Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/2010FILE C®Py PLANNING AGENDA '0' kj r South Coast Air Quality Management District Government Center Building o Auditorium 21665 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 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 29825 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 29825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. in an effort to comply with the requirements of Title it of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 9990, 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. am Please refrain fra n smoking, eating or The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same Tony Torng Chairman Vice Chairman Kathleen Nolan Commissioner Kwang Flo Lee Commissioner Steve Nelson Commissioner 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 29825 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 29825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. in an effort to comply with the requirements of Title it of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 9990, 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. am Please refrain fra n smoking, eating or The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same City of r d Bar Planning Commission MEETING RULES 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. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030 General Agendas (909) 839-7030 email: info ci.diamond-bar.ca.us CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:. DOLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Tony Torng, Vice -Chairman Kathleen Nolan, Kwang Ho Lee, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah MATTERS2. O MAUDIENCEIPUBLIC R 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 nonpublic hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 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 Minutes of Regular Meeting: April 27, 2010. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 C®rn3rehensiveSign Pr®gram No. PL 2010-30 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code section 22.36.060, the applicant is requesting approval for a Comprehensive Sign Program for Firestone. The lot is zoned Regional Commercial (G-3) zoned parcel with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial (C). Comprehensive Sign Programs are requested when two or more signs are requested on the same frontage. Project Address: 1150 S. Grand Ave. MAV 11, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Property Owner: Bridgestone Retail Operations 333 E. Lake Street Bloomingdale, IL 60108 Applicant: Sharon Willison Williams Sign Company 111 S. Huntington Street Pomona, CA 91766 Recommendation: Staff, recommends that the Planning Commission approve Comprehensive Sign Program No. PL 2010-30, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 7.2 C®nditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-89 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, James Kim has submitted a request to operate a music and art school under the business name Orchepia School of Music. The proposed music and art school will provide music lessons to school age children and young adults. The proposed hours of operation are from 2:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. on Saturday. The subject property is zoned C-2 (General Commercial) with an underlying General Plan designation of General Commercial. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to operate a music school. Project Address: 2751 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., Suite A Property Owner: Country Hills Holdings LLC 8115 Preston Rd., #400 Dallas, TX 75225 Applicant: James Kim 21700 Copley Dr., Suite 290 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-89, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution.. 7.3 ®eyelo?ment Review and Variance No. PL 2010-17 —Under the authority of Diamond Bar.. Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant is requesting approval to construct a 6,352 square -foot new single-family residence on a 48,252 net square foot (1.11 net acres), Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of rural Residential (RR). Variances are requested to allow the building height to be increased from 35 feet to 40 feet; 7 inches; and a driveway extension to provide for access to the front door and to allow adequate turning radius for fire trucks as required by the L.A. County Fire Department. MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Project Address: 2718 Steeplechase Ln. Property Owner: Terry and Rachel Hao 60 Seasons Irvine, CA 92603 Applicant: Jack Mitchell JWM Construction 2902 Calle Heraldo San Clemente, Ca 92673 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review and Variance No. PL 2010-17, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 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. (Continued from April 27, 2010): General Plan Amendment No. 200703 — A request to change the land use designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan Zone Change No. 2007-04 — A request to change the zoning districts from Low Density Residential (RL), Low Medium Residential (RLM) 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 MAY 11, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 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: 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 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 reap designations from Low Density Residential (RL), Low Medium Residential (RLM) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan; and 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, easernents and rights-of-way; and Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 to establish separate residential, commercial, and open space parcels; create an internal circulation system PAGE rNNING COMMISSION AGENDA and common open space areas; and establish easements and other rights- of-way for utility and other purposes. 91 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 1 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates fqf � . 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: MEMORIAL DAY HOLIDAY 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 City offices will be closed on Monday, May 31, 2010, in recognition of the holiday. City offices will re -open on Tuesday, June 1, 2010. APRIL20`10 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. FLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Commissioner Steve Nelson was excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. Consultants: Mark Rogers and JoAnne Sturges, TRG Land; Peter Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Sciences, Steve Sasaki, Sasaki Transportation Services. 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 April 13, 2010. C/Shah moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 13, 2010, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None APRIL 27, 20110 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSIOK PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 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. (Continued from April 13.2U1U) 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. 2UO7-O4—Arequest tuchange the zoning districts from Low Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)hoSpecific Plan (SP). Specific Plan No. 2007-01 —a Request to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for approximately 30.36 -acre siteforthe construction of 202 residential dwelling units; 153,985 gross square feet of commercial use; and approximately 10.11 acres of open space areas, easements and righto-of+way. Tentative Tract K8mp No. 70687 —A request to establish separate n*sidentia|, commemia|, and open space parcels; create oninternal circulation system and commonopehapaoeonsaa;mndostah|ioheoaementuandotherrighta-of-woyfor utility and other purposes. Environmental Impact Report No. 2UO7-O2—Arequest tocertify the final E|R which provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the development ofthe Specific Plan area. The E|R includes mitigation measures for the pnojoct, eddra000a project a|tarnmUvaa, identifies the environmentally superior project alternative, and adopts a statement of overriding considerations. Project Address: Site comprised of approximately 30.36'aonas located at the southeast corner of Bnao Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard (Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900.8714-002-801.8714-002'902.8714'002.093. and 8714-015-001). Applicant: Walnut Valley Unified School District and City ofDiamond Bar Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ACAM/ohlenberg explained that at its last meeting on April 13, 2010, the Commission closed the public hearing following the public comment period. There is a procedure for reopening public hearings during the same meeting. If the public hearing is reopened at a different meeting it would require that the item be officially re -noticed and continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. This procedure is not just for the benefit of those present this evening that would like to speak; if it were known that there would be additional opportunity for public comment there may have been others who would have appeared at tonight's meeting to speak but did not do so because they believed there was no opportunity for further public comment. It would require action of the Commission to direct staff to re -notice the hearing so that it could be reopened at the next meeting. C/Shah said he would recommend the public hearing not be reopened and thatthe Commission move forward as scheduled to receive responses to comments and that the Commission continue with its deliberation as scheduled. C/Lee concurred stating that he listened to the tapes of the last meeting and was prepared to move forward. VC/Nolan moved to continue the item to May 11, 2010, and direct staff to re -notice the meeting to allow for further public comment. The motion died for lack of a second. C/Lee confirmed to Chair/Torng that he had listened to the entire taped meeting and was prepared to move forward to deliberation. Chair/Torng advised the public that the Planning Commission was acting in an advisory capacity to the City Council and that following staff's responses to the public comments received during the public hearing on April 13, 2010, the Commissioners would deliberate and the Commission would make its recommendation to City Council. The City Council is the final authority on the matter and the public will be notified of future public hearings if and when the matter goes to the City Council for deliberation. Chair/Torng acknowledged receipt of letters from Lee Paulson, Melony Paulson, Mary Rodriquez and Christopher Chung. Emails were received from Mary Rodriquez, John Yang, David Dorsey, Julie Leung and Christopher Chung. CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and addressed questions and comments raised by audience prior to close of the public hearing followed by response to Commissioner's questions after which the Commission will determine the next steps. CDD/Gubman said that rather than respond to the questions and comments item by item, he would address them collectively by topic. APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSICZ,' CDD/Gubman said that staff understands that this project has garnered a great deal of opposition from the community and there has been a great deal of criticism of staff for not making any fundamental changes to the parameters of the Specific Plan. While the criticism is well received, he clarified that the cornerstone for this Specific Plan is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was crafted between the City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD), the premise of which was that staff was to develop a Specific Plan that consisted of 50 percent residential and 50 percent commercial. The plan that staff crafted and worked on is based on those fundamentals. Accordingly, the City's consultant TGR Land studied the property and developed a physical plan that established the land form that would be appropriate for accommodating a commercial development and residential development. The physical plan that has been presented demonstrates how that land form has been envisioned for this site based on technical analysis and existing conditions of the site as well as, access points to the project. CDD/Gubman stated that the Specific Plan is characterized as an "umbrella" or framework plan for this site. As stated at the first meeting, there is a range of planning tools that could be used to set forth the long range development objectives for the site, one of which could simply be rezoning the property. However, a Specific Plan is a tool in which much more rigorous land use strategies, requirements and other specifications tailored to the particular characteristics of this property can be employed. As memorialized in the MOU, staff opted to do a Specific Plan, the intent of which was not to create a detailed development plan. There are no developers that are lined up, signed up or even in talks to develop this property. So, there is not a development plan that staff can base a document on, but instead staff formulated some planning principles and created a document of what the City's vision for this site is based on the commercial/residential makeup of the property and specify in diagrams, graphics and words what the physical and land use characteristics of this site should be at build -out. By creating this plan and conducting the environmental analysis, the strategy is to have an entitlement or vested approval in place to put this property out to market. Having an entitlement in place adds value to the property and removes many of the unknowns about what can or cannot be developed on this site. By eliminating those uncertainties, the value of the land is increased. At the same time, it is very clear how many units are the maximum that may be developed and possibly fewer units can be developed. However, 202 units would be the maximum under what is being proposed with this site plan, along with about 154,000 square feet of commercial development. This plan also specifies where those land uses will be organized on the site and outlines the physical envelopes for those physical components, along with the access, backbone road and provisions for pedestrian interaction between the commercial and residential components. The plan for residential is based on the General Plan Consistency Analysis and promotes several General Plan Goals and Objectives as well, and APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE s PLANNING COMMISSION staff has presented its recommendations for making those findings in the Specific Plan. This public hearing process provides an opportunity for the Commission to consider opposing viewpoints that have been presented by the public. Staff is confident that the project is furthering several development General Plan goals and objectives to provide housing in the community, to diversify the housing stock and staff believes that it has formulated a plan that is compatible with the surrounding areas to preserve the integrity of the neighboring land uses. Again, that is a matter for the Planning Commission to deliberate and in doing so, consider all of the testimony, and determine whether to concur with staff's recommendation. CDD/Gubman stated that if the objective was for the City to help the school district maximize its return (get the most money for its property) the City would be presenting a plan comprised of 100 percent residential; however, the City is looking at this site with other community needs in mind to create a balanced community, to provide a range of services for the community and to provide a sustainable revenue opportunity given that the site is located at a major intersection in the City. The part of the plan that introduces the commercial was the City's contribution to the MOU. The City did not view 100 percent residential as the best long-range plan for this site understanding that market conditions are really a snapshot in time and a market study done two years ago would look nothing like a market study done today and looking into the long-term horizon for the City, would the community be better served by additional commercial or a neighborhood serving commercial uses. The City contributed this component to the MOU that provided this. Is the tax revenue generation or the potential to generate tax revenue the sole driving factor? While it is certainly one of the driving factors it is certainly not the only driving factor. Again, if the City was solely motivated toward tax revenue it would not necessarily be looking at a commercial component that would only accommodate a neighborhood serving commercial use because the amount of sales tax generated from that component would not make or break the City. It certainly helps to diversify and enhance the City's revenue portfolio but it is not something that is the only factor that the City feels is a justification to propose commercial at this site — it is the opportunity to take a corner at an arterial and to seize the opportunity to add additional commercial services for the community. Staff understands that there is not support from those who have participated in this process with their oral and written comments; however, that is the reason why the City holds the hearing process. CDD/Gubman said that staff takes exception to the comments that the public input .was ignored or disregarded or treated flippantly. There was a scoping meeting prior to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation and there was a public comment meeting to provide an opportunity for the public to speak on the aspects of the EIR. Staff explained that those were not the times for the City to debate or deliberate on the merits of the plan itself but to focus on the environmental issues E DRAFT AP RI L 27, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSICM that need to be analyzed, and if the analysis was thorough and sufficiently fleshed out to enable the Commission to feel that it has been disclosed and apprised of all facts that go into the entirety of this decision — not only the environmental, but the appropriateness of the proposed land uses in the Specific Plan document as a whole. Staff certainly did not preclude people from speaking on the merits of the plan and voice their opposition to the project itself, to bring up the 1991 Resolution by the DBIA to develop the site as a park, etc. All of those comments are in the record and they have all been published and presented to the Commission in the Draft and Final EIR. All comments received have been recorded. Now that the decision making process begins through the Planning Commission and City Council hearings it is the time to consider the appropriateness, the merits and the benefit to the community of this Specific Plan in its entirety. Staff believes that it made a genuine effort to facilitate government to include all comments and to provide the public the opportunity to express their views. Staff s responses through the EIR process were only to the environmental issues and for that reason in the response to comments of the EIR there are numerous occasions that repeat "this comment is acknowledged" because it is not a CEQA issue but another issue. Nevertheless, those comments are acknowledged and published and they are disclosed to the Commission. In addition to the public hearing process opened last meeting (April 13, 2010) there is a very detailed and extensive record of where those members of who have taken the time to participate in this process stand on the matter. He hopes with that said that there is some consideration for staff's effort to provide the Commission with that information. This process was not a municipal or park or public improvement project where a neighborhood charette would have been used to solicit public input. This was a development proposal with staff acting as the applicant. This process did not provide the format for the type of participation that a community project would. CDD/Gubman stated that there are numerous factual errors contained in the letter from Christopher Chung that need to be addressed on the record. First comment is that the Specific Plan is inadequate, inconsistent and does not meet statutory requirements. With that statement the contention is that the Specific Plan does not prescribe architectural and landscape details or specify other criteria in greater detail. Section 65451 of the California Government Code specifies the required content of the Specific Plan and that level of detail is not mandated. In fact, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research has a publication entitled The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans which states in its opening paragraph "a Specific Plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of the development from the type, location and intensity of uses, to the design and capacity of infrastructure, from the resources used to the financed public improvements, to the design guidelines of the subdivision." The Draft Specific Plan the City is presenting fits within these very broad parameters. Moreover, the Site D Specific Plan is very similar in format to the Specific Plan that was prepared for the Target/ Brookfield/Calvary Chapel site, APRIL. 27, 2010 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION which was adopted and approved. The second point raised is "the City cannot use Site D as justification to meet regional housing needs assessment housing needs or to meet RHNA numbers" and this is simply untrue. The City is obligated to accommodate 1,098 new housing units during the current RHNA cycle. Part of that obligation is to designate 15.6 acres for residential development at a density of 30 units per acre to accommodate lower income housing needs for 466 units. Site D is not one of the several sites being studied to accommodate that need. Site D would help fulfill the City's obligation to provide the 632 market rate units under the current RHNA allocation. The third comment that is factually incorrect is that the EIR scoping meeting was conducted after the Draft EIR was released. This is incorrect. The scoping meeting was conducted on February 21, 2008. The Neighborhood Forum held on August 3, 2009, was during the Draft EIR public comment period and was provided as an additional opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide oral and written comments regarding the adequacy of the EIR. Unlike the previous scoping meeting, the August 3, 2009, meeting was not mandated under CEQA but the City scheduled the meeting in an effort to inform the public and to solicit comments. The fourth comment is that the EIR was not completed by an objective third party independent consultant that has no prior relationship with the WVUSD. For the record, TRG Land did not prepare the EIR and does not provide environmental services. The City selected the firm Environmental Impact Sciences to prepare the EIR. The fifth comment stated in effect that the traffic mitigation in the form of fair -share fees is inadequate and violates case law set forth under Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associates v. the City of Los Angeles. The EIR's mitigation reporting and monitoring program that is part of the EIR document requires the specific improvements or fair -share contributions shall be provided priorto the recording of the final Tract Map. This is not a violation of FHCA v. Los Angeles. FHCA v. Los Angeles did not deem the payment of fair -share fees to be invalid. What the case law cited determined was that although the City of Los Angeles adopted mitigation measures for its General Plan framework program, it failed to require that they be implemented as a condition of development. The Site D EIR does not make that error in that the improvements or fair -share contributions are required to be paid or completed upon recordation of the final Map. In fact, going further, he pointed out that the court decision went on to state that it found no fault with Los Angeles's certification of that EIR but only with the failure to show substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the mitigation measures had been required or incorporated into the planning document. The sixth statement was a comment that it is the responsibility of the lead agency to consider all viable project alternatives. This is untrue. Under Goleta Valley vs. The Board of Supervisors, it was determined that an EIR must discuss a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project. Staff believes that the Site D EIR has indeed discussed a reasonable range of project alternatives. Finally, there is a statement that the City of Diamond Bar's noticing radius is 700 feet from property lines and the City arbitrarily increased the radius to 1000 feet, therefore, should extend the APRIL 27, 20 110 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION notification range even farther out. This is untrue. In fact, Section 22.72.020 requires a 1000 -foot notification radius for the Site D Specific Plan. CDD/Gubman asked if the Commissioners had any questions. C/Lee said he heard the same story last time and he believes that the public hearing process is not a lecturing process. He listened to the two and one-half hour tapes of the last meeting and heard many residents voice their concerns as well as their wishes. He understands residents clearly expressed their thoughts; he understands this project and its relative impact to the community. But on the agenda it states a Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implementation with the identified economic and social benefits. He said he understood the economic benefit but did not understand the social benefit. CDD/Gubman explained that it is adding to the diversity of Diamond Bar's housing stock and providing additional housing opportunities. C/Lee asked if "housing stock is a social benefit" and CDD/Gubman responded "yes." C/Lee said there is maybe sociality? But a social benefit is not that. Maybe housing stock is a benefit but not a social benefit. He asked for a better explanation of "social benefit." ACA/Wohlenberg explained that there is an underlying thought in California Land Use law and in Housing law that there should be a community that has a variety of housing types and pricing available. And something that Diamond Bar hears as a comment from the State of California in the review of its Housing Element is that so much of Diamond Bar's housing is focused on the higher economic spectrum. So in order to seek out that benefit of having diverse housing choices within the City, that is part of what this project is aimed at providing — not the high end housing that Diamond Bar has so much of but mid-range housing units that Diamond Bar needs (another 632 units) under its RHNA obligation. C/Lee argued that the statement should be "housing stock benefits" and not social benefits. Mark Rogers stated that in addition to the aforementioned benefits, the project seeks to do a number of things. First, the project is using both commercial and residential land uses in an area that as he understands, has a need for neighborhood commercial services. The idea today and what is seen as handed down by the State of California is that it is looking for projects where there is a blend of land uses to cut down vehicle miles traveled and place uses where there is a pedestrian trail that connects the adjoining neighborhood on the south end of the project into a plaza -like feature anticipated with a commercial side of the project. In that instance, this project meets social standards from the state's standards in providing a mixed land use with both residential and commercial. He hopes that he is not stretching when he also states that the benefit of this project monetarily to the WVUSD and maybe secondarily to the City, has tremendous social benefit. The values that he sees in this community are born out of the great education that the children get from their school systems. This is a timely project from the standpoint of providing needed fund for the district and that, he believes, has tremendous and long -reaching social benefit. filly V U C APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said the report mentions this project would be convenient for people but can he talk about social benefit as common sense. This project will be good for families, education involvement. He heard many negative comments from residents because there is no social benefit. So he wants to understand clearly what social benefit is. But Mr. Rogers's understanding is a convenience of more houses so there is a contradiction. This comment should be changed to "more housing stock or more convenience for shopping but not social benefit because people can misunderstand about this project. C/Lee asked how this project building more houses and building more commercial areas is related to education, and CDD/Gubman responded "in that the sale.of the property benefits the school district." C/Lee asked if that is why it helps people and kids grow up in this community. He thought it was totally irrelevant explanation about this project with respect to education. C/Lee asked for clarification of "social benefit" and asked if it could be changed "housing stock benefit or convenient to the people or shoppers." CDD/Gubman responded yes, that the changes can be made so that his concerns are addressed. VC/Nolan asked if socialize meant how it socially benefits the community at large. CDD/Gubman said that when the document addresses social benefit it refers to the entire palette of elements that enhance the society. ACA/Wohlenberg said that when making a statement of overriding considerations it simply discusses the economic and social benefits that would occur from deciding to move forward even though there is unmitigated significant impact. To him that is sort of "catch-all" language that the legislature adopted. There are economic benefits and social benefits and everything falls into one of those two categories. C/Shah asked what could be built under the land use designation of Public Facility and General Commercial if nothing is done to change the land use to Specific Plan. CDD/Gubman responded that currently there is a fundamental inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning. The General Plan designation is Public Facility which would suggest a school or park. The zoning that is overlaid on that is residential and commercial so there is a General Plan zoning inconsistency that would have to be resolved to enable the property to be developed in some fashion. Chair/Torng asked for a response to Mr. Chung's statement on Page 1 of his letter that refers to "the proposed high-density residential land use is incompatible with adjacent land use and inconsistent with the General Plan." CDD/Gubman said that was a fair argument. Staff's position is that this housing type is compatible with the surrounding uses. It is not located within a local neighborhood street completely encircled by single family detached residences. This property does have its back turned on the single family neighborhood and faces a major arterial. Based on that context an attached housing product on this site would be appropriate and if one looks throughout the City, one will see similar land use L1nron A j APRIL. 27, 2010 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION relationships between those housing types that co -exist under similar contexts and disagreed that it is an inconsistent land use. Chair/Torng asked about Mr. Chung's statement on Page 6: "The consultant provided a representation that the development of the housing would be of high quality for moderate income families." The inconsistency is that this should below income. CDD/Gubman said that the first thing he needs to clarify is that high density would be for 30 -units to the acre. This residential project proposed at 20 - unit per acre on the development pads is exclusive of the slopes front and back. Therefore, the effective density is closer to 17 -units per acre. The 30 -unit per acre density requirement that staff is studying for locations elsewhere in the City is considered a default density for affordable housing so the state views a development at 30 -units per acre as probably accommodating affordable housing, at least in this region given the property values and existing levels of urbanization. Thirty units per acre in Manhattan would be extremely low density for example, so it is all relative. Site D would be attached housing probably similar to the Brookfield development above Target which is market rate housing. Chair/Torng said he raised a concern about Page 15 of Mr. Chung's letter - the grubbing and grading near the homes toward the channel to ensure that insects and rodents are driven away from homes. This should have been a mitigation measure but nothing has come up about it. Is there any way this can be mitigated? CDD/Gubman responded that there is a standard requirement in the issuance of grading plans that rodent barriers be installed around the perimeter of a project. Staff believes that would be a more effective means of containing the rodent population within the project site to effectively be decimated by development activity. The prospect of grubbing at the edge of the site or at the center is sornewhat speculative in the belief that that is going to drive the rodent population inward. He said he did not see how that was something the City could guarantee unless there is one solid line of machinery that moves contiguously and together toward the center. The City's grading permit requirements include a rodent barrier to imbed into the ground and prevent the offsite migration in order to more effectively achieve that goal. Chair/Torng said, so in other words, staff already considered that and CDD/Gubman responded "yes," although it should be noted that specific discussion of rodent barriers was not included in the EIR response to comments. CDD/Gubman responded to Chair/Torng that 7:00 a.m. (not 8:00 a.m.) is the citywide noise regulation standard for construction activity. VC/Nolan asked if the City had the resources of a buyer to purchase green space for a recreational facility. CDD/Gubman explained that Site D is not included in the Parks Master Plan and since the MOU expressly states that the Specific Plan b 30 PLANNINGAPRIL 27, 2010 PAGE I I . MISSIOV should be prepared to accommodate 50 percent residential and 50 percent commercial, the response would be "no" at this point. Mark Rogers, TRG Land, pointed out that one of the terms the Commissioners should keep in mind for the purposes of this process is "predictable outcome." It is a term he uses a lot speaking about development and the experiences he has had with development. In an effort to ensure what the Commission deliberates on and what the Council will deliberate on and make a decision on is truly what can happen as a built project. This project, like many projects he has had an opportunity to work with, focus on ensuring that the property is mapped, set forward design parameters and a regulatory envelope so that at the end of the day as deliberated and conceived can be built. TRG has done an extraordinary amount of scientific work to ensure public safety in this project. A lot of what would normally be required in a process like this to ensure this is a quality built site. These are two public bodies that are working together to bring a project before its constituents and what is so interesting about that is that he and his colleagues sat around brainstorming the project working with things everyone has experienced in an attempt to provide a framework that TRG Land feels meets the concerns and issues they deal with on a daily basis. Mr. Rogers stated that in the absence of a more elaborate graphic, he focused his PowerPoint presentation on the edges of the project because this is a two-step process. This attempts to build an envelope or umbrella within which a project of merit can be built. So he has focused on the edges of the project to ensure adequate setbacks and spaces that meet the intent. Along Brea Canyon, the street grade is about 10 feet below pad grade. His firm ensures that from the back or right-of-way to anything within this project there is a minimum of 35 feet. In addition; there may be an area for cars to butt right.up against that setback so an additional space was allocated so that car bumpers are setback well behind that area which offers a minimum setback from top of slope of an additional five feet beyond the 35 -foot setback. At the corner of the project, the vision was at that the corner of Brea Canyon and Diamond Bar Boulevard create something like an arrival/plaza space in the project. Chair/Torng asked if the lower legend side is people's view driving from Diamond Bar Boulevard and the view on the right is the potential site elevation. He asked about the triangle. Mr. Rogers responded that is the condition he is describing — the arrival/plaza space. The first section is the section going toward Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon so that it shows on the right hand side the upslope to the project. When he spoke two weeks ago he said the project was "at grade." In fact, it is as close as possible. It is still above the street. One of the comers was that drivers would see it as asphalt and that is not true. He said he would later show similar projects and how they are monumented. The second section is driving down Diamond Bar Boulevard in the direction of Grand Avenue away from V APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION Brea Canyon. This shows a very strong setback of 35 -feet to a monument feature with a very strong community gathering type of spot such as an outdoor eating area or loggia located at the corner to monument the corner. As one moves closer to the entry at Cherrydale driving down Diamond Bar Boulevard toward Grand Avenue, the project is much closer to grade and the building setback from back of right-of-way is a minimum of 35 -feet. These are very healthy setbacks well above most minimum standards for most typical zoning. Sections along the project edges such as mid -point locations, Section 4 is cut from Diamond Bar Boulevard with the uphill section showing the project considerably elevated above the street. Again, this area ensures adequate setbacks without allowing any buildings closer than 15 feet to the top of slope. In this case, at a minimum will be set back 125 feet away from Diamond Bar Boulevard. The slope planting incorporates indigenous, lowwater, drought tolerant plants as well as plants that will mitigate for the reduction of black walnut. Mr. Rogers responded to C/Shah that the elevation difference between the houses and the street is roughly 60 feet. The next section is the section cut along the edge of the project that joins Ambusher. The existing housing is below grade to the site. In this case the grade is being lowered to reduce some of the vertical between the two relationships. This is very unique to a standard imbedded in a project like this because a minimum 85 foot setback will exist along the edge to ensure adequate distance for buffering and landscape and so that the buildings do not create an incompatible relationship to the adjoining residential. One hundred twenty (120) feet of horizontal distance lies between the houses and the buildings and landscape screening will be used to enhance the edge. Again, these setbacks are above and beyond the normal setback requirements in a project of this nature. Mr. Rogers responded to Chair/Torng that there will be a fence between the trees. The upper south side neighborhood is well above the project. Section 6 at the midpoint of the project is well below that neighborhood. There is a huge setback distance both horizontally (184 feet) and vertically (60 feet) in this project relationship. The next section further up the street (Section 7) shows an even greater vertical and horizontal relationship with 365 feet between the existing residences and the project's buildings. Mr. Rogers shared images of other projects that are similar to how he visualizes some of the key elements in the commercial center for the Site D Specific Plan. VC/Nolan asked if the ratio of black walnut replacement ratio is based on the actual success rate or unsuccessful rate. CDD/Gubman responded that the ratio is not related to any estimated success rates and is a code requirement found in the Municipal Code that there be a 3:1 ratio for protected trees that are removed. The applicant may also be required, as a condition of approval, to enter into a tree maintenance agreement to warranty the survival of the replacement trees. For example, the City may require the applicant to replace any tree that does not survive during the first three years. VC/Nolan asked the ratio of successful replacement tree plantings and CDD/Gubman said it would depend on the quality APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 13 =� RAN ING COMMISSION of the nursery stock. If the replacement tree is from a reputable nursery that employs best practices for cultivating trees and offering guarantees, then the likelihood of success should not be a concern. Chair/Torng asked why the City would want to remove the 100 -year old Eucalyptus trees and replace them with better trees. CDD/Gubman stated that the plan for the site with the commercial component compels the commercial pad to be lowered. The fact that the site is going to be graded necessitates removal of the trees. The Tree Ordinance focuses on protected trees —trees that are indigenous to this area. And what the City envisions is restoring the urban forest in the new development with climate appropriate trees. The Eucalyptus tree is not within that realm. Mr. Rogers further stated that if there were a way to realize the project before the Commission for consideration and maintain those trees, the project would probably have sought to do that. These trees have a life cycle and they are reaching the end of that cycle where they will no longer be vital. In fact, they may become more of a hazard over time. More importantly, he has done a number of projects wherein the Eucalyptus was retained and it is a tough task on flat ground much less on a hillside environment. If the trees were live oak that had an extended life period there may have been consideration for boxing and relocating the trees to the project feature and if the trees could be retained in their present location the project would have sought to do that. However, these trees are nearing the end of their life cycle and over time will be more of a problem than a benefit. This project attempts to implement current legislation to attempt to get a carbon footprint down. A lot of things being done in terms of water harvesting, plant selection, utilization of 50 percent solar, everything that is imbedded in current technology for purposes of meeting these goals, is a part of this project. He invited the district to use this project to measure the benefits of going in this direction. This project will be state -of -the art and raises the bar for what projects can be in terms of carbon footprints and meeting goals handed down by the state today. Chair/Torng said he appreciated Mr. Roger's effort to create the site cross-sections for clarity which he requested and believes it helps to clarify and provide a better understanding of the project. He read a comment from Page 3 of the letter from Melony Paulson. She said "Part of the site could be a park. It might not be as large as some of us might like, but it would (be) better than acres of hot, desolate pavement that is now being envisioned for the site." In the final paragraph she said "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'." So by looking at what has been shown on the plan, is there a possibility of incorporating a small park. Mr. Rogers said that naturally, there is always the possibility of doing a park feature. He liked the focus on an idea brought forward by CM/DeStefano to have a plaza in the corner near the flood channel. Perhaps the project could include a pedestrian corridor that reaches back to the main lea APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION commercial structures from that location. Maybe a park of a different nature that utilizes green space and canopy that extends a walkway system back from the corner with the loggia concept, an urban gathering space, and maybe that loggia concept is connected with the greenway that goes back to the main structures. What was envisioned by a Council Member was the inclusion of a trail system from Posado down to the back of the commercial structure. So what was envisioned in the Specific Plan is a very similar type of feature as is called out on the corner at the apex of the buildings where they join at the back of the property. And what might be considered is those two being like an urban hub with a trellis or shaded walkway system that connects those two hubs to one another as an urban park setting, which might accommodate some of Ms. Paulson's concerns. VC/Nolan said she believed the raised separate pad off of Cherrydale at Diamond Bar Boulevard is potentially something that could be used for a restaurant. What is the size of that pad and what is the potential for an actual park in that area and perhaps 20-30 percent of the commercial area being removed and replaced by an actual park facility. She stated that the Commission has heard the concerns from the community again and again regarding a park and again, to speak to the social aspect of this area. Mr. Rogers said that naturally, that is an opportunity that has not been explored at this point. What is located in the corner is a water quality feature/ambient open space. If there is a grassy swale that functions as a water quality feature they usually like to associate it with other open space to get a benefit from both being next to each other and the expanded idea. Corners are important places in commercial projects in terms of locating restaurants or banks on free standing pads. The more critical of those is probably at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon. "He believed that the concept as discussed is imbedded in the plan but certainly this would make for an opportunity to have a park feature that could be used by both residents outside and inside the area. VC/Nolan asked how much area of the swale would be needed to make it a designated park area in acreage off of the commercial portion. Mr. Rogers said it was a pretty tough question to answer on the fly because it is a function of programming. If it is seen as not having active uses but being a tot lot, seating area, passive shade structure, etc., it might be a two -acre site. When one gets into active facilities it begins to expand to five acres and certain municipalities require different sizes for those uses because the City would usually be responsible for the maintenance' A smaller venue that would be more appropriate to the plan of residential/commercial features would accommodate a one or two acre facility in that corner benefitted by the other adjacent features such as setbacks and water quality elements that would help to expand the usable area. Chair/Torng asked if the Commission could recommend inclusion of a park feature and CDD/Gubman responded yes, if that is the direction the Commission wants to go he would suggest that it be incorporated into the recommendation to the City Council. Since there is a draft resolution prepared for the Commission and if the M1 -fit / 1-1,1 APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission is in agreementwith that draft resolution with the additional provision that a park element be incorporated staff could come back on May 11 with a revised resolution for adoption. Or, the Commission could take a short recess and craft language this evening if that is what the Commission would prefer. RECESS: Chair/Torng recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Torng reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. SE/Yee and Consulting Traffic Engineer Steve Sasaki provided information in response to questions and comments raised at the April 13 meeting, as well as written questions and comments regarding traffic. SENee stated that he would collectively address the questions and comments by category. SENee responded to a comment raised regarding whether or not cumulative impacts of the proposed project were adequately addressed in the traffic study. The traffic study did indeed address several proposed projects listed including residential development in The Country Estates, Diamond Hills Plaza (formerly the Country Hills Towne Centre), the Industry Business Center/Stadium and the Aera Energy planned community. Specifically, the resident raised an issue with respect to the stadium and the traffic study for Site D began prior to when the stadium EIR was approved. However, the traffic engineer who prepared the Site D study assessed the current information available with respect to the stadium EIR and it was determined that the appropriate approach would be to look at the prior development proposed for the stadium site which is the Industry Business Center and to look at the impact to the peak hour travel times. Ultimately, this resulted in looking at the am/pm peak hour trip forecasts and the conservative approach is to the use the Industry Business Center traffic forecast because it generated much higher forecasts for the am/pm peak periods. Second, there was a concern about the H -Mart. As previously mentioned, the H -Mart is part of Diamond Hills Plaza and was addressed in the study with respect to trip generation forecasts for that and other retail establishments in the plaza. Third, there was a comment regarding school area circulation and Castle Rock Elementary access concerns and wait times for student drop off and pick up. Essentially, this is a situation that occurs throughout Diamond Bar and in fact, with many communities in Southern California. The City experiences high levels of traffic during very specific timeframes in the early morning and early afternoon hours. The City has addressed this issue uniformly throughout the City by working closely with the Sheriff's Department and school districts to monitor those situations and to proactively address operational improvements that can help with circulation during peak hour drop off and pick up. Chaparral Middle School is a good example of collaboration among the City, Sheriff's Department and school. Staff was able to establish one-way circulation routes; post additional regulatory signs, etc. Those types of actions have proved successful with regard to addressing school area APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION traffic. Fourth, there was a concern expressed about the general ingress/egress because there is a proposal for 202 dwelling units and the comments contended that there should be 404 trips associated with peak hours. However, the analysis procedure that was followed in this traffic study is a procedure that is commonly followed in the industry. The traffic engineer used the Trip Generation Handbook published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers which is universally used for assessing impacts and determining trip generation rates. These trip generation rates are based on land uses and in this case, there was a component for the residential portion and a separate trip generation forecast forthe commercial/retail component. As a result, 154 trips were considered to be the outbound A.M. peak hour number of trips from the residential units. Staff is confident with the methodology used in this study. SE/Yee said that several individuals commented on particular intersections that were not studied in this report. One intersection referenced by two different individuals who offered comments was Brea Canyon Road and Copper Canyon. The report studied a total of 20 intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project with the farthest intersection being Grand Avenue at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The traffic engineer who prepared the study looked at several criteria for selecting the intersections such as whether or not there would be more than 50 trips added to a particular intersection as a result of the project; whether or not the intersections were signalized, whether or not the intersection is an arterial to arterial intersection, arterial to a collector road intersection, or a residential intersection. All of those factors were considered and evaluated in determining which intersections needed to be included. Based on the criteria, Copper Canyon was deemed not necessary to be included in the study. Copper Canyon is a T - Intersection between an arterial and a residential collector street, it is currently not signalized, it is a single stop intersection and the intersection approach generally serves right turns in and right turns out. There are mitigations recommended in this study for the next intersection downstream from the project (Brea Canyon and Silver Bullet), which is an intersection that requires a fair -share contribution by the development to restripe and install an additional lane of traffic and to modify the traffic signal to improve flowthrough the intersection as well as, general trafficflow along Brea Canyon Road. That in combination with the determination to exclude Copper Canyon from the study was felt to be appropriate that the downstream mitigations would address any additional concerns. The last comment received addressed the relevance of the Traffic Study data. There were several concerns with the date of data collection versus present day. Data was collected in 2007 and much of this Traffic Study report, as with any traffic study report has impacts and mitigations based on future forecasts. In this case the study was based on a 2030 year traffic forecast, the critical numbers used to determine ultimate mitigation. Again, it was deemed appropriate to use the data that was collected because the critical data and forecast were still relevant for determining mitigation for this project. SE/Yee addressed Chair/Torng's request for additional information AP RI L 27, 2010 PAGE 17 PLANNING related to the volumes for the project with and without the project by showing a slide that showed actual traffic counts forAM/PM peak hours for the intersections. There was also a question about fair -share contributions. Steve Sasaki, Sasaki Transportation Services, highlighted a question about use of fair -share as a mitigation practice. He confirmed that fair -share mitigation is an accepted mitigation procedure which serves to create a firm nexus between the project impacts and the required mitigations so that the City is able to offset the project impacts through use of a fair -share vehicle. It is also a way to satisfy the City's adopted Traffic Study Guideline procedure. Within the Traffic Study Guideline there is a requirement for fair -share contributions and the fair -share mitigation serves to satisfy the guidelines. Within the mitigation measures themselves there is an opportunity to provide a fair -share or actual construction of improvements and whichever method is selected, would need to be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Within those parameters the City has a very solid mitigation program to offset the project's impacts. VC/Nolan said the A.M. traffic trips indicated were 154 trips and she assumed that would be mirrored for the P.M. trips. SE/Yee explained that they would be different based on the methodology. Mr. Sasaki explained that since there is a combination of both residential and commercial uses, the residential is pretty much as stated as those going out in the morning tend to come back in the evening so that is fairly balanced. However, with commercial, typically there will be a lower A.M. trip generation and more trips generated in the P.M. The net trip generation is 272 in the A.M. peak hour includes both inbound and outbound vehicles. For the P.M. it is actually 650 peak hour trips (332 inbound and 318 outbound). When there is a mixed use of residential and commercial, obviously some of the people who live on site are going to shop at the adjacent commercial and most likely that relationship is a lot higher than some residential away from the project. Individuals tend to shop at the closest location. There can be and is often a reduction to account for the internal synergy. This particular study was done on a worst-case basis so it did not make those reductions. In attempting to create the envelope and looking at what mitigations were needed, that is one factor that makes it more of a worst-case analysis that that particular reduction was not made within the trip generation analysis. So the numbers shown are essentially worst-case. SE/Yee clarified to VC/Nolan that out of the 154 trips outbound A.M., 75 of those trips were associated with the condominium development and 79 were associated with the retail center. C/Shah asked if a nine percent increase in Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road P.M. traffic was a moderate or significant impact. Mr. Sasaki said that for Diamond Bar Boulevard at Brea Canyon there were impacts that were identified within the traffic study and then there were also offsetting mitigation measures so it would be considered a significant impact that was identified APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 18 PLANNING through the traffic study within the EIR. But then also there were mitigation measures that were identified that would fix or offset those impacts. Chair/Torng asked at what point — two percent or four percent - a fair -share contribution would be required. SE/Yee responded to Chair/Torng that the City's traffic guideline in general refers to a greater than two percent impact would kick it into a category of needing mitigation. The guidelines also indicate that if the City determines that an impact less than two percent is judged to be significant it would enable the City to require mitigation even though it did not meet the two -percent requirement. Chair/Torng asked staff to comment further on the impact to Copper Canyon because he believed it would be very difficult to make a left turn at the peak hour. Mr. Sasaki said it was an advantage to have an internal connection and the signal at Silver Bullet presents an opportunity to make a left turn under signal control. In the P.M. drivers make left turns from Brea Canyon into the development so if someone is traveling southbound on Brea Canyon, residents do make a left turn in but that was not viewed as problematic. Chair/Torng asked if striping could be added to help the residents. Mr. Sasaki said it was not determined that there was a project nexus. There may be over time that residents would ask for improvements from the City to help improve ingress/egress at that location but that would be separate from this project. Chair[Torng asked if they would go to the Traffic and Transportation Commission and Mr. Sasaki said he did not know what the process was for that in Diamond Bar but obviously, the project does not have ingress/egress through that side street. So it is viewed as more of an issue related to the neighborhood which very well could be legitimate and could be pursued for improvement. As far as the study, it is viewed as something separate from the project. CDD/Gubman said that the reports were completed and staff would respond to further questions. VC/Nolan asked how the number of new homes for this project compares in general to new home development over the past five years as it pertains to overall traffic impacts citywide. CDD/Gubman responded that a total of 237 including the Brookfield development which is about 186 attached units from 2005 through 2009 based on the number of Certificates of Occupancy issued. VC/Nolan asked staff to elaborate on the issue of entitlement about the importance of how staff certified this EIR as opposed to if the land was purchased and an EIR was done post sale. CDD/Gubman said he touched on this matter before. Having a Certified Environmental Document in hand and having some certainty of the entitlements in terms of the land uses, the density, number of units and amount of square footage, if that approval is already in hand it will add value to property when it is marketed because the developer is not assuming that risk upon purchase. APRIL PAGE VC/Nolan asked if there had been thought given to a park and recreation area in the form of a portion of this land being taken out of the sale and dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar for park and recreation use. CDD/Gubman asked if VC/Nolan intended that the commercial and residential mix would be retained but adding the park component and VC/Nolan responded "adding the park component even as part of the development and requiring that the developer create a park or just taking a certain acreage out of the equation completely." CDD/Gubman said that would be a discussion at a higher level but if it is the Commission's recommendation to have that park feature added to this Specific flan he would presume, given the fiscally cautious approach the City takes on all matters of City business that the City would require the subsequent developer to construct those improvements and dedicate that to the City for public use. VC/Nolan asked if it would make the project less feasible or desirable for a developer to come in if that is a requirement and CDD/Gubman said he could not really answer whether it would be less feasible. The sale price of the property would be affected if that was a feature that the developer was obligated to construct and there may be other funding tools that could be used such as adding what you might call a "door charge" on the residential units that would be payable to the City because the park would reduce square footage by potentially 80 cents to $1 dollar of foregone sales tax revenue. As a result, the City may look to require some sort of fee to offset that loss of revenue stream from the residential units. With all of those factors taken into account, yes, the price tag on the property would reflect that requirement as any other development requirement would also affect the price tag. VC/Nolan said in that regard is there not already a fair -share amount toward park service per dwelling unit or per envelope and CDD/Gubman responded affirmatively and indicated that it is called a Quimby fee and for every development unit there is an assessment that is payable and what he is saying is that the City would look into exacting an additional fee from the residential development to offset the fee of reduced sales tax revenue that would be required to accornmod ate the park. CDD/Gubman said he was not suggesting that the fee he is talking about is the Quimby fee, it is something in addition to the Quimby fee to serve another purpose but it is the purview of the City Manager to determine how to manage the City's revenues and expenses. There will be a loss of sales tax revenue and there will be maintenance costs inherited with the addition of a new park facility so the City would look at some means to offset those costs. VC/Nolan said and those funds would go directly to this project site specifically as opposed to the assessment for dwelling units which could be disbursed throughout other parks in the City. CDD/Gubman said the funds would go into the General Fund and through the budgeting process the money would be allocated. VC/Nolan asked the potential length of a project like this from beginning to end when one considers inconvenience of construction, construction hours, a particular concern of hers with hours noted from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 P -1-n. Monday through Saturday. CDD/Gubman stated that Mr. Rogers may be able to elaborate more on that issue but it would probably be a 12-18 month process from permit issuance to having (._]I�-�F APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION pads ready for actual construction of buildings. Mass grading may take about six months. Speaking from experience with construction hours he has worked in communities where the noise regulations allowed construction to begin at 6:00 a.m. and as the community developed and the new development sites were starting to be surrounded by populated development sites and there was beginning to be an impact on new residents the City looked at having the noise ordinance revised to require later construction hours and the hour was set at 7:00 a.m. He worked in another community where the construction ordinance was 8:00 a.m. and as development activity increased there was pressure from the construction industry to allow an earlier start time and it is really a matter of coordination with all of the trades and how the industry operates. There are concrete batching plants that are mixing concrete that has a short shelf life and that material needs to be delivered before it gets too hot; there are delivery trucks dropping off lumber and they are trying to make their rounds and then as construction starts later in the day and the weather is warm, the end time is not necessarily later in the day so it shortens the duration of the work day so that could potentially lengthen the construction period. So the balance seems to gravitate to 7:00 a.m. which seems to be the earliest that the building industry can really continue to do business under and it is seems to be the earliest tolerable time for surrounding residents. So 7:00 a.m. seems to be the universal standard. VC/Nolan asked staff's experience on surrounding property values for a project like this. CDD/Gubman said there is probably data to show that a new development going in will positively affect the comparable values and square foot values on older homes. As the homes are newer it may have less