Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/13/2013 PC AgendaPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 13, 2013 7:00 P.M. City Hall, Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Steve Nelson Tony Torng Frank Farago Jimmy Lin Jack Shah FILE COPT' 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 21810 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 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation (s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. D 310ND BAB r refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission MEETING RULES PUBLIC INPUT 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) 83977030 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, General Agendas (909) 839-7030 email: info(a).ci.diamond-bar.ca.us Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 13, 2013 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Next Resolution No. 2013-17 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Frank Farago, Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 4.1 Minutes of the Study Session: June 25, 2013 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting: June 25, 2013 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 2008-2014 Housing Element Implementation — Proposed Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project PL2013-227 — The City of Diamond Bar is the Lead Agency for the proposed affordable housing land use and zoning designation project to implement the 2008-2014 Housing AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Element Update, which requires the City to process amendments to its General Plan and Development Code to establish a new multiple -family zoning district and designate adequate sites that could accommodate new multi -family affordable housing development commensurate with the City's assigned fair share needs. More specifically, the City of Diamond Bar is obligated to rezone at least 16.3 net acres to permit multi -family development, at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre by -right, in order to satisfy our regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation to accommodate the development of 490 lower-income dwelling units. The future development area would be limited to one of two optional Housing Site Areas, each limited to 30 acres in size and fully within the proposed RH-30 zone boundary area. Although the implementation of the Housing Element would designate specific sites where multi -family housing could be develop in the future, there is no development project associated with the proposed rezoning effort at this time. The Planning Commission will be asked to recommend to the City Council the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR); adoption of the General Plan Amendment; adoption of the Development Code Amendment; and adoption of the Zone change. Proposed Study Located within a 78 -acre parcel and is comprised of un - Area: developed hillside generally located along the west side of Chino Hills Parkway, just south of Diamond Ranch Road/Scenic Ridge Drive, and adjacent to Diamond Ranch High School, in the northeast portion of the City. (Assessor's Parcel Number 8701-22-273 that is west of Chino Hills Parkway and south of SR 60 freeway) The two candidate sites being considered within the study area are referred to as Housing Site "A" and Housing Site "B." Housing Site "A" is located immediately west of and accessed directly from Chino Hills Parkway. Housing Site "B" is located on the western portion of the proposed RH-30 zone boundary area, also accessed from Chino Hills Parkway. Property Owner: City of Industry (Successor Agency to the Industry Urban Development Agency) Lead Agency/ City of Diamond Bar Applicant: Environmental Determination: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and EIR was prepared for this project. Outreach efforts to solicit citizen and public agency input throughout the EIR process included a Notice of Preparation commencing June 14, 2012, and AUGUST 13, 2013 E 91 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ending July 17, 2012; aScoping Meeting conducted on June 21, 2012; a Notice of Completion/Availability of the Draft EIR, which was made available for public review on May 24, 2013, through July 8, 2013; and a Response to Comments were made available for public review on July 26, 2013. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1, Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and approve the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program; 2. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the following: • General Plan Amendment to establish a new High Density Residential - 30 (RH-30) land use designation and change the current land use designation on the Land Use Map for the portion of the subject property identified as "Site A" or alternatively "Site B" from Agricultural (AG) to Planning Area 5/High Density Resdiential-30 (PA-5/RH-30); • Development Code Amendment to establish a new High Density Residential -30 (RH-30) zoning district and development regulations; and • Zone Change to change the zoning designation for the portion of the subject property identified as "Site A or alternatively "Site B" from Agricultural (AG) to High Density Residential -30 Dwelling Units Per Acre (RH-30) and establish a maximum of 490 dwelling units for this site. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects: 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, August 20 - 6:30 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive (temporary location) AUGUST 13, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: 11. ADJOURNMENT: Thursday, August 22, 2013 - 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Tuesday, August 27, 2013 — 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Thursday, September 12, 2013 - 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR E ®RAF T STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Torng called the Study Session to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Present: C/Farago and VCfTorng Absent: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah, Chairman Steve Nelson Also Present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; John Douglas, Housing Consultant, Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 1) Basics of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CDD/Gubman stated that the California Environmental Quality Act was adopted by the state legislature in 1970 shortly after President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) into law. CEQA is the state counterpart of the federal regulations. There are four primary objectives that CEQA seeks to fulfill: One is to inform the government decision makers and the public about the potential environmental effects associated with projects. Following this disclosure, the objective is to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. Following the identification of what would be considered mitigation measures to make changes to the project or impose conditions on a project where feasible, to prevent or substantially •reduce those environmental impacts. CEQA does not require environmental impacts to be eliminated when a project is up for consideration; it is primarily intended to provide that disclosure of the environmental impacts. Should a government agency elect to approve a project where it is unable to eliminate the environmental effects below what would be considered a "significant level, it must disclose to the public the reasons why it is going to take an action to approve a project that is going to have significant environmental effects. CEQA guidelines indicate that CEQA is not intended to generate paper but to compel government at all levels to make decisions where they take the environmental consequences in mind along with all of the other policy matters that are part of that decision. Bottom line is that CEQA is intended to be an objective process — an impartial methodology to evaluate the potential environmental impacts for the purpose of disclosing and minimizing environmental damage to the extent that a good faith effort is made and that those mitigation measures are feasible. There are mandates that seek to minimize, eliminate or at least reduce environmental impacts but even if that cannot be done at the very least, CEQA requires that we disclose what the environmental impacts would be if a certain action is taken. CDD/Gubman stated that the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is one of many types of environmental documents that can be adopted in conjunction with a project T JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION action. It is the most well known type of environmental document and it is also the least frequently used environmental document. Not all projects would require an EIR; in fact, most projects are exempt from CEQA altogether. For example, if a school board candidate applied for a business license to open a campaign office; if one is running for a school board position; CEQA would not apply. Other examples of exempt projects would be room additions or custom homes, Conditional Use Permits for tutoring centers, etc. Another CEQA action that is not elevated to an EIR is a Negative Declaration. The Commission is going to be considering a Negative Declaration tonight for a new office building which is slightly more of an intensive use than a new home or room addition but it still is not a project that would likely have significant environmental effects, so in that ease there is a requirement to perform an environmental analysis but because the impacts of that project would not be significant or they can be reduced to levels that would not be significant, a Negative Declaration can be adopted. There is a subset of Negative Declarations called Mitigated Negative Declarations which is where the finding is that the effect is not significant because certain requirements are adopted as conditions of approval to ensure that those environmental effects are mitigated. Another example is an addendum to a previous EIR. In a few months the Commission will be reviewing an EIR Addendum for the Site D project. The EIR has been adopted for that project at a programmatic level based on the level of detail the City had at the specific plan phase. Now that there is a more refined project, the City has to measure it against the adopted EIR and if there are any changes to the project that were not contemplated in the EIR but are relatively insubstantial, the addendum still needs to be adopted to document that those changes were reviewed and findings can be made that those changes are not substantial. According to Sections 15002 and 15151 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines is devoted to providing guidance to the preparers of the EIRs. Unfortunately, relentless legal challenges ensure that theory and practice are two entirely different things. The CEQA Guidelines under Section 15141, states that EIRs should normally be less than 150 pages and for unusually complex projects, should not exceed 300 pages. The EIR that the Commission has this evening is about 400 pages for a relatively simple project and there is another almost 800 pages offering technical background information. Given the susceptibility to legal challenges, there is not likely to be an EIR that is only 150 pages. The executive summary alone is close to 75 pages. Another extreme example is the Santa Anita Mall in Arcadia EIR which was 4,000 pages and one would imagine that something that voluminous would have to be such a major project it would have to have impacts that would extend all of the way out to Diamond Bar but it is just a shopping mall that has no effect on anybody except the property owners and residents surrounding that vicinity — yet, the threat of legal challenge sometimes compels these unwieldy documents to be developed and published. This same section of JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION the CEQA Guidelines recommends and encourages that EIRs be written in plain language with use of appropriate graphics so that decision makers can readily understand the documents. EIR consultants do a pretty good job of making these documents readable but there is no way to get around the certain amount of technical minutia that has to be placed in the document to make it legally defensible. Discussions will include how to deal with the technical minutia and how to navigate through a document more efficiently in light of what needs to be done to provide legal cover. CEQA does not really work in practice the way it was supposed to in that it generates too much paper and in deference to local agencies where the decision making authority is most appropriately placed is often lost because the whole CEQA challenge industry has become the domain of attorneys and often, if a project is controversial, the final decision is not left at the local level. Case law has held that CEQA requires that decisions be informed and balanced. CEQA must not be subverted into an instrument for oppression and delay of social, economic or recreational development or advancement. Basically, this is saying that CEQA should not be misused as a weapon to kill projects. There can be projects that are bad projects that are not good for the community and are bad public policy. They may be in conflict with a city's general plan but for all of those other factors that go into a decision on whether to approve or deny a project, the environmental findings can be perfectly solid and defensible yet that is always the component of the decision that will attract the legal challenge and sometimes, even if the findings can survive a legal challenge, the process of challenging an environmental decision can kill a project. One example in the City of Claremont is an EIR that was prepared for several subdivisions that collectively comprised a single project, and one of the impacts the additional population that the buildout would create was putting more pressure on the city's parks and recreation inventory. So, a mitigation measure required the developer to dedicate 20 acres to the city for the development of a lighted sports -recreational amenity that THE city was lacking. Every homeowner that bought a house in these tracts was given a disclosure and acknowledged that there would be a 20 -acre sports park on this land that was well -designated with fencing and signage. As the development builds out and development impact fees were collected to go toward the actual improvements to the dedicated property, the city eventually went forward with plans to develop the park and the residents who moved into the development who were by their presence triggering the need for additional parkland, mounted an effort to challenge the park even though they acknowledged that it was part of the deal in purchasing the property, and filed a CEQA lawsuit. The matter went to court and eventually the city prevailed but it came at a significant expense and illustrates how the CEQA process is abused for other agendas. A project may be good or bad on factors other than environmental issues but because of the environmental challenge being JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION the easiest to mount against a local decision, this is where the focus of the challenge will be directed. 2) How to review an Environmental Impact Report (EIR): CDD/Gubman stated that to review an EIR efficiently, it is important to know how the document is organized. The best place to start is the table of contents. Every EIR should have the following nine sections: 1. Introduction/Executive Summary - the one section Commissioners need to read thoroughly. It will summarize the project, what the environmental topic areas that were reviewed are and which of those environmental topics are the key environmental issues that need to be further delved into. The Executive Summary further provides a synopsis of what is proposed to mitigate any of those potential impacts and what the significance is after those mitigation measures are adopted. 2. Project Description - lays out in more detail what the project is about. 3. Project Objectives - explains what goals the project is supposed to achieve so if it is a rezone to a higher density multi -family designation, one of the objectives that will be spelled out is that the rezoning effort is being undertaken to ensure that the City fulfills its obligation to provide housing for all economic sectors of the community. 4. Thresholds of Significance - will be discussed. Any project that is going to result -in construction impacts where there will be air-quality impacts, there will be quantitative thresholds that can easily be calculated for traffic impacts, number of trips the project generates and how those trips burden certain intersections — these can all be calculated to determine whether a threshold has been tripped. 5. Impact Analysis - is the longest and most intensive discussion that can be found in the EIR. The impact analysis covers a lot of technical issues that may not really warrant thorough reading so this is where the Executive Summary helps direct one's energy when reviewing the impacts. There is going to be a lot of technical discussion on air quality impacts which is also very tedious and technical and is probably not of much interest to go through unless one's agenda is to challenge the EIR. Another example could be paleontological impacts. The EIR could get into a lot of discussion regarding that subject but the bottom line is probably going to be what is contained within the Executive Summary which can be used as a guide on how to focus the reader's efforts. 6. Mitigation Measures JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION 7. Analysis of Ultimate Impact of the Project - if Mitigation Measures are implemented. 8. Cumulative Impacts - is the forest in the midst of the trees. A project could generate some traffic impacts at an intersection. The project itself is probably not going to make the intersection noticeably worse but the totality of all of the projects and all of the activities in the area of interest could have a cumulative and measurable impact. 9. Discussion of Alternatives to the Project Originally Contemplated in the project description, which involves looking at either variations to a project or other types of projects that could meet most of the project objectives and, at the same time, have impacts that are less than those of the project that is being proposed. There is a Draft EIR and a Final EIR. The difference is that the Draft EIR is what is before the Commission at this time — the actual volume one that lays out those nine sections listed above which is subject to a 45 -day review period. A Final EIR will include the Draft EIR and the technical appendices that were published for 45 days. Usually, the only additional component of the Final EIR that makes the Draft EIR a Final EIR is another volume that includes comments and responses to comments that were submitted for the Draft Environmental Impact Report. There are some situations where it is not that simple. Sometimes a Draft EIR needs to be re- circulated or new sections need to be added that may fundamentally change the document to an extent that goes beyond just appending what the Draft EIR had. The following are eight (8) tips for effectively evaluating an EIR: To understand the role that the EIR plays in the Commission's ultimate decision to approve or deny a project, environmental impacts are just one of several factors that the Commissioners would take into account when making a decision to approve or deny a project; however, the Commission cannot approve a project unless it makes some findings in regards to the environmental impacts. So the Commission has to ultimately come to this decision point: "Will the project have a significant effect on the environment. If not, then the Commission may approve a project. If not, then has the project eliminated or substantially lessened all significant impacts, where feasible and not only that, but has the Commission determined that any of the remaining significant impacts that are found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations. This says that the Commission cannot approve a project subject to an EIR unless it can find that there are feasible ways to reduce all of the environmental impacts and, if the Commission cannot do that it cannot approve the project unless it can adopt some findings that tell the public why it believes there are overriding concerns that warrant approving a project. If it is a Home Depot and the development and operation of that store is going to create JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION significant air quality impacts because that is unavoidable in Southern California where it doesn't take much to create a significant environmental impact because air quality, although improving, is still considered unacceptably high. The decision makers could decide that although that is true, the jobs, the sales tax revenue and all of the secondary benefits that sales tax revenue will bring to the community override that significant effect on air quality that cannot be avoided. So when reviewing the EIR there are questions the Commission wants to ask, and keep in mind that the Commissioners are professionals in their individual fields, but as Commissioners they are considered lay persons and their decisions are based on a whole palette of considerations. Commissioners are not assumed or expected to be authorities on environmental impacts, and should feel confident in the expertise of staff and the consultants who have prepared the EIR so that the Commissioners just really need to use their common sense to see if the questions raised in the EIR have been answered sensibly. So, from a common sense perspective, has the EIR identified each of the significant impacts associated with the project and if so, have those impacts been mitigated or has the roadmap for mitigating those impacts been laid out in the EIR; and if so, do the Commissioners think the mitigation measures are a good idea. And if those impacts have not been mitigated, why haven't they, and is there a good reason that mitigation measures or alternatives are not feasible and/or ultimately will not be adopted. The EIR may be solid, it may say that there are ultimately no significant impacts but looking at compatibility and other factors, it still may not be a project worth approving. But from an environmental perspective, the Commission can get to the point of certifying that the EIR properly disclosed all of the impacts and the environmental issue may not be the weighing factor in determining whether this is a good project. On the other hand, the EIR, as indicated in the Home Depot example, will result in unavoidable impacts but, is the project worthwhile? And that is really what the Commission is eventually getting to and the environmental component of that decision is one of many that the Commissioners are faced with. Some thresholds are provided by other technical resources such as Caltrans, California Fish & Wildlife (formerly Fish & Game), the AQMD — they all provide criteria for determining thresholds of significance. Cities can also adopt their own local CEQA guidelines which define what those thresholds are that are appropriate for the community. Regardless of what criteria are used to determine significance, the Commission needs to be mindful that it needs to use those same criteria, other things being equal, for all projects that are being reviewed. So how are mitigation measures evaluated? State law says that the public agency shall provide that measures that avoid effects are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. So a mitigation measure cannot just be imposed unless there is some way to monitor or enforce the compliance and implementation of those measures. And when looking at the mitigation measures there are three choices; The Commission can adopt that mitigation measure, it can make a finding that the mitigation measure is not within its jurisdiction but within the a®RAFT JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION jurisdiction of another agency and find a way to ensure that the city is not issuing any permits until it has verification that the project has obtained clearance from those agencies that would oversee such a measure. For example, Fish & Wildlife is going to oversee any type of restoration or mitigation to any wetlands damage and the city wants documentation of that before issuing a grading permit for a development. Third, the Commission wants to determine that the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers make the mitigation measure infeasible. This goes back to whether there are overriding reasons why a project should be approved even if all of the significant impacts cannot be dispensed with. The yardstick is to see whether this mitigation measure is socially acceptable. For example, in discussing the NFL Stadium project, say that to relieve traffic congestion Brea Canyon Road would need to be widened, so all of the parkway design features and walking trails that one finds along Brea Canyon Road to Pathfinder would have to be blown out to add two lanes. While that might relieve traffic congestion it may not be acceptable. So in this instance, it is appropriate to challenge the efficacy of that mitigation measure and to compel the project proponents to find something that is more socially acceptable — maybe something to the lane geometry on the freeway instead, where the city is not giving up something to accommodate the needs of this one project. Focusing on the impact after mitigation, that may be a short discussion in the EIR compared to the analysis of the impact before mitigation, but the Commission should ask if the mitigation will result in a measurable reduction in that impact. When we say understand the project objectives" we go back to those nine basic outlining criteria in the EIR. Each project should include a statement of objectives sought by the project and the statement of objectives will help the lead agency to develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR. This analysis section is a crucial tool in determining the true impacts of the project. The project objectives will be a benchmark and gauge for determining the sufficiency of the alternatives and the alternative analysis is a crucial tool in determining the true impacts of the project ranging from no project whatsoever to a range of other projects that could feasibly occur which would have lesser impacts than the project proposed. The term "no project' as an alternative is a bit confusing. What it is intended to do is to look at the project area, what the existing conditions are at the time the notice was prepared for the project and the "no project' alternative is, in the absence of the project that' is being proposed, what is likely to occur if the project was not approved. For the EIR that the City is in the process of seeking comments for at this time it is fairly easy. The City is looking at a "zone change" so the "no project' alternative would be to revert to the current zoning which is Agricultural. Other examples that do not involve zone changes would usually be alternatives that look DR AFT JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION at that same project in a different location or a variation of that project that is usually at a lower intensity. So a "no project" alternative is not to mean no development, it is just what development might occur in the absence of the project the Commission is reviewing at this time. Project alternatives need to be feasible and they need to further most of the basic objectives of the project and they need to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts that have been identified with the primary project the Commission is looking at. The 'cumulative impact' is the combined impact of the project with other projects that will produce similar impacts such as the typical example of traffic impacts at an intersection. The Final EIR is the Comments and Response to Comments appendix to the Draft EIR - every comment that is submitted during a Draft EIR public review period needs to have a written response in the final EIR. And so, the Commission gets to the point of deciding whether to approve or deny a project and if the Commission is at the point where a project can be approved, if we can adopt overriding considerations to overcome the significant impacts of the EIR, CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project against those potential unavoidable or significant environmental risks. The decision-making authority is fully disclosing and acknowledging what is going to result environmentally with the project but on the other side of the ledger, the benefits would need to be well -articulated in that Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the final decision. There are other factors for a project that go into the decision making that are not limited to the environmental impacts so all of the other issues that the community would raise — traffic impacts may not be environmentally significant, but they may have some other qualitative issues that lead to a decision to possibly deny a project. So there are other factors that should not be considered environmental such as compatibility, aesthetic and others that are really the true source of whether or not a project merits approval. 3) Tabletop exercise using the Draft EIR for the proposed rezoning and General Plan Amendment for a 78 -acre portion of Tres Hermanos that lies directly south of Diamond Ranch High School. The Zone Change proposes to change the zoning on 30 acres within the study area from Agricultural to Very High Density Residential (RH-30). John Douglas pointed out a couple of items the Commission should be looking at in preparation for the next public hearing. Key question — why are we doing this? Why does the Commission have this EIR in front of it and why is a zone change MDR A F JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION being proposed? This is an unusual project that is being driven by state law and the Housing Element of the General Plan. State law says that cities have to have adequate sites with appropriate zoning in order to accommodate its "fair -share regional housing need." And this goes to a process whereby every city is assigned its "fair -share." For Diamond Bar, for the current eight-year planning period that is just ending, the fair share was over a thousand units of new housing development. So state law says, the city either has to demonstrate that it has enough capacity for a full range of housing of various densities or it has to rezone. Diamond Bar went through the Housing Element process over the last several years and the city does not have enough available land to meet the numbers of about 466 units of High Density Housing so it has to rezone in order to satisfy a state mandate for local governments to demonstrate they have adequate sites. Some people ask why not just tell the state to go fly a kite. Some cities have gotten on the wrong side of state law and have suffered nasty consequences as a result of courts taking over their planning and building authority. No city wants to see that happen so Diamond Bar is moving forward on the assumption that the city wants to maintain a certified Housing Element and be in compliance with state law. Unlike many EIR projects that the Commission might see, this is not being developer -driven. There is no request from a private developer to rezone property so that they can build houses and make a profit. This is being driven entirely by state law that says Diamond Bar has to have appropriate zoning to accommodate its "fair -share" housing needs. So in this EIR and in the project that comes forward in the next few weeks, the Commission will not see any elevations, drawings of homes, landscape site plans, etc. because there is no real project. All the City is doing is rezoning land that could accommodate development if the property owner, which is the City of Industry, wants to move forward with development. So, this is a City initiated project and not a developer driven process. Because there is no `real' project in front of the Commission, it will not see some technical studies that are often presented as part of a package in an EIR such as a detailed grading plan and a detailed drainage plan, hydrology and those types of things. Those have not been done but they will be required before any development could happen. And so, it is important to keep in mind this "big picture" of what the City is doing and why the City is doing it. In this EIR Executive Summary, the Commissioners will see a large table that goes through topic by topic and itemizes the various categories of impacts and identifies the mitigation measures that have been identified in order to reduce or eliminate impacts. There will be a lot of familiar stuff regarding mitigation measures to reduce air emissions and to address any cultural archeological resources that could be uncovered during grading and those kinds of things. Important to keep in mind is that unlike most EIR projects, this EIR concludes that all of the impacts can be reduced below the level of significance. So, if this project were approved, development goes forward, if all of these mitigation measures are implemented, there would be no significant impacts. Most EIRs find that there is at least one or ��ir:v �. JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION two significant impacts, which put the projects into the category of having to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Even though there are significant impacts, the City wants to approve the project anyway for these following economic or whatever reasons. In this case it is unusual because staff believes there are no significant impacts. The Project Description chapter lays out what the objectives are and they are closely related to what he just described about why this EIR is being done — it is state mandated. And so, the objectives are very Important in comparing what alternatives should be considered and what the best alternative is for the City to approve. In terms of the Impact Analysis, one unusual thing about this particular EIR is on Page 5.1-26. This is in Chapter 5 — Environmental Setting Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This section talks about aesthetics analysis. He asked that the Commissioners focus their attention on "effects — substantially damaged resources including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, etc. and immediately under that it says "Site A or Site B." All of this analysis of impacts is looking at two options for the City to consider. He referred the Commissioners to Page 4-4 (color map) in the Project Description section. This is the map that shows the subject property that is being evaluated. The map has a portion labeled Site A and another portion to the west labeled Site B and the southwestern corner labeled Outlying Parcel. All of the analysis is comparing these two portions of the larger site so that is why the Commissioners will see some sections that list Site A or Site.B and that is relevant when there is no difference between A or B — it is the same, so the discussion is the same. But then on Page 5.1-27 there is reference toward the bottom of the page that reads Site A — Middle Ground Receptors. This is different from most EIRs the Commission will see. Some discussion is relevant to both of the portions of the study site and some discussion is particular to either Site A portion or Site B portion. Alternatives — this type of an EIR is where the City is being forced to rezone some land. So the key question is not what type of development. The City is being mandated to rezone for High Density Housing so the question is, where is the best place to put it? So in that sense it might be referred to as an "Alternatives' type of EIR where the key question is "Alternatives" and Chapter 6 describes how the City arrived at the choice of what alternatives should be looked at. And again, it is driven by that state mandate. At the end of the alternatives chapter. there is a comparative evaluation of the three primary alternatives that were carried forward for more detailed evaluation and those three are: The first is No Project which is not the same as "no development' — it is development that could happen under the current zoning which is Low Density Single Family Homes. The second alternative is Infill sites which are already developed properties in a Light Industrial portion of the City; and, the third alternative is Another portion of the Tres Hermanos Property that is farther to the south but still within the larger Tres Hermanos property. JUNE 25, 2013 METTRAFT PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION The key findings of this EIR as previously stated: The EIR concludes that all of the potential impacts can be mitigated "below the level of significance', so there would be no Statement of Overriding Considerations required. Second key point is that other alternatives besides the primary option of Site A or Site B would not meet the basic project objectives because they would not be consistent with the Housing Element which is the key reason for doing this project in the first place. And finally, the other location alternative Tres Hermanos South site, the impacts would be very similar to either Site A or Site B that are the primary options in the EIR. VC/Torng thanked CDD/Gubman and Mr. Douglas for a great presentation. The only thing unbelievable is that traffic is less significant because of this project of 490 residences. Mr. Douglas pointed out that there is one mitigation measure for traffic which is off- site in the City of Pomona. It is a relatively minor mitigation measure which is the restriping of a turn pocket. Typically, in an EIR one sees big impacts in traffic but that is not the case here. ACA/Eggart announced that the Commission reached quorum about 6:55 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: VC/Torng adjourned the study session to the regular meeting at 7:03 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 13th day of August, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Steve Nelson, Chairman 9 D R X T MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 25, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Jimmy Lin, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Chairman Steve Nelson Absent: Commissioner Jack Shah was excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 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 May 28, 2013. VC/Torng moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 28, 2013, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shah 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. PL2013-123 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner, Razgo Lee, requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,023 square foot second story addition to an existing single family residence on a 0.67 gross acre (29,138 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Low Density JUNE 25, 2013 1-7, u.�a 7 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Residential (RL) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 24069 Gold Rush Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Razgo Lee APPLICANT: 24069 Gold Rush Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AP/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2013-123, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng said the neighbor's letter referred to City of Glendora's code which calls for a 33 percent roof per 10,000 square feet of land and asked if Diamond Bar had such a code. AP/Tobon responded that the City's Development Standards state that within this zone there is a lot maximum coverage of 40 percent footprint and the proposed project is 24.4 percent coverage. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Torng moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve Development Review No. P112013-123, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shah 7.2 Tentative Tract Map No 72067 Development Review and Parking Permit No. PL2012-455 — The applicant requested Development Review approval to construct a 21,794 square foot new two-story professional office building on a 42,333 square foot (0.97 acre) Office Professional (OP) zoned parcel with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial. A Tentative Tract Map was requested to subdivide air space for an 11 unit office condominium, as well as, a Parking Permit to share driveway access and parking between the proposed development and lot to the north of the project site. PROJECT ADDRESS: 650 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: Peichin Lee 17528 E. Rowland Street #200 City of Industry, CA 91748 APPLICANT: Brea Canyon Investments, LLC 17528 E. Rowland Street #200 City of Industry, CA 91748 SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 72067, Development Review and Parking Permit No. PL2012-455, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lin asked how many leasable spaces are within the existing industrial building and whether the current users require deliveries from semi -trucks. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Peichin Lee responded to C/Lin that the existing industrial building is divided into 10 small units with unit sizes from 800 to 2800 square feet. They are relatively small units and the users are storing compact merchandise, and without permission to have the semi -truck able to deliver their merchandise it is acceptable to the small users since they are not the types of uses that would be served by semi -trucks. Chair/Nelson asked how the Diamond Star development turned out for the applicant and Ms. Lee responded that it was a great success. The location, quality and design are good and she thanked the Commission for approving the project. Sixty percent of the units were sold before they broke ground and the rest of the spaces were sold prior to completion. All of the users are happy with the facility. Obviously, the demand for these types of units is strong for local business owners because they like to own their own units (pride of ownership) and take advantage of the low interest rates. Chair/Nelson asked if Ms. Lee expected the same kinds or types of Industry's users to come into this project and Ms. Lee responded that as a matter of fact, 45 percent of the space is already reserved by professional users. Most of the users are from the City of Diamond Bar or adjacent neighborhoods. Chair/Nelson asked for examples of users and their types of businesses. Ms. Lee responded that there is a wholesale travel agency, a trading company, and a chiropractor who is currently leasing and wish to own. Anthony Gonzales said he owns property in the 852 block of the adjacent townhomes directly across from the proposed project. The building looks great but he is concerned about the parking. He believes at this time they have 10 rentals. He visited the site on Monday and counted about 90 parking spaces M Ly JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION and with the 10 rentals 71 parking spaces were filled in the middle of the afternoon on a Monday. He is concerned about overflow parking. If 10 units fill 71 spaces and Ms. Lee intends to add 11 more rental spaces, where will the additional parking come from. He understands that the bulk of parking is supposed to be shared with the northerly parking but the northerly parking is already being occupied. He provided the Commission with photographs. Chair/Nelson said the Commission would review the photographs and present them to the clerk to be entered into the record. During past years, the residents of Windwood Townhomes have had issues with parking overflow from Metrolink which the new multi -tiered structure will alleviate. However, he remains concerned that the overflow parking from the project will flow into his complex. In addition, he is concerned that professional offices will bring come and go traffic and the area is already congested and difficult to maneuver. C/Lin said that in looking at the photographs he noticed an ambulance company that has six or seven ambulance vehicles parked there. Mr. Gonzales said there is a lot of emergency vehicle traffic that goes in and out of the parking lot and each of those vehicles carry one to two individuals so that would mean two to three spaces occupied by employees and the company. The company has been at that location for a number of years. Aside from that, regular employees seem to go to the site and remain there for their eight hour shift. VC[Torng said the speaker mentioned 11 units. Currently, how many units are there and Mr. Gonzales reiterated he believed there were 10 unites at this time and whatever number of units are currently occupied, 71 of the approximately 90 parking spaces were occupied when he visited the site yesterday. The only spaces that were open were those next to the vacant lot which is where the proposed construction is located. VC/Torng said the Commission has a traffic study and asked that the developer address Mr. Gonzales's concerns. Ms. Lee explained that the industrial building consists of 10 units. The applicant signed a two-year lease with the ambulance company in January 2013. Initially, their business was very slow. The construction of the proposed building is set to be completed at about the same time that the ambulance company's lease expires (December 2014). During the past two months the (ambulance) business has grown and in fact, the owner approached the leasing company a couple of weeks ago to let them know that his company was growing at a fast pace and asked the landlord if they would allow him to break his tease. Our response to the owner was that he could break his lease anytime, and that we would help him find a larger place to accommodate his growing business which we are now doing. We believe that by the time the new building is completed the ambulance company's lease will be up and he will have moved to another location which should solve the parking issue. iJ i J JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Farago said it appeared there may be overflow parking from the Metrolink and asked if the property owner had any type of security to make sure that only tenants parked in the lot. Ms. Lee said she checked .with Metrolink and was advised that there is additional parking for users. She does not see overflow parking in their lot from Metrolink. VC/Torng said that according to the previous speaker there are 10 units. With the addition it will become 11 units. Ms. Lee explained that the 10 units are in the existing building. They will build a new 11 -unit office building. The ambulance company occupies 2,800 square feet and is looking for 7,000 square feet. Chair/Nelson asked how the City could be assured that the tenant would be moving and Ms. Lee reiterated that the lease expires in December 2014. Chair/Nelson asked if the ambulance company owner had a right to renew the lease and Ms. Lee said he does not have the option to renew the lease. She said she would be happy to provide a copy of the lease amendment to the Commission, if requested. During construction there are no new tenants and no new users moving to the site so there will be no parking required before the actual building is completed. Chair/Nelson asked if the combined parking allocation met the City's development standard and whether the existing property to the north was in violation of the City's parking standards. Also, does the City have legal recourse to try to remedy the existing condition and, in the event that the ambulance company's lease is renewed, can the City impose tandem parking or such circumstances to accommodate more parking on their property. Despite the property owner's assurances, in the event that a landlord wants to retain a tenant which of course is desirable, could be a workable situation. Ms. Lee said this can happen on any property. When a landlord rents to a tenant a business can grow. The ambulance company owner is in such a position and is in the process of finding another property. Her firm has a reputation for looking out for the best circumstances for all of their users and tenants. The investment company does not want to damage itself by acting against tenants who have legal signed contracts. If for any reason the ambulance service wants to stay, they can stay until December 2014 when their lease expires. To reiterate, the ambulance owner initiated the meeting with the landlord and asked for relief. The investment company has no problem breaking the lease because the building offers a very desirable location and the investment company can easily find other users to take that space. Chair/Nelson asked if the Commission could impose, as a condition of the use permit, a requirement for tandem parking of the ambulance drivers on their property if necessary in order to prevent parking from flowing onto adjacent streets and adjacent properties. ACA/Eggart responded that if it so chooses, JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION the Planning Commission might consider a condition to provide that the City (City Manager, Community Development Director) has the authority to require a parking study or parking management plan in the event that actual parking/circulation problems arise and require the property owner/applicant to implement recommendations from staff to mitigate those actual traffic problems which tends to be effective because the actual impacts are unknown until the building is built and rented out. C/Farago asked how many ambulances are currently at the existing site and Ms. Lee responded 12-15. The number varies day to day and during the daytime they dispatch ambulance service which leaves only staff parking. C/Farago said that if the nature of the business is to house or park vehicles as part of their business, would not that have to be considered as part of the parking study because it is not typical use of the parking lot. Could there be some type of restriction as to the type of business and amount of vehicles that might be parked or impose stacked parking for that area? Ms. Lee said she believed the ambulance company obtained a business license from the City at the time they moved in and it is fortunate/unfortunate that their business is growing. They do intend to move out when they outgrow the space. She believes that the concerns address a potential problem after completion. C/Farago said that if the ambulance service moves out the problem is alleviated unless another ambulance company moves in. CDD/Gubman said the City issued a zoning clearance and a business license for the ambulance use earlier this year. Regrettably, there were no conditions imposed on that issuance to .address the number of vehicles and the actual result of having not only the employee vehicles but the ambulances that would have a multiplier effect on the parking demand for this use. At this point, going forward, the City can impose conditions on new tenants coming in and because the property owner owns both parcels it is a feasible way to address the issue. Going forward, there can be a condition applied to the Development Review approval to require a parking management plan, prior to some milestone in the permitting process for this project, to take into account the continued occupancy of the ambulance company, should it not relocate. From the perspective of meeting the parking requirements in the municipal code, calculating the current and new building needs, a total of 91 parking spaces would be required. There could certainly be a condition imposed that provides some limitation on the number of vehicles per tenant and that can be in combination with provisions to require tandem parking or some other doubling of the existing parking. The City would not allow that for customer parking but certainly for employee and service employee vehicles such a condition for a parking plan for the site to address that issue. C/Lin said he did not believe the ambulance business was an issue for this evening because it was a permitted use and the City issued a business license; nevertheless, the City could still have parking problems on this site. The n 711571A77 JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION distance between two shared parking lots cannot be greater than 300 feet and it looks to him like some of the parking spaces are more than 300 feet away on the drawing. The shared private driveway is 31 feet wide and really all that is needed is about 11 feet for each lane which would leave 10 feet for additional parallel parking. SP/Lee said that the existing fire plan shows fire lane designations as striped which would require about a 26 foot clearance for a fire truck to be able to access the site. C/Lin said that in his view the parking requirements meet the current regulations. Tenants come and go and it may be the City's . negligence in not imposing any regulations for the ambulance company. However, since the lease is over in two years it gives the City an opportunity to properly issue new business permits with the imposition of requirements and perhaps the problem will go away. He said he has a hard time denying an application that follows the City's parking regulations. C/Lin said that Mr. Gonzales made a statement about a left turn. When the traffic study was completed, what was the finding regarding those left turn movements and SP/Lee responded that there is a designated left turn lane that allows access to the subject property which is shown in the attached traffic analysis report. C/Farago asked if there was any way to initiate a trigger that staff can address this issue with future businesses that may conform to the City's code to avoid future use issues that might interfere with the permitted parking. CDD/Gubman stated that since this is a discretionary entitlement, if there was an existing business park elsewhere and they were proposing uses to come and go without any entitlement where the City has discretion there is very little that can be done except through collaborative work with the property owner. In this instance, since the Commission is considering a discretionary action to intensify the use of the property it would be appropriate to impose a condition to address the potential parking issue — perhaps a condition could require or limit the number of commercial vehicles to one commercial vehicle per tenant and if a tenant wanted two commercial vehicles for their place of business the City could require the submittal of a parking plan or some parking management strategy to mitigate the displacement of parking for other clients that might be visiting. Ms. Lee said that as a business developer they are willing to be restricted for the industrial building site with no ambulance service for that particular type of building. Mr. Gonzales said that many times service companies will come in with an F150 or F250 which are commercial vehicles that are often overlooked. With no one else present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin asked if the distance between the parking lots exceeded 300 feet. SP/Lee responded that the distance is measured from property line to property line and not from parking space to parking space. Since the applicant owns both properties and they are contiguous properties the distance is not an issue. C/Lin moved, VC/Torng seconded, to recommend City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 72067, Development Review and Parking Permit PL2012-455 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson asked C/Lin to amend his motion to include the condition that "if the existing industrial ambulance service business renews its lease and there is a parking problem that a parking management plan be imposed on the use." C/Lin said he would do so and asked for clarification from the City Attorney about whether the existing warehouse is not a subject of this application and ACA/Eggart responded that the existing warehouse is not before the Commission this evening except for the required "shared parking agreement." So the Commission can require a certain number of spaces to be maintained for the use that is being approved through that shared parking agreement or, proceed with any of the other suggestions provided by CDD/Gubman including allowing the Community Development Director to require a parking management plan if deemed necessary. C/Lin asked what the magic number was and CDD/Gubman suggested that according to the Resolution there is a Condition (d) on Page 9 under Parking Permit where it requires "prior to final map approval of reciprocal parking and access agreement for the use and access of common drives, etc. be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division, the Public Works Engineering Department and the City Attorney' and it requires recordation with the L.A. County Recorder. The Commission could add to that condition the additional provision of "prior to final map approval and recordation of this reciprocal parking requirements that a Parking Management Plan be required for any tenant that contemplates the use of more than one commercial vehicle and commercial vehicle can be defined not in terms of the vehicle code but in the context of being a dedicated vehicle that is on that premises for the purpose of conducting business at that premises. C/Lin suggested the following: "Prior to final approval of the plan, the applicant will submit a Parking Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City." CDD/Gubman concurred. C/Lin said he amended his motion to add the language as stated. VC/Torng seconded the amended motion. The motion was carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shah JUNE 25, 2013 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson reaffirmed that the amended motion met with the approval of the property owner/applicant. 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Chair/Nelson offered a public apology to C/Lin for referring to him as C/Chin during tonight's proceeding. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that the next regular Planning Commission date is July 9; 2013, however, there are no items scheduled for that agenda. Therefore, the next scheduled meeting is July 23, 2013 and at this time there are currently no items scheduled for that agenda but that is subject to change. C/Lin and Chair/Nelson said they would not be available for the July 23, 2013, meeting. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 8:10 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 13th day of August, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Steve Nelson, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21810 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.1 MEETING DATE: August 13, 2013 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project (Planning Case No. PL2013- 227) LEAD AGENCY: City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department PROJECT LOCATION: Undeveloped land generally located along the west side of Chino Hills Parkway/Philips Ranch Road, just south of Diamond Ranch Road and Scenic Ridge Drive, and adjacent to the Diamond Ranch High School, in the northeast portion of the City (Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Number 8701-022-273) APPLICATION REQUEST: To recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Certify the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), which includes the Mitigation Monitor!ng/Reporting Program ("MMRP").The EIR provides an analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed actions. The EIR includes mitigation measures, addresses project alternatives, and identifies the environmentally superior project alternative. In preparing the EIR, all potential impacts are found to be less than significant, or would be reduced below the level of significance with the identified mitigation measures. The MMRP would monitor and report on the implementation of the mitigation measures; and 2. Adopt a General Plan Land Use Element Amendment to establish a new High Density Residential -30 (RH-30) land use designation and change the current - -land use designation on ttre Land -Use -Map for the portion of the -subject property- - identified as "Site A" from Agricultural (AG) to Planning Area 5/High Density Residential -30 (PA-5/RH-30); and Page 1 of 12 947906.1 3. Adopt a Development Code Amendment to establish a new High Density Residential -30 (RH-30) zoning designation and development regulations; and 4. Adopt a Zone Change to change the zoning district for the portion of the subject property identified as "Site A" from Agricultural (AG) to High Density Residential - 30 Dwelling Units per Acre (RH-30), and establish a maximum of 490 housing units for this site. SUMMARY: Every city in California is required to adopt a General Plan, which includes a Housing Element. Among other things, the Housing Element must identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate new housing development commensurate with the City's assigned share of the region's housing need for all economic segments of the community. A primary purpose of this state law requirement is to provide incentives to development that will increase the availability of affordable housing as defined in state law. Pursuant to its authority under state law, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) prepared a Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which determined that the City's share of regional housing needs for the 2008-2014 period are as follows: Table 1 Income Very Above Category Low Low Moderate Moderate Total Housing units 286 180 189 443 1,098 Source: SCAG 2007 The City's adopted and certified 2008-2014 Housing Element commits the City to establishing a new zoning designation that would permit residential development at a density of 30 dwelling units per acre (hereafter, the "Project"), and to rezone sufficient acreage to this new designation in order to accommodate the development of 466 lower-income housing units.' In addition, the zoning must permit the affordable housing units to be developed by right, meaning not subject to further discretionary City approvals, including additional environmental analysis. The City is required to complete this rezoning by the end of this planning period, which concludes on October 15, 2013, or face significant penalties that are further explained below. "Lower income" refers to households with incomes that are less than or equal to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI), and is the sum of the Very Low and Low income categories in the table above. HCD estimates the 2013 AMI for Los Angeles to be $64,800. Page 2 of 12 947906.1 For the 2014-2021 Housing Element planning period, commencing on October 16"' of this year, SCAG has determined the City's affordable housing need will be 490 units, as shown in Table 2 on the following page Table 2 Income Very Above Category Low Low Moderate Moderate Total Housing units 306 182 190 466 1,146 Source: SLAG 2012 State law establishes a density of 30 units/acre as a "proxy" for housing affordability, operating under the assumption that this density is necessary to make affordable housing development financially feasible. The highest density currently allowed under the City's General Plan and Development Code is 20 units/acre. Therefore, the City is required to amend the General Plan and zoning regulations in order to comply with state law and to accommodate its RHNA-assigned fair share of affordable housing. The proposed actions listed as 1-4 above (hereafter, collectively, the "Approvals"), would amend the General Plan and zoning regulations to allow development of up to 490 housing units at a density of up to 30 units/acre on the portion of the Tres Hermanos property identified as "Site A" in the EIR (see Figure 1). The Approvals would satisfy the City's 2008-2014 affordable housing requirement and also the City's housing requirement for the 2014-2021 period. If the Approvals are not adopted prior to October 15, 2013, the City will be out of compliance with state law and as a penalty therefore, Government Code section 65584.9 provides that the City will be required to rezone sites to accommodate both the 2008-2014 requirement (466 units, by October 15, 2014) and the 2014-2021 requirement (490 units, by October 15, 2016), for a total of 956 units. In sum, the City would be required to "make available" twice the number of "adequate sites" for affordable housing units. State law provides for additional penalties for failing to timely complete the rezoning; including limiting the City Council's discretion in approving or disapproving affordable housing projects. It is important to note that while the Approvals are necessary to accommodate the City's assigned share of affordable housing, the law does not mandate that the site be developed with affordable housing. Affordable housing typically requires large financial subsidies, and neither the City nor the Property Owner is required to build or subsidize affordable housing. The actual development of affordable housing will be driven by the market and ultimately the financial feasibility. The City's obligation is to adopt General Plan and zoning regulations that would "make available adequate sites" for affordable housing to be built. The Project site is owned by the Successor Agency to the Industry - el - Urban Development Agency, and no development -plan has been proposed -for -the -site in connection with the Approvals. Page 3 of 12 947906.1 Figure 1 Pursuant to CEQA a Final EIR has been prepared as part of the Approvals (Attachment 3). The potential environmental impacts in connection with any future development of the site are described in the EIR and are summarized in the "Analysis" section of this report. After holding the public hearing, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions recommending City Council certification of the Final EIR, adoption of the MMRP and approval of proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, Zoning Code and Zoning District Map (Planning Case No. PL2012- 227). ANALYSIS: Objectives The primary purpose of the Approvals is to make available adequate sites with appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate the City's assigned Page 4 of 12 947906.1 share of affordable housing, as specified in the RHNA (see Table 2, above). The Approvals' objectives are as follows: • Prior to October 15, 2013, amend the General Plan land use and zoning designations to allow residential development at a density of 30 units per acre by -right in order to accommodate the City's affordable housing RHNA share in compliance with state law and the City's Housing Element. • Provide sufficient CEQA analysis for the City Council to select either Site A or Site B as the designated area to construct 490 housing units by -right without further CEQA review, to be consistent with state law and the City's Housing Element. • Provide and maintain adequate infrastructure facilities and public services to support development and planned growth. • Maintain traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards on streets and intersections, as specified in the City's Circulation Element. • Preserve natural resources on the Project site and compensate for those natural resources that would be disturbed by the Project. • Ensure land use compatibility between the Project and Diamond Ranch 'High School to the north, and nearby residential neighborhoods; and • Facilitate the provision of emergency secondary access for Diamond Ranch High School in coordination with development of the Project. These objectives implement specified policies in the Housing, Public Services and Facilities, Circulation, Visions Statement, Resource Management, and Land Use elements of the General Plan. Rationale for Selecting the Tres Hermanos Site for Rezoning As noted above, state law requires the City to rezone property to accommodate 490 additional housing units at a density of 30 units/acre. During the preparation of the draft 2008-2014 Housing. Element, a 20 -acre under-utilized commercial site at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Drive (Kmart center) was proposed as an appropriate site for satisfying the City's RHNA affordable housing obligations. However, in its review of the draft Housing Element, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) rejected the Kmart site as -- - -unsuitable-for-affordable-housing, notwithstanding evidence provided -by -the-City - to — support the viability of the property for high-density residential development, including vacant retail space, adjacent multi -family development, proximity to transit and services, and expressed development interest by the property owner. HCD indicated that vacant Page 5 of 12 947906.] sites are more conducive to affordable housing development than are sites that require demolition and redevelopment. A finding of Housing Element compliance (referred to as "certification") by HCD is an important component of maintaining the legal adequacy of the City's General Plan and zoning regulations. Failure by the City to obtain Housing Element certification can result in litigation, payment of attorneys fees for both the City and the opposing party, and judicial intervention in local land use decisions, including suspension of the City's zoning and building permit authority and court -mandated approval of low-income housing developments. This has occurred to cities in the state. In recognition of the City's objective of obtaining Housing Element certification and HCD's preference for vacant sites, the draft Housing Element was revised to remove the Kmart site from the list of potential rezoning sites and instead identify a vacant site that would be suitable for higher -density residential use. The only vacant, unencumbered site within the City large enough to accommodate the assigned RHNA share was the Tres Hermanos property. The Project site is located in the portion of Tres Hermanos having the best freeway access, and is also adjacent to existing residential development, a high school, roads, and utilities. All of these characteristics made the site the best available option for rezoning. HCD has accepted the Tres Hermanos site as suitable for accommodating the City's housing need and issued a letter finding the Housing Element to be in compliance with state law based on this location. Surrounding Land Uses and Development Areas to the west of the Project study area located within the City are developed with residential uses (low -medium density). Areas to the south are undeveloped, zoned AG (Agricultural) and designated on the General Plan as Planning Area 1/Specific Plan (PA-1/SP), as is the Project Study Area. The majority of the Diamond Ranch High School site located to the north of the Project study area is zoned AG (Agricultural), and designated in the City's Land Use Element as School land use. A portion of the high school site is located outside the City. Areas within the City located east of Chino Hills Parkway are undeveloped (with the exception of flood control facilities), zoned AG (Agricultural), and are included within the PA-1/SP land use designation in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Residential areas along Scenic Hills Drive to the east of the Project site are located within the cities of Pomona and Chino Hills. Existinq Site Characteristics The Project study area is currently undeveloped and is utilized for low -intensity grazing. _ Proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments The highest allowable residential density currently permitted under the City's General Plan and Development Code is 20 units/acre. State law identifies a density of at least 30 units/acre that is considered necessary to facilitate affordable housing development. Page 6 of 12 947906.1 Therefore, the proposed amendments would establish a new High Density Residential - 30 (RH-30) General Plan land use designation and zoning district, as well as amend the Development Code to establish standards and regulations that would apply to future developments within RH-30. The proposed amendments include an amendment to the Land Use Element map to change the land use designation for the portion of the subject property identified as "Site A" from Agricultural (AG) to Planning Area 5/High Density Residential -30 (PA-5/RH-30), and amend the zoning map to change the zoning designation for the portion of the subject property identified as "Site A" from Agricultural (AG) to High Density Residential -30 Dwelling Units per Acre (RH-30), and establish a maximum of 490 housing units for this site.. Site A vs. Site B The Housing Element identifies a requirement to rezone property with a net developable area of approximately 16 acres to satisfy the City's RHNA obligation. The Project study area shown in Figure 1 is approximately 78 gross acres in size. Given the topography of the site, it is assumed that a development area of approximately 30 acres is required in order to achieve a net developable area of 16 acres at the state -mandated density of 30 units/acre. Since only a portion of the Project study area is needed to accommodate the City's RHNA obligation, the EIR analysis was structured to identify the portion of the study area that would have the least environmental impact. Preliminary biological surveys indicated that the southwestern portion of the property contained the most valuable ecological habitat, therefore two alternative sites — "Site A" and "Site B" — were established for analytical purposes. For each topical area presented in Chapter 5 of the EIR, the analysis is structured to provide a comparison of the environmental impacts that would be associated with development of Site A or Site B. For instances in which there would be no discernible difference in impacts between the two sites, the analytical discussion is labeled "Site A or Site B." The comparative analysis of potential impacts for Site A and Site B is summarized below. The primary advantage of Site A is its closer proximity to Chino Hills Parkway, which would require less grading and land disturbance associated with the construction of an access road and other infrastructure. Shorter distance to arterial highways would also allow for quicker emergency response times and shorter walking distance to transit. The primary advantage of Site B is its gentler topography than Site A. EIR Table 5.1-1 (Slope Analysis of Project Sites) shows that 29% of Site A consists of topography with greater than 40% slopes as compared to 19% for Site B. A disadvantage of Site B is its closer proximity to the SR -60 freeway and associated exposure to air pollutants and noise. Other than these differences, both sites A and B have similar environmental impacts that are less than significant or can be mitigated below the level of significance through — the identified mitigation measures. Page 7 of 12 947906.1 Based on these differences, staff recommends selection of Site A because of its advantages associated with closer proximity to existing roadways. It should be noted that in recent years, the cities of Industry, Diamond Bar and Chino Hills have discussed the possibility of preparing a large-scale specific plan for the entire Tres Hermanos property, which covers approximately 2,600 acres within both Diamond Bar and Chino Hills. The Approvals would not preclude future adoption of a Tres Hermanos specific plan or relocation of the high density residential area elsewhere on the property. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with development of either Site A or Site B, identifies mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, and analyzes a reasonable range of project alternatives. Opportunities for Public Involvement Outreach efforts to solicit participation from public agencies and interested persons during the EIR process included the following: Notice of Preparation: The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, special districts, and members of the public requesting such notice for a 30- day period commencing June 14, 2012 and ending July 17, 2012. A copy of the NOP along with NOP comments are provided in Appendix A of the EIR. Scoping Meeting: During the NOP review period, the City conducted a public scoping meeting on June 21, 2012 at the Pantera Park Community Room. Approximately 75 persons attended the meeting. The majority of attendees were residents of the Hidden Valley condominium complex at the northeast corner of Scenic Ridge Road and Chino Hills Parkways, located in the City of Pomona. Many residents expressed opposition to the Approvals. Issues raised at this meeting included views, noise, traffic, air pollution, crime, school capacity, soil instability, wildlife habitat, fire hazard, emergency access, and economic impacts/property values. Many attendees asked that the City consider other sites for rezoning. The EIR analysis of two alternative sites (see EIR Chapter 6) directly responds to this request. Notice of Completion/Availability: A Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft EIR was filed with the Office of Planning and Research on May 23, 2013. In accordance with CEQA, a 45-day public review period of the Draft EIR was provided from May 24, 2014 through July 8, 2011 Draft EIR Comments and Responses: Comments received on the Draft EIR are _provided in Appendix G of the Final EIR and responses to those comments are provided in Chapter 9 of the Final EIR. The Response to Comments address all comments received during the 45-day EIR review period, as well as late comments submitted after the close of the comment period. CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(d) requires that the Final EIR include "The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental Page 8 of 12 947906.1 points raised in the review and consultation process." Where appropriate, changes to the EIR have been made in response to comments received. Some EIR comments related to economic or social issues such as property values and crime, which absent a physical change in the environment are not issues within the scope of CEQA. For those comments, the Final EIR notes that while decision -makers may consider economic and social factors in the decision whether to adopt the Approvals, since no evidence was received that such factors would cause a physical change in the environment then those issues are not within the scope of CEQA. Having said the above, no evidence has been submitted and City staff is unaware of any evidence, that the Approvals will result in any increase in crime or decrease property values. Key Areas of Impacts Analyzed The EIR addresses potentially significant environmental effects in the areas of aesthetics; agricultural resources; air quality and greenhouse gas emissions; biological resources; cultural resources; geology, soils and mineral resources; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; population and housing; public services; recreation; and transportation and traffic; and utilities and service systems. Where potentially significant adverse impacts were identified, the EIR proposed measures to mitigate them. The mitigation measures are set forth in the Table 2.5-1 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures) in the Final EIR and in the MMRP included in the EIR certification resolution (Attachment 1). Alternatives to the Proposed Project CEQA requires that EIRs "...shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives". The selection of alternatives and their discussion must "foster informed decision-making and public participation" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a)). The primary purpose of the Approvals is to ensure that the City's plans and zoning regulations comply with state housing law by making available adequate sites as described in the City's Housing Element. This requirement established the framework for the selection of alternatives, as described in Chapter 6 of the EIR. Other than the "No Project" alternative, which is required by CEQA, only alternatives that could conceivably accomplish the key objective of maintaining compliance with state housing element law were included in the alternatives analysis. These alternatives are summarized as follows: Alternative 1 ("No_Pro ject" The existing General Plan and zoning designations for the property would continue unchanged, which would allow either t e continued — agricultural use or residential development of up to six homes on the selected 30 -acre site (one unit per five acres under the current zoning). Page 9 of 12 947906.1 Alternative 2 ("Multiple Infill Sites"): Under this alternative, amendments to the General Plan and zoning would allow development of 490 multi -family units on multiple infill sites currently zoned for light industrial uses in the northwestern portion of the city. Alternative 3 ("Tres Hermanos-South"): This alternative would include General Plan and zoning amendments to allow development similar to the Proposed Project at a location approximately one mile south of the Project Site. Table 3 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Selection of Environmentally Superior Alternative: CEQA requires a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts of the alternatives, but at a lesser level of detail than for the Project. Section 6.3 of the EIR presents a comparative description of the environmental impacts that would be expected to occur from the three alternatives. CEQA also requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative other than the No Pro alternative. Table 2 summarizes the relative impacts of the three alternatives compared to the Project Alternative 2: Multiple Infill Sites was considered to be environmentally superior to the Project. Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to the Project. However, none of the Page 10 of 12 947906.1 Alternative 3: Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Tres Hermanos- Issue No Project Infill Sites South Aesthetics + + Agriculture and Forestry Resources + + _ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions + + _ Biological Resources + + _ Cultural Resources + + _ Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources + + +/- Hazards + +/- _ Hydrology and Water Quality + + _ Land Use and Planning = Noise + _ + Population and Housing + Recreation + Transportation and Traffic +/- =1- _/- Utilities and Service Systems + Overall +/- + _ Would the Alternative Meet Most of the Project Objectives? No No No Legend: - Inferior to the Proposed Project + Superior to the Proposed Project, even though the Project would not cause significant effects +1- Characteristics both better and worse than the Proposed Project = Similar impact to the Proposed Project Selection of Environmentally Superior Alternative: CEQA requires a comparative analysis of the environmental impacts of the alternatives, but at a lesser level of detail than for the Project. Section 6.3 of the EIR presents a comparative description of the environmental impacts that would be expected to occur from the three alternatives. CEQA also requires that the EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative other than the No Pro alternative. Table 2 summarizes the relative impacts of the three alternatives compared to the Project Alternative 2: Multiple Infill Sites was considered to be environmentally superior to the Project. Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to the Project. However, none of the Page 10 of 12 947906.1 three alternatives would meet the key objective of maintaining compliance with state law because the City is required to rezone property acceptable to HCD in order to maintain Housing Element certification. As noted previously, during the preparation of the Housing Element, an underutilized non-residential site was proposed for rezoning to satisfy the City's RHNA housing obligations, but HCD rejected this option. If the City were to select a site other than the Project site for rezoning, HCD may not certify the Housing Element and the City would no longer be considered in compliance with state law. Therefore, only adoption of the Approvals would meet the basic objectives. Another purpose of an alternatives analysis is to identify an alternative that would reduce or eliminate significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. However, the EIR concluded that with the identified mitigation measures the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts and thus, such an alternatives analysis was unnecessary. Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program (MMRP) A MMRP was prepared to indentify site-specific conditions for future development that will reduce potential environmental impacts. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures by identifying specific responsibilities for implementation and monitoring. The MMRP is attached as an exhibit to the draft resolution recommending certification of the Final EIR and approval of the MMRP (Attachment 1). As documented in the Final EIR, mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce all potentially significant impacts associated with the Approvals to less -than - significant levels. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed on August 2, 2013 to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site, and to all speakers who have previously attended the scoping meeting or submitted comments in writing. The notice was also published in a 1/8 page display in the Inland Valley Daily Tribune and San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspapers on August 2, 2013. The project site was posted with a notice display board In two locations (Chino Hills Parkway and Rockbury/Deep Springs Drive), and a copy of the public notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. The Draft EIR and Response to Comments were also posted on the City's website, and hard copies were made available for review at City Hall and the Diamond Bar Branch of the Los Angeles County Library. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: Page 11 of 12 947906.1 1. Adopt the resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and approve the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program; 2. Adopt the resolution (Attachment 2) recommending that the City Council approve the following: • General Plan Amendment to establish a new High Density Residential -30 (RH-30) land use designation and change the current land use designation on the Land Use Map for the portion of the subject property identified as "Site A" from Agricultural (AG) to Planning Area 5/High Density Resdiential-30 (PA-5/RH-30); • Development Code Amendment to establish a new High Density Residential -30 (RH-30) zoning district and development regulations; and • Zone Change to change the zoning designation for the portion of the subject property identified as "Site A" from Agricultural (AG) to High Density Residential -30 Dwelling Units Per Acre (RH-30) and establish a maximum of 490 dwelling units for this site. Prepared by: -1 . Reviewed by: Greg Gubman, AICP Community Development Director Attachments: Prepared by: John Douglas, AICP Housing Consultant 1. Resolution No. 2013 -XX (Recommending Certification of the DEIR and Adoption of the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program) 2. Resolution No. 2013 -XX (Recommending Approval of Amenctlment-to the Genal - Plan Land Use Element, Development Code and Zoning Map PL2013-227) 3. Proposed Final EIR Page 12 of 12 ROVO M. Attachment 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 2013 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF DIAMOND BAR CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2012061066) AND APPROVE THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION PROJECT, AFFECTING AN AREA COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF CHINO HILLS PARKWAY SOUTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH DIAMOND RANCH ROAD/SCENIC RIDGE DRIVE, AND SOUTH OF THE SR -60 FREEWAY AND DIAMOND RANCH HIGH SCHOOL (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 8701-22-273). A. RECITALS 1. On April 19, 2011 the City Council adopted the 2008-2014 Housing Element update, which was found to be in compliance with state law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on June 14, 2011. The Housing Element identifies Diamond Bar's share of the regional housing need for the 2006-2014 time period as 1,090 units, including 284 very -low income units, 179 low-income units, 188 moderate -income units, and 439 above -moderate units. Housing need allocations are determined by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for each jurisdiction in the six -county SCAG region through a process known as the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). 2. Due to a 2009 annexation adjustment, the City's 2006-2014 regional housing obligation increased to 1,098 units, with its lower-income (i.e., very -low and low) share increasing to 466 units. In the 5th Housing Element update cycle for the 2013-2021 planning period, the City has been allocated a need for 1,146 total units, of which 490 are in the very - low and low income categories. State law requires the City to demonstrate that it has adequate sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate development of new housing commensurate with this RHNA allocation. State law does not mandate that new housing units must be built, nor require cities to build or finance new housing. The City's legal obligations are to ensure that zoning is in place such that new housing could be developed in accordance with the RHNA, and to facilitate the planning and development process when property owners seek approval for residential projects that would further the City's progress toward the regional goals established in the RHNA. 948324.1 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 3. State law establishes a "default density' of 30 units per acre as the minimum density necessary to facilitate the production of lower-income housing. Since the City does not currently have any land zoned for residential development at greater than 20 units per acre, state law requires the City to amend its zoning regulations to allow multi -family development by -right at 30 units per acre for sites sufficient to accommodate the City's assigned share of regional housing need. 4. A finding of Housing Element compliance (referred to as "certification") by HCD is an important component of maintaining the legal adequacy of the City's General Plan and zoning regulations. Failure of a city to obtain Housing Element certification can result in litigation and judicial intervention in local land use decisions, which have included suspension of cities' zoning and building permit authority and court -mandated approval of low-income housing developments. 5. In recognition of the City's objective of obtaining Housing Element certification, the adopted 2008-2014 Housing Element includes Program 9, which calls for amendments to the City's General Plan and zoning regulations for sufficient land to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing need. The Housing Element identifies land within the Tres Hermanos property for this purpose. The Project is located in the portion of Tres Hermanos having the best freeway access, and is also adjacent to existing residential development, a high school, roads, and utilities. The timing of development of the selected site would depend on market forces and the interests of the property owner. No detailed development plans or schedule are proposed at this time, but any future actions would be addressed by this EIR and obligated to its mitigation measures; no subsequent CEQA analysis is anticipated by the City. 6. The project site was previously owned by the Industry Urban Development Agency. After the statewide dissolution of redevelopment agencies, the property was transferred to the Successor Agency to the Industry Urban Development Agency. The Project was initiated solely by the City pursuant to state law, which requires the City Council to amend the General Plan and zoning regulations to accommodate additional multi -family housing commensurate with the City's fair share of regional housing needs. 7. On June 14, 2012, the City's Community Development Department disseminated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study presenting a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts of the Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project. The NOP was circulated for a 30 -day review period that ended July 17, 2012. The NOP was delivered to the State Clearinghouse, and posted in the City Clerk's office for 30 days. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on June 21, 2012. A 2 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolullon No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project copy of the NOP as well as comments received during the NOP review period are provided in Appendix A of the Final EIR. 8. As required by CEQA, a Draft EIR (DEIR) was prepared and contained: a) table of contents or index; b) summary; c) project description; d) environmental setting; e) significant impacts (direct, indirect, cumulative, growth -inducing and unavoidable impacts); f) alternatives; g) mitigation measures; and h) irreversible changes. 9. A Public Notice of Availability (NOA) was prepared for the (DEIR) and the NOA was placed in the Los Angeles County Clerk's office for 30 days, as required by Public Resources Code §21092. The City, as Lead Agency, sent a copy of its NOA to anyone requesting it, per CEQA Guidelines §15087. Additionally, public notice of DEIR availability was posted on- and off-site, and was provided through publication in a newspaper of general circulation. The City consulted with and requested comments on the DEIR from responsible and trustee agencies, and adjacent cities and counties, as required by Public Resources Code §21104 and §21253. The DEIR was delivered to the State Clearinghouse for review on May 24, 2013. 