about the difference between onsite security and onsite
supervision. CDD/Gubman likened supervision to a hall monitor or resident
advisor in a dormitory to make sure everyone is accounted for and make
certain all are following the rules of the house and to ensure that peace and
order is maintained in the residence rather than having a "security guard" on
the premises making sure that individuals are remaining on premises and not
causing problems by venturing about unsupervised. C/Shah said he
concurred with all recommendations as long as supervision be defined as
24/7 onsite supervision.
VC/Nolan agreed with C/Shah that the intent of the Commissioners
comments was not to provide armed guards. She felt staff did a great job of
revising the numbers.
waanufflme
Chair/Torng asked if 10,000 was the maximum and CDD/Gubman said that
he spent a lot of time discussing this matter with the City Attorney's office
and their advice is to go out farther than 10,000 feet would be reducing the
likelihood to possibly zero that there would be any facility that could locate in
the City. There might be a possibility for one; however, the City Attorney
advised that it is somewhat risky to confine it down to one,, especially when
the one proposed location might not work given that a group home nearby
would disqualify the site. Staff wanted to provide at least two possible sites
that could accommodate a parolee/probationer facility and whether the City
would ever actually get two such facilities would be questionable.
Chair/Torng opened the public hearing.
With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Torng closed
the public hearing.
C/Shah moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to recommend City.Council approval of
Development Code Amendment No. PL 2010-78. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng
None
Lee, Nelson
9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/Shah complimented staff on its Site D documentation and report for the Site D
Specific Plan. He appreciated the Planners Institute and wished there had been
more for him to learn.
VC/Nolan said she appreciated staffs report on the proposed Site D Specific Plan.
She would like to have staff continue the public hearing as if there had not been a
break so that staff would have an opportunity to ask questions. She said she would
put her questions in writing prior to the next meeting.
10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in tonight's agenda.
APRIL 13, 2010 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 9:25 p.m.
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 27th day of April, 2010.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg- Gubman
Community Development Director
Tony Torng, Chairman
Attachment 5
Mary E. Rodriguez
3419 Pasado Drive
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
April 13, 2010
City of Diamond Bar Community Development
Department?Planning Division
21825 CopleyDrive
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
Re: Public Nearing "Site D" Specific Plan ("Project")
I am hereby requesting that this letter be entered into the Environmental Document.
What is the basis for your mitigation efforts? With regards to the traffic, the vegitation,
the trees, the wildlife, the air health, the noise.
Example, the tree options given to mitigate the distruction of 75 California Walnut Trees.
The traffic report does not make good math. Also, you do not show all the streets that are
critically affected. Where is Copper Canyon? Copper Canyon goes directly into the project area,
yet it is not accounted for in your report. There many things wrong with the Environmental Report.
Why is the Walnut School District getting in the real estate business. The property belongs to the
school district. They have no right to go into the land speculation business in this terrible economic time.
Mary E. Rodriguez
Attachment 6
Grace Lee
To: Greg Gubman
Subject: RE: Site D Specific Plan Project Opposal
From: John Yang [mailto:johnkyang@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:39 AM
To: Stella Marquez
Subject: Site D Specific Plan Project Opposal
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
Planning Division
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Re: "Site D" Specific Plan ("Project")
To Whom It May Concern:
I am unable to appear at the public hearing and therefore am challenging this application and project by this letter.
I object for the following reasons/issues:
Increase in Traffic and Safety Concerns
The area in which this proposed project is located at the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Blvd. which
consists of one of the already busiest intersections in Diamond Bar with its entrances to and exits from the 57 freeway. The
sed 202 residential dwelling units would cripple the
additional traffic that would be contributed by the new occupants of the propo
already inundated flow of traffic in this area.
Additionally, the project would bring more commercial trucks into the vicinity because of the commercial businesses that are
proposed in this project. More commercial trucks in the area will absolutely lead to more traffic because of their larger sizes
compared to small vehicles.
More traffic leads to increased probability of car accidents. The safety of Diamond Bar residents should be put first and this project
seems contrary to that goal.
Impact on Local Schools
Diamond Bar prides itself of being the part of a great school district and home to many exceptional, and even nationally recognize
schools. Adding the 202 residential dwellings would add more students to existing classrooms, adding a strain to the already large
classroom sizes and ultimately having a negative impact on the quality of education due to the children of Diamond Bar.
Buildings will clash with existing neighborhoods
ourselves with an almost "country feel" lifestyle and it was this
Diamond Bar has been a wonderful suburban community. We pride
small town character that has led many Diamond Bar residents to live here. I have lived at the same Diamond Bar home for over
twenty years and attribute my long residency to the charm and character of this city. The proposed site will be at the south
"entrance" to Diamond Bar. To have a complex as described by the "Site D" Specific Plan Project be the first impression of our
city would be a shame as it would diminish the very character of our city. Although there are some multifamily dwelling complexes
that exist in Diamond Bar, it is the single family homes that are exemplary of our city as seen through the Diamond Ridge area, the
Country, and surrounding area of the "Site D" Specific Plan Project area.
For the above mentioned reasons, I object to the "Site D" Specific Plan Project. Diamond Bar does not need a multifamily dwelling complex
with associated commercial businesses as it will lead to an unnecessary, additional strain on the lives of existing residents and business of the
local area.
Sincerely,
John Yang
Owner and Resident
3166 Cherry Dale Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Attachment 7
Grace Lee
To: Greg Gubman
Subject: RE: Site D
From: Ron Everett
Sent, Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:50 PM
To: David Busse
Subject: RE: Site D
Mr. David Busse,
Thank you for your comments on the subject matter; I will make certain the Community Development
Department receives a copy for follow-up.
Sincerely,
Ron Everett
From: David Busse [DRBusse@roadrunner.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:02 PM
To: Ron Everett
Subject: Site D
Thank you for attending the Site D hearing meeting last night. I trust
you and the other council members in attendance got some idea of the
uproar in South Diamond Bar over this plan.
I believe there is some common ground to be found on this issue and I
urge you and other council members to seek a compromise plan that both
satisfies the neighbors and the (arguable) financial interests of the
WVUSD.
Let's make sure this whole process doesn't get dragged into an
extended drama in a courtroom. I am eager to work toward some sort of
compromise. That's tough to do when the school board tells me "it's
the city's plan" and the city says "were in this to help the schools."
Best Regards,
David R. Busse
Grace Lee
. .con]
''~^'' �redoy, April 15 2010 3:17 Sent: //m . . " . �
To; a^*m na'y""z
Co: Ling -Ling Chang (Of -Site); Carol Henans' Steve Tye; Ung -Ling Chang; Ron Everett; Jack
Tanaka
Subject: Questions / concerns onSite DSpecific Plan
Attachments: 1991 DB|Areso\ubon.PDF
To DB Planning Commission members:
( have the following questions / concerns onSite BSpecific Plan -
1`yVhyShoOSpeo�oPlan iachosen oon�parotoother aKornoUvnosuch eson�buUd�gsingle famUvhoua*lpubUc
Vfacilities; recreational park? There isn't anything mentioned about how this plan is chosen in the DraftEIR or Draft Site
Specific Plan ..... maybe |. missed it, please explain.
2) Why was there no public information meeting on the EIR ? We demand an "interactive" meeting with the consultants
and Commission.
3) In Section 7.0 "General Plan Consistency Analysis" (page 39) under Draft - Site D Specific Plan
>InSoo8on7-0"Genena|PlanCono|ehoncyAoe|yoim"(page3Q)underDraft-SibaDSpedfioP|an.itetatadtheVision
Statement inLand Use Element: "Itixthe overall goal ofthe landuse element hoensure that the land uses and
development decisions «fDiamond 8arna/nbe/n and enhance the quality oflife for its 000kdenbs."|n page 40, Goa\ stated
: "Consistent with the VisionStatement, encourage long-term and regional pen�pontivou/nlocal land use decisions, but
otatbheexpenoeofbhequolityof0e/brD/amondBe/oeoidenb.^
Explain hovvthese are acconnp|iohed? How can the consultants determine "Site DSpao\�cPlan" vvU\maintain and
e-nhance the quality nflife for its residents ???? NoDBresidents ever received any survey nnthis subject and never
have a channel to express our feelings on this. Now, I am "submitting" my feel on this matter ..... it will definitely lower the
quality oflife.
4\ In Section 7.0 "General Plan Consistency
Analysis" under Oreft- Site
a D Specific P|on, it stated the Goo) in Housing
Element (page 4O\"Consistent with the Vision Statement, preserve and conserve the existing housing stock and maintain
property values and re�k/entn'qualityoflife " Under Consistency (same poGm), it stated "Furthermore, the project
may enhance surrounding property valuaa...,
Explain hovvimthe "conduaion"(maintain and even enhance surrounding propm�yvalues) derived �om??VVhaMYpeof
-tudyvvaedoneon\hia? How is"maintain property values and residents' quality oflife" determined? What type of
factors that this is based on ??
5>Onthe very last sentence under Section 7.0"General Plan Consistency Analysis" underUnaft-SitaDSpecificp|en
('aOa43).itetoted"Duntobhmpn�eobnonven/ent/moabonando8ep/enn/n��3deDpreoentxanecono/n/ne8y�ab/u
` fD/a dB ddoneokjenbe''
p/anbhut�sQoodfbrbho�dyo /non Bar .
- Again, how is the conclusion ( good for its residents) arrived ? What type of survey, research study on this plan has used
? What type of factors were considered in the otudy?
6) What type of actions/ways that the City has used to contact the DB residents notify and explain the Site D Specific
Plan (besides sending to property owners within 1,000 ft radius from the site)? |amconcern about the "biea"view from
the Consultant that this plan is very well taken and welcomed by the Diamond Bar residents. Noresponse from not being
informed about this plan is differ from "no opinion" (but with knowledge) on the plan.
7\ThoApri|i3pub|iohoaringnn*eUwas This "ntratmgica||y"chosen
d~' te made many residents not be able to attend the meeting and voice out their views and opinion of this plan. The
f
Planning Commission should arrange another date a e o public hearing meeting.