of a positive effect but it seems to have generally a positive effect on property values. With a commercial development that is less certain and so that is a question of compatibility and sensitivity to adjacent uses so taking that into account is what led to the increased setback requirements and other screening requirements to try to focus the use in a location that is farther away from residential development. Chair/Torng asked staff to comment on Mary Rodriquez concern about ground water flowing under the houses that sit on the slope at Cold Spring Lane and what would be done about the flow of water without disturbing the housing above. Peter Lewandowski stated that as indicated in the EIR, the geotechnical analysis was at a programmatic level in the absence of a formal design plan. But subsurface investigations were conducted and groundwater was encountered at a depth of 37 feet. Grading activities are not anticipated to encounter ground water as part of its operations. And as pari of typical grading procedures and practices, further geotechnical review will be required at the building permit stage once final development plans are finalized. To the extent additional geological conditions are identified those will be composed as conditions of approval on subsequent development projects. The subsurface ground water is not anticipated at this stage to result in significant impacts to the project moving forward. __ ^0f APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 21 l6ANNIlN}yiG.il COMMISSION Chair/Torng asked the school district to comment on for what the proceeds of the sale of this land can and cannot be used. Jack LeBrun, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, WVUSD, responded that the question regarding the use of any type of capital outlay proceeds has to go back into the district's capital improvement program. Currently, the school district is not allowed to use proceeds to pay for salaries or ongoing operational expenses. Chair/Torng asked for a more in depth explanation about the 1991 DBIA resolution and why that is not a consideration. CDD/Gubman explained that the DBIA Resolution that was passed in 1991 did formally record the position based on survey information that a park is a preferred development for that site. Certainly there has been public testimony that is indeed still the preferred alternative of many for this site. He would just have to go through a few points to respond to that. The first would be that subsequent to that resolution was the City's adoption of the General Plan in 1995. The General Plan does not identify Site D as a park. It retained, I would say, an inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning designation but it was not formally established in the General Plan as a potential park site. Prior to that, there was a grant application submitted by the City to secure funding for a park site and there were two locations under consideration: 1) what is currently Pantera Park; and 2) Site D. The funding was approved for Pantera and not approved for Site D. So that window of opportunity, the best opportunity to see that (a park) happen was when the grant application was submitted but it was approved for another site. Subsequent to that and after the General Plan adoption in 1995, there were improvements to Heritage Park and there were improvements to Castle Rock Elementary School keeping in mind there is a shared use agreement between both the WVUSD and Pomona Unified School District (PUSD) for school facilities to be used by Diamond Bar residents. Finally, the Parks Master Plan that is currently being completed and will be presented for City Council consideration does not include Site D as a potential park site; it does, however, include future improvements to both Heritage Park and to Castle Rock Elementary. So in that entire timeline the City has not taken a formal position or adopted a policy to designate or to plan for Site D as a public park. And finally, the MOU laid the groundwork for crafting of the Specific Plan. The basic criteria indicated 50 percent commercial and 50 percent residential and under the IOU there was no remaining percentage for a park use. Having said that, if the Commission is leaning in the direction of incorporating a park -component staff can help formulate the recommendation to the City Council and staff believes that doing so would not affect the environmental analysis or fundamentally affect the Specific Plan. Chair/Torng asked for deliberation and input from individual Commissioners. C/Lee said his comments have been spoken loudly by the residents and he believes his colleagues believe the Commission's function is very limited. The F, IR APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission's function is to listen to the people and bring their issues and concerns and discuss those issues and concerns and make an informed decision. The decision should be for the people and not for someone else. Also, the EIR is great and he listens to the people and agree with them that it does not go far enough to answer the residents' worries and concerns. The concept and implementation of the Site D Specific Plan looks great and appealing but he believes that professional companies have the money and technology to have a much respected profession like the City's consultants. But the residents have only five minutes. They have limited time. Most of them work and do not have time to prepare this type of appealing presentation that we have seen tonight. But he believes it looks great and is a very good presentation but the facts do not change and the facts do not lie. The fact is that the City has enough retail space already and when he moved to Diamond Bar it used to take five minutes for him to get to the project area down Diamond Bar Boulevard and now it sometimes takes 30-40 minutes. One resident sent him an' email today that stated "Diamond Bar is a virtual parking lot." And C/Lee thinks this is a temporary virtual parking lot but Diamond Bar does not want a long term parking lot. That's his one comment. Also, the EIR is pretty good but EIR is not everything. If there is a concern or problem the EIR writes down that everything is fine and can be mitigated. He does not believe that the EIR is a panacea. He understands there are professional reasons for this project and he really respects the professionals. He does not want to give any disrespect to them but even though they are professionals they do not know the residents and if they live here they know better than anyone else. So if the residents say there is a problem and this project will lead to negative impacts to the community then he really respects the opinion of the residents. Sometimes higher technology and speech does not make sense. Why does Diamond Bar need more cars? Sometimes it does not make sense. Again, he really respects his residents' opinion and concerns and their worries and their effort and energy to come down here to express their ideas. And his job is to represent them and in this instance, if it does not make sense and does not help the community he believes there is no reason to modify or compromise the project. Sometimes when we say no that makes for a better future. C/Shah thanked staff and the consultants for a great presentation. He apologized to his fellow citizens that he has to say no to further comment because if the public hearing is opened again it may open up that issue over and over again and the Commission will never get to its final decision. He takes this business very seriously. At the same time he wants to make sure the process continues in an expedient manner. At the same time we will do justice with the problem at hand. He is keenly aware of the environment, neighborhoods, and needs of the people and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Really at this point of the debate at this time is that the land belongs to somebody. Somebody wants to sell their land. And the issue brought to the Planning Commission includes five or six items and one of the items which is major is a General Plan amendment to change the land / � P-1 F__-,� ra APRIL Ze, 2010 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMMISSION N use. If it is left the way it is, what will a new property owner do, and in the interest of the City, the City decided to go into a MOU with the School District which states 50 percent residential/50 percent commercial. So with that background, the Commission has to look at the overall picture and long range plan. He understood that people want new things. He spent his time in transit and he has seen a lot of NIMBYs—they want mass transit, but "not in my backyard." The same is true here and we do not progress in our City, there will not be a computer, there will not be a new automobile, there will not be a new society. So we need to move forward. We can't just say 'leave the land as it is." With the given plan, we have tools to work at it. One of the tools is the EIR and is the tool right now at hand. It talks about goals and objectives, long term horizons, tax implications and predictable outcome. Ultimately, the bottom line is what this entitlement does, it adds value to the property. And we are all in the business – people are in the business of ultimately wanting to add value to their properties. Considering all of these factors there are a few things that come to mind which the Commission should consider. His concerns with the plan are cut and fill. You can cut and fill without having to import or export dirt to maintain the natural environment and to develop this plan it needs to be developed so that its environment is park like. One potential discussion was that the City could develop the park but a small part of this 30 -acre parcel. Not a bad idea recommended by his colleague. He would be of the opinion that a future developer be allowed to develop in a park like environment meaning what he saw today as planned and shown does provide more like a park like environment more than a piece of land somewhere in the 30 acres—one acre, two acres, three acres—because it boxes it in. When there is a commercial and residential component nearby people may not feel comfortable using it as a park. The City has Heritage Park nearby. There is a school nearby where people can use that area. Though he is more willing to put in language the City is better off leaving it to the future developer, but established criteria that the developer must have a certain percentage of open space for the overall size. He does not know the percentages required in Diamond Bar but that is the question he will be asking. So considering all of the facts, he does want his fellow citizens to feel that the Commission and staff does its job and the important thing is that he wants the City to progress in such a manner to make sure that what is done today is a move forward for future generations. He is open to other considerations but knowing what he knows today the matter at hand is to examine the EIR and whether to recommend or not to recommend. VC/Nolan felt the EIR was not an end-all/be-all for this project. It is a tool to use to come to a decision about what is best for the community at large, for the whole City of Diamond Bar. It is true that the WVUSD has a right to dispose of this property. Is it to the City's benefit to approve this EIR and obtain the entitlement so the City has more of a say in how this will move forward. She disagreed regarding the open space. She believed the property had approximately 8 or 9 acres of open space which is also considered easements, rights of ways and other APRIL 27, 2090 PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION open areas. She wants an open green area. She wants a park like setting. She wants a place for people to take their dogs. And again, she thinks it could fit nicely with the type of community — the retail, the commercial community, that this has envisioned. She thinks there is space for both. This is a blank slate. The City has the opportunity to make this what the community wants to make it and to set the ground rules. Her question for staff is, would it be best for the Commission to come back to this issue after looking at whether a park area is feasible. She does not feel comfortable moving forward with the term "park like." CDD/Gubman said that during the break he drafted language that could be incorporated into the resolution to recommend approval of the Specific Plan and the Tentative Tract Map. If the Commission would like he can read the language to see if it is consistent with the Commissioners' vision and if so, it can be incorporated in a motion to adopt the resolution with the provisions as recommended. C/Lee said that if you insinuate or leave it as some unidentified area, the Commission needs to decide the item but he (CDD/Gubman) says he wants to give a suggestion to.....Chair/Torng interjected and said he thought CDD/Gubman was responding to VC/Nolan and make a suggestion for her to consider. C/Lee said maybe this is inappropriate because it is illegal for the Commission to insinuate a decision for a certain area. Chair/Torng said that right now it is a discussion and as you may recall, VC/Nolan just made a suggestion about a park area. ACANVohlenberg said that there are always staff's recommendations on items before the Commission and he believed CDD/Gubman was attempting to react to comments to provide language that would move toward that goal.. But he does not believe it insinuates any sort of predetermination of the Commission's action or trying to restrict the Commission to a particular action. The Commission has wide latitude to approve or deny or approve it with different modifications or change it. It is merely an attempt to fulfill all usual role and suggest language that would reach the goal that one of the Commissioners was proposing. C/Lee felt that all of the Commissioners should make their comments and then CDD/Gubman could read his recommended language and then the Commission could deliberate. That would be his recommendation. VC/Nolan asked her colleagues if she was out in left field or, did she have the support of her colleagues being on board with this. Chair/Torng felt that development of a new site is generally not a very popular decision to be made. As a Commissioner he understands the residents' points of views and shares their frustration in many aspects. However, as a Commissioner, APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 25 PLANNING COMMISSION he and his colleagues must understand their role as a decision-making agency and keep the objective in mind and endeavor to balance as a principal the economic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to approve a project. If it cannot concur that legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposal outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, a diverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable. Based on the project there are some unavoidable air quality impacts that cannot be avoided but most of the other issues including the major ones such as traffic and landscaping issues have been mitigated to a less significant level. As a Commissioner serving more than eight years he really trusts that the staff is working extremely hard to make the City better every day and he commends staff for doing such a good job in responding to all of the questions, comments and concerns raised at the last meeting as well as through the emails and letters. He also believed that the consultants' technical expertise will make sure the mitigation measures will work to make this the best possible project. From a benefit standpoint he believes the City needs the tax revenue and the school district needs additional funds to support school activities. And he feels it is important to maintain a healthy City and school district because both will be a cornerstone of this community. A prestigious City with a prestigious school district will for sure maintain the City's quality of life and housing values, etc. The City's plan is a level A plan and is not the final development plan. But with a Specific Plan, the City is able to set some important guidelines for the future developer. He felt it was very important for the City to set limits and make sure the best designed project will happen at Site D. He supports recommending inclusion of a small park area in the commercial development area and let the City Council make the final decision. And as he mentioned when he quoted a resident's comments, he felt the comment that she hoped it will be an urban city center with living shopping and park space set into the natural setting of Site D fit what he was trying to convey. VC/Nolan asked if the Commission should hear staff's recommendation for the language to include. C/Shah said his reference to a park like atmosphere was in support of an environment and the developer should decide how to include that option. He was thinking more on the order of unspecified open space areas where people can congregate. Second, the Commission is not considering the appropriateness of the NIOU which has already been established with the relationship between the City and school district. One thing he wanted to add to his comment was about the trees and perhaps the City should consider having an arborist to review the trees when the development occurs to advise the developer and the City whether those trees could be saved or what could be done. His last comment is that this should be a showcase solar energy efficient project for the City. APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 26 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nolan said that regarding a park and regarding a specific location for it, she did not believe in leaving it up to the developer, she did not want to take away necessarily from the residential area. She likes that part of the plan. She thinks even regarding parking or a small park would infringe on a residential area. She would like to see something along Diamond Bar Boulevard, along Cherrydale something that is not just specific to this project but for the community at large. The south end of Diamond Bar has Heritage Park and schools but to her it is lacking in this area. And she would like to see something more specific and she is not even sure if a change in language right now would suffice. There's so much put into the actual drawing, the grading, the specificity of the commercial and residential, but to just toss in a plot for a park seems a bit of a rush. C/Lee said he concurred with VC/Nolan. He loves parks. And he means it since he moved down to Diamond Bar that area location was allocated for a park. He likes parks. But he does not like building commercial and houses and taking a small area for a park. It is a very complicated process if you want to get a park. He wanted to make sure about VC/Nolan's intentions. He does not think that is the idea of the residents. And sometimes we need to give them open space and sometimes the City does nothing and then gives it to somebody else. Our kids — the next generation - that's the issue right now. I always believe that development is good for developers. They come down here to our City and whatever they say and give you in a presentation or fancy words doesn't matter. The relevant fact is that development of Site D shouldn't be—wouldn't be good for our residents. That is the truth. And one does not alter or deviate it by other fancy words. That's my second comment. Chair/Torng said that regarding the park addition it belongs to the Specific Plan under the third resolution. CDD/Gubman indicated that Chair/Torng was correct but he would advise the Commission not to make any decisions on any of those three recommendations until the Commission discusses its intent for the park provision because depending on what the Commission's intent is it may or may not have an effect on the language of the Specific Plan or the Environmental Impact Report. So he really believed the Commission needed to discuss this matter before beginning its process of making decisions and motions on any of the resolutions. CDD/Gubman referred the Commissioners to Resolution 3 to recommend City Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map and Specific Plan and offered the following language on Page 3 which begins the resolution section. On Page 4 he suggested that a subsection 'T'. be added: "At the time that a development plan is formally submitted for Planning Commission consideration, the subsequent plan shall incorporate within its boundaries a neighborhood park of sufficient size to incorporate features such as, but not limited to, a tot lot, picnic tables and shade structures." This would be supplemented by a Tentative Tract condition to require APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 27 PLANNING COMMISSION the Final Map to include a lot that delineates the boundaries of the park as prescribed under that new subsection that he previously read. VC/Nolan said that since the Plan is already specific on acreage for commercial and easements and things passed already, delineating the size is not recommended? Or the location of it as opposed to being in the commercial area rather than the residential. CDD/Gubman said that if it is VC/Nolan's desire to recommend that level of detail he may have to confer with the EIR consultant and City Attorney to see if staff needs to go back and look at the environmental document to see if that would lead to more changes because the language he proposed to her just now would not mandate any changes to the EIR. The more precise the Commission wants to get, the recommended provisions still may be immune from any changes to the EIR but he thinks staff would have to study that further and comeback to the Commission. Following staff deliberation, CDD/Gubman stated that the staff's discussion had to do with specifying a size and location and the agreement was that if the Commission wishes to specify a minimum size of the park it would not affect the analysis and EIR. The EIR does analyze a maximum intensity and density scenario for residential and commercial so adding a park component would potentially reduce the intensity of the commercial development but certainly not increase it. It may reduce the traffic impacts because the park component may generate some off-peak trip generation. Staff does not see any compromise to the EIR. However, the location is problematic at this point so if the Commission were to include a location at this time the recommendation going forward to the City Council would not be in compliance with the Level A Plan before the Commission. The limit would be specifying some of the programming and size without the location. C/Shah recommended the park be no less than three-quarters of an acre or about 30,000 square feet or something like that so that it does not involve changing the EIR. C/Lee asked if he could make a motion to continue CDD/Gubman said again, the issue staff is struggling with is whether or not the Commission is intending to specify a location because that would be in conflict with the A level Specific Plan designations for cornmercial and residential. If the Commission wants to go into more specifics about aggregate park acreage or aggregate acreage with a minirnum per park site within the plan, staff can help formulate that language in the resolution. Staff needs to re-emphasize that getting into the specifics of a location would not be consistent with the Draft Specific Plan staff is presenting to the Commission. Q `i' R APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 28 PLANNING COMMISSICI VC/Nolan said that to do this tonight she does not know. She is going to be back here in a couple of weeks so for her this is not a problem for the Commission to continue this if it is something that has to be more formulated, there's got to be more thought given to it. For her to pull out I want 2.25 acres designated to this... She wanted something. They talked about the gateway — the view of the City at this location and she thinks that has to be something like a park like setting. She is not saying the corner of Brea Canyon and Diamond Bar Boulevard but something along the line that preserves that visually pretty area that is visible to the community to someone that does not live there is not necessarily going to walk down the path which she thinks is a great idea to this area but someone will take their kids to what is on the other side of town or on the other side of Diamond Bar Boulevard. She is just not real comfortable. She does think that again, as it pertains to the EIR she does not necessarily think, like CDD/Gubman says, it is going to change that up a lot but she thinks this is just too big of a change to the Specific Plan to not consider all of the three elements together. Mr. Rogers said he keeps coming back to the process that the City is in which is an A level and B level map. A saying in the business is "The devil is in the details" and it truly is. The details, in terms of configuration on these properties have not yet come forward. The intent was not to, as an applicant or through the school district to try and design the project specifics. The wonderful thing about this process because this is what we have been doing on the Irvine Ranch for decades, is that we create this envelope or umbrella under which we understand how setbacks work, how development standards work, thresholds in intensity, to get the process past some of the bigger meatier parts. He kind of agreed with VC/Nolan, but in the sense that trying to deliberate on the location and specifics of the park in this setting is a tough call. When VC/Nolan asked "how big a park" well, it's programmatic and C/Shah's comments about three quarters of an acre minimum — those are all the kinds of details that quite frankly he thought were borne out of the B level effort. He said he was not trying to defer it and he was not trying to shrug the responsibility of doing this but he was suggesting that an applicant that comes to the City with a commercial plan, in the creativity that he can elicit in the process of working with his architects and landscape architects with the mandate that the City might set forth at this A level might be a more productive venue for the Commission to vet these issues and get into those details with him and really force it out at that level because that is where he thinks it is most appropriate. The problem is if we just plop a blob in there and say a park has to be right there, maybe what we're doing is we're inhibiting the creativity of the future applicant at the B level. So with that in mind, and remember, that is the most substantive part in terms of this issue. Where is the park located? Well, a lot of things have to be developed in an understanding of that commercial site plan to discover that and he would believe that the City might be doing a disservice to the future purchaser of that property to make all of those decisions in advance. Maybe it is good enough that there is a performance criteria overlaid on this APRIL - 2010 PAGE29 PLANNING COMMISSION project. He said he appreciated that VC/Nolan wanted to get to certainty and the predictable outcome that he keeps talking about but perhaps it is better at the next level. Chair/Tomg said that actually in a way he concurred with staff's response on this because actually, the location you suggested by VC/Nolan at Cherrydale, he does not like that idea. He likes Mr. Roger's suggestion for the idea of the corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. At this time the Commission is not going into the details and he believed that was a level II or Plan Level B, and right now the Commission is at Level A. Chair/Torng asked if the Commission could accept C/Shah's recommendation for a three quarter of an acre minimum with the location to be determined because he has a different opinion that VC/Nolan. VC/Nolan said she did not think it so specific, she thinks it is more general than specific. I just would like more thought put into it. We have 50/50 percent - I don't know if any third grader could come up with that figure but I would like to think there would be something that is more concrete regarding size, regarding location, that is just not random. This is why we are doing this so we can be on the front end of what we want. And maybe I am the only one that wants it and that would be fine. But she just thinks it is just still too obscure. Chair/Torng asked that based on what VC/Nolan said what is the best that staff can do with the current plan? CDD/Gubrnan said at this point he would suggest that the Commission continue the matter because he needs to discuss this further with Counsel because he is not sure why a location cannot be specified and he needs to have a better understanding of why? Because this is still a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council is going to give the final direction on what changes, if any, are incorporated into this planning document. Right now he would suggest that the Commission continue the matter to May 11, 2010, and give him a chance to consult with the City Attorney and with the consultants and come back to the Commission with more developed guidance for formulating the Commission's recommendation. Chair/Torng said that for him his location is different from VC/Nolan. He does not like her location so he does agree that this is something that the Commission should set the requirements that it wants a park and wants to put that into the plan and let the developer know so that they have to create something — a park, for this location. AC/Wohlenberg said that the discussion would be whether or not the City can specify a location. And then that would be something the Commission would have to debate at the next meeting and decide if you want to specify a particular location or not. There may be three votes for that, there may not be. But we want to make sure we can or cannot let the Commission recommend a specific location. APRIL 279 2010 PAGE 30 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nolan said she did not necessarily say it would have to be at that corner. She just would like some research done on it, some thought put into it. I mean if staff has an idea now that would be great too. She did not mean to insult anyone by saying that any third grader could come up with the 50/50 percent on this but itjust seems — I would just like something a little more concrete and still give a developer leeway. But something that we have more envisioned. I just don't think we're being specific. C/Shah stated that he felt that given the opportunity for Plan B and let the developer come in the future and present a location and the Commission will get another report at that time because the Commission will see the entire picture. Right now we are seeing just three lots there and we do not know how they are going to develop them. He stated that he likes the idea of Mr. Rogers that leave it to the future developer; and maybe we should just identify the need for the park. He stated that he is of the opinion that maybe we should establish some criteria — any area and the criteria you describe — tot lot, etc., but leave it for the future and the Planning Commission will get an opportunity to debate and decide. But at that time the Commission will have a better picture because we will know what other things are being developed in the area. We will have better information. He recommended not to insist on location at this time, but just insist on a park and an area of that park so at least we have areas (i.e., acreages) identified for the commercial and areas identified for the residential pads so let's identify the area for the park. C/Lee said he concurred with C/Shah's idea — a portion of it. Let's move on C/Shah moved, Chair/Torng seconded, to Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, approve the Mitigation Report 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. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson C/Shah moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to 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 APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 31 PLANNING COMMISSION Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson The Commission discussed continuation of Recommendation 3 and CDD/Gubman proposed modified language to reflect the Commission's request. CDD/Gubman reiterated "at the time that a development plan is formally submitted for Planning Commission consideration, the subsequent plan shall incorporate within its boundaries a neighborhood park of sufficient size to incorporate features such as, but not limited to, a tot lot, picnic tables and shade structures, and shall be a minimum of three- quarters of an acre. Chair/Torng asked if the Commission could make it one acre. Why make it three-quarters of an acre? CDD/Gubman said that is what he heard before so if he misunderstood ... C/Shah said no, an acre is fine. Chair/Torng asked the Commissioners to remember this is Plan A with certain guidelines. If the Commission starts to get into a specific location it would become a different plan. He liked Mr. Roger's idea about integrating a park with the location with an eating area with a park surrounding it. It looked to him pretty good. But VC/Nolan's idea is at Cherrydale so then it would require a little more detail to justify it. VC/Nolan said it was not specifically Cherrydale. She knows she brought that up. But it is something, again, an entrance viewpoint for the City that when people drive down Diamond Bar Boulevard they see a park, that the residents see a park and that it is visible and usable for the community. She stated that she thinks an acre is a little small, is looking at this to some extent from the perspective of a mom. Chair/Torng asked if there was any more discussion. ACA/Wohlenberg said staff had one more change to read into the record. CDD/Gubman said he was reminded that the Commission discuss multiple locations with an aggregate size so he wants to make sure he understands so that staff provides the Commission with the language. So do we want it to say "park area or areas with an aggregate size of at least one acre? C/Shah said he was of the opinion of two acres total and one particular lot is no less than one acre, then there would be two areas and let the developer decide what those two areas would be or where it could be. CDD/Gubman said what if the two areas were contiguous so that it was a total of two acres. C/Shah said that would be okay. ACA/Wohlenberg clarified that it could be two APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 32 PLANNING COMMISSION park areas with a total aggregate area of two acres, one of the areas to be at least one acre in size. C/Shah said "that is correct, very well stated." VC/Nolan said that if two acres is too big she would rather see an acre and one-quarter of something nice and particular. She appreciates the idea of two acres, but is that too much of an infringement into the commercial area? CDD/Gubman stated that staff would strongly suggest that this item be continued to give staff a chance to study this to determine what a different park size would afford. Two acres could have a significant effect on the viability of the commercial site. One may be sufficient to provide all of the amenities that the Commission envisions. Staff needs to go back and study this. The one itern staff wants to look at is the Planning Commission rules. It may be more appropriate to take one motion for all three actions at once rather than leave this evening with two down and one to go. Chair/Torng felt the Commission had consensus and was waiting for staff's language. The Commission has consensus in a way that this is an important Specific Plan but we want a park. But how much and how to do that is something we are waiting for staff to provide guidance, and within the limits and not to kind of impact the fiscal responsibility and not to impact the EIR and those kinds of things. So actually, the Commission can make a decision or wait until staff comes back and just notify the Commission with the appropriate language. VC/Nolan said she had to respectfully disagree to take staff's recommendation to give this a little more thought and we may come back with the same thing and do this again in two weeks with just a little more specificity, a few more details. There are just a lot of different things out there and now was your recommendation for the Commission to take all three items as a whole does that negate what we already voted on? C/Shah said there were two or more experts here and he has some experience visualizing one acre, two acre, three acre and he does agree that one or one and a quarter acre or one and one half acre are insufficient for a neighborhood park. He kind of agreed with the Chair to agree with staff's experience and expertise on acreage which would not impact the future development or the school district and if that is in staff's opinion, sufficient, then he thinks the Commission should consider that. He thinks the Commission should be open to hear the experts and if they believe one acre is fine, so be it. He does not think it is very difficult right now at this stage to visualize it. Everybody agrees in principle that we need a park. The issue is whether it should be one acre, one and one half acre, or what. That is the issue. Chair/Torng likened this debate to the parolee homes wherein the Commission wanted the maximum distance. So we can identify the language to the maximum size of the park that staff can identify for the Commission. APRIL 27, 0 PLANNING COMMISSION O, a VC/Nolan said she thought if staff was willing to go back, rethink this, give it some more detailed thought outside of this arena right here and come back, it may be as general as C/Shah recommends. It may be more specific to this is residential, this is commercial, whether it's specific land and location, she just likes the idea that staff seems to be recommending that the Commission come back in two weeks and revisit this particular item. C/Lee said the Commission already made a motion for item one and number two. There is no reason they should be combined together. If VC/Nolan thinks the recommendation is good make a motion for that and we get some action. VC/Nolan said she did not just want to do it. I don't just want to pull a place and a number out of my hat. C/Lee said no - just make a motion for continuance. ACA/Wohlenberg said he wanted to make a point of procedure and parliamentary procedure. These three resolutions constitute a single action and he wants to make sure there is not an issue with when a statute of limitations starts to run or anything like that so that all three are done at the same time. The Commission's rules allow for a motion of reconsideration be taken at the same meeting where the Commission has already taken action on a resolution item. So what he would recommend is that the Commission proposed a motion for reconsideration of the first two items with that decision to be made simultaneously with the consideration of the third resolution so that we have sort of undone that approval and just moved it out to coordinate with the third resolution. VC/Nolan said, so we would be voting again on the first two items that we voted on already? ACA/Wohlenberg said first there would be a motion for reconsideration on the first two items. If that passes then those items would be reconsidered simultaneously with the third so they would be then sort of unapproved and for consideration those would be moved to be simultaneous with the third. C/Lee said he had a question about that. The agenda clearly separates Items 1, 2 and 3 and then you said about a resolution. For example, if I agree with item number 2 and I don't agree with item 3 then he cannot express his opinion if he votes on all three at once. If the items are separate he can express his opinion on a certain item. With them combined together no matter whether I agree or disagree with a certain item I cannot do that. ACA/Wohlenberg said they would all still be voted on separately. He wanted to make sure because the project requires all three resolutions. If two were to pass and one were to not pass he would not be sure what would happen with that. So in order to make sure action is taken on all three of them either approval or denial, he wanted to make sure they were all approved simultaneously because they all do constitute a single project. So the Commission has taken action on two and if the Commission is not taking action on the third yet he does not know if that will trigger any problems with review or appeal of those where there are essentially two approved resolutions that could go up, but they are essentially useless without the third and he does not know what kind of problerns or delays that may cause the City. So to just avoid that problem his recommendation would be to pass a motion for reconsideration on Items 1 and 2 so that they can be considered n 1 c. 1 0_k D � a a�-�, APRIL 0PAGE 34 r COMMISSION again at the next meeting so that at the next meeting staff has to come back with the additional information about the third resolution but the Commission would also then just start at the beginning again and consider Resolution number 1, Resolution number 2 and then Resolution number 3. Chair/Torng asked if at the next meeting the Commission would come back and go directly to deliberation or go through the whole process. ACAANohlenberg said the Commission would go directly to the resolutions. The Commission may want some additional deliberation amongst the Commission in order to make that decision. There is no problem with doing that and that does not bring up any due process issues like when there is public testimony. This is just the Commission acting. So the Commission is saying we need more information. Find that information and bring it back so we can continue our deliberation on a particular date. VC/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded, for reconsideration of Items 1 and 2 and request that staff bring back recommendations and additional information regarding the designation of a specific park space or size on May 11, 2010. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL. ITEMS: C/Shah thanked everyone for their consideration this evening and thanked staff and the consultants for their good effort. VC/Nolan thanked everyone for their patience and said she looked forward to visiting this again in two weeks. Chair/Torng thanked staff and the consultants for their efforts. Thanks to the audience that stayed with the Commission for such a long meeting. 10.1 Public Wearing dates for future Droiects. As listed in tonight's agenda. APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 35 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With nofurther business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 10:54 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 11thday nfMay, 201O. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, GegGubmun Community Development Director Tony Torng, Chairman 21825 COPLEY DRIVE — DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 — TEL (909) 839-7030 — FAX (909) 861-3117 -- www.CitycfDiamundBar.com AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.1 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2010 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Comprehensive Sign Program No. PL2010-30 PROJECT LOCATION: 1150 South Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar CA 91765 (APN 8717-031-008) APPLICATION REQUEST: To approve a Comprehensive Sign Program (CSP) to install an additional wall sign for Firestone. A CSP is required when there are two or more signs requested by a single tenant on the same street frontage. PROPERTY OWNER: Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC. 333 E. Lake St. Bloomington, IL 60108 APPLICANT: Sharon Willison Williams Sign Company 111 S. Huntington St. Pomona, CA 91766 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions BACKGROUND: The property was developed in 1987 under Loo Angeles County standards with a 7.Ob8square-foot commercial building on a2&.447 net square -foot (U.0Oacres) lot. Site and Surroundinci General Plan, Zonina and Uses CSP No. PL2O10'30 Page 2of6 S ite General Comrnercial -3 Retail and Auto Services Use North High Density RM Multi -Family Residential Residential South General C-3 Retail Use Commercial East General C-3 Retail Use Commercial West Professional Office OP Professional Office CSP No. PL2O10'30 Page 2of6 ANALYSIS: Review Authority 6®larva®nd Bar �#iaanicipal Code (®Bi�C) Section 12.36.tiC10) Planning Commission approval is required fora Comprehensive Sign Program (CSP) when two or more signs are requested on the same frontage. CSPs are used to integrate the signs with the design of the development. CSPs have specific requirements for signs proposed for that development. Approval of a CSP is required to ensure compliance with the City's general plan policies, development standards, and design guidelines to minimize adverse effects of the proposed project upon the surrounding properties and the City in general. Proiect f7escriPtion The applicant requests approval to relocate an existing sign on the rear wall to the front of the building. The number of signs will consist of the following: ® Front (South side of the building): 2 wall signs and a monument sign-, and ® Side (East side of the building): 1 wall sign. Firestone and Bridgestone tires are both brands of the Bridgestone Corporation. It is a requirement from the Bridgestone Corporation for each Firestone Complete Auto Care building to have a Bridgestone sign on the street frontage of the building. When the signs were redesigned in 2008, the sign contractor did not propose the sign to be placed at the front of the building. A CSP is being proposed to comply with Bridgestone's requirements. The channel letter sign to be relocated has translucent white acrylic faces with applied black vinyl. A small area of the sign is a red acrylic face. The trimcaps and returns are black. 3are� � I I 1 pEcncl6z MLLUEp ALUM CHANNEL WIMEi M W W-- nIBR FAic n.UM.CN.JIJELIERER514'I N„'SN5!ULENi 1VII.PI5tt4H42193'REVACRriIC FALES '1Y11[IF�hfi;1'LIC fR4=fi14f 511ifM.E hPPIIEeNM1 AAP AWGNER'PIACk'I'.WENLELRUW 9M Bfu M'OVA' [OR 51Kk' REiVM ARE IAM1 1O MArH iRIIJCAP IS WAGIIERPoLACM JE4ELf£ WWNh g1OJAALRIMCAPCOLOR I MUM ARE fA1HIEOtO ldhtGl'TIJIiCM CULOP r ONT ELEVATION OFLIm.IBV Gl4"=i'�G' CSP No. PL 2010-30 Page 3 of 6 The existing channel letter wall signs consist of red and blue acrylic with matching trimcaps and returns. The existing monument sign consists of red and blue acrylic lettering and a white aluminum panel surrounded by a blue trim. III a RI i i f: The proposed project complies with the standards of Chapter 22.36.060 by integrating the sign with the design of the building and having specific requirements for signs proposed in that development. The proposed project is designed to be compatible and complementary to the neighborhood, and incorporates the principles of the City's Commercial Design Guidelines as follows: CSP No. PL 2010-30 Page 4 of 6 ® The color scheme of the CSP creates a sense of identity because they are trademark signs for the business. The colors contrast with the color of the building and easily visible from a distance; The materials used for the monument sign and the wall sign text and graphics are acrylic with vinyl facing. Stucco was used for both the base of the monument sign and the building. The consistency of materials will unite the look of the building, wall signs and monument sign; The existing and proposed wall signs are sized such that they are appropriately scaled for the wall surfaces on which they are to be placed, and are located in such a manner that they are properly centered and balanced with the architectural features of the building; and ® The signs are compatible with the existing signs on the building and on the surrounding buildings. Below are photos of one of the neighboring commercial buildings to the east. These signs consist of colored acrylic and vinyl facing, colored trimcaps and returns, and internal lighting. Since the CSP has similar types of signage, it will be compatible with signs on commercial buildings that are in close proximity. The Building and Safety Division reviewed this project and included their comments in the resolution as conditions of approval. CSP No. PL 2010-30 Page 5 of 6 Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site, and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on April 30, 2010. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the public notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. V11011M IM1011M This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 under Section 15311(a) (accessory structures ® on -premise signs) of the CEQA guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Comprehensive Sign Program PL 2010-30, based on the findings in DBMC Section 22.36.060, subject to conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Prepared by: Reviewed by N talie To on Planning Technician Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval No. 2010 -XX 2. Aerial Photo 3. Site Plan, Photos, and Elevations Grace S. Lee Senior Planner CSP No. PL 2010-30 Page 6 of 6 RESOLUTION A PLANNINGM. ! DIA111011LA BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PROGRAM NO. PL, 2010-30 FOR FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE, LOCATED AT 1150 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE, DIAMOND , j R i 91765 A, PARCEL 8717-031-008) 1. The Planning Commission considered an application filed by Sharon Willison of Williams Sign Company, on behalf of the property owner, Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, requesting approval of a comprehensive sign program (CSP) located at 1150 S. Grand Ave, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California ("Project Site"). 2. The subject property is comprised of one parcel totaling 0.68 acres. It is located in the Regional Commercial (C-3) zone and is consistent with the general commercial land use category of the general plan. 3. The legal description of the subject property is PARCEL MAP AS PER BK 180 P 74-75 OF P M LOT 1. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 8717-031- 008. 4. Notification of the public hearing for this Project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on April 30, 2010. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -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. On May 11, 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: 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 determines the Project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, EV Section 15311 (a) (accessory structures — on -premise signs) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. � � t Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.36.060, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: The comprehensive sign program satisfies the purpose of this chapter and the intent of this section; All of the components of the proposed CSP satisfy the purpose and intent of allowing two signs for a single tenant on the same street frontage, and complies with the standards for signs set in DBMC 22.36.060 by integrating the sign with the design of the development and having specific requirements for signs proposed for that development. The comprehensive sign program is consistent with the City of Diamond Bar Design Guidelines for commercial signage in size, color, and consistency. The signs enhance the overall development, are in harmony with, and are visually related to other signs included in the comprehensive sign program and to the structure and/or uses they identify, and to surrounding development; The proposed sign enhances the overall development by complying with the City of Diamond Bar Design Guidelines. The use of trademark signs creates a sense of identity for the business which makes it easily recognizable. The materials used for the monument sign and wall sign text and graphics are acrylic with vinyl facing and stucco is used for the base of the monument sign and the building. The consistency of materials unites the look of the building, wall sign and monument sign. The signs are sized to be appropriately scaled to the wall surface on which they are being placed, and will be located in such a manner that they will be properly centered and balanced with the architectural features of the building. The signs are in harmony with and visually related to the signs in surrounding developments through the use of similar materials such as acrylic and vinyl facing, colored trim caps and returns, and internal lighting. 3. The comprehensive sign program accommodates future revisions which may be required due to changes in uses or tenants; The comprehensive sign program accommodates future revisions by having minor changes reviewed by staff and the Community Development Director, and any major changes to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Resolution No. 201 n-xx 4. The comprehensive sign program complies with the standards of Chapter 22.36, except that flexibility is allowed with regard to sign area, number, location, and/or height to the extent that the comprehensive sign program will enhance the overall development and will more fully accomplish the purposes of Chapter 22.36; The comprehensive sign program complies with the standards of Chapter 22.36 and will enhance the overall development through consistency with the City of Diamond Bar Design Guidelines for commercial signage, uniformity and easy identification of the signs, and neighborhood compatibility. 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 the applicant, Sharon Willison, Williams Sign Company, 111 S. Huntington St. Pomona, CA 91766 and the property owner, Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC, 333 E. Lake St. Bloomingdale, IL 60108. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF MAY 2010, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. ° Tony Torng, Chairman I, 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 11th day of May, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-xx PROJECT ##: Comprehensive Sign Proqram No. PL 2010-30 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Sign Program for Firestone Complete Auto Care PROPERTYOWNER: Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC APPLICANT® Sharon Willison Williams Sign Company LOCATION: 1150 Grand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNINGO AT 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE i CONDITIONS: •N In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Comprehensive Sign Program No. PL 2010-30 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-x any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Comprehensive Sign Program No. PL 2010-30, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business License. 4. Signed copies of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 6. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 7. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. ' 8. Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 9. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning and Building and Safety Divisions. B. FEES/DEPOSIT'S Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever come first. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-xx 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS The approval of Comprehensive Sign Program No. PL 2010-30 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively referenced hereto as Attachment 3 including: site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, and sign program, all on file in the Planning Division, and conditions contained herein. The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. APPLICANT AND iSAFETY DIVISIO1 (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2007 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2007 California Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal The minimum design load for wind in this area is 85 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone four (4). The applicant shall submit Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-xx drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 3. Application for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the Building Department. 4. Every permit issued by the Building Department shall expire if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit. 5. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. 6. Provide structural design for sign method of attachments 7. Submit electrical plans showing all circuits.. AM 7 Planning Commission Resolution No, 2010-xx M TDRE 'I �4 �4' !,I' w If aN 4td- n rN p z FV 4" �,c QL 19 12' 1 tj Fi, estoj,e! B,idgntom I I ��O S . nr�ind Ave - Di -,—d ll�,, CA 91765 O •-��&tp��'Ir � aEZ €j `FtiSEx � `,3�R$, �fii;FFf P;r .57 rdaFeiS�.i,> �. ;a -To � VN v� I 1 a PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR -o825 COPLEYmRIVE-DIAMOND BAR, CAm765-TEL. (909) 839 -7030 -FAX (909) 861-311/ MEETING DATE: May 11, 2010 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit PL2010-89 PROJECT LOCATION: 2751 S. Diamond Bar Blvd, 8udo A (Loa Angeles County Assessor's Pmxm| Numbers 8285-020'32thm8285-020'050). APPLICATION REQUEST: To operate e music and ad school under the business name OmhepieSchool ofMusic. The proposed music school will provide music |euannn to school age children and young PROPERTY OWNER: Country Hills Holdings, LLC 8115Preston Road, Suite 4OO Dallas, TX75225 APPLICANT: James Kim 0mhepiaSchool ofMusic 217UOCopley Drive Diamond Bar, CA01705 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject hoconditions. W 1WX 2903 The project site is within Diamond Hills Plaza, a 17.2 -acre shopping center located at Diamond Dar Boulevard between Cold Spring Lane and Fountain Springs Road. The shopping center consists of retail, restaurants, fast-food take-out, professional offices, and an AAA office building (under separate ownership from the remainder of the center) totaling 179,437 square feet of floor space. In 2008, the first phase of a major renovation was completed at Diamond Hills Plaza. The planned build -out of the renovation included the exterior fagade of the former theatre building, removal of two buildings at the southerly end of the center, a freestanding daycare center, and a multi -tenant shop building to facilitate the construction of a three-story medical office building. In 2009, the medical office building was terminated, and the Commission approved plans to renovate the two buildings instead. In addition, the project included the demolition of the theatre building and replacement with a new inline shop building (See Attachment 2). The applicant proposes to occupy 10,200 square feet of the future new inline shop building at the north end of the shopping center (where the former theatre building is currently located) with a music and art school. Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses Page 2 of 7 CD: Staff Reports PC/Diamond Bar Blvd., 2751 PC Staff Report 05/11/2010.docx Zz�nrng D�atrl�t Land Use General C-2 Rot il, Office and Commercialsite Restaurant Uses orth Low Medium Density +— RLM Single -Family Residential Residential South It Medium Hig RHM Multi -Family Residential Density Resid m, •..1 �. IF Residential ResidentialSingle-Family Page 2 of 7 CD: Staff Reports PC/Diamond Bar Blvd., 2751 PC Staff Report 05/11/2010.docx ANALYSIS: W22.1%Q30-Table 2-11 A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for uses whose effect on the surrounding area cannot be determined before being analyzed for suitability at a particular location. The C-2 zone requires approval of a CUP for businesses offering music lessons/school. When reviewing a CUP, consideration is given to the location, design, configuration, operational characteristics and potential impacts to determine whether or not the proposed use will pose a detriment to the public health, safety and welfare. If it can be found that the proposed use is likely to be compatible with its surroundings, the Commission may approve the proposed use subject to conditions stipulating the manner in which the use must be conducted. If the Commission finds that the proposed use is likely to be detrimental to the general peace, health and general welfare, then it must deny the request. When a CUP is approved, it runs with the land and all conditions placed on the CUP are binding on all successors in interest. In other words, if the owners of the proposed Page 3 of 7 CD: Staff Reports PC/Diamond Bar Blvd., 2751 PC Staff Report 05/11/2010.docx music school were to close the school after it has begun operating, a new tenant could locate in the space and operate the same type of school. The new tenant would be required to comply with the same conditions as the previous tenant and would not be permitted to expand the school without full review and approval by the Planning Commission. Project Site 1-2 • _ ►- 1 The proposed use (dba "Orchepia School of Music) will be a music and art school that provides music lessons to school age children and young adults. Majority of students will be enrolled in the afterschool program. The curriculum emphasizes piano playing techniques and music theory. The proposed hours of operation are from 2:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The proposed owner of the music school is currently operating a music school in the City of Diamond Bar, located at 21700 Copley Drive, Suite 290, as well as two other locations in the City of Irvine. The owner needs to expand its current space in Diamond Bar and would like to stay and serve the local Diamond Bar area. The proposed floor plan includes 29 individual classrooms, an art room, a theory room, a group study room, and a 2,016 sq. ft. recital hall. The duration of classes is one hour. The proposed space is 10,200 sq. ft., approximately the same size as the Irvine location, which is 9,920 sq. ft. The owners believe the proposed location would be appropriate for the expansion in Diamond Bar. The school expects to have approximately 17-60 students at any one time, a maximum of 30 teachers, and approximately 2-3 administration staff. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission add a condition to allow no more than 65 students at any one time (Recommended Condition of Approval #7 in Attachment 1: Draft Resolution). Page 4 of 7 CD: Staff Reports PC/Diamond Bar Blvd„ 2751 PC Staff Report 05111/2010.docx The space that Orchepia School of Music proposes to occupy is located at the north end of Diamond Hills Plaza, where the former theater used to be. The shopping center has numerous different uses including a grocery store, restaurants, a taekwondo studio, professional offices, an AAA office building, and other retail and service uses. As such, the operational characteristics of the proposed music school are compatible with the existing uses in the shopping center. The proposed location within a shopping center further reduces compatibility problems. Historically, the north end of the shopping center has been more desolate and less occupied with commercial activity than the south side of the shopping center. Allowing a new use such as a music school into the shopping center may bring a synergy, diversity of uses and more people to create more activity in the center. The students attending the music school, as well as parents dropping off and picking up the students will be exposed to, and shop at, the stores and restaurants in the center. This may also produce additional activity to support additional retail and restaurant uses to fill the current vacancies in the center. To provide pedestrians better awareness of other tenants and directions around the shopping center, the applicant has submitted a conceptual wayfinding study. The proposal is to install three directional signs throughout the shopping center (See Attachment 2). The new directional signs will make it easier for the public to access all areas of the shopping center, creating a more walkable and pedestrian -friendly shopping center. Shopping centers over 50,000 square feet in size are required to provide 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area. Diamond Hills Plaza and the AAA office building (under separate ownership) have a shared parking agreement. The existing gross floor area of the shopping center excluding the AAA office building is 158,922 square feet, and therefore, requires 530 parking spaces. The AAA office building is 20,000 sq. ft., and therefore, requires 50 spaces. A recycling facility occupies 3 spaces. The shopping center provides 941 parking spaces, which is a surplus of 361 spaces. A shared parking analysis is summarized below: ing Center 1/300 CenterShop Recycling f 4 Page 5 of 7 CD: Staff Reports PC/Diamond Bar Blvd., 2751 PC Staff Report 05/11/2010.docx One of the purposes of the CUP process is to consider potential impacts the proposed use may have on parking in the shopping center. When reviewing parking impacts on shopping centers, the various uses and peak business hours for those uses are taken into consideration. Therefore, staff asked for additional parking analysis for the proposed use. The existing shopping center has uses ranging from restaurants, offices, personal services, and retail uses. The different uses result in a range of peak business hours and parking demands. The supplemental traffic and parking assessment states that the peak hours and parking needs do not conflict with existing uses, allowing for adequate parking for each use within the shopping center. rye, -..