10. On July 26, 2013, responses to comments were provided to each public agency that submitted comments on the DEIR, per CEQA Guidelines §15088. 11. A Final EIR has been prepared per CEQA Guidelines §15132. The Final EIR includes the DEIR, comments on the DEIR, responses to comments, and revisions to the DEIR. 12. CEQA contains a "substantive mandate" requiring public agencies to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures" that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. CEQA guidelines define the term "feasible" as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. In accordance therewith, the Planning Commission has determined that, since the Project, as defined in paragraph 15 below, would result in the avoidance or substantial reduction of all potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR, the Planning Commission has identified the Project, as proposed, as the preferred project. 13. The Project includes the approval of the following actions [Items (a) through (d) below are collectively referred to as the "Project"]: a) Amendments to the General Plan and Development Code to establish a new RH-30 (High Density Residential -30 units per acre) General 3 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Plan Land Use Designation and Zone District that allows multi -family development at a net density of 30 units per acre; and b) Site -Specific General Plan and Zoning Amendments to change the General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning District Map to redesignate one of the two candidate housing sites from Agriculture (AG) to RH-30. The Zoning Amendment would limit development to 490 housing units within the selected housing site; and G) Certification of Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2012061066), which provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the development of Site A or Site B within the 78 -acre Project Study Area. The Final EIR includes mitigation measures and alternatives, a MMRP, and identifies Alternative 2 (Infill Sites) as the environmentally superior alternative, however Alternative 2 would not meet the basic objectives of the Project in that it would not maintain consistency with the Housing Element. 14. Notification of the public hearing for the Project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on August 2, 2013. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the parcel on which the zone change is proposed, including all speakers who have previously attended the scoping meeting or submitted comments in writing. In addition to the published and mailed notices, the Project site was posted with two display boards in two locations (Chino Hills Parkway and Rockbury/Deep Springs Drive), and the notice was posted at three other designated community posting sites. 15. On August 13, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals regarding the Final EIR and the Project. 16. On August 13, 2013, the Planning Commission also considered the Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP) and Findings of Fact for the Project. After hearing public testimony, the public hearing was closed and the Planning Commission concluded its deliberations on the Final EIR, the MMRP and the Findings of Fact. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: , 4 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 1. The all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. That Environmental Impact Report (EIR) SCH No. 2012061066 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 May 24, 2013 and ended July 8, 2013. Furthermore, the Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR and related documents in reference to the Project, and on August 13, 2013 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR referenced herein. 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the Project constitutes the only feasible alternative in that none of the other alternatives would meet the basic Project objective of maintaining consistency with the Housing Element of the General Plan. Program 9 of the Housing Element, which has been reviewed and found by the Department of Housing and Community Development to be in compliance with state law, includes a commitment to rezone a parcel or parcels selected from Housing Element Table B-2 to accommodate the City's share of regional housing need of 490 housing units for very -low- and low- income households. Failure of the City to rezone a site or sites listed in Table B-2 and rezoning of an alternate site would result in the Housing Element becoming non-compliant with state law, and therefore this option would not accomplish a basic project objective. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the standard conditions, performance standards, and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project, which avoid or substantially lessen significant adverse environmental impacts identified in Final EIR. 5. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR to be complete and adequate; find that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and adopt the Findings of Facts and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibits A and B and hereby incorporated by reference. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. 5 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13" DAY OF AUGUST 2013, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. 0 Steve Nelson, 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 13th day of August, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary 6 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project EXHIBIT A FINDINGS Of FACT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2012061066 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 1.1 Project Discretionary Actions The following discretionary actions are proposed as part of the Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project, which hereafter shall collectively be referred to as the "Project': Creation of New RH-30 General Plan Land Use Designation and Zone District, The Project would amend the General Plan Land Use Element and the Development Code to create a new RH-30 (High Density Residential -30) district that allows multi -family development at a net density of 30 units per acre. Site -Specific General Plan and Zoning Amendments. The General Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning District Map would be amended to redesignate one of the two candidate housing sites shown in Final EIR Exhibit 4-2 from Agriculture (AG) to RH-30. The Land Use Element Amendment would limit development to 490 housing units within the selected housing site. 1.2 Project Location and Site Description The Project Study Area is located in the City of Diamond Bar ("City'), in the County of Los Angeles. The Project Study Area is composed of approximately 78 acres of undeveloped land generally located along the west side of Chino Hills Parkway just south of its intersection with Diamond Ranch Road/Scenic Ridge Drive, and south of the SR -60 freeway and Diamond Ranch High School, as shown in Final EIR Exhibits 4-1 and 4-2. The Project Study Area is comprised of a portion of Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 8701-22-273. The Project Study Area under consideration consist of two separate areas, referred to as Site A and Site B. Site A comprises approximately 30 acres and is located immediately south of, and abutting, Diamond Ranch High School with the easterly boundary line extending to Chino Hills Parkway. Site B comprises approximately 30 acres and is located immediately west of, and abutting, Diamond Ranch High School with a portion of the northerly boundary extending to the SR -60 Freeway. Both sites are predominantly vegetated by grasslands, with areas of sage scrub and scattered woodlands, which are typical of undeveloped areas in the project vicinity. Prominent ridgelines cross or border both sites. There are no structures, major rock outcroppings or other unique 7 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project physical features on either site. Land immediately adjacent to the south and across Chino Hills Parkway to the southeast of the Project Sites is undeveloped. Residential neighborhoods are located east of the Project area along Scenic Ridge Road, as well as to the west. Site A and Site B are currently undeveloped, are used for livestock grazing, and do not contain any sources of light and glare. 1.3 Environmental Notices Notice of Preparation. On June 14, 2012, the City's Community Development Department (Department) executed and disseminated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Initial Study presenting a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts of the project. The NOP was prepared on June 14, 2012, and circulated to the public for a 30 -day review period that ended July 17, 2012. The NOP was provided to the State Clearinghouse, and posted in the City Clerk's office for 30 days. Scoping Meeting. The City also conducted a public scoping meeting on June 21, 2012. A copy of the NOP as well as comments received during the NOP review period are provided in Appendix A of the Final EIR. Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR. A Public Notice of Availability (NOA) was prepared for the Draft EIR ("DEIR") and the NOA was placed in the County Clerk's office for 30 days, as required by Public Resources Code §21092. The Lead Agency sent a copy of its NOA to anyone requesting it, per CEQA Guidelines §15087. Additionally, public notice of DEIR availability was posted on- and off-site, and was provided through publication in a newspaper of general circulation. The City, as Lead Agency, consulted with and requested comments on the DEIR from responsible and trustee agencies, and adjacent cities and counties, as required by Public Resources Code §21104 and §21253. The DEIR was delivered to the State Clearinghouse for review on May 24, 2013. Responses to Comments on the DEIR. As required by CEQA Guidelines §15088, on July 2013 responses to comments were provided to each public agency that submitted comments on the DEIR. Proposed Final EIR. The Final EIR or FEIR was posted for public review on the City website on August 9, 2013. The notices of public hearing for the Planning Commission hearing for the Project included Notice of the Availability of the Final EIR. 8 EIR PL2013-227 —PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 1.4 Project Objectives The underlying purpose of the Project is to provide adequate sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate future housing growth, as specified in Goal 3 of the City Housing Element, while providing transportation and circulation improvements that satisfy the City's level of service standards. Specific project objectives are as follows: • Amend the General Plan land use and zoning designations prior to October 15, 2013 for one or more parcels identified in Appendix B, Table B-2 of the City's 2008-2014 Housing Element to allow single-family and multi -family development at a density of 30 units per acre by -right in order to accommodate Diamond Bar's very -low- and low-income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period. (Program 9, Housing Element) • Provide sufficient CEQA analysis for the City Council"to select either Site A or Site B as the designated area to construct 490 housing units by -right without further CEQA review, consistent with State law. (Government Code §65583.2) • Provide and maintain adequate infrastructure facilities and public services to support development and planned growth. (Objective 1.1, Public Services and Facilities Element) • Maintain traffic Level of Service (LOS) standards on streets and intersections, as specified in the City's Circulation Element. (Circulation Element, Strategy 3.1.1) • Preserve natural resources on the Project Site and compensate for those natural resources that would be disturbed by the project. (Vision Statement, Resource Management Element) • Ensure land use compatibility between the Project and Diamond Ranch High School to the north; and nearby residential neighborhoods. (Strategy 2.2.1, Land Use Element) • Facilitate the provision of emergency secondary access for Diamond Ranch High School in coordination with development of the Project. (Circulation Element, Strategies 2.2.3 and 2.2.4) 1.5 Description of the Project Examined in the Final EIR The Project consists of the City Council's selection of one of two candidate housing development sites, each approximately 30 acres, within a 78 -acre Project Study Area, located in the northeast area of the City. Housing Site A is directly west of Chino Hills Parkway just south of Diamond Ranch Road. Housing Site B is located northwest of Housing Site A and west of Diamond Ranch High School. Access to either of the two Sites would take place via an intersection on Chino Hills Parkway south of Diamond Ranch Road. The Project consists of up to 490 multi -family housing units, to be located on either Site A or Site B. The Project also includes limited emergency access and utility improvements to be constructed in the Project Study Area, to serve the site which is ultimately selected for development. No development on either candidate site is currently proposed, and the precise configuration of any future development would be determined through the development review process after 9 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project submittal of a development application by the property owner (the Successor Agency to the Industry Urban Development Agency). Once the FEIR is certified, its adopted Mitigation Measures will be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures incorporated into the subsequent project design, in accordance with §21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. No further environmental review through the CEQA process is anticipated at the development review process stage, consistent with state law. (California Government Code §65583.2) 1.6 Other Alternatives Examined in the Final EIR In addition to the Project, as required under Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the FEIR examined a reasonable range of alternatives. As stipulated therein: "An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation." Chapter 6 of the Final EIR describes the process by which the City determined the range of alternatives to be evaluated. In addition to the "no project' alternative (Alternative 1), as mandated under Section 15126(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following development - oriented alternatives were also examined therein: Multiple Infill Sites. Multiple infill sites in developed areas would have the potential to reduce impacts such as aesthetics and biological resources since they are located in an area that has previously been developed. This alternative was suggested by interested parties during the scoping process. This alternative is considered environmentally "superior' to the Project, even though the Project would not result in any significant impacts. This alternative is evaluated as Alternative 2. Tres Hermanos-South. This site is part of the Tres Hermanos property, which is also owned by the Successor Agency to the Industry Urban Development Agency, and is located approximately 1 mile south of the Project Study Area. While preliminary analysis indicated that this alternative could require more extensive infrastructure work because it is not contiguous to existing development, an alternative location was suggested by interested parties during the scoping process. This alternative is evaluated as Alternative 3. IIJ Project Applicant The City is serving in the dual role of both "Applicant" and CEQA "Lead Agency." This dual role is typical of most public projects and is authorized under CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and established agency practices. Based on the legal and ethical standards to which governmental agencies are held, no inherent conflict is established when a public agency serves in that dual role. The State CEQA Guidelines defines "Applicant" to mean "a person who proposes to carry out a project which needs a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use or financial assistance from one or more public agencies when that person applies for the governmental approval or assistance' (14 CCR 15350). The term "Applicant," as used herein and throughout 10 BR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project the project's environmental review record, is intended to apply to not only the City, as the Lead Agency and the proponent of the Project, but also to that (those) subsequent holder(s) of real property interests that will serve as the developer(s) and/or master builder(s) for those uses authorized therein and who may seek discretionary actions from the Lead Agency and from other responsible agencies for those development activities, infrastructure improvements, and other actions and programs that may be authorized under the provisions of the Project, if so adopted. 2.0 INTRODUCTION TO FINDINGS 2.1 Applicable Provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines Section 21001(d) of the State Public Resources Code (California Environmental Quality Act, or "CEQA") codifies the important Statewide policy of "ensur[ing] that the long-term protection of the environment... shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions." in Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988), the court noted that "[t]he foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act'to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language."' CEQA contains a "substantive mandate" requiring public agencies to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if "there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures„ that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission [1997]). The State CEQA Guidelines define the term "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors" (14 CCR 15364). As noted in Table 2.5-1 of the Final EIR, all potential impacts are found to be less than significant, or would be reduced below the level of significance with the identified mitigation measures as described in §21081(a)(1) of the CEQA. 2.2 Findings of Fact Section 21081 of the State Public Resources Code ("CEQA") provides, in part, that "no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out" unless, among other things, the agency makes one or more of three findings with respect to each significant effect. This document presents the findings of fact and substantial evidence that must be made by the City Council, acting in its capacity as the Lead Agency's decision-making body, prior to determining whether to certify the Final EIR and approve or conditionally approve the Project. The possible findings specified in Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA) and Section 15091(a) 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 (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines); and/or 11 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency (Section 21081(a)(2) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(2), State CEQA Guidelines); andfor (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 project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 21081(a)(3) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(3), State CEQA Guidelines). With respect to those significant effects that are subject to finding (1), the City 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 Project 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 City 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 herein referenced findings for each significant environmental effect identified in the Final EIR. Those impacts are categorized under the corresponding topical headings presented in the Final EIR. Reference to numbers assigned to standard conditions, performance standards, and mitigation measures in these findings are as presented therein and may differ from those numbers or notations subsequently assigned by the Lead Agency should the City's decision- making body elect to approve or conditionally approve the Project, or some variation thereof. 2.3 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, studies, reports, correspondence, and other material comprising the administrative record for the project are located at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department (21810 Copley Drive, Second Floor, Diamond Bar, California 91765- 4178) and are, upon appointment, available for review during the regular business hours of the Department. The Director of the Community Development Department (Director) is the custodian of record for the project. 12 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 3.0 GENERAL FINDINGS In addition to the specific findings identified herein, the Council hereby finds that: (1) The Council finds and certifies that the FEIR constitutes a complete, accurate, adequate, and good -faith effort at full disclosure under CEQA. (2) The Council finds and certifies that the FEIR and all environmental notices associated therewith have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and local guidelines and procedures; (3) The Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the FEIR and the FOR reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency's decision-making body; (4) The Council has neither made any decisions nor taken any actions that would constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources toward the project prior to the certification of the FEIR, nor has the Council previously committed to a definite course of action with respect thereto or with regard to the use and utilization of the project site; (5) Under CEQA, the City is the appropriate "lead agency" for the project and, during these proceedings, no other agency has asserted or contested the City's "lead agency' status; (6) In compliance with Section 21092.5(a) of CEQA, at least 10 days prior to the certification of the FEIR, the City provided its written proposed responses to those public agencies that submitted comments to the Lead Agency on the DEIR; (7) The potential environmental impacts of the project have been analyzed to the extent feasible at the time of certification of the FEIR; (8) Each of the issues to be resolved, as identified in the FEIR and/or subsequently raised in comments received by the City during the deliberations of its advisory and decision- making bodies, have been resolved to the satisfaction of the City Council; (9) The Council reviewed the comments received on the FEIR, including, but not limited to, those comments received following the dissemination of the DEIR, and the City's responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor the responses presented add "significant new information," as defined under Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, to the DEIR; (10) The City's analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions complies with the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, inclusive of those changes thereto resulting from the approval of SB 97, as approved by the Governor on August 24, 2007 and which became effective on March 18, 2010; (11) 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 Department from the custodian of records; and (12) Having received, reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the record, the Council has or will impose conditions, standards, and mitigation measures and has or will take other reasonable actions to reduce the environmental effects of the project to the maximum extend feasible and makes the findings stated herein. 13 EIR PL2013-227—PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION PROJECT THAT CAN FEASIBLY BE REDUCED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE With regards to the Project, the City Council has determined that existing statutes, regulations, uniform codes, project design features, in combination with those conditions, standards, and mitigation measures included in the Final EIR and adopted or likely to be adopted by the 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 a level that is less than significant. 5.1 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 5.1.1 Environmental Effect: Construction Impacts on Air Quality Emissions. The emissions of criteria pollutants (mainly fugitive dust and NOx) from the Project during construction are considered a potential significant impact that can be mitigated through feasible control measures. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 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 5.3 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: AQ -1 Prior to approval of a development on the project site the applicant shall develop and submit to the City and the AQMD a Comprehensive Construction Dust Control Program. The Program components shall include but not be necessarily limited to the following: • Scheduling — Minimize repeated disturbance of any area and reduce the time period between disturbance and subsequent construction or stabilize any already disturbed areas; • High Winds — Cease disturbance operations if dust control is not effective; • Disturbance Area — Keep disturbance operations if dust control is not effective; • Dust Control — Utilize dust suppression techniques, including: • Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site (typically 3 times/day); • Cover all stockpiles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed; 14 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials; • Minimize in -out traffic from construction zone; • Require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard and cover all trucks hauling dirt or sand; and • Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. On -Site Road — Pave as soon as possible and restrict travel speed to 15 mph prior to paving; Revegetation — Revegetate graded areas as soon as possible; and Fencing — Install perimeter fencing with wind screens. AQ -2 The applicant of any development at the Project site shall develop and use reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust emissions. Combustion emissions control that shall be applied during construction includes, but is not limited to the following: Utilize well -tuned off-road construction equipment; Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy construction equipment; and Enforce 5 -minute idling limits for both on -road trucks and off-road construction equipment. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.1.2 Environmental Effect Operational Impacts on Air Quality Emissions, The Project's ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM1o, and PM2.5 emissions during its operation are considered potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated through feasible control measures. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 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 5.3 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: AQ -3 For any permanent fireplaces or stoves shown in any building plans for development on the site, only gaseous -fueled devices as specified by the SCAQMD Rule 445 shall be approved. (c) Since, upon application of this mitigation measure, none of the threshold criteria 15 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resokdion No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.1.3 Environmental Effect Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Pollutants — On -Site. Site A is over 1,000 feet from State Route 60 at its closest point, and this distance is sufficient so that diesel exhaust from the highway traffic can disperse and does not represent a significant impact. Because of the proximity of Site B to SR -60 and the associated truck traffic and diesel exhaust on this highway, the potential exposure of future residents within Site B to the adverse effects of diesel exhaust is considered a potential significant impact, which can be sufficiently reduced through mitigation measures. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 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 5.3 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: AQ -4 Prior to final approval of any development within Parcel B, the applicant shall accomplish one of the following: A. Demonstrate on a site plan for the development that the nearest proposed residential location within Parcel B would be greater than 500 feet from the nearest point on State Route 60. B. In the event that development is proposed within 500 feet of State Route 60, prepare a health risk assessment in accordance with SCAQMD and CARB guidelines to evaluate in detail the effect of exposing residents to diesel exhaust associated with traffic on State Route 60. If indicated by the results of the health risk assessment, provide additional measures to reduce exposure, such as through the use of residential air filtration systems with a "Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value" of 12 or higher, and demonstrate through the health risk assessment that the measures will reduce potential exposures below the level of significance, defined as follows. • Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk z 10 in 1 million; • Cancer Burden >0.5 excess cancer case (in areas >_1 in 1 million); and 16 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project • Chronic and Acute Hazard Index > 1.0 (project increment). (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.2 Biological Resources 5.2.1 Environmental Effect Substantial Adverse Effect on an Endangered or Threatened Species. Construction of the Project could result in impacts to special status plant species and the loss of habitat for special status wildlife species observed or expected to occur in the Project area. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Biological Resources are addressed in Section 5.4 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (c) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: Bio -1 Special Status Species — Protocol surveys shall be conducted for the above -noted species within suitable habitat areas on Site A or Site B to determine presence/absence of special status species prior to approval of project design by the City. Subsequent surveys may also be required if development is not initiated within one year after the last surveys. If the surveys determine occupancy by any of the above -noted species, the applicant shall be required to consult with the resource agencies to obtain permit(s) under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act and/or a Section 2081 concurrence from CDFW under the Endangered Species Act. The consultation process shall include preparation of a mitigation plan to avoid, relocate, or minimize impacts. Resource agency approvals for the project shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any grading permit(s). The project applicant shall implement the terms and conditions of the resource agency permits and associated mitigation plan, as defined therein in. Bio -2 Bird Nesting — a. If development within Site A or Site B commences within the bird breeding season, defined as February 15 to September 1, a preconstruction bird nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified 17 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resol Won No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 5.2.2 biologist within seven days prior to the onset of construction activities. The limits of Project disturbance shall be surveyed for the presence of any active nests (common or special status). If no active nests are found, no further mitigation would be required. Results of the surveys shall be provided to the City and the resource agencies (if required). b. If nesting activity is present, construction shall not commence within the vicinity of the nest site until nesting activity has ended. Nests found during survey efforts shall be mapped on construction plans. To protect any nest site, the following construction restrictions will be required: 1)clearing limits shall be established a minimum of 300 feet in any direction from any occupied nest, and 2) access and surveying shall be restricted within 200 feet of.any occupied nest. Any encroachment into the buffer areas shall only be allowed if it is determined by the biological monitor that the proposed activity shall not disturb the nest occupants. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. CDFW or the USFWS. The Project area includes several CDFW-designated special status plant communities, namely coastal sage scrub (CSS), southern coast live oak woodland, and southern willow scrub. These habitats can support a variety of special status plant and wildlife species and are considered "rare and worthy of consideration." Development of Site A could result in the loss of up to 6.5 acres of native CSS, an additional 2.5 acres of landscaped CSS, and 0.9 acre of southern coast live oak. Development of Site B could result in the loss of up to 0.9 acre of native CSS, an additional 2.7 acres of landscaped CSS, 0.5 acre of southern coast live oak, and 1.6 acres of southern riparian scrub. Impacts on these resources can be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(x)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Biological Resources are addressed in Section 5.4 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: Bio -3 Coastal Sage Scrub — If development encroaches within or adjacent to established coastal sage scrub habitat areas within Site A or Site B, the 18 EIR PL2013-227—PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project project applicant shall develop a coastal sage scrub mitigation plan. Mitigation shall include on-site preservation, enhancement, and/or restoration at a 2:1 ratio to offset temporal loss of existing habitat and ensure no net long-term loss of habitat values as a result of the project implementation. The coastal sage scrub mitigation plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of any grading permit. The project applicant shall implement the approved mitigation plan in accordance with the plan's guidelines and performance standards. The mitigation plan shall be prepared in accordance with resource agency guidelines (included in Appendix B)and include the following information: responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan, site plan, site preparation, planting and maintenance procedures, schedule, and perpetuity preservation (e.g., conservation easement or deed restriction). Bio -4 Coastal Sage Scrub — Prior to commencement of any grading activities in areas within or adjacent to established coastal sage scrub habitat areas, construction limits shall be marked on grading plans by the construction supervisor and a qualified biological monitor. The biological monitor shall verify earth -moving equipment does not enter open space areas throughout construction phases. Bio -5 Oak Woodland — If the development encroaches within or adjacent to the established oak woodland present within Site A or Site B, the project applicant shall develop an oak woodland mitigation plan prepared by a licensed arborist with specific knowledge regarding oak tree preservation, relocation, and establishment. Mitigation shall include on-site preservation and/or relocation to the extent feasible, and a mitigation replacement ratio of no less than 3:1 for each tree removed, as required under the City's Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. The mitigation plan shall be prepared in accordance with resource agency guidelines and include the following information: responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan, site plan, site preparation, planting and maintenance procedures, schedule, and perpetuity preservation (i.e., conservation easement or deed restriction). The oak woodland mitigation plan shall be approved by the City prior to the issuance of any grading permit. The project applicant shall implement the mitigation plan as approved by the City and resource agencies in accordance with the plan's guidelines and performance standards. Bio -6 Oak Woodland — Prior to grading, construction limits shall be marked on grading plans by the construction supervisor and the licensed arborist and specify the installation of physical barriers, such as chain link fencing, to prevent encroachment beyond the construction limits. The biological monitor shall verify earth -moving equipment does not enter the oak woodland preservation area throughout construction phases. 19 EIR PL2013-227 —PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Bio -7 Riparian Vegetation — Mitigation for project impacts to riparian vegetation located within Site A or Site B shall consist of: 1) avoidance or minimization of impacts to the extent feasible, 2) compensation in the form of on-site expansion of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and the State of California and associated riparian habitat at a minimum or 2:1 ratio within the project's dedicated open space areas, and 3) on-site relocation of existing mature and healthy oak trees and/or replacement at a minimum 3:1 ratio. Any compensation through restoration should be on- site, if possible, and in kind. The mitigation plan. shall be prepared in accordance with the City's Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance and resource agency guidelines (included in Appendix B) and include the following information: responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan, site plan, site preparation, planting and maintenance procedures, schedule, and perpetuity preservation (i.e., conservation easement or deed restriction). Upon concept approval by the City, the final plan will be developed with, and submitted to, the resource agencies as part of the regulatory permit process. Bio -8 Riparian Vegetation — Additional project -specific requirements may be determined by the resource agencies, namely the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Section 401), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Section 1600), and possibly the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Section 7). Resource agency approvals for the project shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The project applicant shall implement the terms and conditions of the resource agency permits and associated mitigation plan, as defined therein. Bio -9 Riparian Vegetation — Prior to grading near preserved waters and/or riparian habitat, construction limits shall be marked by the construction supervisor and the qualified biological monitor, and memorialized on the grading plan. The construction supervisor shall ensure the installation of physical barriers, such as chain link fencing, to prevent encroachment beyond the construction limits. The biological monitor shall verify earth- moving equipment does not enter waters and/or riparian preservation areas throughout the construction phase. Bio -10 Invasive Exotic Species - Landscape plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval by a qualified biologist to ensure that species proposed do not include those known to colonize in adjacent open space areas (e.g., invasive, exotic plants). Landscaping bordering the open space areas shall incorporate species native to the project region (e.g., coast live oak, toyon, lemonade berry, sugar bush) to the extent practicable and shall be consistent with guidelines of the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County. Bio -11 Human Activity - To limit the amount of human disturbance on open space areas on and adjacent to the project area, signage and lighting 20 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project plans shall be submitted to the City. Prior to obtaining occupancy permits, signs shall be installed to discourage human encroachment into the open space and habitat mitigation areas. Project street lighting in areas adjacent to open space or habitat areas shall be hooded and directed away from the open space areas to reduce light spillover. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.2.3 Environmental Effect Substantial Adverse Effect on Federally Protected Wetlands as Defined By Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States (WoUS) and the state of California are present with the study area. Impacts to these resources would be substantially reduced through mitigation measures. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Biological Resources are addressed in Section 5.4 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: (See Mitigation Measures Bio -5 through Bio -11]. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.2.4 Environmental Effect: Contact witn any Local roucleb uI uiuriaiwca FIUL UuuH Biological Resources. A total of 3.5 acres of southern coast live oak woodland is present within the 78 -acre project area. Development of Site A could potentially impact up to 0.9 acre of this woodland, while development of Site B could impact up to 0.5 acre. The City of Diamond Bar tree ordinance protects native trees greater than eight inches diameter breast height (dbh), including oak, walnut, sycamore, and willow trees, and requires compensatory mitigation for their loss. Applicable City requirements include a minimum 3:1 replacement ratio with a minimum box size of 24 inches. Mitigation Measures Bio -5 through Bio -11 also specifically address potential impacts to native trees. In addition to required compliance with City regulations, these measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 21 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Biological Resources are addressed in Section 5.4 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: [See Mitigation Measures Bio -5 through Bio -11]. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.2.5 Environmental Effect: Cumulative Impacts. Potential cumulative impacts to sensitive and/or special status species and waters of the United States and state, including associated riparian vegetation, that could result from project implementation would be offset by the expansion of like habitat within the project's dedicated open space areas as required by project -specific mitigation measures. Findin : The City Council hereby makes Finding (1); namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Biological Resources are addressed in Section 5.4 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: [See Mitigation Measures Bio -5 through Bio -11]. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.3 Cultural Resources 22 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No, 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 5.3.1 Environmental EMU: Supsrannal riwelsC p 4� �� �• Archaeological Resource. There is a possibility of cultural resources being located within Site A or Site B. Mitigation measures would assure that no significant adverse impacts to archaeological resources would occur. Findin :.The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to cultural Resources are addressed in Section 5.5 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: CRA Prior to the issuance of grading permits for any development on Site A or B, the project proponent shall prepare and submit to the City for review and approval a Cultural Resources Assessment (Phase I Assessment) that covers the entirety of the project site, The Cultural Resources Assessment shall be prepared by personnel determined to be qualified by the City, In the event no potential cultural resources are identified within areas planned for development, no further studies are required. If the site- specific Cultural Resources Assessment identifies potential cultural resources within the area(s) planned for development, Mitigation Measure CR -2 shall apply. CR -2 In areas planned for development in which potential cultural resources have been identified, the project proponent shall submit to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits a Phase II (e.g., test -level) Cultural Resources Report. The Phase II survey shall include, but shall not be limited to, the definition of site boundaries, information and analysis on the structure, content, nature, depth of subsurface cultural deposits and features, and 'site integrity. This information shall be used to address the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historic Resources eligibility requirements for the resource in question, and make recommendations as to the suitability of the resource for listing in either Register. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall provide evidence acceptable to the City that the measures required to mitigate impacts to any identified cultural resource have been fully satisfied. In the event any identified cultural resource is determined be eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register, Mitigation Measure CR -3 shall apply. CR -3 If any cultural resource located within an area planned for development is identified as being potentially eligible for listing in either the National 23 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Register or the California Register, and project designs cannot be altered to avoid disturbing the resource, a Phase III Cultural Resources Assessment shall be prepared. The survey shall be submitted to the City, the appropriate Native American Tribe (if applicable), and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review and approval. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent shall provide evidence acceptable to the City that the measures required by the city, the state, and/or other authority to mitigate impacts to a National Register or California Register eligible resource have been fully satisfied. CR -4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for development on any site, the project proponent shall submit evidence to the City that a qualified archaeologist (as determined by the City) has been retained to monitor ground -disturbing activities. The project proponent shall submit to the City for review and approval a monitoring plan that, at a minimum, establishes the amount, location, and duration of monitoring activities; identifies the authority granted to monitors to halt or redirect grading operations; and identifies the process to be followed in the event a potential cultural resource is detected during grading operations. As determined necessary by the City, the monitoring personnel may include participant-observer(s) from any Native American entity who has responded to consultation request for the project. Prior to commencement of ground -disturbing activities, the project proponent shall further submit evidence to the City that the construction contractor has been provided information regarding the purpose, need, and authority of the on-site monitors, as well as the practices required to safeguard previously identified or potential cultural resources. CR -5 Notwithstanding the results of any cultural resource assessment, in the event potential cultural or archaeological resources are uncovered or discovered during construction activities within any area planned for development on Site A or B, no further excavation or disturbance of the area where the resources were found shall occur until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the find. If the find is determined to be a potentially significant archaeological or paleontological resource, the project applicant shall, consult with the City to determine the appropriate actions as required by Public Resources Code §21083.2(b), (c) and (d). As appropriate, further assessment via the requirements detailed in Mitigation Measures CR -1 through CR -7 shall be required. Prior to the continuation of ground -disturbing activities in the vicinity of the find, the project applicant shall provide evidence to the City that appropriate measures have been taken to fully satisfy applicable cultural resource protection requirements established by the City, State, and/or other applicable regulatory authority. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 24 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 5.3.2 Environmental Ettect7 Uestroy a slgmTlcant raleuuwlUuicai r VV U II „„- - ^�u� Geologic Feature. There is a possibility of paleontological resources being located within Site A or Site B. Mitigation measures would assure that no adverse impacts to paleontological resources would occur. Neither Site A nor Site B contains any unique geologic features. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Cultural Resources are addressed in Section 5.5 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: CR -6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits for development on either Site A or Site B, a paleontological resource literature search and field survey shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological investigator. If the survey determines that this area has no potential for paleontological resources, no further studies or mitigation are necessary. If the survey determines that the area has the potential for paleontological resources to be present, then compliance with Mitigation Measure CR -7 shall be required. CR -7 Prior to the issuance of any grading permits for development on either Site A or Site B, the project proponent shall submit to the City for review and approval a plan or program developed to mitigate impacts in the event paleontological resources are identified within the area of planned disturbance. This plan/program shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: • A qualified paleontological monitor shall be on site during grading and excavation operations of areas determined to be of high paleontological sensitivity. The paleontological monitor shall be empowered to halt or divert equipment temporarily in the event suspected paleontological resources are encountered. The qualified monitor shall be equipped to salvage paleontological specimens as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays. • The paleontological monitor shall be equipped to collect and remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil mammals. To avoid significant construction delays, these sediments shall be removed from the area of active grading or off-site for further investigation. 25 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project • All recovered paleontological specimens, including small vertebrates contained in sediment samples, shall be prepared to a point of identification. • All recovered paleontological specimens shall be identified and curated at an established museum repository with retrievable storage. A report that documents the findings of the program shall be prepared. The report shall provide an itemized inventory of the recovered specimens. Submission of the final report and inventory shall be made to the City and shall represent completion of the Program to Mitigate Impacts to Paleontological Resources. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.3.3 Environmental Effect: Disturb any Human Remains. There is a possibility that human remains could be located within Site A or B. Mitigation measures would assure that no significant adverse impacts to buried human remains would occur. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Cultural Resources are addressed in Section 5.5 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: CR -8 In the event human remains are discovered during excavation, grading or construction activities within Site A or Site B, compliance with state law (Health and Safety Code §7050.5) would be required. These requirements are imposed on any construction activity in which human remains are detected, and include the following provisions: There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Los Angeles County Coroner is contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and, If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. 26 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project The NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the most likely descendant from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code §5097.98, or where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further and future subsurface disturbance pursuant to Public Resources Code §5097.98(e). 1. The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant. 2. The most likely descendant is identified by the NAHC, but fails to make a recommendation within 48 hours of being granted access to the site; or 3. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.4 Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources 5.4.1 Environmental Effect Consistency with Applicable Plans and Regulations. Grading and development of the project could potentially create unstable geological conditions. Compliance with City standards and mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts below the level of significance. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources are addressed in Section 5.6 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: 27 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Geo -1 Grading Plan - Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Grading Plan to the City for review and approval. The Grading Plan and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a licensed civil engineer. The Grading Plan shall show in sufficient clarity the nature and extent of the provisions of the applicable codes and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. At a minimum, the Grading Plan shall meet the minimum performance standards identified in this EIR. Specifically, the Grading Plan shall reflect a preference for landform grading techniques (e.g., contour grading) rather than mass grading and extensive cut slopes. Also, the Grading Plan should reflect a preference to balance grading on-site (to the extent feasible or practical, as determined by the City) for grading associated with the development area, access roads, internal driveways, and off-site improvements. Grading plans shall meet California Building Code Appendix J as adopted in City Municipal Code Section 15.00.310 and amended by Section 15.00.320. Geo -2 Construction Management Plan - Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan to the City for review and approval. The Construction Management Plan shall contain sufficient clarity and detail to ensure that soil erosion, fugitive dust, and siltation will be managed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable codes and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations. At a minimum, the Construction Management Plan shall meet the minimum performance standards identified in this EIR. Geo -3. Hillside Management Plan - Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Hillside Management Plan. to the City for review and approval. The Hillside Management Plan shall demonstrate compliance with all hillside development standards regulated by the City's Municipal Code (including Title 22 - Development Code, Article III - Site Planning and General Development Standards, Chapter 22.22 - Hillside Management). The Hillside Management Plan shall be consistent with the recommendations of the approved Geotechnical Report and the approved Grading Plan. At a minimum, the Hillside Management Plan shall meet the minimum performance standards identified in this EIR. Geo -4 Drainage and Urban Runoff Plan - Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Drainage and Urban Runoff Plan to the City for review and approval. The Drainage and Urban Runoff Plan shall demonstrate that all site runoff is managed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable codes and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. At a minimum, the Drainage and Urban Runoff Plan shall meet the minimum performance standards identified in this EIR. Geo -5 Design and construction of the project shall conform to the California Building Code seismic standards as approved by the City Building and 28 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Safety Division as adopted in the City's Municipal Code Section 15.00.310. Geo -6 Location of any earthquake faults shall be identified and risks assessed by the geotechnical engineer. Geo -7 All grading and earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the Grading Ordinances of the City and the applicable recommendations of the approved Geotechnical Report. Geo -8 All earthwork and construction shall be completed in accordance with mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code §2693(c) to ensure that issues of potential liquefaction are addressed. Geo -9 To address potential soil settlement, minimize potential soil movement, and avoid potential damage to structures, all new building construction shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved Geotechnical Report and Grading Plan. Geo -10 To minimize soil erosion, all construction activity shall be conducted in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan. Geo -11 A qualified geotechnical engineer shall be present during all site clearing and grading operations to test and observe earthwork construction, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction and stability of the material. The geotechnical engineer shall reject any material that does not meet compaction and stability requirements per the recommendations and requirements of the approved Geotechnical Report and Grading Plan. Geo -12 All excavations shall comply with the current OSHA requirements. All cuts greater than 3 feet in depth should be sloped or shored. Temporary excavations should be sloped at 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, up to a maximum depth of 10 feet. Heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within 5 feet of the top (edge) of the excavation. Where sloped excavations are not feasible due to site constraints, excavations shall require shoring. The design of the temporary shoring shall take into account lateral pressures exerted by the adjacent soil, and, where anticipated, surcharge loads due to adjacent buildings and any construction equipment or traffic expected to operate alongside the excavation. Geo -13 Retaining walls shall be constructed according to the structural recommendations of the approved Geotechnical Report, and in accordance with other applicable design standards established by the City Building Official. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are 29 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project recommended or required. 5.4.2 Environmental Lnect: KISK Ol Llle gnu r1UPUILY vuc w _—•-- Ground shaking during earthquakes could expose structures or people to damage or injury. Compliance with Municipal Code requirements and mitigation measures would substantially reduce this impact. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources are addressed in Section 5.6 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: Geo -14 Emergency and Secondary Access Plan - Prior to approval of the Final Plan, the Applicant shall submit an Emergency and Secondary Access Plan (or equivalent Internal Circulation Plan) to the City of Diamond Bar, the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County for review and approval of the primary and secondary emergency accesses. Primary and secondary emergency access shall connect to off-site streets to allow residents of the Project adequate escape routes in case of a geologic event, soil failure or other major emergency. At a minimum, the Emergency and Secondary Access Plan shall meet the minimum performance standards identified in this EIR. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.4.3 Environmental Effect: Risk of Life and Property Due to Non -seismic Soil and Slope Hazards. Unstable soil conditions could expose structures or people to damage or Injury. Compliance with Municipal Code requirements and mitigation measures would substantially reduce this impact. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 30 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Geology, Soils and Mineral Resources are addressed in Section 5.6 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: Geo -15 Positive drainage shall be established away from any project structure and shall be maintained throughout the life of the structure. Ponding of water shall not be allowed adjacent to any structure. Over -irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to any structure shall be avoided. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 5.5.1 Environmental Effect Consistency with 'Applicable Plans and Regulations. Implementation of the Project would introduce structures and people to an area that is currently unoccupied and undeveloped. Future development would be required to demonstrate compliance with adopted plans, policies, and regulations, including the City's Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, which would reduce impacts below the level of significance. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are addressed in Section 5.7 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: Haz-1 Landscape Plan - Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Landscape Plan to the City for review and approval. The Landscape Plan and specifications shall be prepared and signed by a licensed landscape architect. The Landscape Plan shall show in sufficient clarity the nature and extent of the provisions of the applicable codes and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations, including the provisions of City Municipal Code Section 22.24.050 (landscape 31 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project standards) and Section 22.22.140 (fire protection in hillside area). At a minimum, the Landscape Plan shall meet the minimum performance standards identified in this EIR. Specifically, the Landscape Plan shall reflect provisions for a fire safety buffer zone and provisions for the long- term maintenance of required landscape at the Project Site. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.5.2 Environmental Effect Generate Transport or Exposure to Hazardous Substances. The Phase I report prepared for the project site found no evidence of previous hazardous conditions. Mitigation Measures would ensure and reinforce compliance with standard requirements related to the use and handling of hazard substances during construction. Findings: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of these findings: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are addressed in Section 5.7 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: Haz-2 Construction Management Plan — Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan to the City for review and approval. The Construction Management Plan shall contain sufficient clarity and detail to ensure that the transport, storage, and use of hazardous substances, including fuels, used during the construction phase will be managed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable codes and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. At a minimum, the Construction Management Pian shall meet the performance standards identified in this EIR. Haz-3 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan — Prior to issuance of a grading permit, and in compliance with Los Angeles County and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, the Applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City for review. The applicant will be required to submit the SWPPP to the state Water Quality Resources Control Board for review and approval. A copy of the state permit shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. The SWPPP shall contain sufficient clarity and detail to 32 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project ensure that the transport, storage, and use of hazardous substances, including fuels, used during the construction phase will be managed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable codes and all relevant laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The SWPPP shall contain a contingency program for the containment and management of accidental spills of any hazardous substance. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall meet the performance standards identified in this EIR. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no - additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.5.3 Environmental Effect: Risk Due to Natural Hazards. The project is not located in an area identified by CAL FIRE as being a high fire hazard zone. Municipal Code requirements and mitigation measures would reduce the risk of wildland fire below the level of significance. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Hazards and Hazardous Materials are addressed in Section 5.7 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to.a level below significance: Haz-4 Construction Fire Protection Plan — Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan to the City and Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County for review and approval. The Construction Fire Protection Plan (which can be a component of the Construction Management Plan) shall show in sufficient clarity and detail provisions for the safe clearance of surrounding brush and storage/removal of combustible materials. The Plan shall also identify temporary emergency access routes and notification procedures in the event of a fire emergency. The Construction Fire Protection Plan shall meet the minimum performance standards identified in this EIR. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 33 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 5.6 Hydrology and Water Quality 5.6.1 Flooding and Surface Water Quality. The project's effects related to drainage, erosion, sedimentation, and surface water quality are considered a potential significant impact that can be mitigated through the combination of proper planning and design, construction practices, site planning and landscaping, and drainage controls. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality are addressed in Section 5.8 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: Hyd-1 NPDES Construction General Permit - Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall provide evidence of coverage under SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, or the most current version of that applicable permit. All applicable components from the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan prepared for the permit shall be incorporated into the grading plans. All Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be incorporated into the grading plans and construction activities, and all equipment or improvements related to BMPs shall be installed and maintained in accordance with any relevant manufacturer specifications and good engineering practices. A copy of the SWPPP will be required to be kept on the Project site during construction at an easily accessible location so that it can be made available at the time of an on-site inspection or upon request by a City inspector or other legal authority. The applicant will be required to implement such BMPs from commence- ment of construction activity until final stabilization of the project site is complete. Hyd-2 Storm Water Mitigation Plan - Prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The SUSMP shall conform to the requirements of the City of Diamond Bar 34 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Municipal Code Section 8.12.1695, and requirements of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.7 Noise 5.7.1 Environmental Effect Construction Noise Impacts. Construction activities are expected to meet the applicable criteria from the City's Municipal Code at the nearby residences to the southwest of Site B and at the nearest occupied rooms at the high school (daytime short-term construction noise levels no more than 75. dB(A) on normal work days). However, because the nearest high school rooms are in temporary buildings that are likely to have less noise insulation there could be some disruption of classroom activities from construction noise. This is considered a potential significant impact that can be mitigated with routine construction noise controls and proper scheduling. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 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 5.10 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: N-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the. City a Construction Noise Mitigation Plan in order to demonstrate compliance with the numerical criteria in Section 22.28.120 of the Municipal Code relating to allowable construction noise. The plan shall address noise levels during construction to the portable classrooms on the campus of Diamond Ranch High School, as well as noise levels at nearby residential areas, and identify measures to minimize those noise levels. The Construction Noise Mitigation Plan shall include the following construction practices to minimize construction noise levels: • All mobile equipment shall have properly operating and maintained mufflers; • Stockpiles of construction material or waste shall be located as far as possible from existing residences and the Diamond Ranch High School property; ' 35 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Mobile source equipment during the noisiest grading activities operating within 300 feet of the school shall either occur during school based holidays or after students at Diamond Ranch High School are our for the day; and Stationary equipment such as generators or dewatering pumps continually operating within 500 feet of any single-family residential home or within 250 feet of any portable classroom on the Diamond Ranch High School campus shall be equipped with a temporary noise barrier as close as possible to the noise source that can reduce noise levels by 10.0 dB(A). (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.7.2 Environmental Effect On-site Operational Noise Impacts. Site A is impacted by traffic noise from Chino Hills Parkway and Site B is impacted by traffic noise from the SR -60 freeway. Mitigation would reduce these impacts below the level of significance. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 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 5.10 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: N-2 This measure applies only to Site A. Prior to approval of a tentative subdivision map or Development Review for Site A, the applicant shall do one of the following: Submit a development site plan that shows all areas within Site A intended for residential uses are located at a distance equal to or greater than 150 feet from the centerline of Chino Hills Parkway, OR If development of residential uses is proposed within 150 feet of Chino Hills Parkway, prepare and submit a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements, as specified in Section 22.28.090 of the Municipal Code, in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. The analysis shall include updated estimates of outdoor noise levels, and shall identify measures to reduce outdoor living area noise levels to 65 dB(A) CNEL and demonstrate that indoor living areas will have noise levels no greater than 40 dB(A) CNEL in 36 LIR PL2013-227—PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project accordance with California Building Code 1207. Measures to achieve these standards may include, but are not limited to: • Construct a noise wall or berm to shield ground floor living areas from noise; (not effective for upper stories); • Situate balconies or patios on the side of the building away from Chino Hills Parkway such that they are noise protected by the building itself; or, • Equip patios or balconies having a line of sight to Chino Hills Parkway with a plexiglass or transparent enclosure or similar noise barrier. N-3 This measure applies only to Site B. Prior to approval of a tentative subdivision map or Development Review for Site B, the applicant shall do one of the following: Submit a development site plan demonstrating that all areas within Site B intended for residential uses are located at a distance equal to or greater than 1,000 feet from the centerline of SR -60, OR If development of residential uses is proposed within 1,000 feet of SR -60, prepare a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements, as specified in Section 22.28.090 of the Municipal Code, in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. The analysis shall include updated estimates of outdoor noise levels, and shall identify measures to reduce outdoor living area noise levels to 65 dB(A) CNEL and demonstrate that indoor living areas will have noise levels no greater than 40 dB(A) CNEL in accordance with California Building Code 1207. Measures to achieve these standards may include, but are not limited to: Construct a noise wall or berm to shield ground floor living areas from noise; (not effective for upper stories); Situate balconies or patios on the side of the building away from SR -60 such that they are noise protected by the building itself; or, Equip patios or balconies having a line of sight to SR -60 with a plexiglass or transparent enclosure or similar noise barrier. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.8 Public Services and Utilities 37 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 5.8.1 Environmental Effect: Increased Demand for Fire Protection Services. Development of 490 additional housing units would create additional demand for fire protection services, which can be mitigated to acceptable levels with the measures identified. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Public Services and Utilities are addressed in Section 5.12 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: Pub -1 Construction Fire Protection Plan - Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Construction Fire Protection Plan to the City and Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County for review and approval. The Construction Fire Protection Plan (which can be a component of the Construction Management Plan) shall show in sufficient clarity provisions for the safe clearance of surrounding brush and storage/removal of combustible materials. The Plan shall also identify temporary emergency access routes and notification procedures In the event of a fire emergency. The general contractor shall be responsible for carrying out provision of the Construction Fire Protection Plan and communicating it to all subcontractors. The Construction Fire Protection Plan should include, but not be limited to, the following: Procedures for reporting emergencies to the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County; Procedures for emergency notification, evacuation, and/or relocation of all persons in the building under construction on the Project site; Procedures for hot work operations, management of hazardous materials and removal of combustible debris and maintenance of emergency access roads; Floor plans identifying the locations of exits, exit stairs, exit routes and portable fire extinguishers; The name and contact phone number of the person(s) responsible for compliance with the Construction Fire Protection Plan; Demonstrate that all construction sites shall be accessible by fire department apparatus by means of roadways having an all- weather driving surface of not less than 20 feet of unobstructed width and engineered to support the live load of fire apparatus. 38 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project • Demonstrate that construction vehicles will be parked a minimum of 20 feet from new buildings under construction; • Demonstrate that adequate hydrants or interim fire flow water supply is installed prior to combustible construction materials accumulating on site; • Demonstrate that where automatic fire sprinkler systems are required to be installed in new buildings, the system would be placed in service as soon possible. . • Provisions for portable fire extinguishers as directed by the LACFPD. The general contractor shall ensure that an adequate number of individuals are trained in the proper use of portable fire extinguishers. • Prohibition of smoking anywhere inside or on the roof of new buildings under construction. • Provisions to ensure that all tanks and containers are marked with the name of the product and "FLAMMABLE -KEEP FIRE AND FLAME AWAY." • Demonstrate that wood, cardboard, packing material, form lumber, and similar combustible debris would not be accumulated within buildings. Demonstrate that hot work (i.e., including any work involving operations capable of initiating fires or explosions, such as cutting, welding, brazing, soldering, grinding, thermal spraying, thawing pipe, torch applied roofing, or any other similar activity) and use of equipment would be in accordance with pre -site inspection, fire watch, and post -inspection procedures to be defined in the plan. Pub -2 Operational Fire Management Plan - Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit an Operational Fire Management Plan to the City and Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County for review and approval. The Operational Fire Management Plan shall show in sufficient clarity provisions for the long-term management and maintenance of the project, including provisions for safe clearance of surrounding brush and storage/removal of combustible materials. The Plan shall also identify permanent emergency access routes and notification procedures in the event of a fire emergency. The Operational Fire Management Plan shall meet the minimum performance standards identified in this EIR. The Operational Fire Management Plan should include, but not be limited to, the following information and measures to reduce safety risks and frequency of calls to the LACFPD for fire protection and emergency medical service: • Provisions for implementation, maintenance and inspection of all required fire sprinkler systems. • Provisions for adequate primary and secondary access to the Project, including security measures, maintenance, and emergency evacuation planning along such routes. 39 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resole on No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Identification of emergency exits within the building, stairwells, locations of fire extinguishers and fire alarms, and provisions for period safety inspections and maintenance of such facilities. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.8.2 Environmental Effect: Increased Demand for Police Protection Services. Development of 490 additional housing units would create additional demand for police protection services, which can be mitigated to acceptable levels with the measures identified. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) Project -related and cumulative impacts to Public Services and Utilities are addressed in Section 5.12 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: Pub -3 CPTED — Construction Phase — Prior to initiation of construction activities, the Applicant or Construction Contractor shall provide a CPTED Plan (addressing construction strategies) to the City of Diamond Bar and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. The CPTED Construction Strategies shall outline crime prevention techniques to be implemented throughout the duration of construction activity at the Project Site(s). Such CPTED Construction Strategies shall include but are not limited to: 1) provisions for construction area fencing; 2) provisions to secure, disable or lock up construction equipment stored at the Project Site(s); and 3) provisions for a security firm to patrol on-site or security monitoring providing surveillance during non -construction hours to deter criminal activity at the Project Site(s). Pub -4 CPTED — Project Design and Occupancy — Prior to approval of the Final Plan, the Applicant shall submit a CPTED Strategy Guide that identifies key techniques for residential uses which deter criminal activity that have been incorporated (or will be incorporated) into the Project design and/or future maintenance. The CPTED Strategy Guide shall identify along with each proposed strategy measure the associated program for implementation. For example, the CPTED Strategy Guide should identify which measures would be incorporated 40 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project into the Landscape Plan that would ensure that the landscape design provides adequate defensible space surrounding buildings. Or the CPTED Strategy Guide would identify which measures would be managed by the property management upon building occupancy (i.e., maintenance of surveillance equipment and coordination of on-site patrols). The CPTED Strategy Guide should incorporate techniques similar or equivalent to, but not limited to, those identified by through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines for single-family homes and neighborhood development. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.9 Traffic and Circulation 5.9.1 ns. The project would generate an estimated 3,259 vehicular trips per day, 250 trips during the AM peak hour and 304 trips during the PM peak hour. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 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 5.14 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: T-1 The applicant of future development on the Project site shall pay a fair - share of the improvement costs at the intersection of Phillips Ranch Road at Village Loop Road. The improvements at this intersection shall include the re -striping of eastbound shared through/right turn lane as an exclusive right -turn lane. Improvements will also include the modification of the existing signal to allow for an eastbound right -turn overlapping phase. The improvement cost at this intersection is estimated at $8,000 (2012 dollars). The Project fair -share percentage (based on greatest peak hour impact) at this impacted intersection for the Year 2034 Cumulative plus Project traffic conditions totals 14.09%. The applicant of future development on the Project site shall therefore pay a fair share of $1,127.20 (2012 dollars) based on the fair share 14.09% contribution. The applicant of future development on the Project site shall pay said fair 41 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project share of $1,127.20 (2012 dollars) prior to issuance of any building permit on the Project site. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.9.2 Environmental Effect: Site Access. The Project would require access from Chino Hills Parkway. This intersection is currently projected to operate at an acceptable level of service with an unsignalized intersection. However, future conditions could warrant installation of a traffic signal based on conditions at the time of development. Adequate line of sight is required to ensure safe operation of this intersection. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 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 5.14 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: T-2 Prior to approval and recordation of a final subdivision map or approval of street improvement plans, a traffic signal warrant analysis shall be prepared by the Project Applicant in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. If a signal is determined to be warranted, the Project applicant shall design and install a signalized intersection prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the development. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.9.3 Environmental Effect• Proiect Entry Line of Sight Analysis. The sight distance evaluation prepared for the Project entrance was based on the criteria and procedures set forth by Caltrans in the State's Highway Design Manual for "Private Road Intersections." The sight distance evaluation concluded that sight distances would adequate at the Project entrance, provided that landscaping and/or hardscape to the north and south of the Project driveway, and within the median on Chino Hills Parkway, are designed such that a driver's clear line of sight is not obstructed and does not threaten vehicular or pedestrian safety. 42 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 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 5.14 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: T-3 Prior to approval and recordation of any final subdivision map or approval of street improvement plans, a note shall be placed on the map identifying sight distance standards in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the proposed development, the applicant shall demonstrate to the City Engineer that the design and installation of the project entry meets all applicable sight distance safety requirements. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.9.4 Environmental Effect Emergency Site Access. In order to ensure public safety in the event of an emergency or natural disaster, it is desirable to have a secondary access route for developments. Diamond Ranch High School is immediately adjacent to both Site A and Site B, and a secondary access could potentially be provided to serve both the high school and the Project site. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 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 5.14 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: T-4 Prior to approval and recordation of a final subdivision map or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant of future 43 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project development on the Project site shall develop and submit a Secondary Site Access Plan to the City. This plan shall outline and describe an area that shall be utilized in developing a secondary ingress/egress point onto the Project site. If feasible, the emergency access shall be coordinated with Pomona Unified School District and the Successor Agency to the Industry Urban Development Agency so as to also provide emergency access to Diamond Ranch High School. The secondary access point shall be gated and only be used in emergency situations where residents of the Project site need to quickly and safely evacuate. The Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department shall be provided "emergency access keys" for access to the Project site from said secondary access point in the event of an emergency. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.9.5 Environmental Effect: Hazardous Design Features. The project is required to comply with design standards to ensure public safety. Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely; "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines), 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 5.14 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: T-5 Prior to the approval of any subdivision map, grading permit or engineering/encroachment permit, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall submit a site plan demonstrating compliance with all applicable engineering and safety standards for streets, pedestrian walkways and bicycle lanes in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 5.9.6 Environmental Effect: Temporary Construction Impacts. During construction, temporary traffic impacts could occur. 44 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Finding: The City Council hereby makes Finding (1), namely: "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" (Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 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 5.14 in the Final EIR and that analysis is incorporated by reference herein. (b) Following are the Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR which will be incorporated into the Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project, to reduce this impact to a level below significance: T-6 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant of future development on the Project site shall submit to the City Engineer a Construction Worker Parking and Equipment Staging Plan that shall minimize the disturbance to the surrounding residential neighborhoods and schools to the greatest extent feasible. Unless otherwise authorized, contractors and other construction personnel performing development activities in proximity to the Project site shall be prohibited from parking and/or operating construction equipment, trailers, dumpsters, or other material within a public right-of-way or other public property. T-7 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant of future development on the Project site shall submit to the City Engineer a Construction Traffic Mitigation Plan. The plan shall identify the following: • The travel and haul routes to be used by construction vehicles; • The points of ingress and egress for all construction vehicles; • If applicable, temporary street or lane closures, temporary striping, and temporary signage; • Location of materials storage and construction equipment staging areas; . _ Maintenance plans to remove spilled debris from roadway surfaces; and • The hours during which construction equipment may be used and brought on/off the Project site. The applicant of future development on the Project site shall keep all of the haul routes clean and free of debris including, but not limited to, dirt and gravel from construction operations. The applicant shall clean adjacent streets and roadways, per the City, of any material that may have been spilled, blown, or tracked onto adjacent streets. Hauling or construction transportation of heavy material shall only be allowed between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 45 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project unless authorized differently by the City. No hauling or transport shall be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or state/federal holidays. T-8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant of future development on the Project site shall develop and submit to the City a Traffic Control Plan. This plan shall be consistent with the Southern California Chapter of the American Public Works Association's "Work Area Traffic Control Handbook," the California Department of Transportation's "Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones", or any alternative reference accepted by the City. The plan shall describe the applicant's plans to efficiently and safely maintain vehicular and non -vehicular access and movement along local roadways throughout the construction period. The plan shall delineate detour routes, the hours, duration and frequency of such restrictions, and the emergency access and safety measures that will be implemented during closures or restrictions of roadways and lanes. (c) Since, upon application of these mitigation measures, none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required. 6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION PROJECT THAT CANNOT FEASIBLY BE REDUCED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED With regards to the Project, the City Council has determined that existing statutes, regulations, uniform codes, project design features, conditions, standards, and mitigation measures included in the FEIR will result in a substantial reduction of all of those environmental effects identified in the FEIR to a level that is less than significant. 7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that Environmental Impact Reports "...shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives". The selection of alternatives and their discussion must "foster informed decision-making and public participation" (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a). Emphasis added). A fundamental consideration in the selection of alternatives for the Project is the requirement of state housing law that the City rezone property to accommodate development at least 490 new housing units at a density of at least 30 unitslacre. Because of this legal requirement, no alternative uses of the site (such as lower -density residential or commercial development) were considered since they would not meet this fundamental purpose of the project. As presented in Section 5 above, all potentially significant effects of the Project have been adequately mitigated to a level below significant. In other words, "changes or alterations have 46 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project been .required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects, as identified in the Final EIR" (Section 21081(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA); Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines). 7.1 Alternative 1 (No Project) Alternative 1 (No Project) Description: Under Alternative 1, future use of the site would continue to be regulated by the existing General Plan land use and zoning regulations. According to General Plan Land Use Element Figure 1-2, the Project site is designated "PA-1/SP" (Planning Area 1, Specific Plan Overlay). Strategy 1.6.1 of the Land Use Element (p. 1-16) states that: "A master plan shall be developed for each area of the City designated as a Planning Area (PA). The location of each Planning Area is shown on Figure 1-2. Descriptions of each area and the contemplated land use designations are defined as follows: a) Planning Area 1 PA -1 is located within the incorporated City south of the Pomona Freeway west of Chino Hills Parkway. This 720± acre vacant area is part of the larger Tres Hermanos Ranch property spanning Grand Avenue, including property within the City of Chino Hills. PA -1 incorporates the Agriculture (AG) land use designation permitting single family residential at a maximum density of 1.0 dwelling unit per 5 gross acres. Facilities appropriate for this site should be designed based upon a vision for the future and not merely extend the patterns of the past. Such facilities may include educational institutions, reservoir for practical and aesthetics purposes, commercial developments which are not typical of those found in the area and a variety of residential, churches, institutional and other uses which are complimentary to the overall objective of having a master planned area. Development within the Tres Hermanos area should be designed so as to be a part of the Diamond Bar community as well as compatible with adjacent lands." For purposes of this alternative, a 30 -acre (gross) portion of the Project site would be developed with single-family homes at a density of one unit per five gross acres, and a total of six single-family homes. Finding: For most issues that are related to the disturbance of undeveloped land (e.g., Aesthetics, Biological Resources) this alternative is superior to the Project. However, for Land Use and Planning this alternative is inferior because it would not maintain - consistency with regional plans and the City's Housing Element. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) The City's analysis of Project Alternative 1 is presented in Section 6.3.1 in the Final EIR; this analysis is incorporated by reference herein and summarized below. (b) AESTHETICS: Under this alternative, less grading, landform alteration and disturbance of natural vegetation would be required in order to accommodate six 47 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project single-family homes as compared to the Project. Therefore, visual impacts resulting from development would be reduced. However, the analysis of the Project concluded that aesthetics impacts would be less than significant, and therefore the No Project alternative would not eliminate or reduce significant impacts of the Project. (c) AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: The only agricultural activity on the site is livestock grazing. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the same amount of land (30 acres) would be removed from grazing activity as for the Project. No forestry resources would be impacted by either this alternative or the Project. Therefore, impacts would be similar for this alternative and the Project, and no significant impacts would be eliminated or reduced. (d) AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Air pollutant emissions are caused during construction and ongoing operations associated with transportation and other types of energy use by new development. Development under this alternative would be expected to generate a reduced quantity of air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation as compared to the Project because less grading would be required and fewer vehicle trips would be generated. No significant impacts associated with air emissions were identified for the Project, and therefore this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts related to this topic. (e) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Sensitive biological resources are present on the Project site. Under this alternative, it is assumed that a similar amount of land would be disturbed to create roadway access and residential lots for six homes as compared to the Project, since owners of the five -acre parcels would be permitted to replace natural vegetation with ornamental landscaping, hardscape, etc. As a result, potential impacts would be similar or potentially greater than for the Project, which could include common areas that encompass sensitive vegetation and remain undisturbed. However, mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce the impacts of the Project below the level of significance; therefore, no significant impacts would be eliminated or reduced under this alternative. (f) CULTURAL RESOURCES: Sensitive archaeological or paleontological resources could exist on the Project site. Under this alternative, it is assumed that a reduced amount of land would be disturbed to create roadway access and building pads for six homes as compared to the Project, and as a result, the potential to disturb cultural resources would likely be less. However, mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce the impacts of the Project below the level of significance; therefore, no significant impacts would be eliminated or reduced under this alternative. (g) GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Under this alternative, grading to create roadway access and building pads would be reduced in comparison to the Project, and fewer people and structures would be exposed to hazards such as earthquakes and landslides. However, mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce the impacts of the Project below the level of significance; therefore, no significant impacts would be eliminated or reduced under this alternative. 48 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project (h) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Under the No Project Alternative, the construction period would likely be shorter and fewer people would be exposed to potential risks from hazardous materials used in construction. Also, fewer people would be exposed to wildland fires that could occur on-site after occupancy. However, mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce the impacts of the Project below the level of significance; therefore, no significant impacts would be eliminated or reduced under this alternative. (i) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Under the No Project Alternative, the future development "footprint" from grading to create roadway access and building pads on the Project site would be reduced. As a result, required drainage improvements would also be reduced as compared to the Project. During the public scoping process, comments were submitted regarding existing drainage problems in the residential neighborhood located on Scenic Ridge Drive northeast of the Project site, _ and concerns were expressed regarding the potential for the Project to exacerbate the existing problems. Mitigation measures have been identified to address potential impacts related to drainage from the Project, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, while the No Project alternative would be expected to require less extensive drainage improvements compared to the Project, it would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts. Q) LAND USE AND PLANNING: The General Plan Land Use Element and zoning regulations would not be amended under this alternative. Consequently, the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan would be internally inconsistent, which would be a violation of state law. In addition, the City's General Plan would be inconsistent with regional plans. These land use conflicts would represent a significant adverse impact. In addition, this alternative would not meet the basic project objective of accommodating the City's fair share of regional housing needs. (k) NOISE: Noise impacts are generated during construction and from traffic during long-term operation. This alternative would be expected to result in reduced noise impacts as compared to the Project due to a shorter construction period and substantially less traffic added to the road network. However, with the identified mitigation measures, impacts of the Project would be less than significant; therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts with respect to noise. (1) POPULATION AND HOUSING: This alternative would result in a reduced inducement to population growth compared to the Project since it would allow only six additional homes. However, the impacts of the Project would be less than significant in this regard; therefore, this alternative would not reduce or eliminate any significant impacts. Because the Project site is vacant, neither the No Project alternative nor the Project would result in displacement of people or homes. Therefore, this alternative would be identical to the Project with respect to this potential impact. (m) PUBLIC SERVICES: Under the No Project Alternative, development of six homes would be allowed on the site. Therefore, risks due to police protection, fire 49 EIR PI2013-227—PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project or paramedic services would be reduced compared to the Project. However, with the identified mitigation measures, impacts of the Project would be less than significant; therefore, this alternative would not reduce or eliminate any significant impacts. (n) RECREATION: Under the No Project Alternative, demand for parks and recreation would be reduced compared to the Project. However, with the identified mitigation measures, impacts of the Project would be less than significant; therefore, this alternative would not reduce or eliminate any significant impacts. (o) TRANSPORATION/TRAFFIC: Under the No Project Alternative, traffic generation would be substantially reduced compared to the Project. However, with the identified mitigation measures, impacts of the Project would be less than significant; therefore, this alternative would not reduce or eliminate any significant impacts. Since this alternative would not provide an opportunity to provide shared emergency access for Diamond Ranch High School, it is considered inferior to the Project in this regard. (p) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Under the No Project Alternative, demand for utilities and public services would be reduced compared to the Project. However, with the identified mitigation measures, impacts of the Project would be less than significant; therefore, this alternative would not reduce or eliminate any significant impacts. 7.2 Alternative Locations for the Project With regard to alternative locations for a project, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2) provides that "The key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR." (Emphasis added). The environmental analysis presented in Chapter 5 of the Final EIR concludes that all of the potential impacts of the Project would either be less than significant, or would be reduced below the level of significance by mitigation measures identified in the analysis of each topic. Therefore, according to CEQA, no analysis of alternative site locations is required (§15126.6(f) (2)). However, comments were received during the public scoping process requesting that the City consider other locations for the Project. In order to address those public comments and concerns, two alternative locations for the Project have been evaluated and are discussed in Section 6.3 of the Final EIR. These alternative locations include multiple infill sites in a developed light industrial portion of the City, and another location within the Tres Hermanos property approximately one mile south of the Project site. 7.3 Alternative 2 (Infill Sites) Alternative 2 (Infill Sites) Description: Under this alternative, General Plan and zoning amendments for separate infill sites listed in Table 6.3-1 below and shown in Exhibit 6-1 would be adopted to allow development of 490 housing units. These sites are located in 50 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project the northwestern portion of the city, north of the SR -60 freeway, and most are currently developed with light industrial buildings. Finding: For most issues that are related to disturbance of undeveloped land (e.g., Aesthetics, Biological Resources) this alternative is superior to the Project because the sites have previously been disturbed by development. However, for other impacts such as Recreation and Utilities/Service Systems the impacts of this alternative would be similar to the Project since both alternatives would generate a similar demand for public services and facilities. This alternative would be inferior to the Project with respect to Land Use and Planning because it would not maintain consistency with the Housing Element. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) The City's analysis of Project Alternative 1 is presented in Section 6.3.2 in the Final EIR; this analysis is incorporated by reference herein and summarized below. (b) AESTHETICS: All the parcels included in this alternative are presently developed, and are surrounded by a fully urbanized area. Some parcels are located adjacent to residential areas while others are adjacent to similar industrial and/or commercial development. There are no natural resources remaining or significant aesthetics views that could be adversely affected by redevelopment of any of the sites for high-density residential use. No designated historic structures exist within the area. Increased lighting could occur with redevelopment; however, exterior lighting already exists on the buildings on these sites, and the City Municipal Code contains provisions to minimize potential impacts of increased lighting on any adjacent sensitive uses. While this alternative would avoid the conversion of vacant land to urban uses, the impacts of the Project would be less than significant; therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts with regard to aesthetics. (c) AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: No agriculture or forestry resources would be affected under this alternative, and therefore, impacts would be less than for the Project. However, no significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources were identified for the Project; therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts related to this topic. (d) AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Air pollutant emissions are caused during construction and ongoing operations associated with transportation and other types of energy use by new development. While development under this alternative would be expected to generate a similar quantity of air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation as the Project, existing uses on these sites already generate air pollutants; therefore, the net change in emissions would be less than for the Project. However, no significant impacts associated with air emissions were 51 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project identified for the Project; therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts related to this topic. (e) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: All parcels included in this Alternative are currently developed, and are surrounded by urban uses. There are no natural resources remaining on these sites. Subsequent redevelopment of these sites for high- density residential use would have reduced potential to cause biological impacts. While the Project could potentially impact biological resources, the identified mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, while this alternative would be superior to the Project with respect to biological resources, it would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts in this regard. (f) CULTURAL RESOURCES: All the parcels included in this Alternative are presently developed, and are surrounded by urbanized area. Consequently, any archaeological resources that may have existed would likely have been eliminated during construction of the existing uses. Sub -surface paleontological resources could potentially exist in this area; therefore, redevelopment of these sites could impact cultural resources. With the identified mitigation measures, the Project would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources; therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts in this regard. (g) GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Under the Infill Sites Alternative, future development would occur within a previously developed area. Because this alternative is located on land that is relatively flat, previously urbanized and accessible by an existing roadway network, potential impacts related to geology and soils would be reduced in comparison to those anticipated with the Project. Because the Infill Sites are not located in a hillside area, there would be no need for a Hillside Management Plan and hillside, slope stability and landslide concerns would not be anticipated. Mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce potential impacts of the Project with regard to geology and soils to a level that is less than significant. Therefore, while this alternative would be expected to result in reduced potential geological impacts as compared to the Project site, it would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts. (h) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: While this alternative would be expected to result in reduced potential risk for some natural/manmade hazards (such as wildfires or landslides), the potential risk for other hazards (such as exposure to hazardous substances) would be increased as compared to the Project. With the identified mitigation measures, potential impacts of the Project would be less than significant; therefore, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts. (i) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Under the Infill Sites Alternative, future development would occur within a previously developed area in the northwest area of the City. Because this alternative is located in a developed area, existing drainage facilities would be expected to serve the new residential development, 52 EIR Pt2013-227—PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project and therefore required drainage improvements would be reduced as compared to the Project site. During the public scoping process, comments were submitted regarding existing drainage problems in the residential neighborhood located on Scenic. Ridge Drive northeast of the Project site. Mitigation measures have been identified to address potential impacts related to drainage from the Project, and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, while this alternative would be expected to require less extensive drainage improvements compared to the Project, it would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts. (j) LAND USE AND PLANNING: CEQA defines land use and planning impacts as the physical division of an established community; conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the General Plan, Specific Plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and/or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. All of the parcels included in this alternative have been previously developed, and are surrounded by urbanized area. The General Plan Land Use Element designates all of these parcels for Light Industrial use, with the exception of a small parcel located adjacent to the SR -60 Freeway at Brea Canyon Road which is designated for Professional Office (OP) use. Surrounding adjacent areas are developed with residential uses varying from 5 to 20 dwelling units per acre. With regard to physical division of an established community, no significant impacts were identified for the Project and this alternative would similarly have no significant impacts. Neither this alternative nor the Project would result in significant conflicts with land use plans or policies, and neither area is within an area covered by a habitat conservation plan. Therefore, impacts for this alternative would be similar to the Project. (k) NOISE: Noise impacts are generated during construction and during long-term operation. Selection of this alternative site would be expected to result in similar noise impacts as compared to the Project because a similar amount of construction would occur and a similar volume of traffic would be generated. However, some of the sites are immediately adjacent to the SR -60 freeway, and would be exposed to a higher level of traffic noise compared to the Project site. With the identified mitigation measures, the impacts of the Project would be less than significant, and this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts with respect to noise. (1) POPULATION AND HOUSING: Potential impacts with regard to population and housing include inducement of population growth or displacement of people or homes. This alternative would result in a similar inducement to population growth as the Project since both would allow up to 490 additional homes. Neither this alternative nor the Project would result in displacement of people or homes, and therefore impacts would be similar. (m) PUBLIC SERVICES: As with the Project, it is anticipated that any new development of the Infill Sites would be required to comply with existing regulations to ensure adequate emergency access, construction in compliance 53 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013-M Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project with fire safety and building codes, provisions for adequate fire flow and hydrant access. With the identified mitigation measures, the impacts of the Project would be less than significant, and this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts with respect to fire and police protection. (n) RECREATION: All residential development must provide for dedication of parkland or pay in -lieu fees in accordance with Section 21.32 of the City's Subdivision Code. No significant impacts to recreation were identified in association with the Project, and anticipated impacts related to this alternative would be similar to the Project. (o) TRANSPORATION/TRAFFIC: The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project identified one intersection (Phillips Ranch Road at Village Loop Road) where potentially significant impacts would require mitigation to conform to adopted level of service standards. Due to the greater distance between the Infill Sites Alternative and that affected intersection, it is less likely that this impact would occur; however, impacts could occur at other intersections closer to the Infill Sites. The amount of vehicular traffic generated would be the same for this alternative as compared to the Project since the same number of new housing units would be anticipated. However, since new housing at the Infill Sites would replace existing industrial uses, the net increase in traffic would likely be less than the Project, since it is a vacant site. However, since mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce impacts of the Project to a less than significant level, the Infill Sites Alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts. (p) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The Project and the Infill Sites Alternative would generate similar demand for public services and utilities since both would result in development of 490 additional residential units. Since the Infill Sites are currently served by utilities, it is expected that infrastructure improvements would be less than for the Project site; however, upgrading of water or wastewater lines could be necessary to serve high-density residential development. No significant impacts have been identified for the Project and therefore this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts in regard to utilities and service systems. 7.4 Alternative 3 (Tres Hermanos - South) Alternative 3 (Tres Hermanos - South) Description: This alternative site is located west of Chino Hills Parkway near the intersection of Chino Avenue, approximately one mile south of the Project site. The site is part of the Tres Hermanos property owned by the Successor Agency to the Industry Urban Development Agency. Similar to the Project Site, the Tres Hermanos South Site is characterized as gently rolling terrain with distinct hills and valleys. However, this location includes a portion of the ranch that is within a broad valley with less topographical relief as compared to the Project Site. During the scoping process, public comments were received requesting that alternate locations be considered for the Project. Along with the Infill Sites Alternative, this 54 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project alternative responds to those public comments and addresses CEQA requirements to consider alternatives that might achieve most of the project objectives while reducing or eliminating significant environmental impacts. This site is more than 30 acres in size and could accommodate the project objective of 490 residential units. Finding: For most issues, Alternative 3 (Tres Hermanos-South) would have similar impacts to the Project. However, as with the other alternatives, it would not maintain consistency with the Housing Element and therefore would not meet a basic project objective. Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding: (a) The Lead Agency's analysis of Project Alternative 1 is presented in Section 6.3.3 in the Final EIR; this analysis is incorporated by reference herein and summarized below. (b) AESTHETICS: this site has rolling topography and sparse natural vegetation along Chino Hills Parkway in areas visible to immediately surrounding undeveloped areas. The site is not immediately adjacent to development but may be visible in the distance from surrounding areas. In that respect, view impacts would be considered similar to the Project site. No significant aesthetics impacts were identified relative to the Project, and therefore this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts with regard to aesthetics. (c) AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: This alternative would have similar impacts to grazing land as the Project. However, no significant impacts to agriculture and forestry resources were identified for the Project, and therefore this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts related to this topic. (d) AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Air pollutant emissions are caused during construction and ongoing operations associated with transportation and other types of energy use by new development. Development under this alternative would be expected to generate a similar quantity of air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation as the Project. No significant impacts associated with air emissions were identified for the Project, and therefore this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts related to this topic. (e) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: No field surveys have been conducted on this alternative site; however, site photographs and aerial photos suggest that sensitive biological resources may exist on-site, similar in character to the Project area. This alternative site is also in closer proximity to a designated Sensitive Ecological Area (SEA) located in the Tonner Canyon area approximately two miles south of the project area. The proximity to this area could increase the potential for indirect impacts to the sensitive biological resources within the SEA 55 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project due to the increased proximity of human activity and the associated potential for intrusion. No significant impacts to biological resources that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level were found in relation to development at the Project site. This alternative would be considered similar to the Project in terms of impacts related to biological resources. (f) CULTURAL RESOURCES: This alternative site is underlain by the same soil types as the project area. The potential for discovery of both archaeological and paleontological resources exists within the area. No significant impacts to cultural resources that could not be reduced to a less than significant level were found in relation to development on the Project site, and the same level- of impact would be expected for this alternative. This alternative would be considered similar to the Project in terms of impacts to cultural resources. (g) GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Compared to the Project site, the Tres Hermanos South Site Alternative would result in slightly greater impacts than the Project because the underlying risks are greater due to the alternate site's location within a drainage area underlain with alluvial fill. However, as with the Project, it is anticipated that with appropriate engineering measures and best management practices, as defined and recommended by qualified geotechnical engineers, impacts related to geology and soils could be reduced to less than significant levels. (h) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Potential hazards related to the presence or use of hazardous materials on-site would be similar for this alternative as for the Project Site. Both sites have been used as grazing land and have not been previously developed. No significant hazards due to aircraft would occur at either site, and emergency access issues would be similar for the sites. Wildland fire hazards would also be similar for these sites since they are in the same general area and are both adjacent to undeveloped land. For these reasons, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant adverse impacts. (i) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with development of the Tres Hermanos-South alternative site would be similar to the Project site in that a substantial amount of grading and installation of drainage infrastructure would be required as part of the development. Mitigation measures have been identified to address potential impacts related to drainage from the Project, and impacts would be less than significant. This alternative would not eliminate or reduce significant impacts on hydrology because existing City Code requirements and identified mitigation measures applicable to the Project would reduce potential impacts below the level of significance. Q) LAND USE AND PLANNING: The alternative site is undeveloped and.utilized for grazing similar to the Project site. The site is designated in the General Plan for Agricultural uses, as is the Project site. Development on this site would not 56 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project physically divide an established community or conflict with a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. This alternative would require General Plan and zoning amendments similar to the Project, and would maintain consistency between the Land Use and Housing Elements of the General Plan, as well as consistency with state law and regional plans. No significant land use and planning impacts were identified with the Project, and none would be anticipated with this alternative. This alternative would be considered similar to the Project in terms of impacts related to land use and planning. (k) NOISE: Noise impacts are generated during construction and during long-term operation. While this site is similarly situated along Chino Hills Parkway, it is not adjacent to the SR -60 freeway and therefore selection of this alternative site would be expected to result in marginally lower noise impacts as compared to portions of the Project site. With the identified mitigation measures, the impacts of the Project would be less than significant, and this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts with respect to noise. (1) POPULATION AND HOUSING: Potential impacts with regard to population and housing include inducement of population growth or displacement of people or homes. This alternative would result in a similar inducement to population growth as the Project since both would allow up to 490 additional homes. Neither this alternative nor the Project would result in displacement of people or homes. Therefore, this alternative would be similar to the Project with respect to population and housing impacts. (m) PUBLIC SERVICES: Fire Protection — With the Tres Hermanos South Alternative, future development would occur within an undeveloped area approximately one mile south of the Project site. Similar to the Project site, this alternative would result in the potential for increased fire service calls to an area that currently experiences negligible activity. This impact would be similar to the Project. Both sites have a similar exposure to wildland fire hazards. Mitigation measures identified in the Public Services chapter would reduce impacts of the Project to a .level that is less than significant, and this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts with regard to fire protection. Police Services — Similar to the Project site, this alternative would result in the potential for increased police service calls to an area that currently experiences negligible activity. This impact would be similar to the Project, and identified mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. This alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts with regard to police services. (n) RECREATION: All new residential development must provide parkland or pay in - lieu fees in accordance with Section 21.32 of the City's Subdivision Code. This requirement would apply to this alternative site as well as the Project site. No significant impacts to recreation were identified in association with the Project, and none would be anticipated related to this alternative. This alternative would be considered similar to the Project in terms_ of impacts related to recreation, and no significant impacts would be eliminated or reduced. 57 EIR PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Planning Commission Resolution No. 2013 -XX Certification of Final EIR No. 2012061066 Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project (o) TRANS PO RATION/TRAFFIC: The Traffic Impact Analysis for the Project identified one intersection (Phillips Ranch Road at Village Loop Road) where potentially significant impacts would require mitigation to conform to adopted level of service standards. A mitigation measure is identified that would reduce that impact below the level of significance. Since this alternate site is located near the Project site, would also take access from Chino Hills Parkway, and would generate the same traffic volume, traffic impacts would be expected to be similar to the Project. Since mitigation measures have been included to reduce impacts of the Project to a less than significant level, this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts. (p) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: The Project and the Tres Hermanos- South Alternative would generate similar demand for utilities since both would result in development of 490 additional residential units. No significant impacts have been identified for the Project and therefore this alternative would not eliminate or reduce any significant impacts in regard to utilities and service systems. 7.5 Summary and Comparison of Alternatives The comparison, presented in detail in Section 6.4 of the Final EIR, indicates that Alternative 1 (No Project) would result in impacts that are both superior and inferior to the Project. For most issues that are related to the disturbance of undeveloped land (e.g., Aesthetics, Biological Resources) this alternative is superior to the Project. However, for Land Use and Planning this alternative is inferior because it would not maintain consistency with regional plans and the City's Housing Element. It would also not meet the basic Project objective of maintaining consistency with the Housing Element. However, it is considered the environmentally superior alternative. For most environmental impact categories, Alternative 2 (Infill Sites) would result in impacts that are either superior or similar to the Project. For most issues that are related to disturbance of undeveloped land (e.g., Aesthetics, Biological Resources) this alternative is superior to the Project because the sites have previously been disturbed by development. However, for other impacts such as Recreation and Utilities/Service Systems the impacts of this alternative would be similar to the Project since both alternatives would generate a similar demand for public services and facilities. This alternative would be inferior to the Project with respect to Land Use and Planning because it would not maintain consistency with the Housing Element. For this reason, it would not meet a basic Project objective. This alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project alternative. For most issues, Alternative 3 (Tres Hermanos-South) would have similar impacts to the Project. However, as with the other alternatives, it would not maintain consistency with the Housing Element and therefore would not meet a basic project objective. 58 EIR PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX ,a c O w !0 E w c O' U o c o m at U 07 o E 2c C d h p On N S a c `o T'c a m a 07 O •N 0 C p O c a m m m O Y A �a N d C CL O"O N a c � c U W E a n a ¢ a N n m= > d ? y a N = N L U O OJ N j y C N J m O w N m 15 N N m '�� 'o O N a > _ m rn N U m0 $ my rn �= m L° c mO m2 « E ? O o YU O % > NjNLo M N 0 O a F O U X N b E C-, E$ ao 'vcm crnc anm d cE h ac - n WO s m a '0w aw ac QE aO aE YN mm E � c m .o «o2c f � m m0 3 g E L -ca a 8- m y c a `ai 0 0,6 Z L r OL a U'e n TL 'C 0'O M.Vl (O .0 N , O C p `m ~ o m m m y Q '3 -'0 0 E w o M m m w m c a `" m 'v 'm a N >' L4 ` p 'm �` (O .� m m `m m E m C Y R N C a'm`"�Ov �i J N a'a oY N t �vYa'm rnE Y O O,_ Eeo�a Ol Eo nE S'E Naa Y m a� o 5 2 0 m m'c n� o`°a of maN I tion o m 4.-.w do'm m�mom�o omQvE -O T¢NO Ocwo UEMo > ' >a00d>m.-� 'mmpN -dY 0 o c m mKa E La o @�nU«U K N o.wc OO Na O -(O �j_ O L O T N Ui N dU(Cpn C n N N O' NRN�O C O E N C C O 01 n- .- o o E c O E (J t"i m E m= o m o a m y o a n m m E O L N O _ CN CC5 a7 O CL c m'o O C CL m CL '(D rnp c IEr O.—; N N O M m�No C J N 0. x C N0 W. Z mU C C O 'N � O � O Q C O R E w C O U C N � m 2 D C Y N N EE cu H U O > D O O > 2 O > d CL d 0 N CD C N 0 C E [: O. rn oE a E E n E >� >� m U 0 0 U O r :7= rs m e O a 41 O o -c @ m m E T p r a _ c @ R T m `a`3 -« '� j 0_7 L C E 0 N `T m o _ t o f 5 U c oo 0'c-.`a%oY c c ti n Eowo>aoi O H R E U N o R�jc@rnwc `o C�7 mm .E a°Qh a«c acimoN �oo�m �� a"Ei c@ m>@ «vRR E UCA m :d tfu c4% _ U_NO UERoUyhR COO@ C - EE ¢Rr m cmNC ✓a0 mao cXm E °macmao- —d @ o � M. 00O Wo EI ON@CON"tR 'C R@ O oci NT N am�+N-' Cop Aa@'OU_ LO R Al UR > O CN wY m $aC N` R O LO T R« O 2Ctio RR E m c"a o w E o @>0 o c NO p «'NO jEU R ° mc O p EEO m� E o a ElimUX O 0 N 75@ '3 �@N v m C C 221 d m N —Ow' Cm �R`" N�E p4E= E NtWU2 ECv 2 0O E C�5 COmCFNtO« NNO N_C Cm 0 _ m @ a C @' L@O d@ URC@ O N- O E omO@ E� a ..MZ- 2O -NE Co dd oU C, NL C O@ 0 0 oRN T 2cL2 Y R L L U O x C O 60'N@ @ L@U @ !O @L IONC_TO NUwC_U.J la�2 M N< E 0 C- 2 0W- N W L ii U d N R U> O Y 2 t CO O p L a) m •• pC (7 C 2« 'RO w N 6 N U d H @ d O m N M i C d C O) No 0 C C N C O V O U o m N o - 2 0 ow a $ a` o R U C C 0 O ra. E �� E c O C O EN 'o O O E N U m 0 0 0 U m 0 0 a N c U c�NO O U _ U _ E N N --O N NnT N C OI Y` O (O C C— C L N C o— e ai EE um o mwo O O -O CQr.«O YJ N O C O m 2m 0. U Nt O Lt5 O o0 EO m O mmEm_mm 0 6 i, c mCT m vC d m n�n `2 Lm U C i5 E NLNd m7 m cDN• -2OOv QClN('0nj oldoo0 -0O Om o O O O V •ON zn5 Ld N NLLpo� OM _«E @ OC O N O E N�nO L L3In CL_ycU�wnrn W7aW>J G`N m> d C WCLO O C J`mm�cd°, N N No M O ` V� o E2aw t5 E W EO'�o 8 m m � >o aO m 2c mvmmm o m d muN a n - >2 E Em m ooa o wR w-oaEE' -mNIaO rnyE 00 Ecnn� mo Eo Ec E o E 8 vo ma -u >�o d E Z mm mc Loui -8'c m h m"t w 2.6 o >4 2 m.o E Lp NE Em co m ocroo c�° W -`o_ n o d m n N n m T-` rL. N m 0— m N =) m U m C S] ao m m d m m L d c 3 m O' Z «.O - N G .O o N m m 5 Vo co a a; Z O m >i m N m N> O dTn L O)L U O U C N UUUUUUU ¢ .0 N o m _ C C m 'O c m O m E CS N C N m c m o m °> °� r o m� c (YO > N N [O C -p m N C C N a o ti a n rn m« a'MO 2 �0 Y C w E'�-' o Lm-- d € Em �m �c Wim« ooin cv c N n � c mE E �O 0 and d16 d-�cm nN mUmo 0 'OE �O WN2 YOm O mNC mN d � y d O O m OOU_ Nm (n N Z N L N UC V U m o o >E `o3 $� m a n m m J U 3 E Q m Hp ip .6 a� � � O OO m m M i U N O a` E o N Q O C c 6 EL � Q CM I'- 0. C -C N N O M mMNo C 'D J iE w MEL LL1 s = Z 0 C C O'N I 3 Co rn O -o 0 Q m E o rn � c o rn.c o c w e 12 O m O 0 c m c dO p a o n c4 a o m m N o O c n 0 o c c E> ap v o o 0 N O O O 'C a m E O U U 0 p .Q E Q in C C C N O t0 O C= w C j0•L-C0 N p C''y'�2fON°cm>oOnOf a.0aYno-m3 ) Ua.NN�von p rC`-wONN Z3 O 5 Cdm0c6 .L_p •- @coNc mo I8Nc E0'V N rn�o'2°� `UYLWO_oc =nFmwO3cmCo o o 0a m.` .0mN6Oma,i. c.ON0mc3 '>o a> y >E Nwp ooO aNcpdNE macEi .��CR`BN0mCm o a •�OCNNO�o_ o 0 0o Co O Oi � Aoom E Ecc o t 0 0 oaaONOm ov0 m c3N m m umo E 0 m 8LdcmONoNrnI`ac�C- w m m Q -O L Yi30 ,.dC L2Co l ' ^`m N "lcCmm�a> cOU�a0E ��oa�cmE0N Ncon 0 M 8. Oo ,N a diom m g2k 0�0 '2 m E .2c2abacm)i 5 E E 2 E�a 0 •Cma - ANo O a CrQ .� E mw'CNm 6CNL> E�:c E d N.. (m`cag 0mL-. Lo E mO m�NyCE ocmmo a=C E'C3C`- dmCC aE .am N�oC0a) oeN 75 Emm N -O cON 2K p w 5 rn .�— >rn W E U �.�o ota rnNR'a m a mm 0 o m 0mc£ am LN�m O F Lc EN p o aLo mnm— >'a � Eo E� .o aCm_` � ¢�o b 02o2 m a o m a m O�m C m m N m a C U C E m p 2 N N C U 2 C N C N C N 3 .0 m m '? C d C N C �.` Q" N �a00n0aci��O gm o'0c o. o'a 1Omomc$�i '-gym E'yco gam=�'9�3� c L> o2 oo cYC sU E ch 02 mo a c40m wo N Ea w EW U pt Lm N 0 O N N >i m w d a m C C (m6 't H O)O d o N ry y N C'O m m C C m L .fp -O pON10N m( j O E O m C N L C L m G N m L r o m b m b m m U d O E o Lu m o � 0 EL a) O) � C n O) o C r O .0 N CL C l N O (h mNo O O N C.0 J X @ (6 a X CD N O W.`Z)Z O C N 0 C C O 'y N 0 C O 22 0 Q LO I .Q d U d U �p N > _ m E >'O U G O U@ O. O) = O) 2-0 O C jq O d @ O' m O. N C C O e R5 `o_ E m o h oo 0 m a`o 8CL CL -M om m m m m m imU O O O O O O m rn rn rn U U O O O O a �p �p �mp spa QE QE < < Q @L LO O.V N@U 6 CU Um�CO O N A N @N N 0 m rL.@d -'O pl m O .0 U la"> n (0 y O >. N d N •_ m n C U n_ �� U 0 �l N .o M-0 T U a�'r�-n m N -o A r�on E d n of Uw=-Ea m€a8-c�r@n c o aZiF °l c°; d5 aj�cow «c3dva`adiiE0 E¢ te d $ mo L dm= ms f o ` o cd ' md m o'o n2 t � 0LoUn o rn�O $ o� E Wo 2 fu t -0 o n 0-2 'J .r U N -O U Ud d Vd¢ N _ 'oO@ @ do= E wd ENN . Ey s cdOn N T'g C O nm O O— N o$o G@ Lamw@ !E O 8 N E dd N " E @2@ E C2 EoCtoCU �EO r EOOJ tdEE gi«EdN cLQm@@ 'VtI`�-dcNL vCCod� E,so @U miyon?4dm.rn.��cld�NET0' nO$d W rna EY ^.orn mM ad 0 rn 2LwCa me ._p@ EooL cmON W O'O@ O 6m E«=yacaOOdi a -cU> ¢ i 'vda L`NNy O nd o . IoO E Z@ I oa'<j90 L`camLo �OrOd� ow0«00v`N€d0 I-- cNTcorndl7+1_ O To 0£ m dL NE cc d V ENw��o` E�dN YydTdOm_ =� O OE YU -9 _ . dy cd,'lrno Nd co_c_d c`o@ @ «@nd '9m@@ nLiN COm JiEp-'�Emo Y.e_U L'CbNd CoNN`@N L0 Ld OpUOl aw ..0c-Od ENc di • q`@C-�d@o ' `m mL� Q c@O FwmU o�o mOdC w�Od 'vNU E 'dC 'dcOi ' d Q'L 'bOmO d K'N JdcQib U Y 0_ @Q�C- °7 O o N 6 m 0 0 [D D ¢] U 0 U LO I U N O d E o N � 2.g) a (D rnp c r 0 O .c N CL C � N O M m�No C C J m co a. W ``-Z:)z° �U c c O 'y N o D) O G "O 0 Q I E m rn c W m 0 ? N � c 'p ' -vv �O m � m m m m S w a a o n m a o m m m p p o m pl m 'vv a Oo m a0 � c � c U U - a Q Q Q O Off O`�NJ d--mONc -L «0CEd ««t0 o nNmC �"O N' L. E 0 m C m - pdO T�Q n mmo�m N (J W gj m J OI N m m« N On�-1a�L-LQ!aJm`Jm/"]1i. ¢NHmm` 0 -0 O O V y C U d 1-Uo�mm' « fteva-0ona>`ommmCSi Y L5 fa, onn`nm vZ.o�EcnmE mSL"mmm KLrma_-m-J o.nN•TQC-aE(T'mmyOO «�-m =0 cm0m —Aa «•�Nyon� raaraL`NcmmCOmCaJ 'Srmc�(ccNCOi- mw�a0mman oE �i OO - 5 OC N 2n8 O C0> Z�offmEn a 0CN �d> r O > mmN «m4 L3`Nfdmm!0Umo• 0m dv-nE='> cmO m W --- O« n -B m yE '6� ac nQ=d 'E Z m Y e w E 0 m�O vE0 T-53 C) mma2c0 Yg Wo m O'C 0 E 0155E E O v o m_j O EO9 0O0Tm E U m 0 m w0 O 8:6 'A my0.> E E 'Eh 06 a 3rna0 o foQ « -2mc>EEo2oo$ 0 o E 8Tm m y�>NEmm dF o - o mOTO , uZTd rn� dn m'wc Oodanmm > JLwL(O 0 0 T U_E o Y Em O0wp O« -G rJ m O d_0] w G-' C L _ m( moOo E E« OU m_N ° Ndm2`LN nmwm 2L `OLN.8 : w 0 mNmLLY«m m U w Oj m T O O UU C«OEQEm « `0�- O> D Nm aLZm�OCcJ O m '=m U CNmCNm_ m rm m W LNm m U m'p p 'O �Xm2a O'Ca = CC~� O� aNN0 OmLm "0 ` 'C N5C Oam mo:2 .� m�mwcmcv c)O ->5:La 1� U m '> O* d m�r >W8` g0 o ooan«UH �0mJ $-_ v n U 4! cn Y 'O of U U U I U O d E o m - O C � OJ a 'a) rnp c r m o C N a) O M m N o O 'O N c= J L (6 N x N O W 'C D Z C) CU (U c � O .N Co o O) O .c G a O Q m m m n M C rn•E 'v N rn m m s O �U O m m a `o oJ0 mJ c � m U U n o. Q Q �_ _ O o y ti v m w t a N o m Q i2 _ a m �' m a o is c «a ` mfm at mCQ��Sni o��CL ENE ` ado n- ( O Eo` �- oron moo 02Lm 0 acy'' 00 O ' m mNE 9N omE c m w > M=E+- 4v._ % 0n 00 'y . O CcZm. 0N E Nn 0x42 m"o> n'_ E0 c rn"m 'R LaZoJ 0c 0 Em o ,o -o --w f; gmom '' Lm�Edr �y oo D oio`ma m ,mm_ ma�U � E> U.Ec LUmm 0md M> J�m 0 acLm Ocg _ m ce 0m2-) Z` a`1mo T2c�oJ2 L==O 0 Oa UrLNOdOOa) _Q5O> o>Tm @O 'g0 O 0 C E `o :OaE N dJ�mUO EW �nU6mC_mNm o -0mLaO .-E F0 No 0 O -02my -CO(nma 5 a nmf --6 EaC �m-mC - �-OCmm� mTm> m 8 0 d 12 -0 _ a 0 - ` O w mm O U a C O m O E$ _d N 0 0 0 0 E t ma0 E ComOi d --S2 -0 cpOCTran _m 0 - .raE E , 0a -$"o 1 0'o o o 00 ammo av2 o E o ao o m N. C or t aJ m O O m O m J y m n C 'O N r m Y Q N o o `o vi d YJ m N m O a l2 > m d °' a c a O m m ECOm .Lr�,m'• y L2 o Ev»Z� OON U 000 Y 2 OLE O Q v w a> -ma - O O O O r U U U O CL E o m � o � a w '� rnp c r r n O Sc N a c UI O M mWNo vv0 mc eCL w 0' 7 Z 0 �U c c� � N l6 "O d E m o m n c @ N O N m C m O @ CL O (O @ 'V U O O v .o m m �O U c U « w « O O C N @ L rr E N N r 2 J O N N C« D7 o N n V C O N EN YO > @ 7@ E E Ln t' c 2 E O C Ol rYO C 0d C c« C Q 0 C U O J N -2 ' NE=aNiE jai Nn«n O- —> 'O @ U1 C O na.'-N-�ma Ei d oLE cwcoN��'� ca �_ d « C Q } O 10 C O @ PE N O Q 6 N _ N N N E C N@ O > �' J a o m« E> = m o E E w,« c c aNi c U `� ,� @ (O O .LJ N@ � o « ENmUC�o 'aSQ ti LSvz NU E Nw 0 m -`0_ N« O EQ N waE¢EomnQ3_16NEoc 0 N U�RE E NC« — O -p',5 50C OL CK E2`n E« E woo a O-mom EcE cO LB -2 � O @ L. N @ O @ O.7 ) W t 5 E 5 mm a@ Em u) o Qo > o adVN 2 'n YJ N C @Uo @ O N NO NyNE"2@N O2 E O U 3 coLo Z c v c o .HAOT- `o E (`off. ca.� m" 6 co ' d m a 3 U o= c v o Ny U p¢. Q a@i No �' rn �' d n N¢ o E. -No m '° m o i� F 6 E EL S c c 2 c a€i v ca - 2 t (7 C7 Q.@o C V N O w . • . cV C7 @ af U � U N �O 0_ E o m 0 0 o m rn p c r r �1� O •- N N o h CoC(No L"o"OJ L W N d Z)z 0 �U C C O �N CU 0 m O N 'O 0 Q m E 0 0 c E c n v€ c a v c o. v c o c m n m O m m m N C UJ N C C O oN m W� N C d N p m O 9 o a o (0 CL o a W= a o m o 0- o n m cpi a o a o 5 @ m m m m o E: 0 E= 0 E_ 0 0 m 0 m p m m m m m c -o 'o 'o =o `o `o ca m m' m' m' m' m N N C U U U U U a a a Q Q Q Q 2 $ m o v h « E c y yw a` c 'ra-ii n= w 0 .- -m E a �° A E `o `� C7 S m .rte m o ' o 0 o E m m o @ `aN3 C7 t v`o ' m 8m -P o E @ M.- C @ .E U .E � r, « E 0 m V cin @ rn P E S �° « c o o H « E 12 a @ o_.� �o �i0 i°a c a»' c L° = vi U�M Y d �c0 vY-. o« m E R cm�oa aEi� @'u@i m >>' �a@i E Nrn� «cam c o @ @ cEm - o vpo E �m a� o mm� ' ma A 2`pm d'6 oE D €m 8— nUl «N O 2 0N O - @ O ) 0@ 2m 8o C iz .LQ a0>0 � n o° mrn�%�wcE ErndO wo ¢O no2Y=E s«V a� c 8co @« m E N c- 0 a-Liy o E 0 a E o E mo E@ m 0.5m� oL bU@yE U N@N n.@ c@@nc � N @ O E@ E@g mC o @. om WC�U C 2L w 0 Y E O@'C-N cp2 O @@ N o �m N O .o 8 -m 2 oEUy- E 2 m 68 c0 mE > EcC@ 0 o -o -@acm� 5O `d It �1 = p --p @ vm@ e E @ c maE C@ E 2 m EA c o c O @@ @ a� a w a' a C O ` � Nmo a@i m a@i o « d ,o v c p@ @ N= L C C C m=> a 1- a> C L N d j]� c N @@ @ rn N m > p' c c a m E m m o m a E t E E a d 0 m a0-2 o'd c t c E p t 2 c E w@ Ac@EW°' WK mn vti 00o@ rn@c O m!