I am sincerely asking the Planning Commission members to consider all the comments submitted here and other
residents. We understand the School Board would need to sell this site; but the proceeds of the land sold will only go to
� the Capital Improvement Fund (CIF) and won't be able to use on operating expense. The school district have infact over
$10Omillion inthe CIF currently. If the land needs to be developed, let's compromise on something that the City, School
Board and its residents can all live with and proud of for years to come Oust like the published resolution of DBIA
(Diamond Bar Improvement Association) inApril 1Q91 issue ofWindmill magazine) _ see attached.
...~~~1'
Judy Leung
(21175Running Branch Rd,DB)
The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. Get sdtafted.
Confidential Communications
The information contained inthis e-mail message is intended only for the use ofthe individual orindividuals named above.
Ifthe person actually reonk/kngthinmeaaageorsmyotherneaderufthemesnaQaksnotUlanomedracpientu(the
employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in orror, please immediately destroy AND
notify uobytelephone ut00Q.83Q7O58.
'
2 '
Apr 07 10 04:49p Ridgegate
15624636366 p.2
� <.-� + t a,,,-. r' • �� ►+, i r; Fir
• a Roil Plastic sargeov
1A
&O.UU.TM.0
Whereas. A 28 acre parcel of land, located in south Dia-
mond Bar at Diaenand Bar Boulevaad and Brea Canyon
i oacf, and owned by the Walnut Schaal DistriM is pre-
sently proposed for development; and
Whore=, public discussion has focused upon searetal
altentative development optiarm, e.g. a midenttat sub-
division, community part undeveloped pristine status;
and
Wherms, Citizens of Diamond Bar would benefit
h=w development of the parcel into a mayor re seattnat
center, featuring ball Fields fear little League Softball and
soccer; multi-purpose courts For valle*ll, basketball,
tennis and racquetball; childrer6 • play am; path
passive
rrecreation a ea; as well. as a Community Center
mutually enhance the social and r—
reational amenities of the Diamond Bar area; and'
Thengwe Be It . eA t the. mrd of Direc-
tqm of the Diamond 132� Imr �iov cat to
ta.rta�aiitaet�isl,�i exit's s95tcan� art f�rti�e ea+��c.
e
r_=]
tng iM botanical studios for our local s choob • and
students. And be it furilter• resolved that this rewtution.
unanimously adopted by tate Diamond Baa' hnprovement
Association Board of Drectm be trmmuitted to approp-
riate City authorities. 13
r'
z
et F CLASSIC
A HIT
The 3rd Annual Cottontail Classic was held on Satur-
day and Sunday, larch 16th and 1.7dx Eight Diamond
Bar team competed with (S) of the teams retaking it Into
the anals. These team included Girls Owston 2, Boys
Di Won Z,.ldcys Divistttn 3, Girls Division 4 (Devesation)
and Sop ®fiefs ion 4.
• T $S teams participating febrn throughout
the So,utihem Cal fornta area. The tournament was a
smash" success due to the participation of Spring Team
per, coaches, referees, and' the following local
raaent� .
Roma Sports Dv along; DDS
McDonald's SchmkIt Caatnon
Soccerjtmcfion Aibedson's
Alta.Sports Leel Taco
New York Selt ' THYMstAssaciates
Ci Cola KUSFM
Dan iVa Domino's Pizza
M Hudson's Grill
g A>filler beats
�f ste NgL.
BUtlerfter
Soccermania KU[axt
Caal's dr. Thole Enchilada
Thrlfiy's
Gars' thanl� for supporting the Ditamond. liar A V.S.O.
Pwg am, Teams kom. Diamond Bar wilt now be compet-
ing tiro. the Its team Pky ad toumarnents throughout
Camomia.
Attachment 9
Grace Lee
To. GragGubmon
' RE'ShaD-CityofOianondBar
---Ori 'nal Message ---
From: <cchunel263@ruadrunner,com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr I010 04:44:23
To; <Steve.Tve@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us>
[c: «sl'Ieuno�hotmaiI.cmn>
subject: Site D - - City of Diamond Bar
Mayor Pro Tem Tye: '
i Chris Chung and I wa�forwarded your emaj andwanted to takesome time to respond
My name s .
to your email' Z hope you don't mind.
There has been a growing number of residents, like myself, who are regular peoplethat have
' families and do not get involved in what is happening in our City. But there is a
]obs and if not being involved betcause of other commitments versus not being informed and
difference I d not wish to argue with anyone on this subject or on
knowledgeable of what's �»i»� »n^ » n look bad I want to express
my
subject for that matter nor desire to make anyone oo . =
enyconcsun], state fact, and ask the city Council to support its residents, your constituents.
IPIa.nin� iII be sending the commission under separate letter a lists of concerns that I
w '' review of the documents under a short time frame' I
have developed just by a cursory r�« Z I understand that not all residents
that
not all residents will be happy. I,also un
understandwith everything they h`ped for. The question to the City Council is have you
will come away ~ h r where one resident got
- h resident was appy o
heard at any meetings on this subject where one r .. . .,..^.` ~.� .-_-__ hoped
"
something they hoped for? Z haven't heard of one resident getting a single thing theyyid
f Not one In fact you will see that all comments by residents were essentially ,gnore
»r'set to the
sidelines.
Z was one of the only residents that originally said I wasn t
z»o = ~`
opposed to the development, but that has now changed as Z see that my very minor concerns
were brushed to the side'
Walnut Valley Unified School District's EIR consultant (I say that because the consultant
said he had a 20 year relationship with them) are not doing you or the city Councilany
[E�A
favors to protect you the City and its residents by developing a quality and defensible
document How do Z know that! It doesn't really matter, but I have over 20 years of . t
' l t''d field.The EIR traffic report and communications on this project
e«Perie»ceinarena related
challengeable. I simply ask you to consider the residents'
are ill-prepared* u // '' �We are not attacking the City Council. We
comments with an open mind without any ill -will. d
are not attacking the City staff, We are asking the city Council to hear us, protectbus/ann
t us Not Walnut Valley. All blame, if any, for not approving this could e placed to
support ` the'residents for not wanting it as you will hopefully see' But
the EIR consultant or evenever
Iook bad by saying that you have heard from your constituents
how can the city Council e»e .t rt it based on listening to us? You come out the
and they don't want it and you can suppo
winner, not loser.
The city of Diamond Bar city Council can in fact tell Walnut Valley "NO," we do not want your
b
proposed project. other cities have turned down proposed projects y property owners. The
city of Inglewood told Wal-Mart ''No, we don't want you." The City of West Covina City
Councilo
told Transit that they didn't want their proposed Specific Planfor vrw park
and Ride parking structure off of Vincent Avenue. A City can turn down any project in which
1
the City feels is a negative impact to the community. It's a matter of whether the City
wants to turn it down.
You are correct that as a property owner/ that property owner has the right to develop the
.___p.ro y. But only to the limits for which the property is zoned for. Currently, I
u'me/'stu/m uhat §/te " /^ ^u//eu ru/' s—i.//gle faou/y nuu^in8 un rrecn--j—eney�ean--
only developed single family homes and what's wrong with that? It complements the' area.
Others may disagree as they may want no deveIopment. The proposed Specific Plan is actually
intensifying the land use and multi -family high density housing is not compatible with the
area. Z understand that the City may want a commercial component to increase the City's tax
base' I'm all for that as long as impacts are addressed and mitigation measures are carried
out. But that is clearly not the case.
I do disagree with the statement "We have a responsibility that/ if they are going to develop
it, we provide them with a specific plan as to what can and cannot be included on the
property'" Perhaps you meant that you have a responsibility to consider a specific plan, but
the City is under no obligation to approve a specific plan if it deems that plan to be
detrimental to the City of Diamond Bar. I hope you agree with that. As long as the zoning
for the site does not change, they are limited as to what they can do. However, even then
they must mitigate impacts' But in no event can they currently develop high-density housing
on site.
If it is your understanding that the City Council must approve a specific plan or cannot say
no, I ask you to please check with your City Attorney. If you need any documentation to show
that other City Councils have said no to projects, I would gladly provide such information.
One last item that I will be informing others, at the last Planning Commission meeting, I was
sitting behind the representatives from Walnut Valley School District, They were laughing
and making fun of several residents' comments during public comment. That is no lie and not
made up. Z found those actions to be unprofessional and offensive. I hope that it is also
offensive to you as our City Council.
I urge you to please consider the comments not only here, but all comments submitted by me
and other residents. There has been no attempts by the EIR consultants to address any
concerns' develop dialogue, or seek compromises. I hope that your mind is not made up on
this matter and that with the information that is forthcoming, you will side with the
residents that have taken the time to speak out. Not one resident has yet spoken in support
and not all residents in opposition have come out to speak up as well.
Thank you for your valuable time.
_
Christopher Chung
From: Steve.Tve@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us
To: sl'Ieuna@hotmaiI.com
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2018 12:04:89 -0700
Subject: RE: Objection to "Site D Specific Plan"
Hello Ms. Leung,
Thanks for taking the time to make your City Council aware of your concerns.
N
It is ant to have scoping meetings like the one you attended at Heritage Park. ,Not
eve important
is going to come away with everything they hope for/ but it is an opportunity
/x '=��"=t Th Walnut Valley School District owns that property and, as a property owner,
to have input. e W h sponsib�l�ty that if they are going
they have a right to develop their property. e have a re d / t b included on
tn develop it we provide them with a specific plan as to what can an cannot e
the property. We cannot simply say "No/ you cannot develop it", as they have property rights
just like you and I do with the property we own.
I hope you will'take the opportunity to participate in the public hearing to be held by the
Diamond Bar Planning commission Tuesday evening, April 13th, and provide your input,
Thanks again for taking the time to share your views.
Steve T ye
Mayor Pro Tem
Diamond Bar
This transmission is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is
addressed Said transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected by both Federal and State law. Any dissemination/ distribution or
transmission of this information is strictly prohibited' If you receive this e-mail
communication in error, please notify me immediately by telephone (909) 732-3486 so that
remedial measures may be taken to properly direct this correspondence'
Confidential Communications
The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the
individual or individuals named above. If the person actually receiving this message or any
other reader of the message is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible
to deliver it to the named recipient' any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately destroy AND notify us by telephone at 909.839.7058'
J
'ff
CL
.1
oil I I 21L: I MIL I an:
aim-,'
0
(.)