+,"`iit 4 a'*: Jj^w° Y x „`:' ? i",y*" p„.. Rc k Remand ,IeZ Ar t► � d �I ' z ujtkcla� r yk £ 1f1G�eke, Midday 68 Evening 677 Available Due to this, staff does not foresee any parking issues resulting from the proposed use. The existing parking supply is adequate and can accommodate the proposed music school. In addition, the proposed music school will not increase any square footage to the approved new building, and currently the north end of the shopping center is not heavily congested or utilized. However, once the music school is in operation and should traffic and/or parking problems arise, the Planning Commission may require the applicant to provide parking management services to ease traffic flow and congestion or submit a plan to address the issues subject to staff review (Recommended Condition of Approval #6 in Attachment 1: Draft Resolution). Additional Review The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project and included their comments in the attached resolution as conditions of approval. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site on April 26, 2010, and the notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Tribune and San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspapers on April 30, 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article Page 6 of 7 CD: Staff Reports PC/Diamond Bar Blvd., 2751 PC Staff Report 0511 1 /2010.docx 19 Section 15301(a) (Interior alterations involving partitions and electrical conveyances) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment #1) approving Conditional Use Permit PL2010-89, to allow a music and art school, based on the findings of DBMC Section 22.58, subject to conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Prepared by: Grace S. Lee Senior Planner Reviewed by: Greg Gubman, CP Community Development Director 1. Draft Resolution No. 2010 -XX 2. Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Pedestrian Way -Finding Study 3. Business Plan 4. Site Plan of Location in Irvine 5. Supplemental Traffic and Parking Assessment Page 7of7 CD: Staff Reports PCOamond Bar Blvd., 2751 PC Staff Report 05/11/2010.docx 1. Property owner, Country Hills Holdings, LLC and applicant, James Kim, have filed an application for Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-89 to operate a music and art school located at 2751 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Suite A, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California ("Project Site"). Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit shall be referred to as the "Proposed Use." 2. The subject property is comprised of 20 parcels totaling 17.2 acres. It is located in the Community Commercial (C-2) zone and is consistent with the General Commercial land use category of the general plan. 3. The legal description of the subject property is Parcel Map 247-2831. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers are 8285-020-032 through 8285-020-056. 4. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valleybung and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on April 30, 2010. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -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. On May 11, 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: This 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 determines the Project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15301 (a) (interior alterations involving interior partitions and electrical conveyances) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. C. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.50, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Conditional Use Permit Review Findings (DBMC Section 22.58) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a conditional use permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code; Pursuant to Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.10.030, Table 2-6, a specialized education and training school is permitted in the C-2 .zoning district with approval of a conditional use permit. Through compliance with the conditions of approval stipulating the manner in which the use must be conducted, the proposed use will be compatible with neighboring uses in the shopping center. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan; The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with General Plan Strategy 9.3.3: "Encourage neighborhood serving retail and service commercial uses". The subject property is not located within a specific plan area. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity; The Proposed Use is located within a multi -tenant commercial shopping center occupied by various retail, restaurants, office, and service uses. The proposed music school may bring a synergy and diversity of use and customers to the shopping center to create a more thriving, vibrant center. By having the proposed music school, the students attending the music school, and parents dropping off/picking up the students will be exposed to, and shop at, the stores and restaurants in the center. As such, the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX operational characteristics are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed, including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints; The project site is located within an existing commercial building that is developed for the use of retail and office type uses. The proposed use provides a service that is compatible with the other uses that operate within the subject property. The proposed business's location within a commercial shopping center further reduces compatibility problems because it insulates the use within the center. A supplemental traffic and parking assessment stated that the peak hours and parking needs do not conflict with existing uses, allowing for adequate parking for each use within the shopping center. in addition, a condition of approval is added requiring the applicant to provide parking management services to ease traffic flow and congestion, or to submit a plan to address the issues subject to staff review should there be traffic or parking problems once the music school is in operation. 5. Granting the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located; and Prior to the issuance of any city permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions of approval within the attached resolution, and the Building and Safety division. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15301(a) (interior alterations involving interior partitions and electrical conveyances) of the CEQA Guidelines. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this application subject to the following conditions: The establishment is approved as a music and art school as described in the application on file with the Planning Division, the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX staff report for Conditional Use Permit PL2010-89 dated May 11, 2010, and the Planning Commission minutes pertaining thereto, hereafter referred to as the "Use". The Use shall be limited to a music and art school. 2. The Use shall substantially conform to the approved plans as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and on file with the Community Development Department. This Conditional Use Permit shall be valid only for 2751 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Suite A, as depicted on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. If the Proposed Use moves to a different location or expands into additional tenant spaces, the approved Conditional Use Permit shall terminate and a new Conditional Use Permit, subject to Planning Commission and/or City Council approval shall be required for the new location. If the Use ceases to operate, the approved Conditional Use Permit shall expire without further action by the City. 4. The hours of operation shall be limited to 2:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00.m. onSaturdays. 5. No changes to the approved scope of services comprising the Use shall be permitted unless the applicant first applies for an amendment to this CUP, pays all application processing fees and receives approval from the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 6. Once the music school is in operation and should traffic and/or parking problems arise, the applicant shall provide parking management services to ease traffic flow and congestion, or submit a plan to address the issues subject to staff review. 7. The music school shall have no more than 65 students at any one time. 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: Country Hills Holdings, LLC, 8115 Preston Road #400, Dallas, TX 75225; and James Kim, Orchepia School of Music, 21700 Copley Drive, Suite 290, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY 2010, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND PAR. M Tony Torng, Chairman I, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Sar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of May 2.010, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: Greg Gubman, Secretary 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX fi ,1.0;vzn$II t # nX gz�y PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-89 SUBJECT: Wu—iii–c d Art School LOCATION:APPLICANT: James Kim (2rchopia School of Musicinc.1 Bar Blvd. Suite A- DiamLond _Bar 1C • APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, F COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-89 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX approval of this Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2010-89 at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. The business owners and all designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business License, and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 5. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. To ensure compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable codes, the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to periodic review. If non-compliance with conditions of approval occurs, the Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit. The Commission may revoke or modify the Conditional Use Permit. 8. Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three (3) days of this project's approval. 9. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, and Public Works Department) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building permits, as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS The approval of Conditional Use Permit shall expire within two (2) years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2007 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Application for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the Building Department. 3. Every permit issued by the Building Department shall expire if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit. 4. Construction activities causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall be conducted Mon. -Sat. between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 5. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 85 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic category (D). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 6. The plans submitted must reflect the proposed construction and be wet ink signed by the design professional under whose supervision the documents were prepared. 7. This project shall comply with all Accessibility Code requirements including accessible parking, path of travel, elevators, restrooms, drinking fountains, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX etc. Provide compliance with van accessible porNng, path of travel, etc. Reception counter shall comply with the title 24accessibility requirements. 8. This project nheU comply with the energy conservation requirements of the Stade of California Energy Commission. Q. Specify location oftempered glass aurequired bycode. 10. Verify adequate exit requirements. The distance between required mxhu shall bei6ofthe building diagonal. 11. In order to accurately monitor and report all construction and debris generation and diversion aoUvdieu, all materials must both behauled and processed by e city franchised contractor or by a |io*nood demolition contractor subject to compliance with specific permitting and reporting requirements. Southern California Air Quality Management District (SC&OMD) approval/clearance will be required prior to the issuance of demolition permit. Please contact AOK8Dmt(0OQ)3O7-2327 12. Fire Department approval shall be required. Contact the Fine Department to check the fire zone for the location of your property. If this project is located in High Hazard Fire Zone it oho|| meed of requirements of the fire zone. WE 9 W 3 CD L J i Iqj z 4a i ------------ A FOUNTAIN SPRINGS ROAD oouUMFr89on-n- 000u uoano a n l:y lj l n .o TF i' tJIAMONO HILLS v I u PLAZARENOVATId WAREM,ILCOMLi v_il F 5 _a Fo $3`S.Fa e� - (� B 711 ® N a_ S ea � S _ _ r, Lj 0 yy pp d C® ggp a 5`Y d ® 6 e e e lql $aEi v_il F 5 _a Fo $3`S.Fa DIAMOND HILLS PL NEW RE -L EXTERIOR ELE-1 - ON 9� AZA C - - RENOVATION COLO SPRI N GS LANAND DIAMOND E ID 5AR BLVD_ DIAMORO _E, _L FORNIA F D IN H� l C2mg 4 j m O v ZOcLyyl Pio A. mon 3D N0 3DB y02 Z Z I I t / 1.0 e ff \ � \ / \ F } j -I j a 0 m Ov�O P 2 a] HE v 70 R avi U ° v H _ N .3 N v O Q v b p a o 0 3 u u G V O b' cCe ." U 'd O' 80 a •aro "� : � � � � v ' � � d u Q a v -d v u v p~ii ^C C [� G 0 O" v F� H 0 3 d u v O ce J O 'd a W U W v 0 ° en 0 p bJD ro " [ °A ; G u o F, o o w° w u .- V v w O U N 4 W a Ij yG Q U O wo d r o C iy C C O m C 0 m v 0.. q p"° dD bao 7 R v° N w° ° G O r Sbjc 7 Z H o Ra v to v c °'� �4 .b O v H v cti b cti O c� O 'O G 4J U H 'r ro �-+ Q Pa H Q A .' m Ri Q Q R e W W v V O O N O. c3 O O g � v A. u 3 ai 43v . 0 N �i V � � V O N c3 O R! .zj H cd ti L, bB ^V cd W cnCl) 5 h a 79 O O b N o 'O � ..u. b w , w p a p ® a4 r o PLa o H N O �n C uti v O H v fa '� � dA O � � �+ ..u• N G c6 0 v v w u M H Q ,-C q H to p O u' v v O w W W v V O 9- a I 9 I �,O o � O cd H p r - r �o ., 0 b sF4F <f` � � l `ss��� ��J �r+' ORCHEPIA MUSIC SCHOOL (99% of parents drop ', r off their children and visit the nearby 99 Ranch Market or other nearby retail.) lG Iit"Tlm-wo SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC AND PARKING ASSESSMENT FOR THE DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA RENOVATION PROJECT PROPOSED MUSIC I ART ACADEMY March 12, 2010 Prepared for. SAROFIM REALTY ADVISORS 8115 Preston Road, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75225 LLG Ref. 2.09.3099.1 As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Supplemental Traffic and Parking Assessment for the proposed Diamond Hills Plaza Renovation Project (formerly known as Country Hills Towne Center). Diamond Hills Plaza is an existing shopping center with a total floor area of approximately of 175,650 square -feet (SF) and 941 parking spaces that is located along the west side of Diamond Bar Boulevard, between Cold Springs Lane and Fountain Springs Road in the City of Diamond Bar, California. Figure 1, located at the rear of this letter report, presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project and depicts the surrounding street system.. This supplemental assessment evaluates the potential traffic impacts associated with a change in anticipated site improvements that is now proposed for the Diamond Hills Plaza beyond that which was approved by the City of Diamond Bar in October 2005, inclusive of the proposed occupation of 10,200 SF of retail designated space with a music/art (private lessons) academy, and provides an assessment of the project's parking impacts with the site improvements. OVERVIEW AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Philip M. tlnscon. PEnnA-10w) Jack M. Greenspan, PE IRW LLG previously studied this site and prepared the Trak Impact Analysis for the William A. Law, PE laxq Country Hills Towne Center Expansion Project, Diamond Bar, dated July 25, 2005, PauIW. Wilkinson, PE The July 2005 study evaluated the impact associated with the construction of a John P Keating, PE 49,100 square -foot (SF) medical office building (MOB) on the southern portion of the Gavid S. Shendec PE site in a place of the 7,450 SF daycare center and a 9,101 SF retail building, John A. Soarman, PE renovation of the 23,428 SF theatre, construction of a two-story, 12,408 SF Clare M. Look -Jaeger, PE - Richard E.6arretto, PE restaurant/commercial building and re -tenancy of retail suites into food uses. KeilardEBr aft, Implementation of the approved project would have resulted in a total floor area of PE 221,083 SF. as cnvsca,aoow Fo weeAsss Engineers & Planners March 12, 2010 Traffic Transportation Parking Mr. Robert Poynor, Vice President Sarofim Realty Advisors LinscoM taw & 8115 Preston Road, suite 400 Greenspan, Engineers Dallas, Texas 75225 1638 corporate Drive LLG Reference No. 2.09.3099.1 snits 1zz Cosa Mesa, CA 92626 714.641.1587 T Subject: Supplemental Traffic and Parking Assessment 714.641.0139 F Diamond Hills Plaza Renovation Project www.ilgangineers.com Proposed Music / Art Academy Diamond Bar, California Pasadena Costa Mesa San Diego Dear Mr. Poynor: Las Vegas As requested, Linscott, Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Supplemental Traffic and Parking Assessment for the proposed Diamond Hills Plaza Renovation Project (formerly known as Country Hills Towne Center). Diamond Hills Plaza is an existing shopping center with a total floor area of approximately of 175,650 square -feet (SF) and 941 parking spaces that is located along the west side of Diamond Bar Boulevard, between Cold Springs Lane and Fountain Springs Road in the City of Diamond Bar, California. Figure 1, located at the rear of this letter report, presents a Vicinity Map, which illustrates the general location of the project and depicts the surrounding street system.. This supplemental assessment evaluates the potential traffic impacts associated with a change in anticipated site improvements that is now proposed for the Diamond Hills Plaza beyond that which was approved by the City of Diamond Bar in October 2005, inclusive of the proposed occupation of 10,200 SF of retail designated space with a music/art (private lessons) academy, and provides an assessment of the project's parking impacts with the site improvements. OVERVIEW AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Philip M. tlnscon. PEnnA-10w) Jack M. Greenspan, PE IRW LLG previously studied this site and prepared the Trak Impact Analysis for the William A. Law, PE laxq Country Hills Towne Center Expansion Project, Diamond Bar, dated July 25, 2005, PauIW. Wilkinson, PE The July 2005 study evaluated the impact associated with the construction of a John P Keating, PE 49,100 square -foot (SF) medical office building (MOB) on the southern portion of the Gavid S. Shendec PE site in a place of the 7,450 SF daycare center and a 9,101 SF retail building, John A. Soarman, PE renovation of the 23,428 SF theatre, construction of a two-story, 12,408 SF Clare M. Look -Jaeger, PE - Richard E.6arretto, PE restaurant/commercial building and re -tenancy of retail suites into food uses. KeilardEBr aft, Implementation of the approved project would have resulted in a total floor area of PE 221,083 SF. as cnvsca,aoow Fo weeAsss Mr. Robert Poynor March 12, 2010 Page 2 The anticipated modifications to the approved development as proposed by Sarofirn Realty Advisors include the construction of a new 14,700 square -foot (SF) building in place of the recently renovated, but vacant 23,428 SF building that was formerly occupied by a theatre, and construction of a new 12,000 SF, two-story retail/rdstaurant building (instead of a 12,408 SF building). Anticipated uses for the proposed 14,700 SF building now include a 10,200 SF music/art academy instead of retail -oriented uses l and 4,500 SF of inline food uses/restaurant space. Figure 2 presents the proposed site plan for Diamond Hills Plaza, prepared by Ware Malcomb. Within 10,200 SF of floor area, the proposed music/art academy will have 29 classrooms for individual lessons, an art room with a capacity of 15 students, a theory classroom for 20 students and a group study room with a capacity of 20 students. Also proposed is a recital hall with a capacity of 150 persons, which will not be used simultaneously with the classrooms. The proposed school is expected to be open Monday through Friday, from 2:30 PM to 8:00 PM and Saturday and Sunday, between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM, with duration of classes expected to be one hour. School administration is expected to total two to three persons. Unlike the analysis included in the July 2005 traffic study, the 7,450 SF daycare center and a 9,101 SF retail building, located on the southern portion of the site, are expected to remain and the 49,100 SF MOB will not be built. Upon completion of the proposed Project, the floor area at Diamond Hills Plaza will increase by 3,272 SF, resulting in an overall floor area of approximately 178,922 SF, which is 42,161 SF less than the floor area approved by the City of Diamond Bar in October 2005. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS Trip Generation Analysis Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. To remain consistent with the July 2005 traffic study, generation factors and equations used in this traffic forecasting procedure for this assessment are based on the 7th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C., 2003]. Table I summarizes the trip generation equations used in forecasting the impact of Diamond Hills Plaza. Since ITE does not have any published rates for a "music / art academy", the trip generation potential was estimated based on the proposed hours of operation, project characteristics (i.e. no. of classrooms and capacity) and potential schedule of lessons. 1 Please note that LLG's Revised Trak and Pm$iag Assessmenr for Uiamand Hills Renovation Project, doted Jarmmy L, 2010 evaluated the potential impacts of the project assuming occupation of 10,200 SF of retail uses. Mr. Robert Poynor March 12, 2010 Page 3 Table 2 summarizes a comparison of the trip generation potential of the "Now - Proposed Project", with the proposed music/art academy and repeats the forecast of the Approved Redevelopment Plan as evaluated in the July 2005 traffic study. Review of the upper portion of this table indicated that the "Now -Proposed Project" has a forecast trip generation potential of 9,178 daily trips, with 270 trips (157 inbound, 113 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 724 trips (355 inbound, 369 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday. As shown in the lower portion of the Table 2, the "Approved Redevelopment Plan" of the Diamond Hills Plaza Project was projected to generate approximately 9,849 daily trips, with 317 trips (215 inbound, 102 outbound) produced in the AM peak hour and 745 trips (317 inbound, 428 outbound) produced in the PM peak hour on a "typical" weekday. These prior forecasts equate to a mitigated "trip budget" for the Diamond Hills Plaza from which the traffic implications of refinements/revisions (like those now proposed) to the project development tabulation or land use mix might be evaluated. As indicated in the last row of Table 2, the "Now -Proposed Project" with 10,200 SF of music/art academy uses in place of retail shops, as assessed in the July 2005 traffic study, is forecast to generate 671 fewer daily trips, 47 fewer AM peak hour trips, and 27 fewer AM peak hour trips when compared to the Approved Redevelopment Plan, The difference in daily and peak hour trips is attributed to the change in development which included the eliminating the construction of the previously approved 49,100 SF MOB and the occupancy of 10,200 SF of retail -designated space with a music/art academy. Based on this comparison, we conclude that the traffic impact potential associated with the proposed music/art academy and mix of land uses will be insignificant and negligible. PARKING SUPPLY -DEMAND ANALYSIS Analyzing the supply -demand relationship of Diamond Hills Plaza involves determining the parking needs in relation to the existing and/or future panting supply. In general, there are two methods that can be used to determine the parking demand. These methods include: 1. application of City code parking requirements (which typically treats each use as a "stand alone" use at maximum demand); and 2. analysis of shared parking usage patterns over time (which recognizes that the parking demand for each use varies by time of day, day of week, and month of year). Mr. Robert Poynor March 12, 2010 Page 4 The shared parking methodology is certainly applicable to a development such as the Diamond Hills Plaza, as the individual land uses (i.e., retail, restaurant, office, etc.) experience peak demands at different times of the day. As shown in Table 3, upon completion of the proposed Project, the floor area at Diamond Hills Plaza will increase by 3,272 SF, resulting in an overall floor area of approximately 178,922 SF of floor area consisting of 40,000 SF Super H -Mart grocery store, a 21,440 SF Rite Aid, 30,015 SF of retail shop / service retail space, a 10,200 SF music/art academy, 8,874 SF of office/batik floor area, 33,476 SF of restaurant space, 67,467 SF of fast-food with drive-thru, a 7,450 SF daycare center and a 20,000 SF AAA Diamond Bar District office. City Code Parldng Analysis As a benchmark, the number of parking spaces required to support the Diamond Hills Plaza, after completion of the proposed renovation project, was first conducted by using the parking codes per Chapter 22.30 Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards of the City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code and comparing it to the proposed parking supply provided by the project. Proposed Parking Supply Based on information provided in the proposed project site plan and review of existing conditions at the retail center, a total of 9412 parking spaces will be provided on surface lots located throughout the site. Proposed Proiect Parking Requirements The City's parking code (Section 23.30.040) for existing and proposed land uses of the Diamond Hills Plaza is as follows: ® Shopping centers (shall use unsegregated parking area): 1 space for each 200 SF of gross floor area for centers of less than 20,000 SF and 1 space for each 250 SF of gross floor area for centers of 20,000 to 50,000 SF, and 1 space for each 300 SF of gross floor area for centers over 50,000 SF, plus 1 space for each 1,000 SF of outdoor display area. © Restaurants (except fast-food): 1 space for each 75 SF of gross floor area for patrons, plus 1 space for each 300 SF of service area, plus 1 space for each 100 SF of outdoor dining area. Restaurants, fast-food: 1 space for each 100 SF of gross floor area, plus 1 space for each 100 SF of outdoor dining area. Offices, administrative, corporate: 1 space for each 400 SF of gross floor area. 2 Please note that a total of 944 spaces is proposed, however 3 spaces will be inaccessible since they are proposed to be occupied by recycling center trailers/binds. Mr. Robert Poynor March 12, 2010 Page 5 ® Banks and financial services: I space for each 300 SF of gross floor area. ® Child day care centers: 1 space for each 10 children, plus 1 space for each employee. ® Studios for art, dance and martial arts: 1 space for each 150 SF of gross floor area, plus 1 space for each employee. The City parking codes were applied to the proposed project development tabulation and Table 4 summarizes the parking requirements for the Diamond Hills Plaza after completion of the proposed renovation project. As shown, direct application of the City's code to the proposed development results in a code -parking requirement of 979 spaces, with the proposed 10,200 SF music / art academy requiring 98 spaces. With a proposed parking supply of 941 spaces, a theoretical parking deficiency of 38 spaces is forecast. These parking requirements reflect the total parking demand of the center assuming each use is a "freestanding" development at maximum demand and does not consider the "sharing" of parking spaces or time of day parking demand needs. To further validate the adequacy of parking at Diamond Hills Plaza, a shared parking analysis has been prepared, consistent with the prior July 2005 traffic analysis. The utilization of the shared parking methodology approach/criteria provides retail Sarofim Realty Advisors and the City of Diamond Bar with a mechanism by which the parking implications of enhancements/modification to the development tabulation or land use mix might be evaluated. Shared Parking Analysis Shared Parldng Rationale and Basis Accumulated experience in parking demand characteristics indicates that a mixing of land uses results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak requirements for each land use. Due to the proposed mixed-use characteristics of the Diamond Hills Plaza, opportunities to share parking can be expected. The objective of this shared parking analysis is to project the peak parking requirements for the project based on the combined demand patterns of different land uses at the site. Shared Parking calculations recognize that different uses often experience individual peak parking demands at different times of day, or days of the week, or even months of the year. When uses share a common parking footprint, the total number of spaces needed to support the collective whole is determined by adding parking profiles (by time of day, week, and year), rather than individual peak ratios as represented in Mr. Robert Poynor March 12, 2010 Page 6 Chapter 22.30 Off -Street Parking and Loading Standards of the City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code. There is an important common element between the traditional "code" and the Shared Parking calculation methodologies; the peak parking ratios, or "highpoint" for each land use's parking profile, typically equals the "code" parking ratio for that use. The analytical procedures for Shared Parking Analyses are well documented in the Shared Parking publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). Shared parking calculations for the Diamond Hills Plaza utilize peak parking ratios and hourly parking accumulations developed from field studies of single developments in free-standing settings, where travel by private auto is maximized. These characteristics permit the means for calculating peak parking needs when land use types are combined. Further, the shared parking approach will result, at other than peak parking demand times, in an excess amount of spaces that will service the overall needs of the Diamond Hills Plaza. Shared Parking Analvsis Procedure The proposed Shared Parking calculation procedure for the Diamond Hills Plaza is as follows: 1. Identify the land uses and quantities (floor area, theater seats, restaurant square - footage etc.), within the Diamond Hills Plaza to be utilized in the Shared Parking model. 2. Determine the peak -parking requirement for each land use component based on factors from the City's Parking Code. 3. If necessary, adjust parking demand component for seasonal variation (i.e. different use peak at during different months of the year). 4. Adjust for any parking supply component that will be unavailable for sharing. Examples are spaces that will be exclusively dedicated and/or accessible by only one use type. S. Determine the total demand for the site, by time of day, based on the summation of the demand profiles developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and published in Shared Parking. 6. Isolate the maximum demand level between 6:00 AM and Midnight. This maximum demand level is the minimum standard for sizing (in terms of spaces) the parking supply for that study area. Shared Parking Ratios and Profile The hourly parking demand profiles (expressed in percent of peak demand) utilized in this analysis and applied to the Diamond Hills Plaza are based on profiles developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and published in Shared Parking, 2" d Edition. The ULI publication presents hourly parking demand profiles for seven general land uses: office, retail, restaurant, cinema, residential (Central Business District: CBD and non - CBD), hotel (consisting of separate factors for guest rooms, restaurantilounge, conference room, and convention area). These factors present a profile of parking Mr. Robert Poynor March 12, 2010 Page 7 demand over time and have been used directly, by land use type, in the analysis of this project. One of the primary project components for the Diamond Hills Plaza is retail space, the ULI retail use profiles are applied directly. In doing so, there is an intennediate step in expressing ULI profiles as a percentage of the week-long peak, thus arriving at a weekday profile and weekend profile each expressed as a percentage of the baseline parking ratio (ULI actually starts with separate ratios for weekday and weekend day, and develops profiles for each accordingly; we've found it more convenient to translate both profiles to a percent of expected maximum demand, which, for retail, turns out to be on a Saturday). The resulting profiles represent the most likely hourly parking demand profile, and are applied to the City's retail parking ratio of 1 space per 300 SF -GFA. Peak demand for retail uses occurs between 1:00 PM -2:00 PM on weekdays, and 2:00 PM -4:00 PM on weekends. For this analysis, the restaurant use profile is based on a fine -casual dining restaurant (typically non fast-food). Like the retail profiles, the restaurant profiles are derived exactly from the ULI baseline. The restaurant -parking ratio utilized in this analysis exactly matches the City code rate (see Table 4 for calculations and assumptions). According to the Shared Parking publication, casual/fining dining restaurant uses are shown to experience peak demand between 7:00 PM and 10:00 PM on weekdays, and 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM on weekends. The ULI Shared Parking publication includes a fast-food restaurant profile that is used in this analysis. To estimate the fast-food restaurant parking demand, a parking ratio of 1 space per 100 SF (which matches City code) is utilized. For fast-food uses peak demand occurs between 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM on weekdays and weekends. The office profiles were also directly derived from ULI. For office uses peak demand occurs between 10:00 AM — 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM — 3:00 PM for weekdays and between 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM for weekends. The peak -parking ratio for office uses exactly equals the City's Parking Code requirement of 1 space per 400 SF. The bank profiles were also directly derived from ULI. For bank uses peak demand occurs between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM on weekdays, while the Saturday peak demand for bank uses occurs between 11:00 AM and 12:00 PM. The peak -parking ratio for bank uses exactly equals the City's Parking Code requirement of 1 space per 300 SF. For this analysis, the parking code requirement for the daycare center was assumed to be required throughout their weekday hours of operations, between 6:00 AM and 7:00 PM; it is assumed that the daycare is closed on weekends. Mr. Robert Poynor March 12, 2010 Page 8 In addition, the parking code requirement for the proposed music/art academy was assumed to be required throughout their weekday and weekend hours of operations of 2:30 PM to 8:00 PM and 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM, respectively. Application of Shared Parking Methodology Tables 5 and 6 present the weekday and weekend parking demand for the Diamond Hills Plaza based on the shared parking methodology. Columns (1) through (6) of these tables present the parking accumulation characteristics and parking .demand of the Diamond Hills Plaza for the hours of 6:00 AM to midnight. Column (7) presents the expected joint -use parking demand for the entire site on an hourly basis, while Column (8) summarizes the hourly parking surplus/deficiency for the existing retail center compared to a parking supply of 941 spaces. Based on our experience, the shared parking approach surmnarized in Tables 5 and 6 are believed to be the most appropriate in evaluating the parking supply -demand relationships for the Diamond Hills Plaza. The results in these tables are the focus of this parking investigation and recommendations. Shared Parking Analysis Results As shown in Table 5, the peak midday use parking requirement for the Diamond Hills Plaza during a weekday totals 713 spaces and occurs at 1:00 PM_ The peak evening parking demand during a weekday, which occurs at 7:00 PM, totals 809 spaces. Based on the proposed parking supply of 941 spaces, a surplus of 132 spaces would result during the peak hour of a "typical' weekday. Table 6 presents the hourly shared parking demand forecast on a weekend day at completion of the project. As shown, the peak weekend midday use parking demand for the project is expected to occur at 1:00 PM, when a parking demand of 688 spaces is forecast. The peak weekend night use parking demand, which occurs at 6:00 PM, is 677 spaces. With a parking supply of 941 spaces, a surplus of 253 spaces is forecast during the peak hour of a "typical' weekend. Appendix B contains the shared parking analysis calculation worksheets for this weekday and weekend day shared parking analysis. Mr. Robert Poynor March 12, 2010 Page 9 CONCLUSIONS Based on the above project development comparison and the results of the prior traffic study, we conclude that the proposed Diamond Hills Plaza Renovation Project, which will result in a 3,272 SF net increase in floor area and now includes the occupation of 10,200 SF retail -designated space with a music/art academy, will not impact the future traffic conditions within the project vicinity beyond those levels identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Country Hills Towne Center Expansion Project, Diamond Bar, dated July 25, 2005, and the Revised Traffic and Parking Assessment for Diamond Hills Renovation Project, dated January 11, 2010. The now -proposed project for Diamond Hills Plaza will result in a reduction in the project's trip generation potential. Further yet, our assessment of the shared parking requirements for the project indicates that the retail center's existing parking supply is adequate and can accommodate the added project floor area as well as the proposed music/art academy. We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this assessment for you and the City of Diamond Bar. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (714) 641-1587. Very truly yours, Linscott, Law & Greenspan, ]Engineers Richard E. Barretto, P.E. Principal Attachments cc: file 90•'V'T' Y T 0 6_1 4;1 14071 jol!nBO 600Z—tZ—(L --i�O1C1 E\5p\6ao260Z\oo I F t, F -J --,MT-- F g 7 TWT� . . . . . . . . .... ,rm fFll 41 0 gn 7 7:_ Ll '0 r TABLE 1 PROJECT TRAFFIC EQUATIONS' Source: Trip Generafion, 7°i Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (Washington, D.C. (2003)]. Source: PM peak hour trip rate for Land Use 444: Movie Theater with Matinee from Trip Generation, 7'r` Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2003). AM peak hour trip generation rate estimated based on information published in Traffic Generators - SANDAG —April 2002. Time Percent Percent TTE Land Use Code Period Equations Entering Exiting Daily T = 220 (X) 50% 50% 444: Movie Theatre with AM Peak T = 0.75 (X) 50% 50% Matinee' (TE/Screen) PM Peak T = 20.22 (X) 40% 60% Daily - T = 79.26 (X) 50% 50% 565: Day Care Center AM Peak T = 12.79 (X) 53% 47% (TE/1000 SF) PM Peak T = 13.18 (X) 47% 53% Daily T = 36.13 (X) 50% 50% 720: Medical -Dental Office AM Peak T = 2.48 (X) 79% 21% (TE/1000 SF) PM Peak T = 3.72 (X) 27% 73% Daily Ln (T) = 0.65 Ln (X) + 5.83 50% 50% 820: Retail Shopping Center AM Peak Ln (T) = 0.60 Ln (X) +2.29 61% 39% (TE/1000 SF) PM Peak Ln (T) = 0.660 Ln (X) + 3.4. 1 48% 52% Source: Trip Generafion, 7°i Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) (Washington, D.C. (2003)]. Source: PM peak hour trip rate for Land Use 444: Movie Theater with Matinee from Trip Generation, 7'r` Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Washington, D.C. (2003). AM peak hour trip generation rate estimated based on information published in Traffic Generators - SANDAG —April 2002. TABLE 2 PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECAST COMPARISON' 3 Source: Trip Generation, 7' Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2003)]. 4 Source: Internal Capture rates were estimated based on the methodology outlines in Chapter 7 — M ld-Use Development. of Trip Generation Handbook, published by ITE, June 2004.. 5 Pass -By Trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Pass -by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on adjacent streets, which contain direct access to the generator. The PM peak hour pass -by percentage (T) for retail shopping center uses is calculated based on the following equation: LN (T) = -0.291 LN (X) + 5.001, where X = gross leasable area (Source: Trip Generation Handbook, ITE June 2004). For a day care center, a 40% PM peak hour pass -by reduction factor was used (Source: SANDAG Traffic Generators). AM peak hour. and daily pass -by percentages estimated to be [0% for above referenced land uses. 6 Project traffic generation forecast for the proposed music/art school is based on proposed hours of operation and expected schedule. See Appendix A for detailed trip generation calculations. Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour In Out Total In Out Total Project Description 2 -Way Now -Proposed Proieet ® Diamond Hills Plaza 9,265 125 80 205 429 447 876 (161,272 SF) Internal Capture Adjustment4 -109 0 0 0 -9 -13 -22 Subtotal 9,156 125 80 205 420 434 854 Pass -By Adjustments -916 -13 -8 -21 -142 -148 290 Retail Center Net Trip Generation 8,240 112 72 184 278 286 564 ® La Petite Academy Day Care 590 51 45 95 46 52 98 (7,450 SF) Internal Capture AdjustmeL5_48 0 0 0 713 -9 -22 Subt 50 45 95 33 43 76 Pass -By Adjustme 5 -4 -9 -13 -17 -30 Day Care Net Trip Generation 45 41 86 20 26 46 a Proposed Music & Art 505 0 0 0 57 57 114 Academy (10,200 SF)6 Net Trip Generation Potential forF9,661 157 113 270 355 369 724 Proposed Project: Approved Redevelopment Plan 132 85 217 430 466 896 o Country Hills Towne Center (171,983 SF) Internal Capture Adjustment' -326 0 0 0 -9 -14 -23 Subtotal 9,335 132 85 217 421 452 873 Pass -By Adjustments -934 -13 -9 -22 -139 -149 -288 Retail Center Net Trip Generation 8,401 119 76 195 282 303 585 o Proposed Medical Office 1,774 96 26 122 49 134 183 Building (49,100 SF)) Internal Capture Adjustment' -326 0 0 0 -14 -9 -23 Medical Office Net Trip Generation 1,448 96 26 122 35 125 160 Net Trip Generation Potential for 9,849 215 102 317 317 428 745 Proposed Project: Net Difference in Trip Generation: Now Proposed Project vs. -671 -58 11 -47 +38 -59 -27 Approved Redevelopment Plan 3 Source: Trip Generation, 7' Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington, D.C. (2003)]. 4 Source: Internal Capture rates were estimated based on the methodology outlines in Chapter 7 — M ld-Use Development. of Trip Generation Handbook, published by ITE, June 2004.. 5 Pass -By Trips are trips made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination. Pass -by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on adjacent streets, which contain direct access to the generator. The PM peak hour pass -by percentage (T) for retail shopping center uses is calculated based on the following equation: LN (T) = -0.291 LN (X) + 5.001, where X = gross leasable area (Source: Trip Generation Handbook, ITE June 2004). For a day care center, a 40% PM peak hour pass -by reduction factor was used (Source: SANDAG Traffic Generators). AM peak hour. and daily pass -by percentages estimated to be [0% for above referenced land uses. 6 Project traffic generation forecast for the proposed music/art school is based on proposed hours of operation and expected schedule. See Appendix A for detailed trip generation calculations. O O a O� z�N v�Vn=_ V j oa _ .43 O (+ C} .. __ C_ ° o o ry x g o8 9n o o h n o S 0 a 6m u u' - - A rr r. d 2 H �� O 4= O �` F`' C a 93 i_ 9 O C21_ O � d F K y— s} G ri ry ry nr ri nr r ry ry ri r'r r ry ry ri n ry ry ry i �i �r rr n rr r»"i TABLE 4 CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS1 DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA. DIAMOND BAR I Source: City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code, Section 22.30.040. — Number of Parking Spaces required. - Restaurant floor area consists of approximately 23,430 SF of gross floor area dedicated to patrons, and 10,046 SF of service area. A total of approximately 5,800 SF of outdoor dining area is assumed to be provided. 3 Daycare center is now vacant. Hence for this analysis, it is assumed that the daycare has a capacity of 80 children and a total of 10 employees. Square -feet of Gross Floor City of Diamond Bar Spaces Project Description Area (SF — GFA Code Parking Ratio Required 1 space per 300 SF — GFA for.centers Major Tenants, Retail Shops /Service 100,329 SF over 50,000 SF, plus 1 space for each 334 Retail, Bank, etc. 1,000 SF of outdoor display area 1 space per 75 SF — GFA for patrons, Restaurants with 5,800 SF of outdoor 33,476 SF'- plus 1 space per 300 SF of service area, 404 dining area plus 1 space per 100 SF of outdoor dining area 1 spacer per 150 SF — GFA and 1 space Studio for art, dance and martial arts 10,200 SP per employee I space per 100 SF — GFA, plus 1 space 75 Fast -Food 7,467 SF for each 100 SF of outdoor dining area 7,450 SF' I space for each 10 children, plus 1 18 Daycare Center space for each employee. AAA DB District Office 20,000 SF 11 space per 400 SF - GFA 50 Total Floor Area: 178,922 SF Total Code Parking Requirement: Proposed Parking Supply: 941 Parking Surplus/Deficiency (+/-); -38 I Source: City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code, Section 22.30.040. — Number of Parking Spaces required. - Restaurant floor area consists of approximately 23,430 SF of gross floor area dedicated to patrons, and 10,046 SF of service area. A total of approximately 5,800 SF of outdoor dining area is assumed to be provided. 3 Daycare center is now vacant. Hence for this analysis, it is assumed that the daycare has a capacity of 80 children and a total of 10 employees. 0 ro C b � y N f`I 1 � N M N C N •y, � � G q O U n. � a q B9(- z M p q � d d rn O Nco) N z W 7 r O V1 O C1 yl oo �D M M �n Vl vi W �D N �O d' 01 M V.. CO v1 a (.� p h A� M � C L Q O •-� � N GO M M M N V7 � � O !t V d' O � l� u In M ✓n N ti u A N r O O O V 'n N N M �O Nl Vl r O O Cl q N N N N N N N N oo M N — - N .-. T Z a a F O o O O -+ hl W U ,y 0 ro C b J � a a z m 4 0 c z z o Q D �s UJ C d W z F Q U) a K = a o x z U 0 0 Q z c Y LLIW O a 80 80 y C a a a o a a � VJ d 6u. N Oi V �n M i0 N m N CA O U a 10 � w A 10 O O L L �y p" N '•� O 0o eo 00 00 00 of o0 00 O O O O O O O O un vU v z cn V] p M M y O O ni N O O O O O O O O O O O O M �' •.,� O cn z i L w CL u h vv z A � N z 0. w A C r '� O V) W V1 N ^' ^' O � � N V �D n O l� V• m d' M d• 'V vl m N �O M d• � 00 L O C V w p V O U 'O � `O A � R u 7 m A � o � � n � n oo � a' .• M y o, N rn O' ' O On o h d' o o •-+ M o 0 0. �o n o0 o n n� o G w M vv z cn W _ &n cn c Vl M rry 0. p rp _ N N N M M N N N N N z a 19 b N a ipr O O O O O O � pp O O O O O O O O O O O O :el bA V% � 00 D\ � •� H N M �I' V1 t0 n GO Qi b n .�-� O a 80 80 y C a a INUSIC I ART ACADEMY TRIP GENERATION CALCULATIONS LINSC07r, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-08-3099-I Diamond Hills Plaza, Diamond Bar N:C5000H09309M,p,&3090 .ajpp<oat. aaaa T 'O �. vii CO O O cV � '� •n ^ N � O ^ � N e C O >N in 1 O iS ro n n .R ,a .d 9 'O O h N vii �yia y a v N Y to V " F O O O O N O O O O N O Ay a F O 0 0 O N O 0 0 0 0 0 Q m aE F rn o O O O O O O O O O F v H O N G N F N y O _ z a N f1 v p a p E w a z In � N o o 0 0 o m Zn m m iv r m ri v r v a J o nor � j a a a a O O O O O '1 � v �mii �.. N >' i s N 0➢ a y C ,� j V C — q E = 9Ej N C s ani"i o 0 0 o m Zn m m iv r m ri v r v a J o nor � 7d S � 65 1-a r rA Q O. . . . . . . . . o z. . O. . . . O. . . . . . >4 1'4 F-4 wo L JS cn It CR c i a a a a o v o o v c � •�• F o ,7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.. o 0 0 0 0. o 0 0 p.-� p O O O O O O O ,� -, O O O� ti 0 0 0 0 ,y -• • b vGOi O c o o O a •... � N m ;0 3� o m y a d p � U 'O '� .0 CO � � � y � � •Un U C G O N 7 t A 0 5 A R O v � — •3 >, G —cl'a m Qb 'd N' b° °� y e y •C v �� E �' w o v, o 0 b y h Q 3 v Q a— V '1 � .� �. d d� *Q .o c� •5 0�— �i E c � •�• F o ,7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.. o 0 0 0 0. o 0 0 p.-� p O O O O O O O ,� -, O O O� ti 0 0 0 0 ,y -• a O N 7 t 0 5 — R O v � — t o h y z In 2 2 E S i C6j (� V1 0 0 0 0 0- o 0 0 n o o 0 eeQ�� N FE o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� p o [�+ a o 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 F Z® y N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro0 a b z 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V] 0. o 0 o p o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 kms. o 0 0 o 0 0 o p O o 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s ULI PARKING CALCULATION WORKSHEETS LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 2-08-3099-1 Diamond Hills Plaza, Diamond Bar N:1300M-1F3099\2apor:Ge99 Apprnafs DiviJcrs.dac Appendix Table B-1 SHOPPING CENTER (TYPICAL DAYS) WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA, DIAMOND BAR Month - Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[2] 91.5 KSF 3.3 /KSF Shared Gross Spaces 305 Spaces 246 Guest Spc. 59 Emp. Spc. Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of % Of Spaces Peak [3) flof Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 1% 2 9% 5 7 7:00 AM 5% 12 14% 8 20 8:00 AM 14% 34 36% 21 55 9:00 AM 32% 79 68% 40 119 10:00 AM 59% 145 77% 45 190 11:00 AM 77% 189 86% 51 240 12:00 PM 86"/0 212 90% 53 265 1:00 PM 90% 221 90% 53 274 7.00 PM 86% 212 90% 53 265 3:00 PM 81% 199 90% 53 252 4:00 PM 81% 199 90% 53 252 5:00 PM 86% 212 86% 51 263 6:00 PM 86% 212 86% 51 263 7:00 PM 86% 212 86% 51 263 8:00 PM 72% 177 81% 48 225 7.00 PM 45% 1 l 1 68% 40 151 10:00 PM 27% 66 36% 21 87 11:00 PM 9% 22 14% 8 30 12:00 AM 0°/a 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Appendix Table B-2 SHOPPING CENTER [TYPICAL DAYS] WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA, DIAMOND BAR Month: Land Use Shopping Center (Typical Days) Size Pkg Rate[21 91.5 KSF 3.3 /KSF Gross 305 Spaces Spaces 244 Guest Spe. 61 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day °% Of Peak 131 90f % Of Spaces Peak [31 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 1% 2 10% 6 8 7:00 AM 5% 12 15% 9 21 8:00 AM 10% 24 40% 24 48 9:00 AM 30% 73 75% 46 119 10:00 AM 50% 122 85% 52 174 11:00 AM 65% 159 95% 58 217 12:00 PM 80% 195 100% 61 256 1:00 PM 90% 220 100% 61 281 2:00 PM 100% 244 100% 61 305 3:00 PM 100% 244 100% 61 305 4:00 PM 95% 232 100% 61 11 293 5:00 PM 90% 220 95% S8 278 6:00 PM 80% 195 85% 52 247 7:00 PM 75% 183 80% 49 232 8:00 PM 65% 159 75% 46 205 9:00 PM 50% 122 650/. 40 162 10:00 PM 35% 85 45% 27 112 11:00 PM 1591 37 15% 9 46 12:00 AM 0% 1 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [11 Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peals demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Appendix Table B-3 FINEICASUAL DINING WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA, DIAMOND BAR Land Use Fine/Casual Dining with 5,800 SF Outdoor dining Size Pkg Rate121 33.5 KSF See Table 2 for XSF Calculation. 'Gross 404 Spaces Spaces 342 Guest Spe. 62 Emp. Spe. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak (31� # Of Spaces % Of Peak 131 # Of Spaces at ng Demand 6:00 AM 0%: 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 0% 0 18% 11 11 8:00 AM 0% 0 45% 28 28 9:00 AM 0% 0 68% 42 42 10:00 AM 14% 48 8l % 50 98 11:00 AM 36% 123 81% 50 173 12:00 PM 68% 233 81% 50 283 1:00 PM 68% 233 81% 50 283 2:00 PM 59% 202 81% 5o 252 3:00 PM 36% 123 68% 42 165 4:00 PM 45% 154 68% 42 196 5:00 PM 68% 233 90% 56 289 6:00 PM 86% 294 90% 56 350 7:00 PM 90% 308 90% 56 1 364 8:00 PM 90% 308 90% 56 364 9:00 PM 90% 308 90% 56 364 10:00 PM 86% 294 90% 56 350 11100 PM 68% 233 77% 48 281 12:00 AM 23% F 79 32%. 20 99 Notes: [I] Source: ULI - Urban Land institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of -peak parking demand ractors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Appendix Table B-4 FINEICASUAL DINING WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [t] DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA, DIAMOND BAR Month: Land Use Fine/Casual Dining with 5,800 SF Outdoor dining Size Pkg Rate[21 33.5 KSF See Table 2 for /KSF Calculation. Gross 404 Spaces Spaces 343 Guest Spc. 61 Emp. Spc. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3[ # Of Spaces % OF Peak [-�] # Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM. 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 0% 0 20% 12 12 8:00 AM 0% 0 30% 18 18 9:00 AM 0% 0 60% 37 37 10:00 AM 0% 0 75% 46 46 11.00 AM 15% 51 75% 46 97 12:00 PM 50% 172 1 75% 46 218 50 PM 55% 189 75% 46 235 2:00 PM 45% 154 75% 46 200 3:00 PM 45% 154 75% 46 200 4:00 PM 45% 154 75% 46 200 5:00 PM 60% 206 100% 61 267 6:00 PM 90% 309 100%61 370 7:00 PM 95% 326 100% 61 387 8:00 PM 100% 343 100% 61 404 9:00 PM 90% 309 100% 61 370 10:00 PM 90% 309 100% 61 370 l I:00 PM 90% 309 85% 52 361 12:00 AM 50% 172 50% 31 203 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage ofpeak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Appendix Table 9.5 FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA, DIAMOND BAR Month: Land Use Fast -Food Restaurant Size Pkg Ratel2[ 7.5 KSF 10.0 /KSF Gross 75 Spaces ces 64 Guest Spc. II Emp.S c. Shared e ay AM % Of Peak[31 5"/0 # Of % Of Spaces Peak[31 3 15% # Of Spaces 2 Parking Demand 5 AM10% 620% ZAM 20% 13 30% 3 16 AM 30% 19 40% 4 23 AM [12:00 55% 35 75% 8 43 AM 85% 54 100% Il 65 PM 100% 64 100% Il 75 PM 100% - 64 100% I1 75 PM 90% 58 95% l0 68 PM 60% 38 70% S 46 PM 55% 35 60% 7 42 PM 600/a 38 70% 8 46 85% 54 90% 10 64 80% 51 90% 10 61 50% 32 60% 7 39 K6:00PM 30%l9 40a/o 4 23 20%L3 30% 3 16 - 10% 6 20% 2 8 5% 3 20% 2 5 Nates: [1] Source: ULI -Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Appendix Table B•6 FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA, DIAMOND BAR Month: Land Use Fast -Food Restaurant Size Plcg Rate[2] 7.5 KSF 10.0 IKSF Gross 75 Spaces Spaces 64 Guest c. It Em .Spe. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak 131 g Of % Of Spaces Peak 131 got S aces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 5% 3 t4% ..21.- .5 7:00 AM 9% 6 19% 2 8 8:00 AM 19% 12 28% 3 IS 9:00 AM 28% 18 37 % 4 22 10:00 AM 51% 33 70% 8 41 1 L:00 AM 79% 51 93% 10 61 12:00 PM 93% 60 93% 10 70 1:00 PM93"/0 60 93% 10 70 2:00 PM 84% 54 89% l0 64 3:00 PM 56% 36 65% 7 43 4:00 PM 51% 33 56% 6 39 5:00 PM 56% 36 65% 7 43 6:00 PM 79% 51 84% 9 60 7:00 PM 75% 48 84% 9 57 8:00 PM 47"/0 30 56% 6 36 9:00 PM 28% 18 37% 4 22 10:00 PM 19% 12 28% 3 15 11:00 PM 9% G 19% 2 8 12:00 AM 5 % 31 19% 2 5 Notes [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on UL[ procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Appendix Table B-7. AAA OFFICE WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA, DIAMOND BAR Mnnth• Land Use Office Size Pkg Ratel2l 20.0 KSF 2.5 /KSF Cross 50 Spaces Spaces 4 Visitor Spe. 46 Emp. Spe. Shared Time -rDay % Of Peak 131 # Of % Of spaces Peak [31 # Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:OD AM 0% 0 3% 1 1 7:00 AM 1% 0 30% 14 14 8:00 AM 20% 1 75% 35 36 9:00 AM 60% 2 95% 44 46 10:00 AM 100% 4 100% 46 50 1.1:00 AM 45% 2 100% 46 48 12:00 PM 15% 1 90% 41 42 1:00 PM 45% 2 90% 41 43 2:00 PM 100% 4 100% 46 50 3:00 PM 45% 2 100% 46 46 4:00 PM I511, 1 90% 41 42 5:00 PM 10% 0 501/6 23 23 6:00 PM 5% 0 25% 1212 7:00 PM 2% 0 10% 5 5 8:00 PM 1% 0 7% 3 3 9:00 PM 0% 10:00 PM 0% 11:00 PM 0^/0 0 D% 0 0 12:00 A.M 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [11 Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [21 Parking rotes for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual Appendix Table B•8 AAA OFFICE WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA, DIAMOND BAR Month: Land Use Office Size Pkg Rete[21 20.0 KSF Z.5 /KSF Gross 50 Spaces Spaces 4 Visitor Spe. 46 Emp. Spe. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of % Of Spaces Peak [3j # Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 2% 0 2% 1 1 8:0DAM 6% 0 6% 3 3 9:00 AM 8% 0 8% 4 4 10:00 AM 9% 0 9% 4 4 11:00 AM 10% 0 10% 5 5 12:00 PM 9% 0 9% 4 4 1:00 PM 8% 0 8% 4 4 2:00 PM 6% 0 6% 3 3 3:00 PM 4% D 4'/0 2 2 4:00 PM 2% 0 2% 1 I 5:00 PM 1% 0 1% 0 0 6:00 PM 1% 0 I% 0 0 7:00 PM 0^/0 0 0% 0 0 8:00 PM 0"/0 0 D"/o 0 0 9:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 10:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 11:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 D 12:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [i] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shhred Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 ofthe "Shared Parking" manual. Appendix Table B-9 BANK WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA, DIAMOND BAR Month: Land Use Bank Size Pkg Rate[21 8.9 KSI' 3.3 /KSF Gross 30 Spaces Spaces 20 Visitor Spe. t0 Emp. Spe. Shared Time of Day % Of Peak [3] # Of % Of Spaces Peak [3i # Of Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 8:00 AM 50% 10 60% 6 16 9:00 AM 90% 18 100% 10 28 10:00 AM 700% 20 100% 10 30 1 L00 AM 50% 10 100% 10 20 12:00 PM 50% 10 100% 10 20 1:00 PM 50% t0 100% l0 20 2:00 PM 70% 14 100% 10 24 3:00 PM 50% 10 100% 10 20 4:00 PM 80% 16 100% 10 26 5:00 PM 1001% 20 100% 10 30 6:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 PM 0% 0 0"/0 0 0 8:00 PM 0% 0 o% 0 0 9:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 10:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 - 0 11:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 10 12:00 AM 1 0% 0 0% 0 1 0 Notes: [ 1 ] Source: UL[ - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on ULI procedure normalized to express percentage in terns of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Appendix Table B-10 BANK WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [11 DIAMOND HILLS PLAZA, DIAMOND BAR Month: Land Use " Bank Size Pkg Rate[21 8.9 KSF 3.3 /KSF Gross Spaces 30 Spaces Shared 20 Visitor Spe. 10 E.P. Spc. Time of Day %Of Peak [31 #Or % Of Spaces Peak 131 0 O Spaces Parking Demand 6:00 AM 0% D 0% 0 0 7:00 AM 0% 0 0% 0 0 8:DO AM 25% 5 90% 9 14 9:00 AM 40% 8 100% 10 18 10:00 AM 75% 15 100% 10 25 11:00 AM 100% 20 100% 10 30 90% 18 100% 10 28 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 A011P., 0% 0 0% 0 0 0% 0 D% 0 0 0% 0 D% 0 0 0% 0 0% 0 0 7:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 D 8:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 9:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 D 10:00 PM O% 0 O% 0 0 11:00 PM 0% 0 0% 0 0 I2:OD AM O% 0 0% 0 0 Notes: [ I ] Source: ULI - Urban Land institute "Shared Parking,"_ Second Edition, 2005. [2] Parking rates for all land uses based on UL[ procedure nommlized to express percentage in terms of absolute peak demand ratios. Breakdown of guest vs. employee [3] Percentage of peak parking demand Factors reflect relationships between weekday parking demand ratios and peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. Bob Poynor From: Richard Barretto [barretto@ligengineers.com] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 12:02 PM To: Bob Poynor Subject: RE: Diamond Hills Plaza Attachments: 3099 Revised Diamond Hills Plaza Traffic and Parking Assessment 3-12-2010.pdf Here's revised report. Richard E. Barretto, P.E. Principal barretto@llgengineers.com Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers 1580 Corporate Drive, Suite 122 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 714.641.1587 T, Ext. 244 l 714.641.0139 F www.ilgengineers.com Traffic isn't pretty, but for more than 40 years, we've made it work better. E-mail Disclaimer This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the Intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender at (714) 641-1587. LLG Reference: NA PleasecativWertile envirnta111ery#beforeitrivttfiytit[tiweai1011ie From: Bob Poynor [mallto:rpoynor@sraco.com] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 9:56 AM To: Richard Barretto Subject: RE: Diamond Hills Plaza Got it ... thnx Robert Poynor Vice President Sarofim Realty Advisors 8115 Preston Road, Suite 400 Dallas, Tx 75225 214-692-4227 Phone 214-269-0327 Fax roov nor(a)..sraco.com Confidentiality Notice: Unless otherwise indicated or obvious from the nature of the communication, the information contained in this email message is confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent 3/15/2010 x ' D7t1i110.11TDLLBAII.B COMMISSION , � , i`�jf PLANNING ` /• I ' • [ ` ' �tii �, I t :_ r I `.\, 1 ryYStJl Y�AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 _ FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.3 MEETING DATE: May 11, 2010 CASEIFILE NUMBER: Development Review and Variance PL2010-17 PROJECT LOCATION: 2718 Steeplechase Lane (Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Number 8713-018-026). APPLICATION REQUEST: To construct a 6,352 square -foot new single- family residence on a 48,352 net square -foot (1.11 net acres), Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential (RR). Variances are requested to allow the building height to be increased from 35 feet to 40 feet, 7 inches and driveway extension to provide for access to the front door and to allow adequate turning radius for fire trucks. PROPERTY OWNER: Shaui and Rachel Hao 60 Seasons Irvine, CA 92603 APPLICANT: Jack Mitchell JWM Construction 2902 Calle Heraldo, San Clemente, CA 92673 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve subject to conditions. �(e3;ZilIJ�1 �1: Site Description The site is located in the Diamond Bar Country Estates ("The Country") and fronts on Steeplechase Lane, which is a fully improved private street. There is also a shared access road that runs parallel to Steeplechase Lane. The property is located on a vacant lot with 29.24 percent slope and irregular topography, containing 48,352 net square -feet (1.11 acres) of land area. There are no protected trees on the site. The site is legally described as Lot 54 of Parcel Map No. 30289, and the Assessor's Parcel Number is 8713-018-026. Project Description The applicant requests approval to construct a three-level, 6,352 sq. ft. single-family residence with an attached 956 sq. ft. four -car garage. Variances are requested for the following: e Building height to be increased from 35 feet to 40 feet, 7 inches; and e Extend driveway to the front door to provide for access to the front door and to allow adequate turning radius for fire trucks as required by the L.A. County Fire Department. The applicant will have to submit the proposal to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Homeowners Association for review and approval. Site and surrounding General Plan. Zoning and Land Uses Page 2 of 8 CD: Staff Reports-PC/Steeplechase Ln., 2718 PC Staff Report 05/11/2010.docx Development Review The following table compares the proposed project with the City's development standards for residential development in the RR zone: -Variance Is requesteo. Site and Grading Configuration: The site slopes up, from the front of the lot to the rear. The average slope of the site is 29.24% and has an irregular topography. The applicant indicates that the proposed project will require 1,237.35 cubic yards of cut, and 639.87 cubic yards of fill, resulting in 597.48 cubic yards of material to be exported from the site. Elevations: The architectural style is a contemporary design with metal roof, smooth stucco walls, metal canopy, fascia and railings. The applicant provided color samples which call for earth -tone shades for the exterior finish to soften the building's visual impact and assist in preserving the hillside's aesthetic value. Landscaping: The front yard will be 58.7% landscaped with trees and plant material. The tiered retaining walls and slopes on the property will be fully landscaped to screen the walls. A crib wall modular block system with a plantable face will be used to Page 4 of 8 Co: Staff Reports-PC/Steeplechase Ln., 2718 PC Staff Report 05111/201 0.docx � llll".�,� i r-y,,i, L �.."