° v �vm nN3@>� nZ6EF @^0n@ a E 0o 0om a0«Q@ m U¢ mh � « 7 m0 N q I r 0 N O a` E o N � 2 C � m a� rnp E mr O •c N CL C M 07 O fh m N o da�� �cm0. W E z° 0 wU C C O 'N m 0 m C m a 0 Q O E O 0. [A OJ N d p O E C O CC O_ m E J Ol m J M y 0. y y d La p O N N C N N c d q N C d N O O N 'O C 07 U mp Np N m 01� p E`0 M -O M O) tT :� m O t0 O m 7 a o a C a o a` o o p o a o n m m m m m W mCU p U 6 U EF 0 o 0 0 O o 0 w rn m m rn m c�� c m m O p m U U m lb U O (J U U U U a O a a a v o m a Y o c d m o m e E c c -mo m a> o E '? .p w CL �� a c c L.. L .15 d > c O rnt a m O y N O C d N L U 15 m O Q O Fo d L N L m N V d E n� or °�mENTdj dt m c mm vo c EQi �"'N foo:-oc mm2 8-- ii c 019 E nLoN a> m.d> N E 0TC m 004o «m �>i >O Y�m mCnmT5 COCXE Om dd C Uj C'yy1 m Ld - U 'nTv 15OUO o 8a mea cmm �Z. odoEo�>m OQO"O�NN �� o dmm =�v N N� =O 2 c a�'8 C7 ._ m E axi m d 2 � a a o �' o' =• .o C N d E o c c m 2 :_ N - E m m d '� c E E o m -� E N a`�i a o -" o c rnLd, 0 A a [1 d W m a w 'o E o 8 c co L N ym and o Em ,o E mo._ m c 5 c oc Ud d aL.. d tV dcc w A �� c�+om 8o<oL°c'�o� a9 o� E od'S �i Z'}o; ��`m 8.$E ,`m oon...m `a`i E Env a`�E -16EF'5 O m m acn Ad -o d�.«Em c d c E > '� 3 aoi dtr 8 d rn c a d c c c a U c O E o E E T o N L V c 2 C FL-• (U C L c .c d' r N C m d¢ N C O m U m n 1O Q= ' L -Cu Ld Ud ON •d 'O N d>'NOig Ud 'NO LNN 0.0c mCmE UOmid mO VaN wU O>�J qOU) "O Nf- o C d -82 U 3 E m Oa d Q E E t. cn �aNLNEot o OW 0 16 U 0 > . d W m.cv odim 8 W i- 2 2,E5(� c. gOCam ' Lt�NdN' O 8 c N dNL 2 '0 o o o'0oc E- c 8 m UL N._vo Up0 O U16O f erOOm• o«� dm 020 20 _2oC mm t 2„Ni r C O E L” m m d CO $( D8cAiO C o d O E d Wd o>od od �2'm a 42 Noo .fECd° d a3`° C'p �mo° � E ` Q16ca Eoa c�Um° cimi S3 oo OE m o a E •,m- Q W d n m m w ¢ N N d N N C7 N U' 7 2 C7 U` U' C7 O U d .O CL E 0 N � O C � 01 0- (D mp c � �n N d C N O m � N o a cccl L(0 M a x m N O W'c7Z 0 V C C O N � O y "O Q i� •� E Pc'+ E � Q=�' m a @ @ n 0 @ n m n J OJ N C N C m N C N n V .O N �'O N ` O t0 O@ 0 O N 0@ 11 O d 0 d 0 d 0 -Fa d U Q N U U O U O @ O ti. U m m m U m U _ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ J « O -L'O «EOT 5N VE0 3 _ O E iso ~1 }.OOd 0= @U 8 N nC-) N - @Oy N _U E a A"CL� ...'i `m @ oNNm~o -d �O O@ « r Y N io00@ Z =fCp2> N moc @�o 'E $ o 0a`� rn¢ o 2 0E M Lc=Ej83: @ N :5 16 �H�a Z5 - E 2=t,Oo M z0No E E d Orn y� mc`^oa 0 w 0a o2 'o um YB @o d @O d`y @ Hm` % ui capE@ M« 0cEp0 -od @moo&' aELM �c @ ao 0 E c m mi c�cocN zm mmmu m0mwJv@ Z5 m c°�aE@oa do2 c 5.0 ap € p E� 12 _o0 @Eaa>'e m�C500I c --a am O@ -I 8o�@ t(oa«CprnEO`o€0�@m@9 -W@--0 000000@ a@ aern o Ua@— c A o0 0o c «8 aE= rco hc- ><n�a 0O o y `amwEiC4 @ @ 0y0 @ NE aV> Ea o t 3 c�@ `om m o E c -._ 0' (D >doyO v' 0_ @o E w c O«Ym Z.o Lm�@ nJw.:2cB o V E 2 r-mA @LE vc@ N @ o m N« 82@O OO@ E N @«O. a4(5n {¢ C - V L vo@ Y ` o I Vo =o -o m� 7D5 S9 w .0nE = O E in OE @t ON @@d8 n O o= E�2UQm Nc1 oYS nnz @ N U .O E o N O p� a '(D mp c m O C N O C N O M m � N o L f6 W a. lL N O D Z 0 �U G C M0 � O 'O 0 Q R n m h N N O a r O 12 m ' � O OaL• L o n C w a o 'U m N O C w a m U .Q Q ¢ ¢ 8 t2 00 y-2 oLE o 2- oo 8"—� m s'Om m UU > U mc N0 y� E- 5cEmEN pm>'6 J�h° 2a. ` .o o C.i._$o >_•,cc a30 O€ ooc yccmCEm mm 0.ocmc'o 2mL –E imyE� L 'Jci E Y Wo3 cE`�ipO Em E o=- c �cZo�>w m07 0E ��ms oafo m o E o oam8 5_0 �aw 3rn8N . 0 wcQ o ( O UI N 'n WC 8 o Nmr 6 0 n EYmamE e mom m ^ .yL L ceo CO) ._ o Emooc _Y m ami O Q.O m NmC vO O m(CmJ $ L N = O t on 0 C mmO �eC -Lan' d�LNaCm ym U0 0C yJ m C):•m- TJm M 0 _O m _dO ymU m yN Wmg vW nTa.0m •VO_ljCyC0 'Ol ] UO C)_ C riC _OC CO E " a YdroE O p U - mcai NoEotY d o as a $ mL 0c oo. .< o o.d Nmmo� -o c mw E rnoOO E�mEyE -ycw 2 d Oa C L20- m 2C y a-0aO0 m <i EJ Nm 0>N0NE U5 u pN0 ym naOm TC O EWyC ` O' N l n _U No` 2 2 g J o E- =Ow Q._ m iw W.c om amYmic-2 d y a c wc. m EcEcm mJ .o tZ>=o m - co Eo.> mmo,oJJuar gm m m m N .o.E o« Eo,Ev� m mp E 0- E o O.00 o m m n_m oamm md wg o 2–r w¢ .0¢ mv o Ern tow.c`=) cE mL 2 m Am mR UO ma o. m E Q O nL amW o.tE U a N 'O = Z R U a) .Q n E o 2 -z- 0) m o rn a` 'a) rnp c � 0 mr O N N o O Cl) m�No a w a Z) z 0 MU C C @ 0 � O co 2 0 Q 0 0 6 0 o m > o m n E ca E c m m i E m a a omm3 �cm� a m v IL m v >, U c E v ms. E E �. c o00.ami E zv c E Eo > m 0c 0 0 0 W U O W N c o 0 N< UOUy�Eav t0 T$ _ o o_m w m m m m m L c do EYi m om=�'���� 8 UA N c o - d-oo O c U C N L N Ow m Wryom NQm «2 �'NO y @ C N p 3 N O cam O N p c O= E mN BUJ _ c o O> N N T @ C @@ O@@2a N �lz 000OO 0Y ppm o Y N y n- o m , d y w E E o m N .- wm 6 N> Q] � O CO o:mNacEi .- mYoE>-5cmEommJ `noNc t"m2`m L$ d N=OCNo @ UcC5ms mTgyOw dNOnEm?mLE ta E a>i « s E n c ami E N 0 > c hc�•l-• LU -o . 'p @m - mc m- ,Q oO m co) > O @ Vmi 'w�0-L•- 3 m N a'� c =oami-o��E$dYE N a D m O f- E E m O C J .- d N s:Y N Z m N vEO`- >- cn o E d @ U > V5 '> N@g o- L C O -- r - 0 o J U N c W @ rn @ma c�'o wdN N m« O O N om co «�?`�m-o���E E"c `oma E`cio'9d�F mc�o m 'O C N O m m ld O O O- C m C o m cu W o mn t E ew a�-d aE>mmE� om Oo@ N Ut8 O w oNw o@t m mU @ ca✓ -i a ai2mnm2—m wm-2 m 2 tim 2 m� U C(n m `o a m {gi{pp d E c c W m E -oo Q [`Z5 1 2 m N= U@ c N_ n b L @ O F E co N O CL E o L OC m ❑. 010 C_ r o mn N o M m N o s c a � s m m ) Z 0 �U C C O 'y m 0 D) O LD 0 Q U C D. c0 � D) N C U! O � v O) O {p c a o N O LL m� m U E L o O D ~ O N N �- S r O O w L C J N t O O N d N C O• U1 p (V 'T N Q CI Y E rn� �.� tJJ w g o .N o coo 'w n f. WE U a m .o a m E too m -Z m m E U-8 J N U to 9 '3 > Q �Ni•LOCU� Oy'E N O�JTJ ._ d o c 0 N [F OIr co o d c E N S] g u 3 d c m S �i o n fi 'o aci d `m rn'- `o n> m a d 3 p L.- c A L a` E N c W N > N a Cl 3 N W 21 U C_ C -O N C 6 L E L• �N( L p -O O 0-8 C p N Q JlL ON l0 O N C O E N OlL O N d O O .A '(p'f N d J T7�5 f0 -a N O N E `o Jw Y -i a p 't' N m t8 to C c o o d c o - O m 3 E m „_ E N a 'G al o an d �'oo.m.pF >> o m d U -w E�m a am aNi aQi �v-2 L la c �Q J c o � ._ _, o N E (J a mt o. al m c N W U Cp N (O >,m me of N t_ C Y_ m rn N (O c p = m'... J N J o o c w off_ tO (Oj _ii O d N N 2 N O'O O j N O C L d a E Ct v. c� w c o: --25- m ot�dN2 N O c Ti E m o ME wWYJ¢gLL-am8 NCCOOQ 'C d '^iyl E NyNm ) �odtt2mNc°r00i'i- O NN N c O C N O N 2y0w Op NO3 om. -2JOoU�E >o dwo oa m �OoocOi OU 5M CO 2 C. N r p M lL co 2 O C�omoN 2).s a oo V pNOO= -"' NmCrn- O 1 U C >: N cOc.+ p Op m LYmYamNcEOOd piE�< a»' p mna Ntom $ LU CC NECNw Dyp 0 0 oo C)? �m E [2p C) 2O �Or> 15 O 'm o N CE 'cy L Ym >i t•j Em05 ENN'>«:71OU `v` W. Ui`` v¢ r( doC .o o�wo oao n`�3� a N O IL E o N O c a 'pI w rnp C r O N O. c N O h m N o C C J Lma it cubo =nz 0 C � Co O rn O �.. 2 N "O 0 Q m n m N a N V o m `o 16 a o m c ',E d ,��, m U p O LL m = E o o vE > m mU o U 00(n c c U a Q a Q N O U w L c c C d O o S]m C `m m_ r C `o m E o Y 1 C 0 G T 2-0 :c E mma`�da, '€ Jcv EmJ o "= Jo `oN U E o m 70-.o NyU C—g cYn '=rn`. tq c n m FL •o N�Q NE y t C N m OU N mE�aiCL CN 4� o Mr O NoE �QEHyd tec'rO6 �v0 Ta oT v� rnm. mmo E m 'Cc "`nc�°'. E o E o om �Ciw oc-dv.O`O—O m_Um J O C'm J N j7r Ep 0O N�D N E yO C O UC� OO NdVaCj m C Y"O _ L_vj.NE@- U T diOci J "4jL2 �CmO O ? C33 :pN 'OC E Cw mm d.c o 2Eon v O3-0n—O� E n c S JO COa jUwy Yd.ErnUmmo E > 'yh �Nj,W w U w I E20=Jrj C `io LLNmd �O{{opp O e m gCm Nrnd 0N oCa`Docc Nc a3COEa?,l om. Y EL ;o -U cmUnm1 EcaOE `E � 0 o-2, p n aOm Nyomo w a Nf2 Ncd F5a,uZ0 c Y o E 0" 0 N c� w Y Y'a 0 d m O C O C H ova N c m a m u m« W O t o O a' 3 O N E maOm.o0ao E vmU T-2mOi SUoi.J5,. ~ceENn "dE`a_mO23 o dman _E l E oo_oLy wUc E nE,�dU1 yC =dcaN0o6� coL`N- gico30 <E vo M- 2 oo3 0 ' or m O uNN oUa m n .Man`oo NaF"mmm 6 n T3 O N N cl I NJ- t3 o a m U O?Nid mm m_.LnYN N EE E = M E` a'o oE0 acNNOd ILL) a E o$0` am.o m m n5 n N U N O 0. E o m m 0)c P o a m rnp C � iT O .0 N N o c m N o C C J L N W a- x W m a) O E 7 Z 0 mU C C O 'y� w 0 m 0 N 'O 0 Q E o m m o m m m c m n > E a o 1 > E a o c o rn c a. o m `oa o m `o c � 3 0 c w 0 W E > Z o 0.2 t U 0 0 0) m U GJ c Q d ¢ 2 a a a N al m O _ O pp yC W Q"OC Nf7T N O L.- w T YJ f6 d1EOw N OlT N G NN(O 'OU O m N OWa.CE TWY Q�O"C m '1O'mr'a QL°� m -FaUc O' Oa0 Np m U ECO LL�c «ymT @am`o LrnEm d LF-mc m ,n c « 3m C mE ' d>TNrn I r cmeOU d m- U N N > (7 W« p C m6NL 0 v> wE'�' o 0'v M0nm o �alj m`o c y 1 O N C .m. 0 0" O O` T A C LO O` N c e'0"rn l0 _ j N ->- .0 ^ N J N2.m l0 N W_ O nAt« 0 V 'T, r O U c..c-nE mo£`o o m 8 1 m E E T 5x m w`" o.N 5 N L x al n n m d O `o al C)" 0 n' m m m aCi r--° « c'd E-R2���.CN 'O III '-0EONLaO m�LNYC� cE~0-'nO (nN�cOi� mmmm AlynaOo� c�.m aaomolL-aai �°m'�=tm..� ct wLm-o-a0 «mw ¢~ hod 000 w�a cmi m�0 m�o'o ani�'o aci� mo¢ a .3 `" mm~L' a00 Y c '->-o a a an d n. (7 y, me N c m T'rymy m m :B f E u E'E o"`a a$ No Ev tL m wo m a`°mn E w o o mmm aU� Eai y r o c o Eun ncv '� 083 m m Hm oi E mmm cI mTrn> 0.oal . 0m15 0wm�o m`Zo cw mm 0-�'o an��t'ic CS Lm -c T�mnra 'mEm ELE" 'ma m0E r Lm .L�13va �o Em c E . N ao DHd c E` ao E ome OuO w >Ca� `-L 0 2-6E NOC a0o o0 c 'aE.- Cc 0 0O } C Nm a dO O L a E wVm�C w m N a1 O N m" E a 5 a m E Eo` wy�o oaCimn7 c3m;(tN0oN LN Uy2O o2cmi M=Z-2 du "VIOa-- Eo omO g , � Cm3 N •00U��wo1 �N Nhaa) mLIc- a OO S a N nU C d La O>0~ �� aOL iyp E E Itm- C a m4- C N 'CCm EnE oa oi 0 42 cE'o -Em0 o00' m mN mcm i vm nL CL &n0UoNC O O CMO�CNW 2 m ( mma W $ 0adcma 3mECm aLE O LoN Q .rm_b E" E om d c."NO_ _ Ea `' a o Oti oE . .0OO A N % 41 om C U ✓ om« dan d 0m=a) a�mm .0mOO- E . N = a FL f a d E A@ `o o f a> E o > E a h e �. O N U a� c E H O) a+ c N O) M W rn L d'C L � W? 's y =p 'o o U v CD .L3 a o a m rn ami m o" o a` o o C a � c m G c E E Ew` w w U 0 0 U U U 15 a O c U q OL Q OL Q Q Q Q O O d N U w N In G C (O 2 w 'O U 'O _ A C O 0 O r 2 C L C N a O) 1O o a w a ci m o o 'o a �Ixu m m m L E a m a 0 o15 c m m cm Jo e U S OW 'o �i ma 2 E c�i� 0Z �t o m m` v E li o ON f 2 n m 2 O ? 'Co' ` acmjE 0 NcNd NLNO '3 OC N O ctd S U ( w23: [J W, -� L 0r 0 NT n ^"Cy .` ' 2 `'wL o$ b@JwTTTTO2 O E wc" 0 000 ML 8vZic �'ccta w o a�-- rnE EpO" aQ , E 0 v w aa 0Q 0 m o.yX Vl N C Dad loN d . 3 cJ'6 N d �aU m2C,' JLdUI mO v2'N910 om(O rW m a�o - -a m _AO cS UO -a 0v L�` E Z5 $>aL O O aNN U o o:c c 0-o ' m Fu O d N O N 0 O U 3 U N C] O" L (O O N C m C O' O L d O N O 2 N N N= 0E a�dE J mLao08288.�O 0 "1 >) O O �oNtc� N F O y�LU N 2 Li C E NN O N c. N. N6mo.- E L L l6 J Y U L QO N d O C 2(ccoO mcO0 :c." .m 0 g 2 2 ENoFL 46 E o o c ENr a nOE oimd d >wZ, S2dj-aOpmN K aVc " cM Oa Od TN N d o a 0, _N O-0 @ 2 OII nOO. VJ O N N N NE 4z. � r a U N O a` E o m O Lm d N m a) m r O •-C N O C N O M co Wo C C J x m aa - x w =� Z -qC N 0�U C C {Q M : G cc d 0 Q E c n m y c o � rn o m n`. o d m c w A U Q O _T aci o U k2 m Na L m o a O O y `m. o Y O ani d m L o cm'c c U 1 - m`o o FE - - - a ymyN LE 6O U`(6 Nm0 c ocT oEm t -Ea m y O l0 m L N m p E F O N C 3 IET m m a� in a `o Lupi y br .E _ coi ami a� O U O CO � U a� Q N d O N C p 9 y y t -m oorn Ns m �o uiom�Er aow rw- as 2U��C(O -m Uy NON�m'Q y :F;.G cm m 0C 6 pc O f E -0m O C E m c y N O N O N a d v c t t b m E m m r m m o n d ma O Q f0 O m OCOppNmd y w —O Om UU OOM p' mEo.d m s Ta w 0TUNN EOE E p aO N UO 2 0 moo & ma -10 E.S oc000-E o�E a dooa'NUo > a 0 E& m a h`c o E;o'ao cui O a l) C c1 O a m yomy cm cc 3C-• n V O O y U c m c o N a•b m o o E -2 m m 0 a 6..: m_ a`� a c m y m E o 6 C U 2a m U ye N T a c d t m o a tS L d E °4 F Attachment 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2013 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT, AND ZONE CHANGE FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION PROJECT (PLANNING CASE NO. PL2013-227) ON PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF CHINO HILLS PARKWAY, SOUTH OF DIAMOND RANCH HIGH SCHOOL, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (EASTERLY PORTION OF ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 8701-022-273). A. RECITALS 1. State housing element law requires each city to make available adequate sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate its fair share of regional housing needs as established in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment; and 2. On April 19, 2011 the Diamond Bar City Council adopted the 2008-2014 Housing Element update, which includes a program to establish a new land use district allowing High Density Residential development at 30 dwelling units per acre and redesignate sufficient sites to accommodate at least 466 lower-income residential units for the 2008-2014 planning period; and 3. The 2014-2021 Regional Housing Needs Assessment identifies the City's share of regional housing need for lower-income households as 490 units for the planning period; and 4. The following approvals are recommended to the City Council in order to provide adequate sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing need (hereafter, collectively, the "Approvals"): (a) General Plan Amendment to establish a new High Density Residential -30 (RH-30) land use designation and to make corresponding text amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element, as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto, and change the land use designation on the Land Use Map for the property identified as 'Site A in Exhibit B, attached hereto, from Agricultural (AG) to Planning Area 5/H/gh Density Residential -30 (PA-5/RH-30); and 448305.1 (b) Development Code Amendment to establish a new High Density Residential -30 (RH-30) zoning designation and development regulations as shown in Exhibit C, attached hereto; and (c) Zone Change to change the zoning designation for the property identified as "Site A" in Exhibit D, attached hereto, from Agricultural (AG) to High Density Residential -30 Dwelling Units per Acre (RH- 30), and establish a maximum of 490 housing units for this site. 5. 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 Approvals, which found that the Approvals would not have a significant effect on the environment. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15090, the EIR was being reviewed concurrently by the Planning Commission along with the General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment, and Zone Change; and 6. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15090 through 15093, a resolution recommending City Council certification of the EIR and adoption of a mitigation reporting and monitoring program for the project was reviewed by the Planning Commission concurrently with this resolution; and 7. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on August 2, 2013. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the parcel on which the zone change is proposed, as well as all speakers who have previously attended the scoping meeting or submitted comments in writing, 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 in two locations (Chino Hills Parkway and Rockbury/Deep Springs Drive) and the notice was posted at three other locations within the project vicinity; and 8. On August 13, 2013, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date; and 9. The Planning Commission has determined that the proposed General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment and Zone Change represent a consistent, logical, appropriate and rational land use designation and implementing tool that furthers the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan; and 10. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the 2 GPA and ZC PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission as follows: 1. That all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct; 2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of General Plan Amendment, Development Code Amendment, and Zone Change for the Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project (Planning Case No. PL2013-227) based on the following findings, as required by Section 22.70.050 of the Municipal Code and in conformance with California Government Code Section 65358: Finding: The Approvals are internally consistent with the General Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The Approvals will. establish a new High Density Residential -30 (RH-30) designation in the General Plan Land Use Element and Development Code to allow owner- and renter -occupied multi- family residential development at a density of up to 30 units per acre, as required by Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B); will amend the Land Use Map (Figure 1-2 of the Land Use Element) to redesignate the property identified as "Site A" in Exhibit B, attached hereto, from Agricultural (AG) to Planning Area 5/High Density Residential -30 (PA-5/RH-30); and will amend the Zoning Map to redesignate the property identified as "Site A" in Exhibit C, attached hereto, from Agricultural (AG) to High Density Residential - 30 (RH-30) to accommodate the housing needs of lower-income households commensurate with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment for the City. b. For the reasons set forth below, the Approvals are consistent with the following goals and policies of the 2008-2014 Housing Element: GOAL 2 Provide opportunities for development of suitable housing to meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents. The RH-30 designation will facilitate a greater diversity of housing at higher densities than allowed under current land use regulations, which limit density to 20 units/acre. 3 GPA and ZC PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX GOAL 3 Provide adequate sites through appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate future housing growth. The Approvals will accommodate future housing growth for all economic segments of the community, including lower-income households. Policy 3.1 Maintain an inventory of potential sites available for future housing development. The Approvals will expand the City's inventory of potential housing development sites. Policy 3.3 Integrate multi -family residential uses within the Tres Hermanos Specific Plan. The Approvals will allow multi -family residential uses within a portion of the Tres Hermanos area, and would not constrain the future adoption of a specific plan for the entire Tres Hermanos area. GOAL 4 Mitigate potential governmental constraints which may hinder or discourage housing development in the City. The RH-30 designation will serve to mitigate governmental constraints by allowing higher density development than is currently permitted in the City. Policy 4.1 Continue to provide regulatory incentives and concessions to facilitate affordable housing development in the City, The increased density permitted under the RH-30 designation will serve as an incentive to affordable housing development by reducing the per-unit land cost. Policy 4.2 Promote the expeditious processing and approval of residential projects that meet General Plan policies and City regulatory requirements. The RH-30 zoning regulations allow non -discretionary permit processing, pursuant to Program 9 of the Housing Element. GOAL 5 Consistent with the Vision Statement, encourage equal and fair housing opportunities for all economic segments of the community. The RH-30 designation will facilitate the production of lower-cost 4 GPA and ZC PL2013-227—PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX housing, which furthers equal housing opportunities for all economic segments and persons with special needs. C. For the reasons set forth below, the Approvals are consistent with Goal 1 and related strategies of the Land Use Element: Goal 1 Consistent with the Vision Statement, maintain a mix of land uses which enhance the quality of life for City residents, providing a balance of development and preservation of significant open space areas to assure both economic viability and retention of distinctive natural features of the community. The approvals would expand the mix of land uses in the City to include higher -density residential product types and would also preserve a significant portion of the site for open space as required by the Hillside Management Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 22.22). Strategy 1.2.3 Maintain residential areas which protect natural resources, hillsides, and scenic areas. (a) Development in hillside areas should be designed to be compatible with surrounding natural areas, compatible to the extent practical with surrounding development, aesthetically pleasing, and provide views from development, but not at the expense of views of the development. (b) Earthwork in hillside areas should utilize contour or landform grading. (c) Minimize grading to retain natural vegetation and topography. All development within the RH-30 area will be required to be consistent with this strategy through required compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance. Strategy 1.2.6 Broaden the range of, and encourage innovation in, housing types. Require developments within all Residential areas to provide amenities such as common usable, active open space and recreational areas, when possible. The RH-30 designation will facilitate greater innovation in housing types by allowing higher density than currently permitted. New developments will be required to provide amenities such as open space and recreational areas in conformance with the RH-30 zoning regulations. Strategy 1.2.7 Where consistent with the other provisions of the City's, encourage the provision of low and moderate cost housing. The RH-30 land use designation will encourage the provision of 5 GPA and ZC PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX low- and moderate cost housing by reducing the land cost per unit compared to lower density development. Strategy 1.5.6 Preserve significant environmental resources within proposed developments, allow clustering or transferring of all or part of the development potential of the entire site to a portion of the site, thus preserving the resources as open space, and mandating the dedication of those resources to the City or a conservancy. The RH-30 land use designation will allow development clustering in order to preserve sensitive resources and open space. Strategy 1.6.4 Encourage clustering within the most developable portions of project sites to preserve open space and/or other natural resources. Such development should be located to coordinate with long-term plans for active parks, passive (open space) parks, and preserve natural open space areas. Site A comprises approximately 30 gross acres, of which a net development area of approximately 16.33 acres is required to accommodate 490 units at a density of 30 units/acre. The gross site area allows for clustering development to preserve the most valuable natural resources and open space on the site. Strategy 2.2.1 Require that new development be compatible with surrounding land uses. The RH-30 zoning regulations require design review to ensure that future development is compatible with surrounding uses. Strategy 2.2.2 Prohibit the development of adjacent land uses with significantly different intensities or that have operational characteristics which could create nuisances along a common boundary, unless an effective buffer can be created. Site A is not immediately adjacent to any residential use. Diamond Ranch High School is adjacent to the north of the site, and can be buffered by the difference in elevation as well as placement of development on the site. Strategy 3.2.1 Within the urban residential portions of the City, require the incorporation of open space and recreational areas into the design of new projects. Within topographically rugged and rural areas, emphasize the preservation of natural landforms and vegetation. Required compliance with the RH-30 zoning regulations and the 6 GPA and.ZC PL2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Hillside Management Ordinance will ensure that open space and recreational areas will be incorporated into the design of any new development on Site A. Strategy 3.2. 10 New development shall comply with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance. Any residential development within the RH-30 area will be required to comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance. Strategy 3.3.1 Balance the retention of the natural environment with its conversion to urban form. Site A comprises approximately 30 gross acres, of which a net development area of approximately 16.33 acres is required to accommodate 490 units at a density of 30 units/acre. The gross site area allows for clustering development to preserve the most valuable natural areas on the site. Strategy 3.3.2 Promote the incorporation of hillside features into project design. Required compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance will ensure that hillside features are incorporated into future project design on Site A. d. For the reasons set forth below, this amendment is consistent with Strategy 1.1.3 of the Resource Management Element: Strategy 1.1.3 Require that dwelling units and structures within hillside areas be sited in such a manner as to utilize ridgelines and landscape plant materials as a backdrop for the structures and the structures themselves to provide maximum concealment of cut slopes. Required compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance will ensure that any new development within Site A will be sited in conformance with this strategy. e. For the reasons set forth below, the Approvals are consistent with the Circulation Element: Goal 2 Provide a balanced transportation system for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services through the City. Future development within Site A will be required to provide an internal circulation network that includes streets and also 7 GPA and ZC PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX accommodates alternative modes of transportation. This site is also adjacent to transit routes along Chino Hills Parkway. Goal Maintain an adequate level of service on area roadways. The EIR prepared for the project included an analysis of project area roadways and levels of service. With the identified mitigation measures, no significant impacts to roadway level of service would occur. f. For the reasons set forth below, the Approvals are consistent with the Public Services and Facilities Element: Goal 1 Provide adequate infrastructure facilities and public services to support development and planned growth. Public services and utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, and other utilities are available to serve future development of Site A. 3. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council authorize the Community Development Director to make such other clerical revisions to the General Plan and Development Code text and statistical tables as may be necessary to maintain consistency with the intent of the Approvals. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF AUGUST, 2013, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. 0 Steve Nelson, 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 13th day of August, 2013, by the following vote: 8 GPA and ZC P1-2013-227— PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Land Use Element Text Revisions Exhibit B: Amended Land Use Element Map Exhibit C: Development Code Text Revisions Exhibit D: Amended Zoning Map 9 GPA and ZC PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Exhibit A Land Use Element Text Revisions Section E., Strategy 1.1.1 is amended to add a new paragraph (g) as follows: "(q) Designate properties for high-density multi -family use as High Density Residential 30 (RH-30) allowing a maximum net density of 30 units/acre and a minimum net density of 20 units/acre to accommodate the City's share of the regional affordable housing need as required by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Net density is the number of dwelling units divided by the net site area Net site area is comprised of all portions of the protect site prior to site development, except for those portions of the protect site which: lie within the setbacks of state or federally designated 'jurisdictional wetlands: contain plant communities which should be avoided based on the findings of professional biological surveys: are located within pre-existing public streets utility easement, and drainage channels or basins. Section E., Strategy 1.6.1 is amended to add a new paragraph (e) as follows: (e) Planning Area 5 PA -5 is entirely surrounded by PA -1 adiacent to Diamond Ranch High School PA -5 incorporates a 30 -acre (gross) area designated RH-30 to Element. The first paragraph of Section F.2 is amended as follows: "The Element uses certain terminology to describe the land use designations. The term density" refers to residential uses and to the population and development capacity of residential land. Density is described in terms of dwelling units per gross acre of land (du/ac) unless stated otherwise. For example, 100 dwelling units occupying 20 gross acres of land is 5.0 du/ac." 10 GPA and ZC PL2013-227 — PC Remlutlon No, 2013 -XX Exhibit A (continued) Table 1-3, General Plan Land Use (By Category) is amended as follows: Table I-3 General Plan Land Use (By Category) Land Use Designations Permitted Density / Gross Acres Gross Acres Total Gross Intensity In the City In Sphere Acres Residential Designations RR Rural Residential (1 ac/du) 1,392 1,392 RL Low Density Residential (up to 3 du/ac) 3,089 3,089 RLM Low -Medium Residential (up to 5 du/ac) 838 838 RM Medium Density Residential (up to 12 du/ac) 275 275 RMH Medium High Residential (up to 16 du/ac) 197 197 RH High Density Residential (up to 20 du/ac) 66 66 RH-30 Hieh Density Residential (30 (up to 30 du/net ac) 30 30 units/net acre) Subtotal 5,887 5,887 Non -Residential Designations C General Commercial (.25 —1 FAR) 172 172 CO Commercial /Office, (.25 —1 FAR) 63 63 OP Professional Office (.25—I FAR) 178 178 I Light Industrial (.25 —1 FAR) 93 93 Subtotal 506 506 Mixed Use Designations PA Planning Areas (see text) PA -1 690 690 PA -2 401 401 PA -3 55 55 PA -4 82 82 PA -5 30 30 Subtotal 1,258 1,258 Other Designations() PF Public Facilities 27 27 W Water 19 2 21 F Fire 1 1 S School 345 345 PK Park 158 158 GC Golf Course 178 178 OS Open Space 642 642 PR Private Recreation 15 15 AG Agriculture I du / 5 ac 0 3,589 3.,589 Fwy / Major Roads 684 684 Total 9,690 3,591 13,281 11 GPA and ZC PL2013-227 - PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Exhibit A (continued) Table 1-3, General Plan Land Use (By Category) is amended as follows: Table I-4 Potential Residential and Commercial Growth 01 Hous units as or t/rrLuv ao r urcc: 111 11 I'll -1-1111"'. �' -••----- ---- -- - Housing Flemant, Adopted April 19 201 1) (2) The Planning Network, 1940 131 City of Diamond Bar 2008-2014 Housin Element Table B-1 Adopted April 14 2011. Residential Densities include Vacam sites and Proiects currently approved/not buil[. 141 Residential. Densities on Vacant Land are assumed at 100%O of the maximum permitted density. Includes projects currently under construction (7/94) (6) Based on average development intensities consistent with current development patterns on vacant land. Includes projects eptcurrently under construction (7/94) (6) 2007 Dof Finance Population based on 3 313 persons per household at a 1.71 % vacancy rate. 121 Population based on 3.19 persons per household at a 4.5 Yo vacancy rate. 12 GPA and ZC PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Existing Ft- Potential Additional Expected Total Population at General Plan Land Use Units/Sq. Units/Sq. Ft. Development Buildout Residential City 1818 27 718_��SS 31 19 560 64920 (6) Sphere20� 5,865,000 Sq. 1`02) 1,550,000 Sq.Ft.151 7,415,000 Commercial/ Industrial 01 Hous units as or t/rrLuv ao r urcc: 111 11 I'll -1-1111"'. �' -••----- ---- -- - Housing Flemant, Adopted April 19 201 1) (2) The Planning Network, 1940 131 City of Diamond Bar 2008-2014 Housin Element Table B-1 Adopted April 14 2011. Residential Densities include Vacam sites and Proiects currently approved/not buil[. 141 Residential. Densities on Vacant Land are assumed at 100%O of the maximum permitted density. Includes projects currently under construction (7/94) (6) Based on average development intensities consistent with current development patterns on vacant land. Includes projects eptcurrently under construction (7/94) (6) 2007 Dof Finance Population based on 3 313 persons per household at a 1.71 % vacancy rate. 121 Population based on 3.19 persons per household at a 4.5 Yo vacancy rate. 12 GPA and ZC PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX City of Diamond Bar General Plan cirf OF INDUSTRY Exhibit B CWY Of A— POMONA gats CM OF CHINO HILLS Land Use Map � RR N Proposed Land Use Map GPA and ZC PL2013-227 – PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Exhibit C Development Code Text Revisions Sec. 22.06.020, Table 2-1 is amended as follows: Zoning Map Symbol I Zoning District Name Implemented by a District (1) Sec. 22.08.020. - Purposes of residential zoning districts, is amended to add as follows: "The purposes of the individual residential zoning districts and the manner in which they are applied are as follows. (7) RH-30 (high density residential -30 dwelling units per acre) district The RH-30 zoning district is intended for high-density condominium and apartment developments. The maximum allowed density for new residential protects within this zoning district will be 30 dwellings per net acre and the minimum density will be 20 dwelling units per net acre The RH-30 zoning district is consistent with the High Density -30 residential land use category of the General Plan. When the RH-30 designation is applied to property pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(h), subsequent review of any complete development application submitted in the same Housing Element planninq period shall comply with the requirements of Government Code Sec, 65583.2(i)." Sec. 22.08.030, Table 2-3, is amended to add the RH-30 land use district, with the same permit requirements as applicable in the RH district. Sec. 22.08.040, Table 2-4, is amended to add the RH-30 land use district, as follows: Development Feature Minimum lot area Residential density Setbacks required Lot Coverage Height limit Hillside development Landscaping Parking RH-30 5 acres Maximum: 30 dwellings per net site acre Minimum: 20 dwellings per net site acre (same as RH) 60% 45 ft. (Same as RH) (Same as RH) (Same as RH) 14 GPA and ZC PL2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Exhibit C (continued) Sec. 22.48.020. — Applicability, is amended as follows: (a) Development review. An application for development review is required for commercial, industrial, and institutional development, and residential projects that propose one or more single-family dwelling units (detached or attached) or multiple - family dwelling units and that involve the issuance of a building permit for construction or reconstruction of a structure(s) meeting the following criteria: Sec. 22.22.020. —Applicability, is amended to add as follows: (L.) Ge rJftnal . e.mits Hillside f eyelnnmeRts shall be G .hien+ to the approval of o Haiti al Use PeFMit OR r.,neo with ..hapten oo GQ Development Review. Hillside developments shall be subject to Development Review in compliance with chapter 22.48 except that residential developments in the RH-30 district shall be sublect to non -discretionary development review if required pursuance to Section 22.08.020(7). Sec. 22.22.050. — Hillside development standards and guidelines, is amended as follows: (b) Exceptions. Exceptions to the standards in this chapter may be approved through the GenditiGRal use p development review process, when the commission determines that the exceptions would not materially affect the intent of the standards and guidelines. In approving a GGRditienal use p development review, the commission shall make appropriate findings supporting the determination in compliance with the chapter 22.58 (GeRditional Use Permits) 22.48 (Development Review). Sec. 22.22.070, Table 3-5 Slope Categories is amended as follows: Slope Category Natural Sloe (Percentage) Site Standards 4. 50% and over This is an excessive slope condition and it is anticipated that residential subdivisions will not be developed in these areas. If residential development is pursued in these areas, lot sizes may be considerably larger than the minimum allowed by the underlying zoning district in order to comply with the standards and guidelines of this Chapter. Actual lot size shall be determined through the Development Review process. 15 GPA and ZC PL2013-227 - PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX Exhibit C (continued) Sec. 22.22.080. — Grading, is amended as follows: (a) Landform grading techniques. The following standards define basic grading techniques that are consistent with the intent of this chapter and avoid unnecessary cut and fill. (Figures 3-10 and 3-14). Limitations on project grading amounts and configurations will be decided on a case-by-case basis under the senditienal use permit development review process. Sec. 22.22.150. — Evaluation of conditional use p development review application, is amended as follows: The commission shall evaluate a Ge ditiGRal use rer^ :t development review application for hillside development based on the following objectives and the required findings in compliance with chapter 22.58 (GGRditional Use Permits 22.48 (Development Review). 16 GPA and ZC PUM-227— PC Resolubon No. 2013 -XX Exhibit D 17 Zoning Map GPA and ZC PI 2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX c,,-, Ce,a EC i17tzc[ 17 Zoning Map GPA and ZC PI 2013-227 — PC Resolution No. 2013 -XX ATTACHMENT Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project EIR Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: Volume 1 and Technical Appendices: Volume 2, dated May 2013, are available for public inspection and review at the City Clerk's Office in City Hall and the Diamond Bar Branch of the Los Angeles County Public Library. These documents were also posted on the City's website. C 9. Responses to Comments to Comments This Section has been completed in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. 9.1 INTRODUCTION As the CEQA lead agency, the City of Diamond Bar ("City") has reviewed each of the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project and has prepared responses to the written comments received. The Draft EIR was circulated for a public review period that began May 24, 2013 and concluded on July 8, 2013. The comment letters included in Appendix G were submitted by state, regional, and local public agencies, as well as private individuals and organizations. The focus of the Lead Agency's responses to comments is the disposition of environmental issues that are raised in the comments, as specified by Section 15088 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Detailed responses are not provided to comments on the merits of the proposed project. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR (Section 15204(a)). The Draft EIR, as revised, and this Responses to Comments section collectively comprise the Final EIR for the Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project.. Any changes made to the text of the Draft EIR correcting information, data or intent, other than minor typographical corrections or other non -substantive changes, as a result of comments received are noted in Section 9.3. These changes have been incorporated without notation in the Final EIR text. 9.2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIR Comments on the Draft EIR were received from the state agencies, regional agencies, local agencies and private individuals shown in Table 9-1 below. A copy of each letter is provided in Appendix G. August 2013 9-1 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 0 Table 9-1 Comments Received on the Draff EIR to Comments Letter Name Agency/Organization Date Received Federal Agencies - None submitted State Agencies S.01 Dianna Watson Caltrans District 7 July 8, 2013 S.02 Scott Morgan State Clearinghouse July 16, 2013 Regional Agencies R.01 Ian MacMillan South Coast Air Quality Management District July 3, 2013 County Agencies C.01 Frank Vidales Los Angeles County Fire Department July 16, 2013 Local Agencies L.01 Joann Lombardo City of Chino Hills June 14, 2013 L,02 John Ballas Successor Agency to the Industry Urban -Development Agency July 8, 2013 Organizations - None submitted Individuals I.OI Judy Hallenbeck June 26, 2013 1.02 Marlene Taylor June 14, 2013 1.03 Charlotte Sorensen July 8, 2013 1.04 Pellson Lau July 5, 2013 1.05 Brian McGurty July 8, 2013 Responses to these comments have been prepared to address the environmental concerns raised by the commenters and to indicate where and how the Final EIR addresses pertinent environmental issues. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially, and each issue within a comment letter, if more than one, has a number assigned to it in the right margin. The responses in the following section identify first the letter number, and second, the numbered comment. Letters are organized and numbered according to the type of organization from which they were sent (federal, state, regional, county, local, private organization or individual. For example, August 2013 9-2 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments Comment S.01-2, refers to the second issue of concern within the first letter received from a state agency. 9.3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS Comment S.01 Caltrans Response 1. This comment requests that all subsequent development projects be required to prepare a separate traffic impact analysis. Under state law (Government Code section 65583.2(i)), the proposed zone change must allow multi -family development "by- right", which means the City may not require discretionary approvals or permits which would constitute a "Project" as defined by Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, and no new CEQA analysis may be required by the City unless changes to the project or the environmental circumstances related to the project occur. (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162) The Draft EIR identifies four mitigation measures to address potential traffic impacts, and each subsequent development project will be required to demonstrate its compliance with these measures. In some cases, the mitigation measures require subsequent analysis to identify the specific improvements that will be required. For example, Mitigation Measure T-2 requires the preparation of a traffic signal warrant analysis prior to approval of any final subdivision map or street improvement plans, and if a signal is warranted the applicant will be required to design and install a signalized intersection in compliance with City standards. Within the limitations of state law, these mitigation measures provide reasonable assurance that roadway and intersection improvements will be required to address any potentially significant traffic impacts (including at any Caltrans facilities) associated with future development of the project. If any substantial changes to the project are proposed, or if any changes to circumstances occur, the City may require a new traffic impact analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. 2. This comment describes the methodology used by Caltrans for traffic impact analysis. The City is aware of the Caltrans requirement for use of HCM methodologies. Please also see response #1 above regarding subsequent analysis of potential impacts to Caltrans facilities. 3. This comment does not appear specific to the proposed project, but is a general request for the City to coordinate with Caltrans on future traffic studies related to transportation improvements affecting Caltrans facilities. The City will continue to solicit Caltrans input/participation in public August 2013 9-3 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments improvement projects that affect Caltrans facilities, e.g., the recent Lemon Interchange improvement project. Regarding Rio Rancho Road interchange upgrades, the City would appreciatebeing kept apprised of any upgrade related impacts, so the City can respond properly and accordingly. 4. In response to this comment regarding existing trees along SR -60, the Draft EIR did not anticipate that the Project would cause the removal of these trees, however, the City will continue to coordinate with Caltrans if any future work would affect trees previously planted as mitigation related to state highway improvements. 5. This general comment requests that the City develop a funding mechanism to help mitigate cumulative impacts of development on state highways but does not otherwise identify any deficiencies in the Draft EIR. The City's TIA Guidelines already establish funding mechanisms to mitigate for cumulative transportation impacts, as requested in this comment. Per the TIA Guidelines, it is understood that "transportation impacts in the City are 'regional' and therefore many of the solutions must also be 'regional," which would include Caltrans facility improvements. The TIA Guidelines require compliance with CEQA .as requested in the Caltrans comment. Comment S.02 State Clearinghouse Response 1. This comment notes that the City complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements under CEQA and that no comments were received from state agencies within the public review period ending on July 8, 2013. No changes to the Draft EIR are necessary. Comment R.01 South Coast Air Quality Management District Response 1. This comment provides a recommended addition to Mitigation Measure AQ -4 related to potential air pollutant health risks due to the proximity of Site B to the SR -60 freeway. In response to SCAQMD's recommendation, Mitigation Measure AQ -4 has been revised in the Final EIR to define thresholds of significance for health risk impact levels, as follows: • Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk >_ 10 in 1 million, • Cancer Burden >0.5 excess cancer case (in areas >_ 1 in 1 million), and • Chronic and Acute Hazard Index >_ 1.0 (project increment). Comment C.01 Los Angeles County Fire Department Response: This comment requests a correction to the name of the agency providing fire protection service from the "Los Angeles County Fire Department" to the "Consolidated Fire Protection District of the Los Angeles County". August 2013 9-4 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments Section 5.12.2 of the Final EIR will be revised accordingly. No changes to the significance of environmental impacts or to mitigation measures are necessary. 2. This comment requests a clarification to the description of the LACFD and its funding source. Section 5.12.2 of the Final EIR will be revised accordingly. No changes to the significance of environmental impacts or to mitigation measures are necessary. 3. This comment provides a technical correction to Table 5.12-1 of the Draft EIR regarding LACFD staffing levels. The Final EIR will be revised accordingly. No changes to the significance of environmental impacts or to mitigation measures are necessary. 4. This comment requests a clerical change to the DEIR's reference to the service contract with the City. The Final EIR will be revised accordingly. No changes to the significance of environmental impacts or to mitigation measures are necessary. 5. This comment requests that a reference to development impact fees be deleted from Section 5.12.4 of the DEIR. The Final EIR will be revised accordingly. No changes to the significance of environmental impacts or to mitigation measures are necessary. b. This comment describes the specific. fire protection standards that the Project will be required to comply with. These requirements will be verified by LACFD during the plan check process. Mitigation Measures Pub -1 and Pub -2 require the review and approval of a Construction Fire Protection Plan and an Operational Fire Management Plan, respectively, prior to issuance of a grading permit for the Project. The standards described in this comment will be verified by LACFD through plan check prior to any grading or construction on the site. No changes to the significance of environmental impacts or to mitigation measures are necessary, and no changes to the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. 