EL jz: c\i
"j c:
0
0
C?
C(3)9
>
CV)
9 0 0 '000 C?
o
C\j
0
C) C) (D c) I-
0
C) 0 0
o
-j
CL
0 -a
0
Cn
cq cq C\1
CL 2
6
z
6
z
0
0
N
ry
U) w
U)
CL
IL
EC:
U)
DL
U)
D
c
ca
C)
C)
r_ 0
a) 5
ca
fa
0
w a)
0
co
6
w ."
a
OU
U)
-C
0
0
I Lo
U)
Lo :3
00
t a)
a
C
0
,
cq I-- �>
I-- z
cq —
ca
mi
Co
E
a)
C:
E
r_
> ca
0 U)
N
a)
0
a) E
0
co
-1d
0)
n
C/)
RM -
EL
uj
uj
w
Z
0O
in -
U)
0 R,
0 2
CL
z
z
a.
(D
(D
z (D (D (D
(D
.9
a
00
0
C?
C(3)9
>
CV)
9 0 0 '000 C?
o
C\j
0
C) C) (D c) I-
0
C) 0 0
o
-j
CL
n
0
Cn
cq cq C\1
CL 2
6
z
6
z
C\1
-i
N
ry
U) w
U)
CL
IL
r)
DL
U)
D
c
ca
C)
C)
.9
a
(D (D
Z Z
z z
0 0
(L IL
IL CL
w w
CL CL
2z � z
00 00
() p c)
Z < Z
LL U-
0 C)
0 0
O Li Oil
z LLI z
<
Oz 0z
Z 0Z 0
� 1— 1— �
z n
< Z
60
<
DL ry D- x
a_ 0 < 0- c
< U- LL
ME
I
<
>
a)
U)
Cn
a)
U)
a)
r_
0
O
Lu N
U)
>
>
c
ca
C) =
w Em
>
r_ 0
IL
C
C:
fa
0
w a)
n-
2
(a W
- 0
w ."
a
OU
U)
-C
0
0
I Lo
U)
Lo :3
00
t a)
a
C
8 q�=
,
cq I-- �>
I-- z
cq —
LL
(D (D
Z Z
z z
0 0
(L IL
IL CL
w w
CL CL
2z � z
00 00
() p c)
Z < Z
LL U-
0 C)
0 0
O Li Oil
z LLI z
<
Oz 0z
Z 0Z 0
� 1— 1— �
z n
< Z
60
<
DL ry D- x
a_ 0 < 0- c
< U- LL
ME
I
T
(D
(D
(D
(D
CD
(D
(D
tton
Z
Z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Z
'i=
F
F
F=
F
F
F
F
<
Z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i.
0
C)
0
0
U
C)
U
C-)
0-
CL
CL
a_
a-
CL
(L
IL
CL
CL
IL
IL
IL
CL
CL
CL
CL
a_
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
w
w
w
w
LLJ
w
w
Lli
w
uj
_j
w
_j
w
-i
W
_j
w
_j
w
_j
ui
_j
Lli
_j
w
_j
CL
z
a-
z
CL
.5 z
IL
15 z
CL
2z
CLCL
.1�5; z
!C�L; z
z
2z
SO
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
OF
OF
OF
OF
Ute.
OF
UF-
OF
C) F
Z_ <
Z <
Z <
Z <
Z.[
Z<(
Z <
z <
U_ ry
LL ry
LL 5;lL
Q�
G
LL
tL
L, 5;
U_
re
4Lt,j'
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dry
0cam'
0
00
M
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
LL
W z
U_
w z
U_
WL Z
U_
W;g
LL
Lu i�;
ul
92 g
ul
Y� z
w z
U_
I z
LL
U- -
J
!:� -lL
_j
U_
U_
Ll-
LL
Fl-
U_
<
�_ <
p _j
<
_j
1- <
_j
F- <
_j
f- <
_j
E- <
p _j
<
_j
h <
Oz
Oz
OZ
Oz
Oz
Oz
Oz
Oz
Oz
Z 0
Z 0
Z0
Z 0
Z 0
Z 0
Z 0
Zo
z o
z
Z Fn
Z C)
Z
Z Fn
Z
Z E3
Z E
Z
60
< o
<0
< o
60
60
60
d0
<0
<
C)
<
C) <
) <
<
C) <
<
2 <
C) <
EL ry
_Dj_ W
IL W
DL w
CL IX
(L W
D
IL O�
Ej X
C_Lj W
WO
d0
CL 0
CL 0
(L 0
CL 0
CL 0
IL 0
WO
< U_
< U_
< LL
< LL
< LL
< U_
< LL
< LL
<11
g4m,
w
A,
; IITIZ�;
cc
a)
IR
EE
-o
0
E
�
A
a)
U)
C
co
a
co
ca
9
.
OL
OL
Ea)
0
.0 _j
0
x
C:
<
�11
1
4V
<
<
<
<
ia-n
2.,
LO
OO' C?
o
0
1,-
0
LO
C\j
cl)
60
00
,
cm
0
C4
0
9
0)
0
0
—
0
1-
&
C)
u-)
I
C)
CD
C14
C:, C\j
N (L
CL
C)
N
CD
C*4
C\j
_j
C)
C14
C:)
Cli
0
_j
IL
5
r) G
ry
ry
n -
a)
U)
40—
E
a)
70(D
2
ry a.
WLO
U)
9)
U)
p
U)
(1)
"
C: C:
0.0)
0
LO
0
ra)
>
—
U)
M
(3)
U) >
M =
>,
Q.
0
:M
ca
a)
E
ca
E
'0
a) a
E
=
C.) o
q E
0•
>
m U)
0.
0,
4—
a)
410
—
(D
-&.
4c(s
a)
cL tE5
-a a)
_3
ca
a) cu
cr.
a) c
w
[L
cu
Co r7r.
G) -o
cu
a) cr
Co
a)
�-) j�
0),U—)
m cn
CD —:3
no' E
U) E
U) cn
C\l CL a)
E
Z.
ui
.ff.
CD a
coo
m
C�t3
CD
C3 Z
—0
o
't 0
'q-
Lo
'It CD
co
Coo
C) 0
LO
CO
c:
fl- 0 a)
Qo
IL
(L
r,
c\i
N z
CNI —
ry
CO —
N
N
z
M —
(0—
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
On April 27, 2010, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular
session at 7:00 p.m., at the South Coast Quality Management District/Government Center
Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda.
1, Stella Marquez, declare as follows:
I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On April 23, 2010, a copy of the agenda
of the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission was posted at the
following locations:
South Coast Quality Management
District Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar Library
1061 Grand Avenue
Diamond Bar, CA
Heritage Park
2900 Brea Canyon Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on April 23, 2010, at Diamond Bar, California.
Stella Marquez
Community Development Department
g:\\affidavitposting.doc
April 22, 2010
City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
C/O Grace Lee
City of Diamond Bar
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
SL113JECT: SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission:
As Chairman Torng indicated at the April 13, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, I would be
able to provide any written comments to the proposed Site D Specific Plan and Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). As these comments were to be allowed after the close of the Public
Hearing, the City is acknowledging and allowing these comments to be placed into record and
therefore must also be addressed as part of Public Comment period.
The purpose of my comments is to not attack or criticize any individual of the City, Planning
Commission, City Council or City Staff My purpose is to only state my concerns in the effort to
be heard. Upon review, I unfortunately feel that the Specific Plan and EIR are not quality
documents. I feel it lacks substance, contains incomplete studies and analysis and lacks basic
information and justification that would be typically found in a Specific Plan and EIR. It has too
many problems, which will take a significant amount of time to just discuss a few. It is my
opinion and the opinion of other residents, that the City of Diamond Bar cannot and should not
adopt the Specific Plan; and cannot and should not certify the EIR. for the following general
reasons:
1. The Specific Plan is inadequate, inconsistent and does not meet statutory
requirements;
2. The proposed high-density residential land uses is in compatible with adjacent land
use and inconsistent with the General Plan;
3. The drafting of the Specific Plan was created without ggy community input;
a. Every resident that has spoke or provided comments on this issue has not been in
support.
b. Not one resident of Diamond Bar so far has spoke in favor of the Specific Plan
and EIR.
Page I of 16
4. The drafting and analysis of the Specific Plan and EIR was not completed by an
objective, third party independent consultant that has no prior relationship with the
co -applicant, Walnut Valley Unified School District.
5. The traffic report in the EIR is three years old, out -dated and incomplete, did not
analyze traffic impacts at several intersections and at the proposed project, does not
reflect actual real existing traffic, does not accurately estimate future traffic levels and
impacts, and does not adequately and legally mitigate impacts as provided for under
CEQA;
6. The EIR is incomplete and does not adequately identify impacts and mitigation
measures and the Mitigation and Monitoring Report does not ensure that traffic
mitigation measures will ever be funded and completed and therefore is a violation of
the CEQA Mandate pursuant to the case law of Federation of Hillside and Canyon
Associates v. City of Los Angeles;
7. The Lead Agency has not considered all viable feasible alternatives and erred in
ruling out the Conservation/Retained Open Space Alternative;
8. The EIR and Specific Plan ignores all comments and inputs of the residents; and,
9. The Lead Agency should have notified the entire City of the proposed project, or at a
bare minimum, all residents South of Grand Avenue.
As a result please find my detailed comments to support the above:
1. Specific Plan and (I1) Incompatible Land use:
The Specific Plan does not meet the intentions or statutory requirements. The
definition of a Specific Plan is a tool for implementing the General Plan that brings
together detailed policies and regulations in a focused development scheme. The
proposed Site D Specific Plan does not provide any detailed policies and regulations.
Statutory Requirements of a Specific Plan include:
i. Define Land Uses;
ii. Describe the major components of public and private transportation;
iii. Address sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy and other
essential facilities;
iv. Create development standards and criteria;
v. Set standards for the conservation, development and utilization of natural
resources;
vi. Define a program of implementation measures, including financing
measures; and,
vii. Demonstrate consistency with other relevant plans.