-' � : ��a �'-s"'•-�:. „a;;v=�ac: dal u� �i�_ a . � �� � �t"� `�rx�'�"� SII _ wn f y 30 feet 169 feet Yes n F � 15 feet on one side and 21'-3" —east side Yes a 4 10 feet on the other side. 10'-3" —west side 32'-8.5" — east side 25 feet 28'-6.5" — west side Yes WE"�" 25 feet 137 feet Yes r s Maximum of 30% 11% Yes r i' 35 feet 40'-7" No"` Extension of driveway to r To provide access to provide for access to the required off-street parking in front door and to allow No"` aces sgarages P adequate turning radius for fire trucks 50% of front yard 58.7% Yes aNOMt I 2 -car garage 4 -car garage Yes -Variance Is requesteo. Site and Grading Configuration: The site slopes up, from the front of the lot to the rear. The average slope of the site is 29.24% and has an irregular topography. The applicant indicates that the proposed project will require 1,237.35 cubic yards of cut, and 639.87 cubic yards of fill, resulting in 597.48 cubic yards of material to be exported from the site. Elevations: The architectural style is a contemporary design with metal roof, smooth stucco walls, metal canopy, fascia and railings. The applicant provided color samples which call for earth -tone shades for the exterior finish to soften the building's visual impact and assist in preserving the hillside's aesthetic value. Landscaping: The front yard will be 58.7% landscaped with trees and plant material. The tiered retaining walls and slopes on the property will be fully landscaped to screen the walls. A crib wall modular block system with a plantable face will be used to Page 4 of 8 Co: Staff Reports-PC/Steeplechase Ln., 2718 PC Staff Report 05111/201 0.docx mitigate the visibility of the retaining walls in the front yard. Plant types proposed in this area and throughout the project site are drought tolerant non-invasive plant species. Variance Variances are required because there are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surrounding, topography, or other conditions). The strict application of the development code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts, or creates a hardship which makes it impractical to require compliance with the development standards. The City recognized that property owners should be allowed to develop their properties when there are special circumstances or physical hardships on the property. Therefore, the City has a variance process for such requests, subject to the findings set forth in the Development Code. Variances are requested for the following: Building height to be increased from 35 feet to 40 feet, 7 inches; and © Extend driveway to the front door to provide for access to the front door and to allow adequate turning radius for fire trucks as required by the L.A. County Fire Department. Staff believes that approving the variances as described above is appropriate and compatible with other residences in the neighborhood, based on the following facts and observations: ® The existing site has a 29.24 percent slope and irregular topography; m The proposed building was strategically located behind the adjacent existing homes to minimize disturbance to the neighbors' views and natural lighting; ® The proposed building will be setback 169 feet from the street (front) property line. Therefore, the building will be difficult to see from the street and does not have the normal streetscape exposure; © The height of the building is increased from 35 feet to 40 feet, 7 inches. The contemporary design of the building provides a 45 degree angled sloped roof and therefore further increases the height. However, given the setback of the building from the street, there will be minimal visual impact from the street; and Page 5 of 8 CD: Staff Reports-PC/Steeplechase Ln., 2718 PC Staff Report 05/1112010.docx o Due to the steep slope and unusual topography of the site, access to the front door of the house is inaccessible. Therefore, a driveway extension is required for guests and visitors to gain access to the front door, and to allow adequate turning radius for fire trucks as required by the L.A. County Fire Department. Compliance with Hillside Management Ordinance (DBMC Section 22.22) The proposed project was reviewed for compliance with the City's Hillside Management Design Guidelines and regulations. Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.22.120(a)(1) establishes a height limit of 35 feet as measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the roofline. The submitted plans demonstrate that the proposed structure will be setback 169 feet from the street (front) property line. Therefore, the building will be difficult to see from the street and does not have the normal streetscape exposure. The proposed project is terraced on three floors to reduce the building bulk and minimize the visual impact on the hillside. The building was designed to be sensitive to the natural topography of the site, and minimizes grading of the site. Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives as set forth in the adopted General Plan in terms of land use and density. The proposed project will not negatively affect the existing surrounding land uses, and the design and appearance of the proposed addition is compatible with the existing residence and surrounding community. The proposed project is designed to be compatible and complementary to the neighborhood, and incorporates the principles of the City's Residential Design Guidelines as follows: ® The proposed project is designed to minimize the negative impacts on surrounding homes. A transition between the project and adjacent uses is achieved through appropriate setbacks and landscaping; ® The proposed project is designed to be appropriate in mass and scale to the site and irregular topography; o The proposed project provides open space and landscaping to serve as a buffer between neighboring properties and blend into the terrain, so as not to dominate the landform as seen from lower elevations; and The architectural design accentuates simplicity of line and form, and restrained and understated elegance as opposed to the overly ornate or monumental. Page 6 of 8 CD: Staff Reports-PC/Steeplechase Ln., 2718 PC Staff Report 0511112010.docx Below are photos of the neighboring properties to the east and to the west. Property to the East Project Site Property to the west Additional Review The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project and included their comments in the attached resolution as conditions of approval. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site on April 26, 2010, and the notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Tribune and San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspapers on April 30, 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. ENVIRONMENTAL_ ASSESSMENT: This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Section 15303(a) (New Construction of One Single -Family Residence) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment #1) approving Development Review and Variances PL2010-17, based on the findings of DBMC Section 22.48 and 22.54 of the Development Code, subject to conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Page 7 of 8 CD: Staff Reports-PC/Steeplechase Ln., 2718 PC Staff Report 0511112010.docx Prepared by: Reviewed b : Grace S. Lee Greg Gubman, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution No. 2010 -XX 2. Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations Page 8 of 8 CD: Staff Reports-PC/Steeplechase Ln., 2718 PC Staff Report 05(11/2010.docx Attachment 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND VARIANCE NO. PL 2010-17, A REQUEST TO CONTSRUCT A NEW 6,352 SQUARE -FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TO ALLOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO BE INCREASED FROM 35 FEET TO 40 FEET, 7 INCHES, AND DRIVEWAY EXTENSION TO PROVIDE FOR ACCESS TO THE FRONT DOOR AND TO ALLOW ADEQUATE TURNING RADIUS FOR FIRE TRUCKS LOCATED AT 2718 STEEPLECHASE LANE (ASSESORS PARCEL NO. 8713-018-026). A. RECITALS Property owners, Shaui and Rachel Hao, and applicant, Jack Mitchell, have filed an application for Development Review and Variance No. PL 2010-17 to construct a 6,352 square -foot new single family residence and to allow the building height to be increased from 35 feet to 40 feet, 7 inches, and driveway extension to provide for access to the front door and to allow adequate turning radius for fire trucks located at 2718 Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California ("Project Site"). Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review and Variance shall be referred to as the "Proposed Project." 2. The subject property is comprised of one parcel totaling 1.11 net acres. It is located in the Rural Residential (RR) zone and is consistent with the General Commercial land use category of the general plan. 3. The legal description of the subject property is Parcel Map 30289 Lot 54. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 8713-018-026. 4. On April 30, 2010, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -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. 5. On May 11, 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. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: This 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 determines the Project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15303 (a) (New Construction of One Single -Family Residence) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. C. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.48 and 22.54, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Development Review Findings (DBMC Section 22.48) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the general plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments); The proposed new single-family home is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines and development standards by meeting all of the required setbacks, except the building height The architectural style is a contemporary design, with a 45 degree angled slope roof which, therefore, further increases the building height. However, given. the setback of the building from the street, there will be minimal visual impact from the street. it also provides earth -tone shades for the exterior finish to soften the building's visual impact and assist in preserving the hillside's aesthetic value. The project site is not a part of any theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; The proposed new single-family home will not interfere with the use or enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments because the use of the project site is designated for a single-family home and the surrounding uses are also single-family homes. In addition, the proposed building was strategically located behind the adjacent existing homes to minimize disturbance to the neighbor's view and natural lighting. The proposed new single-family home will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian movements, such as access or other functional requirements of a single-family home by meeting the required driveway widths and 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX grades. In addition, due to the unusual topography of the site, the project is requesting a variance to extend the driveway to the front door to provide for access to the front door and to allow adequate turning radius for fire trucks, as required by the L.A. County Fire Department. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this chapter, the general plan, or any applicable specific plan; The new single-family home is designed to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood, providing earth -tone shades for the exterior finish to soften the building's visual impact and assist in preserving the hillside's aesthetic value. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing; The design of the new single-family home is a contemporary style of architecture. Variation in the building elements has been achieved through the utilization of varying architectural features, building materials, and landscaping. The project has a subtle balance, involving well- proportioned masses and features. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed Project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the Building and Safety Division and Public Works Departments, and L.A. County Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15303(a) (New Construction of One Single -Family Residence) of the CEQA Guidelines. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX Variance Findings (DBMC Section 22.54) There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions), so that the strict application of this development code denies the properly owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary, and non -self-created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards; The subject site has a 29.24 percent steep slope and irregular topography, so the strict application of the development code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts. Granting the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district and denied to the property owner for which the variance is sought; The subject site has a 29.24 percent slope and irregular topography. This limits the ability of the property owner to construct a house that is comparable in size and design as those located in the immediate vicinity and zoning district. The variances to allow the building height to be increased from 35 feet to 40 feet, 7 -inches; and extend the driveway to the front door to provide for access to the front door and to allow adequate turning radius for fire trucks will allow the property owners to construct a residence that is similar to those located in the vicinity and provide adequate access to the home. 3. Granting the variance is consistent with, the general plan and any applicable specific plan; The variances are consistent with the general plan as it will allow for the development of a single-family home that is in scale with the surrounding residences. The site is not located within a specific plan. 4. The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city; and Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed Project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the Building. and Safety Division, Public Works Department, and. L.A. County Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX 5. The proposed entitlement has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15303(a) (New Construction of One Single -Family Residence) of the CEQA Guidelines. 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: Shaui and Rachel Hao, 60 Seasons, Irvine, CA 92603; and Jack Mitchell, JWM Construction, 2902 Calle Heraldo, San Clemente, CA 92673. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY 2010, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M Tony Torng, Chairman I, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of May 2010, by the following vote:. AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX COMMUNITY r�; DI�IOND BAR,... � '� �� � � ; ,i DEPARTMENT �.x PROJECT M Development Review and Variance No. PL 2010-17 SUBJECT: To construct a 6,352 square -foot new single-famil residence and to allow the building height to be increased from 35 feet to 40 feet 7 inches and driveway extension to provide for access to the front door and to allow adequate turning radius for fire trucks. PROPERTY OWNER(S): Shaui and Rachel Hao 60 Seasons Irvine CA 92603 APPLICANT: Jack Kitchell JWK Construction 2902 Calle Heraldo San Clemente CA 92673 LOCATION: 2718 Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Dar, CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul the approval of Development Review and Variance No. PL 2010-17 brought within the time period provided by Government .Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review and Variance No. PL 2010-17 at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business License, and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all partied involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. S. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9. All site, grading, landscape/irrigation, roof, and elevation plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX grading, tree removal, encroachment permit, etc.,) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 10. Property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three (3) days of this project's approval. 11. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. D. FEES/DEPOSITS 1. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, and Public Works Department) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building permits, as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS 1. The approval of Development Review and Variance shall expire within two (2) years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, on file with the Planning Division: site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, and landscaping file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations. 2. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to, the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. 4. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures, canopies, etc., shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the property owners/occupant. E. SOLID WASTE The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839- 7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL An Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the grading plan clearly detailing erosion control measures. These measures shall be implemented during construction. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's) as specified in the Storm Water BMP Certification. For construction activity which disturbs one acre or greater soil a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be needed. The applicant shall comply with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. E. SOILS REPORT/GRADING/RETAINING WALLS 1. Prior to grading plan submittal, a geotechnical report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer, licensed by the State of California, shall be submitted by the applicant for approval by the City. 2. Upon approval of the geotechnical report, the applicant shall submit drainage and grading plans prepared by a Civil Engineer, licensed by the State of California, prepared in accordance with the City's requirements for the City's review and approval. A list of requirements for grading plan check is available from the Public Works Department: All grading (cut and fill) calculations shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the grading plan. 3. Finished slopes shall conform to City Code Section 22.22.080 -Grading. 4. All easements and flood hazard areas shall be clearly identified on the grading plan. 5. The grading plan shall show the location of any retaining walls and the elevations of the top of wall/footing/retaining and the finished grade on both sides of the retaining wall. Construction details for retaining walls shall be shown on the grading plan. Calculations and details of retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. 6. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a six foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. 7. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 15 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer. Driveways with 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX a slope ,of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and a permanent irrigation system shall be installed. 10. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport if applicable. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a pre -construction meeting shall be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 12. Rough grade certifications by project soils and civil engineer as well as a rough graded geotechnical report shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits for the foundation of the residential structure. Retaining wall permits may be issued without a rough grade certificate. 13. Final grade certifications by project soils and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy respectively. C. DRAINAGE Detailed drainage system information of the lot with careful attention to any flood hazard area shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer registered in the State of California to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. D. UTILITIES Underground utilities shall not be constructed within the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by a registered arborist. 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX E. SEWERS/SEPTIC TANK 1. Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. F. OFF-SITE STREET IMPROVEMENTS (Not Required) G. TRAFFIC MITIGATION (Not Required) APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2007 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. 2. Application for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the Building Department. 3. Every permit issued by the Building Department shall expire if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit. 4. Construction activities causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall be conducted Monday through, Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 5. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 6. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 85 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic category (D). The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX 7. This project shall comply with the 2008 Energy Code requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 8. In order to accurately monitor and report all construction and debris generation and diversion activities, all materials must both be hauled and processed by a city franchised contractor or by a licensed demolition contractor subject to compliance with specific permitting and reporting requirements. Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) approval/clearance will be required prior to the issuance of a demolition permit. Please contact AQMD at (909) 367-2327. 9. Submit Public Works Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 10. "Separate permits are required for pools, patios, and retaining walls" shall be noted on plans. 11. A height survey may be required at completion of framing. 12. Building setback from any slope (toe or top) shall meet Chapter 18 of the 2001 California Building Code. 13. Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail. 14. Indicate all easements on the site plan. 15. Please submit a total of 5 full set of plans including the grading for review to the Building and Safety Division after the plans have been approved by the Planning Division/Commission. 16. Fire Department approval shall be required. Contact the Fire Department to check the fire zone for the location of your property. If this project is located in High Hazard Fire Zone it shall meet of requirements of the fire zone. a. All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior wall. b. All openings into the attic, floor and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch or more than 1/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door. 17. All retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building and Safety and Public Work Departments for review and approval. 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX 18. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 19. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.) 20. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 21. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 22. Specify 1/4"/ft slope for all flat surfaces/ decks with approved water proofing material. Also, provide guardrail connection detail (height, spacing, etc.) 23. Private property sewer/septic system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Health Department and the California Water Control Board. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Emergency access shall be provided, maintaining free and clear, a minimum 28 foot at all times during construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted to the Fire Department that temporary water supply for fire protection is available pending completion of the required fire protection system. 3. All required fire hydrants shall be installed and tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. ME 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010 -XX all lop; iH H STEEPLECHASE LANE ... ..... . . 7,7 71 13 nz- 11� 01111-,M.rll- Al Pill I F ���\)\�� / .�� � / §. 00 o0000 o 00 � \ �|� }�)�|\/�\�� /� � � �()�\ NOW 1, � 11 i-11-1 �-MMG nVva O"M7 '; I ( / $ ~ � e+ e 5*1 1,+»«*a * 0101 § ; ; al . MEMBER *a <91 1119, <9> 0 04 o _ oll o00000� � { �(� )�)�|)) |�§��� Rl 11 //( � � �� a � 19= m % - - � � esaa»a !:" ) g! V M 0 0 0 gear HMIM i i u '!g RON PT In, I , � ....\ � �� ^\ /� WWI- --- io! kill I / ƒ [ 3 + 11 ilia N OD O Z o co C z m Ci Z 0 M 0 rn 0 la: m 6ia6R�S%s3B8p�a3�;a� r—m to 000 M€� 3 g$ I £ gui o Ill I, l _ pgg € € 3 *$$g aye xG o Z or a�NaPa o n z E c z o � 11: 2E-0 o = nzoS m��om< Amy o �s z "s^Geos °t S2 o ol yy y� g g �5 � S o PIAN SET -I il Lei t eE�t L° i A}y♦ ` `l'a E HAO RESIDENCE S -� � 4TI8 STEEPLECHASE LANE WMGNO BAR CALJFOflNIA N � g� H EUNE CNMCNC BAR CAIJFCRNIA ••i; 6.9H. .E � ,I �_� �\ — •r, a ,I \ Ee €'•fiP `3e3c :� EEt.� gz ga3°Ya •E �� �;6 � €E;� .. .' ^'Q �,� I~`"-i—">�."�•� — .. — y la 6t a8fi { ° o is E •E � � € �� � � 4f� Fn - Y • e � ca � i� a H Eg6 HAO RESIDENCE FE•�}E 3; �i ti, e E N � g� H EUNE CNMCNC BAR CAIJFCRNIA ----------------- ------------ ' � I - Moe - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IMM ppUl11W ig � 1111. HITHRIM p "p g oml IWO Kill - III H! �[R� M fl! MR RIP ,mom I HAD RE31DENCE 4� Id! M!", OND U� CALIFORNfA ,mom I NMIN HAO RESIDENCE jL 1 1 1 1F HIM a, 9 is i F gj it I !Hpl H;H, I iii I 'FRI A 0 1 Hilt I RUE It I 9 all g[6 EEa 1H -HA—O-RESIDENCE to I flN DIAMOND BAR CAMFOflNIA 3 , @ � - '�I-.s; seg[,'+` lipM. yy$gy y E € € I a € gEi3g ig sd SY so, v � 1 Iq CI I ° Bx m u @'n� •Ei g'gsC d€E I• 'I sc� €� C p II T�Y� 6p Q" €E€ § g - --.- m -- - 0 F�.gg P § @ m @€'t €k LE° i62=Ec" ��P aB6eL 6 LPE Eb �EE l g: ;g0x RR E '•k¢ € �� c� �F �`B ��¢k��k ��,e °,gn �-x pal 40 d ff - ]ICI s �z @Rk'.H SpP Eg € 8 La•A E yk@ � � E. 3 �q-F: g" € � %; k z g d•=� F�da'€t 8 �_ � g -es �,� e= iE:s t' B-0 k.s� 5 €8P;€ [3P, d R Imo. _ gae fi b JgE.0 4,��§ m @E `MIn I gqE44E"5€ H5�5 _i O S'•� �IE EaS < �i 0@i"eP Bi€E€@9g e26cLF•gERo ¢6: z 9-'B@8 gW E €@ 9 Gk = iE1a I g�E ;RPE ikils F sE BaI o v i@,,WOI \ �yE �e EAE81 p e -.F oLS� �� 11► _ _ ,. Ny \—k �°:� p gViGe =i s�� - � tis E 8 PE5 €e d gl( � � �G � .� "E 6 � •I I _ X39'4@Ssg` c S € 6@ fi7,'e9�"asg g@?.¢s ag.e n` 1% €� °;E9 €sF= 2 � k� g` k. � a0 xe-, F§ < 3 xaLiF}eS MINI 4 - B @G_ 5 - II k�€-E6g' fi E r � @ P � � N �v:_�05� dhMONO BA0. GAI.�FORNIA If (off jf= sfi�?i t Pf1 i� �S 6 t 55 66 yvy �€F 3 6 gQtQ Fx (jE°f4 ! 6i� ajF tis �qpn �PI i�jyj% � [i � SE� �_ Ila E4 fP[ " sirP` `€ f[xtF f (` ?i g3 t1 'tt s FFx fP' 6f6i3 }° �7Q a€ it t€ IPf ' B y1 ij f, fff€CE fE F11 g 57 fi e a+ ji j� Ftlles f� ��f EFE SSE ii#eg ti t !t x € €E i E€ Ex i i; it 9j f� i;s i�;! 3ai ifft 4� f if I iEf i li i4if ifff if ;Eiqq� 4 lE@tt� S!i ��i� 2 t k I FPr[f+i'l�ijE�#€1S `FFtPjEg�i�ii'�l'�E' E ii ►9�f[i;j P�;E � SEI sj € fki EEi iliEi E€g j ji i i ii €° x fig ° Edi �Ef t O6`t Ei E`1��i i 6 i i tEt ° 7 x° fiP is i�f; It ilii f€ jq 4 j i it, €gii g { EEE 9 � i -t ,iat P•?'f [g E 9;1 ffiff;[ ji i ing � if � 1 ; f s �$ ft�,ifi� lifil Fg isi S€ E �Ei)EE x i 11-110 eam ` HAEO ml TRESIDENDE EEPLECOAOO — AMONE OAR C—ORNIA _. 11-110 ` Fi�ti��E�tji�iifE[�lii��l6��4+;i!!fl`€€Ef�tkl8:�i31l�p'pyiC€i€` 8°€fet1E it Its!E( Efiillf�if€i {El,l3gf: ! ft}fii E :ll![! It I rt 1[ S I t t I. :EE t E ii 1 t E, a 8E Fi� fi �'i1;lE;Ili �E €Eflfs€ 4fli, E IE§ I[it,i€ i°il e: �! !if ia; ` Eil�lisiE�{�fi;l`ff�[f-0l'�i�i'i�jEf€�€�t=Is�fla!$6gt€lstrd[1€•€!�°€!f'€ � tt�fl �`lt 'E ; l• t�j` it;€ ! IEf lily€lylfft. g & �ie � til it ,E l i -s E�tll Iii t s 1 EIt6i € at li, f-1 l !• r!' ! f; tt EEki!t,€! itffd I! l,� �tE. !E► jtt ; �'`'•i. i0 j �� z 0 SiEEPLECNPSE IANE CIAMON� 6P0. CALIFOPHIA sill it 5, 111 P, �r p3a�p _@ On I@ g C FgFg SS gg �n.¢4@ n g$ E�-! 01 10 H al � sEll S ti - D S i0 j �� z 0 SiEEPLECNPSE IANE CIAMON� 6P0. CALIFOPHIA H,AO RESIDENCE V ZnB E—HASE— ........... F roc H,AO RESIDENCE V ZnB E—HASE— C5^ € C g ` P y y foie EFRge F f B C tF M VN § e g a QUO a 6�mP�� 5A Ge$ � pg� TEEPL HSE OIAMONO DAR CpLiFOPNN € C g ` P y y foie EFRge F f B C tF M VN § e g qN � TEEPL HSE OIAMONO DAR CpLiFOPNN € C g ` P y y foie EFRge F f B C tF M VN § e g E i wolml 1 HINIM111, .... .. R HMMI 'Mail N Hal rn MEW 1P it I I Hwumin , Hit fli 1 HOUR 6 i npqd i win is RUN 11M.1111, "H" H 1 M1 in! i 11 Qug I g I q Mug 'NMI H lie! 111 110 HIP, it I I HUD HIM, Hu M R H! I Il I i ya M!, M 'HUH! !RHIN W RP I PB Fa I i 1 nil Hill IUD 1 5H Hi M! HHU H1 'UHR mgz an 11 Hum Nil -I lul 11H 0191 H1 1HOMH imp H R Noll sY IN !jI 1, 11 i H� IV, PH 11 SH MM OU 0 1 VI t�- mi -I I 1 u I I I I I I I - I ' i'. 14 h x u HAO RF-51VENOE DIAMOND BAR GDLOR AND MATERIAL5 5GHEDULE 09.10.Oq DA #Og001 PREPARED BY DANIELIAN A55OGIATES MATERIAL 3OLC7R 4 MANUFACTURER METAL ROOF 28 SILVERSMITH A ATA5 OR EQUAL WOOD FASCIA GL 25117N L06 JAM FRAZEE 5TUGG0 1 OMEGA: SMOOTH FINISH CLN 100?N 5LAE5ERRY FRAZEE: 5TUGGO 2 OMEGA: SMOOTH FIN15H GL 2844 MINT SLUSH FRAZEE STUCCO 3 OMEGA: SMOOTH FINISH 5N 6255 MORNING F06 E 5HERNIN NILLIAM5 METAL RAILING MATERIAL TO BE F DETERMINED LOUVERS GL 2-11'1N TURPENTINE FRAZEE ENTRY DOOR GL 25q 7N LOG JAM H FRAZEE GARAGE DOOR GL 2'11-1N TURPENTINE FRAZEE STONE OR 1102 NATURAL STONE PREGA5T CONTINENTAL CAST STONE JI CONCRETE OR EQUAL 09.10.Oq DA #Og001 PREPARED BY DANIELIAN A55OGIATES iDIt1A1o�n Berl'; COMMISSION �) I I y? r s AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21825 COPLEY DRIVE — DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 -- TEL. (909) 839-7030 — FAX (909) 861-3117 ITEM NO. 8.1 DATE: May 11, 2010 CASE/VILE NUMBER: CONTINUED "Site D" Specific Plan - General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2007-04, 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 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, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001). APPLICATION REQUEST: To recommend that the City Council take the following actions: Certify Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 which provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the Specific Plan area. The Environmental Impact Report (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. 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), Low/Medium Density Residential (RLM), 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 10.16 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 Magi No. 70657 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. 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), Low/Medium Density Residential (RLM), 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 Page 2 of 15 CD: StaffReports - PC/Site D Specific Plan PC Staff Report 05-11-2010.docx an internal circulation system and common open space areas; and establish easements and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes. 14-11PTT" At the April 27, 2010 meeting, the Planning Commission continued its discussion of the Site D Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report to May 11, 2010. Three of the four commissioners expressed the intent to recommend certification of the Environmental Impact Report, and adoption of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The same three Commissioners also expressed support for the Specific Plan with the addition of a provision to incorporate a neighborhood park feature into the plan, directed staff to prepare a revised resolution that reflects the majority's recommendation, and continued the matter to May 11, 2010. As discussed at the last meeting, staff recommends that the Commission add a condition of approval to Resolution 3—under Subsections B.5.a and, if warranted, B.5.b—that incorporates appropriate language to require park features into the future development plans for Site D. However, the precise language for this condition must be specified by the Commission. To assist in this task, staff prepared an analysis of neighborhood parks in the City, ranging in size from 0.3 to 3.4 acres, so that the Commission has a better general understanding of the types and numbers of amenities that parks of various sizes can accommodate. Because there was not consensus among the commissioners as to whether a separate, dedicated public park should be required, or if one or more active public spaces with park -like amenities should be incorporated into the commercial component of the Site D Specific Plan, a discussion of planning principles for the creation of commercial public spaces is also provided. This concept will be supplemented by an interactive design exercise during the May 11th meeting. Nor was there consensus regarding specifying a location for the park space, as some Commissioners expressed the opinion that the location and configuration should be determined at the design development phase of Specific Plan buildout. For this reason, potential locations for the park space are not addressed in this report. The options presented herein for the Commission's consideration with respect to the incorporation of a park/public space component are thus summarized as follows: © A dedicated public park of a minimum specified acreage and amenities such as a tot lot, picnic tables and shade structures; or © The integration of one or more public spaces into the future commercial development, comprised of a minimum specified aggregate acreage, that incorporates amenities such as a tot lot, picnic tables, shade structures and public art. Page 3 of 15 CD: StaffReputs - PC/Site D Specific Plan PC Staff Report 05-11-2010.docx Regardless of the option the Commission chooses to incorporate into its recommendation to the City Council, a future development proposal to implement the Specific Plan will be subject to subsequent review and approval by the Commission. Specifying the criteria on acreage and type of amenities now does not tie the Commission down to approving a future proposal that simply meets the letter of those criteria: the Commission will have the opportunity to review a development project for consistency with the intent from which those criteria were formulated. In addition, the City has at its disposal a preliminary project review process, where there is the opportunity for the Commission to review the future development' project at earlier conceptual stages in the submittal process. The Commission can provide input and direction before the project is further refined. This process can be done in a study session format, or as a regular business agenda item. Option #11: Traditional Public Park Space: To give the Commission an idea of the type, size, facilities, and amenities of existing parks in the City, please refer to the inventory below. As shown, parks sized at one acre or less will accommodate all of the desired amenities previously discussed by the Commission, and could even facilitate small sports courts. Larger acreages are required to accommodate sports fields and the needed buffers around them. Taking into consideration that the nearby Heritage Park and Castle Rock Elementary School provide ball fields, and these were not features that the Commission expressed interest in previously, a park sized at approximately one acre may be an appropriate recommendation for the Commission to forward to the City Council. Advantages of a. Public Park Space ® Increases park space serving the neighborhood; m Provides public amenities that residents can enjoy; and o Affords the City full control over the maintenance, programming, and long-range planning after the park is constructed. Disadvantages of a Public Park Space ® Requires ongoing City maintenance costs such as expense and liability for providing such a facility; o Depending on the size, may impact the type and size of a commercial development. The opportunity to incorporate significant, pedestrian -oriented amenities into the commercial development may be constrained. May require renegotiation of the MOU between the City and School District for the disposition of the Site D property. Suggested Resolution Language (P/anninq Commission to specify acreage): B.5.a.4) "At the time that a development plan is formally submitted for Planning Commission consideration, the subsequent plan shall incorporate within its boundaries Page 4 of 15 CD: StaffReports - PC/Site D Specific Plan PC Staff Report 05-11-2010.docx a neighborhood park of at least —acres, and shall incorporate features such as, but not limited to, a tot lot, picnic tables, seating areas and shade structures." B.5.b.8) "The Final Map shall include a lot delineating the boundaries of the park as prescribed under Subsection B.5.a.4 of this Resolution." Inventory of Existing and Approved Parks aMEN- - o Tot Lot 0 Open Green Space Washington Street Park ® Gazebo (approved for 0.3 Acres 5 Picnic Tables construction) 3 Benches 0 Decomposed Granite Walkway 0 Tot Lot Longview Park North 0.8 Acres 0 Open Green Space 0 2 Benches 0 Paved Walking Trail 0 Basketball Court ® Turf Volleyball Court Longview Park South 0.9 Acres 0 Tot Lot 0 2 Picnic Tables 0 1 BBQ 0 Tot Lot Stardust Park 0.9 Acres 0 Open Green Space a 2 Benches 0 Paved Walking Trail Summitridge Mini Park 1 Acres 0 Open Green Space 0 Tot Lot 0 Open Green Space Starshine. Park 2 Acres 0 2 Picnic Tables 0 3 Benches 0 1 BBQ 0 Concrete Walkway 0 Softball Field 0 Tot Lot 0 Open Green Space Heritage Park 3.4 Acres 0 Community Recreation Building 0 5 Picnic Tables 0 3 BBQs 0 Concrete Walkway Page 5 of 15 CD: StaffReports - PC/Site D Specific Plan PC Staff Report 05-11-2010.docx �LL iii f � of 1$ p R r T 0 co N ro DL N m l4 CL r 0 00 0 m a_ n. I? � � 1 D N p 7 a 26 q O e V q^T 1 c" ,tea! % } ° ogao °upv m ` cag. m y 0 o s ((VV m❑ O a r 1= :. ❑ t= O= U ff � cif i i 5•g '�" , F�, ;�. rP F,t,TYr`� +'�'(9 �� Sii'' ,�.. i � F s - Lk Yay-T ��4 � � h•�r � G a. 'F � � c ' � 0. 4I1j'L °�71.. nXI int 1. ff r, T N m ca D- i CD ?" ffi r r lr 4r- ra i' mtI F cvCn, L $v9N Igo Cu_°1�1AI�f m'1 11 ttP13-- .h� �i �`i'Sianom"19�:',{'J U`.° 55.m rUxm r N .. N ..... a y i8 p A N® vi �-...0 0�� �S7�U". t'x' S R l "i Ifs} �' 2Z 1,9Q•yTr +�ti `pry n _ ., r� r•"r�N. fp,��p ',y��.j;� i ��, Ow3.'t ��O�'' y M � 1 Ft� *r .. t `4^•13k7���i��ir *9r T tf "� ��`�"� a 1 Yj+.5 W 'N'3" W, I Option #2: Interactive Public Open Space: Concept Incorporate one or more interactive public open spaces such as social gathering spaces with a park -like feel, to include public amenities such as benches, shade trees, water features, landscaping, tot lot, outdoor dining areas, public art, etc. integrated into the commercial development. The spaces shall be of sufficient size and shape to accommodate the amenities and features, subject to Planning Commission review to ensure the intent of the public open space is met. An example of these public amenities can be found in well known popular developments such as the Grove in Los Angeles and The Americana at Brand in Glendale. A more local, but less intensive example can be found in the recently expanded Claremont Village public plaza. An interactive design exercise will be conducted at the Planning Commission meeting to illustrate more clearly the opportunities for incorporating public spaces into the commercial component. Advantages of an Interactive Public Open Space ® Takes into account the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District that stipulates a minimum of fifty percent of the designated area for residential development and fifty percent designated for commercial use, exclusive of necessary infrastructure; o Allows a potential developer to creatively design the site with a'quasi-public space by having the public open space area incorporated and designed at the B level map; and Creates a focal point in the commercial component with a complementary public space to support the commercial development. Adding the interactive public open space area can enhance the commercial component as well as enhance the experience to visitors and residents of the area. Disadvantages of an Interactive Public Open Space Certain amenities found in a traditional neighborhood park, such as barbecue and picnic facilities, and small sport courts, may not be feasible in this type of a setting. © The City would not own the property or facilities comprising the spaces, and would not have the opportunity to program or revise the features after initial development is completed. Suggested Resolution Language (Planninq Commission to specify acreacie): B.5.a.4) "At the time that a development plan is formally submitted for Planning Commission consideration, the subsequent plan shall incorporate within the commercial development, one or more interconnected public open spaces, consisting of a total aggregate area of at least _ acres, and shall incorporate features such as, but not limited to, a tot lot, picnic tables, seating areas, shade structures and public art." Page 13 of 15 CD: StafPReports - PC/Site D Specific Plan PC Staff Report 05-11-2010.docx Public Plaza, The Village, Claremont, California �ZILOo; jLqmliltliii i,: The project was continued from the April 27, 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 posted 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. As of this writing, two letters were received in opposition to the proposed Specific Plan, and are included as Attachments 5 and 6. In the April 13 and 27, 2010 resolutions, the existing zoning designation for the project area was listed as Low Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1), but should have stated Low Density Residential (RL), Low/Medium Density Residential (RLM), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1). This correction has been incorporated into the attached resolutions. Page 14 of 15 CD: StaffReports - PC/Site D Specific Plan PC Staff Report 05-11-2010.docx Prepared by: Gr ca e S. Lee Senior Planner Attachments: Reviewed by: Greg Gubman, AICP Community Development Director 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 27, 2010 5. Letter from Christopher Chung dated May 6, 2010 6. Letter from Judy Leung dated May 5, 2010 Page 15 of 15 CD: StaffReports - PC/Site D Specific Plan PC Staff Report 05-11-2010.docx A. RECITALS 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, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California, so that both parties may each advance their respective objectives for the disposition of the property. 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), Low/Medium Density Residential (RLM), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan (c) Specific Plan No. 200701 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 10.16 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 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; 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, April 27, and May 11, 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. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 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; 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 (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. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the EIR to be complete and adequate; and adopt the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Report and Monitoring Program attached herein as Exhibits "A" and "B" and hereby incorporated by reference. EIR 2067-2007-02 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 11th DAY OF MAY 2010, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Tony Torng, Chairman I, 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 11�h day of May, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary 3 EIR 2007-2007-02 _IVCt . s - ,FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT — "SITE D" SPEGFIC PLAN Section 21081 and 21081.5, California Public Resources Code Sections 15091, 15092, and 15083, Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION MUNNUMDEMUS= The approximately 30.36 -acre project site is located within the corporate boundaries of the 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 site is generally located east of State Route 57 (SR -57 Freeway) and Brea Canyon Road and southeast of the intersection of the SR -57 Freeway, Diamond Bar Boulevard, and Brea Canyon Cutoff. The project site is located to the north of.the terminus of Castle Rock Road and Pasado Drive. 1.2 Project Description The City of Diamond Bar (City or Lead Agency) and the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD or District) own separate properties within the corporate boundaries of the City, separated by an open flood control channel (Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel) operated by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LADFCD or County), a division of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). The WVUSD'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 has declared it to "surplus property." The City's 0.98 - acre property (City Property) was acquired so that City would have access to property to address future traffic impacts as well as the existing traffic issues in this area. The Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel (Brea Canyon Channel), which runs generally parallel to Brea Canyon Road, separates the District Property from the City Property. The LACFCD's approximately 0.67 -acre facility (County Property) is presently an open box culvert. In accordance with the LACFCD's "Guidelines for Overbuilding and Air Rights," in combination with such other standards and procedures as may be established by the County, leasehold interests in the "air rights" above the channel could be conveyed to a 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 City and the WVUSD executed a "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU) whereby the parties agreed to a collaborative planning process for the District Property and the City Property whereby both entities could advance their respective objectives for the disposition of those land holdings. Under the terms of the MOU, as authorized under the provisions of Sections 65450-65457 of the California Government Code (CGC), the City agreed to prepare and process a "specific plan" for the combined properties for the purpose of establishing design and development parameters for the use of those properties. The proposed "`Site D' Specific Plan" (SDSP) project encompasses approximately 30.36 -acres and contains a number of related elements, including both specific actions and activities which are presently before the City of Diamond Bar (City or Lead Agency) and later activities which can be reasonably anticipated as a result of those actions presently under review. From a planning perspective, the Lead Agency is considering the possible adoption of a proposed specific plan (Specific Plan No. 2007-01) authorizing the development of 202 dwelling units and 153,985 gross leaseable square feet of commercial use within the 30.36 -acre specific plan boundaries. From a project perspective, it is assumed that the project site would be 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 of Diamond Bar General Plan" (General Plan) and zoning designations, the proposed project includes a General Plan amendment (GPA No. 2007-03) from "Public Facility (PF)" and "General Commercial (C)" to "Specific Plan" (SP)," with a corresponding zone change (ZC) from "Low Density Residential (R-1 10,000)," "Low/Medium Density Residential (R-1 7,500)", and "Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)" to "Specific Plan (SP)." Also proposed is the approval of a tentative subdivision map (Tentative Tract Map No. 70687) establishing separate residential, commercial, and open space parcels and creating an internal circulation system and establishing easements and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes. Following the adoption of the specific plan, the City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD or District) may enter into a transferable development agreement for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of the specific plan and the development of the project site. In addition, the District and the City will cooperate in the sale of the District's holdings (District Property) and the City's holdings (City Property) to one or more developers, master builders, end users, or other parties. 1.3 Project Objectives As more thoroughly described in the FEIR, both the City and the District have established specific objectives concerning the proposed project and/or the project site. It is the objective of the City to promote and facilitate the attainment of those goals, objectives, plans, and policies as contained in the General Plan. Specifically, those objectives include, but are not limited to, the following excerpts from the General Plan: (1) Require that new development be compatible with surrounding land uses (Strategy 2.2.1, Land Use Element); and (2) Balance the retention of the natural environment with its conversion to urban form (Strategy 3.3.1, Land Use Element). The City has elected to prepare and process a specific plan for the proposed project for the purpose of defining the types of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses that the City believes to be appropriate for the project site and the project setting, to define reasonable limits to the intensity and density of those uses, and to establish the design and development standards for those uses. The following additional broad project objective can be derived from Section 22.60.020 (Applicability) and Section 22.60.060 (Adoption of Specific Plan) in Chapter 22.60 (Specific Plans) of the Municipal Code: Prepare a specific plan which provides for flexibility, encourages the innovative use of land, provides for the development of a variety of housing and other development types, assists in the comprehensive master planning of the project site, and is consistent with the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City. Since the MOU between the City and the District constitute a declaration of the intent of both parties, that document contains information that can be utilized in the formulation of project objectives. The following additional objectives can be derived from that document: (1) District desires the disposition of the School Property to yield the maximum return to the District for the benefit of its constituents and its educational mission; and (2) City desires that the School Property and the City Property be developed in a manner as to assure compatibility with and to meet the needs of the surrounding area and to provide a desirable level of sales tax revenues to the City. As further indicated in the MOU, of the usable acreage, it is explicitly specified that a minimum of 50 percent of the property will be designated for residential development and 50 percent will be designated for commercial use, exclusive of necessary infrastructure. Based on those actions, the following additional objectives can be established: (1) With regards to the project site, pursue the establishment of site-specific land -use policies that allow, in reasonably comparable acreage, the development of both commercial and residential uses of the property, accommodating the provision of additional housing opportunities and the introduction of revenue -generating uses; and (2) Establish a specific plan as the guiding land -use policy mechanism to define the nature and intensity of future development and to establish design and development parameters for the project site, so as to allow conveyance of the subject property to one or more developers and/or master builders and provide to the purchasers reasonable assurance as to the uses that would be authorized on the project site and the nature of those exactions required for those uses. 1.3.1 Future Growth Needs It is a further objective of the City of Diamond Bar to meet its fair share of the region's housing needs. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a key tool for local governments to plan for anticipated growth. The RHNA quantifies the anticipated need for housing within each jurisdiction for the 81/,year period from January 2006 to July 2014. Communities then determine how they will address this need through the process of updating the Housing Elements of their General Plans. The current RHNA was adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in July 2007. The future need for housing is determined primarily by the forecasted growth in households in a community. Each new household created by a child moving out of a parent's home or by a family moving to a community for employment creates the need for a housing unit. The housing need for new households is then adjusted to maintain a desirable level of vacancy to promote housing choice and mobility. An adjustment is also made to account for units expected to be lost due to demolition, natural disaster, or conversion to non -housing uses. The sum of these factors — household growth, vacancy need, and replacement need — determines the construction need for a community. Total housing need is then distributed among four income categories on the basis of the 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 plus the unincorporated area. The total housing growth need for the City of Diamond Bar during the 2006-2014 planning period is 1,090 units. Site D is one of the very few available sites 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), SB 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 SB 375 is to see a significant decrease in greenhouse 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 Governments—the 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. 2.1 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 Excerpts from Senate Bill 375 Facfsheet published by SCAG (2010) 4 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 result from the approval, construction, habitation, and/or use of the project and/or the project site. Section 5.0 (Findings Regarding the Significant or Potentially Significant Environmental 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 Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program). This section contains findings with regards to the MRMP. Section 7.0 (Findings Regarding Alternatives not Selected 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 a number of identifiable community benefits attributable to the proposed project. Section 9.0 (Statement of Overriding Considerations). This section contains the Lead Agency's "Statement of Overriding Considerations" (SOC) setting forth the City's reasons and rationale for finding that specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations associated with or attributable to the proposed project outweigh the project's significant or potentially significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects. As applicable for each of the above referenced sections, the significant or potentially significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR have been referenced therein. Following each referenced environmental effect, the Lead Agency has identified the findings and facts that constitute the bases for the Lead Agency's actions. The findings set forth in each of the following sections are supported by facts in the administrative record of the proposed project. The referenced findings and facts presented herein may have relevancy both in the context of the specific environmental effect for which those findings and facts are indicated and for other environmental effects identified in the FEIR and in these Findings. For the purpose of brevity, those findings and facts presented herein are not duplicated under multiple topical issues but should be assumed to collectively constitute the factual basis utilized by the decision-making body of the Lead Agency in making these Findings. Except as otherwise noted in the FEIR, the threshold of significance criteria utilized by the Lead Agency to assess the significance of project -related and cumulative impacts are based on those criterion contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and constitute criterion which have been used by both the Lead Agency with regards to CEQA documentation prepared by the 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 statement of facts and findings (Findings) has been prepared by the Lead Agency in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as codified in Section 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines), as codified in Section 15000 et seq., in Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), for the SDSP project and for any and all discretionary actions reasonably associated therewith. For planning purposes, the Lead Agency, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research - State Clearinghouse (SCH), and/or other responsible agencies have or may assign case or file numbers to certain actions now contemplated by the City, by the SCH, and/or by those responsible agencies. Those case or file numbers (and the assigning agency) include, but may not be limited to: (1) SCH No 2008021014 (SCH); (2) Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 (City); (3) General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 (City); (4) Zone Change No. 2007-04 (City); (5) Specific Plan No. 2007-01 (City); and (6) Tentative Map No. 70687. Reference to the SDSP herein is intended to be inclusive of: (1) each of the above referenced discretionary actions; (2) such additional discretionary and ministerial actions as may be required for or associated with the construction, habitation, occupancy, use, and maintenance of the SDSP and the real property thereupon for the residential, non-residential, and infrastructure - related uses proposed within the geographic area examined in the "Final Environmental Impact Report- 'Site D' Specific Plan, SCH No. 2008021014" (FEIR), whether or not included within the geographic area encompassed by the SDSP; and (4) those standard conditions, mitigation measures, and other conditions of approval as may be imposed thereupon by the City's decision-making bodies and the decision-making bodies of those responsible agencies with jurisdiction thereupon. The State CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report (EIR) has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects on the environment that would occur if the proposed project is approved or carried out unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects. This document presents the findings of fact and substantial evidence that must be made by the City of Diamond Bar City Council (City Council), acting in that body's capacity as the Lead Agency's decision-making body, prior to determining whether to certify the FEIR and approve or conditionally approve the SDSP. The possible findings specified in Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record, include: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects, as identified in the final EIR. [This finding shall be referred to herein as "Finding (1)"] (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and riot 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 be referred to herein as "Finding (2)"1 (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR. [This finding shall be referred to herein as "Finding (3)"1 With respect to those significant effects that are subject to Finding (1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or lessen significant environmental effects. With respect to those significant effects that are subject to Finding (2), the findings shall not be made if the agency making the findings has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. With respect to those significant effects that are subject to Finding (3), the findings shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and alternatives. In accordance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City Council makes the following findings for each significant or potentially significant environmental effect identified in the FEIR. Those impacts are categorized under the corresponding topical headings presented in the FEIR. Reference to mitigation measure numbers herein are as presented in the FEIR and may differ from those numbers or notations that may be subsequently assigned should the City Council elect to approve or conditionally approve the SDSP. As indicated in Section 4.0 (Significant or Potentially Significant Environmental Effects which Cannot Feasibly be Mitigated to Below a Level of Significance) herein, a number of significant environmental effects are identified in the FEIR which cannot be avoided or substantially lessened. In recognition of the continuing existence of significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects, a statement of overriding considerations (SOC), supported by substantial evidence in the record, is, therefore, required in order for the City to approve the SDSP. The SOC for the SDSP is presented in Section 9.0 (Statement of Overriding Considerations) herein and presents the rationale for the City's approval or conditional approval of the proposed project despite the continuing existence of those unavoidable adverse environmental effects. 2.3 Record of Proceedings For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, at a minimum, the record of proceedings for the FEIR consists of the following documents and other evidence. All references to the FEIR herein shall be assumed to be inclusive of each of the following documents and such other accompanying evidence as may be identified by the City Council: (1) "Initial Study," including all documents expressly cited therein; (2) "Notice of Preparation" (NOP), "Notice of Completion" (NOC), "Notice of Availability" (NOA), "Notice of Determination" (NOD), and all other public notices issued by the Lead Agency in conjunction with this CEQA process; (3) "Draft Environmental Impact Report —'Site D" Specific Plan, SCH No. 2008021014" and "Technical Appendix - Draft Environmental Impact Report — 'Site D' Specific Plan, SCH No. 2008021014" (DEIR), including all documents incorporated by reference therein and all written comments submitted by public agencies and other stakeholders during the public review periods established by the NOP and NOA; (4) Other site-specific and/or project -specific technical studies and exhibits not included in the FEIR but explicitly referenced therein; (5) "Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report — 'Site D' Specific Plan, SCH No. 2008021014," including all written comments submitted by public agencies and other stakeholders during the public review period established by the NOC; (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 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; (4) Copies of the Initial Study, NOP, DEIR, and NOC were provided to those Responsible Agencies identified in the FEIR and each such agency was provided a specified review period to submit comments thereupon; (5) In compliance with Section 21092.5(a) of CEQA, at least 10 days prior to the certification of the FEIR, the Lead Agency provided its written proposed response to those public agencies that submitted comments to the Lead Agency on the DEIR; (6) The FEIR and all environmental notices associated therewith were prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines and in accordance with the City's local guidelines and procedures; (7) The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the FEIR and the FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council; (8) A MRMP has been prepared for the proposed project, identifying those feasible mitigation measures that the City Council has adopted or will likely adopt in order to reduce the potential environmental effects of the proposed project to the maximum extent feasible; (9) The mitigation measures adopted or likely to be adopted by the City Council will be fully implemented in accordance with the MRMP, verification of compliance will be documented, and each measure can reasonably be expected to have the efficacy and produce the post -mitigated consequences assumed in the FEIR; (10) Each of the issues to be resolved, as identified in the FOR and/or subsequently raised in comments received by the City during the deliberation of the City's advisory and decision-making bodies, have been resolved to the satisfaction of the City Council; (11) The potential environmental impacts of the proposed project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the FEIR; (12) The City Council reviewed the comments received on the FOR, including, but not limited to, those comments received following the dissemination of the DEIR and RTC, and the responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses thereto add significant new information under Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines; (13) The City Council has not made any decisions that would constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources toward the proposed project prior to the certification of the FOR nor has the City Council previously committed to a definite course of action with respect to the proposed project; (14) Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the FEIR are and have been available for review during the regular business hours of the City at the office of the Community Development Department from the custodian of records for such documents; (15) These Findings incorporate by reference such other findings as may be required under Sections 65454, 65455, 66474, 66474.4, 65853, and 65860 of the California Government Code and those corresponding finding required under the "City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code" (Municipal Code); and (16) Having received, reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the record, the City Council has or will impose conditions, mitigation measures, and take other reasonable actions to reduce the environmental effects of the proposed project to the maximum extend feasible and finds as stated in these Findings. o .O . r 3W03261 RJO 12 [ORY001� The City Council has determined that existing statutes, regulations, conditions of approval, uniform codes, project design features, and/or feasible mitigation measures included in the FEIR and adopted by or likely to be adopted by the City Council will result in a substantial reduction of most but not all of those environmental effects identified in the FEIR. 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. 4.1.1 Environmental Effect: Construction of the proposed project has the potential to violate or add to a violation of air quality standards (Air Quality Impact 7-2). 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 air quality analysis was conducted in accordance with the methodology presented in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" (SCAQMD, April 1993), "Localized Significance Threshold Methodology" (SCAQMD, June 2005), and updates included on the SCAQMD Internet web site. The analysis makes use of the URBEMIS2007 urban emissions model (Version 9.4.2) for the determination of daily construction and operational emissions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) SCEEN3 Dispersion model for localized construction impacts, the provisions of the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) "Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol," and CALINE4 computer model of on -road carbon monoxide (CO) dispersion modeling. (c) Air quality impacts will occur during site preparation and construction activities. Major sources of emissions during construction include exhaust emissions, fugitive dust generated as a result of soil and material disturbance during grading activities, and the emission of reactive organic gases (ROGs) during site paving and the painting of the structures. (d) The terms "reactive organic gases" (ROGs), "reactive organic compounds" (ROCs), and "volatile organic compounds" (VOCs) are used interchangeable in the DEIR. (e) Based on the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria, URBEMIS computer model results indicate that ROG emissions associated with the application of paints and coatings could result in a potentially significant short-term air quality impact. Because the construction phase could create ROG emissions is exceedance of the SCAQMD's recommended significance threshold, the Lead Agency has formulated a number of mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 7- 1 and 7-2) to reduce that impact to the extent feasible. (f) In addition to those mitigation measures identified by the Lead Agency, all projects constructed in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are subject to standard conditions and uniform codes. Compliance with these provisions is mandatory and, as such, does not constitute mitigation under CEQA. Those conditions mandated by the SCAQMD include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Rule 403 requires the use of Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) during construction and sets requirements for dust control associated with construction 10 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 SCAQMD 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). Findinqs: The City Council hereby makes Findings (1) and (2). Facts in Support of Findinqs: 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 number 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). Findinqs: The City Council hereby makes Findings (1) and (2). Facts in Support of Findinqs: The following facts are presented in support of these findings: Is (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) 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 atmosphere. (d) The SCAB is classified by the State as "extreme non -attainment" for ozone. Ozone is one of a number of substances (photochemical oxidants) that are formed when ROCs and NOx react with sunlight. (e) Mitigation for the cumulative impact is as specified for construction and operational impacts. However, even with the adoption of the recommended measures, air quality impacts will remain cumulatively significant. No mitigation measures, formulated specifically to address the project's potential incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts, are deemed to be reasonably feasible. 5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY 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 codes, project design features, in combination with those conditions of approval and feasible mitigation measures included in the FEIR and adopted by or likely to be adopted by the City Council, will result in a substantial reduction of the following environmental effects and that each of the following environmental effects will either occur at or can be effectively reduced to below a level of significance. 5.1 Land Use 5.1.1 Environmental Effect: New residential and recreational land uses could introduce land use compatibility issues between the proposed uses and those existing and reasonably foreseeable 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) Project -related and cumulative land -use impacts are addressed in Section 4.1 (Land Use) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Although no commercial site plan has been presented for the Lead Agency's consideration, once development plans are formulated, those plans are subject to the City's development review process and must conform to applicable property development and use standards. (c) Chapter 22.48 (Development Review) in Title 22 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code establishes procedures for reviewing residential, commercial industrial, and institutional development to facilitate review in a timely and 12 efficient manner, and to ensure that development projects comply with all applicable design guidelines, standards, and minimize adverse effects on surrounding properties and the environment. Section 22.16.080 (Screening and Buffering) in Chapter 22.6 (General Property Development and Use Standards) therein presents the City's minimum standards for the screening and buffering of adjoining land uses, equipment and outdoor storage areas, and surface parking areas with respect to both multi -family and non-residential land uses. (d) Single-family attached and/or multi -family residential development is proposed adjacent and in close proximity to existing single-family detached residential areas located to the north, south, and east 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 characteristics and use expectations. (e) The proposed residential, recreational, and open spaces uses are compatible with existing and proposed development within the general project area. (f) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a number of standard conditions of approval (Conditions of Approval 1- 1 and 1-2) designed to promote land -use consistency and compatibility. (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. 5.1.2 Environmental Effect: The proposed mixed-use project, including the land uses, densities, and development standards now under consideration, could conflict with the adopted plans and policies of the City (Land Use Impact 1-2). 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 land -use impacts are addressed in Section 4.1 (Land Use) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) The proposed project is generally consistent with the policies of the "City of Diamond Bar Genera Plan" (General Plan). (c) In addition to General Plan consistency, the project is subject to compliance with applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, including those contained in Chapter 22.22 (Hillside Management) of the Development Code. In accordance with the provisions of Section 22.22.040 (Density) in Title 22 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code, a total of 524 dwelling units could be developed on the site, which is substantially greater than the 202 dwelling units proposed. (d) Although a General Plan amendment (GPA) and/or zone change (ZC) would be required to accommodate the proposed residential use, the proposed densities are allowable in the City. Subject to a GPA and/or ZC, the residential portion of the project would be deemed consistent with the "City of Diamond Bar General Plan" (General Plan). (e) Based on existing zoning and assuming a lot -line adjustment to better equate the existing zoning with the site's development potential, as specified in Section 22.10.020 (Purpose of Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts) in Chapter 22.10 (Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts) in Title 22 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code, the allowable floor -area -ratio (FAR) for non-residential development in the "Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)" zoning district shall be 13 from 0.25 to 1.00. In accordance therewith, a range of between 109,880 and 439,520 square feet of commercial use could be developed on the project site. The 153,985 square feet of commercial use now being proposed falls near the lower end (0.35 FAR) of the allowable FAR range and would, therefore, be consistent with the City's land -use policies. (f) 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" (2008 RCP). (g) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 1-3) designed to provide notification to SCAG of projected growth within the City, so as to allow SCAG to more effectively update regional plans. (h) 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. 5.1.3 Environmental Effect: Project implementation requires a General Plan amendment, adoption of a specific plan, zone change, subdivision of the project site, and other discretionary actions to accommodate the proposed land uses. Each of those actions is subject to specific findings by the City Council and/or by other responsible agencies (Land Use Impact 1-3). 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 land -use impacts are addressed in Section 4.1 (Land Use) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) A specific plan is a regulatory tool, authorized under the provisions of Sections 65450-65457 of the CGC, which is intended to guide the development of a localized area and serve as a tool for the systematic implementation of the general plan. A specific plan document establishes a link between the implementing policies contained in an agency's general plan and the individual development proposal in a defined area. No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the agency's general plan. No public works project, no tentative map, and no zoning ordinance may be approved, adopted, or amended within the area covered by a specific plan unless consistent with the adopted specific plan. (c) As indicated in Section 66474, a legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a subdivision map if finds that: (a) the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; (b) the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; (c) the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; (d) the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; (e) the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (f) the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problerns; and/or (g) the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at 14 large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Section 66473.5 restricts local agencies from approving a final subdivision map for any land use project unless the legislative body finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan or any specific plan. A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified therein. (d) Pursuant to the General Plan, it is the policy of the City to "[e]ncourage the innovative use of land resources and development of a variety of housing and other development types, provide a means to coordinate the public and private provisions of services and facilities, and address the unique needs of certain lands by recognizing Specific Plan (SP) overlay designations: (a) for large scale development areas in which residential, commercial, recreational, public facilities, and other land uses may be permitted; and (b) large acreage property(ies) in excess of ten acres that are proposed to be annexed into the City" (Strategy 1.1.9, Land Use Element). (e) The information presented in the FEIR may be used, in whole or in part, by the City and by other responsible agencies to support specific findings as mandated by State law and by agency requirements and procedures, both as may be required under CEQA and as may be required in support of other actions that may be taken by the City and by other agencies with regards to the proposed project or any aspect thereof. In the event that the City and/or other responsible agencies are unable to make requisite findings, those discretionary approvals associated with those findings cannot be issued. In the absence of the issuance of requisite permits and approvals, no physical changes to the project site would be anticipated to occur and no environmental impacts would result therefrom. (f) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a standard 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 would be less than significant and no additional standard conditions and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.1.4 Environmental Effect: 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). 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 land -use impacts are addressed in Section 4.1 (Land Use) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Implementation of the proposed project in combination with those other related projects will result in the further urbanization of the general project area, including the conversion of vacant or under -developed properties to higher -intensity uses. 15 None of the land uses that are identified, however, constitute uses or activities that are not currently present within the City or the region. (c) Anticipated residential development in the City exceeds the population growth estimates formulated by SCAG. SCAG's projections are used as the basis for establishing regional transportation plans. By under -estimating interim local demands, regional plans may not be as effective in responding to areawide interim transportation needs. (d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 1-3) designed to apprise SCAG of projected growth within the City, so as to allow SCAG to more effectively update regional plans. (e) 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. 5.2.1 Environmental Effect: Project construction will increase the local labor force and, through job creation and the possibility of worker relocation, has the potential to induce population growth in the general project area (Population and Housing Impact 2-1). 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 population and housing impacts are addressed in Section 4.2 (Population and Housing) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) During construction, an estimated 73 workers would be associated with the project's 202 multi -family housing units and an additional estimated 49 workers would be associated with the project's 153,985 square feet of commercial use. (c) The workforce required for the project's construction, operation, and maintenance can be reasonably drawn from the available regional labor pool. (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. 5.2.2 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will result in the addition of up to 202 dwelling units to the City's existing housing stock and will increase the City's population by approximately 662 individuals, based on the California Department of Finance's existing (January 2008) Citywide vacancy rates and average household size (3.335 persons/unit) and vacancy rate (1.71 percent) (Population and Housing Impact 2-2). 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 population and housing impacts are addressed in Section 4.2 (Population and Housing) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. m (b) As indicated in California Department of Finance estimates, in January 2008, the City's population was estimated to be 60,360 individuals. The total number of dwelling units was estimated to be 18,380 units. (c) Total number of dwelling units now proposed (202 units) is less than the adopted SLAG 2006-2014 RHNA for new construction for "above moderate" income households (440 units) and only slightly more than SCAG's identified new construction need for "moderate" income households (188 units). The project represents about 18.5 percent of the projected housing needs for the period 2006-2014. Since the projected increase appears generally consistent with regional projections, the project will further the attainment of SCAG's regional housing needs assessment. (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. 5.2.3 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will result in the construction of 153,985 square feet of commercial use, directly creating about 462 new permanent jobs (Population and Housing Impact 2-3). 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 population and housing impacts are addressed in Section 4.2 (Population and Housing) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Based on the projected number of direct new jobs (462 jobs) and the number of housing units associated with the proposed project (202 dwelling units), the project's projected on-site jobs -to -housing ratio is about 2.3, indicating the project is "jobs rich." The relatively small number of jobs and housing units, however, is not significant in the broader regional context. (c) The inclusion of both residential and commercial uses on the same site serve to further attainment of the primary intent of jobs -housing balance, namely the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the corresponding air quality benefits. (c) 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. 5.2.4 Environmental Effect: Absent a corresponding and proportional increase in long-term employment opportunities, projects that increase the City's housing stock would contribute to the perpetuation of the existing Citywide jobs -housing imbalance (Population and Housing Impact 2-4). 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 population and housing impacts are addressed in Section 4.2 (Population and Housing) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. 17 (b) Between 2010 and 2030, the jobs -housing ratio for the City will decrease from only 0.86 to 0.82. As a result, the City will remain "housing rich" and "jobs poor." (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. UM 5.3.2 Environmental Effect: During the life of the project, structures and other improvements constructed on the property will be subject to periodic ground shaking resulting from seismic events along earthquake faults located throughout the region (Geotechnical Hazards Impact 3-2). 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 geotechnical hazards impacts are addressed in Section 4.3 (Geotechnical Hazards) in the FOR 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 UBC and 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 1-3) 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. 5.3.3 Environmental Effect: Los Angeles County is located within a seismically active region. Since earthquakes have historically occurred throughout the region and can be expected to occur in the future, development activities that occur throughout the region, including their occupants and users, will remain subject to seismic forces (Geotechnical Hazards Impact 3-3). 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 geotechnical hazards impacts are addressed in Section 4.3 (Geotechnical Hazards) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Adequate control measures have been formulated to ensure that all public and private structures are constructed and maintained in recognition of site-specific, area -specific, and regional geologic, geotechnical, seismic, and soils conditions. (c) Compliance with applicable UBC and CSBC standards and associated permit - 19 agency requirements will mitigate any potential cumulative impacts to below a level of significance. (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 Environmental Effect: Construction activities may increase sediment discharge and/or result in the introduction of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other waste discharges that could impact the quality of the area's surface and ground water resources if discharged to those waters (Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4-1). Finding: 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 water quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Information and analysis concerning the existing hydrologic and water quality setting, including specific design and development recommendations formulated in response thereto, are presented in "Preliminary Drainage Report for Site 'D' Improvements at Intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Barg California" (PENCQ Engineering, Inc., February 7, 2008, revised April 6, 2009). (c) Water quality protection is ensured through preparation and implementation of the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), as required under the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit), through Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to ensure that grading and construction operations involving the transport, storage, use, and disposal of a variety of construction materials complies with certain storage, handling, and transport requirements. (c) Pursuant to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region's (LARWQCB) fourth -term General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (NPDES No. CAS004001) for discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) in County, a standard urban stormwater mitigation plan (SUSMP) shall be required, including appropriate BMPs and guidelines to reduce pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent possible (MEP). (d) The Construction General Permit and compliance with SWPPP and MS4 permit requirements constitute mandatory project measures. Compliance ensures that project -induced water -borne erosion does not significantly impact downstream drainage systems. (e) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 4-2) requiring the City Engineer's approval of a SUSMP conforming to the requirements of Section 8.12.1695 of the Municipal Code. 20 (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. 5.4.2 Environmental Effect: 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). 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 hydrology and water quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) According to the recorded plans for the Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel (Private Drain No. 395), a 25 -year discharge of 2,285 cubic feet per second (cfs) is shown at the downstream side of the Diamond Bar Boulevard culvert. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) stipulated that the existing County -operated and maintained drainage system accommodate a 50 - year storm event of 2,602 cfs. (c) A 50 -year storm creates approximately 68.38 cfs of runoff from the western portion of the project site and an existing 33 -inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe located to the south of the project site currently carries off-site discharge of 83.94 cfs. When combined with existing off-site discharge, the 50 -year storm runoff totals 174.80 cfs at the Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel. The summation of 50 -year flows (2,602 + 174.80 = 2,776.8) from the project site and from the channel total approximately 2,777 cfs at this reach. (d) Drainage improvements are proposed to accommodate projected flows. As proposed, at this reach, the existing Brea Canyon Channel will be replaced with reinforced concrete box (RCB). An existing tributary open channel east of the project site will be replaced with RCB, as well as the proposed entrance to the site. 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 20 feet of cover. Approximately 50 feet of transition box will be constructed from the proposed RCB section to the existing culvert section under Diamond Bar Boulevard. A transition structure downstream of the proposed RCB will be construed to join the existing trapezoidal channel. (e) The Lead Agency has identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 4-1) requiring receipt of all requisite permits and approvals from the LACDPW allowing for the overbuilding of the Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel. (f) To ensure that drainage improvements are consistent with applicable design and development standards and that post -project drainage flows do not result in any adverse public safety or other impacts, a mitigation measure (Condition of Approval 4-1) has been included in the FEIR and adopted or likely to be adopted in the MRMP specifying that all drainage facilities and improvements are subject to final design and engineering review and approval by the City Engineer and, for those storm drain facilities under County jurisdiction, by the LACDPW. 21 Implementation of that measure will reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance. 5.4.3 Environmental Effect: Continuing urbanization of the general project area will collectively contribute to surface flows within the Diamond 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 in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Conversion of the project site to a mixed-use development will generate additional urban runoff that would be discharged into Diamond Bar Creek. Project -generated runoff could contribute to potentially significant cumulative water quality impacts generated by existing and future land uses within the tributary watershed area. (c) The proposed project and other related projects will be required to implement BMPs and fully comply with all applicable State water quality laws and regulations. (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 LACDPW allowing for the overbuilding of the Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel and the City Engineer's approval of a SUSMP conforming to the requirements of Section 8.12.1695 of the Municipal Code. (e) 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. 5.5 Biological Resources 5.5.1 Environmental Effect: Construction activities and fuel -modification requirements will result in direct impacts from vegetation removal of about 30.4 acres located within the tract map area. Fuel modification requirements imposed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department could directly impact additional vegetation (Biological Resources Impact 5- 1). 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 biological resources impacts are addressed in Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Information and analysis concerning the existing biological resource, arboreal, and jurisdictional setting, including an assessment of project -related impacts, are 22 presented in the following studies: (1) "Biological Resources Assessment — Site D, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California" (PCR Services Corporation, June 24, 2008); (2) "Tree Survey Report — Site D, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California" (PCR Services Corporation, December 18, 2007); (3) "Results of Sensitive Plant Surveys Conducted for the Site D Project Site, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California" (PCR Services Corporation, December 18, 2007); and (4) "Investigation of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the U.S., Site D, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California" (PGR Services Corporation, June 24, 2008). (c) During grading operations, impacts will occur to approximately 20.4 acre of disturbed/ruderal, 3.6 acre of eucalyptus stand/disturbed, 2.8 acres of mule fat scrub, 2.1 acres of California walnut woodlands, 0.9 acre of ruderal/goldenbush scrub, and 0.3 acres of southern willow scrub. With the exception of southern willow scrub, none of these plant communities are considered rare or of high priority for inventory by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). (d) Rare natural communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. The most current version of the California Department of Fish and Game's "The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program — List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity Database" (CDFG, 2003) serves as a guide to each community's status. (e) California walnut woodlands and southern willow scrub are considered high- priority for inventory under the CNDDB because they are experiencing decline throughout its range. These habitats are marginal in its value because they are fragmented (i.e., not contiguous with similar habitats) and not expected to support sensitive species. Focused sensitive plant surveys were negative and habitat assessments for sensitive wildlife species (e.g., the least Bell's vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher) determined that these habitats are not suitable to support these species. (f) Although California walnut woodlands and southern willow scrub are associated with United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOS), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the loss, removal, and destruction of these plant communities on the project site would neither eliminate nor substantially diminish the functions and values of the on-site drainages as a regional biological resource. (g) The project would cause the direct mortality of some common wildlife species and the displacement of more mobile species to suitable habitat areas nearby. These impacts, by themselves, would not be expected to reduce general wildlife populations below self-sustaining levels within the region. (h) 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. 5.5.2 Environmental Effect: The project will permanently impact approximately 2,125 linear feet of streambed, including approximately 0.20 acres of United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional waters and approximately 4.10 acres of California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat (Biological Resources Impact 5-2). Findings: The City Council hereby makes Findings (1) and (2). 23 Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of these findings: (a) Project -related and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Project implementation will result in direct impacts to approximately 2,125 linear feet of streambed. A total of approximately 0.20 acre of ALOE/RWQCB I urisdictional waters of the United States (WoUS) and approximately 4.10 acres of CDFG jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat would be impacted by the proposed development. No direct impacts to jurisdictional waters are anticipated beyond the project boundaries. (c) The project will require a nationwide Section 404 (CWA) permit from the ALOE, a Section 401 (CWA) water quality certification from the RWQCB, and a Section 1602 (CFGC) streambed alteration agreement from the CDFG. Impacts to jurisdictional features will be subject to the regulations set forth by the ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFG and will require mitigation or result in the imposition of other conditions for the identified impacts to jurisdictional waters. (d) In recognition of the presence of jurisdictional waters, a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 5-1) has been included in the FEIR and adopted or likely to be adopted in the MRMP specifying that, unless a greater ratio is required by permitting agencies: (1) the on-site and/or off-site replacement of ACOE/RWQCB jurisdictional waters and wetlands occur at a 2:1 ratio; (2) the on-site and/or off- site replacement of CDFG jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat occur at a 2:1 ratio; and (3) the incorporation of design features into the proposed project's design and development. Implementation of that measure will reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance. 5.5.3 Environmental Effect: Proposed grading and grubbing activities will result in the removal of 83 protected ordinance -size trees, including 75 California black walnut, six willow, and two coast live oak trees, which now exist on the project site (Biological Resources Impact 5-3). 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 biological resources impacts are addressed in Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) A total of 75 California black walnut, six willow, and two coast live oak trees will be impacted by the proposed project. Each of these species is protected trees under Chapter 22.38 of the 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 tree maintenance agreement prior to removal of any protected tree or commencement of construction activities that may adversely affect the health and survival of trees to be preserved. (c) The project is subject to compliance with the provision of Chapter 22.38 (Tree Preservation and Protection) of the Municipal Code. (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 5- 24 2 through 5-4) requiring the preparation of an arborist -prepared tree study and specified replacement requirements for qualifying trees and California walnut woodlands, and promoting vegetation removal activities outside the nesting bird season. (e) 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. 5.5.4 Environmental Effect: Construction activities initiated during the nesting season, typically extending from February 15 to August 15 of each year, could impact nesting birds and raptors in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Biological Resources Impact 5-4). 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 biological resources impacts are addressed in Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) One sensitive bird species (Cooper's hawk) was observed within the project area and three additional species (white-tailed kite, sharp -shinned, hawk, and loggerhead shrike) have the potential to occur within the study area due to the presence of suitable habitat. Since these species are not protected by federal or State listings as threatened or endangered and since the loss of individuals would not threaten the regional populations. (c) Based on the presence of suitable vegetation, the removal of vegetation during the breeding season (typically extending between February 15 and August 15) could constitute a potentially significant impact. (d) Disturbing or destroying active nests is a 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. (e) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 5-4) promoting vegetation removal activities outside the nesting bird season. (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. 5.5.5 Environmental Effect: Project implementation has the potential to impede existing wildlife movement patterns across the project site (Biological Resources Impact 5-5). Findinq: 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 biological resources impacts are addressed in Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference 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) Although wildlife movement corridors exist in the general project area, the project site does not serve any connectivity or linkage role with regards to 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 Environmental Effect: If improperly designed and maintained, the proposed on-site flood control facilities and structural and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) could potentially provide a habitat for the propagation of mosquitoes and other vectors (Biological Resources Impact 5-6). 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 biological resources impacts are addressed in Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Urban stormwater runoff regulations now mandate the construction and maintenance of structural BMPs for both volume reduction _ and pollution management. Those BMPs can create additional sources of standing water and sources for mosquito propagation. (c) In the general project area, vector control is performed by the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District (GLACVCD), a County special district funded by ad valorum property and benefit assessment taxes. (d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 5-5) requiring that BMP devices shall be designed in consultation with the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District and shall be of a type which minimizes the potential for vector (public nuisance) problems. (e) 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. 5.5.7 Environmental Effect: Implementation of the proposed project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable future projects, will contribute incrementally to the continuing reduction in open space areas in the general project area and contribute to the general decline in species diversity throughout the region (Biological Resources Impact 5-7). Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1). Facts in Support of Findin : The following facts are presented in support of this finding (a) Project -related and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Implementation of the proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects will contribute incrementally to the continuing urbanization of the region. (c) The proposed project will impact approximately 2.1 acres of California walnut woodland and 0.3 acres of southern willow scrub habitat. As a result, the project 26 will add incrementally to the regional loss of plant communities considered high- priority for inventory under the CNDDB. (d) Although California walnut woodlands and southern willow scrub are considered high-priority for inventory under the CNDDB, these on-site habitats are marginal in its value because they are fragmented and not expected to support sensitive species. As a result, the incremental reduction in these habitats would not be cumulatively significant. (e) Under Section 22.38.030 of the Municipal Code, protected trees, including "native oak, walnut, sycamore and willow trees with a DBH [diameter at breast height] of eight inches or greater' shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 3:1. (f) 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. 5.6 Traffic and Circulation 5.6.1 Environmental Effect: Construction vehicles will transport workers, construction equipment, building materials, and construction debris along local and collector streets and along arterial highways within and adjacent to established residential areas and other sensitive receptors (Traffic and Circulation Impact 6-1). 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 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) Information and analysis concerning the existing traffic and circulation setting, including an assessment of project -related impacts, is presented in "Traffic Impact Analysis Report, WVUSD Site D Mixed -Use Development, Diamond Bar, California" (Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, April 23, 2009). (c) Construction traffic, including vehicles associated with the transport of heavy equipment and building materials to and from the project site and construction workers commuting to and from work, will increase 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 (2007) daily traffic volumes along project area roadway segments include: (1) Brea Canyon Road (north of Diamond Bar Boulevard) — 4,896 average daily trips (ADT); (2) Brea Canyon Road (south of Diamond Bar Boulevard) — 12,696 ADT; (3) Diamond Bar Boulevard (north of Cherrydale Drive) — 20,512 ADT; and, (4) Brea Canyon Cutoff (west of Fallow Field -Diamond Canyon) — 11,003 ADT. Since the projected 854 construction trips would be substantially less than those existing capacity figures and would primarily occur during off-peak periods, construction -related traffic would not adversely affect the existing levels of service (LOS) along those roadways. (e) Compliance with and enforcement of speed laws and other provisions of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the safe use and operation of vehicles by their drivers would be expected to keep public safety issues at a less -than - significant level. 27 M Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a number of 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). 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 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, 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) Chenydale 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. PA.] (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). 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) 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 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; (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. 29 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). Findin : The City Council hereby makes Finding (1). Facts in Support of Findinq: 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). 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 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 (PM10), 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. 30 (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 that future residential purchasers be notified of the presence or potential presence of proximal commercial uses on the subject property. (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. 5.7.3 Environmental Effect: The proposed project has the potential to create objectionable odors (Air Quality Impact 7-5). 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 FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment transporting materials to and from the site. In addition, some odors would be produced from the application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the odor source and would be of short-term duration. Such brief exposure to nuisance odors constitutes an adverse but less -than -significant air quality impact. (c) Operational odors could be produced from on-site food preparation and from diesel -fueled vehicles operating on the project site. These odors are common in the environment and subject to compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance). (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. 5.7.4 Environmental Effect: The construction and operation of the proposed project will contribute to the generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. GHG have been linked to climate change (Air Quality Impact 7-7). 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 air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7 (Air Quality) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) At this time, greenhouse gases (primarily CO2) are not regulated as a criteria pollutant and there are no significance criteria for these emissions. The current AQMP does not set CEQA targets that can be used to determine any potential threshold values. (c) Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most common greenhouse gas. Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of GHG emissions. Construction CO2 emissions were projected using the URBEMIS2007 computer model. In accordance with the projected URBEMIS construction schedule, approximately 1,347,095.44 pounds (673.55 tons) of CO2 would be produced over the approximate 299 days of active construction. 31 (d) In the case of site operations, the majority of GHG emissions, and specifically CO2, are due to vehicle travel and energy consumption. Results of the URBEMIS2007 model indicate that, on average, 87,066.64 pounds (43.53 tons) Of CO2 would be produced daily or about 31,779,323.60 pounds (15,889.66 tons) per year. (e) In accordance with the current AQMP, the emission levels in California are estimated to be 473 million metric tons (521.4 million short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2000 and 532 million metric tons (568.4 short tons) CO2 equivalent for 2010. Year 2009 (the worst-case scenario year that the emissions are based on) is then extrapolated to 526.1 million metric tons (579.9 short tons). At approximately 15,889.66 tons per year, the proposed project's operations represent less than 0.003 percent of this State's annual CO2 emissions' budget. (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. 5.8.1 Environmental Effect: Construction activities could result in a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (Noise Impact 8-1). 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 noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8 (Noise) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Noise levels associated with construction activities would be higher than the existing ambient noise levels in the project area but would subside once construction of the project is completed. (c) The most proximate residential structures include the existing single-family homes located to the immediate south and east of the project site. The nearest of these homes could be on the order of 50 feet from on-site construction activities. At that distance, the equivalent noise level (Leq) noise levels would be projected to be as high as 89 A -weighted decibel scale (dBA). (d) Construction noise is regulated in the City under the provisions of the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code limits the hours of heavy equipment operations. Notwithstanding those provisions, construction noise may continue to be a short- term nuisance to proximal noise -sensitive receptors. (e) In recognition of the presence of construction noise and the proximity of existing residential receptors, a number of mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 8-1 through 8-6) have been included in the FEIR and adopted or likely to be adopted in the MRMP which are designed to reduce short-term noise impacts to the maximum extend feasible. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce construction noise impacts to a less -than -significant level. 5.8.2 Environmental Effect: Project implementation may result in an exceedance of noise standards established in the GeneralPlan and/or Municipal Code or applicable standards formulated by other agencies (Noise Impact 8-2). 32 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 noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8 (Noise) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) The Municipal Code sets a goal level of 55 dBA for mobile -source noise intrusion on sensitive, multi -family land uses. The General Plan (Noise Element) allows for a conditionally acceptable exterior noise level of up to 65 dBA community noise equivalent level (CNEL) for residential uses as long as the dwelling units are fitted with forced air ventilation or air conditioning. Assuming the inclusion of forced air ventilation, commercial uses have an exterior goal of 65 dBA CNEL and a conditionally acceptable level of 70 dBA CNEL. (c) Based on projected traffic volumes, the 65 dBA CNEL along Diamond Bar Boulevard would fall at a distance of about 130 feet from the centerline of the road. The placement of any residential units within this distance could then expose future residents to excessive noise levels and result in a potentially significant impact. Since any commercial structures that would lie between the residential units and Diamond Bar Boulevard could serve as an effective sound wall if they were to shield the residents from a view of the road traffic, the 130 - foot distance is considered as conservative. (d) The 65 dBA CNEL deemed suitable for residential development, equipped with forced air ventilation, would fall at a distance of about 830 feet from the freeway. (e) The 70 dBA CNEL would fall at distances of about 60 feet from the centerline of Diamond Bar Boulevard. (f) The Lead Agency has identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 8-1), as required under Title 24 standards, requiring forced air ventilation in the proposed 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 impacts, a number of mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 8-7 and 8-8) have been included in the FEIR and adopted or likely to be adopted in the MRMP specifying that no residential units shall be located within 830 feet of the SR -57 Freeway's nearest travel lane unless additional sound attention is provided and no commercial units shall be located within 60 feet of the centerline of Diarnond Bar Boulevard. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce construction noise impacts to a less -than -significant level. 5.8.3 Environmental Effect: Project implementation may result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (Noise Impact 8-3). 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 noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8 (Noise) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) As traffic volumes in the general project area increase, those areas located in proximity to the area's arterial highway system will experience increased traffic 33 noise. (c) The TIA indicates that the project would add 9,276 ADT to the roadway network. Modeling 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. (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. 5.8.4 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). 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 noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8 (Noise) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Construction noise impacts are generally localized and limited to each related project site and those areas proximal to those construction operations. Cumulative construction noise impacts will be generally localized to each such project and the roadway network along which construction traffic travels. (c) As traffic volumes in the general project area increase over time, those areas located in proximity to the area's arterial highway system will experience increased traffic noise. Existing roadway volumes would, however, need to double in order to produce a perceptible noise increase. (d) Large-scale projects that contribute substantially to traffic volumes along the area's arterial highway system are subject to CEQA compliance. Similarly, the noise element of each agency's general plan specifies those roadways that are subject to excessive noise levels. As deemed appropriate, beyond those requirements already imposed by each agency's noise ordinance, land -use entities have the ability to impose additional mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval on each project in order to reduce potential short-term and long-term traffic noise impacts. (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. 5.9 Public Services and Facilities 34 5.9.1 Environmental Effect: During construction, heavy equipment, materials, and other items of value will be brought to the project site. As buildings are erected, prior to site occupancy, structures may remain unsecured and susceptible to unauthorized entry. The presence of an unsecured site and items of value could result in theft and vandalism that could increase demands upon law enforcement agencies (Public Services Impact 9- 1). Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1). Facts in Support ofFindinq: 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) Since the project site is presently vacant and since no public use is authorized thereupon, the property presently places little, if any, demand upon existing police protection services. An increased demand for police service will occur during the construction phases. (c) Provision of such services would not require construction of any new Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LACED) or California Highway Patrol (CHP) facilities or necessitate the physical alteration of any existing facilities. (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 9- 1 and 9-2) requiring the preparation of a construction security plan outlining the activities that will be instituted to secure the construction site from potential criminal incidents and providing the LACSD the opportunity to review and comment upon building plans and the configuration of the development. (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. 5.9.2 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will result in the introduction of equipment, materials, and manpower into a County -designated fire hazard area prior to the provision of water system improvements designated to respond to on-site and near -site fire hazards (Public Services Impact 9-2). Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1). Facts in Support of Findinq: 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) The proposed project must fully comply with all applicable provisions of the "Uniform Building Code" (UBC) and "Uniform Fire Code" (UFC), as modified, and other applicable provisions of 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 County Fire Department's (LACFD) "Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines for Projects Located in Fire Zone 4 or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" requirements. (d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has 35 identified a number of standard conditions of approval (Conditions of Approval 9- 3 through 9-5) requiring the Los Angeles County Fire Department's (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 Environmental Effect: The public school located closest to the project site is Castle Rock Elementary School (2975 Castle Rock Road). Construction activities could constitute an attractive nuisance to children located near or passing by the project site and construction traffic could impose a safety hazard to children and/or become disruptive to school activities and operations (Public Services Impact 9-3). 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 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) Since no substantial increase in the number of new households within the general project area would be anticipated in order to accommodate the project's construction, no direct construction -related impacts on WVUSD facilities have been identified. (d) Construction traffic accessing the site from Cold Springs Road will cross Castle Rock Road in the vicinity of Castle Rock Elementary School. Construction vehicles will transport equipment, building materials, and could discharge construction debris along streets adjacent to established residential areas, including the school, where children would be present. (e) Construction activities may present an attractive nuisance, defined as any condition which is unsafe or unprotected and, thereby, dangerous to children and which may reasonably be expected to attract children to the property and risk injury by playing with, in, or on it. (f) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a number of standard conditions of approval (Conditions of Approval 6- 2, 6-3, 6-4, and 9-6) restricting construction traffic along Castle Rock Road and Pasado Drive, requiring the preparation of a construction traffic safety plan and a traffic control plan, and requiring the fencing and signage of the construction site. (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 and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.9.4 Environmental Effect: With a resident population of approximately 662 persons and an existing LACSD staffing ratio of one sworn officer for each 1,082 residents, in order to maintain existing staffing levels, the LACSD would need an additional 0.61 sworn deputies (Public Services Impact 9-4). Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1). 36 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) Actual police protection personnel needs will be determined over time, based on that department's experience with the project's residential and commercial components, areawide incident trends, and other factors, and not derived purely through a projection of the number of on-site residents. (c) There is no formal basis to quantify project -related law enforcement impacts, no established nexus allowing for the collection of developer impact fees for police protection services, and no direct linkage between approved development and the expansion of police resources, the purchase and new or the replacement of existing equipment, and the hiring of new sworn and non -sworn personnel. (e) Neither the LACSD nor the CHP have not established a functional mechanism for the collection of LACSD or CHP impact fees and there exists no formal basis to quantify project -related impacts upon police protection services. (f) Because funding for LACSD personnel, equipment, and facilities is derived through ad valorum taxation and based on yearly allocations by the County, the County has the ability to effectively respond to LACSD resource demands. (g) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 9-2) specifying that, prior to the issuance of building permits, the LACSD review and comment upon building plans and the configuration of the development. (h) 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. 5.9.5 Environmental Effect: The introduction of 202 new residential dwellings and 153,985 square feet of new commercial use will increase existing demands on LACFD facilities, equipment, and personnel, predicating an incremental need for facility expansion, the purchase of new and/or replacement equipment, and contributing to the need for addition LACFD personnel (Public Services Impact 9-5). 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) Water service to the project site will be provided by the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD), via existing water mains. The LACFD requires a minimum fire flow of 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) for a two-hour duration. Existing water mains are capable of delivering those minimum flows to the project site. (c) With regards to commercial projects, the LACFD stipulates that the minimum fire flow and fire hydrant requirements shall be determined by the fire chief or fire marshal. (d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, 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 school impact fees 38 or has entered into an AB 2926 authorized school fee mitigation agreement or is not subject to the school impact fee exaction. (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 and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.9.7 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will increase the resident population of the City, including the number of school-age children, incremental increasing existing spatial and resource demands placed on the Diamond Bar Public Library (Public Services Impact 9-7). 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) The Diamond Bar Library is 9,935 gross square feet in size and houses a collection consisting of 89,446 books and other library materials. (c) The County Library's current service level guidelines for planning purposes are a minimum of 0.50 gross square foot of library facility space per capita and 2.75 items (books and other library materials) per capita. Based on an estimated service area population of 56,233 persons, as derived from United States Census data, the Diamond Bar Library would need a 28,115 square foot facility and 154,640 items in order to meet that standard. (d) The proposed project is projected to add about 662 new residents to the City. That population increase would create additional demand for library service and would further affect the County Library's ability to adequately serve the existing and future residents of the Diamond Bar Library's service area. Based on the County Library's service level guidelines, based on project -related demand, the Diamond Bar Library would require an additional 331 gross square feet of facility space and an additional 1,820 new items (books and other library materials). (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. 5.9.8 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will increase the resident population of the City of Diamond Bar and generate a projected need for 2.12 acres (approximately 92,390 square feet) of additional parkland within the City (Public Services Impact 9-8). 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) Section 21.32.040 (Park Land Dedications and Fees) in Chapter 21.32 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code provides for the dedication of real property and/or the payment of in -lieu fees to the City for park and recreational purposes. 39 In accordance therewith, the proposed 202 dwelling units (assuming the classification of those units as multi -family dwellings) would generate a need for 2.12 acres (approximately 92,390 square feet) of additional parkland within the City. (c) As specified in Section 21.32.040(e)(2), only the payment of fees shall be required in subdivisions of 50 parcels or less, except that when a condominium project, stock cooperative, or community apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling units, dedication of land may be required even though the number of actual parcels may be less than 50. Although the proposed development plan does not include a public recreational component, the City is authorized to require real property dedication rather or in addition to the payment of park fees. (d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a standard condition of approval (Condition of Approval 9-8) specifying that, prior to the approval of the final subdivision map, pursuant to Section 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 in the amount authorized thereunder. (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. 5.9.9 Environmental Effect: The approval of other reasonably foreseeable future development projects within the general project area will increase existing demands on the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and on the Los Angeles County Fire Department, increase the number of school -aged children served by the Walnut Valley Unified School District, and increase the demand for park and recreational facilities within the City (Public Services Impact 9-9). 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) Based on a Statewide, regional, areawide, or local assessment of need, public agencies have the ability to construct new facilities, purchase new equipment, and add personnel in response to identified demand. Local agencies have the ability to deny or condition individual development applications based on their assessment of potential project -related impacts upon law enforcement and fire protection agencies, facilities, and personnel. Public agencies have the ability to respond to those changes through increases or decreases in annual budgetary allocations provided to police and fire protection agencies, including the LACSD and LACFD. (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 40 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) All qualifying residential and non-residential development projects located within the WVUSD's district boundaries are required to pay school impact fees. Notwithstanding the findings of the WVUSD's fee justification analysis, the payment of applicable school impact fees or the execution of an AB 2926 mitigation agreement constitutes full and complete mitigation for project -related impacts on WVUSD facilities. (f) In November 2007, the area's voters approved General Obligation Bond Measure S ($64.6 million Academic Facilities Measure) and Measure Y ($15.2 million Physical Education Facilities Measure). As a result of those ballot measures, WVUSD schools will receive needed repairs and upgrades. (g) 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. 5.10 Utilities and Service Systems 5.10.1 Environmental Effect: Wastewater collection facilities do not presently exist on the project site and will not be available until the infrastructure improvements required to accommodate the proposed land uses are constructed (Utilities and Service Systems Impact 10-1). 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 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) The provision of potable water and 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 Safety (Cal/OSHA) (Section 1524-1526, CCR) standards. (c) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no standard conditions or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.10.2 Environmental Effect: The project's residential and commercial components are projected to generate approximately 89,435 gallons of wastewater per day (0.09 mgd). Applying a peaking factor of 2.7, the peaked flow rate would be about 241,475 gallons of wastewater per day (0.25 mgd) (Utilities and Service Systems Impact 10-2). Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: 41 (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) 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 42 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 FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) 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 (f) Based on the potential presence of significant cultural resources impacts, a number of mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 11-1 through 11-3) have 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 Environmental Effect: Ground disturbance activities could result in impacts to on-site paleontological resources, including fossil remains, from the Puente Formation (Cultural Resources Impact 11-2). 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 cultural resources impacts are addressed in Section 4.11 (Cultural Resources) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Results of the paleontological resources records search revealed that the study area is underlain by the Puente Formation (also known as the Monterey Formation in the region), which is a formation known to contain diverse and well- preserved marine vertebrate fossils. The results of the pedestrian survey confirmed the exposure of the Puente Formation on the project site identified four fossil localities in backdirt piles from geotechnical core sampling. The project site is considered to be highly sensitive for paleontological resources. (c) Based on the potential presence of significant cultural resources impacts, a number of mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures 11-4 through 11-8) have 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 paleontologist meeting the qualifications established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists be retained to develop and implement a paleontological monitoring plan. A paleontological monitor, supervised by the paleontologist, shall monitor all excavations in the Puente Formation or excavations anticipated to extend 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, treatment, and curation. A copy of the report shall be filed with the City and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and shall accompany any curated fossils. Implementation of those measures will reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance. 5.11.3 Environmental Effect: Grading activities conducted on other sites located within the general project area could result in impacts to any historic or prehistoric resources that 44 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 11-3). 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 cultural resources impacts are addressed in Section 4.11 (Cultural Resources) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) All cumulative project activities remain subject to site-specific environmental review 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 -specific 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 Effect: 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). 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 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 45 construction term, the site will take on a distinctively urban character and shall generally be perceived as an urban use. (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. (f) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no project conditions or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.12.2 Environmental Effect: The project's implementation will alter the site's existing topography and necessitate the construction of numerous retaining walls (Aesthetic Impact 12-2). 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 aesthetics impacts are addressed in Section 4.12 (Aesthetics) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Variable height Loffel (Loffelstein) retaining walls, ranging from several feet to about 23 feet high, are proposed near the mid -slope of the 2:1 fill slopes between each of the super pads. Although the proposed retaining walls exceeds the height limitations specified in Sections 22.20.040, 22.22.080(b) -(c), and 22.52.020 of the Municipal Code, the proposed walls would be authorized under the provisions of the proposed specific plan. (c) Large retaining walls, absent integrated landscaping and irrigation, can become dominant visual elements that produce a sharp contrast between retained natural features and introduced cultural modifications. All walls over eight feet in height are cribwalls designed to incorporate landscaping as an integral design element. (d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has identified a standard 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 Development Director, for all proposed retaining walls. Retaining wall plans shall include landscape and irrigation details sufficient to ensure that each of those elements are, as appropriate, integrated into wall design and that the interrelationship between those elements are considered from structural integrity and aesthetic viewpoints. (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. 5.12.3 Environmental Effect: The introduction of new residential and commercial uses will add new sources of artificial 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 Findin The following facts are presented in support of this finding: 46 (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 purpose 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). 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 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 exceed current development assumptions and necessitate the provision of unplanned services and facilities beyond the project boundaries (Growth Inducement Impact 13-1). 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 growth -inducing impacts are addressed in Section 4.13 (Growth Inducement) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) California State law requires that every city and county prepare and adopt a long- term, comprehensive general plan for its future development. The general plan serves as a "constitution for development' and the foundation upon which all land -use decisions in a city or county are to be based. (c) Implementation of the proposed project will change existing land -use policies with regards to the allowable use of the project site, resulting in an intensification of uses within the City beyond that now envisioned in the City General Plan. Since planning for public services is, in whole or in part, based on existing and projected demands for those services, changes in public land -use policies have the potential to impose additional unplanned demands 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 required for public facility use. As such, although project implementation will result in a 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. (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. 13.2 Environmental Effect: (Growth Inducement Impact 13-2). 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 growth -inducing impacts are addressed in Section 4.13 (Growth Inducement) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) The construction of 202 dwelling units and the introduction of 153,985 square feet of commercial use will increase the City's population by an estimated 662 individuals and directly create an estimated 462 new permanent jobs. (c) The size and duration of the proposed project is not sufficient to predicate any substantial in -migration of new workers into the general project area. The project's incremental contribution to localized, regional, and national employment opportunities would not create substantial significant secondary impacts. 48 (d) Project 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. R FUMFOR=1111911171 5 17J 16' # _ tT 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 Project: 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: 49 (a) The City's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section 6.0 (Alternatives Analysis) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Under this alternative, no new housing units and no new commercial square footage would be constructed on the project site. (c) The "no project' alternative generally reflects the conditions and associated environmental impacts that would predictably occur should the Lead Agency elect to either deny the proposed project or fail to take affirmative action on the proposed application, resulting in, at least, the short-term retention of the site in its existing condition. The denial of the current development application or the cessation of current process would, however, neither preclude the submission of a subsequent development application either by the current project proponent or another party nor ensure the site's retention as an open space area. (d) With regards to construction air quality impacts, under the proposed project, combined emissions or reactive organic gases (ROG) were estimated at 136.02 pounds/day. Since that value exceeds the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria, construction impacts would be deemed to be significant. Since, under the "no project" alternative, no development would occur on the site, construction emissions would be eliminated and short-term air quality impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. (e) With regards to operational air quality impacts, the proposed project is projected to create ROG, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and carbon dioxide (CO) emissions in excess of SCAQMD's suggested daily threshold criteria. Since, under the "no project" alternative, no development would occur on the project site, operational emissions would be eliminated and long-term air quality impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. (f) With regards to cumulative air quality impacts, independent of the Lead Agency's actions concerning the project site, related project activities will continue to incrementally contribute to regional air ernissions within the SCAB. However, since site-specific contributions will not add to those conditions, cumulative air quality impacts would be deemed to be less than significant. Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives: The City Council finds that the "No Project" alternative would not substantially meet the stated project objectives. FeasibilitV: Although a substantial portion of the project site is owned by the District, the District has declared the District Property surplus and seeks to dispose of their real property holdings in order to raise 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 approval were to occur), 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 provisions of California Education Code commencing with Section 17455. City agrees to use its best efforts to sell the City Property for the fair market value. The parties agree to cooperatively work with each other to coordinate the sale of Site D." In the absence of public and/or private purchase of the project site for the purpose of open space preservation, there exists no mechanism to ensure the long-term preservation of the project site in an undeveloped condition. As a result, absent that participation, the "No Project" alternative is deemed to be infeasible. 50 7.2 Alternative No. 2 ("Public Facilities" Alternative) Alternative Project Description: 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 the purpose of CEQA compliance, the FOR assumed the sale of the project site to a private entity, such as a religious organization or operator of a parochial school. Under this alternative, the project site would be developed to include a 73,000 square foot (500 -student) private school and a 147,000 square foot (2,500 -seat) church. A fellowship area would be developed within the sanctuary building which would be made available for public use as a banquet facility. Improvements would include a parochial school campus, including classrooms, library, and approximately 12,000 square foot (1,000 -seat capacity) multi-purpose auditorium, outdoor recreational facilities, offices and administrative facilities, maintenance area, and caretaker's residence. The gymnasium would serve the private school and be available for the community for use after school hours, including after school programs administered by the Boys and Girls Club or similar organization. In addition, once operational, other on-site activities are assumed to include non-residential child-care services, family -care services, activities and uses catering to youth groups, music and drama ministries, counseling, prayer meetings, bible study, nutrition programs, homeless outreach and assistance programs, and other associated educational, job training, and community services activities. The campus would also contain 6,000 square feet of retail uses (book store). Comparison of the Effects of the Alternative to the Effects of the Proposed Project: The City Council finds that the "Public Facilities" 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: (a) The City's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section 6.0 (Alternatives Analysis) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Implementation of this alternative will result in the generation of approximately 2,478 daily vehicle trips during a typical weekday, including 336 AM peak -hour trips. In comparison, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 9,276 daily two-way vehicle trips, including 272 trips during the weekday AM and 650 trips during the PM peak hours. (c) Based on the nature of this alternative, trip generation characteristics would differ between weekdays and on Sunday. Based on the Sunday operation, this alternative would generate approximately 5,508 daily (Sunday) vehicle trips, including 1,412 AM peak -hour trips. In comparison, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 9,276 daily two-way vehicle trips, including 272 trips during the weekday AM and 650 trips during the PM peak hours. 51 (d) With regards to construction air quality impacts, under the proposed project, combined emissions or ROG were estimated at 136.02 poundstday. Since this value exceeds the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria, construction impacts would be deemed to be significant. Although, under this alternative, on- site development activities may be reduced (220,000 square feet of public facility use as compared to 153,985 square feet of neighborhood -serving commercial use and 202 dwelling units), maximum daily construction activities would be anticipated to be similar. As a result, construction air quality impacts would be assumed to be similar to those associated with the proposed project and would remain significant. (e) With regards to operational air quality impacts, the proposed project is projected to create ROG, NOx, and CO emissions in excess of the SCAQMD suggested daily threshold criteria. Implementation of this alternative would result in the generation of approximately 2,478 daily vehicle trips during a typical weekday (compared to 9,278 daily two-way vehicle trips associated with the proposed project), including 336 AM peak -hour trips (compared to 650 PM peak -hour trips associated with the proposed project). As a result, under this alternative, 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 Obiectives: 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. Feasibility: Excluding economic considerations which were not addressed in the FEIR, the City Council finds that the "Public Facilities" alternative is feasible. 7.3 Alternative No. 3 ("Community Commercial" Alternative) Alternative Project Description: Under this alternative, the project site would be developed for commercial use in accordance with the "Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)" standards outlined in Chapter 22.10 (Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts) of the Municipal Code. As specified in Section 22.10.020 (Purpose of Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts) therein, the C-1 zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for a wide range of retail shopping and service uses, primarily intended to serve the needs of City residents. The allowable floor -area -ratio (FAR) for non-residential development shall be from 0.25 to 1.00 (Section 21.10.040). Based on a FAR of 0.35 applied to the estimated net acreage (20.2 net acres), a total of 307,969 square feet of commercial use would be developed on the project site. The site would be developed as a multi -tenant 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 35 feet. On-site parking would be provided at a ratio of one space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area plus one space for each 1,000 square feet of outdoor display area (Section 22.30.030). The alternative -specific grading plan could closely replicate that associated with the SDSP. gs:on of the Effects of the Alternative tofects of the Proposed Prosect: Thecil finds that the "Community Commalternative is not "environmentally to the proposed project since it wouldsult in the avoidance or substantial of those significant construction, ional, and cumulative air quality impacts associated with the proposed project. Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) The City's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section 6.0 (Alternatives Analysis) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) With regards to construction air quality impacts, under the proposed project, combined emissions or ROG were estimated at 136.02 pounds/day. Since this value exceeds the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria, construction impacts would be deemed to be significant. Under this alternative, on-site development activities may be increased (307,969 square feet of neighborhood - serving commercial use as compared to 153,985 square feet of comparable commercial use and 202 dwelling units). However, because mass grading of the project site would be required to create building pads and an on-site circulation system, maximum daily construction activities would be anticipated to be similar. As a result, construction air quality impacts would be assumed to be similar to those associated with the proposed project and would remain significant. (c) With regards to operational air quality impacts, the proposed project is projected to create ROG, NOx, and CO emissions in excess of the SCAQNID suggested daily threshold criteria. Under this alternative, the resulting retail shopping center is projected to generate substantially greater volumes of peak hour and daily vehicle trips that the proposed residential and commercial development. Notwithstanding the elimination of 202 dwelling units, the doubling of the square footage of on-site commercial uses would result in a net increase in the number of peak hour and daily vehicle trips generated under this alternative. Based on that increase in alternative -related traffic, operational air quality impacts would be projected to remain significant. (d) 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 Protect Objectives: The City Council finds that the "Community Commercial" alternative would not substantially meet the stated project objectives in that it would not provide for the requisite percentage of residential development. Feasibility: Excluding economic considerations which are not addressed in the FEIR, the City Council finds that the "Community Commercial" alternative is feasible. 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 Project: 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: (a) The City's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section 6.0 (Alternatives Analysis) in the FEIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) With regards to construction air quality impacts, under the proposed project, combined emissions or ROG were estimated at 136.02 pounds/day. Since this value exceeds the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria, construction impacts would be deemed to be significant. Under this alternative, on-site development activities may be substantially decreased (60 dwelling units compared 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 on-site circulation system, maximum daily construction activities would be anticipated to be similar. As a result, construction air quality impacts would be assumed to be similar to those associated with the proposed project and would, therefore, remain significant. (c) With regards to operational air quality impacts, the proposed project is projected to create ROG, NOx, and CO emissions in excess of the SCAQMD suggested daily threshold criteria. Residential projects generate substantially lower volumes of peak hour and daily vehicle trips that comparably sized retail shopping center projects. Similarly, although some differences exist based on the type of residential development proposed, projects with fewer dwelling units can be assumed to generate a lesser number of peak hour and daily vehicle trips that projects with a greater number of dwelling units. ' As a result, under this alternative, 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. (d) 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. 54 Effectiveness in Meeting Project Objectives: The City Council finds that the "Low - Density 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 targets. Feasibility: Excluding economic considerations which are not addressed in the FEIR, the City Council finds that the "Low -Density Residential" alternative is feasible. 7,5 Alternative No. 5 ("High -Density Residential" Alternative) Project Description: Under this alternative, the project site would be developed for residential use in accordance with the "High Density Residential" (RH)" standards outlined in Chapter 22.08 (Residential Zoning Districts) of the Municipal Code. As specified, the maximum allowable density in this district is 20 dwelling units per acre. Based on the estimated net acreage (20.2 net acres), a total of approximately 404 dwelling units could be constructed on the property. 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 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 project. Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) The City's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section 6.0 (Alternatives Analysis) in the FOR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) As stipulated in Section 22.22.040 (Density) of the Municipal Code, the maximum number of units that may be allowed on a given parcel subject to the hillside management ordinance is calculated in compliance with specified requirements. In accordance with the City's hillside management ordinance, a maximum of 524 dwelling units can be constructed within the project area. The number of dwelling units that would be constructed under this alternative (404 units) is less than the number allowable under the City's hillside management ordinance. (c) 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 comparison, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 9,276 daily two-way vehicle trips, including 272 trips during the weekday AM and 650 trips during the PM peak hours. (d) With regards to construction air quality impacts, under the proposed project, combined emissions or ROG were estimated at 136.02 pounds/day. Since this value exceeds the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria, construction impacts would be deemed to be significant. Under this alternative, on-site development activities would consist of 404 attached dwelling units, compared to 55 153,985 square feet of neighborhood -serving commercial use and 202 dwelling units. Because mass grading of the project site would be required 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 in 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.o 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. (6) 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). 56 (7) The construction and sale of attached residential condominium units present future homebuyers with additional purchase options and price variations allowing homebuyers to better match housing choices with household needs and demands. (8) The creation of a mixed-use development will promote the attainment or regional jobs -to - housing ratio objectives established by regional governmental entities and produce corresponding environmental benefits. (9) Project approval will allow for the productive use of an underutilized property in the City's General Plan, convert a tax-exempt property to a private use, and introduce a land use that will generate sales and other taxes for the benefit of the City and its constituents. (10) Improvements to the Diamond Bar Boulevard/Brea Canyon Road intersection will improve traffic flow in and through that intersection. (11) Payment of school impact, park, and traffic impact fees and other exactions will facilitate the ability of the City and other agencies to undertake improvements to specific public facilities. (12) Adoption of the SDSP will further the intent of SB 375 by facilitating horizontal mixed use with pedestrian connections between the residential and commercial components. Without transit infrastructure (other than bus routes), mixed use developments can play a greater role in local efforts to reduce VMT. 9.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS As described above, the proposed project would produce significant unavoidable adverse impact in the following three topical areas: (1) Air Quality (Construction Impact); (2) Air Quality (Operational Impact): and (3) Air Quality (Cumulative Impact). Each of those identified significant environmental effects will continue to manifest as significant impacts notwithstanding the City Council's adoption or likely adoption of those mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. In order to determine whether the proposed project's potential environmental impacts are acceptably overridden by the project's anticipated benefits, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the City to balance the potential benefits of the proposed project against the project's potential unavoidable significant environmental impacts. The City Council finds that the previously stated benefits outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts 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 in these Findings. The City Council has identified economic and social benefits and important public policy objectives that will result from implementation of the proposed project. The City Council has sought to balance these substantial economic and social benefits against the significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the proposed project. Given the substantial social and economic benefits that will accrue to the City, to the District, 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 identified significant environmental impacts. 57 N U W a 2> a c n c d a ma a.o N N U- m m m m E U) O C O >'C c E o.a) TN C W IL O Q LU U M 0 m 0 CJ c i'a U a a U �U C N C c6 O N 21 L C N C O (Q o U V O O .O t6 3 `0 C N Qm N u=i N > oto �ooUm a .� o c m - G«O- 'O tl) i6 @ �p > E N S m o r E n SJu)o -, Em m mm L mV) a E y E E s o as 11 O o C w f6 O 2 C l6 N c Q 0 2 U) sca J o O a C 3 N T O 0 0 0 r N U) a C .0 y Q C U = E m .� 22 W 'C "O 0) N o U (6 U N C oUm t0 �' m Em m o_a) WM N m O C 0 E> 3 � co C V Y O N "' N t 5 C [6 c- C U U ;1= U O U N +'C-• O N O C E O � Q E y Q a t6 C tN/) l6 v - M CL N m U E :V U Q U m a U L N C O cG C Q p N R Y N M CC m—� c N d co O E N L C T 'C O C 'S NO � Q � J � Q O �_ t6 .i a 0 C( aL-� E t O a m m m_o`m�ll ` mE c oo c 7ots a U c > ��:5 �Z-oa m m m 'uo m c a mom' m E c_ s ro _cc.-JCf) Uo) � N CE) Nm E@ oaEiEf:�mo =gym c tea. m� om o>(1) `mr ��oo 'r .6 m� Eo mm N N m V N C O_ � ]_ E o o CC c cV ou Emo E o 2.0 (D O Emo m2-,50 .N .2 m 0)o . rno m N N C ro Q C -1, C, mm cN t> E a cE c° oTa� cm oQ Em m� a)V mo �c r o 2��OmUCC U) f- r � t9 Q. C Cn N a R2 c E (p t6 CD a N Cr 2 C M' c E O M a� E''V E o > ❑ U > U D .. o Y c U 0 `a C_ p La:C m.N O LL a .rnc0 mU c DC7 c CrE�C� m � mU�moUi ? m m� 0o o oU o i s - m m E. C)c CPU N O N C a m LLJ aN G C O N >Ef°c 0 $ o a N Q ® N N 6 Q Ea N N c y Nt' -Ecom N N cdN O'O r `o rn a) N E , o_ caUca 'O N 5 C0 U C O N C _ O O C N .CC ry O .O+ O a'r. C. O '- Q U u) O O es o CydCL f Ecu m U o w O-+• r N O CS � _ �E�aooiE�mmo m c c O Q CO, NN C> Ra G] Uoa-,a a.�o`mEmQ� Ou E i C C C � C Q N Nm�a)U mc.roN o m U E o m aru O N oa Y C U Oru p O U w m:e�mCi� o `o��J� Q a C=1 0=E02�o0 m U ` W E a U O oEoW� `Hl m oU o �- m Q 0.�mQ a 2> a c n c d a ma a.o N N U- m m m m E U) O C O >'C c E o.a) TN C W IL O Q LU U M 0 m 0 CJ c i'a U a a U �U C N C c6 O N 21 L C N C O (Q o U V O O .O t6 3 `0 C N Qm N u=i N > oto �ooUm a .� o c m - G«O- 'O tl) i6 @ �p > E N S m o r E n SJu)o -, Em m mm L mV) a E y E E s o as 11 O o C w f6 O 2 C l6 N c Q 0 2 U) sca J o O a C 3 N T O 0 0 0 r N U) a C .0 y Q C U = E m .� 22 W 'C "O 0) N o U (6 U N C oUm t0 �' m Em m o_a) WM N m O C 0 E> 3 � co C V Y O N "' N t 5 C [6 c- C U U ;1= U O U N +'C-• O N O C E O � Q E y Q a t6 C tN/) l6 v - M CL N m U E :V U Q U m a U L N C O cG C Q p N R Y N M CC m—� c N d co O E N L C T 'C O C 'S NO � Q � J � Q O �_ t6 .i a 0 C( aL-� E t O a m m m_o`m�ll ` mE c oo c 7ots a U c > ��:5 �Z-oa m m m 'uo m c a mom' m E c_ s ro _cc.-JCf) Uo) � N CE) Nm E@ oaEiEf:�mo =gym c tea. m� om o>(1) `mr ��oo 'r .6 m� Eo mm N N m V N C O_ � ]_ E o o CC c cV ou Emo E o 2.0 (D O Emo m2-,50 .N .2 m 0)o . rno m N N C ro Q C -1, C, mm cN t> E a cE c° oTa� cm oQ Em m� a)V mo �c r o 2��OmUCC U) f- r � t9 G fU m C E C C C C m C E E U€ U E U E o- C a- C U N Q C Y 2N 2 2� O G :• m 4) e N .E O U O U O U O U�� a m a t/) N a to i m m m LL m CO C'•a N o O O -0 N m NC p`) OI O) N O) N U •-• C C '6 N a a N a C Gm E O . ®.;W W 07 C CO E c] C co G L j D_ U> O 0 ) L N @ CO m O — O N Y N v c c N E C d C N s N C 2i N mE Q m ti c m N m N a m Q> N N r a E L m C N O) N N E w c N m G . L a E J m 17 C O N U N N N @ C C C O m U .> N a N L O O r O> E O C 0/ ,'�F C N N.O N N Q� @ N c>6 E r°n) •a� umi (G) 3 s o o) N a�Eo- 3 �a) E �'F U°sm >� o V O O -O O7 C C Y N G N N O m m (D O M N N e O C C o O N . C E W m m > � d C O N N C O N m D a <6 O NN N G N N N N C N O N -E N U •j O N j� E @ `. a G. m W Q m ._ T C E 0 `a Q E N Y m Y O s 6 C @ N W �T U @ O- o O rn N C m V) m p' E O c m)o O m e m C'O N N N o N L N� N Y C m m C L O) N E N N U p V .O N _ m m Q a2 E C O L) O N O •m aL- }, II LL r G — m ...N a N� rn -o m .v � rri � •@ L �, w ac) aci s m U m a o u) E v C N to L U y= u) L o c ") aJ m v O E 1 m N L p N }j N U m a) w N E Y D N ® Vl rn N L N N O C W O T N C y N O N N N om— E O U O @ >, 2 ) N G N T .@ E N m@ 9 N N U L > a'> O f0 O U O Q U m >. O 0 O' U N> N O.co — ttJ O N G E O C o "NO O 0 z@ N T o N (n "�' N E m C .0 c rs G L E —, E�— N l6 E c0 o v N — Q d D NU mad a' c 3 f U SN mEO C NL Q Q I c E a— —NN m Na�Cc.D N N U N N G fn b !6 _ N Q. @ L C m L NO mN U Y U D O . @ N a= aL-• NUJ D -O Q U) U1 L N }j N O y N N ) >'S. C Q N @ U @ m -O @ Z7 7 Q' @ C OU m � N OU i — 'O O C _ O ,E. H O a U U 'Cm6 0 N E� O w N O C N N m a c a `o > N> d. C a N Q .� Q N U m m o U U D• Y `r U C U `= U m Q N O '�- O O O d U L Q L O O O Q Q N t I- @ L Q O F- o b U Z Z ® �n 10 ll� N c� V u7 co r ro rn r O c- o� N W N G N m 'a P cu a a Q) Q p p O O O C to ® p t5 cc m N ID 'w-...�. N E- E o E E� a> ID Foo U EQ) CC.� 6 d @ O>❑ O>❑ i W m C m C O C j �❑ O O .O O O@ �� w -" B E'Z CUJ. a)—dnf-_ L0 [r69 @ G ~ G N N N N 7 N N 0--o 0), a) C N= N C Q N C E�moc@U cN O O m Q O N O N C N .O O L 4= L C Y N�NL a) ,-, 0 -> N O) O @ 3 > Qo��E NU cON�'oL E aa)) mE2 @N=ccm�"=>NBoaoE � c� 'c w 0 0— 0` m p 10 (D o m o CD0 Q= N TN@>@O -- M.2 U N p N @ E NN CL-mL" s o a) m=aOU++ .� > N 3 o NO—��.Ct QN N � o o y N i� I0 m E -a •� m_. p_ N .> '0 N 0 9= @ U R L 'Oin co 'v N O Z7 N L l3 N N O C 3C+ E N N N m C C O O U O U l0 0 2 C EQ E�o C }U 0t6 @ N 7 .O N 0 —L U _ ,@ �O — _'6 V- N J E Y O N N U) p N L N T O N N N m C 0 p 0@ (Q N U — C N O N E Q E p C 0 `° U N +C-• @ 2.2 C O C N U (CS OOON E OC++,NG nm <.> + ONCZ@ ° U 3 E U.� m- 0 CTaN Nc �ZN 'Cm N N N 0oN G`2K"o¢ ENE@o°o � .S QO0OX N._ 00 0 = Q ` ¢ N 'O_ o +L- O O"p.pN pON O�Ec C. �3=C 7y@ LL M ULCO mVy-.� 0o = y+� O N ' N mr .0 C N N C'6 Y N p C [6 "' v- O.0 N m @ N�� Q Y C •� .m.+ S -O N a2'6 -6 m— E C@ N 5- -Fa Fu 2,0 N t2 N N T±O N N . N o 3,f- 'f;¢ N Q m E E Q a> pn p O m O r o o m N NQ U N.0 � N@ 41mU _O a)•C'Op N.CE O @�@ �@:EL li 'C .N CU0--o @ N Ih —_ c 4 U 6 O N 4) U7 NS NCN@ M.m �Q$oN� ��' .j`o N0 L.��UtmUa Oo UUI vUw@- �p-. UN E@Ndry' O@Om L r U O@mON N0O =:Nv L.�NUCN.+ •o oo.�i �(O S1Q � n�,?� ac U@ L +° poEa"iNam��m�mQo K' @ Q S Q U 2 C 2 .O '6 N Q Q -__ o oo '-' @ E U C y U E o o b. 0 �. m '-e-o m y my C. o m N E = ?m ink 'ern c� _ m N N a`)a' wCD °`. y " o c7 i6 =o m d) V n e z;, E, E 0 Uw �w m e o .� U O >o U ) o �o U N C N'p L C O D mC) oU mm w N v� N O CLO V Y C N C ' N Q Na) E N j _a O � to 'O O. W L N S "C OM N vi ;O 'O 9 ul B N O)4 p O N L C N I_T t6 }>-, N U UV1 O -O N p N -N- N m N I N N 3 C 11 N .L-. .� N tut L n O Nj� ,C .: I u n -7' N m U 'c-ot(DN N `o n E p- m w N N N V) C �C j`C LC O. ccE (a t3 Ein' .. N0) p _ >'p�� NQS UO Iz C py'ocNI -a) .E�o N o6, .N 0- E ��N0 E o a CL owa a N o o�� �. mama' u U E ° U1 OQ N" C C N O N N N y0 IC6 N CL.0 �O [p[�� CN Q"., p N E Q ® s E. c X12 ..;.. Qa �C N O N C C m OLL N N N Ea C N O �) m N o"D N N oio 5.c .��� oo m m�Em CNy caE un > N ca N U) C N L C p p) C N S .E m.a?t �cN c m .N� fNo SEE E m mao0E Nm N �N0.o EN ro Eoo o.�Em C m N U .N NU> U N N O C O� N A N O N E' _55 O O O E2oc N N ��oo� U@ C s u> LcQoo N E N L.aZ' UI U N N L T m .a v N in c Yn c N o N �N�aE ao 0 �Nm tea_ `oaNN U) N N E' N i� O �° m O U) 2 N m CO N D N f`6 c6 0 �✓ N � B'm'� C O O O DO E NN C>N'C NOS OTON c -T e N N N D O aE o'v NN O. NY -w N U' nm� NICE m u)a ua`�i - U 0- (n .E ca cu Q A w2 F Q �- .N m"L-. L N N Q d O` N F- q �n cn r m LLC; RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING OF . DIAMOND "' A a 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 . BREA CANYON ROAD1 DIAMOND 4. AR BOULEVARD, D 1 D BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002-900, a7 4.L0 908714-002-902,8714-00 2-903 ,, 3714-015-001) 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; 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), Low/Medium Density Residential (RLM), 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 10.16 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 the development of the Specific Plan area. 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; 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-, 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; 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; On April 13, April 27, and May 11, 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; The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zone Change represents a consistent, logical, GPA Nn. 2007-03 and ZC No. 2007-04 appropriate and rational land use designation and implementing tool that furthers the goals and objectives of the City General Plan; and 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. 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 econornic 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 GPA No. 2007-03 and ZC No. 2001-04 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 development. Maintain consistency with the capabilities of the City and special districts to provide essential services which 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 Plan document 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, 4 GPA No. 2007-03 and ZC No. 2007-04 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 development incorporate an internal circulation system that is not reliant on those of the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and 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. GPA No. 2007-03 and ZC No. 2007-04 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 are included in the Site D Specific Plan regulating development within the project area, which will minimize potential loss 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, 6 GPA No. 2007-03 and ZC No. 2007-04 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. 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. CPA No. 200703 and ZC Na. 2007-04 ® 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; b. City Council approval of Zone Change No. 2007-04 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 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, 8714-002-901, 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. GPA Na 2007-03 and ZC No. 2007-N APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11"' DAY OF MAY 2010, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M Tony Torng, Chairman I, 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 11t" day of May, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary GPA No. 2007-03 and ZC No. 2007-04 VAMMKII M A. RECITALS 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, 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; 5. The 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), Low/Medium Density Residential (RLM), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan; (c) Specific Plan No. 200701 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 10.16 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. 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; On April 13, April 27, and May 11, 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 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. TTM No. 70687 and SP No. 2007-01 RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 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; 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; 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 Porth 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; Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the Planning Commission hereby finds and recommends as follows: 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 10.16 acres of open space areas, easements, and rights-of-way; D. The current 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; G. The project site is within the Low Density Residential (RL), Low/Medium Density Residential (RI -M), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1). Zone Change No. 2007-04 is being reviewed concurrently with the Application that requests that the City TTM No. 70667 and SP No. 2007-01 Council approve the zone change from the current zoning to Specific Plan for General Plan compliance; 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 10.16 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: 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 10. 16 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. 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 10. 16 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 TTM No. 70687 and SP No. 2007-01 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 ElR 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. 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. The development will also have traffic improvements to mitigate existing plus project traffic conditions and cumulative traffic impacts. 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. 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; TTM No. 70687 and SP No. 2007-01 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 /eve/ 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 (BMP's) 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 the following findings: 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 facilities proposed to be located within the specific plan area and needed to support the proposed land uses; 6 TTM No. 70687 and SP No. 2007-01 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. 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. 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 the following conditions, the attached Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program: a. GENERAL 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; The development shall comply with the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program for EiR (SCH #2008021014). A copy is attached hereto and referenced herein; and TTM No. 70687 and SP No. 2007-01 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. 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, 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. TTM No. 706B7 and SP No. 2007-01 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11th DAY OF MAY 2010, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. M Tony Torng, Chairman I, 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 11th day of May, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary TTM No. 70687 and SP No. 2007-01 _ U N O N Np N Y U O p O (D 0 0 0 C U C @ 3 @Y N 4 Q U Q O O Z = U Q@ a) C 0 0 N Q@ Ul N +L• N C w N C C D aY v7. ONCIL �y. N 0 N N0 '> QQ_ N@ N w L 0 O N '-�/ V LO G m a) U W @ N O @ N lLQ-° _ OC �ba) U °' ��E m C N�c@-a Q @UU N N f/1 N @ U @ C r U .NO L U U'- aL. ..C-• p Iia V i B L T N d0) T O N N N > N C y N N 'CN@ C d) E N w O@ U C Q C 01 N Q N C C O C y L N N 0-0 C 'C O -O .LJ Ol m N -0W N~ C U O@ -C)@ —@ N@ U O O V N ,O r .+ `o ornra c a E EQ� O ac omo'� 'O U Y N N C = O @= C O' N p +� O Q O C O C U m is a o N N O. O U C o ,,N@.. rn QCNo @ U U@ O C O' _O U N L O C O o �.VC _LO LT3�� m E YC�'O� a NOO� E .0 6 N C U O) a) @ O N Q N C f `o) € Q'@O o ANN :NN-ao)y @crn�E o >mwma N C cDi� NE@ U� ) Q '02 " am C N N N s @ 'O C M o'2 v.c N' V a U p O *.—v. N_ m Z O_N U U E Di U U �'N L 2r CO N E U' @ �c<t U N 0 OO NN ' �¢ o aci>> F=2 O N N U N E =.E a) L' Q u) N Q U A C:� a) V U N N y O 0 0 N,C8 O N U Y O Q C' N L N O Q QE C @ O N N C C rN� C N U a= C OL OO N OU O @ 3 � ° E o 2 m �� ° Q� � aa)) N �¢L @ Q�U o o U' N Nj > U N D CO m Ep L N J N a N Q .E N C U O@ U C N 7 @ N . C p. C C @ O N N U -0— E o Q N C w 'E Oo N C C @ E Q. c O� = C O ILo0 Q'O Y E a> o. � n @CUmoN ¢ _ _ N N N O 0PO `� N DAN uN pct g@ �•_ N O O N p_ @L N U— C— N O N Q C Q" --O C -02 E O)U •� C U) C OCL O 'O U T N N CQ E C O a) (a C Q Cis..E O �_Q N O V Q D N F'- 'D T N U)'«� T= 6l'� O N@ CS N C v@@ N N j 0 @ N O a O N CL O L N _ C N O ) C U N aN+ U N U o "O @— @ U U C C@ �(aa U 5 N NN >� N�@ Q @ �tn-o C N aN�Em @ x C m c'@ z,oijEa � NYU C U) m�c N O O Q) O U_ . U N@ C@ 'O @ U@ y N@ C .N p N U@ N '� c cis O' o) o C N N -�O 3 y@ 'G s N .E @ C N -o N Ca o D) -O C C @ o -o OQ N o f 'e3. N rnN O Q 2N(o C O U Q,E o ° N N N �E°) o y E E U N E E°)-mE 4 p 7 C O .— O `° N N 'y N0 N N N p '3 Q c4 0_ o O O O N o -0 N—.Qo L N N E .o ff S -jO ' N O NO -O. d E D U N M V r r N L 1 u ramn,. >. L Q ).o p L p) O N C N O6 } +G D .� N C o C o@ O G CU N U O N O.� N N E U N O cr O. Co 2-0 p G C c p c m ++ O N [3 E E C 5QO �1 ap O E 000% UOYU LL a) m ] LN C N L N C C p E 0 O Q Q L O O a )01j E `� C N N c0C C Y N } C a) N 0 E E D ') N O cN m C 0 2 N 7@ E 'El Nm =- Eo °m Q T N°�0) No •C .®NJ aa)a) a E -0E - m EamQi na IE �Co E `C pL Q U@ UO OC O O -6 p OE Or'OIG� NaC�O C UOlS NCNO N N y �OU'OU LCp6,N _ N U v L Q N N N .Op O Y 7 m a 0" 6 YoaF) 1) 1 ID ,O OQN(n dCai m p UC LNON I Lam E Qa6i❑2 Q 'oUNm pO tmO jcO NCo .0c '3 ( a6 E aco2 m }.0 'c �dtmmm - N O m N ,., ❑ m N Ol U L— N O�— N❑ D m yR O _ m m U Q Q C C E ` U C M C a) N N N O E U a) 4 E N ' N N m UNy¢O E C O o-6 QO�UC Lfl C mUmN�Um`i DGm`a Q '>' U O O -a ° N NOV U��`N m� o ycm _�ampm E mem mm v@oU UQO O m ) oYQC Cn o° a)Q � @ C O a) N N a)Em E-0 m N m e Q OO N m E j, C ?s QQN.N CO C ` �L O C) 3 OL CLa O R'- N U O m Eo)m �m C O 5�c�@ C - o 6 Umm r -c caE Ru "a, 3'O U N E U N_ N 7 C N E E m N E E m O m U) L "a > N N "_' U 2 N N 3� 'O U (C/) m N E� @ N i m U N Q N m V p_ m C m •3CEmO ZN N G m. rj m O N C > f O) C 'C'N Q L aL+ La) n?_ .nOm m c6 o7.0 Q_ N�' -Q�' h Q oN p) o .� Q.L(DN+ O LdUIJ' NOOWp '(NO6 o Q) E@ U EGm mC O Y' N C N@ U O N oU E N N p N O m V N U m m o N O- O O Y N L Q d O N Qf N y; m EQv rOf) N N '�a E g s M W.E mo:n- o C7' am D m o U D �'z� a� mm o `m E m m@ m m m a L o@ aE E.p map.E}.+ 0LaRLaQ Y N'v .p) ENEU 2-2 N -mO- o@u 0m L®ul a)=o m�c�saRm 2Y� ;mo .@Wm'm p a aia cmRN O uocN Q rm. c=) ,_ Oj ONooa :_Cm, N@ON. (nE �c.mN-U."mQ�mT) UQ O •N'Qr(up C UEDN ?CcN LNNmU O0-2)jp po .Lo3 Oya 'aO wpN .-- om mRU c NO )o O El6, .yU� ) am a U N > E 04 `m m Q p Q cu 0) L vU @ m O a NCmQ W CU p @O 0 S y N D a U O C, N +Li 27 N L N N N L C ® ._ m Qt .+ QE2a) N Q N p L L E N} C N— '6 N 'a OU CUON EOUNO`pQ O UUO1 O) D C C❑O m L L- CE N �}' Ua)12 N � a N _N.NOO `CmNC0 m „%._'• J O. E m O �'m� E c E _NN O .ON r. .�>0(6 C a .02- _ )Y"m n" -m NCO n O(p a) N T,a OU ON CO QU O U OQ O a N m . o U U> R U N> C m N U m 0 mp�s D o"�c.cD C b t0 U ca ma)U oy,Dmo `vauNm EZ•c.nN U Z. >-comms o D c °) Q o a)+� c m m� @ a� 3 a) o).o a:(6 0 •-' . E W. p U p 03 U Cl =N ,O U a m N dm.S0E-m UQEmc. lL N V Q�pcm O L .O O mp.�n,�@ I-- N O@ Um 0Em ramn,. cY7 u W CO LOS z U C m a)o N O II N) C N m NCL @ LF O@ @@ N m p m N _C W ° CO L N °) L C a) N 7 m Q. F^ U E T N U 'O N)> .c rL.+ a 3 W U C U at m o m' Y rq m L p ° c °> .o m w E II U )° UO m C E O O. N N NII O C _ O Q¢ ) C D' N U C E m w o m U. BSc'@mm II�QIIv� @ov �>° a.CcE�o° `nNa3oLQLG7 wmcEO��a m� °mem w�aL N m O N C 5 L E 0,2 11-0 V O C O U L }i O) a) U >, c> U n @° o` c m rn @ c o E c c' C O) II m' O E a) o@ .1II II�Qc`o�jc��o) ai wcm�aci c°) w .tea) C, m� Com .Vm E � a�Eir c7i w o n U CTm7 .n Q �-O o5 0 N Y E i� °':� 0 a 7 u ID �SO]IIL QYUTCE ID 0 NIIC C'C NO 'C OII WN CO@�Lm IIO� V?C�Om� (6U°Qi'O NN? C L m N@ II ° m C rA .-+ @ .0 y �..L-, p u! T C ° 0 L U O O ° N '6 O` WE O) U'D a> m@ a)C E� O tq (L)@ N V n 7 C C C C N j 'N n' C _DI,) E O a) CL rn _@ �N/1 E U ) �_ @ NII O �- lS @° LmOC U ) 6 N@ E y C N N U 'O m ) Q U Lo ) -'R U N ) y C O U N N C L` N O` U 'L-' f6 N X Y Q Q L i t)il U N IZ II@ c °J E a) T 3 .� U O 0 L ~ 0 E 7 m lU @ E U '" O O E) t6 O) a) (D Qu.c a c@ a) O" >+ 613 Ti E o E'm �� o a E c� c n)i m y m E ) m cam o B L@ U— c D v m E@ m C€ Co o E U - co a) L3 @'6-II'yL OII O 2 LU W 3) �L; 7 ) @ N -. C II O Y @ N 2 Y m° m Q@ ->Z— (C4 ) N) Y ° C 'C N C N 0 ID Y U° R "Q`) U Y m) to f/1 a) O_ N L) EW N0 0W. )@ O� -p -'-._NC CWT C> +L+ OTU �S C (D m7> U O C O V N °- N>@ N O_ U O -O Q'O N 0 m @ O O F- OEL N �Uc fnCaCE N.- O U C i- Q U m mE°'F. --9 C L @ @->'��� 7 UII UON W O O Q f3 L C m l6 7 m O [6 D X C D, m -0-0 a E° u@> m° F o v m N a) s ° 0 cYi CO D Q Y E) mID m N @ C m [, .r @ a7 II Q to II -6-2 C@ CUL @ p Y .� C m (DW0 N Q L m O C w N Q N O U @ Y Q O y@@ 70 m m v) ) O o y C U S @ Y E N C W X p) N O Q O 7 (D 2. ( m y ) N _ f/! Q m O O¢ O C U O U E U D C) C t� U U> ) N 9 a- E p ) m m Q fn '� U D@) o N y N N @ U@ o` C ® Y Q T O C@ a i- N p U 0.2 p O T ) L aL- E@ .� N L V) m U m O) E +L+ O ;- O' .O 'm m @ Lu YO n NL . N U m j FQ O m -.O E. V3C oOUD) aN _UOa) O O U Q'D ) m m- O O [T6 ) m '3 0 �' f- @@ L +) m ENN)O W° p@ C U w .N CL C@@.0 UGa _Qd@0'BL^; ~ m @Q W ... @ 7 �m �0@'7I; cu ) N) R O o co C) >@ F-Q L agVa�� ) m7m @ .0 0 O L a+ '�,.' Q 7 @ @ F L E +-. O C .+-T' .� .� +' L C U � tpp e{m � a2mwc@= mnEa,..Eo m - L3 @ c a Lm) ° E@ Uo@c a)"a) =a�) A �)@ U @ U Q w @ U n 6-N aL- Q Q Q f O N co m r c W V m G F- E L a o U) U N N N C- 'C E E° N O >. > L N �r G� ,O) O N O U C m L O C O C C 'C NO a O N O` E N 0 O) O '� ❑ate Y U1 0 °- _ @ C LL Q N `° ac C `6 O E .O °Y ❑ �� m m C O N O o YT 0.@Ca U C`O):O O B C N O C U @ d) @ Q ca N N X Q a N y n_ C N N V N U C N N°C O �Um m'�-E _ cu mo m oom oQm N C L U O N N O C @ N T O C N C c° o m a > s Q o Q E i� N V E C N J d) E lL N C `p m . 00 o. N @ m m m m o�. Q m N m rno a as E @C c 5 o c_ U N C Y O` E N. ac 00 @@ Q @ N N N• Q Q y C N L @ Gm o EY a> o -c '� v o rn° C N¢ O N J o a� v ccs U oc .0� @@ oL HooE f6 o'S +„ >• ° s C baa @ _cc @ @m N Ll E 6 U N L N LL m E U 4- N m C U O o pN N .0 N L m O N N N E Q`°m o,m gBco' Oo O U�c C°- oNc a a�@o N N ID ;u'aNiE U �- O C C @ O)+L' U @@ > N 0,0 CL :S2 @ @ C U Q C m O O y L O C N .0 m J E @ O u) O m -00 U❑ '5 m m C � O m L E 2 a N N L C Q c oL- wLL a) 0) E U)m a aYt o m u E 'QQQ a m m ❑ �'N o� Ya o @ m E >� c U .p a 0) Q N Qy-L :C Q a N s N U C O N r U) Q O N p` N@~ E C O >,C rL- C Q� E.n N @ N N❑ @ CN C N N CL N U C N 7 m�� O 01 O m a 0, a)m N@ [6 Q p L E R C .G C5 OL U m N U Q @ ¢ 0 CD m C. C @ U C N` Q. Q Q a. M C . Q N U. C L = N iY a UI .0 p y m.� U -•_� p c _❑ Q y o Q m Q w N w Q N JE E Q G Q Q❑ N pQ LL m F,_ q) o a c E �,°� ¢>' Ems c. =°c° cmE ° °m f; om� Y� @ my wp E a0 N Y@'co N o '- I• m a g a Y m Em@ c@ E:U).P m Z5 o O -m O O D C TJ O) a N G C a tNi1 O) N °) C y N ❑ C @ Q a c O C C O .-. -6 G U_ - O N ,= S U C .- E E '-p U O F, @ �U a w@ Q �N m 0 �Nw s Oc O'2• ?� mJ N Y 4j N Q O @oy Op O m O@°ON� O O -a- o 4. y m °cOEOQ .N = a>o a ma E"cmi� Svo mYsy E>� > co co o co cE > o00 S m 0 o�om °mQo EmsNoc Qon ® U U a N N N E N Q U to N N@ N U N a N N@ @ (V @ th p .m tijv L .� N '.-. dj L - - .- N tLn @ .L.. �-. "C N N aL-+ 4 N N@ C .L� °' -0-0 N ..L- -O N L a) N N a s V) o❑ ` co o> .0 a o❑ -op p co o E y o o m a c ® N E (D 00 a Q U Qa O U Q O O) O p '� 6) p '� O Q C O Q ® m =� Q� Li. @ p O u. Y c .O a s n`. @ N o= ? n Q m a` u) 2 W � o IL U k® [6 L) Co Q) a C C U) o E ®`a � o �2 U x W N D)) O) m L N tl1 � C a) N W N a lE f6 N a) j 61 D N ® Co a ,C Q N U N C O a -o Q.Q N _0 CL 0 l6 P- O > U O i N U (D W Qa e B L c c y° a) m c C'-(D m m N EE m U> o�w'o vas °me � � m m �N E m N N °- U 2 - .NB m tUfl C N "L" y 1. O Y y) N .0 C D O as .Uwm�a�a) LL U U a L °o .o EF N ' MA? L° U ?y a a a) O j• 5 C 4E U LU e ® ° C Q— C m N L L 6 N Q [0 C7 n C a1 Ol a) m [6 N a) C ®- Z- QcL.c N ow .o m Ea -o ❑ o o Y m o `m o aEi NaE�°��� ®_ w � U al Q w, N N e o Q m D Nv m N a 'a O a N C Q N J U O N N t6 Ol N — C .E W -. Eycasoa- a) a) M-'- Qom2 maa))Q1 e3m m -D U CO > HT, -O U — N .e N (tl E D ID C --. ems+ i. C N t6 QD o � a N oW mtU Qg'� -ate m cU �•R5iia N > c C cov 6C N t C C 4- cu Q'C 01 C l8 N C U U -6 v N a C O j ° N m t0 a a) l Ny3 N N 'Eos@cW c 3 r EE - �, CL m m°00 o -- > a) w o R m x W O V 0 T C Q @ c _T U N L " S E E E a) OL m 0 a)0 C: dJ O N O C > Q NC Cl NC Nc CL Q. NC ca T c N a .- O o> my 2 N lil W O U D W 0 a) U W � Q Cy C y '6 C y C N ma t6 N N C7 D- U T N U) 2 B N N a N B N ,m_ of T E a N@ o - lu N om@Eca a -o m.12 m— m c in) rnc@N � a�a NE�.r o U N �- N LL U O N U w a 0C1L @ o U � O V 0 T C O 'rte .0 o)cv- NUE5.E _T U N L " S > G N Q O 6 L O N LL 00 a) OL m NU�u�is SOC) U o s C a c C N E N Q C [Jl N E O W'c o p N � o@ > t E m c L as o Q nN N @ Q 2 UN Q'C [` T E 0 o N a E o> my 2 N lil W O U D W 0 a) U W � N O z c 0 .° E o O 'rte .0 o)cv- NUE5.E _T U N L " S C9 (D N N Q O 6 L O N LL 00 a) OL m NU�u�is SOC) U o s C a c C N E N Q C [Jl N O N N W'c o p N � o@ > t E m c L as o Q nN N @ Q 2 UN Q'C [` T _ O O 0 Q 1- N @ U o c N N EEtcao(D `o E 9 o my 2 N @ N LO m Q t6 � N m-p�a o mni� t6 N N N U U T o O @ of T E a N@ o - lu U @ p 6 ca n N Q U C @ om@Eca a -o U O (7 C E,06 c in) rnc@N � a�a NE�.r o U N �- N LL U O N U w a 0C1L @ o U � V '�j �i E "0 N N of -oma-NC-W aai -'Eo .2 O to m E U U-20 O mc ? Z U IC ax)F- _a � W o a" Ci U m C U U.c cl o @ @ TU L o N"C-cl E Nm C N U U L O y @ Q N@ N C p r CI Eco U o - @ C C� CL L t6 N U) > m c6 a) ° N N�-O rn�mv@ N O N @ @.` U) G 0 N Lam L— O E o O• . N^- > O O O N N ECO � o o N@ C Q m N M Q M- 0) @ >, Ui m W .c m�cUU E@ °U N C @ > N N U m tC6 N N am M 17- -o o� � rESUm u N U m — Y C C °c�a)�mt�mo —am 00 o ro a.6 �� Q r- N Ul @ N O n j p N m C N E C U m p c, p N C N E 0 C@> O t6 d LOm) tV tll � N I M I V 0 U C � _T U N L " S = - C N Q O N t6 > a) OL m U C E s C a p N @ Q N T U N E E 9 o my 2 N @ N t6 Q m Q � N O t6 N N N U U T O @ lu N N N �- N�— � O O N O C L 4 @ -0 L 'O I N ° L N N� Era a �N c "' •p o Q a 02 >o 2 Uw N ao LN m c O �� @ Q N .o > "= .210 N E C mo U N C OO Q< C5 c O E U V O m _ E N @ m Q Q U I- N I M I V C v i Q o .E c Oc Oc Oa 2''w Em m Q cO E 'i m°C do "E � i 2E Ya lu N ya) � W mm m[6 N� mm O O O O a) '6 N iz m m m E m C•® `m >,m �`o cU mo cv m`o E� m`o ev `m �.m m� cm `-T• 0 �E`o +- C U .� C U -m Q C. a � Q + C [J �� C m C C Q U E o m m e m e m e m e ®EE d W W W a 2 o>❑ �❑ c a [0 L U) N La D O C t6 N m C C N C U o m w N N c .0 � C a N N N C m t6 E N y1 m 7+ nl N m ?y L E 6l _ m mEa OU v m Q N N m m O QI N `o m U C .Ec m fn O N o N E m � - >mr m a`I� o_- c o to m m 0 u � B �O CN � n m c6 m � m� m N� ❑ m C U m mL O D1 N� .N Ny. O.,N ._ ° N m E a'+' 'E '� O mo. D mmm 'm r mQ m mn m�.0 U ?o _ o C CO �O C N> ° L D m V t0 Q C C � C 'p m � L m N m 0 n U O m a) C N � � � � n ~ >+ � dl m '6 N t0 U Y `I m O m m'"n B -0 m ,O m E u N L m N S m m O � r >` m C � N O N m m C� C 60 O T T C 16 m m 7 m 16 O Q E Q } O O `m ��,aio i Ec°`Q om o oz� a am O sE U Q OQ U ,N,' W ti N .N uNm m °U N U m N a, m -° N m n o- Q m C C C E m L [0 > p Q S m - 'O m 15 C l6U m O� O U Y C o N m N m N O C C Q U o~ ca E 2 o 2 2 •� nit oo Q. ��Nm m am c�c c�� L� E O O C F- .0 m F--' N 1— G C S L w- Q S t m L C f � (6 L Q I— ° O U O L c ry EL C° a C f G �C N 3 G E C G O < U` N e (n W Q a) C Q 'Ti O �N �' Eo H cm�E 2`m �N CD0- CD E o rz s E o m mU ._ Q Q O> O I j m C m C U U m m a s N m o� `o N@@ ip O a) @ 3 C N oo) -jLo`n rNU �@t0G �_@O 0 p- C'E6NO > a 4- OS Nl N NO OaLL ..B_ t-6 Y() 4O U U N@pN.0 C -QC O.Oa O UN -E a +. LOrNN6 " YG)E m T N C t6 C( CC O.-'> UOCO N O y] N O C C N O CpQ._ CLF, Y m > O)@ p a) O C N ca Z •2a) 3NU m cNN) . �p_.N)N_pa ?cm voNn n m o 0 @c�S o ���U �� • �o�CF cp@ .�p. L 'c_m�cEo�� 5E -E oom`U�0 `'°m"Npam C L- N@ mO 6 m a Q) -1 6 o Q NO 0 L Na a"-rri U) C •-odcrno-2Lr'> U@U0 a)r�nvic .@ C O O_ m i� N O Eo a>EUO Nl6 �:�-.@�NC pU�N Q to `mom a)�m a+ -.-.c U c�moN-EUE'Ua)ca� �Qma=� Q j �- N o p N N E >.L 0 N E c o U: Q@ 0) c@ � 2 c c m O O)U N O N E 6•'_ CU) C N N�= U a:@zZ 0a 1, c .O a) E YO LSU) 0 3 m`m U@[]N@6O �N -'iu o aa)) 0 ��a o � `fit Qo Up p v "� �LrEN@E dam' O O�@0���OLONO N aIY E UL' pN Q @O` HE N d a 0 @ a "C CN� Up (6OOE Q«.EaN p yN, O O @m2m mID w0 O ) C @a@ t0 _ 2O SOLN 00aIOa E N EGU O]CL' CULm= E m 'p o u) ., li o .- pr-' " E �, UL O O? @ •' @ m ....,_. p' pv- O N .p) p)++. -.n O).N O N E_pn QN ).M .'a5 o-oa N .� U E C N 3 RS E a O J @ N •-• m m a N p w6 C a @ U` v- C C@ O a) @o @ N 4_ 4=- N V@@ Z_ m s >) "> a C N N C Y1 O m E O U Y a �O T C N .= C N :� p N U) .� N 2~ L U U N a - a m O_ N m E N Q E Q.. N aL-. N O) a= •+- U Q F- :5 UJ -C N U C O) 2.z] O 1- C C a 02: J Q @ "? 02 1) N a tU6 �. C N CJ C .m Q'Q IJJ N C N j @= O O C t5 i6 - N 'N'Q U CU O'a'a NC U@ NN'[6N�0 >."O o Ca O+3_Ua mu) @�L m �5.o p n-> ` N@ C O- [6 LU@ I- ' N -p 3aNiQaQs.� N C N n C E .tloUNOLo N�.oa3;+_.N of>3cpiUia]U E~> U C O@ S U m U '6 O y C@ N U O O N •� N� iE j p3 mp) -15- O QN .o Em N u1� L Q p U_ N N .� 1: m Z p p 7 N U ❑_ @ U @ .p Q O �_" @ Q E 3 U d C= a a N< O. O p 0 0 C U C) M N c f^ � C C � O U N � W N C m LL C h Q 0 p 9 ®�o •� (p W C a E ca W @ N W t0 N m f6 C] 3 NC70-Utn N y C3 D- u=Ni C7 CL c ~ `a w - m o � lz Tm O m ='m` 0 O Q U W W m e o> O p> 0 U v®� m U ❑ v m o ca c -- �@ >,r to a 'E mac s�> a N Qm:am m c N O) a) cC)"c �2 x sC Qo @ @ � @ m @ Eat o ax)yo-o - .; ccrs o o E D � D o o w m 0 o 0 0 .o @@ o 3 m;t a.'0 v E om� c O Q L� O N C @ C C @ ig O O N O a) O a) m @ N O L C N Q 9 u) E.9 o `o cm m'ca>Ew m E i m21 m@o mho) vn >o E W °-ma C'�o mQo@ Fo m m m000E @T m o'o �mE C@ 3ov-a m U @ Q C @ O_ a L N O@ 0 O Q O cC O 0 O O C O R _ N O @� m C @ 0 0 S Q L E@ ^- @ N j @'�'� O U U O t6 O W O@ m L@ -,o020 Om mN U .� C moz @ D_ L u E@ a N C m 0 0 p 'U a!U @ Q a) W m @ N N N a m N U CL U)n0- Q I -.N QO@L @@ a F@@ rzodF- �- in cD r ro o� N LLQ m C m m a Attachment 4 _ 0 A n MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 27, 2,010 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL. CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Commissioner Steve Nelson was excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. Consultants: Mark Rogers and JoAnne Sturges, TRG Land; Peter Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Sciences, Steve Sasaki, Sasaki Transportation Services. 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 April 13, 2010. C/Shah moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 13, 2010, as connected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nene ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 0 3 . � DRAFT PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSIC§ 7.1 Site C1" S ecific 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. (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 (SP). Zorn Change No. 2007-04 — A request to change the zoning districts from Low Density Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (G1) 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; 153,985 gross square feet of commercial use; and approximately 10. 11 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 FIR includes mitigation measures for the project, addresses project alternatives, identifies the environmentally superior project alternative, and adopts a statement of overriding considerations. 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 APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION ACANVohlenberg explained that at its last meeting on April 13, 2010, the Commission closed the public hearing following the public comment period. There is a procedure for reopening public hearings during the same meeting. If the public hearing is reopened at a different meeting it would require that the item be officially re -noticed and continued to the next Planning Commission meeting. This procedure is not just for the benefit of those present this evening that would like to speak; if it were known that there would be additional opportunity for public comment there may have been others who would have appeared at tonight's meeting to speak but did not do so because they believed there was no opportunity for further public comment. It would require action of the Commission to direct staff to re -notice the hearing so that it could be reopened at the next meeting. C/Shah said he would recommend the public hearing not be reopened and that the Commission move forward'as scheduled to receive responses to comments and that the Commission continue with its deliberation as scheduled. C/Lee concurred stating that he listened to the tapes of the last meeting and was prepared to move forward. VC/Nolan moved to continue the item to May 11, 2010, and direct staff to re -notice the meeting to allow for further public comment. The motion died for lack of a second. C/Lee confirmed to Chair/Torng that he had listened to the entire taped meeting and was prepared to move forward to deliberation. Chair/Torng advised the public that the Planning Commission was acting in an advisory capacity to the City Council and that following staff's responses to the public comments received during the public hearing on April 13, 2010, the Commissioners would deliberate and the Commission would make its recommendation to City Council. The City Council is the final authority on the matter and the public will be notified of future public hearings if and when the matter goes to the City Council for deliberation. Chair/Torng acknowledged receipt of letters from Lee Paulson, Melony Paulson, Mary Rodriquez and Christopher Chung. Emails were received from Mary Rodriquez, John Yang, David Dorsey, Julie Leung and Christopher Chung. CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and addressed questions and comments raised by audience prior to close of the public hearing followed by response to Commissioner's questions after which the Commission will determine the next steps. CDD/Gubman said that rather than respond to the questions and comrnents item by item, he would address them collectively by topic. _` `D RA APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman said that staff understands that this project has garnered a great deal of opposition from the community and there has been a great deal of criticism of staff for not making any fundamental changes to the parameters.of the Specific Plan. While the criticism is well received, he clarified that the cornerstone for this Specific Plan is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was crafted between the City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD), the premise of which was that staff was to develop a Specific Plan that consisted of 50 percent residential and 50 percent commercial. The plan that staff crafted and worked on is based on those fundarnentals. Accordingly, the City's consultant TGR Land studied the property and developed a physical plan that established the land form that would be appropriate for accommodating a commercial development and residential development. The physical plan that has been presented demonstrates how that land form has been envisioned for this site based on technical analysis and existing conditions of the site as well as, access points to the project. CDD/Gubman stated that the Specific Plan is characterized as an "umbrella" or framework plan for this site. As stated at the first meeting, there is a range of planning tools that could be used to set forth the long range development objectives for the site, one of which could simply be rezoning the property. However, a Specific Plan is a tool in which much more rigorous land use strategies, requirements and other specifications tailored to the particular characteristics of this property can be employed. As memorialized in the MOU, staff opted to do a Specific Plan, the intent of which was not to create a detailed development plan. There are no developers that are lined up, signed up or even in talks to develop this property. So, there is not a development plan that staff can base a document on, but instead staff formulated some planning principles and created a document of what the City's vision for this site is based on the commercial/residential makeup of the property and specify in diagrams, graphics and words what the physical and land use characteristics of this site should be at build -out. By creating this plan and conducting the environmental analysis, the strategy is to have an entitlement or vested approval in place to put this property out to market. Having an entitlement in place adds value to the property and removes many of the unknowns about what can or cannot be developed on this site. By eliminating those uncertainties, the value of the land is increased. At the same time, it is very clear how many units are the maximum that may be developed and possibly fewer units can be developed. However, 202 units would be the maximum under what is being proposed with this site plan, along with about 154,000 square feet of commercial development. This plan also specifies where those land uses will be organized on the site and outlines the physical envelopes for those physical components, along with the access, backbone road and provisions for pedestrian interaction between the commercial and residential components_ The plan for residential is based on the General Plan Consistency Analysis and promotes several General Plan Goals and Objectives as well, and AML 27, 2010 PACE. 5 PLANNIMG COMMISSION staff has presented its recommendations for making those findings in the Specific Plan. This public hearing process provides an opportunity for the Commission to consider opposing viewpoints that have been presented by the public. Staff is confident that the project is furthering several development General Plan goals and objectives to provide housing in the community, to diversify the housing stock and staff believes that it has formulated a pian that is compatible with the surrounding areas to preserve the integrity of the neighboring land uses. Again, that is a matter for the Planning Commission to deliberate and in doing so, consider all of the testimony, and determine whether to concur with staff's recommendation. CDD1Gubman stated that if the objective was for the City to help the school district maximize its return (get the most money for its property) the City would be presenting a plan comprised of 100 percent residential; however, the City is looking at this site with other community needs in mind to create a balanced community, to provide a range of services for the community and to provide a sustainable revenue opportunity given that the site is located at a major intersection in the City. The part of the plan that introduces the commercial was the City's contribution to the MOU. The City did not view 100 percent residential as the best long-range plan for this site understanding that market conditions are really a snapshot in time and a market study done two years ago would look nothing like a market study done today and looking into the long-term horizon for the City, would the community be better served by additional commercial or a neighborhood serving commercial uses. The City contributed this component to the MOU that provided this. Is the tax revenue generation or the potential to generate tax revenue the sole driving factor? While it is certainly one of the driving factors it is certainly not the only driving factor. Again, if the City was solely motivated toward tax revenue it would not necessarily be looking at a commercial component that would only accommodate a neighborhood serving commercial use because the amount of sales tax generated from that component would not make or break the City. It certainly helps to diversify and enhance the City's revenue portfolio but it is not something that is the only factor that the City feels is a justification to propose commercial at this site — it is the opportunity to take a corner at an arterial and to seize the opportunity to add additional commercial services for the community. Staff understands that there is not support from those who have participated in this process with their oral and written comments; however, that is the reason why the City holds the hearing process. CDD/Gubman said that staff takes exception to the comments that the public input was ignored or disregarded or treated flippantly. There was a scoping meeting prior to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) preparation and there was a public comment meeting to provide an opportunity for the public to speak on the aspects of the EIR. Staff explained that those were not the times for the City to debate or deliberate on the merits of the plan itself but to focus on the environmental issues , E Mr RA T APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION that need to be analyzed, and if the analysis was thorough and sufficiently fleshed out to enable the Commission to feel that it has been disclosed and apprised of all facts that go into the entirety of this decision — not only the environmental, but the appropriateness of the proposed land uses in the Specific Plan document as a whole. Staff certainly did not preclude people from speaking on the merits of the plan and voice their opposition to the project itself, to bring up the 1991 Resolution by the DBIA to develop the site as a park, etc. All of those comments are in the record and they have all been published and presented to the Commission in the Draft and Final EIR. All comments received have been recorded. Now that the decision making process begins through the Planning Commission and City Council hearings it is the time to consider the appropriateness, the merits and the benefit to the community of this Specific Plan in its entirety. Staff believes that it made a genuine effort to facilitate government to include ail comments and to provide the public the opportunity to express their views. Staff's responses through the EIR process were only to the environmental issues and for that reason in the response to comments of the EIR there are numerous occasions that repeat "this comment is acknowledged" because it is not a CEQA issue but another issue. Nevertheless, those comments are acknowledged and published and they are disclosed to the Commission. In addition to the public hearing process opened last meeting (April 13, 2010) there is a very detailed and extensive record of where those members of who have taken the time to participate in this process stand on the matter. He hopes with that said that there is some consideration for staff's effort to provide the Commission with that information. This process was not a municipal or park or public improvement project where a neighborhood charette would have been used to solicit public input. This was a development proposal with staff acting as the applicant. This process did not provide the format for the type of participation that a community project would. CDD/Gubrnan stated that there are numerous factual errors contained in the letter from Christopher Chung that need to be addressed on the record. First comment is that the Specific Plan is inadequate, inconsistent and does not meet statutory requirements, With that statement the contention is that the Specific Plan does not prescribe architectural and landscape details or specify other criteria in greater detail. Section 65451 of the California Government Code specifies the required content of the Specific Plan and that level of detail is not mandated. In fact, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research has a publication entitled The Planner's Guide to Specific Plans which states in its opening paragraph "a Specific Plan may be as general as setting forth broad policy concepts or as detailed as providing direction to every facet of the development from the type, location and intensity of uses, to the design and capacity of infrastructure, from the resources used to the financed public improvements, to the design guidelines of the subdivision." The Draft Specific Plan the City is presenting fits within these very broad parameters. Moreover, the Site D Specific Plan is very similar in format to the Specific Plan that was prepared for the Target/ Brookfield/Calvary Chapel site, PAGE 7 PLANNING CC�I'� MISSIOM APRIL 27, 2®�® -- which was adopted and approved. The second point raised is "the City cannot use Site D as justification to meet regional housing needs assessment housing needs or to meet RHNA numbers" and this is simply untrue. The City is obligated to accommodate 1,098 new housing units during the current RHNA cycle. Part of that obligation is to designate 15.6 acres for residential development at a density of 30 units per acre to accommodate lower income housing needs for 466 units. Site D is not. one of the several sites being studied to accommodate that need. Site D would help fulfill the City's obligation to provide the 632 market rate units under the current RHNA allocation. The third comment that is factually incorrect is that the EIR scoping meeting was conducted after the Draft EIR was released. This is incorrect. The scoping meeting was conducted on February 21, 2008. The Neighborhood Forum held on August 3, 2009, was during the Draft EIR public comment period and was provided as an additional opportunity for the public to ask questions and provide oral and written cornments regarding the adequacy of the EIR. Unlike the previous scoping meeting, the August 3, 2009, meeting was not mandated under CEQA but the City scheduled the meeting in an effort to inform the public and to solicit comments. The fourth comment is that the EIR was not completed by an objective third party independent consultant that has no prior relationship with the WVUSD. For the record, TRG Land did not prepare the EIR and does not provide environmental services. The City selected the firm Environmental Impact Sciences to prepare the EIR. The fifth comment stated in effect that the traffic mitigation in the form of fair -share fees is inadequate and violates case law set forth under Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associates V. the City of Los Angeles. The FIR's mitigation reporting and monitoring program that is part of the EIR document requires the specific improvements or fair -share contributions shall be provided prior to the recording of the final Tract Map. This is not a violation of FHCA v. Los Angeles. FHCA v. Los Angeles did not deem the payment of fair -share fees to be invalid. What the case law cited determined was that although the City of Los Angeles adopted mitigation measures for its General Plan framework program, it failed to require that they be implemented as a condition of development. The Site D EIR does not make that error in that the improvements or fair -share contributions are required to be paid or completed upon recordation of the final Map. In fact, going further, he pointed out that the court decision went on to state that it found no fault with Los Angeles's certification of that EIR but only with the failure to show substantial evidence in the record to support a finding that the mitigation measures had been required or incorporated into the planning document. The sixth statement was a comment that it is the responsibility of the lead agency to consider all viable project alternatives. This is untrue. Under Goleta Valley vs. The Board of Supervisors, it was determined that an EIR must discuss a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed project. Staff believes that the Site D FIR has indeed discussed a reasonable range of project alternatives. Finally, there is a statement that the City of Diamond Bar's noticing radius is 700 feet from property lines and the City arbitrarily increased the radius to 1000 feet, therefore, should extend the =1 A FE APRIL. 27, 2010 PAGE 8 PLANNING C01YI 41SSION notification range even farther out. This is untrue. In fact, Section 22.72.020 requires a 1000 -foot notification radius for the Site D Specific Plan. CDD/Gubman asked if the Commissioners had any questions. C/Lee said he heard the same story last time and he believes that the public hearing process is not a lecturing process. He listened to the two and one-half hour tapes of the last meeting and heard many residents voice their concerns as well as their wishes. He understands residents clearly expressed their thoughts; he understands this project and its relative impact to the community. But on,the agenda it states a Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and implementation with the identified economic and social benefits. He said he understood the economic benefit but did not understand the social benefit. CDD/Gubman explained that it is adding to the diversity of Diamond Bar's housing stock and providing additional housing opportunities. C/Lee asked if "housing stock is a social benefit" and CDD/Gubman responded "yes." C/Lee said there is maybe sociality? But asocial benefit is not that. Maybe housing stock is a benefit but not a social benefit. He asked for a better explanation of "social benefit." ACA/VVohlenberg explained that there is an underlying thought in California Land Use law and in Housing law that there should be a community that has a variety of housing types and pricing available. And something that Diamond Bar hears as a comment from the State of California in the review of its Housing Element is that so much of Diamond Bar's housing is focused on the higher economic spectrum. So in order to seek out that benefit of having diverse housing choices within the City, that is part of what this project is aimed at providing — not the high end housing that Diamond Bar has so much of but mid-range housing units that Diamond Bar needs (another 632 units) under its RHNA obligation. C/Lee argued that the statement should be "housing stock benefits" and not social benefits. Mark Rogers stated that in addition to the aforementioned benefits, the project seeks to do a number of things. First, the project is using both commercial and residential land uses in an area that as he understands, has a need for neighborhood commercial services. The idea today and what is seen as handed down by the State of California is that it is looking for projects where there is a blend of land uses to cut down vehicle miles traveled and place uses where there is a pedestrian trail that connects the adjoining neighborhood on the south end of the project into a plaza -like feature anticipated with a commercial side of the project. In that instance, this project meets social standards from the state's standards in providing a mixed land use with both residential and commercial. He hopes that he is not stretching when he also states that the benefit of this project monetarily to the VVVUSD and maybe secondarily to the City, has tremendous social benefit. The values that he sees in this community are born out of the great education that the children get from their school systems. This is a timely project from the standpoint of providing needed fund for the district and that, he believes, has tremendous and long -reaching social benefit. APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said the report mentions this project would be convenient for people but can he talk about social benefit as common sense. This project will be good for families, education involvement. He heard many negative comments from residents because there is no social benefit. So he wants to understand clearly what social benefit is. But Mr. Rogers's understanding is a convenience of more houses so there is a contradiction. This comment should be changed to "more housing stock or more convenience for shopping but not social benefit because people can misunderstand about this project. C/Lee asked how this project building more houses and building more commercial areas is related to education, and CDD/Gubman responded "in that the sale.of the property benefits the school district." C/Lee asked if that is why it helps people and. kids grow up in this community. He thought it was totally irrelevant explanation about this project with respect to education. C/Lee asked for clarification of "social benefit" and asked if it could be changed "housing stock benefit or convenient to the people or shoppers." CDD/Gubman responded yes, that the changes can be made so that his concerns are addressed. VC/Nolan asked if socialize meant how it socially benefits the community at large. CDD/Gubman said that when the document addresses social benefit it refers to the entire palette of elements that enhance the society. ACAANohlenberg said that when making a statement of overriding considerations it simply discusses the economic and social benefits that would occur from deciding to move forward even though there is unmitigated significant impact. To him that is sort of "catch-all" language that the legislature adopted. There are economic benefits and social benefits and everything falls into one of those two categories. C/Shah asked what could be built under the land use designation of Public Facility and General Commercial if nothing is done to change the land use to Specific Plan. CDD/Gubman responded that currently there is a fundamental inconsistency between the General Plan and the zoning. The General Plan designation is Public Facility which would suggest a school or park. The zoning that is overlaid on that is residential and commercial so there is a General Plan zoning inconsistency that would have to be resolved to enable the property to be developed in some fashion. Chair/Torng asked for a response to Mr. Chung's statement on Page '1 of his letter that refers to "the proposed high-density residential land use is incompatihle with adjacent land use and inconsistent with the General Plan." CDD/Gubman said that was a fair argument. Staff's position is that this housing type is compatible with the surrounding uses. it is not located within a local neighborhood street completely encircled by single family detached residences. phis property does have its backturned on the single family neighborhood and faces a major arterial. Based on that context an attached housing product on this site would be appropriate and if one looks throughout the City, one will see similar land use Ix"A F_. APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION relationships between those housing types that co -exist under similar contexts and disagreed that it is an inconsistent land use. Chair/Torng asked about Mr. Chung's statement on Page 6: "The consultant provided a representation that the development of the housing would be of high quality for moderate income families." The inconsistency is that this should below income. CDD/Gubman said that the First thing he needs to clarify is that high density would be for 30 -units to the acre. This residential project proposed at 20 - unit per acre on the development pads is .exclusive of the slopes front and back. Therefore, the effective density is closer to 17 -units per acre. The 30 -unit per acre density requirement that staff is studying for locations elsewhere in the City is considered a default density for affordable housing so the state views a development at 30 -units per acre as probably accommodating affordable housing, at least in this region given the property values and existing levels of urbanization. Thirty units per acre in Manhattan would be extremely low density for example, so it is all relative. Site D would be attached housing probably similar to the Brookfield development above Target which is market rate housing. Chair/Torng said he raised a concern about Page 15 of Mr. Chung's letter - the grubbing and grading near the homes toward the channel to ensure that insects and rodents are driven away from homes. This should have been a mitigation measure but nothing has come up about it. Is there any way this can be mitigated? CDD/Gubman responded that there is a standard requirement in the issuance of grading plans that rodent barriers be installed around the perimeter of a project. Staff believes that would be a more effective means of containing the rodent population within the project site to effectively be decimated by development activity. The prospect of grubbing at the edge of the site or at the center is somewhat speculative in the belief that that is going to drive the rodent population inward. He said he did not see how that was something the City could guarantee unless there is one solid line of machinery that moves contiguously and together toward the center. The City's grading permit requirements include a rodent barrier to imbed into the ground and prevent the offsite migration in order to more effectively achieve that goal. Chair/Torng said, so in other words, staff already considered that and CDD/Gubman responded "yes," although it should be noted that specific discussion of rodent barriers was not included in the EIR response to comments. CDD/Gubman responded to Chair/Torng that 7:00 a.m. (not 8:00 a.m.) is the citywide noise regulation standard for construction activity. VC/Nolan asked if the City had the resources of a buyer to purchase green space for a recreational facility. CDD/Gubman explained that Site D is not included in the Parks Master Plan and since the MOU expressly states that the Specific Plan l ' T APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION should be prepared to accommodate 50 percent residential and 50 percent commercial, the response would be " no" at this point. Mark Rogers, TRG Land, pointed out that one of the terms the Commissioners should keep in mind for the purposes of this process is "predictable outcome." It is a term he uses a lot speaking about development and the experiences he has had with development. In an effort to ensure what the Commission deliberates on and what .the Council will deliberate on and make a decisiononi truly what he has hadcan happen as a built project. This project,projects like many opportunity to work with, focus on ensuring that the property is mapped, set forward design parameters and a regulatory envelope so that at the end of the day as deliberated and conceived can be built. TRG has done an extraordinary amount of scientific work to ensure public safety in this project. A lot of whatwould normally be required in a process like this to ensure this is a quality built site. These are two public bodies that are working together to bring a project before its constituents and what is so interesting about that is that he and his colleagues sat around brainstorming the project working with things everyone has experienced in an attempt to provide a framework that TRG Land feels meets the concerns and issues they deal with on a daily basis. Mr. Rogers stated that in the absence of a more elaborate graphic, he focused his PowerPoint presentation on the edges of the project because this is a two-step process. This attempts to build an envelope or umbrella within which a project of merit can be built. So he has focused on the edges of the project to ensure adequate setbacks and spaces that meet the intent. Along Brea Canyon, the street grade is about 10 feet below pad grade. His firm ensures that frorn the back or right-of-way to anything within this project there is a minimum of 35 feet. In addition, there may be an area for cars to butt right up against that setback so an additional space was allocated so that car bumpers are setback well behind that area which offers a minimum setback from top of slope of an additional five feet beyond the 35 -foot setback. At the corner of the project, the vision was at that the comer of Brea Canyon and Diamond Bar Boulevard create something like an arrivallplaza space in the project. Chair/Torng asked if the lower legend side is people's view driving from Diamond Bar Boulevard and the view on the right is the potential site elevation. He asked about the triangle. Mr. Rogers responded that is the condition he is describing — the arrivallplaza space. The first section is the section going toward Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon so that it shows on the right hand side the upslope to the project. When he spoke two weeks ago he said the project was "at grade." In fact, it is as close as possible. It is still above the street. One of the corners was that drivers would see it as asphalt and that is not true. I -le said he would later show similar projects and how they are monumented. The second section is driving down Diamond Bar Boulevard in the direction of Grand Avenue away from T r i -- ( — APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION Brea Canyon. This shows a very strong setback of 35 -feet to a monument feature with a very strong community gathering type of spot such as an outdoor eating area or loggia located at the corner to monument the corner. As one moves closer to the entry at Cherrydale driving down Diamond Bar Boulevard toward Grand Avenue, the project is much closer to grade and the building setback from back of right-of-way is a minimum of 35 -feet. These are very healthy setbacks well above most minimum standards for most typical zoning. Sections along the project edges such as mid -point locations, Section 4 is cut from Diamond Bar Boulevard with the uphill section showing the project considerably elevated above the street. Again, this area ensures adequate setbacks without allowing any buildings closer than 15 feet to the top of slope. In this case, at a minimum will be set back 125 feet away from Diamond Bar Boulevard. The slope planting incorporates indigenous, low water, drought tolerant plants as well as plants that will mitigate for the reduction of black walnut. Mr. Rogers responded to C/Shah that the elevation difference between the houses and the street is roughly 60 feet. The next section is the section cut along the edge of the project that joins Ambusher. The existing housing is below grade to the site. In this case the grade is being lowered to reduce some of the vertical between the two relationships. This is very unique to a standard imbedded in a project like this because a minimum 85 foot setback will exist along the edge to ensure adequate distance for buffering and landscape and so that the buildings do not create an incompatible relationship to the adjoining residential. One hundred twenty (120) feet of horizontal distance lies between the houses and the buildings and landscape screening will be used to enhance the edge. Again, these setbacks are above and beyond the normal setback requirements in a project of this nature. Mr. Rogers responded to Chair/Torng that there will be a fence between the trees. The upper south side neighborhood is well above the project. Section 6 at the midpoint of the project is well below that neighborhood. There is a huge setback distance both horizontally (184 feet) and vertically (60 feet) in this project relationship. The next section further up the street (Section 7) shows an even greatervertical and horizontal relationship with 365 feet between the existing residences and the project's buildings. Mr. Rogers shared images of other projects that are similar to how, he visualizes some of the key elements in the commercial center for the Site D Specific Plan. VC/Nolan asked if the ratio of black walnut replacement ratio is based on the actual success rate or unsuccessful rate. CDD/Gubman responded that the ratio is not related to any estimated success rates and is a code requirement found in the Municipal Code that there be a 3:1 ratio for protected trees that are removed. The applicant may also be required, as a condition of approval, to enter into a tree maintenance agreement to warranty the survival of the replacement trees. For example, the City may require the applicant to replace any tree that does not survive during the first three years. VC/Nolan asked the ratio of successful replacement tree plantings and CDD/Gubman said it would depend on the quality APRIL27, 2010 PACE 13 -- i�i_�1Pl�li�� COMMISSION of the nursery stock. If the replacement tree is from a reputable nursery that employs best practices for cultivating trees and offering guarantees, then the likelihood of success should not be a concern. Chair[Torng asked why the City would want to remove the 100 -year old Eucalyptus trees and replace them with better trees. CDD/Gubman stated that the plan for the site with the commercial component compels the commercial pad to be lowered. The fact that the site is going to be graded necessitates removal of the trees. The Tree Ordinance focuses on protected trees - trees that are indigenous to this area. And what the City envisions is restoring the urban forest in the new development with climate appropriate trees. The Eucalyptus tree is not within that realm. Mr. Rogers further stated that if there were a way to realize the project before the Commission for consideration and maintain those trees, the project would probably have sought to do that. These trees have a life cycle and they are reaching the end of that cycle where they will no longer be vital. In fact, they may become more of a hazard over time. More importantly, he has done a number of projects wherein the Eucalyptus was retained and it is a tough task on flat ground much less on a hillside environment. If the trees were live oak that had an extended life period there may have been consideration for boxing and relocating the trees to the project feature and if the trees could be retained in their present location the project would have sought to do that. However, these trees are nearing the end of their life cycle and over time will be more of a problem than a benefit. This project attempts to implement current legislation to attempt to get a carbon footprint down. A lot of things being done in terms of water harvesting, plant selection, utilization of 50 percent solar, everything that is imbedded in current technology for purposes of meeting these goals, is a pact of this project. He invited the district to use this project to measure the benefits of going in this direction. This project will be state -of -the ail and raises the bar for what projects can be in terns of carbon footprints and meeting goals handed down by the state tod ay. Chair/Torng said he appreciated Mr. Roger's effort to create the site cross-sections for clarity which he requested and believes it helps to clarify and provide a better understanding of the project. He read a comment from Page 3 of the letter from Melony Paulson. She said "Part of the site could be a park. It might not be as large as some of us might like, but it would (be) better than acres of hot, desolate pavement that is now being envisioned for the site." In the final paragraph she said "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'." So by looking at what has been shown on the plan, is there a possibility of incorporating a small park. Mr. Rogers said that naturally, there is always the possibility of doing a park feature. He liked the focus on an idea brought forward by CM/DeStefano to have a plaza in the corner near the flood channel. Perhaps the project could include a pedestrian corridor that reaches back to the main APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 14 PLANNING CC7iiliMISSION! commercial structures from that location. Maybe a park of a different nature that utilizes green space and canopy that extends a walkway system back from the corner with the loggia concept, an urban gathering space, and maybe that loggia concept is connected with the greenway that goes back to the main structures. What was envisioned by a Council Member was the inclusion of a trail system from Posado down to the back of the commercial structure. So what was envisioned in the Specific Plan is a very similar type of feature as is called out on the corner at the apex of the buildings where they join at the back of the property. And what might be considered is those two being like an urban hub with a trellis or shaded walkway system that connects those two hubs to one another as an urban park setting, which might accommodate some of Ms. Paulson's concerns. VC/Nolan said she believed the raised separate pad off of Cherrydale at Diamond Bar Boulevard is potentially something that could be used for a restaurant. What is the size of that pad and what is the potential for an actual park in that area and perhaps 20-30 percent of the commercial area being removed and replaced by an actual park facility. She stated that the Commission has heard the concerns from the community again and again regarding a park and again, to speak to the social aspect of this area. Mr. Rogers said that naturally, that is an opportunity that has not been explored at this point. What is located in the corner is a water quality feature/ambient open space. If there is a grassy swale that functions as a water quality feature they usually like to associate it with other open space to get a benefit from both being next to each other and the expanded idea. Corners are important places in commercial projects in terms of locating restaurants or banks on free standing pads. The more critical of those is probably at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon. He believed that the concept as discussed is imbedded in the plan but certainly this would make for an opportunity to have a park feature that could be used by both residents outside and inside the area. VC/Nolan asked how much area of the swale would be needed to make it a designated park area in acreage off of the commercial portion. Mr. Rogers said it was a pretty tough question to answer on the fly because it is a function of programming. If it is seen as not having active uses but being a tot lot, seating area, passive shade structure, etc., it might be a two -acre site. When one gets into active facilities it begins to expand to five acres and certain municipalities require different sizes for those uses because the City would usually be responsible for the maintenance'. A smaller venue that would be more appropriate to the plan of residential/commercial features would accommodate a one or two acre facility in that corner benefitted by the other adjacent features such as setbacks and water quality elements that would help to expand the usable area. Chair/Torng asked if the Commission could recommend inclusion of a park feature and CDD/Gubman responded yes, if that is the direction the Commission wants to go he would suggest that it be incorporated into the recommendation to the City Council. Since there is a draft resolution prepared for the Commission and if the 1_1 E�_3 L a [`it L a APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission is in agreement with that draft resolution with the additional provision that a park element be incorporated staff could come back on May 11 with a revised resolution for adoption. Or, the Commission could take a short recess and craft language this evening if that is what the Commission would prefer. RECESS: Chair/Torng recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair(Torng reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. SEIYee and Consulting Traffic Engineer Steve Sasaki provided information in response to questions and comments raised at the April 13 meeting, as well as written questions and comments regarding traffic. SE/Yee stated that he would collectively address the questions and comments by category. SE/Yee responded to a comment raised regarding whether or not curnulative impacts of the proposed project were adequately addressed in the traffic study. The traffic study did indeed address several proposed projects listed including residential development in The Country Estates, Diamond Hills Plaza (formerly the Country Hills Towne Centre), the Industry Business Center/Stadium and the Aera Energy planned community. Specifically, the resident raised an issue with respect to the stadium and the traffic study for Site D began prior to when the stadium EIR was approved. However, the traffic engineer who prepared the Site D study assessed the current information available with respect to the stadium EIR and it was determined that the appropriate approach would be to look at the prior development proposed for the stadium site which is the Industry Business Center and to look at the impact to the peak hour travel times. Ultimately, this resulted in looking at the am/pm peak hour trip forecasts and the conservative approach is to the use the Industry Business Center traffic forecast because it generated much higher forecasts for the am/pm peak periods. Second, there was a concern about the H -Mart. As previously mentioned, the H -Mart is part of Diamond Hills Plaza and was addressed in the study with respect to trip generation forecasts for that and other retail establishments in the plaza. Third, there was a comment regarding school area circulation and Castle Rock Elementary access concerns and wait times for student drop off and pick up. Essentially, this is a situation that occurs throughout Diamond Bar and in fact, with many communities in Southern California. The City experiences high levels of traffic during very specific timeframes in the early morning and early afternoon hours. The City has addressed this issue uniformly throughout the City by working closely with the Sheriff's Department and school districts to monitor those situations and to proactively address operational improvements that can help with circulation during peak hour drop off and pick up. Chaparral Middle School is a good example of collaboration among the City, Sheriffs Department and school. Staff was able to establish one-way circulation routes; post additional regulatory signs, etc. Those types of actions have proved successful with regard to addressing school area APRIL_ 27, 2010 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION traffic. Fourth, there was a concern expressed about the general ingresslegress because there is a proposal for 202 dwelling units and the comments contended that there should be 404 trips associated with peak hours. However, the analysis procedure that was followed in this traffic study is a procedure that is commonly followed in the industry. The traffic engineer used the Trip Generation Handbook published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers which is universally used for assessing impacts and determining trip generation rates. These trip generation rates are based on land uses and in this case, there was a component for the residential portion and a separate trip generation forecastforthe commercial/retail component. As a result, 154 trips were considered to be the outbound A.M. peak hour number of trips from the residential units. Staff is confident with the methodology used in this study. SE/Yee said that several individuals commented on particular intersections that were not studied in this report. One intersection referenced by two different individuals who offered comments was Brea Canyon Road and Copper Canyon. The report studied a total of 20 intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project with the farthest intersection being Grand Avenue at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The traffic engineer who prepared the study looked at several criteria for selecting the intersections such as whether or not there would be more than 50 trips added to a particular intersection as a result of the project; whether or not the intersections were signalized, whether or not the intersection is an arterial to arterial intersection, arterial to a collector road intersection, or a residential intersection. All of those factors were considered and evaluated in determining which intersections needed to be included. Based on the criteria, Copper Canyon was deemed not necessary to be included in the study. Copper Canyon is a T - Intersection between an arterial and a residential collector street, it is currently not signalized, it is a single stop intersection and the intersection approach generally serves right turns in and right turns out. There are mitigations recornmended in this study forthe next intersection downstream from the project (Brea Canyon and Silver Bullet), which is an intersection that requires a fair -share contribution by the development to restripe and install an additional lane of traffic and to modify the traffic signal to improve flow through the intersection as well as, general traffic flow along Brea Canyon Road. That in combination with the determination to exclude Copper Canyon from the study was felt to be appropriate that the downstream mitigations would address any additional concerns. The last comment received addressed the relevance of the Traffic Study data. There were several concerns with the date of data collection versus present day. Data was collected in 2007 and much of this Traffic Study report, as with any traffic study report has impacts and mitigations based on future forecasts. In this case the study was based on a 2030 year traffic forecast, the critical numbers used to determine ultimate mitigation. Again, it was deemed appropriate to use the data that was collected because the critical data and forecast were still relevant for determining mitigation for this project. SE/Yee addressed Chair/Tomg's request for additional information APR1L 27, 2010 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION related to the volumes for the project with and without the project by showing a slide that showed actual traffic counts for AMIPM peak hours for the intersections. There was also a question about fair -share contributions. Steve Sasaki, Sasaki Transportation Services, highlighted a question about use of fair -share as a mitigation practice. He confirmed that fair -share mitigation is an accepted mitigation procedure which serves to create a firm nexus between the project impacts and the required mitigations so that the City is able to offset the project impacts through use of a fair -share vehicle. It is also a way to satisfy the City's adopted Traffic Study Guideline procedure. Within the Traffic Study Guideline there is a requirement for fair -share contributions and the fair -share mitigation serves to satisfy the guidelines. Within the mitigation measures themselves there is an opportunity to provide a fair -share or actual construction of improvements and whichever method is selected, would need to be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Within those parameters the City has a very solid mitigation program to offset the project's impacts. VC/Nolan said the A.M. traffictrips indicated were 154 trips and she assumed that would be mirrored for the P.M. trips. SEIYee explained that they would be different based on the methodology. Mr. Sasaki explained that since there is a combination of both residential and commercial uses, the residential is pretty much as stated as those going out in the morning tend to come back in the evening so that is fairly balanced. However, with commercial, typically there will be a lower A.M. trip generation and more trips generated in the P.M. The net trip generation is 272 in the A.M. peak hour includes both inbound and outbound vehicles. For o the P.M. it is actually 650 peak hour trips (332 inbound and 318 outbound). When there is a mixed use of residential and commercial, obviously some of the people who live on site are going to shop at the adjacent commercial and most likely that relationship is a lot higher than some residential away from the project. Individuals tend to shop at the closest location. There can be and is often a reduction to account for the internal synergy. Fhis particular study was done on a worst-case basis so it did not make those reductions. In attempting to create the envelope and looking at what mitigations were needed, that is one factor that makes it more of a worst-case analysis that that particular reduction was not made within the trip generation analysis. So the numbers shown are essentially worst-case. SE/Yee clarified to VC/Nolan that out of the 154 trips outbound A.M., 75 of those trips were associated with the condominium development and 79 were associated with the retail center. C/Shah asked if a nine percent increase in Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road P.M. traffic was a moderate or significant impact. Mr. Sasaki said that for Diamond Bar Boulevard at Brea Canyon there were impacts that were identified within the traffic study and then there were also offsetting mitigation ant impact that was identified easures so it would be considered a signific m t_ r��; E APRiL 27, 2010 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION through the traffic study within the EIR. But then also there were mitigation measures that were identified that would fix or offset those impacts. Chair/Torng asked at what point — two percent or four percent - a fair -share contribution would be required. SE/Yee responded to Chair/-Torng that the City's traffic guideline in general refers to a greater than two percent impact would kick it into a category of needing mitigation. The guidelines also indicate that if the City determines that an impact less than two percent is judged to be significant it would enable the City to require mitigation even though it did not meet the two -percent requirement. Chair/Torng asked staff to comment further on the impact to Copper Canyon because he believed it would be very difficult to make a left turn at the peak hour. Mr. Sasaki said it was an advantage to have an internal connection and the signal at Silver Bullet presents an opportunity to make a left turn under signal control. In the P.M. drivers make left turns from Brea Canyon into the development so if someone is traveling southbound on Brea Canyon, residents do make a left turn in but that was not viewed as problematic. Chair/Torng asked if striping could be added to help the residents. Mr. Sasaki said it was not determined that there was a project nexus. There may be over time that residents would ask for improvements from the City to help improve ingress/egress at that location but that would be separate from this project. Chair/Torng asked if they would go to the Traffic and Transportation Commission and Mr. Sasaki said he did not know what the process was for that in Diamond Bar but obviously, the project does not have ingresslegress through that side street. So it is viewed as more of an issue related to the neighborhood which very well could be legitimate and could be pursued for improvement. As far as the study, it is viewed as something separate from the project. CDD/Gubman said that the reports were completed and staff would respond to further questions. VC/Nolan asked how the number of new homes for this project compares in general to new home development over the past five years as it pertains to overall traffic impacts citywide. CDD/Gubman responded that a total of 237 including the Brookfield development which is about 186 attached units from 2005 through 2009 based on the number of Certificates of Occupancy issued. VC/Nolan asked staff to elaborate on the issue of entitlement about the importance of how staff certified this EIR as opposed to if the land was purchased and an EIR was done post sale. CDD/Gubman said he touched on this matter before. Having a Certified Environmental Document in hand and having some certainty of the entitlements in terms of the land uses, the density, number of units and amount of square footage, if that approval is already in hand it will add value to property when it is marketed because the developer is not assuming that risk upon purchase. PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION APt�IIm 27, 2910 — VC/Nolan asked if there had been thought given to a park and recreation area in the form of a portion of this land being taken out of the sale and dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar for park and recreation use. CDD/Gubman asked if VC/Nolan intended that the commercial and residential mix would be retained but adding the park component and VC/Nolan responded "adding the park component even as part of the development and requiring that the developer create a park or just taking a certain acreage out of the equation completely." CDD/Gubman said that would be a discussion at a higher level but if it is the Commission's recommendation to have that park feature added to this Specific Plan he would presume, given.the fiscally cautious approach the City takes on all matters of City business that the City would require the subsequent developer to construct those improvements and dedicate that to the City for public use. VC/Nolan asked if it would make the project less feasible or desirable for a developer to come in if that is a requirement and CDD/Gubman said he could not really answer whether it would be less feasible. The sale price of the property would be affected if thatwas a feature that the developer was obligated to construct and there may be other funding tools that could be used such as adding what you might call a "door charge" on the residential units that tentialllbpark 80 centbs to $1le to hdollar of foregone City because e ales would reduce square footage by p Y tax revenue. As a result, the City may look to require some sort of fee to offset that loss of revenue stream from the residential units. With all of those factors taken into account, yes, the price tag on the property would reflect that requirement as any other development requirement would also affeetthe price tag. VC/Nolan said in that regard is there not already a fair -share amount toward park service per dwelling unit or per envelope and CDD/Gubman responded affirmatively and indicated that it is called a Quimby fee and for every development unit there is an assessment that is payable and what he is saying is that the City would look into exacting an additional fee from the residential development to offset the fee of reduced sales tax revenue that would be required to accommodate the park. CDD/Gubman said he was not suggesting that the fee he is talking about is the Quimby fee, it is something in addition to the Quimby fee to serve another purpose but it is the purview of the City Manager to determine how to manage the City's revenues and expenses. There will be a loss of sales tax revenue and there will be maintenance costs inherited with the addition of a new park facility so the City would look at some means to offset those costs. VC/Nolan said and those funds would go directly to this project site specifically as opposed to the assessment for dwelling units which could be disbursed throughout other parks in the City. CDD/Gubman said the funds would go into the General Fund and through the budgeting process the money would be allocated. VC/Nolan asked the potential length of a project like this from beginning to end when one considers inconvenience of construction, construction hours, a particular concern Of hers with hours rioted from 7:D0 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. CDD/Gubman stated that Mr. Rogers may be able to elaborate more on that issue but it would probably he a 1'L-18 month process from permit issuance to having IT) [1) �m APRIL 27, 20110 PAGE 20 PLANNING COMMISSION pads ready for actual construction of buildings. Mass grading may take about six months. Speaking from experience with construction hours he has worked in communities where the noise regulations allowed construction to begin at 6:00 a.m. and as the community developed and the new development sites were starting to be surrounded by populated development sites and there was beginning to be an impact on new residents the City looked at having the noise ordinance revised to require later construction hours and the hour was set at 7:00 a.m. He worked in another community where the construction ordinance was 8:00 a.m. and as development activity increased there was pressure from the construction industry to allow an earlier start time and it is really a matter of coordination with all of the trades and how the industry operates. There are concrete batching plants that are mixing"concrete that has a short shelf life and that material needs to be delivered before it gets too hot; there are delivery trucks dropping oft lumber and they are trying to make their rounds and then as construction starts later in the day and the weather is warm, the end time is not necessarily later in the day so it shortens the duration of the work day so that could potentially lengthen the construction period. So the balance seems to gravitate to 7:00 a.m. which seems to be the earliest that the building industry can really continue to do business under and it is seerns to be the earliest tolerable time for surrounding residents. So 7:00 a.m. seems to be the universal standard. VC/Nolan asked staff's experience on surrounding property values for a project like this. CDD/Gubman said there is probably data to show that a new development going in will positively affect the comparable values and square foot values on older homes. As the homes are newer it may have less of a positive effect but it seems to have generally a positive effect on property values. With a commercial development that is less certain and so that is a question of compatibility and sensitivity to adjacent uses so taking that into account is what led to the increased setback requirements and other screening requirements to try to focus the use in a location that is farther away from residential development. Chair/Torng asked staff to comment on Mary Rodriquez concern about ground water flowing under the houses that sit on the slope at Cold Spring Lane and what would be done about the flow of water without disturbing the housing above. Peter Lewandowski stated that as indicated in the EIR, the geotechnical analysis was at a programmatic level in the absence of a formal design plan. But subsurface investigations were conducted and groundwater was encountered at a depth of 37 feet. Grading activities are not anticipated to encounter groundwater as part of its operations. And as part of typical grading procedures and practices, further geotechnical review will be required at the building permit stage once final development plans are finalized. To the extent additional geological conditions are identified those will be composed as conditions of approval on subsequent development projects. The subsurface ground water is not anticipated at this stage to result in significant impacts to the project moving forward. APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Torng asked the school district to comment on for what the proceeds of the sale of this land can and cannot be used. Jack LeBrun, Assistant Superintendent of Business Services, VVVUSD, responded that the question regarding the use of any type of capital outlay proceeds has to go back into the district's capital improvement program. Currently, the school cho olisc i not allowed to use na proceeds to pay for salaries or ongoing op exps Chair/Torng asked for a more in depth explanation about the 1991 DBIA resolution and why that is not a consideration. CDDIGubman explained that the DBIA Resolution that was passed in 1991 did formally record the position based on survey information that a park is a preferred development for that site. Certainly there has been public testimony that is indeed still the preferred alternative of many for this site. He would just have to go through a few points to respond to that. The first would be that subsequent to that resolution was the City's adoption of the General Plan in 1995. The General Plan does not identify Site D as a park. It retained, I would say, an inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning designation but it was not formally established in the General Plan as a potential park site. Prior to that, there was a grant application submitted by the City to secure funding for a park site and there were two locations under consideration: 1) what is currently Pantera Park, and 2) Site D. The funding was approved for Pantera and not approved for Site D. So that window of opportunity, the best opportunity to see that (a park) happen was when the grant application was submitted but it was approved for another site. Subsequent to that and after the General Plan adoption in 1995, there were improvements to Heritage Park and there were improvements to Castle Rock Elementary School keeping in mind there is a shared use agreement between both the 1NVUSD and Pomona Unified School District (PUSD) for school facilities to be used by Diamond Bar residents. Finally, the Parks Master Plan that is currently being completed and will be presented for City Council consideration does not include Site D as a potential park site; it does, however, include future improvements to both Heritage Park and to Castle Rock Elementary. So in that entire timeline the City has not taken a formal position or adopted a policy to designate or to plan for Site D as a public park. And finally, the MOU laid the groundwork for crafting of the Specific Plan. The basic criteria indicated 50 percent commercial and 50 percent residential and under the MOU there was no remaining percentage for a park use. Having said that, if the Commission is leaning in the direction of incorporating a park component staff can help formulate the recommendation to the City Council and staff believes that doing so would not affect the environmental analysis or fundamentally affect the Specific Plan. Chair/Torng asked for deliberation and input from individual Commissioners. C/Leo said his comments have been spoken loudly by the residents and he believes his colleagues believe the Commission's function is very limited. The APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 22 PLANNING COMMISSION Cornmission's function is to listen to the people and bring their issues and concerns and discuss those issues and concerns and make an informed decision. The decision should be for the people and not for someone else. Also, the EIR is great and he listens to the people and agree with them that it does not go far enough to answer the residents' worries and concerns. The concept and implementation of the Site D Specific Plan looks great and appealing but he believes that professional companies have the money and technology to have a much respected profession like the City's consultants. But the residents have only five minutes. They have limited time. Most of them work and do not have time to prepare this type of appealing presentation that we have seen tonight. But he believes it looks great and is a very good presentation but the facts do not change and the facts do not lie. The fact is that the City has enough retail space already and when he moved to Diamond Bar it used to take five minutes for him to get to the project area down Diamond Bar Boulevard and now it sometimes takes 30-40 minutes. One resident sent him an' email today that stated "Diamond Bar is a virtual parking lot." And C/Lee thinks this is a temporary virtual parking lot but Diamond Bar does not want a long term parking lot. That's his one comment. Also, the EIR is pretty good but EIR is not everything. If there is a concern or problem the EIR writes down that everything is fine and can be mitigated. He does not believe that the EIR is a panacea. He understands there are professional reasons for this project and he really respects the professionals. He does not want to give any disrespect to them but even though they are professionals they do not know the residents and if they live here they know better than anyone else. So if the residents say there is a problem and this project will lead to negative impacts to the community then he really respects the opinion of the residents. Sometimes higher technology and speech does not make sense. Why does Diamond Bar need more cars? Sometimes it does not make sense. Again, he really respects his residents' opinion and concerns and their worries and their effort and energy to come down here to express their ideas. And his job is to represent them and in this instance, if it does not make sense and does not help the community he believes there is no reason to modify or compromise the project. Sometimes when we say no that makes for a better future. C/Shah thanked staff and the consultants for a great presentation. He apologized to his fellow citizens that he has to say no to further comment because if the public hearing is opened again it may open up that issue over and over again and the Commission will never get to its final decision. He takes this business very seriously. At the same time he wants to make sure the process continues in an expedient manner. At the same time we will do justice with the problem at hand. He is keenly aware of the environment, neighborhoods, and needs of the people and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Really at this point of the debate at this time is that the land belongs to somebody. Somebody wants to sell their land. And the issue brought to the Planning Commission includes five or six items and one of the items which is major is a General Plan amendment to change the land r-1 rr - — u�IEE 27 2 BADE 23 PLANNING COYI MISSION APRIL 27 y ®�® use. If it is left the way it is, what will a new property owner do, and in the interest of the City, the City decided to go into a MOU with the School District which states 50 percent residential/50 percent commercial. So with that background, the Commission has to look at the overall picture and long range plan. He understood that people want new things. He spent his time in transit and he has seen a lot of NIMBYs—they want mass transit, but "not in my backyard." The same is true here and we do not progress in our City, there will not be a computer, there will not be a w automobile, there will not be a new society. Sc) we need to move forward. new just say "leave. the land as it is." With the given plan, we have tools to work at it. One of the tools is the EIR and is the tool right now at hand. It talks about goals and objectives, long term horizons, tax implications and predictable outcome. Ultimately, the bottom line is what this entitlement does, it adds value to the property. And we are all in the business – people are in the business of ultimately wanting to add value to their properties. Considering all of these factors there are a few things that come to mind which the Commission should consider. His concerns with the plan are cut and fill. You can cut and fill without having to import or export dirt to maintain the natural environment and to develop this plan it needs to be developed so that its environment is park like. One potential discussion was that the City could develop the park but a small part of this 30 -acre parcel. Not a bad idea recommended by his colleague. He would be of the opinion that a future developer be allowed to develop in a park like environment meaning what he saw today as planned and shown does provide more like a park like environment more than a piece of land somewhere in the 30 acres—one acre, two acres, three acres—because it boxes it in. When there is a commercial and residential component nearby people may not feel comfortable using it as a park. The City has Heritage Park nearby. There is a school nearby where people can use that area. Though he is more willing to put in language the City is better off leaving it to the future developer, but established criteria that the developer must have a certain percentage of open space for the overall size. He does not know the percentages required in Diamond Bar but that is the question he will be asking. So considering all of the facts, he does want his fellow citizens to feel that the Commission and staff does its job and the important thing is that he wants the City to progress in such a manner to make sure that what is done today is a move forward for future generations. I-je is open to other considerations but knowing what he knows today the matter at hand is to examine the EIR and whether to recommend or not to recommend. VC/Nolan felt the EIR was not an end-all/be-all for this project. It is a tool to use to come to a decision about what is best for the community at large, for the whole City of Diamond Bar. It is true that the WVUSD has a right to dispose of this property. Is it to the City's be to approve this EIR and obtain the entitlement so the City has more of a say in how this will move forward. She disagreed regarding the open space. She believed the property had approximately 8 or 9 acres of open space which is also considered easernents, rights of �vays and other APRIL ?-7, 2010 PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION open areas. She wants an open green area. She wants a park like setting. She wants a place for people to take their dogs. And again, she thinks it could fit nicely with the type of community - the retail, the commercial community, that this has envisioned. She thinks there is space for both. This is a blank slate. 'ihe City has ake this what the community wants to make it and to set the the opportunity to mbest ground rules. Her question for staff is, would it bark area is fea ble. She does come back to this issue after looking at whether a p not feel comfortable moving forward with the term "park like." CDD/Gubman said that during the break he draftedoallanthe guage thacifc ouldab incorporated into the e resolution to recommend app the Tentative Tract Map. If the Commission would like he can read the language vision if so, it can be to see i it is in aimotion with the Comdopt mis riesolutionwth theprovisions as incorporated recommended. C/Lee said that if you insinuate or leave it as some unidentified area, the Commission needs to decide the item but he (CDD/Gubman) says he wants to give a suggestion to.....Chair/Torng interjected andionsa dfor hhe ter to hought CDconsi//Gubman was responding to VC/Nolan and make a suggest said maybe this is inappropriate because it is illegal forth t rignow Commission sta insinuate a decision for a certain area. Chair/Torng trigabout a park discussion and as you may recall. VC/Nolan just made a suggestion area. ACAANohlenberg said that there are always staff's recommendations on items before the Commission and he believed CDD/Gubman was attempting to react to comments to provide language that would move toward that goal. But he does not believe it insinuates any sort of predetermination of the Commission's action or trying to restrict the Commission to a particular action. The Commission has wide latitude to approve or deny or app rove itwith differeeslanguage '�th t would s or each is merely an su the goal that aone moffthe Commissto fulfill all ioneal ors wale s proposing. C/Lee felt that all of the Commissioners should make their comments and then CDD/G ei berate�uThat would be his rr co �rmended lendation. and then the commission could d VC/Nolan here colleagues colleague ll be ng on board I s it she was out with this left field or, did she have the support Chair/Torng felt that development of a new site is generally not a very popular ioner he nts Of viedecision d be esde. thei frustration ins a Smany aspects. understands However, as acCo rim sosioner, views APRIL 27, 201() PAGE 25 'ti Y PLANNING COMMISSION he and his colleagues must understand their role as a decision-making agency and keep the objective in mind and endeavor to balance as a principal the econornic, legal, social, technological and other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risk in determining whether to approve a project. If it cannot concur that legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposal outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, a diverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable. Based on the projectthere are some unavoidable air quality impacts that cannot, be avoided but most of the other issues including the major ones such as traffic and.landscaping issues have been mitigated to a less significant level. As a Commissioner serving more than eight years he really trusts that the staff is working extremely hard to make the City better every day and he commends staff for doing such a good job in responding to all of the questions, comments and concerns raised at the last meeting as well as through the emails and letters. He also believed that the consultants' technical expertise will make sure the mitigation measures will work to make this the best possible project. From a benefit standpoint he believes the City needs the tax revenue and the school district needs additional funds to support school activities. And he feels it is important to maintain a healthy City and school district because both will be a cornerstone of this community. A prestigious City with a prestigious school district will for sure maintain the City's quality of life and housing values, etc. The City's plan is a level A plan and is not the final development plan. But with a Specific Plan, the City is able to set Borne important guidelines for the future developer. He felt it was very important for the City to set limits and make sure the best designed project will happen at Site D. He supports recommending inclusion of a small park area in the commercial development area and let the City Council make file final decision. And as he mentioned when he quoted a resident's comments, he felt the comment that she hoped it will be an urban city center with living shopping and park space set into the natural setting of Site D fit what he was trying to convey. VC/Nolan asked if the Commission should hear staff's recommendation for the language to include. C1Shah said his reference to a park like atmosphere was in support of an environment and the developer should decide how to include that option. He was thinking more on the order of unspecified open space areas where people can congregate. Second, the Commission is not considering the appropriateness of the MOU which has already been established with the relationship between the City and school district. One thing he wanted to add to his comment was about the trees and perhaps the City should consider having an arborist to review the trees when the development occurs to advise the developer and the City whether those trees could be saved or what could be clone. His last comment is that this should be a showcase solar energy efficient project for the City. APRIL. 27, 2010 PAGE 26 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nolan said that regarding a park and regarding a specific location for it, she did not believe in leaving it up to the developer, she did not want to take away necessarily from the residential area. She likes that part of the plan. She thinks even regarding parking or a small park would infringe on a residential area. She would like to see something along Diamond Bar Boulevard, along Cherrydale something that is not just specific to this project but for the community at large. The south end of Diamond Bar has Heritage Park and schools but to her it is lacking in this area. And she would like to see something more specific and she is riot even sure if a change in language right now would suffice. There's so much put into the actual drawing, the grading, the specificity of the commercial and residential, but to just toss in a plot for a park seems a bit of a rush. C/Lee said he concurred with VC/Nolan. He loves parks. And he means it since he moved down to Diamond Bar that area location was allocated for a park. He likes parks. But he does not like building commercial and houses and taking a small area for a park. It is a very complicated process if you want to get a park. He wanted to make sure about VC/Nolan's intentions. He does not think that is the idea of the residents. And sometimes we need to give them open space and sometimes the City does nothing and then gives it to somebody else. Our kids — the next generation - that's the issue right now. I always believe that development is good for developers. They come down here to our City and whatever they say and give you in a presentation or fancy words doesn't matter. The relevant fact is that development of Site D shouldn't be —wouldn't be good for our residents. That is the truth. And one does not alter or deviate it by other fancy words. That's my second comment. Chair/Torng said that regarding the park addition it belongs to the Specific Plan under the third resolution. CDD/Gubman indicated that ChairlTorng was correct but he would advise the Commission not to make any decisions on any of those three recommendations until the Commission discusses its intent for the park provision because depending on whatthe Commission's intent is it may or may not have an effect on the language of the Specific Plan or the Environmental Impact Report. So he really believed the Commission needed to discuss this matter before beginning its process of making decisions and motions on any of the resolutions. CDD/Gubman referred the Commissioners to Resolution 3 to recommend City Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map and Specific Plan and offered the following language on Page 3 which begins the resolution section. on Page 4 he suggested that subsection 'T'. be added: "At the time that a development plan is formally submitted for Planning Commission consideration, the subsequent plan shall incorporate within its boundaries a neighborhood park of sufficient size to incorporate features such as, but not limited to, a tot lot, picnic tables and shade structures." This would be supplemented by a Tentative Tract condition to require :._� r / , f- APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 21 PLANNING GOMI J!IISSION the Final Map to include a lot that delineates the boundaries of the park as prescribed under that new subsection that he previously read. VC/Nolan said that since the Plan is already specific on acreage for commercial and easements and things passed already, delineating the size is not recommended? Or the location of it as opposed to being in the commercial area rather than the residential. CDD/Gubman said that if it is VC/Nolan's desire to recommend that level of detail he may have to confer with the EIR consultant and as to go back and look at the environmental City Attorney to see if staff nee document to see if that would lead to more changes because the language he proposed to her just now would not mandate any changes to the EIR. The more precise the Commission wants to get, the recommended provisions still may be immune from any changes to the EIR but he thinks staff would have to study that further and come back to the Commission. Following staff deliberation, CDD/Gubman stated that the staff's discussion had to do with specifying a size and location and the agreement was that if the Commission wishes to specify a minimum size of the park it would not affect the analysis and EIR. The EIR does analyze a maximum intensity and density scenario for residential and commercial so adding a park component would potentially reduce the intensity of the commercial development but certainly not increase.it. It may reduce the traffic impacts because the park component may generate some off-peak trip generation. Staff does not see any compromise to the EIR. However, the location is problematic at this point so if the Commission were to include a location at this time the recommendation going forward to the City Council would not be in compliance with the Level A Plan before the Commission. The limit would be specifying some of the programming and size without the location. C/Shah recommended the park be no less than three-quarters of an acre or about 30,000 square feet or something like that so that it does not involve changing the FIR. C/Lee asked if he could make a motion to continue. CDD/Gubman said again, the issue staff is struggling with is whether or riot the Commission is intending to specify a location because that would be in conflict with the A level Specific Plan designations for commercial and residential. If the Commission wants to go into more specifics about aggregate park acreage or aggregate acreage with a minimum per park site within the plan, staff can help formulate that language in the resolution. Staff needs to re-emphasize that getting into the specifics of a location would not be consistent with the Draft Specific Plan staff is presenting to the Commission. n DRIA `T PAGE 28 PLANNING CQMMISSION APRIL Zig 2®110 VC/Nolan said that to do this tonight she does not know. She is going to be back here in a couple of weeks so for her this is not a problem for the Commission to continue this if it is something that has to be snore formulated, there's got to be more thought given to it. For her to pull out I want 2.25 acresdesignated vg w of the to this... She wanted something. They talked about the gateway — t City at this location and she thinks that has to be something like a park like setting. She is not saying the corner of Brea Canyon and Diamond Bar Boulevard but something along the line that preserves that visually pretty area that is visible to the community to someone that does not live there is not necessarily going to walk down the path which she thinks is a great idea to this area but someone will take their kids to what is on the other side of town or on the other side of Diamond Bar Boulevard. She is just not real comfortable. She does think that again, as it pertains to the EIR she does not necessarily think, like CDD/Gubman says, it is going to change that up a lot but she thinks this is just too big of a change to the Specific Plan to not consider all of the three elements together. Mr. Rogers said he keeps coming back to the process that the City is in which is an A level and B level map. A saying in the business is "The devil is in the details" and it truly is. The details, in terms of configuration on these properties have not yet come forward. The intent was not to, as an applicant or through the school district to try and design the project specifics. The wonderful thing about this process because this is what we have been doing on the Irvine Ranch for decades, is that we create this envelope or umbrella under which we understand how setbacks work, how development standards work, thresholds in intensity, to get the process past some of the bigger meatier parts. He kind of agreed with VC/Nolan, but in the sense that trying to deliberate on the location and specifics of the park in this setting is a tough call. When VC/Nolan asked "how big a park" well, it's programmatic and C/Shah's comments about three quarters of an acre minimum -- those are all the kinds of details that quite frankly he thought were borne out of the B level effort. He said he was not trying to defer it and he was not trying to shrug the responsibility of doing this but he was suggesting that an applicant that comes to the City with a commercial plan, in the creativity that he can elicit in the process of working with his architects and landscape architects with the mandate that the City might set forth at this A level might be a more productive venue for the Commission to vet these issues and get into those details with him and really force it out at that level because that is where he thinks it is most appropriate. The problem is if we just plop a blob in there and say a park has to be right there, maybe what we're doing is we're inhibiting the creativity of the future applicant at the B level. So with that in mind, and remember, that is the most substantive part in terms of this issue. Where is the park located? Well, a lot of things have to be developed in an understanding of that commercial site plan to discover that and he would believe that the City might be doing a disservice to the future purchaser of that property to make all of those decisions in advance. Maybe it is good enough that there is a performance criteria overlaid on this I APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 29 PLAHMING COMMISSION project. He said he appreciated that VC/Nolan wanted to get to certainty and the predictable outcome that he keeps talking about but perhaps it is better at the next level. Chair/-forng said that actually in a way he concurred with staff's response on this because actually, the location you suggested by VC/Nolan at Cherrydale, he does not like that idea. He likes Mr. Roger's suggestion for the idea of the corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. At this time the Commission is not going into the details and he believed that was a level II or Plan Level B, and right now the Commission is at Level A.. Chair/Torng asked if the Commission could accept C/Shah's recommendation for a three quarter of an acre minimum with the location to be determined because he has a different opinion that VC/Nolan. VC/Nolan said she did not think it so specific, she thinks it is more general than specific. I just would like more thought put into it. We have 50150 percent - I don't know if any third grader could come up with that figure but I would like to think there would be something that is more concrete regarding size, regarding location, that is just not random. This is why we are doing this so we can be on the front end of what we want. And maybe I am the only one that wants it and that would be fine. But she just thinks it is just still too obscure. ChairlTorng asked that based on what VC/Nolan said what is the best that staff can do with the current plan? CDD/Gubman said at this point he would suggest that the Commission continue the matter because he needs to discuss this further with Counsel because he is not sure why a location cannot be specified and he needs to have a better understanding of why? Because this is still a recommendation to the City Council and the City Council is going to give the final direction on what changes, if any, are incorporated into this planning document. Right now he would suggest that the Commission continue the matter to May 11, 2010, and give him a chance to consult with the City Attorney and with the consultants and come back to the Commission with more developed guidance for formulating the Commission's recommendation. Chair(Torng said that for him his location is different from VC/Nolan. He does not like her location so he does agree that this is something that the Commission should set the requirements that it wants a park and wants to put that into the plan and let the developer know so that they have to create something — a. park, for this location. ACNVohlenberg said that the discussion would be whether or not the City can specify a location. Arid then that would be something the Commission would have to debate at the next meeting and decide if you want to specify a particular location or not. There may be three votes for that, there may not be. But we want to make sure wo can or cannot let the Commission recommend a specific location. U7 'E APRIL. 27, 2010 PAGE 30 PLANNING CGMMISSION VC/Nolan said she did not necessarily say it would have to be at that corner. She just would like some research done on if, some thought put into it. I mean if staff has an idea now that would be great too. She did not mean to insult anyone by saying that any third grader could come up with the 50/50 percent on this but it just seems — I would just like something a little more concrete and still give a developer leeway. But something that we have more envisioned. I just don't think we're being specific. C/Shah stated that he felt that given the opportunity for Plan B and let the developer come in the future and present a location and the Commission will get another report at that time because the Commission will see the entire picture. Right now we are seeing just three lots there and we do not know how they are going to develop them. He stated that he likes the idea of Mr. Rogers that leave it to the future developer; and maybe we should just identify the need for the park. He stated that he is of the opinion that maybe we should establish some criteria — any area and the criteria you describe — tot lot, etc., but leave it for the future and the Planning Commission will get an opportunity to debate and decide. But at that time the Commission will have a better picture because we will know what other things are being developed in the area. We will have better information. He recommended not to insist on location at this time, but just insist on a park and an area of that park so at least we have areas (i.e., acreages)identified for the commercial and areas identified for the residential pads so let's identify the area for the park. C/Lee said he concurred with C/Shah's idea — a portion of it. Let's move on. C/Shah moved, Chair/Torng seconded, to Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Environmental Impact Report, approve the Mitigation Report 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. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair(Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson C/Shah moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to 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 APRIL 27, 2010 MAGE 31 PLANNING COMMISSION Residential (RL) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Shah VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson The Commission discussed continuation of Recommendation 3 and CDD/Gubman proposed modified language to reflect the Commission's request. CDD/Gubman reiterated "at the time that a development plan is formally submitted for Planning Commission consideration, the subsequent plan shall incorporate within its boundaries a neighborhood park of sufficient size to incorporate features such as, but not limited to, a tot lot, picnic tables and shade structures, and shall be a minimum of three- quarters of an acre. Chair/Torng asked if the Commission could make it one acre. Why make it three-quarters of an acre? CDD/Gubman said that is what he heard before so if he misunderstood ... C/Shah said no, an acre is fine. Chair/Torng asked the Commissioners to remember this is Plan A with certain guidelines. If the Commission starts to get into a specific location it would become a different plan. He liked Mr. Roger's idea about integrating a park with the location with an eating area with a park surrounding it. It looked to him pretty good. But VC/Nolan's idea is at Cherrydale so then it would require a little more detail to justify it. VC/Nolan said it was not specifically Cherrydale. She knows she brought that up. But it is something, again, an entrance viewpoint for the City that when people drive down Diamond Bar Boulevard they see a park, that the residents see a park and that it is visible and usable for the community. She stated that she thinks an acre is a little small, is looking at this to some extent from the perspective of a mom. ChairlTorng asked if there was any more discussion. ACA/Wohlenberg said staff had one more change to read into the record. CDD/Gubman said he was reminded that the Commission discuss multiple locations with an aggregate size so he wants to make sure he understands so that staff provides the Commission with the language. So do we want it to say "park area or areas with an aggregate size of at least one acre? C/Shah said he was of the opinion of two acres total and one particular lot is no less than one acre, then there would he two areas and let the developer decide what those two areas would be or where it could be. CDD/Gubman said what if the two areas were contiguous so that it was a total of two acres. C/Shah said that would be okay. ACAANohlenberg clarified that it could be two 4 « APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 32 PLANNING COMMISSION park areas with a total aggregate area of two acres, one of the areas to be at least one acre in size. C/Shah said "that is correct, very well stated." VC/Nolan said that if two acres is too big she would rather see an acre and one-quarter of something nice and particular. She appreciates the idea of two acres, but is that too much of an infringement into the commercial area? CDD/Gubman stated that staff would strongly suggest that this item be continued to give staff a chance to study this to determine what a different park size would afford. Two acres could have a significant effect on the viability of the commercial site. One may be sufficient to provide all of the amenities that the Commission envisions. Staff needs to go back and study this. The one item staff wants to look at is the Planning Commission rules. It may be more appropriate to take one motion for all three actions at once rather than leave this evening with two down and one to go. Chair/Torng felt the Commission had consensus and was waiting for staff's language. The Commission has consensus in a way that this is an important Specific Plan but we want a park. But how much and how to do that is something we are waiting for staff to provide guidance, and within the limits and not to kind of impact the fiscal responsibility and not to impact the EIR and those kinds of things. So actually, the Commission can make a decision or wait until staff comes back and just notify the Commission with the appropriate language. VC/Nolan said she had to respectfully disagree to take staff's recommendation to give this a little more thought and we may come back with the same thing and do this again in two weeks with just a little more specificity, a few more details. There are just a lot of different things out there and now was your recommendation for the Commission to take all three items as a whole does that negate what we already voted on? C/Shah said there were two or more experts here and he has some experience visualizing one acre, two acre, three acre and he does agree that one or one and a quarter acre or one and one half acre are insufficient for a neighborhood park. He kind of agreed with the Chair to agree with staffs experience and expertise on acreage which would not impact the future development or the school district and if that is in staffs opinion, sufficient, then he thinks the Commission should consider that. He thinks the Commission should be open to hear the experts and if they believe one acre is fine, so be it. He does not think it is very difficult right now at this stage to visualize it. Everybody agrees in principle that we need a park. The issue is whether it should be one acre, one and one half acre, or what. That is the issue. Chair/Torng likened this debate to the parolee homes wherein the Commission wanted the maximum distance. So we can identify the language to the maximum size of the park that staff can identify for the Commission. -- .-..,1'..,. -- -;� r— rd APRiL 27, 2010 PAGE 33 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nolan said she thought if staff was willing to go back, rethink this, give it some more detailed thought outside of this arena right here and come back, it may be as general as C/Shah recommends. It may be more specific to this is residential, this is commercial, whether it's specific land and location, she just likes the idea that staff seems to be recommending that the Commission come back in two weeks and revisit this particular item. C/Lee said the Commission already made a motion for item one and number two. There is no reason they should be combined together. If VC/Nolan thinks the recommendation is good make a motion for that and we get same action. VC/Nolan said she did not just want to do it. I don't just want to pull a place and a number out of my hat. C/Lee said no - just make a motion for continuance. ACA/Wohlenberg said he wanted to make a point of procedure and parliamentary procedure. These three resolutions constitute a single action and he wants to make sure there is not an issue with when a statute of limitations starts to run or anything like that so that all three are done at the same time. The Commission's rules allow for a motion of reconsideration be taken at the same meeting where the Commission has already taken action on a resolution item. So what he would recommend is that the Commission proposed a motion for reconsideration of the first two items with that decision to be made simultaneously with the consideration of the third resolution so that we have sort of undone that approval and just moved it out to coordinate with the third resolution. VC/Nolan said, so we would be voting again on the first two items that we voted on already? ACANVohlenberg said first there would be a motion for reconsideration on the first two items. If that passes then those items would be reconsidered simultaneously with the third so they would be then sort of unapproved and for consideration those would be moved to be simultaneous with the third. C/Lee said he had a question about that. The agenda clearly separates Items 1, 2 and 3 and then you said about a resolution. For example, if I agree with item number 2 and I don't agree with item 3 then he cannot express his opinion if he votes on all three at once. If the items are separate he can express his opinion on a certain item. With them combined together no matter whether I agree or disagree with a certain item I cannot do that. ACAJWohlenberg said they would all still be voted on separately. He wanted to make sure because the project requires all three resolutions. If two were to pass and one were to not pass he would not be sure what would happen with that. So in order to make sure action is taken on all three of them either approval or denial, he wanted to make sure theywere all approved simultaneously because they all do constitute a single project. So the Commission has taken action on two and if the Commission is not taking action on the third yet he does not know if that will trigger any problems with review or appeal of those where there are essentially two approved resolutions that could go up, but they are essentially useless without the third and he does not know what kind of problems or delays that may cause the City. So to just avoid that problem his recommendation would be to pass a motion for reconsideration on Items 1 and 2 so that They can be considered APRIL 27, 2010 PAGE 34 PLANNING COMMISSION again at the next meeting so that at the next meeting staff has to come back with the additional information about the third resolution but the Commission would also then just start at the beginning again and consider Resolution number 1, Resolution number 2 and then Resolution number 3. Chair/Torng asked if at the next meeting the Commission would come back and go directly to deliberation or go through the whole process. ACA/Wohlenberg said the Commission would go directly to the resolutions. The Commission may want some additional deliberation amongst the Commission in order to make that decision. There is no problem with doing that and that does not bring up any due process issues like when there is public testimony. This is just the Commission acting. So the Commission is saying we need more information. Find that information and bring it back so we can continue our deliberation on a particular date. VC/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded, for reconsideration of Items 1 and 2 and request that staff bring back recommendations and additional information regarding the designation of a specific park space orsize on May 11, 2010. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair(Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTSIINFORMATIOMAL ITEMS: C/Shah thanked everyone for their consideration this evening and thanked staff and the consultants for their good effort. VC/Nolan thanked everyone for their patience and said she looked forward to visiting this again in two weeks. Chair/Torng thanked staff and the consultants for their efforts. Thanks to the audience that stayed with the Commission for such a long meeting. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1Public Hearing dates for future projects 11, SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. & APRIL 27, 2-010 PAGE 35 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 10:54 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 11th day of May, 2010. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director. Tony Torng, Chairman Attachment 5 May 6, 2010 City of. Diamond Bar Plamling Commission C/O Grace Lee City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SUBJECT: SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: At the April 27, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, City staff indicated that there were some factual errors in my letter that needed to be addressed. In response, I would like to address factual errors, which should be considered before you proceed. I have stated in my letter that my opinions are based on a cursory review of a large volume of documents and therefore there may be errors. However, as proof that I am human and do make errors, I also raised some really good points that would be an error for the City to overlook. While.staff addressed a few of the issues that they felt were incorrect, I feel that some important - — - issues were glossed over and perhaps misdirected away from. I -am not going to redress every issue in detail as it has been already stated in my previous letter that I believe still has merit, but I am going to readdress (and add) a few. 1. Obi ectivity nd Independent: While staff is correct that TRG Land is not the environmental consultant or the traffic consultant, the environmental consultant and traffic consultant are sub -consultants to TRG and take direction and payment from TRG Land directly. As a result, the potential issue of conflict of interest, objectivity and not being independent still remains as TAG Land has indicated that they have over a 20 -year relationship with the School District. The City should have hired a team that did not have any prior relationship to either the City or Walnut Valley Unified School District to ensure independency. The selection. of TRG Land was not based for the purpose of creating an objective independent evaluation, but. to minimize potential issues to further the goals of the MOU. The hiring of the consultant was not developed out of a competitive bid process, but was solely based on past relationships with the School District and negotiated. as a condition of the MOU (Section 1.1 of the MOU). Page I of 7 The genesis of the Specific Plan and ETR does not appear to be about protecting and serving the residents; nor has it been about wanting to obtain community input. The purpose of the Specific Plan and ETR appears to be to justify the intent of the MOU to increase land use intensity for 50% housing and 50% commercial in order that the District and City can capitalize on the sale of one large property at a higher value. The more money the District makes on the sale of the property, the more money the City will also receive from the increased value of the City's share of 4.6 percent of land sale proceeds. It is also about the City not losing money. Should the City not approve a Specific Plan by November 4, 2010, the District does not have to reimburse the City for the cost of consultants paid for the preparation of the Specific Plan, traffic report and FIR and the City stands to lose $334,221.25. As a result, the City is motivated, if not already committed, to approve any specific plan and EIR by November 4, 2010 just to ensure that the City does not lose money, regardless if the Specific Plan and FIR are flawed and inadequate. This type of arrangement is highly irregular and has set up the process to fail in protecting and representing the residents from the very beginning. The City should be reviewing the Specific PIan for land use. compatibility and benefits (amenities and tax revenues) and not for economic gain or loss. 2. Notification of residents within a 1,000 -foot radius. Staff pointed out that one of my factual errors in my letter is stating that the City exceeded its 700 feet radius noticing requirement. I would like to point out that the information that the City's noticing requirement is 700 feet (not 1,000) was provided to others and me from the Community Development Department. As such, I commented on incorrect factual information that was provided to me. I understand that mistakes may happen, but it is not encouraging or comforting that the error is identified as one of my factual,errors instead of the Department's. But in any case, it draws concerns of accuracy of the information being provided to the public and to the Planning Commission. It further - - - - - - -- illustrates that the City is onlymeeting-the bare legal requirement -versus going — - - - - beyond and informing and involving residents in the process. Traffic Study: The current (3 -year old) traffic study contained in the EIR has several major flaws that cannot be overlooked and if addressed properly, would require re- circulation of the Traffic Study and FIR. Any "Significant New Information" must and should be considered and studied. a. The traffic report may have been submitted to the City in 2009, but the traffic study is based on a 2007 traffic counts, which is evident on the fact that the traffic study reports "existing 2007" traffic and projects 2010 traffic. If the traffic report was updated, the traffic report should state existing 2009 traffic, not 2007. As a result, the consultant's statement that the traffic report was updated one year ago is factually incorrect. In November 2008, the City paid for an additional traffic study to focus only on a double left from Diamond Bar Boulevard into project for $2,500.00. It is not clear whether this 2008 study is included as the report still references 2007 traffic counts. Page 2 of 7 b. Staff has not addressed the concern that the cumulative impact of traffic and mitigation is not based on current recent growth within and nearby the City. One major project, which has been recently better defined and has significant impacts to the City of Diamond Bar and adjacent communities, is the Industry NFL stadium. The ETR only looks at the previous defined mixed-use project. The NFL Stadium will have different traffic impacts not yet known as no one has studied it. Industry received a waiver from the Governor and Diamond Bar is ignoring the newly redefined project. This is a major deficiency. The traffic report should be updated to reflect the cumulative impacts of the NFL Stadium, which will increase ciimulative traffic impacts on the freeways and on in all major intersections in the City. c: While staff was correct that the traffic report did include projected traffic of the Diamond Hills Plaza shopping center, the old 3 -year traffic study was completed prior to the opening of the Super H Supermarket and new adjacent retail uses and does not reflect actual current traffic, The City's consultant stated at the April 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting that that an updated traffic study was completed about one year ago. If an updated traffic study was completed one year ago, why has it not been disclosed or included in the EIR? If public funds were used to pay for the updated traffic study, the report should be disclosed and included in this EIR. This draws question as to whether the updated study found additional impacts that were not addressed. The.non-disclosure of all information is a basis for the comment period not being closed, as all information has not been fully disclosed for public review and comment. A new traffic study must be completed to reflect accurate cumulative impacts of newly identified projects and impacts. The revised traffic study and. revised EIR needs to be re -circulated. d. The traffic study failed to analyze worse case scenario for the high-density - --- - -- --- - residential units.- The-Spceific Plan and FIR state that,the project can be granted-a- d ranted-a densitybonus of 25%more units if the project is developed as affordable units. However, the traffic study ONLY analyzes trips generated from the 202 residential units, not the full potential of 253 units (202 units times 1.25 = 253 units). As a result, the traffic study is inadequate and flawed. A new traffic study must be completed to reflect the total potential density of 253 residential units and the traffic study and revised EIR needs to be re -circulated. e. The traffic study failed to analyze worse case scenario or maximum intensity for the commercial development. The traffic engineer used ITE category 820 for shopping centers (an integrated group of commercial establishments planned, developed, and owned as a unit). Typically, a traffic study of this type would be based on a proposed or better -defined project, as different percentages of office space would have varying impacts to AM and PM peak traffic. The Specific Plan and EIR state that the types of use can include commercial retail, office, restaurants, and so on. As a detail plan has not been developed, the project should be analyzed for impacts for different possible scenarios and the Lead Agency should select the scenario that generated the most AM and PM peals traffic and Page 3 of 7 impacts to mitigate. One very possible scenario is the development of all office buildings that would have significant traffic impacts to AM and PM peak traffic. As a result, the traffic engineer should have also analyzed traffic impacts based on an office park category, such as ITE category 720 "Office Park." As the traffic study did not analyze the worse case scenario, the traffic study is inadequate and flawed. A new traffic study must be completed and the traffic study and revised EIR needs to be re -circulated. f. The traffic study did not include three (3) intersections (Cold Spring Lane and Castlerock, Brea Canyon Road and Cold Spring Place, and Brea Canyon Road and Copper Canyon Drive). Copper Canyon Drive and Brea Canyon Road is the first intersection just 850 feet south of the site. Brea Canyon Road and Cold Spring Place is approximately 1,535 feet north of the site and Cold Spring Lane and Castlerock is approximately 2,600 feet away from the site. These close intersections were not analyzed and mitigated and will be further impacted by the proposed development. It is completely unacceptable to say that there will not be any impact to these intersections without analyzing and proving that there will not be any impacts. A new traffic study must be completed to include these three intersections and the traffic study and revised EIR needs to be re -circulated. g. With respect to traffic impacts leading to and away from Castlerock Elementary (and Cold Spring Land and Castlerock and Cold Spring Place and Brea Canyon Road), the Lead Agency cannot ignore potential traffic impacts based on the traffic consultant's representation that the LA County Sheriffs should regulate such traffic impacts. That is completely and utterly unacceptable to not study intersections and traffic that currently exist based on such factors. It is also alarming that that this area of concern that is being ignored by the consultants that have a 20 -year relationship with Walnut Valley Unified School District is an area — -- - -- directly impacted by -the weekday activities -of the-co=applicant the Walnut---- — Unified School District. How can the Lead Agency and City ignore this issue of objectivity? Why of all intersections ignored were the two intersections leading to Castlerock Elementary School, which is a part of the Walnut Valley Unified School District? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. A new traffic study must be completed to include these two intersections and the traffic study and revised EIR needs to be re -circulated. h. The Amendment No. 1 to the MOU (November 4, 2008) identified an additional traffic study for a double left from Diamond Bar Boulevard into project. This additional traffic study, which cost the City an additional $2,500.00 in November 2008, was not made available to my knowledge as the EIR only identified the 2007 -traffic study. This draws question as to whether this traffic study found additional impacts that were not addressed. The non -disclosure of all information is a basis for the comment period not being closed, as all information has not been fully disclosed for public review and comment. Page 4 of 7 Federation of Hillside and Cannon Associations v City of Los Angeles. Staff failed to explain the Planning Commission that although there may be a mitigation measure for the developer to pay a pro rata share to the City at the time of Tract Map submittal, such mitigation measure does not ensure that the traffic impacts will be mitigated and thereby substantially reducing adverse traffic impacts. In Federation of Iillside and Canyon Associations V. City of Los Angeles, the petitioners argued that there was no substantial evidence supporting the city's finding that mitigation measures would significantly reduce adverse impacts on transportation. This is same for the Site D EIR. The developer's payment of pro rata share of impacts does not ensure that the City will ever construct all traffic improvements, thereby reducing adverse impacts on transportation. In this case, the developer will pay the City, but that does not ensure that the City will construct the improvements. Case in point, the City has not identified if, where and when the remaining funds would be funded and whether the improvements will be completed prior to the completion of the project. As a result, the project could be completed, the City may not have all the funds to construct the improvements and adverse traffic impacts are not mitigated. It is a factual error to state that the payment of a pro rata share of costs will ensure the traffic mitigation measures will ever be completed and will therefore significantly reduce adverse traffic impacts. Other cities have addressed this same issue by not only requiring a pro -rata payment of the cost of improvements, but also requiring that the project cannot be opened (Certificate of Occupancy) until the traffic improvements have been completed. The Lead Agency needs to correct the mitigation measure and recirculate the EIR. 5. The Specific Plan is not consistent with the General Plan. It is a factual error for staff to state that they believe that the proposed Specific Plan is consistent and compatible with the adjacent land uses and General Plan without providing concrete explanations of wiry it is consistent. In my last letter, I pointed out several inconsistencies that =- - -were not addressed. -I also feel thatthem are no social benefits -that have -been -clearly identified; as the final project is yet to be defined. This project will not reduce crime, blight or impacts on public services. The project could only add crime, blight or increase demand on public services. It is not NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard) for the public to say we want a voice of the type of use(s) to be developed at this site in the future. It is easy for anyone (including Planning Commissioners and City Councilmembers) to support a project that is not near his or her place of residency. But if a Planning Commissioner or City Councilmember did live nearby a project that they didn't support, I am certain that it would not be called NIMBYism. As not one resident has been in favor of this project, how can the Specific Plan be consistent with the vision of the residents? Master planning (advance planning) is not only the vision of the City Council, but also the vision of the residents that elected the City Council. The high-density housing at this site will most likely end up as 253 unit affordable apartments at 25 units per acre (density bonus plus. no requirement or conditions that the housing be owner -occupied). Apartments are not compatible with the adjacent land uses of Page 5 of 7 single-family homes and certainly not the vision of the residents that moved in the area. Site D does not have the same characteristics as other high-density housing complexes in our City. Unlike all other high-density housing projects cited by the consultants, Site D is surrounded 76% by single-family homes (land uses). There are single-family homes immediately adjacent to the South, East and North of the site (representing approximately 76% of property boundary): The only sides not adjacent to single-family homes are to the West and a small portion to the North that is commercial and represents approximately 24% of property boundary (along Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard). It would be more consistent and compatible to retain the zoning for single-family housing and change land use to low/low medium residential to match the current zoning. It is also important to note the development of single-family housing in replace of high density housing would also be consistent with the MOU as the MOU does not specify what type of residential development the 50% of residential development must be. Regional Housing Needs Assessment: Any development of residential units will meet the goals of RHNA. I have heard the City use RHNA as a reason the City had to rezone up to high density. My statement was that the City couldn't use RHNA as the sole excuse rezoning Site D for high-density housing. RHNA is not proper justification for a General Plan Amendment to increase density from single-family housing to high-density in a single family housing area. The development of single- family housing would also meet the purpose of RI -INA. 7. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): The City has stated many times that the Specific Plan is consistent with the MOU with Walnut Valley Unified School District. Consistency to the MOU is not justifrcation.of the Specific Plan being . consistent with -the General Plan.- The:purpose-oftllcMOU is for the City and -Walnut ------ Valley Unified School District to capitalize on the resale of the newly rezoned land. As the value of the District's property increases in result of the City approving a higher intensity zoning of the land, the City also benefits from the increases of the value of land sale with the 4.6% that the City is entitled to receive pursuant to the Amendment No. 1 to the MOU. In addition, should the City not approve the Specific Plan by November 4, 2010, the District does not have to reimburse the City for the cost of consultants paid for the preparation of the Specific Plan, traffic report and EIR. Not knowing or understanding how this agreement evolved, the outward appearance of this type of arrangement is highly irregular and prejudices the City. S. The EIR and traffic report is based on a very conceptual Specific Plan with the primary purpose of justifying the change inland use and zoning. When the project is better defined, the project should be required to complete a Supplemental EIR to address impacts based on an actual well-defined project and to ensure that the project has not created more impacts as previously identified. Page 6 of 7 In summary, I am not certain that many of the issues can be addressed without the EIR having to be re -circulated. However, the residential development of the Specific Plan should be changed to single-family housing and a Supplement EIR should be required once the project is better defined.. The decision of approving a Specific Plan and General Plan Amendment should be based on the right reasons. I think it is unfortunate that the City has placed itself in such a precarious position where the City must approve a Specific Plan by November 4, 2010 in order that the City does not stand to lose the reimbursement of over $346,221.75 of public funds from Walnut Valley Unified School District that could have been used for other community needs. But even more, it is very unfortunate that the City also stands to lose the price of selling out the adjacent residents by forcing this Specific Plan upon us. Sincerely, J Chrislpr J.,Ch�� 21470 Cold Spring Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Page 7 of 7 r May 5, 2010 To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission C/O Ms, Grace Lee, City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Dr, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Subject: Site D Specific Plarl Chairman and Planning Commissioners, I would like to express my view/opinion to the April 27, 2010 planning commission meeting, additional and existed concerns on Site D Specific Plan. It seems to me the entire meeting was toward the "presumable" approval on Site D Specific Plan to develop 50% of commercial use and 50% of high density residential use. There is almost no reason presented at all on why other alternatives are not considered in this plan. As a Diamond Bar resident, I am very disappointed by the "strategically" planned way of how this entire Site D plan has been presented. The Planning staff has done a great job in discouraging residents to even attend this meeting by selectively addressed on issues that the City wants to answer. The residents' preferences/views/concerns are basically neglected throughout the whole process. Shortfalls on Site D Specific Plan: 1) Tunnel vision - not all the alternatives are explored and studied for Site D. Site D Specific Plan is only concentrated on the land use that derived maximum economic gain. None of the social factor or compatibility to the surroundings is carefully studies. Sited D Specific Plan deemed to be the best option for the City and the residents by the Consultant (TRG Land) and the Planning Staff without factual comparison with the other alternatives. This practice is totally unacceptable. 2) Inadequate Traffic report - i) The entire report was done in 2007 (3 years old data) and "projected" out to 2010. There are couple major impacts were left out. The impact from the future NFL Stadium, the opening of the Super H Mart Market, the increase traffic drawn from the population increase in the nearby cities were not in the study. ii) Several "close by" intersections were not in the study - Brea Canyon Road and Copper Canyon Drive, Cold Spring Lane and Castlerock, Brea Canyon Road and Cold Spring Price. 3) Inconsistent with General Plan - I have raised several points on the inconsistency of the Specific Plan to the General Plan in my "5 minutes" residents' view in the April 13 meeting and also in my last letter to the Commissioners. Again, no specific/concrete explanations on how and why they are consistent. To quote from my last letter '* In Section 7.0 "General Plan Consistency Analysis" under Draft - Site D Specific Plan, it stated the Goal in Housing Element (page 40) "Consistent with the Vision Statement, preserve and conserve the existing housing stork and maintain property values and residents' quarity of life" ........ Under Consistency (same page), it stated "Furthermore, I he project may enhance surrounding property values..." - Explain hove is the "conclusion" (maintain and even enhance surrounding property values) derived from ?? What type of study was done on this? How is inaintain property values and residents' quality of life" determined? What type of factors that this is based on ?? " On the very last sentence under Section 7.0 "General Plan Consistency Analysis" under Draft - Site D Specific Plan (Page 43), it stated " Due to the projects convenient location and site planning, site D presents an economically viable plan that is good for the City of Diamond Bar and its residents." - 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 study ? 4) Lack of input from Native American Organization — What are the responses from the eight Native American Organ izationlCIub? Nothing about these comments is addressed since Feb. 2008. These are just some of my concerns in addition to many concerns from other residents. Making the right choice for the City and the residents is the key. I am urging the Planning Commissioners use their authorities to properly act on this issue. We should not rush on the decision without understanding how the plan is consistent with the General Plan. Your decision will be affecting the future of this land use for the City and its residents. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Judy Leung 21175 Running Branch Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 0 0- zuLnD� zQ�> Q�2C)�U Z 2 O m U z LO 0 U�LU mU 0 �zQ� D- O U- a Q U it z u u u it z x U_Xa-. a- < 0 U a A i� Z Z co Li W ui W OO OO aN a a UU Zh Z1 W� LL O� O� , k DO �O 9 �. W z W Z Uf �'B , �+ ~ Q OZ OZ c s_ y Z O Z O O � a ❑ 12 a- 0. 0- 0. 0. 0-D- r,�3�!" D� [L Cl� 'n o U .: 0-0 Q U. O Q U.. MIT re og o t g � ® S - !. 16t INN #7 0. C (6 dis ', t y C (n O L -0 NC C '� (° 'Pd ; i 5' co: B tCf N O J i"t C C O c caca 0m T ca t J �a J J JJ O 2 f7 0 (7 U C721, 4 D n x , , C? �, = ty O O ~ NO ti N OO N N N O NN o O N N.. * Awl F N d O (� VlJ,.2.,. LU Z J a<- a U a Imo- O N W o U- 0 z0 0. n. F- N a) w U @ � LU O C N N O G C` N O _ r _ O 'O O U N N C fn pp� U °) N O O. U m ® J ® m I -u LJin N Q N G 21 N U1 J N J N N ',; C C O ® U .o} m w �' o� > o d E U o > �' ° ami E U > ®' Z"° z QE n co ° w Q ma �c 9 O` Es N N w° F` = m UD �� N U C [d W N a E� [6 C me n, W Z' CJ n U n N co`Owa�i C7 O N CL Q N N Q a - N N N7 rLL' ®Z C\111 tion co V U ILr� IL � zuLnD� zQ�> Q�2C)�U Z 2 O m U z LO 0 U�LU mU 0 �zQ� D- O U- a Q U it z u u u it z x U_Xa-. a- < 0 U m U C9 0 (D U (D O z Z z z z z z z ' I I 1 41,44 O 0 0 O 0 O z O z 0 IL a. a a IL n. D_ a � H H H LLI LLJ � a, INH w a w a ui 0- W 0- w a w a w a w a �iz 00 UtiOF �¢ :Ez 00 Z¢ :2z 00 OF Z¢ Q :i�z 00 OF Z¢ Q 5Ez 00 OF Z¢ � 5iz 00 L) za Q 2iz 00 OF Z¢ 5_z 00 UF. Z¢ Q € + W O� ❑ LL 0 W z (L J OZ z z0 LL O� 00 w Z ll'.. Oz Z LL O� 00 W_ Z 0 Oz z0 LL O� 00 W_ Z 0 OZ Z � O� 0LL 0 W_ Z 0 z OZ Z LL O� ❑O W_ Z 0 z OZ z0 W 0Cr 00 W_ z J 0a Oz z0 LL OW ❑O W_ LL" —1 0a Oz Z0 .. 7 i- I b? Qp U® J a d0 ¢I�L Qp U❑ J a a0 aLL d� U0 J a a-0 aW Qp U❑ J a a0 aw 1—FF- ¢p U0 J¢ a� 0-0 aLL QO Ufl J a �W a-0 aW ~fz Qp U❑ J¢ a a.0 <U- I—F Qp U❑ J a o a_0 ¢LL � �. J a) a) of E a U E " r .0 �. .❑ � d ❑ ® IO J C:aJ cca -°� co X o C ¢ (D Z 0 0 0 Z z ti Asi 7 : �, f ". O J O W N J O o 0 N N a Q O O N O N O N W ® N J O N �V. Z Z ❑ U U ❑ ❑ � 0. C C C (� J Z 0 C C o � C 'O U m D c U o '® m E ti G-E LL a c WE 'N CL c o U y U E 'Ocr C U c o a b m N m m o N p C "N Cl Z 6 � O w E o 0 O N d' U E coo CD O MND_' .0 m 03 d' a) N Z o 0� d' al N U c E o d' O d' u7 n3 V' m NZ cn E mo O O LIN, n 3 M N �Z Page I of 5 May 7, 2010 Mary E. Rodriguez 3419 Pasado Drive Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission c/o Ms. Grace Lee City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 Re: Site D Specific Plan and EIR My letter plus 6 attachments to Be Included w/ Recorded Report Dear Chairman and Planning Commissioners, There are a couple of items I would like you to consider carefully, if you will. Via is being done here is a very permanent thing. Once begun, there is no putting the hillside back. What you do today to Site D, will be your legacy to the City. It should be something you will be proud to show your children. Nobody is going to care one way or the other who it was that was responsible for building that crap on Site "D". What they will remember, and give thanks for, is who it was that had the foresight, and the courage, to stand up and do the right thing. How can City Officials, be officers of a city and not have pride in their City? It is beyond my comprehension how one can justify selling out the truly valuable things for a few "shiny trinkets". Site "D" holds the heart of the City of Diamond Bar. It is 0.75 miles southwest from where the Diamond Bar Ranch Compound Headquarters was located from 1918 to 1946. The Compound was probably around the area where Diamond Bar High School is today. That property should have been preserved too. Again, that property belonged to the WVUSD. ( I'm beginning to see a little pattern here.) Site "D" was part of the Diamond Bar Ranch Compound. How can elected officials sell the heart of their City? How do you run a City without a heart? Our City officials need to see the benefit and the obligation to preserve the City's rich history. Site "D" is all that remains of the original ranch which was approximately 4,340 acres, Site "D" is where it started. It is a Landmark. It is the responsibility of all of our City Officials to protect and preserve these precious few acres which is Site "D" for now and for always. The history of the "diamond over the bar", that is how the City got it's name. It started right there! The Planning Commission should begin taking immediate action to Preserve Site D. It should do everything it's power to make certain that Preservation of Site D is the only option. Pg2of5 Here is what the DEIR says about the value of Site "D" to our City: Appendix K Cultural Resource Assessment Results and Mitigation Cultural Resources Page ES -1 through page ES -2 of the DEIR states the following: Results of the historic aerial photograph and topographic map review revealed that a structure (HS -1) was once located within the boundaries of the study area that was associated with the historic Diamond Bar Ranch Headquarters Compound (Compound). The Compound included the residence of ]Frederick E. Lewis, who owned and operated the Diamond Bar Ranch (Ranch) which was located 0.75 miles northeast of the study area. It is unclear if HS -1 was the residence of Mr. Lewis or another individual. Mr. Lewis operated the Ranch from 1918 until 1946 when he sold it to the Bartholome family. At the time, the Ranch was one of the largest working cattle ranches in the western U.S. Mr. Lewis is considered a significant person in the history of the City of Diamond Bar because he registered the "diamond over a bar" branding iron with the California Department of Agriculture in 1918, This later became the symbol for which the City of Diamond Bar was named. No prehistoric archaeological resources have been previously recorded within one mile of the study area and no prehistoric resources were identified in the study area during the pedestrian survey. Prehistoric sites identified in the study vicinity consist of relatively small collections of surface artifacts; the distribution of subsurface prehistoric deposits in the vicinity is unknown. Given the lack of prehistoric materials identified on the surface of the study area and surrounding radius, in light of multiple previous surrounding studies, the potential for subsurface prehistoric deposits in the study area appears to be low. Results of the pedestrian survey revealed the identification of a historical archaeological site that will temporarily be designated as SD -Cultural -1 (see Figure 7, Results Map, on page 24). The site components include a landscape component consisting of more than 1.S non-native eucalyptus trees as well as a concrete debris concentration and the former location of HS -1. These site components are associated with the former historic Compound. The significance of SD--Cultural-1 with respect to CEQA is considered to be undetermined. The site has strong associations with Frederick E. Lewis and the early ranching history of southern California, which entail consideration under criteria b and a of the California Register, respectively. The integrity of the surface components of the site, however, is low. The stand of'eucalyptus trees appears to be an intact landscape component, but the built component is now represented by only by a few piles of rubble and retains little historical character. Given these conditions, the site does not appear to qualify under criteria c. Given the length of time the Compound was occupied; it is anticipated that there is at least moderate potential for the site to to Pg 3 of 5 retain buried domestic or ranch maintenance components such as trash pits, privy holes, and similar features, which in turn may be encountered during ground disturbing activities during development of the proposed project. As the site, SD -Cultural -1, is associated with a known historical figure and a known timeframe, intact subsurface deposits may qualify as significant archaeological resources under criteria d. Development of the proposed project will entail grading over extensive portions of the study area. The grading will result in extensive disturbance k6thin the boundaries of SD -Cultural -1. It appears that the City of Diamond Bar is a bit too quick to dismiss what could be a significant historical resource and potental tourist attraction. The Los Angeles Conservancy 2005 Los Angeles County Preservation Report Card The City of Diamond Bar was accorded a grade of "F" as a "Preservation Truant." The grading is based upon the following criteria: CLG? No Has ordinance that allows designation of historic landmarks? No I Iow many landmarks designated? 0 Mills Act? No Has ordinance that allows designation of historic districts? No Number designated? 0 Has survey of historic architectural resources? No Has other list of identified resources? No Historic Preservation Officer? No Historic Preservation Commission? No If the Diamond Bar Planning Commission approves this project and chooses to bulldoze the historic site which gave the city it's name , then Diamond Bar deserves its "F" grade. (Please see attached Figure 8, Site D, Monitoring Extent) Another very important fact which I believe requires serious attention is the issue of Native American Consultation. Page ES -5 Native American Consultation A Native American Consultation is supposed to happen in the early planning stages of a project and if a tribe requests it to be private (without the developer present), the city must comply. Per the DEIR, the appropriate Native American groups identified by the Native American Heritage Commission [NAHC] were contacted via certified mail but none of them has responded. Pg4of5 Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.11: cultural Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Section 4.11: cultural Resources Page 4.11-4 and 4.11-5 On F ebruarLI, 2008, the Department submitted to the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAFIC) a "local government tribal consultation list request," requesting a list of California Native American tribes with whom the City needed to provide notice. Although the NAHC did not formally provide the City with a written contact list of those tribes groups with traditional lands or cultural places 13 within or potentially within the City's jurisdiction, a number of tribal organizations, including the Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council, the Gabrielino/Tongva Council/Gabrielino Tongva Nation, and the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians of California, were provided copies of the NOP and Initial Study and notice of the pre -circulation scoping meeting. No response to those notices was received by the City from the NAHC or by any of those tribal groups. Page 4.11-12 and 4.1113 Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Consultation. On October 8, 2007, a Sacred Lands File (SLF) records search of the study area was commissioned through the NAHC and follow-up consultation with Native American groups and/or individuals identified by the NAHC as having affiliation with the study area vicinity was conducted. Each Native American group and/or individual listed was sent a project notification letter and map and was asked to convey any Native American issues or concerns with the proposed project. The letter included information such as study area location and a brief description of the proposed development. Results of the search and follow-up consultation provide information as to whether there are any locations in the vicinity of the project site that are culturally sensitive to Native Americans. The NAHC SLF records search results did not indicate any known Native American cultural resources within the study area. Follow-up letters were sent, via certified mail, on November 21 2007 to the eight individuals and organizations identified by the NAHC as being affiliated with the vicinity of the study area to request any additional information or concerns they may have about Native American cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed project. As of February 22, 2008, no responses had been received from any of the Native American individuals or organizations. This is the California Public Resource Code for Native American Consultation: 65352.3- 65352.4: Consultation with Native Americans on General Plan Proposals 65352.3. (a) (1) Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a city or county's general plan, proposed on or after March 1, 2005, the city or county shall conduct consultations with California Native American tribes that are on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code that are located within the city or county's jurisdiction. (2) From the date on which a California Native American tribe is contacted by a city or Pg 5 of 5 county pursuant to this mbdivision, the tribe has 90 days in which to request a consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by that tribe. (b) Consistent with the guidelines developed and adopted by the Office of Planning and Research pursuant to Section 65040.2, the city or county shall protect the confidentiality of inforination concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects. 65352.4. For purposes of Section 6.5351, 65352.3, and 65562.5, "consultation" means the meaningful and timely process of seeking, discussing, and considering carefully the views of others, in a manner that is cognizant of all parties' cultural values and, where feasible, seeking agreement. Consultation between government agencies and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party's sovereignty. Consultation shall also recognize the tribes' potential needs for confidentiality with respect to places that have traditional tribal cultural significance. The Tribes would have had 90 days to respond. to a request for a consultation with the City of Diamond Bar on this matter so it seems strange that the Enk treats this as if it is still an open matter. Also, when the code says "Consultation between government agencies and Native American tribes shall be conducted in a way that is mutually respectful of each party's sovereznty. "this means that the City should treat the Tribal leader or representative as they would a head of state, in other words, the person who should meet with them would ideally be the Mayor, a council member, City Administrator or some other top city leader. The Tribes are considered to be "authorities" when it comes to determining if a place holds any significance for Dative Americans even if the City is unaware of such significance. That's why the consultation is held. If I remember correctly, the EIR states that pottery shards and other items were found on site and there is a chance that more artifacts may be present that would indicate the site had been used by Native Americans. Who knows? There might even be a burial site there. There seems to be some odd discrepancies about when this allegedly happened. The Planning Commission must be diligent that TRG Land, Inc. and PCIS Services Corporation are not being dismissive of these very critical issues which affect the outcome of the Commissions decisions. The question remains open. Did the Tribes respond? And if so, where are their letters or documents stating their findings at Site D? If the Tribes did not respond, why wasn't there a follow up attempt to get a Tribal. Consultation? This is a must! Please do not allow bulldozing without having the Tribal Consultations 'ncerely, QIA Mar I�odrig Aitqrhmmt to Lelieiit `C® hftmvj�� &mjvLa sSj®jv t)Aj-kA My 7, a.010 ,Vmtk NwLy G. VOARiyAEL A'Whmo-NT to -t- hrNN,r°� CDfAfvcl 5514 WU -Vm. YftlLy G-�OARiv2- lAjtqchmeNl- -to Leltgit -Fo TUINfvi�� CDMM6551�m bkTCJ N\Ry 7, MID Photograph /: Ovivvlew ar "Mlypcus trey{ within slt.Cult"al-i, vlc•.v esef. d` 'Y `.n ... Photograph ]: Ovmviaw M 65ckJlr[ elle or g�vnerli nicsl baring localian, to av aril. Phototoulrh 1:Clnsa-up of roncro[e tlebrls eonc<rJ�llnn, view northeast Project Boundary Paleontological Resource Concrete Debris Concentration Ell -Former Location of Historic Structure 1 (VIS -1) (Approximate) Cultural Resource (S® -Cultural -1) Fiwtograph 4: Clno>up of wpr Mltc sntl fish fossils, N Figure 7 A 300 0 300 Feet Site D Results Map Source: Google Garth, 2007; PCR Services Corpration, 2008. AitqGhrqemT to Lelteix -C® hmyiii� CoeArV6 55(6,V W -Ira K%V '7, Ulu -V", �;Yr-F I Project Boundary o Paleontological Resouroe Recornmended Archaeological Monitoring Extent Cultural Resource (SD -Cultural -1) Note: Paleontological monitoring is recommended in areas where excavations and/or ground disturbing activities extend into the Puente Formation. Results of 13CR's assessment reveal that the Puente Formation is located over a majority of the study area and at depth. N Figure 8 A 300 0 300 Feet Site Monitoring Extent Source: Google Furth, 2D07; PCR Services Corporafion, 2008. Stella Marquez From: Greg Gubman Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 1:30 PM To: jack.shah@verizon.net; klee520264@aol.com; signedkat01@aol.com; Torng, Tony Y Cc: Mark Rogers; James DeStefano; David Doyle; JoAnne Sturges; Grace Lee; Stella Marquez Subject: FW: Planning commission agenda for 5-11-2010 (SITE D) Dear Commissioners: The email below was submitted this morning for your consideration. aim ----- Original Message ----- From: David Busse [maiIto:DRBusse@roadrunner.com] Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 10:37 AM To: Stella Marquez Subject: Planning commission agenda for 5-11-2010 I do not have Mr. Grubman's individual email address ... please forward this to him. The report says " Taking into consideration that the nearby Heritage Park and Castle Rock Elementary School provide ball fields..." and that is incorrect. Heritage Park provides an unlighted basketball court and lighted softball field available to anyone at any time. The Walnut Valley Unified School District apparently keeps all the property of Castle Rock School under lock -and key; usage of their playgrounds andfiell are certainly not to be considered in the same category as Heritage Park. Neighbors cannot just walk to the property and use it. As a result, the acreage of Ce astle Rock school cannot and should not b considered a "park." I 4, the "suggested resolution language" about requiring a park of undetermined size to be added to the master plan of Site D. "Open use" areas of commercial or residential development on this site, may include (but not be limited to) such amenities as a food court seating areas, decorative fountains and planting areas, apartment swimming pools and patios, bar-b-que and picnic areas and open courtyards between buildings. Such areas will be considered part in the calculation of "park space" I nor considered part of the public park described in the previous sentence. I am not certain I will be able to attend the meeting tomorrow, and would request that this e-mail be included in the "Public Comment" or item 8.1 Yours truly, David R. Busse 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) On May 11, 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. I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On May 7, 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 May 7, 2010, at Diamond Bar, California. Stelfa Marquez Community Development Department g:\\affidavitposting.doc �, � ■ •,a; �, •111' !:1 T T � ) 1 AGENDA n -EM * '7�, ,3_ _ SUHTECT: X97 y Vim �� i L zoly "r V TO: Planning Commission Secretary DATE: FROM: 06TV 8- syo s 1, SUBJECT: t wosald lilts to.address the Plan ning Co scion on the above stated item. Pleasehave the C'onunission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above, Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This forffi is intende to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons -wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity and to ensure correct spelling of names in the h1inutm