7. This comment describes the statutory responsibilities of the County Fire Department, Forestry Division, and notes that these areas of concern have been addressed. No changes to the significance of environmental impacts or to mitigation measures are necessary, and no changes to the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. Comment L.01 City of Chino Hills Response: 1. This comment states that the nominal amount of additional Project traffic on roads within the City of Chino Hills noted in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR is of potential concern to the City of Chino Hills and requests that the City August 2013 9-5 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments keep the City of Chino Hills informed of any future related development plans. The City of Chino Hills did not identify any deficiencies in the Draft EIR, therefore no changes have been made to the text of the EIR in response to this comment. The City will continue to coordinate with the City of Chino Hills regarding any future activities that could affect roadway conditions in the City of Chino Hills. Comment L.02 Successor Agency to the Industry Urban Development Agency Response: 1. This comment notes that the current property owner for the subject property is the "Successor Agency to the Industry Urban -Development Agency." This correction will be included in the Final EIR. The City will continue to coordinate with the property owner regarding planning and development activities on this property. Comment 101 Hallenbeck Response: 1. This comment expresses concern regarding an increase in crime in the area and the potential increased cost of additional police and fire protection services. Although crime potential is a valid public policy concern, it is not an impact required to be studied pursuant to CEQA unless it would cause a significant adverse physical change to the environment. Section 15131(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states: "economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. The potential increased demand for police and fire protection services is discussed in Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR and the comment does not identify any deficiencies therein. In deciding whether to approve the proposed project, the City Council may consider a variety of planning, economic and social issues in addition to environmental issues. The purpose of an EIR is to analyze potential environmental impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts that are potentially significant. No changes to the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. 2. This comment expresses concerns regarding air quality and wildlife habitat. Analysis of these impacts is presented in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of the Draft EIR. No specific deficiencies were noted in the Draft EIR analysis; therefore no changes were made to the text of the EIR. 3. This comment expresses concerns regarding the effect of the proposed Project on property values and crime. See the response to Comment 1.01- 1 relating to crime, above. Although property value is a valid public policy concern, it is not an issues required to be studied pursuant to CEQA, unless it would cause a significant adverse physical change to the environment and there is no evidence presented to suggest that a physical change will August 2013 9-6 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments occur or that property values will be adversely affected. Section 15131(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states: "economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment." In deciding whether to approve the proposed project, the City Council may consider a variety of planning, economic and social issues in addition to environmental issues. The purpose of an EIR is to analyze potential environmental impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts that are potentially significant. No changes to the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. 4. This comment expresses concern for the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project, which are analyzed in Section 5.1 of the Draft EIR. No deficiencies in that Section of the Draft EIR are identified. No changes to the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. Comment 102 Taylor response: 1. This comment expresses concern for the traffic impacts presented in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR. The potential increase in traffic from the proposed project has been evaluated according to accepted traffic engineering standards, and with the identified mitigation measures, the EIR concluded that the project would not cause a significant impact on traffic conditions. No deficiencies in the traffic analysis were identified in this comment, and no changes in the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. 2. This comment expresses concerns regarding impacts to air quality that would result from the proposed project. Analysis of air quality impacts is presented in Section 5.3 of the Draft EIR. The analysis has been performed using accepted professional methodology and concludes that the identified mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts below the level of significance. No specific deficiencies in the Draft EIR analysis were noted in this comment, and therefore, no changes have been made to the text of the EIR in response to this comment. [Please note also the response to Comment R.01 from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the revised air quality mitigation measure described above.] 3. This comment expresses concern regarding the potential for increase in crime in the area and is similar to Comment 1.01-1, above. Accordingly, see the response to Comment 1.01-1, above. 4. This comment expresses concern regarding impacts of the proposed project on property values and is similar to Comment 1.01-3, above. Accordingly, see the response to Comment 1.01-3, above. August 2013 9-7 final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments 5. This comment expresses concern regarding police and fire protection. The issues of police and fire protection are evaluated in Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR. While this comment expresses a general concern for the impact of the proposed project on service levels, it does not identify any specific inaccuracies in the analysis, and no changes to the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. 6. This comment presents general opposition to the project as proposed, but does not specifically address the analysis in the Draft EIR. For clarification, the proposed project is to rezone either Site A or Site B, and not the entire study area. No changes to the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. Comment 1.03 Sorensen response: 1. This comment expresses concern for traffic impacts, which are analyzed in Section 5.14 of the Draft EIR. The potential increase in traffic from the proposed project has been evaluated according to accepted traffic engineering standards, and with the identified mitigation measures, the project would not cause a significant impact on traffic conditions. The comment expresses a general concern regarding increasing traffic congestion, but does not identify any deficiencies in the traffic analysis. No changes in the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. 2. This comment expresses concern regarding police and fire protection. These issues are evaluated in Section 5.12 of the Draft EIR. While this comment expresses a general concern for the impact of the proposed project on service levels, it does not identify any deficiencies in the analysis, and accordingly, no changes to the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. 3. This comment expresses concern regarding soil stability in the event of an earthquake. This issue is analyzed in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR. The analysis includes a review of potential safety issues related to seismic events, and identifies several mitigation measures that will require any future developments to comply with accepted engineering standards for grading and construction. The EIR concludes that these requirements would reduce potential safety hazards due to earthquakes to a level that is less than significant. This comment expresses general concern for earthquake safety, but does not identify any deficiencies in the Draft EIR analysis, therefore, no changes to the text of the EIR have been made in response to this comment. 4. This comment summarizes the previous comments noted above and expresses opposition to the project, but does not identify any specific August 2013 9-8 final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments deficiencies in the Draft EIR. See the responses to Comments 1.03-1, 1.03-2, and 1.03-3, above. Comment 1-04 Lau response: 1. This comment expresses concern regarding impacts of the proposed project on property values and is similar to Comment 1.01-3, above. Accordingly, see the response to Comment 1.01-3, above. Comment 1-05 MCGurty response: 1. This comment questions whether previous comments submitted regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) have been considered in accordance with Section 15082 and 15083 of the CEQA Guidelines. All responses to the NOP were considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR, although some previous comments were inadvertently omitted from Appendix A of the Draft EIR due to a printing error. The omitted comments have been added to Appendix A of the Final EIR. 2. This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and its location, but does not identify any specific inaccuracies in the Draft EIR. No changes to the EIR have been made in response to this comment. 3. This comment raises concerns related to the consistency of the proposed project with state planning and zoning law, the Diamond Bar General Plan and CEQA; the cost of grading for the project; soil and geologic conditions; and impacts on open space. The comment states that the project would violate the rules of the state Department of Housing and Community Development (CDHCD) because the location is isolated from any services within the City limits and not integrated into the community. The comment does not cite any specific CDHCD rule that would be violated, nor relate it to an environmental impact. An EIR does not generally analyze planning and zoning issues except to the extent such issues cause environmental impacts and to the extent there are environmental impacts related to land use and planning they are analyzed in section 5.9 of the Draft EIR. While separation between a proposed project and services is a valid public policy issue it is not in and of itself considered an environmental impact under CEQA. To the extent there are such impacts, they are addressed in the traffic impact and air quality impact analyses in the Draft EIR. In deciding whether to approve the proposed project, the City Council may consider a variety of planning, economic and social issues in addition to environmental issues. The purpose of an EIR is to analyze potential environmental impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts that are potentially significant. August 2013 9-9 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments The comment states that the project would violate the City's statutory requirements for an alternative site analysis, and thereby unnecessarily cause losses of biological resources, because numerous infill sites are available where no such resources would be lost. The topic of alternatives is discussed in Section b of the Draft EIR and provides for a reasonable range of alternatives as required by CEQA. Three alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated: 1) No Project; 2) Multiple Infill Sites; and 3) the Tres Hermanos South location. The analysis evaluates the respective impacts of these three alternatives with regard to biological resources and a full range of other environmental issues. Further, the Draft EIR concludes that the identified mitigation measures would reduce all potential impacts of the proposed project below the level of significance, and therefore none of the alternatives would eliminate significant environmental impacts that would not also be eliminated by the proposed project. The Draft EIR notes that while the Multiple Infill Sites alternative would be superior to the proposed project with regard to biological impacts, this alternative would not meet the basic project objective of maintaining consistency with the state -certified Housing Element, therefore it would not comply with state law and is not a feasible alternative. As noted in Section 4.3.1 of the EIR, a key project objective is to amend the General Plan and zoning for parcels identified in the Housing Element to accommodate the City's share of regional housing need, which includes 490 multi -family units at a density of 30 units/acre. State law requires cities to submit draft Housing Elements to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review. The City's initial drafts of the Housing Element identified an underutilized commercial property near services and transit as a potential site for affordable housing; however HCD rejected this site and required the City to identify a vacant site for rezoning. Since HCD's finding of compliance is contingent upon identification of affordable housing development sites that are acceptable to HCD, the City is required to rezone vacant hillside property for affordable housing. Failure to rezone property acceptable to HCD would result in the City's rezoning requirement to increase from 490 units to approximately 1,000 units, and could also expose the City to litigation. The comment also expresses the opinion that grading for the project would be "cost prohibitive." Analysis of development cost is not required under CEQA. It should be noted, however, that because of topography and geotechnical issues throughout the City, it is expensive to develop any vacant land for residential use in Diamond Bar. Given these August 2013 9-10 Final OR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments underlying Citywide development cost factors, by allowing development to occur at a substantially higher density (30 units per acre as compared to the current highest density zoning designation of 20 units per acre), economies of scale can play a role in reducing per-unit construction expenses. No changes in the text of the Draft EIR have been made in response to this comment. 4. This comment expresses the opinion that essential services and amenities are not conveniently located near the project site. While close proximity to services may be desirable for residential neighborhoods, this is not an environmental impact required to be studied under CEQA. The Draft EIR concludes that the 'identified mitigation measures would reduce all potential impacts below the level of significance, and no changes to the EIR are necessary. In deciding whether to approve the proposed project, the Diamond Bar City Council may consider a variety of planning, economic and social issues in addition to _environmental issues. The purpose of an EIR is to analyze potential environmental impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts that are potentially significant. 5. This comment expresses concern that payment of school fees would not ensure that new schools will be provided near the project site. As noted in Section 5.12 (p. 5.12-8) of the Draft EIR, state law governs the extent to which school impact fees can be assessed against a development and that such payment shall be considered legally sufficient mitigation of impacts related to new students from a residential development. In addition, school districts are separate governmental entities that are not subject to City control. Local school districts have responsibility for planning their facility needs and providing school facilities appropriate to meet those needs. The City has no authority to require a development to provide mitigation beyond the statutory fees, and thus, no changes to the EIR are necessary. The comment also expresses concern regarding how impacts of slope stability and loss of stream channels will be addressed. These issues are evaluated in Sections 5.6 and 5.4, respectively, of the Draft EIR. The comment also expresses concern that since future plans would be required to comply with codes and regulations, mitigation would be deferred. CEQA permits the City to defer some environmental problem - solving as long as the mitigation measure commits the City and developer to realistic performance standards that will ensure the mitigation of the impacts. As noted in the Project Description (Section 4) no specific development proposal has been submitted for the project site and therefore no site plan has been designed. The EIR identifies specific August 2013 9-11 - Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments standards, requirements and mitigation measures that any future development on the site would be required to comply with, and commits the City and any future developer to comply with these requirements during project design and construction. The comment does not identify any specific deficiencies in these standards, or why compliance therewith will not ensure mitigation of the impacts. Necessarily, the specifics of grading plans to ensure slope stability and mitigate downstream impacts require the preparation of a detailed development plan, and no such plan has yet been prepared. The City is required by state law to approve zoning regulations to accommodate at least 490 high-density residential units, and the identified requirements and mitigation measures have been designed to establish a regulatory framework that will reduce all potential impacts below the level of significance. Therefore, evaluation of impacts and mitigation has not been inappropriately deferred and thus, no changes in the EIR are necessary. 6. This comment expresses the concern that the project site does not have sufficient amenities and is not conveniently located near services, but does not relate this comment to an environmental impact. While the availability of amenities and convenience to services are valid public policy concerns, to the extent to which this may cause environmental impacts they have been addressed in the Draft EIR's traffic and air quality analyses (Sections 5.14 and 5.3, respectively), and therefore no changes to the Draft EIR are necessary. In deciding whether to approve the proposed project, the Diamond Bar City Council may consider a variety of planning, economic and social issues in addition to environmental issues. The purpose of an EIR is to analyze potential environmental impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts that are potentially significant. 7. This comment expresses a disagreement with the City's choice of sites to satisfy state Housing Element law (see response to comment 1.05-3 above). Identifying appropriate locations for residential development is a valid public policy concern, as expressed through the General Plan; however the comment does not identify any deficiencies in in the Draft EIR analysis or specific environmental impact. During the course of the Housing Element update, the City conducted an extensive search for available residential sites to satisfy the affordable housing requirements of state law, and held discussions with HCD regarding suitable sites in other locations. Section 4.1 of the EIR has been revised to provide additional information regarding the site selection process that occurred during the preparation of the Housing Element (see added text in Section 9,4, below). Through that process, the proposed Tres Hermanos site was August 2013 9-12 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments identified as the location to be rezoned to accommodate new housing commensurate with the City's fair share of regional housing needs. The site is located adjacent to a school, other residential developments, a major arterial highway, and close to the SR -60 freeway, and was the subject of public review during the consideration and adoption of the City's 2008- 2014 Housing Element. In its review letter of June 14, 2011, HCD found that the adopted Housing Element was in compliance with the requirements of state law. While not an environmental impact, it should be noted that one of the purposes of the proposed project is to create a vacant residentially -zoned site for inclusion in the City's inventory of land suitable for residential development pursuant to Government Code Section 65583. 8. This comment expresses disagreement with the alternatives analysis presented in Section 6 of the Draft EIR. An explanation of CEQA requirements and the City's rationale in selecting alternatives for evaluation is presented in Sections 6.1 and 6.2. As noted in response #7 above, the proposed Project site and the selection of alternatives was determined primarily by the refusal of HCD to accept the City's initial proposal to rezone underutilized commercial property to satisfy its obligation to rezone for affordable housing. As required by Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR contains a reasonable range of alternatives that could reduce environmental impacts and achieve most of the project objectives within the limitations imposed by state HCD. The EIR has been revised as shown in Section 9.4 below to include additional background information regarding the selection of rezoning sites. 9. This comment appears to express a concern that the cost of developing the site would be borne by the City and its residents. The City and its residents will not be required to develop the property or pay any costs associated with development, which costs would be the responsibility of the developer. As noted in item #3 above, grading for any residential development in Diamond Bar would be costly due to topography and geotechnical issues. In any case, while economic and fiscal considerations are legitimate public policy concerns, they are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA. No deficiencies in the analysis of environmental impacts are identified, and therefore, no changes were made to the EIR. I O.This comment expresses general concern regarding the issue of fire safety. This issue is discussed in Sections 5.7 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials) and 5.12 (Public Services), and specific requirements and mitigation measures are identified to reduce potential hazards including Mitigation Measure Hoz-1 (Landscape Plan), Mitigation Measure Haz-4 (Construction August 2013 9-13 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments Fire Protection Plan), Mitigation Measure Pub -1 (Construction Fire Protection Plan) and Mitigation Measure Pub -2 (Operational Fire Management Plan). Compliance with existing codes and these mitigation measures would substantially reduce potential impacts due to fire risk below the level of significance. The comment does not specify why the analysis in the Draft EIR is deficient and thus, no changes were made to the EIR. 11.This comment consists of the attached letter dated July 17, 2012, which expresses concern and disagreement with the proposed project and reiterates the concerns noted in items 1-10, above. Accordingly, see responses to comments 1.05-1 through 1.05-10, above. 9.4 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR This section presents clarification and modifications to information contained in the Draft EIR, based on the comments and responses presented in Section 9.2. Additions are underlined (underlined) where text is added and deletions are strike -through (*~k") type. As noted in the responses above, Comment R.01 from the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires a revision to the Draft EIR, as follows: AQ -4 Prior to final approval of any development within Parcel B, the applicant shall accomplish one of the following: A. Demonstrate on a site plan for the development that the nearest proposed residential location within Parcel B would be greater than 500 feet from the nearest point on State Route 60. B. In the event that development is proposed within 500 feet of State Route 60, prepare a health risk assessment in accordance with SCAQMD and CARB guidelines to evaluate in detail the effect of exposing residents to diesel exhaust associated with traffic on State Route 60. If indicated by the results of the health risk assessment, provide additional measures to reduce exposure, such as through the use of residential air filtration systems with a "Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value" of 12 or higher, and demonstrate through the, health risk assessment that the measures will reduce potential exposures t9 GGG8ptGbie leve.k below the level of significance, defined as follows. • Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk >_ 10 in 1 million; • Cancer Burden >0.5 excess cancer case (in areas >_1 in 1 million); and August 2013 9-14 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments Chronic and Acute Hazard Index >_ 1.0 (proiect increment). As noted in the response to Comment L.02 from the Successor Agency to the Industry Urban Development Agency, the Final EIR has been revised to correctly identify the name of the owner of the subject property. As noted in the response to Comment L.03 from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, clerical changes have been made in Section 5.12 of the Final EIR regarding fire protection. As noted in the response to Comment 1-05 (#8) the following text has been added to Section 4.1 of the Final EIR: State law establishes a "default density" of 30 units/acre as the minimum density necessary to facilitate the production of lower-income housing. Since the City does not currently have any land zoned for residential development at greater than 20 units/acre state law requires the City to amend its zoning regulations to allow multi -family development by -right at 30 units/acre for sites sufficient to accommodate the City's assigned share of regional housing need. During the City's preparation of its draft Housing Element a 20 -acre underutilized commercial site at the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive (K -Mart center) was identified as a potential option for satisfying the state's rezoning mandate However, in its review of the draft Housing Element HCD rejected this site as unsuitable for affordable housing not withstanding evidence provided by the City to support the viability of the property for high-density residential development,. Including vacant retail space adiacent multi -family development, proximity to transit and services and expressed development interest by the property owner. A finding of Housing Element compliance (referred to as "certification") by HCD is an important component of maintaining the legal adequacy of the City's General Plan and zoning regulations Failure of a city to obtain Housing Element certification can result in litigation and iudiclal intervention in local land use decisions which have included suspension of cities' zoning and building permit authority and court -mandated approval of low-income housing developments. In recognition of the City's objective of obtaining Housing Element certification the draft Housing Element was revised to remove the K -Mart site from list of potential rezoning sites The only vacant site within the City larae enough to accommodate the assigned RHNA share and not otherwise encumbered by deed or other legal restrictions is the Tres Hermanos property. The proposed Project is located in the portion of Tres August 2013 9-15 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project 9. Responses to Comments Hermanos having the best freeway access and is also adiacent to existing residential development a high school roads and utilities. Other non -substantive changes have been made in the Final EIR to correct typographical errors. August 2013 9-16 Final EIR City of Diamond Bar Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7, OFFICE OF REGIONAL PLANNING IGR/CEQA BRANCII 100 MAIN STREET. MS # 16 Los ANGELES, CA ,90012-3606 PHONE: (213) 897-9140 FAX: (213) 897-1337 July 8, 2013 Ms. Grace Lee City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA, 91765 Dear Ms. Lee: .01 FJe yaurpmver! Be enew efficient! Re: Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) IGR#130549/EA, Vic: LA -60-28.33 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has reviewed the traffic study report prepared for the city's housing element update. The purposed of the city's Housing Element Update is to amend it to allow residential development at a density of 30 units per acre to accommodate the regional housing allocation. The City has been allocated 1,098 residential units, of which 463 are in the very -low and low income categories. Based on the review of the information contained in the DEIR Caltrans has the following comments. According to the traffic impact analysis included in the DEIR, future residential related to the housing element update would not significantly impact State highway facilities at Phillips Ranch Road and State Route 60 and at Rio Rancho Road and State Route 71. Level of Service (LOS) is not expected to exceed LOS C even when projecting to 2034. Caltrans requests that specific development projects prepare a separate traffic impact analysis to identify and address its potential impacts to the surrounding roadway network. Please require that new projects coordinate with Caltrans as to the scope of traffic analysis for its facilities. The City of Diamond Bar follows Los Angeles County's Congestion Management Program (CMP) methodologies for the analysis of freeway impacts for new development subject during environmental reviews. Traffic analysis of freeways and inter -regional conventional highways may require more detailed analysis than what is require for CMP purposes. Please be aware that Caltrans follows Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies to analyze its facilities, which may include queuing, weaving, and or delay studies. Please include policies that require HCM type analysis for state routes 57, 60, 71 within the City of Diamond Bar. For guidance on the preparation of acceptable traffic studies, please refer to the Statewide Guide for the preparation of Traffic Impact Studies at: ht lhvww dot ca goy /Ilq/tppfoffices/ocp/igr cepa files/tisguide.ndf 2 r Caltrans requests inclusion in traffic studies for any transportation improvement in the City that may affect the state highway system. Please include policies that require collaboration with Caltrans inJ3 the planning and implementation of transportation improvements that may affect state highways 57, 60, and 71. Caltrans may provide assistance in the areas of traffic modeling, mainline freeway and "Caltrans improves mobili7y across California" Ms. Grace Lee July 8, 2013 Page 2 of 2 freeway ramp analysis, data collection, environmental and community impact assessment, as well as identifying critical operational deficiencies affecting freeway congestion, speed, and delay, etc, As 3 you may be aware, Caltrans is planning to upgrade SR -71 to a freeway type -facility which may impact the Rio Rancho Road interchange. • Caltrans and the City of Diamond Bar have planted trees within the city as mitigation for air quality impacts related to the project that added High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to State Route 60. L� Please prevent the removal or damage of these trees and/or coordinate with Caltrans as to any action related to them. Caltrans requests that the City of Diamond Bar develop a funding mechanism to mitigate for cumulative transportation impacts to state highways due to new land development approvals. Procuring funds toward freeway segments, freeway interchanges, freeway on/off-ramps should also be in the goals of the local government agencies. A local funding strategy may provide a fair and rJ predictable mechanism for individual developments to address their individual and cumulative transportation impacts to state facilities and comply with CEQA. The availability of local matching funds may attract other public funds so it can fund improvements that are not feasible for individual development projects. If you have any questions regarding these comments or if you wish to schedule a meeting, you may contact Elmer Alvarez, project coordinator at (213)897-6696 or electronically at eh=Avauzg0otcagov. Please refer to our internal record number 130549/EA. Sincerely�,'���� DIANNA WATSON IGR/CEQA Branch Chief t -' STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH aa+ §j%TE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT _ KEN ALD.' EDMUND G. BROWN JR. DmEcrog GnvsaNOR = -. July 9, 2013 S� ill Grace S. Lee City of Diamond 13 ar _ 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 �? = r Subject: Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project SCH#: 2012061066 Dear Grace S. Lee: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Draft EIR to selected state agencies for review. The 1 review period closed on July 8, 2013, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft enviromuental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this Office- Sincerely ffice. Sincerely, 9Morgan Director, State Clearinghouse 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 tanvw.opr.ca.gov _ Docu_rtte,.nt_D_etaiIs Reort state Clea&ghouse Data Base SCH# 2012061066 - Project Titfe Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Lead Agency Diamond Bar, City of Type EIR Draft EIR In 2011, the Diamond Bar City Council adopted its 2008-2014 Housing Element update, which was subsequently accepted by the Califomia Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Implementation of the approved Housing Element requires brat the City take several actions'to bring its General Pian and Development Code in compliance with state laws addressing affordable housing. Specifically, the "Project" would involve amending the City's General Plan (including its Land Use Plan Map) and Development Code (Title 22 and including its associated Zoning Map) to establish a new multi family residential development commensurate with the City's required housing obligation (per state law), including that area needed to accommodate provisions for lower-income housing. Description Lead Agency Contact Name Grace S: Lee Agency City of Diamond Bar Fax 909 861-3117 Phone 9D9 839-7032 email Address 21810 Copley Drive State CA Zip 91765-4178 City Diamond Bar Project Location County Los Angeles City Diamond Bar ' Region Lat/Long Cross Streets Diamond Bar Bivd i Brea Canyon Road Parcel No. 8701-22-273 Section 1 Base SBB&M Township 2S Range 9W Proximity to: Highways SR -60,71 Airports No Railways UPIMetrolink Waterways San Jose Creek Schools Land Use PLU2: Agriculture GPD: Planning Area -1 / Specific Plan (PA-1/SP) Project Issues Air Quality; Biological Resources; Archaeologic -Historic; Agricultural Land; Geologic/Seismic; Other Issues; To) ictHazardous; Water Quality; Landuse; Minerals; Noise; PopulationlHousing Balance; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Traffic/Circulabon; Cumulative Effects; Aesthetic/Visual; Forest Land/Fire Hazard; Growth Inducing; Drainage/Absorption; Economics/Jobs; Vegetation;- Schools/Universities; Septic System; Sewer Capacity; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading; Solid Waste; Water Supply Reviewing Resources Agency; Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 5; Office of Agencies Historic Preservation; Department of Parks and Recreation; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 7; Department of Housing and Community Development Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 4; Native American Heritage Commission; Public _._.QocuAneot Details Resort State Clgarltghouse_Data Safe utilities Commission Date Received 05/2312013 Startof Review 05/24/2013 End ofReview 0 710 8/2 01 3 R.01 ®.� South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.agmd.gov E -Mailed: July 3, 2013 July 3, 2013 glee@diamondbarea.gov Ms. Grace S. Lee City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ReAew of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Proposed Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) appreciates the opportunity to continent on the above-mentioned document. The following comment is intended to provide guidance to the lead agency and should be incorporated into the revised Draft or Final Environmental Impact Report (Draft or Final EIR) as appropriate. Based on a review of the Draft EIR the SCAQMD staff is concerned about the potential health risk impacts from placing a portion of the proposed residential land uses (i.e., sensitive land uses) within close proximity to a significant emissions source. Specifically, in Exhibit 4-2 of the Draft EIR the lead agency indicates that future zoning would allow new residential units to be placed on Site B of the proposed project site which is located adjacent to the 60 Freeway that carries approximately 218,000 vehicles per day including more than 16,000 trucks per day. As a result, the SCAQMD staff is concerned that the lead agency has not provided adequate mitigation to address the potentially significant public health impacts from placing residents adjacent (within 100 feet) of a major southern California freeway. Mitigation Measure AQ -4 allows residential projects to be placed within 500 feet of the 60 Freeway if the project can demonstrate in a HRA that additional measures can reduce potential exposure to "acceptable levels." However, the lead agency has not defined what constitutes an "acceptable level". Absent a threshold to determine an acceptable level of exposure the lead agency is unable to demonstrate that the proposed project will impose insignificant health risk impacts to future sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Ms. Grace S. Lee 2 July 3, 2013 SCAQMD staff recommends that the lead agency revise the Draft E1R to define acceptable health risk impact levels for Mitigation Measure AQ -4 including all of the following': Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk >: 10 in 1 million, Cancer Burden>0.5 excess cancer case (in areas >_1 in 1 million), and Chronic and Acute Hazard Index z 1.0 (project increment). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, please provide the SCAQMD with written responses to all continents contained herein prior to the adoption of the Final EIR. Further, staff is available to work with the lead agency to address these issues and any other questions that may arise. Please contact Dan Garcia, Air Quality Specialist CEQA Section, at (909) 396-3304, if you have any questions regarding the enclosed continents. Sincerely, '4 V A Ian MacMillan Program Supervisor, CEQA Inter -Governmental Review Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Attachment LAC130528-03 Control Number I ittp://www.aqind.gov/ceqalhandbook/sigiithi-es.pdf at DARYL L. OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN June 25, 2013 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-3294 (323)881-2401 Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 C.01 Dear Ms. Lee: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, NOTIFICATION OF COMMENCEMENT OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR THE "PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION PROJECT TO ACCOMMODATE NEW MULTI -FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, CITYWIDE, DIAMOND BAR (FFER 0201300085) The Draft Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed by the Planning -Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION: 5.12 Public Services 5.12.2 Setting PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS Site A or Site B Fire Paragraph 2, should be corrected as follows: SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF:' BAR HIDDEN HILLS LA MIRADA" ' MALIBU -' ' POMONA RANCHO PALOS VERDES SIGNAL HILL SOUTH EL MOM E AGDURA HILLS CALABASAS .DIAMOND HUNTINGTON PARK IA PUENTE I✓AYWOOO ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE ARTERIA CARSON DUARTE EL MONTE INDUSTRY LAKEWOOD.- NORWALK. -' ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY AZUSA PARK CERRITOS CLAREMONT GARDENA INDUSTRYD LANCASTER LAWNDALE PALMDALE PALOS VERDES ESTATES - WALNUT WEST HOLLYWOOD B.ALDWIN BELL COMMERCE GLENDORA GARDENS IRWINDALE IA CANADA FLINTRIOGE �YNWODD SAN DIMROSEMEAS SAN OIMAS SANTA CLARITA WHITIER VILLAGE BELL GARDENS COVINA HAWAIIAN LA HABRA PCO RIV WHITTLER BELLFLOWER CUDAHY HAWTHORNE BRADBURY Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner June 25, 2013 Page 2 There are three major geographic regions in the LACFD service area, which are divided into nine divisions and 22 battalions. Paragraph 3, should be corrected as follows: The LACFD is a special qur�ese age Special District and receives most of its revenue from the a portion of the ad valorem property tax Paid by the owners of all taxable rd of es County oa prof n Angeles County D Fee Program to fu n the l acquisition construction, improvemsors oent and pted a os Ages in the voters approved a 2 special tax to pay for essential fire suppression andemergencymedical services es withthe in the Developer ct to While Diamond Bar is not considered fgtlhgrowth" area and is thus not ie District, Diamond Bar participates in the special tax and Fee Program, as a sentrast+ag-city; —rodded to other urbanized communities within receives the level of staffing and protection ty lly P the LACFD. Table 5.12-1 should be corrected as follows: 12-1 from 346 Armitos Place 3.7 3 -person engine company Station 121 3 Diamond Bar, CA 1051 South Grand 5.4 34 -person assessment Station 120 engine company (Battalion Avenue, Diamond Head uarters Bar, CA 91765 7.7 3 -person engine Station 119 20480 East Pathfinder company; 2 -person Rd. Walnut, CA aramedic s uad 91789 EFFECT: INCREASED DEMAND FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES Site A or Site B Impact Discussion Paragraph 4, should be corrected as follows: Future development at the selected Project Site(s) would introduce new residential uses to an 4 area that Is currently undeveloped and experiences negligible fire response activity. Development and occupancy of the Proposed Project would result in an increased demand for Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner June 25, 2013 Page 3 fire protection and emergency medical response services, which would be observed most predominantly through an increase in service calls requiring LACFD response. Freugh +ts 4 Paragraph 6, should be corrected as follows: Funding for additional fire service personnel, equipment, or station facilities needed to accommodate the increase in service demand generated by the Proposed Project would come from a portion of the property tax associated with and collected for the assessed value of project development 'at the selected l as P BYFFIPAt =Project Site(s) and from the special fax generated in tWhile this 5 area., as funding, the provision of emergency access roads for fire apparatus, and mitigation measures Identified in this EIR related to the control of hazardous materials and conditions will substantially reduce potential fire service demand and impacts from the project, the impact of the project on fire protection services is considered to be potentially significant. LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. The proposed development may necessitate multiple ingress/egress access for the circulation of traffic, and emergency response. issues. 2. The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows and fire hydrants. 3. This property is located within the area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as a Fire Zone 4, Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). All applicable fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush 6 clearance and fuel modification plans, must be met. 4. Every building constructed shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus byway of access roadways, with an all-weather surface of not less than the prescribed width. The roadway shall be extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls when measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. 5. Access roads shall be maintained with a minimum of 10 feet of brush clearance on each side. Fire access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance clear -to -sky with the exception of protected tree species. Protected tree species overhanging fire access roads shall be maintained to provide a vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches. 6. The maximum allowable grade shall not exceed 15% except where topography makes it impractical to keep within such grade. In such cases, an absolute maximum of 20% will be allowed for up to 150 feet in distance. The average maximum allowed grade, including topographical difficulties, shall be no more than 17%. Grade breaks shall not exceed 10% in ten feet. Grace 5. Lee, Senior Planner June 25, 2013 Page 4 When involved with subdivision in a city contracting fire protection with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Fire Department requirements for access, fire flows and hydrants are addressed during the subdivision tentative map stage. ACCESS REQUIREMENTS: 1. Turning radii shall not be less than 32 feet. This measurement shall be determined at the centerline of the road. A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided for all driveways exceeding 150 feet In -length and at the end of all cul-de-sacs. 2. All on-site driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 28 feet, clear -to -sky. The 28 foot width does not allow for parking, and shall be designated as a "Fire Lane" and have appropriate signage. The centerline of the on-site driveway shall be located parallel to and within 30 feet of an exterior wall on one side of the proposed structure. The on-site driveway is to be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building. 