The Site D Specific Plan is a well-written document in that it is an easy read and not
too technical. However, the fact that it is not too technical is one of its basic and
major flaws in that it really doesn't say or do anything. It doesn't provide any real
Page 2 of 16
guidelines, policies and regulations that will guide the future development. Instead of
the Plan stating that future development "shall" abide by these certain standards, the
Plan does not first define the standard to begin with and then proceeds to state it
"may" follow the undefined standards. For example, the type of architecture style of
multi -family residential is not defined. Instead of the Specific Plan stating which
architecture style the residential development shall or will follow, it states six
different types in which one to two can be selected which includes Colonial, Spanish
Colonial, Cottage, Monterey, Craftsman, and Italianate. How will Cottage and
Colonial look together or Craftsman or Italianate? What is Italianate? Has this been
really considered? But the point is that the Specific Plan should designate one
"specific" architecture design for the project to follow, otherwise why is a Specific
Plan even needed?
Every section seems to use the language "should" or "may" which is not a
requirement instead of language such as "shall" and "will" which is unconditional and
must be followed. Some examples are:
66c. Building Massing, Retails, and Materials"
® Building massing, details, and materials should be carefully
considered in developing an appropriate architectural character for the
residential area.
® No building shall exceed a height of 40 feet. An architectural
projection such as a chimney or tower may exceed the maximum
building height, but shall not exceed a height of 45 feet.
o Long, unbroken facades and box -like forms should be avoided.
Building facades should be broken up to give the appearance of a
collection of smaller structures.
® To the extent possible, each of the units should be individually
recognizable. This can be accomplished with the use of balconies,
setbacks, and projections which help articulate individual dwelling
units or collections of units and by the pattern and rhythm of windows
and doors.
® Elevations visible from Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon
Road should be carefully articulated and large unbroken surfaces
should be discouraged.
* Emphasis should be placed on horizontal architectural lines including
trim and fascia lines.
® Buildings should be designed to define outdoor spaces, with floor
plans that have a logical and functional relationship between indoor
spaces and outdoor areas.
Page 3 of 16
® Provide front porches where the architectural style is appropriate and
possible to accomplish stepped massing.
Another example is landscaping. The Specific Plan essentially says nothing about
what type of landscaping is allowed, what are the size (gallons) of trees and plants to
be planted. What is the landscaping design? What species are consistent with the
landscaping design? The Specific Plan should have identified one landscaping plan
with details of trees and plant species. Instead, it states nothing other than "native
California tree." What is defined as a native California tree? Is it a palm or an ugly
black walnut? To require a landscaping pian to be submitted at the time that the
tentative tract map is submitted is not the purpose of a Specific Plan. That
requirement could be a condition of approval of any development without a specific
plan. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to set "specific" Development Standards.
This Specific Plan is very lacking in technical substance and has no real value other
than to allow high-density housing and commercial retail without specjhjy n real
development standards. The above text and most of language in the Specific Plan are
not development standards. It does not limit what can or cannot be constructed; it
actual is allowing that anything can be developed, so there is no real value in having
it. As the document contains very few unconditional standards or requirements, the
entire document is rendered useless to guide future development and is not essential
to its future development. In reality, the only real development standards are setback
requirements and building heights (which can be amended without notice in the future
as defined in the Specific Plan).
The Specific Plan does not define the types of building materials, landscape materials,
building types, and hardscape improvements. Typically, a specific plan would
identify one architecture design and list the types of building materials and
improvements to wide the development to be developed as envisioned. This is not
the case here. There is no vision and leadership provided for in this document; as a
result this Specific Plan is rendered useless and unnecessary.
The Specific Plan does not include detailed site plans that illustrate building floor
plans, and therefore no analysis was completed to adequately analyze internal traffic
circulation, and the relationship of buildings, landscaping, amenities, viewpoints,
design standards, access points, and consistency with other relevant plans. What are
standards for signage? What are the fire safety issues in relationship to the Site Plan?
What is the actual impact to utilities? Stating the company that provides utility
service does not meet the requirements. The purpose is to ensure there is adequate
service and capacity without any impact to surrounding areas.
The Specific Plan does not clearly define the type of housing to be constructed. Is it
low-income, moderate -income, or senior housing? Is it owner -occupied only or can it
be developed as apartments? Is it two or three stories? Is it a gated community?
Why does the Housing development have alley? Alleys are conducive to crime and
Page 4 of 16
maintenance issues. Are there Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's) or
Association Bylaws? If so, they need to be included in conditions of approval. There
should be a requirement that deed restrictions or covenants be recorded against the
title to ensure the housing units would be only for owner -occupied.
Consistency: Although the Specific Plan indicates that it is consistent with the
General Plan and Housing Element, the reality is that it is not as the site has never
been identified as a possible highh density housing development in the General Plan or
Housing Element. As stated on a May 1, 2009 memorandum titled, "Summary of the
City of Diamond Bar's 2008 Housing Element, it states,
"In order to meet the City's very -low and low income obligation, at least 15.5
acres of land will need to be rezoned to accommodate 30 units per acre. Potential
rezone sites within the City identified thus far include thefollowing:
o Kmart site
o Tres Hermans property
o Vacant land behind the LDS church at Diamond Bar Boulevard, north of Grand
Avenue.
At this time, the City has only committed to study these sites further. Even if the
Housing Element is certified and adopted, any subsequent rezoning efforts will
require noticed public hearings and adoption by the City Council. "
As a result, the City cannot use Site D as justification to meet the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) housing needs. The City indicates that in order to meet
RHNA numbers, land use density would need to be increased from 20 units per acres
to 30 units per acre. As Site D is currently zoned for single-family housing, it should
not and cannot be a candidate to be increased to 30 units per acre to meet R14NA
numbers.
The following states the Visions, Goals and Consistency Statements, followed with my
comments:
The Housing Element
Vision Statement. It is the overall goal of the housing plan that there is adequate
housing in the City, both in quality and quantity, to provide appropriate shelter for all
without discrimination.
Goal: Consistent with the Vision Statement, preserve and conserve the existing
housing stock and maintain property values and residents' quality of life.
Consistency: This Specific Plan has been developed in accordance with the General
Plan's land use strategy for this area and creates logical and orderly development.
Page 5 of 16
Commercial -retail, high-density residential and open space land uses have been
carefully sited with regards to adjacent existing and proposed surrounding land uses.
Furthermore, the project may enhance surroundingproperty values, which will
create a long-term positive fiscal impact to the City of Diamond Bar.
COMWIENT: The above consistency statement misses the point of the goal,
which is to "preserve and conserve the existing housing stock and maintain
property values and residents' quality of life." Preserving and conserving the
existing housing stock is not defined as developing new housing, but to improve
and maintain (improving and rehabilitating) the existing housing stock to maintain
quality of life and property values. The Consistency Statement is incorrect. How
has this Plan been developed in accordance with the General Plan's land use
strategy? How does it create a logical and orderly development? These
statements are baseless without substance or justification. But more importantly,
how does any of the Consistency Statement justify the development of new
housing to meet the Goal. It does not. As a result, there can be no finding or
representation of consistency in the development of high-density housing to meet
goal of preserving and conserving the existing housing stock and maintaining
property values and residents' quality of life.
Goal: Consistent with the Vision Statement, provide opportunities for development of
suitable housing to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents.
Consistency: The high-density residential housing of Site D meets the fiscal and
culturally diverse needs of both future and existing City of Diamond Bar residents by
offering an alternative to the predominantly detached single-family residential market
largely found in the City of Diamond Bar.
COMMENT: The consultant provided a representation that the development of
housing would be of high quality for the moderate or upper-income families. The
Consistency Statement discusses meeting diverse fiscal and cultural needs. As a
result, there is a contradiction as to the type of housing that is to be constructed.
Is the high-density housing to be developed for low-income families? If so, how
does that meet the first goal of maintaining property values as low income
housing can and will have impacts to adjacent property values. In addition, again,
as the site has not been zoned for high-density and has not been identified to meet
RHNA housing needs under the revised Housing Element, it is not consistent with
the General Plan and Housing Element. As a result, there can be no finding or
representations of consistency in the development of high-density housing in
meeting the Goal.
Goal: Provide adequate sites through appropriate land -use and zoning designations
to accommodate future housing growth.
Consistency: The City of Diamond Bar's General Plan Land Use Map designates the
Page 6 of 16
70.5 -acre Site D site as a Specific Plan Overlay. The Specific Plan Overlay
designation requires a Specific Plan to be prepared and adopted to provide direction
related to site planning, architectural design, and site-specific development
standards. The Site D Specific Plan provides a means to properly develop the site in a
coordinated manner, taking into account all local goals, policies, and objectives.
Additionally, the mixed -uses envisioned for the Specific Plan area will contain high-
density residential housing, thereby increasing housing opportunities within the
Diamond Bar community.
COMMENT: The site is designate as single-family zoning, not Specific Plan. As
a result, single-family housing would be currently consistent with the stated Goal.
However, the Consistency Statement is absolutely incorrect in stating it is
consistent with the General Plan. As the site has not been designate as a specific
plan overlay and Site D Specific Plan approved, the statement cannot justify a
potential future action as already have occurred and justifying the consistency of
the project based on the at future action. The Specific Plan does not exist as it has
not been approved and therefore, the City cannot make the finding of consistency
for an action that hasn't occurred. As a result, the proposed land use is
inconsistent based on the above and the City cannot make any appropriate
findings or representations. In addition, as all surrounding residential uses are
single-family homes, high-density would be inconsistent and incompatible with
the surrounding area and therefore would be incompatible and inconsistent with
the General Plan as well.
Goal: Consistent with the Vision Statement, encourage equal and fair housing
opportunities far all economic segments of the community.
Consistency_ Site D willprovide high density residential uses in the form of attached
housing, which can accommodate various economic segments of the Diamond Bar
community and its residents by supporting the variation in character of the Diamond
Bar housing stock
COMMENT: Again, the public has been presented with the representation that
the high-density housing would be developed for moderate or upper-income
families. If that is the case, the Consistency Statement is incorrect as it is not
available for various economic segments. If it is being developed for various
income levels, the public is not being told the information and truth. What type of
residential high-density development is being considered? As this is unclear, the
Specific Plan and EIR are incomplete.
Circulation Element
Vision Statement: It is the overall goal of the circulation element to provide a safe,
adequate, and environmentally sensitive transportation system to meet the circulation
needs of the citizens of Diamond Bar.
Page 7of16
Goal: Consistent with the Vision Statement, enhance the environment of the City's street
network. York toward improving the problems presented by the intrusion of regionally
oriented commuter traffic through the City and into residential neighborhoods. Consider
programs to reinforce the regional transportation and circulation system to adequately.
accommodate regional needs.
Consistency: Site D's improvement of interior roadways and circulation will ensure safe,
direct, and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access to and through the project's
various land uses. Because the site is bordered by existing and improved roadways
(Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road), no major exterior roadway
modifications will be developed by this Specific Plan. To the extent possible, existing
lane configurations and right-of-way improvements on exterior project roadways will be
retained. However, minor landscape and parkway improvements shall be provided along
these roadways as well as additional strategically placed entrances, which will make Site
D an easily accessible location for residents of the City of Diamond Bar.
COMMENT: As there has not been a site plan of buildings and plans showing
any designs of interior roadways, the City cannot illustrate that.circulation will be
safe, and that there will be direct, convenient vehicular and pedestrian access to
and from the project's land use. This cannot be shown or proven at this time. In
addition, the project does not show any bus turnouts and or mass transit
circulation patterns to also be able to illustrate any consistency the goal. As a
result, the Consistency Statement is incorrect and the City cannot make any
findings or representations of consistency to Circulation Element. In addition, it
is almost impossible to justify that ingress and egress of the proposed project is
not considered major exterior improvements. What about bus turnouts, de -
acceleration lanes, signalized improved intersection at Cherrydale and Diamond
Bar Boulevard leading into the project? Those would be major roadways
improvements that have not been discussed in detail or at all, nor analyzed and
mitigated for its impact. As a result, there can be no finding or representation of
consistency.
Goal: Consistent with the Vision Statement, provided a balanced transportation system
for• the safe and efficient movement ofpeople, goods, and services through the City.
Consistency_: The Site D project will contain a strong internal circulation network that
will serve to provide direct and efficient access to the site. While the automobile will be
the predominant form of travel, the Site D Specific Plan recognizes the importance of
alternative modes of transportation. A convenient and easily accessible transit system
becomes an essential element of a mixed-use development such as Site D: Bus stops are
located adjacent to Site D and facilitate alternative modes of transportation. Transit is
expected to be provided by the
COMMENT: How can the statement be made that Site D will have a strong
internal circulation network, when no plans illustrate internal streets and
Page 8of16
circulation patterns? As there is not a site plan showing buildings, internal roads
and sidewalks, the City cannot illustrate that circulation will be safe, and that
there will be direct, convenient vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the
projects land use. This cannot be shown or proven at this time. In addition, the
project does not show any bus turnouts and or mass transit circulation patterns to
also be able to illustrate any consistency the goal. As a result, the Consistency
Statement is incorrect and the City cannot make any findings or representations of
consistency to Circulation Element. In addition, it is almost impossible to justify
that ingress and egress of the proposed project is not considered major exterior
improvements. What about bus turnouts, de -acceleration lanes, lighted
intersection at Cherrydale and Diamond Bar Boulevard? Those would be major
roadways improvements that have not been discussed in detail or at all, nor
analyzed and mitigated for its impact. As a result, there can be no finding or
representation of consistency.
Another concern is the statement regarding revisions, which essentially states that the
Specific Plan can be revised without any formal amendments to the Specific Plan.
It should be noted that, the development within the Site D Specific Plan may be
subject to market conditions as well as infrastructure design improvements and
therefore may evolve and change, resulting in various revisions to the phasing
program anticipated and described herein. These revisions once reviewed and
confirmed by the City ofDiamond Bar Assistant City Manawer for Community
and Development Services that any proposed chancres would meet the intent of the
SpeciLiC Plan and adequately serve the needs of the community shall be permitted
without an amendment to this Specific Plan and shall'fall under the Substantial In
conclusion to this section, the draft Specific Plan does not control future
development of the site other than to allow high-density housing and commercial
development without any real development or design standards.
This intentional vague statement gives "Carte Blanc" abilities to the City to change
the Specific Plan without any additional community input, notice or formal process
as long as it is deemed to fit the intent of the Specific Plan or needs of the
community. But the intent and needs are not clearly defined. As a result, the City
can change the allowable density (20 to 30 units per acre) or building square
footage. The standard language should be to allow only "minor or insignificant"
changes that would not increase land use density, building square footage or result
in additional impacts that have not been previously studied. But that is not what is
being stated here.
III Community Input:
To my knowledge, the City has not sought any community input to develop the concept of
the Specific Plan. The City has only sought input in a -meeting labeled a "Scoping Meeting"
Page 9 of 16
to obtain reaction from the already drafted Specific Plan and ETR. As you know, the term
"Scoping" means to look at or look into carefully; scrutinize; investigate or to examine
closely. It is to obtain (or scope out) the community as to their input, feelings and opinions
with respect to the potential development of a site. As a result, a Scoping meeting typically
occurs first to obtain input and then the City drafts documents and designs to reflect such
community input.
That did not occur and is not representation of the community. The City had "Community
Meeting" to present the already drafted Specific Plan and EIR and to seek feedback and buy
in on those documents and plans. Although intentions may have been good, the reality is that
residents left will a feeling that it was a waste of time in that all community input was
ignored as illustrated in the draft Final EIR. Each response was to either indicate reasons that
the City did not have to respond, or to indicate that the comment has been acknowledged. In
another words, the City noted our comment and did nothing to address our comment. That is
not representation.
The question is what is intent and responsibilities of the Planning Commission and the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar. Is the intent to consider and address residents' concerns
or to ignore the community and push the project through at the bare minimum legal
requirements? It is the responsibility for the Planning Commission and the City Council to
do what is right for the City of Diamond Bar and for its residents. It is the responsibility to
represent and protect its residents, not the District.
There was one clear and true statement that came from Walnut Valley Unified School
District ("District") in which Nancy Lyons indicated that the District's primary goal is to
raise money. Although a misfortunate and maybe an accidental statement, it is a true
statement in which I was offended at first. But I later realized that the District at least arrived
at a solid honest position. The District is not responsible for protecting the rights and quality
of life for the City of Diamond Bar and its residents, except for education. As such, their
goal is different then the City's. However, it is a conflicting goal with the City of Diamond
Bar. What is the goal of the City of Diamond Bar? Is the goal to protect and represent the
residents, or to help the District make. money? Although financial issues are not relevant to a
Planning Commission, the Planning Commission needs to stay focused on what is right to
protect and represent the City of Diamond Bar and its residents. If all residents to date are
against the project, how can the project be right for the City and how can the Planning
Commission and City Council represent its residents by approving the proposed project? I
understand that the City may be viewing this site as a means to generate tax revenues on the
commercial component, but as the City has not sought true, unfiltered feed back to begin
with, the City will never know if there is any compromise. As a result, I suggest that the City
either throw this plan away and start over, or to not approve it based on the outcry of
Diamond Bar residents. Also please keep in mind that every resident that has spoke or
provided comments on this issue has not been in support and that not one resident has yet
spoke in favor of the proposed Specific Plan.
Page 10 of 16
IV Objectivity and Independent:
In my opinion, the drafting and analysis of the Specific Plan and EIR was not completed by
an objective, third party independent consultant that has no prior relationship with the co -
applicant, Walnut Valley Unified School District.
The consultant has boasted that he has had over a 20 -year relationship with the District. As
the District is a co -applicant, this relationship is essentially a conflict of interest in that the
consultant cannot be objective in his CEQA analysis. In most City's, the City selects an EIR
consultant that has had no prior relationship with the applicant. This is done to ensure an
arm -length objective study and to prevent any accusations of collusion, favoritism, or any
other arguments that impacts the defensibility of the document. As the consultant has a
desire to continue his relationship with the District, he can and may been influenced to ignore
impacts in which could increase project costs. As the District has voiced that their goal is to
make money, the proposed land use has to be intensified to increase potential value and
mitigation costs has to be decreased to increase profits. This appears to be the exact what is
happening here as will be discussed later, but in essence, not all impacts have been studied,
identified and mitigated.
Please do not consider the following to be aggressive in any means. I feel it needs to be said
and I debated long and hard over whether to include it or not. What also further
compromises the appearance of objectivity is the judgment in hiring an existing member of
the Planning Commissioner to perform work on the Specific Plan or EIR. I understand that
an individual has or will conduct an independent quality work, but the issue is not the
individual, but the objectivity of the consultant and Lead Agency that is considering a project
in which one of it's own has worked on. How can the City possibly be objective when one of
your colleagues and friends is working on the project`? I don't think I could be objective, as I
would want to be supportive and loyal to my friend and his project as well. If I would have a
difficult time, I would think so would everybody else.
The City needs to envision this project as being proposed by a private individual, not by the
City or the District. If this project was being proposed by a private developer, what would
the City allow, not allow, or require the developer to mitigate? That is the .real question.
Also, the City needs to realize that it does have the objectivity, the ability to turn down this
Speci Ce Plan based on land use, community input, and impacts and soon. Although it ha.s
been presented to the Planning Commission that there is only the choice of approving a
Specific Plan and recommend approval of an EIR, that representation is not accurate. Many
other Cities, Planning Commissions and City Councils have turned down projects statewide.
Cities have turn down large retailers like Wal-Mart, hotels like Extended Stay America, park
and ride parking structures like Foothill 'Transit, just to name a few. I am certain that the City
of Diamond Bar has turned down an application at some point.
V. Traffic Report and Mitigation Measures:
Page 11 of 16
The traffic report is one the biggest problems the City has to face to approve this project.
Based on what currently exists, the City cannot approve the ETR for several major reasons.
The traffic report in the EIR is three years old, out -dated and incounplete. The consultant
indicated that an updated traffic report was completed a year ago. The problem is that the
update traffic report was not reflected in. the draft EIR that was circulated. in addition, the
consultant did not further publish the revised traffic report for review and comment and
therefore the document has no value. Even if a revised traffic study were performed a year
ago or even today, the comment period for CF,QA would not officially start until all
documents have been published for review. As a result, any new information distributed now
or in the future would require a new comment period commencing upon the date that all
information is available.
The Traffic Study is stating existing 2007 traffic LOS and projecting 2010 and 2030 LOS.
As we are in the year 2010, the traffic study should identify existing 2010 traffic and
estimated 2020 and 2030 traffic. As a result, the traffic counts in the traffic study do not
reflect actual existing traffic; nor reflect realistic projected traffic.
There are other major (laws within the traffic report. The flaws are not analyzing all impacts
at all intersections. As the proposed high-density housing would create 202 housing units,
the EER, and traffic study do not take into consideration impacts to local schools. For
example, the traffic study fails to analyze traffic at Clod Spring Lane and Castlerock and
Brea Canyon and Cold Spring Place. As the District does not monitor or guide traffic along
Castlerock, traffic bottlenecks and backs up on Diamond bar Boulevard to the Super H
parking lot. It can take 10 to 15 minutes to drop your child off at Castlerock Elementary and
sometimes longer when it rains. Why where these specific intersections to the school
ignored? The fact is that the traffic study does not analyze the impact and therefore is
incomplete and inaccurate.
Another issue is the minimal and almost scarce analysis of traffic as it relates to the project
itself. It is .not enough to just estimate the amount of traffic each use will generate. the traffic
study has to look at internal circulation and access points to the site to fully analyze traffic
impacts. How is traffic affected from ingress and egress of the commercial development and
what improvements are necessary? With emergency access in from Pasado Drive, will that
be opened where cars can use it as a short cut to avoid the Diamond Bar and Brea Canyon
Road intersection? What improvements are to be provided for mass transit access? Will
there be bus turnouts? If not, how will that impact traffic?
In addition, the traffic report does not analyze any potential traffic created by grading.
Although the consultant indicated that the site would balance, the ETR. mentions the
possibility of import or export of dirt. In addition, as there is not a real project being
proposed and no developer has been identified, the development of the site will be dictated
by the market as to how a developer and tenant wants it developed. As a result, the traffic
study needs to analyze and address potential import/export trucking impacts. How many
trucks? What and where are the truck routes? How will import or export impact adjacent
traffic and circulation? What and where are the mitigation measures?
Page 12 of 16
There are calculating errors and incorrect assumptions as to how much traffic is being
generated from the project. On the residential component alone, the traffic study identifies
that only 154 A.M. peak trips as being generated from the high-density residential units.
This conclusion is incorrect. Using just common reason and sense, if there were 202 housing
units in which there are two parents (some with kids), each unit will have a minimum of two
cars. That equals 404 cars and as the traffic study indicates that 84% of those cars would be
leaving in the morning peak hour that equates to 339 A.M. peak trips, not 153. That is
double of what the traffic study indicates and therefore illustrates that the traffic study is
flawed and that traffic impacts could be greater everywhere.
The traffic report also does not reflect the change of the Industry Project from and industrial
park to a stadium, which will have significant impacts to Diamond Bar. Where the Governor
has provided Industry with an exemption, the State has not provided Diamond Bar with an
exemption from having to analyze the cumulative traffic impact.
The traffic report also does not include real cumulative traffic impact in result of the new
Super H and additional adjacent retail that is now opened. Existing traffic counts do not
reflect actual traffic that exists today; it reflects traffic counts in 2007.
VI EIR and Mitigation Measures:
The proposed EIR is incomplete and does not adequately identify all impacts and mitigation
measures. The traffic study is defective; the EIR does not properly, adequately and legally
identify mitigation measures.
Just on traffic impacts alone, the sole mitigation measure is to pay the City a pro rata share of
traffic improvement costs. The problem with paying the City a specific amount at a future
point in time is that the cost of the traffic improvements may increase and therefore may not
be sufficient to cover such improvements. However, the real problem is that the EIR. does
not guarantee that the mitigation measures will ever be completely funded and constructed
with certainty. Where will the other funds come from to fund the balance of traffic
improvements? Does the City have the funds appropriate and budgeted? As.a result, that
renders the EIR. in violation to the CEQA mandate pursuant to the case law of Federation of
Hillside and Canyon Associates v. City of Los Angeles.
Should there be any changes to the traffic report, Mitigation and Monitoring Report, EIR or
Specific Plan; the entire project must be re -noticed for a new public comment period.
Another concern is the Specific Plan does not identify building types; it is not clear as to the
types of foundation that would be required and the amount of grading and boring. How deep
are the foundations far would the grading need to go down and how much vibration is
anticipated? What are the potential impacts and mitigation measures? Has there been any
study with respect to the possibility of slope failure of the homes above the project due to
slope cuts, vibration, and hydrology?
Page 13 of 16
The EIR also identifies potential large rocks discovered during grading, but does not identify
the fact that explosives may be required to break up large rocks. What are the potential
impacts and mitigation measures?
The project should be required to mitigate all impacts as a part of the development of the
project. As such any improvements directly relating to the project should be clearly stated as
a mitigation measure and reflected in the Mitigation and Monitoring Report. For example,
the intersection improvement and signalization of Cherrydale and Diamond Bar Boulevard is
completely a result of the project. The Mitigation and Monitoring Report should require the
project to make the intersection improvements and signalization, or pay the City the actual
cost of doing it at that time. What about street improvements on Brea Canyon Road for
access to the commercial center? It is also not clear how the 85 -foot set back from the
residential area will impact the area_ Is that area to be landscaped or parking area? Will it
become an area for dumping? It has been my experience that large vacant areas behind
commercial retail centers cause issues of graffiti, vandalism, and maintenance. How is this
being addressed and mitigated?
V11. Viable Feasible Alternatives
The Lead Agency did not consider all feasible alternatives. One .Alternative not considered
was commercial retail and single family housing. The Lead Agency analyzed the no project,
all single family housing, all high-density housing, public service and all commercial
alternatives. However, the City left out commercial retail and single-family housing. This
obvious alternative may be more acceptable than the current proposed project of high-density
housing and should be considered. As a result, the City has not meet CEQA guidelines in
considering all possible and feasible alternatives.
The Lead Agency has also erred in ruling out Conservation/Retained Open Space as a viable
feasible Alternative. The Lead Agency cannot rule out an Alternative based on financial goals of a co -
applicant. It is the responsibility of the Lead Agency to consider all viable alternatives. If the District
is required to dispose of the site by declaring the land surplus and offering the site for open space and
recreations purposes, the City and other non-profit entities have the ability to acquire the site for the
fair market value of that specific use. As a result, the site could be acquired for a very inexpensive
price based on conservation /open space. As the Lead Agency has not identified a funding source for
the proposed project, the Lead Agency also cannot use the funding as a reason to reject this
Alternative.
As the proposed project results in the most project impacts and the highest potential mitigation costs,
the only. other viable and feasible Alternative under consideration that the City can consider is the
"No Project Alternative."
Page 14 of 16
Vin Ignoring resident's comments
One of the most important concerns is that all comments received by the consultant and the
City of Diamond Bar has been ignored. That its what the residents believe based on the
responses we received and that not one comment received resulted in a change in the EIR,
Specific Plan, Traffic Report or the Mitigation and Monitoring Report. How is that possible?
Inclusion of comments in a Final EIR does not create a defensible EIR.
To say that a comment has been acknowledged is unacceptable. The City must reasonably
consider each and every comment. The purpose of this exercise is to just do the bare,
minimum legal requirement, but to consider the concerns and go beyond what is required, to
protect the interests of the residents of Diamond Bar.
For example, I raised issue that the City is allowing construction to commence at 7:00 a.m.
Monday through Saturday and I thought the City could move it to 8:00 a.m_ The response I
received was that the municipal code allowed them to start at 7:00 a.m. Is the purpose here
to listen and protect the residents or to do just the bare minimum? That should have been a
mitigation measure.
Another concern I raised was to start grub and grading near the homes towards the channel to
ensure that insects and rodent are driven away from homes. That should have also been a
mitigation measure, but nothing came of it.
I had another concern of the City conducting a 50 -year flood hydrology study. Industry
standards are to conduct 100 -year flood hydrology studies as a worse case scenario, but the
City responded that the County only requires a 50 -year study. The City of Diamond Bar is
an incorporated City, which does not have to follow County guidelines. That is the primary
reason the City incorporated to begin with. As a result, that response is inadequate. Even if
the County is hired to do the City's plan check, the City can require and should analysis
beyond County standards. The City can require more, but cannot require less. So again, is
the City doing the bare minimum legal requirements or protecting its residents by analyzing
worse case scenario? This should have also been a mitigation measure.
IX Noticing of Residents
Not all residents or even residents that will be directly affected by the proposed project know
about the proposed Specific Plan and EIR. The City of Diamond Bar's did not notice all
residents in the City of Diamond Bar or even residents South of Grand Avenue. The City of
Diamond Bar's noticing radius is 700 feet from the property lines and the City arbitrarily
increased the radius to 1,000 feet. As the City increased the radius from the 700 foot radius,
demonstrated that City is not restricted to any radius and the City cannot argue that the City
is following procedure or policies. As the City has demonstrated that they can increase the
Page 15 of 16
radius to any length, the City can notify any and all properties beyond a 1,000 foot including
all residents in City of Diamond Bar.
In conclusion, with the small amount if time I had to review the documents, there may be some
minor errors in my evaluation and conclusions. However, there are too many major issues
discovered with just a cursory review of extensive documents.
I urge the Planning Commission to not approve the Specific Plan and to not recommend
certification of the EIR. With the issues that I alone raised, the Planning Commission cannot and
should not approve the Specific Plan. The Traffic Report and EIR are inadequate with too many
errors. But the real issue is that how many Diamond Bar residents have stood up and supported
the Specific Plan versus the number of residents in opposition. I have not heard one resident in
support, except for a resident that may be with the District or City. Opposition is building and
the City can diff -use the growing number of unhappy residents by saying "no" to the Specific
Plan.
Do the right thing, please. Don't tell us that you are here to listen to us, show us that you are
listening.
21470 Cold Sprin
Diamond Bar,. CA
Page 16 of 16
O
CL
O
O
L
c
v
E
a,
LU
he
u
O
L
Q)
41
N
v
E
O
L
4-
Q
ai
u
v
tv
U
L
H
L)
O
L
N
41
m
V
O
N
4
L '
a
E
a
uj
V
0
L
a
N
U
E.'
O
L
Q
a
Y
V
c
v'
E
m
L
I-
u
0
L '
a'
ca
u
c
o'
0
a
L
fu
a
c
a)
E
a)
LU
v
0
L .
n1
V
0
4�
fQ
7
a)
4N
(a
Q
a
Id
V
(Q
0
bA
C
fa
L
0-
m
m
Y
S2
O
41V,
U
f
L
cu
H.
u
L
41
41
bq
Q)
L
a)'
0
U
L
O
Y Q
u
0 �.
� U
m
v c
0 —
a)_ a) .
C:
J �
a. C
N v,
E
a)
uj
_Ile
U
0
a)
VI
4-1
U
0
41
m
CL
-0
0
W
.C:
CL
0
4-1
Ln
O
.In.In
0
-x
U
0
U
4-
V)
M 4
U
0
41
(3)
.�
tn
41
C)
U
V)
Au st23,20t0
To: City ofDiamond Bar gu
Planning Commission
C/O Grace I=
R�D1��AA
W1 I VFi ��
a �
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
Re: Site D Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report
To Planning Commission Chairman. and Planning Commission Members:
Pmsanat to Planning Commission Chairman Tomg's statement at the April 13, 2010 meeting,
I am allowed tq submit additional written comments, questions, and concems regarding
Site "D"SpGei6o Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EiR). PerCbairmanTomg's
statement, these comments will be allowed after the close of the Public Hearing meeting on April 13, 2010, and the City will nolomwledge
and allow these comments to be included in the Record and will be addressed as part of the Public Comments.
There are so many problems with the Site"D" Specific Plan and with the Environmental Impact Report regarding Site "D" that it overwhelms me.
Both ofthese documents are .not a true representation ofwhat they are supposedto be accomplishing. The Reports are vague about issues which
require exact addressing. The Reports are inconsistent, conflicting, and cursory at most.
Regarding Appendix G Traffic impact Analysis
The Traffic impact Analysis is supposed to document traffic findings as they currently exist. It should be documenting a Traffic Impact Analysis as it currently
exists in 2010.
Instead, the Analysis Is providing documentation for traffic as it was in 2007, and using that data to project future traffic impacts of the present 2010.
The Traffic Impact Analysis Report states that "The Scope of Worlt for this Project was confirmed with City staff and satisfies the City of Diamond Bar
requirements as outlined in tha Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic lmpectAnalysls Report (2005)—
re going to be useful?
So, am i to believe that findings of a traffic report that is using 3 year old data to project the present, using Guidelines that are 5 years old, o
At the end of, or following "Appendix G -Traffic Impact Analysis" there is APPENDIX A - EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNT DATA. (I write this in a smaller font
because itis written thatway in the Report It's litre a whisper.)
I suspect that APPENDIX A-' is the first Appendix of "Appendix- G".
.The contents of APPENDIX - A- EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNT DATA is 193 pages of "Intersection Capacity Utilization" charts of key intersections for study
start date 101`1712007.
This is the type of outdated documentation that is being expected to provide solid, reliable information on which to base important decisions.
The information provided in the Traffic Impact Report is useless, it is Irrelevant. it is futile to proceed with a protect of this magnitude utilizing
Assuming that these 3 years old charts were good , which they are not They are neither current nor conecL
Let's examine a specific area. The residents that live in the homes that surround Site"D" on the East side of Diamond Bar blvd,
and East of Brea Canyon Road, between Silver Bullet and Diamond Bar Blvd, have three options for entering and exidnp that area.
They are Cold Springs Lane at Diamond Bar Blvd, Silver Bullet, and Copper Canyon both at Brea Canyon Road.
However, the Traffic Impact Report does not include Copper Canyon. Copper Canyon is not shown or mentioned in any Traffic Impact Report
Copper Canyon should be included in the study. It is a Key Intersection with regards to this pmlect and significant to this Report.
it is as important as is Silver Bullet Road. Although, there is no signal light at Copper Canyon, while there is a sidnai light at Sliver Bullet
Although, there is no signal light at Copper Canyon, while there is a signal light at Silver Bullet Drive, it is used more than Sliver Bullet Road.
However, all the traffic studies, the old studies, and the old studies being used as new studies, fail to show that Copper Canyon even exists.
Most people use Copper Canyon to exit and enter that area. The omission of Copper Canyon in the Traffic Study is critical. This omission
has skewed the results of an already very iII prepared study of the traffic for the area. Why wasn't the traffic of Copper Canyon included in the Report
The "Pian" states that Site D is relatively flat. This is not true. This is an easy thing to prove. ,Go there, look at it and sea for yourself. Site D fs hilly.
It noes up from the street level of Diamond Bar Blvd. and then itnoes down a bit to where there is a small area which has been identified
as "wetland". On the slopes to the back, up above Pasado Drive, on the East end there are two groundwater flows that unit as one about
halfway down the slope and flaw out to the drain.
The groundwater Is flowing underneath the houses that sit on top of those slopes at Cold Springs Lane.. That issue need to be addressed
In the Environmental Impact Report What exactly is Poing to be done to divert that flow of water without disturbing the housing above?
Mitigation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands at a ratio no less than 2:1. How exactly do you do that? Where will that be and who is
Poing to make certain that it gets done. "2:1 ratio, no less", whatwouid that be?
It is no wonder the at the August 13, 2009 meeting Mr. Ropers stated regarding this study "City staff and the LA County Flood Control staff
commiserate (sympathize) on this document" I agree with the City staff and LA County Flood Control staff, the study is a pathetic document
The "Specific Plan for Site D" and the "Environmental impact Report' for this Project give off a feeling of shrunninn the shoulders attitude regarding
all the damage Itwill cause to the natural setting, vegetation, and wild life that have existed in the area for hundreds of years.
The mitigation efforts prescribed in the EIR Study for destroying 100 year old protected and endangered trees is unacceptable.
One example is the southern California black walnut tree. The Study states that "a total of 75 individual southern California black walnut trees
meeting the size requirements of the tree ordinance were mapped during the tree survey. However, additional individuals (trees) that did not meet
the tree ordinance size criteria also occur within the study area"
Who is doing the counting? What is the size requirement for an endangered tree to be considered save worthy? How many are there, and whet
Is the actual size of the !'additional individuals that did not meet the tree ordinance size cdteda"? By the way, its the City of Diamond Bar
the recipient of Tree City USA award for the 9th year? An honor conferred upon municipalities that demonstrate a commitment to the environment
through the protection and care of public trees. I guess the City lust says, "It's riot us that's doing 1% Its the WVUSD that is doing it."
The mitipation plan for destroying these trees is vague. it states that a mitigation plan "shall be prepared that will des cdbq —" What they are
golnp to do. However, this is not acceptable. Tell us exactly what Is going to be done. Where are you going to replant 100 years old trees? Who is
going to make certain that they survive? Who will be held accountable when the trees do not survive transplanting?
City Officials and the Walnut Unified School District should take a very close look at what they are being asked to sign off on,
itis not to betaken lightly. Think abdut how long the Issue of SITE "D" has peen going on. We, that have been objecting to this project
since 1991. We have studied long and hard etwhat is being proposed for"Site D". Ills time consuming and it Is exasperating.
Dealing with City Hall is not a walk in the park. For most of us It is a great sacrifice. We do it because the Project that is being proposed
for "Site D" is offensive. We should expect that our City Officials would mind an eye sore at the gateway to our City.
Instead, year after year, we continue to say the same things about the outrageous plan and still City Hail does not listen to us.
The answer to this project plan for Site D is now and has always been "no". To say that there are no problems with the plan as it exists is an untruth.
To agree,with the Plans great overstatement of "less to no significant impact" on the many specific areas covered would be a great neglect of a fiduciary duty.
Mary E. Rodripuez
3419 Pasedo Drive
Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
Melony Paulson
21919 Santaquin Drive
Diamond Bar, CA
April 24, 2010
Re: Site 'D' Comments
City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
C/o Grace Lee
21925 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Sir,
AEC �VED BWTfi --,:
x-PO'DIAMOK BAR
Z.010 APR 26 PH 31 Mi
I attended the site 'D' meeting the other eveningand was sad to see that the city
and the school district are still pushing the same tired plan they were at the original
meeting a year ago.
The premise of that plan is to get the basic ETR, zoning and approval process far
enough along so that a chosen developer will only need to submit building plans in order
to develop the site. The problem with this plan is several fold.
One, retail space around us is alr&ady over built. Huge new retail developments
have just been opened in Chino Hills, San Dimas, Industry and Azusa.
Two, most of the major retail chains have chosen to site their stores all around us.
Others will also They, like the Honda people, will wish to be located in an existing
shopping areas.. With the downturn in the economy, it will be some time be -fore the area
will need* another shopping area as envisioned by the planners of this project. Indeed, the
Azusa developer just announced they were defaulting on their loans.
Three, there is already sizeable shopping center right across the street from the
Paulson Site 'D' comments Page 1
proposed site. That center struggled for years and, to my knowledge, still hasn't been
fully leased. At least the building which used to house the movie theater is still empty.
Four, the thirty acres under discussion is the last remaining natural area in
Diamond Bar that is in a suitable location for development. It makes absolutely no sense
to bulldoze it into a flat, ugly, grotesque eyesore in the vain hope of attracting sales tax
and property tax revenue. Diamond Bar prides itself on its quality of life and its "country
living" atmosphere. We were proud of our award as being one of the ten best places to
live in this country. Why, then, are we in such a hurry to destroy the very atmosphere that
defines us as a city?
Instead, I urge both the planners of this project and the city counsel *to reconsider,
this plan. In order to truly shine as an different, outstanding place to live and raise our
families, we will need to think differently about this site. We must manifest the courage
to create a unique development that sets us apart from the type of slash, bum, bulldoze
and pave type of developments that currently litter Diamond Bar and the cities around us,
. Specifically, instead of seeing Site D's natural setting and irregularly contoured
terrain as undesirable qualities that need to be "tamed," why not look to those
characteristics as an advantage? Instead of trying to attract large chain retail operations,
which have already sited their operations elsewhere, why not create a specialty shop
destination center?
We are a remnant of the old west. Diamond Bar used to be a ranch. Why not
celebrate that? Why not leave the 100 year old trees in place? Build the development
around them with an old west theme. Build a parking structure. Make it pedestrian
friendly. Consider wood sided and/or brick buildings housing specialty'shops. Place
your condos above or around or outside them. Do it in a way that would create a center of
interest for Diamond Bar. A focal point that would help to define the city.
It is certainly true that Diamond Bar needs sales tax revenue. But why attempt to
create that revenue by making our quality of life worse and lowering our property values?
Think about it. What is was it that attracted many of our residents to Diamond Bar?
Paulson Site T' comments Page 2
Nearly to a person who spoke at the meeting last week, as well as ourselves and most of
the people we know, it was the natural setting. With each passing year, more of our
scenic hills and natural settings are being bulldozed, fattened for ugly -developments.
Right now, and even more so with each passing year, a shopping environment
placed in a natural setting will be a stand out exception. . The natural setting itself will
draw people to it. This may seem counter intuitive to the consultants hired.by the city.
However, other small towns like us have found that the natural settings, like our Site 'D',
are worth far more to individually and collectively if they are developed in ways that
celebrate the spirit of the place instead of destroy it.
Other cities have . done this. in Oregon, the little town of Troutdale successfully
did this. They have a huge outlet center just north of town, from which they derive no
revenue. They refurbished their main street into period designed. buildings with specialty
shops and the city is flourishing. It can be done.
There is no question that it will take some serious creative thinking and may be a
bit more expensive to in the short run, but if we don't at least pause and consider this
option now, we will have forever lost an opportunity to become something other than just
another ugly suburb of Los Angeles.
The advantages of such the plan I propose are many.
Any traffic increases would be mostly at off peak, hours, Part of the site could be a
park. it might not be as large as some of us might like, but it would better than acres of
hot, desolate pavement that is now being envisioned for the site. Diamond Bar would
have a family friendly focal point, something it now lacks. Our property values would be
increased by such a development. Done right, the sales tax revenue would be equal or
greater to that of a tacky strip mall. And, instead of being diminished, the special
qualities that make Diamond Bar special will be enhanced.
. What we currently face is a crisis of vision. The towns around us, City of Industry,
San Dimas, Chino Hills, even Brea, have already won the battle of the big box stores. If
Paulson Site T' comments Page 3
we wish to be successful in our retailing experience with Site 'D', we will need to stake
out an area, or an idea they have not. Work with the site instead I of against it., Instead of
destroying the natural setting, use it to our advantage. Use it to lure potential customers
in. It can be done.
It will take bold thinking and vision to bring 'a plan as I am suggesting into being.
However, isn't that what we are all about as a city? Aren't we special? Then let's act
special and heed the -pleas of nearly every speaker at the last two Site 'D' meetings. Let's
step up to the plate and create.a plan that celebrates the unique natural setting of Site 'D'
instead of destroying it.
I urge all of you to take just a minute and run this idea past the knowing part of.
your stomach. Consider the existing plan, as put forth by the consultants last week.
Think about how it would feel to have that paved over development at the south end of
Diamond Bar. Then, think about the plan I have suggested above. Think about* an urban
city center, a living, 'shopping, park space set into the natural setting of Site 'D'. Which
one feels better? In our household and the other Diamond Bar residents we have spoken
with the choice is clear. Send the existing plan back to the drawing boards. We can do
better. We deserve better. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Melony Paulson
Paulson Site 'D' comments I Page 4
Lee Paulson
21919 Santaquin Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
April 24, 2010
City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
c/o Grace Lee
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
CITEOF 91AMON��AR
2010 ��R 26 Rfl D
Re: Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road (Site D) Specific Plan General Plan
Amendment 2007-01/ Specific Plan 2007-01
I have comments that I would like make about Site D.
As a resident of south Diamond Bar, I know that Diamond Bar Boulevard is already a virtual
parking lot in the early mornings and late afternoons. It has taken me nearly half an hour to get
from my house, off Silverhawk Drive, to Grand Avenue some evenings. So, I take umbrage with
the city's notion, in its notice of Preparation, under XV. Transportation/Traffic (a). There the
box is checked stating that this project would have a "less than significant impact" with respect
to any increase in traffic. I see a "potentially significant impact", based upon my calculations and
the existing volume of traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard. This project, if allowed to be
implemented as planned will certainly "cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
12
relations to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system.
Using a standard formula for calculating vehicle trips per day of 9.57 trips per household, 203
now units of addition housing will generate 1943 additional vehicle trips per day on Diamond
Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. The 153,985 square feet of retail at the minimum non -
peak traffic rate of 69 vehicle trips per day per 1000 square feet of retail would add an additional
10,625 additional vehicle trips per day. At the peak rate of 169 vehicle trips per day, that same
153,985 square feet of retail would add 42,923 vehicle trips per day. For a total somewhere
between 12,568 and 44,866 vehicle trips per day to Diamond Bar Blvd and Brea Canyon Road.
The addition of between 12,569 and 44,866 trips per day would make Diamond Bar Boulevard
completely impassable.
We heard that a light would be installed with left hand turn lanes at Cool Springs Drive. I
believe, based upon my observations of the traffic in that area, that an additional light plus some
left turn lanes will not be enough to mitigate the additional traffic. Not when families from 203
housing units are attempting to get home during rush hour and shoppers are hitting the retail
areas.
This light will effectively be the only entrance/exit-point for the Site D project's residents and
A
Paulson comments on Site D. pril 24, 2010 Pae I
0
retail customers. At rush hour, even two left turn lanes will not be adequate to handle the
demand. The resulting traffic could easily end up backed all the way to Brea Canyon road and
the existing shopping center to the south.
At an absolute minimum, mitigation will require more lanes on Diamond Bar Boulevard. And,
the 57/60 freeway interchange will need its "final solution" in place. Otherwise, the net effect of
the additional traffic will be further gridlock and the diversion of Diamond Bar Boulevard traffic
up through the residential areas of Cold Spring Lane in both directions as a bypass to gain access
to Brea Canyon Road.
If this end of the city had to evacuate in event of an earthquake or wild fire in the middle of the
afternoon, a tragedy would occur today at existing capacity. Adding that much additional traffic
will cause a f1a ther decrease in safety. It could be said that a significant amount of the Site D
traffic would be absorbed by the 57. However, anyone who had attempted to navigate the 57
during rush hour is well aware of the near gridlock conditions found there during those periods.
A project of this size will clearly create a significant impact on the traffic in south Diamond Bar.
Allowing projects like this to be built have without mitigating the already over burdened
infrastructure can end up creating region wide headaches. Large numbers of "insignificant"
additions to the demand on our transportation infrastructure add up to significant impacts. The
transportation infrastructure in this area has already reached the breaking point. Accordingly; no
project of this size should be allowed until a regional transportation study has been conducted
and our infrastructure has been sufficiently improved and the capacity increased. This is an issue
that affects both livability in Diamond Bar and also property values.
If the project, as currently defined is allowed to proceed, the additional increase of traffic will
have another effect which is a significantly increased amount of green house gas emissions from
the added traffic and the increased amount of traffic which will be forced to sit idle while stuck
waiting on Diamond Bar Boulevard.
The state is mandated to reduce its greenhouse gas levels below 1990 levels in the near future.
That cannot be done if projects like this are allowed to add M increase of those gases, regardless
of how small the amount. In my view, other uses for this land make much more sense, uses
which would minimize the amount of additional traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard during rush
hour and lower the carbon footprint.
Back in June of 1991, when the Walnut Valley Unified School District attempted to sell Site D, a
survey required by the educational code showed that 62.5 per cent of the area residents wanted a
park on the Site D property. Even today, there is a shortage of Soccer fields in Diamond Bar but
especially in South Diamond Bar. I feel that a better use for Site D land would be to create a
park with Soccer fields. This would accomplish several goals. One,. it would create traffic flow
at off peak hours, which would lesson the impact on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Two, it would
offer the young people a place to engage in non -illegal activity. Three it would create a much
smaller carbon footprint than 203 houses and 153,985 feet of retail space. Further, a park would
Paulson comments on Site D. April 24, 2010 Page 2
MM
increase the property values in the"area. increased proy va ues are, admittedly, beyond the
scope of an environmental impact report. However, the idea of creating a climate of country
living is still part of the city's goals. A park on this land would allow Diamond Bar to remain
one the country's top ten desirable places to live.
If the land cannot be made into a park, then I urge the city to investigate other options for the
d during rush hour periods.
on to Diamond Bar Boulevard land that will not throw extra traffic . or assisted living
The land would be a good place for a church, for a retirement home, or a sem
center. It could work for mentally handicapped assisted living homes.
I also take issue with the city's decision not to do any analysis of water availability. I understand
that the city may not be required to do any further analysis under the provisions of Senate Bill
610 and Senate BM221. However, any aspect of environmental impact is required to be studied
under CEQA if that aspect has a significant effect on the environment. In these days of chronic
water shortages, making sure that a project of this size has adequate water supplies surely
qualifies as a significant impact. It is not enough to report that Walnut Valley Water district has
water allocated for the project. The state is in a position right now where far more water has
been allocated than can possibly be delivered. No one can drink paper water. Accordingly, I
want the city to make sure that Walnut Valley Water district not only has the allocations to
supply this project with water, but also has appropriate contracts with the agencies which
physically supply water to cover the needs of this project now and in the future, in such a fashion
that doing so will not impact existing residential users. Bottom line, I do not wish to be put on
water rationing, or have my water, should rationing become necessary, even more severely
restricted so that this project can be built. -- -
Thank you for considering my comments.
R. Lee Paulson
Paulson comments on Site D. April 24, 2010 Page 3