3. The 28 feet In width shall be increased to: a) 34 feet in width when parallel parking is allowed on one side of the access way. b) 36 feet in width when parallel parking is allowed on both sides of the access way. 6 c) Any access way less than 34 feet in width shall be labeled "Fire Lane" on the final recording map, and final building plans. d) For streets or driveways with parking restrictions: The entrance to the street/driveway and intermittent spacing distances of 150 feet shall be posted with Fire Department approved signs stating "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" in three-inch high letters. Driveway labeling is necessary to ensure access for Fire Department use. 4. When serving land zoned for residential uses having a density of more than four units per net acre: a) A cul-de-sac shall be a minimum of 34 feet in width and shall not be more than 700 feet in length. b) The length of the cul-de-sac may be increased to 1,000 feet if a minimum of 36 feet in width is provided, c) A Fire Department approved turning area shall be provided at the end of a cul-de-sac. WATER REQUIREMENTS 1. Fire sprinkler systems are required in ALL residential and most commercial occupancies. For those occupancies not requiring fire sprinkler systems, it is strongly suggested that fire sprinkler systems be installed. This will reduce potential fire and life losses. Systems are now technically and economically feasible for residential use. Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner June 25, 2013 Page 5 2. The development may require fire flows up to 5,000 gallons per minute at 20 per square inch residual pressure for up to a five-hour duration. Final fire flows will be based on the size of the buildings, their relationship to other structures, property lines, and types of construction used. Fire hydrant spacing shall be 300 feet and shall meet the following requirements: a) No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 2D0 feet via vehicular access from a public fire hydrant. b) No portion of a building shall exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced fire hydrant. c) When cul-de-sac depth exceeds 200 feet, hydrants will be required at the corner and mid - block. d) Additional hydrants will be required if the hydrant spacing exceeds specified distances. 4. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Land Development Units comments are only general requirements. Specific fire and life safety requirements will be addressed at the building and fire plan check phase. There may be additional requirements during this time. 6 5. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. 6. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Land Development Unit, are the review of and comment on, all projects within the unincorporated areas of the County of Los Angeles. Our emphasis is on the availability of sufficient water supplies for firefighting operations and localtregional access issues. However, we review all projects for issues that may have a significant impact on the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. We are responsible for the review of all projects within Contract Cities (cities that contract with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for fire protection services). We are responsible for all County facilities, located within non -contract cities. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Land Development Unit may also comment on conditions that may be imposed on a project by the Fire Prevention Division, which may create a potentially significant Impact to the environment. 7. Should any questions arise regarding subdivision, water systems, or access, please contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Land Development Unit Inspector, Claudia Soiza, at (323) 890-4243. FORESTRY DIVISION — OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department, Forestry Division 7 include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones or Fire Zone 4, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner June 25, 2013 Page 6 2. The areas germane to the statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire 17 Department, Forestry Division have been addressed. J HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: 1. We have no additional comments to provided. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Very truly yours, UL - FRANK VIDALES, ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU FV:ij HE •-:\i. -)4LR June 10, 2013 14000 City. Center Drive Chino Hills, CA 91709 Grace Lee, Senior Planner (909) 364-2600 City of Diamond Bar uiu/w c�zua�ii�iJ 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 917654178 Re: General Plan and Zoning Amendment No. PL2013-227 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) SCH No. 2012061066 Dear Ms. Lee: Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIR for the proposed Project amendments. We understand the Project will amend the General Plan land use and zoning designations for one or more paroels identified in Appendix B, Table B-2 of the Diamond Bar 2008-2014 Housing Element to allow single-family and multi -family development at a density of 30 units per acre by -right in order to accommodate Diamond Bar's very -low- and low-income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 2008-2014 Housing Element planning period. The Project site is within the Tres Hennanos area owned by the City of Industry. The City of Chino Hills is concerned with all proposed development adjacent or otherwise potentially impacting our community. The proposed Project site is directly northwest of the City of Chino Hills' borders. The traffic analysis presented in the DEIR shows the majority of the Project traffic being carried by Phillips Ranch Road within the City of Pomona. Roads within the City of Chino Hills are projected to receive nominal amounts of Project traffic, with Chino Hills Parkway at Grand Avenue receiving the greatest share resulting in a project traffic increase of 0.4%, which the DEIR finds to be less than significant Because even a small amount of additional traffic is a potential concern to our City, we ask that you keep us informed of any development plans submitted pursuant to the Project amendments. Sincerely, % / u t44g � � r— Joan S Lombardo Community Development Director JL:kp C16 Caawd . Art Bennett ^ Ed M. Graham " Ray Marquez • Cynthia Moran ^ Peter J. Rogers 1 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO TSE ( 0 go% INDusTRY URB N o DEvEtopmENT AGENCY L.02 Dear Sirs: This letter is inresponseto the City of Diamond Bar's proposal to amend its General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation prior to October 2013 for one or more parcels identified in Appendix B, Table B-2 of the Diamond Bar Housing Element. The scope of the DEIR is to allow residential development at a density of 30 units/acre in order to accommodate Diamond Bar's very -low and low-income RHNA allocation for the 2008-2013 and2013-2021 Housing Element planning periods on the Tres Hermanos property. Please note that the current property owner of the Tres Hermanos property se Successor Agency e update to the Industry Urban -Development Agency and not the City of Industry. IR accordingly. City Engineer J' Administrative Offices • 15625 East Stafford Street • City of Industry, California 91744 • (626) 333-2211 • Fax: (626) 961-6795 aD -yG] � W '.M City of Diamond Bar -A. =CA s Community Development Department vo — M Planning Divisioncn �c'� 21810 Copley Drive J Diamond Bar, CA 91765 for Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project RE: DRAFT EIR Dear Sirs: This letter is inresponseto the City of Diamond Bar's proposal to amend its General Plan Land Use and Zoning designation prior to October 2013 for one or more parcels identified in Appendix B, Table B-2 of the Diamond Bar Housing Element. The scope of the DEIR is to allow residential development at a density of 30 units/acre in order to accommodate Diamond Bar's very -low and low-income RHNA allocation for the 2008-2013 and2013-2021 Housing Element planning periods on the Tres Hermanos property. Please note that the current property owner of the Tres Hermanos property se Successor Agency e update to the Industry Urban -Development Agency and not the City of Industry. IR accordingly. City Engineer J' Administrative Offices • 15625 East Stafford Street • City of Industry, California 91744 • (626) 333-2211 • Fax: (626) 961-6795 1.01 2 3 193,©L3 i {, �e I 'moi w®����o Ws- =lmm- ce �@(q e _ Va. tS cu r (x) O cA -B'Y'O 1N� tr_c F �� ►� �� ®r r�u c I • In r_� 1�� rE ��e e s e -F(D r' e ce- w Ll --_��c�c���a�f. L h VA&re-j _ Of mews 2 3 3 is�GL—r�jJ_� I�v�lye- W o eke s` r t _ zaAL 3 1.02 P, ;:. _J2 To Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner Ms. Lee, I live in Hidden Valley Townhomes and I'm writing to express my concerns over the rezoning of the property on phillips Ranch Road near Diamond Ranch High School. . Some of my concerns are. Increase of traffic: This will greatly increase the traffic in our area, to the high school, where the traffic is 1 especially at intersection leading already at a critical level during school hours. Pollution: We have barely tolerable levels of carbon monoxide pollution currently because we are up next to the heavily -traveled 60 freeway. in this area will. increase these levels 2 Creating additional housing tremendously and certainly have adverse effects .on.the health of the and the children attending Diamond residents of Hidden Valley Townhomes Ranch High School. Potential for increase in crime: Unfortunately, it can be clearly shown that in in adjacent increase crime low income housing results in a sharp of senior citizens and young families 3 neighborhoods. We are a community e with a safe and secure lifestyle, something thatwill who want to continue m in if a large complex of low-income housing s put jeopardy our neighborhood. Devaluation: It can also be demonstrated that property values are Property adversely affected when low income housing is introduced to a single most important 4 neighborhood. Our homes here represent our we simply cannot afford a further drop in value monetary investment and turndown has already caused. beyond what the recent economy Police and Fire Services: Our local law enforcement and fire agencies are of low income housing in this 5 currently stretched very thin: ,The,creation area will surely impose even greater responsibilities -on. agencies Already suffering from hiring freezes and budget reductions. m I urge you to not rezone the 78 acres for low income homes. 16 Thank you, Marlene Taylor 16 Saddlewood Place Phillips Ranch, CA 91766 1.03 From: senorasorensen( juno.com[mailto•senorasorensenCa)iuno.coml Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:26 PM To: Grace Lee Subject: Proposed housing development in DB near Diamond Ranch High Ms. Grace Lee Sr. Planner City of Diamond Bar Esteemed Ms. Lee: As an affected homeowner of the proposed housing complex to be constructed near Diamond Ranch High School, I atn writing you this letter asking that you NOT allow the project to be built. There are a number of reasons why this is not a good idea according to the EIR already published. 1. As an existing homeowner, I do need to access the 60 freeway. By building those additional apartment homes near the freeway, the traffic to get to the freeway will increase; as well as the traffic heading into Phillips Ranch and into Chino Hills. Your report states that with this development, there will be an additional 3,259 vehicular trips per day. 2. This traffic will greatly obstruct the ability for homeowners and for parents, students, and staff to access Diamond Ranch High School. 3,259 vehicles in the morning and the evening will create huge traffic problems for those commuting from home to work, and from work to home,. These homeowners are the same people who pay high property taxes to live in both San Bernardino and Los Angeles counties. It doesn't seem fair or equitable to those already living in the area to suffer from additional vehicles on the road. 3. I question whether there will be enough fire and police services available by adding so many 2 more homes (490) to the area. 4. The potential for a huge disaster after a catastrophic earthquake is very real. The soil on that 3 land isn't strong enough to support the building, and would create a horrific scenario. With a substantial earthquake, those buildings would come tumbling down. I would ask that the city of Diamond Bar NOT proceed with this project, as it would create a huge traffic problem as well as threaten the provision of adequate fire and police 4 services. Worse yet, this project would create an enormous earthquake risk, wl&h in turn would be dangerous for the residents of the proposed homes. Respectfully submitted, Charlotte Sorensen 13960 Rainsgate Ln. Chino Hills, CA 91705 1.04 July 5, 2013 Ms. Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Tel: (909) 839-7032 Fax: (909) 861-3117 Email: glee@dimaondbarca.aov Re: Notice of Availability of Draft Environment Impact Report State Clearinghouse # 2012061066 / Proiect Title: Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Proiect Dear Ms, Lee, It appears that the report does not provide justification to their recommendations that QUOTE there were no issues noted that are considered likely to have a materially significant impact on either the collateral value of, or cash flow from, the subject property UNQUOTE. It seems to me that the recommendations are based on the issues they did not find. To me, the report should be based on forthcoming issues that will be likely to arise after the projects are developed. In short, how likely would it be that the value would not be affected after the nature of environment has changed with crowed population, traffic,etc.? The report should include a detailed analysis on this. Frankly, I do not understand why City of Diamond 'Bar advocates this project that will adversely affect the value of the property and the well-being of. residents of Diamond Bar. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Yours truly, Pellson Lau Owner/Resident of 24440 Rockbury Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Email address: pellson@amail.com 1.05 From: Brian Mcgurty(o)sce.com fmailto•Brian Mcourty(o)sce.coml Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:51 PM To: Grace Lee Subject: Comments on DB Affordable Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Grace -- Please find attached my latest letter re. the subject matter, which is due by 5:30 p.m. today. BTW, I was disappointed to see that neither my prior timely filed 7/17/12 comment letter (stamped 'Received by the City of Diamond Bar 2012 Jul 17 11:55 am"), also attached, nor the timely filed petition signed by numerous DB residents re. this matter, both hand -delivered to you on 7/17/12, were included in Appendix A of the DEIR ("Initial Study and Notice of Preparation, and Scoping Comments). Instead, I see only the comments and petition from the nearby Pomona residents. Is there any particular reason for that, and does that mean that those documents were not considered during the preparation of this DEIR? Thanks! Brian McGurty July 8, 2013 Filed electronically via e-mail Ms. Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 glee@diamondbarca.gov Subject: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) State Clearinghouse No. 2012061066 2008-2014 Housing Element Update to Diamond Bar General Plan Dear Ms. Lee: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject matter, otherwise known as the City of Diamond Bar (DB) "Affordable Housing Land Use and Zoning Designation Project" (Project), which is DB's current response to a mandate from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (CDHCD). With this DEIR, DB would process amendments to the Land Use Plan Map within DB's General Plan and the Zoning Map within its Development Code to designate the location for a new 490 unit multi -family low-income (affordable) housing development. However, it is perplexing that DB would select such a woefully inappropriate site that has no chance of meeting the CDHCD 2 and statutory requirements for such a project. Accordingly, with this letter, filed by e-mail on July 8, 2013 (the deadline for comments pertaining to this matter), I hereby identify on behalf of myself and numerous other Diamond Bar residents, for which a petition in opposition to this proposed project location was previously hand -delivered to your office on 7/17/12, fundamental and insurmountable flaws and deficiencies with the currently proposed location for this project that make it illogical and out of compliance with the legal guidelines and objectives for affordable housing developments. If after consideration of these arguments DB nevertheless continues to move forward with this project at the currently proposed location (both sites A and B are jointly referred to as a single location for purposes of the comments below), then I will restate the considerations In this letter to the DB Planning Commission, the DB City Council, and the CDHCD itself, along with a list of reasons how the DEIR is inconsistent with both the California Planning and Zoning Code and 3 DB's own General Plan, and why the DEIR does not comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including for example how the DEIR does not provide an adequate description of how the cost prohibitive grading of the existing slopes is to be performed, how DB would ameliorate the known unstable soil and geologic conditions at the site, and what open space would be set aside to offset what is lost to this hillside development. lir Violation of Codes and Guidelines This project as currently proposed will unwittingly and unnecessarily: 1. be in direct violation of the CDHCD rules and guidelines for such projects, because the location that is the subject of this DEIR will completely isolate it from any services available within Diamond Bar's city limits, and therefore not at all integrate this project into the community; 2. violate Diamond Bar's statutory requirements for an alternative site analysis, and thereby unnecessarily cause losses of ever diminishing biological resources, because numerous infill sites are available where no such resources would be lost; and 3. waste the tax dollars of DB residents by using staff time and resources to attempt to 3 squeeze this project into an illogical and difficult engineering location, with known unstable slopes, and at the most distant possible outer edge of DB city limits, in an apparent attempt to put it out of sight and out of mind from other potential areas (such as nearby the Country, which is filled with attorneys, politicians, and wealthy homeowners), when there are Instead much better pre -established mixed use and transit -oriented infill locations available within DB where economic segments of the community are already in place and being underutilized. In particular, the proposed location would be in defiance of Department codes, standards, and guidelines, which require that the proposed affordable housing project be integrated with available community services for viable living conditions expressly for the low-income homeowners that are the objective of the proposed housing development, including for example bus line and other public transit routes and facilities, including hard surface pedestrian walkways and bicycle laneways, and nearby access to supermarkets, which are several miles removed from the site, and at any rate much too far away to walk or bike. As such, there is a long list of vital community services and amenities within the city limits of Diamond Bar that are nowhere near the proposed development, including for example the transit facilities and supermarkets already mentioned, along with primary and secondary schools, child care, banks, medical and health care clinics, retail and drug stores, fire and police, laundromats, library, parks and recreation areas, restaurants, and places of worship. 4 Access to these services is made even more critical to people who live in affordable housing because they own fewer cars and travel less. In fact, in California's six largest metropolitan areas, it has been documented in transportation surveys that three-fourths of the low-income households own no vehicles or only one car, and thereby will make 40 percent fewer auto trips per household than current DB residents. In terms of schools, the DER refers to in -lieu fees being paid instead of providing actual schools, but then the residents of the new development still don't have access to schools that are near enough to meet their economic transportation limitations. This same sense of denial is used in other important matters within the DER such as slope and soils stability, and loss -of rare intermittent stream channels, for which it is merely stated that plans would be written at rJ some later date, and DB codes and regulations would have to be followed at some later point in time (when permits are issued), but those statements don't actually solve any problems within the DER, as statutorily required, but instead only defer them. The point is that Diamond Bar is not just responsible for developing the affordable housing project in and of itself, but it is also obligated to provide a livable project with amenities nearby enough to meet both the current and foreseeable sustainable needs of its tenants, including convenient access to basic services such as those listed above, absolutely none of which are available at the currently proposed site. In other words, DB is supposed to integrate the residents of the new affordable housing project into the DB community, but instead the currently selected site has too many patent deficiencies and flaws, which will result in the need for future improvements, upgrades, and remediation requirements that would be impossible to achieve. Alternate Sites According to Government Code (Code) Section 65583 et al., when local governments (such as DB in this case) inventory land for potential residential development (such as the affordable housing project that is the subject of this DEIR), they are supposed to consider and incorporate public facilities and services available to such sites. For example, it is stated in the Code that the "characteristics to consider when evaluating the appropriateness of sites include physical features (e.g. susceptibility to flooding, slope instability or erosion, or environmental considerations) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services)" (emphasis added). L As such, the Code lists the following order of priority for determining "land suitable for residential development": 7 1. "vacant residentially zoned sites"; 2. "vacant non -residentially zoned sites that allow residential development"; 3. "underutilized residentially zoned sites capable of being developed at a higher density or with greater intensity"; and 4. "non -residentially zoned sites that can be redeveloped for, and/or rezoned for, residential use (via program actions)". However, with the proposed location identified in this DEIR, DB would be turning this order upside down, and instead selecting the last, worst-case option (rezoning) without first exhausting the other options (areas already residentially zoned) that would be more cost effective and more prudent. At any rate, the DEIR does not adequately address many other potential alternative locations for the proposed residential development. A DEIR for this purpose is required to describe a range of alternatives for the proposed project location that would feasibly attain the project's objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening the project's significant impacts (Pub. Res. Code§ 21100(b)(4); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a)). As such, a proper analysis of alternative sites is essential for the City to comply with CEQA's mandate that significant environmental damage be avoided or substantially lessened where feasible (Pub. Res. Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15002(a)(3), 15021(a)(2), 15126.6(a); Citizens for Quality Growth v, City of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 CaLApp.3d 433, 443-45). As stated in this regard in Laurel Heights, "[w]ithout meaningful analysis of alternatives in the EIR, neither the courts nor the public can fulfill their proper roles in the CEQA process... [Courts will not] countenance a result that would require blind trust by the public, especially in tight of CEQA's fundamental goal that the public be fully informed as to the consequences of action by their public officials" (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404). Unfortunately, however, at *no point does the DEIR even attempt to directly compare the currently proposed site with various other alternate sites, and otherwise the DEIR's scant discussion of alternative sites fails to fulfill these standards. What the DEIR offers instead is only a sham of an alternative analysis because it does not make the necessary relative comparisons to list which alternative has the least overall impacts for the various issues analyzed, which if done properly would without question result in the selection of one of the other alternatives because in virtually every case it is conceded in the DEIR itself that those other alternatives would in fact result in reduced impacts. What the DEIR does instead is to conclude with self-serving work -around rationale that the proposed site impacts would be mitigated to less than significant, and therefore a true best choice, benefit:cost alternate site analysis has not been performed. As such, even if the difficult grading requirements (i.e., the proposed sites have slopes mostly in excess of 25%) and environmental impacts can be mitigated to less than significant, at what cost?! Surely it would cost a lot less to DB and its residents to build the housing at one of the more level alternate sites where there would be a fraction of the grading and impacts that would otherwise occur at the proposed site. Moreover, because of the higher percentage of steep slopes on the proposed site, the density of houses will have to be reduced pursuant to the hillside management provisions within the DB Municipal and Development Codes, for which the necessary calculations have not been incorporated Into the DEIR. Fire Hazards To make matters worse, although mentioned as a topic item, the DEIR does not even come close to addressing the very real concern of the high fire hazard of the extremely flammable undeveloped hillsides that would surround most of the proposed development site, and indeed recent fires have occurred at this location. As such, published studies have shown that ninety- five percent of all fires in California are caused by humans, and that adding housing to an area dramatically increases the number of fires and the amount of area burned. Nevertheless, despite these very significant concerns, the DEIR does not adequately address the substantial increased risk of fire due to this proposed development, nor the significant adverse environmental Impact that a fire would cause. Moreover, it is doubtful, if not out of the question, that DB currently has sufficient equipment and staffing on hand to fight a wildfire that would originate from the new development, and at any rate the DEIR does not provide an effective fire risk analysis nor the necessary mitigation, thereby rendering it woefully inadequate. Conclusion For all of the reasons discussed above, as well as the concerns and objections listed in my prior letter of 7/17/12, hand -delivered to your office on that day, and the oral comments that I made at the public scoping meeting on 6/21/12 pertaining to the location of this project, it would be i 0 10 impossible for this project to be prudently and lawfully approved at the location currently proposed. Instead, DB has an opportunity to optimize the mandate that resulted in this DER by actually I 1 1 creating a cost-efficient community asset, whereby the footprint of the project creates a minimal disruption, is better integrated into the DB community than the proposed site, and where such a project can be best optimized, in particular in an area where infrastructure and services have already been paid for by DB residents, and in many cases are underutilized. If you have any questions about the comments provided in this letter, I can be reached at (909) 394-8718 in the daytime, or (909) 860-2295 on weeknights and weekends, or at mcgurty(a)roadrunner.com. Sincerely, Brian M. McGurfy 24419 Top Ct. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 July 17, 2012 i , .. _ ... ,..,; 22017 Ap.- I- i1: 57 Hand -delivered Ms. Grace S. Lee, Senior Planner City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Subject Comments re. 6/14/12 Notice of Preparation of EIR Affordable Housina Land Use and Zoning Designation Project Dear Ms. Lee: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the subject matter pertaining to the high density, low-income housing being considered for the site between my home at 24419 Top Court and the proposed project areas adjacent to Diamond Ranch High School, which l am supplying to your office today (July 17, 2012) in person. With this letter, on behalf of myself and the large number of neighborhood families who signed the petition against this project (also filed with your office today), I am providing compelling reasons why the subject site under consideration is entirely inappropriate for the 490 units of housing represented by this proposed project. In short, as discussed in further detail below, this proposed site is unsuitable because: 1. It is too isolated from any food stores, bus stations, and primary or secondary schools. 2 . It would create unacceptably and unnecessarily unsafe increases in traffic, volume on the residential streets on the west side of the site (if access were to be provided from that side). 1 It is encumbered with too many environmental issues, including the adjacent oak trees and rare riparian channels that were deliberately saved from destruction when the high school was built at this same site, 4. It would be too expensive to develop because of the steep slopes and unstable soils and associated massive amount of dirt that would need to be graded, the problems of which are evidenced by the cracked walls and floors being experienced by the high school built on the adjacent hillsides. 5. In light of the above considerations, it would require too many exceptions to sound planning and development principles with too many conflicts and too much nonconformity with the City's General Plan and Ordinances, especially considering that there are other more suitable sites within the City limits. Pagel In addition to the above stated concerns, it should be noted that the community was not adequately informed of the initial scoping meeting for this project because notices were not mailed to the vast majority of the many homeowners along the streets of Deepsprings, Rockbury, and Armitos, all of whom would be drastically impacted in a negative way by the significant additional traffic that would cut through these neighborhoods, both by the residents of the new development and by the students and staff accessing the high school. Moreover, State zoning regulations at Sec. 65804(d) state: When any hearing is held on an application for a change of zone for parcels of at least 10 acres, a staff reportwith recommendations and the basis for those recommendations shall be included in the record of the hearing." No such report was mentioned or provided at the 6/21/12 scoping meeting, and the City representatives at that meeting, upon request, could provide no documentation and no convincing explanation that alternative sites had been evaluated. 1. Site Isolation It makes no sense whatsoever to orphan this development in the extreme northeast corner of the City where there are no primary or secondary schools or other facilities to accommodate low income homeowners who will need access to city services either by foot and/or by transit system. Sec 54220 of the State zoning regulations states: "(c) The Legislature reaffirms its declaration of the importance of appropriate planning and development near transit stations, to encourage the clustering of housing and commercial development around such stations.' However, no such consideration is apparent in this case. In addition, this section states: "(b) The Legislature reaffirms its belief that there is an identifiable deficiency in the amount of land available for recreational purposes and that surplus land, prior to disposition, should be made available for park and recreation purposes or for open - space purposes." However, no such consideration appears to have been made in this case. rAs used in this article, the term'open-space purposes' means the use of land for public recreation, enjoyment of scenic beauty, or conservation or use of,natural . resources.'] 2. Traffic Circulation State law requires Diamond Bar to give due consideration to the needs of, and impacts upon, pre-existing residents as compared to the perceived needs of this development proposal. In particular, Diamond Bar is supposed to consider the impacts of this project on the health, safety, public service, overcrowding, and welfare of the existing homeowners. Page 12 As such, before any construction of this project'takes place, and before creating any new access road to this project from the west, it is incumbent upon the City to determine: a) The impacts of this project on traffic mobility and traffic congestion, including the number of injuries and fatalities to children and pedestrians that will occur in the adjacent residential neighborhoods -if the access to the proposed site were to be provided through the streets to the west of the site, which were previously designed exclusively for residential living, as opposed to. Chino Hills Parkway to the east of the project which is a four lane, high volume, high speed roadway that is much more capable of absorbing the additional traffic of both the development and the high school than the residential streets to the west. b) The amounts and locations of additional vehicle delays that would be caused for the existing residents when trying to exit their driveways, not to mention the increased backup at the stop signs, as well as the increases in harmful vehicle emissions. c) The additional amount of road maintenance and rehabilitation that will be needed, including re -pavement of the increased wear and potholes that will be caused by the increased traffic. 3. Environmental Impacts There are a number of significant biological resources that would be adversely impacted by this proposed development, including... Rare perennial stream/riparian habitat: o Protected status under Calif. Dept. Fish & Game Code Sec. 1600 o Possible additional protections by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sec. 404 wetland drainage regulations o Possible protected species of wildlife such as flycatchers and other birds, as well as pond turtles, red -legged frogs, and others Ever -diminishing oak trees: o Protected by City & County Ordinances o Currently being used for nesting by birds of prey and other uncommon species of birds As such, there is no other combination of these resources with adjacent open space anywhere else In the northem portion of Diamond Bar. Moreover, these areas that would be bulldozed are precisely the very same areas that were deliberately avoided during the grading and development of the high school to reduce the environmental Impacts of that project. 4. Unstable Slopes It is in the public record that the Pomona Unified School District paid tens of millions of dollars in slope grading costs, on top of many millions more provided in Proposition E Page 13 Bond funding, and millions more provided by the City of Industry, over many years, with many delays, in order to manufacture five artificial plateaus for the school site. It is also In the public record that millions of cubic yards of dirt were moved to manufacture those slopes,. ten times the amount of dirt moved for the Pomona Freeway X Corona Expressway Interchange. Likewise, any development at the proposed site will require extraordinary grading and associated seismic engineering considerations. 5. Conflicts with the City's General Plan and Ordinances Following are excerpts from Table 4 of the EIR for the Diamond Ranch High School, referenced as "Applicable Diamond Bar General Plan Objectives and Strategies", that will be contravened by this proposed project: "Development in the Tres Hermanos area should be designed so as to be a part of the Diamond Bar community, as well as compatible with the adjacent lands." -- "Maintain an organized pattern of land use which minimizes conflicts between adjacent land uses." -- "Require that new developments be compatible with surrounding land uses' — "Prohibit the development of adjacent land uses with significantly different intensities." —'Require that new developments be designed so as to respect the views of the existing developments." -- "Preserve significant visual features... with an emphasis on the preservation of remaining natural hillside areas." — "Require that dwelling units and structures within hillside areas be sited... to provide maximum concealment of cut slopes." ="Require that new dwelling units, structures and landscaping be sited in a manner which... protects views for existing development... [and] preserves mature trees, natural hydrology, native plant materials, and areas of visual interest" These and related prior commitments by the City of Diamond Bar will necessitate the following undesirable actions that will need to be taken if the low-income, high density housing is developed at the currently proposed site: • Exemptions to the City's General Plan, including the strategy identified in the Circulation Element to "minimize impacts of roadways serving the Diamond Ranch high school site on surrounding residential neighborhoods" and provisions for requiring that housing construction is "consistent with the landscape", thereby resulting in adverse impacts on traffic circulation in the adjacent neighborhoods. Page 14 o As such, the EIR for the school states that: "Although some streets in this neighborhood [west and southwest of the high school] were 'stubbed out' poss to permit road extensions to future development (e.g., Deepsprings Road), the added). It is further stated: and vandalism" (emphasis added). o In addition, the percent increase in the volume to capacity ratio of traffic would be much greater with west side access than with east side access connected to Chino Hills Parkway. • Exemptions to the City's hillside ordinances. • Exemptions to the County's oak tree ordinances. • Exemptions to the mitigation measures in the Diamond Ranch High School EIR. • Exceptions to various City resolutions pertaining to this matter. Accordingly, Sec. 65860 of the State zoning laws states that "(a) County or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan of the county or city..." and further that "(b) Any resident or property owner within a city or a county, as the case may be, may bring an action or proceeding in the superior court to enforce compliance with subdivision (a)." In conclusion... It is utterly inconceivable that this one site being proposed is literally the only place in Diamond Bar available to do this project, especially in light of the fact that some 700 acres of undeveloped land in the Tres Hermanos Ranch is within the City limits. In this regard, the comment made by City representatives at the'scoping meeting that this proposed location is 'the only available opportunity" is completely absurd. Who will bear the financial accountability for the cost of performing an EIR for a location that can be seen to be clearly inappropriate in advance? Surely there is lower cost dirt on more level ground somewhere else within the city. Finally, because this EIR will be prepared under the CEQA process, as required, then a full and thorough analysis of all other alternative locations is a mandatory requirement of the City. Thanks again for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, rran M. McGurty 24419 Top Ct., Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 860-2295 mcourty(a)roadrunner.com Page 15 H z W 2 H K Q w m 0 Z Z Lu ¢O ❑ J w LL }O}o FY z 7 O U z W U' J M_ C) r 2 U 'm o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N M N N N N N ILam. o wo 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m _ 3 .2 3 .3333 •3 -ro U� I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 I 0 •a •n •a m a a n o. M U @ d @ Y @ O U S 2 m N d m CL n. aEL - E E E E EoU E OUE C G C C C C C M O O O O O O O O N a m d d m m - -_ O D o O o o O C C O C C O C e O C e 0-.0 C C C G O C C O - C r C iw 9E LE€ CL a o 0 0 o op �- U ¢ Q t m O O L O C Y ❑ Y @ C d C O. 16 j U O N @ x > v ' O a rz IL c7 c7 z z z z a a z c7 � z z z m v m e 'C N 10 :. N NO r m r N O M N Xk O N M N N_ ik M N J M_ M N 2 N N N IL _ U 0 a a a U N e IL O_ d U d a a a F o fEL a K K K Q j w Ir K ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ ❑ LU N W ❑ O IL' IL LU _ i W @ o U U dN 0 d c d Z o o o o v_ v o 416 '� 0 n '@ '� y Q m 0 to v icix o OD'@ � E v 0 >_ E J w m >@ > 6 m a> aoi c~7 aoi o 0 0 c c c@ - _ O .@ Y C- E E WO WO "1 @- T - l6 T B e IC T@ a .@ G L_ E ' U O J e >@ LL � a a e W e I- N O @@ G_ Q N I IL d E N N N D. @ Q It N U U @ ❑ 'n N C d e N d e L c_ Z 2 O O 3 ._ (A Z m 0 Q] ,O m O m C m m 0 U N i. Z O L M= ? ? W D �O :O r 'O -o O .O O .Y N `m (D.W O p N 3 m m n J i r o Na N a NQ o N NZ O z w _ m NQ Na N v Na M@ �-- ,NV m N¢ `z 6. U Q d �a z W U' J N m a U a C C C C C C C C C C C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 0 m m m rn rn m m rn m m m m rn m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 C C C C C C C C C C C C Omm C O C O O O O O O O Omm O O mO ryOry n a n n a a n n a -�: n m a m a m n m n m m m m m m m m m m _ m d v m m m m m d d m m m m E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 0 0 0 o O o 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 U U U C U C U G V C U C C C C C C C C C C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O a D D a D a a D a a a m D 0 Da v m CD m d m d d m 0m d •o •o 0 0 0 0 3 •0 0 0 0o00 3 0 C C C C C C C C m > C C O C C O C C O C C O C C O C C O C C O > C C O C C O C C O O O O O C 'r c a� a° a� aw a° a° aw no .Qo ao a C Q C a C a C ¢ C Q C ¢ C Q C Q C Q C a C Q C Q C Q C I I C U . Q n o E o o c = } 1 L o 0 C C I U > n m U a c N m N J N L m m N 'O C O l0 N I F a � ❑ U ❑ (n ❑ w Y � H � F- H In U) HI- z z z z z 2 02Z z z z c9 2 z z z a.- � N O - N co M LL' N N M O O ik C7 O N6 m O Q N N N M cu O CL a L) U LL a a ate. LL a a oc: x a ❑ C7 a Of U v � U V C C C r N D D a 0 m O N 0 N U C D > N N m N N N a) U G �V.. U ry U .� -> -o m �y. v >v o m m w m Ir W m w m D m o Co a 3 LL LL N O CN = Y N Y— _ _ E m > m C c c Op -p m > m a> O m N O 0 m C— m C— C— E n' - E E o m I� E m m d C d'- N E 4° m a`� LL a C O .- D C O o E= �a O m c ._ O U d N E c ,}4 c d ._ m - c O ._ cn m c c J C w J C a D 'k° m O LL d 0 IL E U w U mm 0 E o Ea ❑ o E m E $ d m mo c Y 0 r 3 rno mo rnm (7 6 o m m- m m `m - •` N o '. m a D '� v« m h Z ❑ ❑ U e U (LJ N O U N ❑ in N O (n U N M-• O O �. m O O N O K fn Z o o m N m In 3 1� 3 o d'v o rn'v c7 N d c� w D v a OD l0 D v3 o 0 m 3 o m rn �. W o a3i NZ a NQ c00n rz O.z c7 OLL o OU a3i �Z 1� m aoz m .pz D y.Q N D 0¢ N m N NQ N Cl)Q N m N NZI N a Z d Q. r N N C7 (O N N U Z O O r m w rn c N d E 0 2 `m c J U CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: On August 13, 2013, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular session at 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On August 9, 2013, 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 21800 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 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 August 9, 2013, at Diamond Bar, California. ella Marquez Community Development Department CDAzste11 a\aftidavitposting.doc VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: l TO: Planning Commission DATE: SPEAKER (�f KlAAAF• ADDRESS: O C U�Y'()l.CivICQ (Please print clearly) - I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above tat 'te Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above Sig a Note: This form is intended to assist the Chairman in en ring t t all ersons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and ns re correct spelling of names in the Minutes. After completion, .please submit your form to the Planning Commission Secretary. Thank you. C0 VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: I t� SUBJECT: )003-21)tq gags(K R,,` TO: Planning Commission SPEAKER. (Please print cle y) . 2(Pleo2- (Please ase print clearly) DATE: ? q/n/0 I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address asprinted above Signature JIV Note: This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. r After completion, .please submit your form to the Planning Commission Secretary. Thank you. � a VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: l ° 1 SUBJE, TO: Planning Commission SPEAKER. f NAME: 0b&) �DV l ah (Please print clearly) (- �1 j� (� 7 ADDRESS: `A o lZs rel is or � 0 tO1/LP� C � -L ( G 6 (Please print clearly) l would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please pave the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed abov 0- L�-� Si 5nature Note: This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. After completion, .please submit your form to the Planning Commission Secretary. Thank you. IV VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: SUBJECT: 400SIy\�s 6:( -en' -QA+ v n n ct�az� TO: Planning Commission DATE: SPEAKER. NAME: lease print clearly) U • �o lease print clearly) L7�S� I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above Signature Note: This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. After completion, .please submit your form to the Planning Commission Secretary. Thank you VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITE TO: Planning Commission SPEAKER �!' NAME: (Please print clearly ADDRESS: & (Please print clearh SUBJECT: h Zen `� DATE: 9-13-13 l�A 1Au 60Gt/ 1pZ14Zi5 I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above Signature Note: This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. After completion, .please submit your form to the Planning Commission Secretary. Thank you. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM:_ SUBJECT: TO: Planning Commission SPEAKER NAME: ADDRESS DATE:' I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above Signature 4 Note: This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. 7 After completion, .please submit your form to the Planning Commission Secretary. Thank you. �" A) VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: _ SUBJECT:4DuJtH M-ei7en4 TO:. Planning Commission SPEAF NAME FWA I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above Signature Note: This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. After completion,.please submit your form to the Planning Commission Secretary. Thank you. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: 7.1 SUBJECT:"�^�3 TO: Planning Commission SPEAKER` MV /t NAME:_ l (Please print clearly) ADDRESS: ZO A\� 1c (Please print clearly) DATE: 0/(3 I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above ySigni ture Note: This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity to do so, and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes.