Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/04/2019MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 4, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Barlas called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Mahlke led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Kenneth Mok, William Rawlings, Vice -Chair Frank Farago and Chair Naila Barlas Staff present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; May Nakajima, Associate Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. Consultants present: Gina Kotos, Assistant Planner, Dyett & Bhatia Urban and Regional Planners; Steve Nelson, ESA Project Consultant; Paul Herrmann, P.E., Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes —Special Meeting —October 30, 2019: C/Rawlings moved, C/Mok seconded, to approve Consent Calendar Item 4.1 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll CaII vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke, Mok, Rawlings, VC/Farago, Chair/Barlas NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Diamond Bar Comprehensive General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and recommended the following: That the Planning Commission adopt resolutions recommending the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, prepare and adopt the Statement of Overriding Conditions, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Diamond Bar General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan; that the City Council adopt the Diamond Bar General Plan Update and that the City Council adopt the Diamond Bar Climate Action Plan. Chair/Barlas opened the public hearing. Robert Cruz, Public Affairs Manager, Southern California Gas Company, referring to a letter submitted to the Commission, requested that the Climate Action Plan promote balanced energy solutions that include renewable natural gas. Robert Hamilton, biologist, said he prepared a biological resources report on behalf of a group of residents that the City's consultants incorporated into the EIR for the General Plan. He commented that Figure 5.4 in the final EIR showed basically no special status species anywhere within the City limits which was not consistent with what he showed in his report and what was entered into online database that consultants would normally access as doing basic research for this kind of project. He recorded approximately 15 different species he and others personally documented within the City limits within the last few years which he said he would do in another submission to the City. He pointed out that while he appreciates that several of the items from his report were recorded in the City's report, he thought his approach to large- scale planning was more conducive to looking at the whole and seeing different parts of it and then trying to see how the City could plan so that in 2040 when the City is doing this again, it does not find it has all been done in a piecemeal way. To do that, he mapped out the open spaces and characterized their resources and what kind of protective overlays could be developed so that the City could see how they fit together and try to avoid the DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION kind of project by project planning that does not lend itself as well toward conserving the ecological values of the whole. The response to that approach from the City was the establishment of biological protection overlays goes well beyond the scope of the General Plan and while it is acknowledged that such overlays are useful in the design of projects, they are more appropriate to include at the specific planning stage after more detailed information about a project biological baseline is discovered and known. Having done this work for 30 years, his understanding was that cities devise overlays at the large scale planning stage, not for individual projects, which allows the individual project to be designed to make them consistent with large scale planning direction as identified in the General Plan, The City also said that when he presented this data on specific sightings of rare animals within the City, the response was that' presentation of data as suggested in the comment could lead to the interpretation that the existing sightings and records are the only place where special status species may occur. And he does not think that is what people think when a bird was seen "here" that it is the only place that bird could occur. His point is that the City's map shows nothing where actually, things have been documented and he felt it was misleading to show nothing versus showing what had been seen. Lee Paulson said that when he has addressed the Commission he has spoken about taking the time to get this right. He has said that it is his belief it is possible to find agreement so that everyone's issues get resolved in a good way and he has been summarily ignored. The City is poised to approve the General Plan and EIR documents presented by staff and for those who have spent the last several years studying and learning about what proper General Plans and EIRs should look like, what you have before you is an embarrassment. He could go well past his five minute allotment in discussing all of the things that are wrong with these documents and the process by which they were created so he opined a few highlights. The 1995 General Plan was filled with so much of what Council Members call "flexibility" that it allowed some horrendous developments, such as Millennium to be inflicted upon the City. The language haircut that was approved during the last joint meeting gives the City officials the same flexibility to keep inflicting this type of development upon the City for the next 20 years. The authors of the California General Plan Guidelines Manual addressed the issue of flexibility and said "for a policy to be useful as a guide to action, it must be clear and unambiguous. Adopting broadly drawn and vague policies is poor practice. Clear policies are particularly important when it comes to judging whether or not zoning decisions, subdivisions, public works projects, etc, are consistent with the General Plan. It is better to adopt no policy than to adopt a policy with no DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION backbone." Could it be possible that the folks who wrote the manual knew what they were doing? How is it that the Planning Commission and City Council seem to think that they know more about General Plan language than the people that wrote the manual about how language should be written? One hundred and seventy-two policy changes meet any definition of significant for which CEQA require a new 45-day comment period which did not happen. In addition, the study sessions were scrubbed from the City event portal. The process was flawed that he can only shake his head and the question the Planning Commission must answer now and live with, is how does the Planning Commission wish to be remembered? When you sign off on these documents, they become yours. But, you have the power to slow the process down and get more input and get it right. The question is, is there the courage to do so? The language is just the tip of the iceberg. Others went into more detail about the environmental issues and from their perspective, the entire EIR meets the State Is definition of fundamentally and basically inadequate because a proper EIR is supposed to allow the facts to determine the best alternative. Diamond Bar's EIR is backward. It starts with a pre -supposed conclusion and bends the facts to meet that conclusion. In addition, the alternatives offered are not feasible because the golf course is still in operation. A 20-year plan cannot base alternatives on the fantasy that the county is going to give Diamond Bar the golf course land. All attempts to bring this up during GPAC meetings were blown up. From all appearances, these documents do not represent the citizens of the City. Grace Lim -Hayes said she attended several GPAC meetings and participated in the public discourse as well as, the opportunity to comment on the General Plan Update and she hopes her comments can still make a difference in continuing to improve a document that meets the goals of the community. Throughout the General Plan process, the residents of Diamond Bar have strongly expressed their desire to protect and preserve the valuable ecological resources of Tres Hermanos. While the City has expressed it shares this goal, so far the General Plan and Draft EIR as written, does not prevent its development. The Diamond Bar portion of Tres Hermanos is currently designated as a planning area which would allow development as currently described in the General Plan Land Use Element. The only thing necessary to develop this area is a plan, according to California Code 65640. Moreover, the language of the deed restriction allows its use as "open space, public use or preservation" and she is concerned that the language of "public use" can be defined as any development considered beneficial by the City. During the last General Plan Housing Element update in 2014, the City designated 16 acres of Tres Hermanos as High Density housing to satisfy SCAG and meet HCD's DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION requirements. During the next update in 2022, more development could be allowed in Tres Hermanos to address the housing shortage. According to City officials, the State will not count infill development toward meeting the City's fair -share of housing. Tres Hermanos can be spared development if tonight it is designated as open space. During the last GPAC meetings, public discourse and deliberation involving Tres Hermanos was not allowed due to pending litigation. We now insist this be discussed and deliberated thoughtfully before approving the General Plan and urge the Planning Commission to formally designate Tres Hermanos as Open Space to reflect the will of the people and provide clear direction for the future of Diamond Bar. Robin Smith stated that the Diamond Bar General Plan and EIR documents as offered at this hearing are a disappointment. Overall, it displays information that is vague, fragmented, erroneous and curiously different than scientific standard definitions used by the established ecological monitoring community and state and federal conservation agencies. Standardized specific language in natural resources conservation is important to define. This language needs to be specific in order to defend, protect, and restore natural communities. The language and descriptions used in the Diamond Bar Resource Conservation chapter in the FEIR are inconsistent with standards such as the following specific items. The vegetation communities in 5.2 are still a little wonky because they seem to insist that the dominant tree species in the City is walnut when it is oak. At the very least, the legend should state oaks/walnut woodlands or maybe mixed hardwood. It should match one of the copies she attached to her comments. Another example is Sycamore Canyon Park is depicted as coast live oak woodlands in the legend but what is missing is the sycamore trees. The attached USGS map identifies Sycamore Canyon as a riparian habitat. She asked why the ESA designations were confusing and inconsistent with the authority source. The City has received numerous reports of the gnatcatcher and she does not see that in the revisions which, in her opinion, is a significant find and she is concerned that these findings of a federally protected species is being ignored. Item #4 in the 7.1 comments states that the revision comments claim that the map changes do not change the environmental conclusions which she said is a false statement. Please consider the following: Incorrect information can lead to many expensive problems including potential litigation. Misidentifying existing conditions of natural communities contribute to mistakes in conservation planning causing degradation, conversion or loss of a natural system. She opined that the Sycamore Canyon erosion repair project is not a good thing. The erosion repair is fine, but it has replaced an authentic Sycamore riparian watershed with ornamental landscape which is invasive. Almost an acre's worth of the DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION acacia redolens is planted on the hillside which, in her opinion, is not a good thing. She spoke with the City about this and no one would commit to replacing the oak trees, willow trees and other plant community that goes on that slope which means this natural habitat, bringing down the biodiversity level and causing other damages in Sycamore Canyon Park is being degraded. She appreciates consideration of these matters before approval of a flawed document. Douglas Barcon cited California Government Code Section 65302(f) requires each city to include a Noise Element in its General Plan. This is addressed in the Public Safety section of the Draft General Plan, specifically in Section 7.8. Noise sources should include passenger and freight railroad operations. As per the Draft General Plan, the noise element is required to map noise level contours such that it may be used as a basis for land use decisions and should include noise mitigation strategies. The City overlooked that the Union Pacific rail line by the Transit -Oriented Mixed Use area near Brea Canyon Road continues eastward along Ferrero Parkway in the City of Industry and through the Lanterman property past the nearby homes along the route near the ballfield. The eastward portion of the rail line slipped through the cracks and was not included in the Draft General Plan or in the EIR. The City concentrated on the TOD Mixed Use area and ignored the rest. Those rail lines are used for heavy freight and Metrolink. The City's reply to his EIR comment on railroad noise only noted Metrolink, which is a minor source of railroad noise. It did not address the significant number of allowed heavy freight trains traveling to and from the Long Beach and Los Angeles harbors heading to or from areas of the entire country. Although he provided sound measurement levels from the residential area near Prospectors Road and Sunset Crossing Road these levels appear to have been ignored, and there was no noise contour shown on maps for that residential area. The noise contours in figure 7-11 on existing noise contours 2016 address only road and highway noise and were not updated to include other areas in figure 7-12, projected noise contours 2040. The projected 2040 noise contours show a decrease in noise levels on the roadways and highways. Further, the City's response to his comments stated "ambient noise measurements were conducted for the General Plan Update to characterize the general ambient noise environment in the program area, however, not for impact assessment in the program EIR. Mr. Barcon asked if the EIR was meant to include impacts. Draft EIR, Page 3.10-25 regarding impacts discussed on a qualitative basis, he provided sound levels from specific noise sources and he believes such sound level measurement levels or official sound level measurements should be included in the EIR and the General Plan. Policy PS-P-52 cited in the City's DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION response to his Draft EIR comments is specific to highways and freeways, not railroads. Policy PS-P-52 addresses railroads and mitigation of railroad noise by implementation of a quiet zone and other methods, but it does not mean much if the area is not recognized as having a noise problem. A railroad quiet zone will have no impact other than stopping locomotive horns on the area addressed in his Draft EIR comments. Where horns are allowed, they are of much shorter duration than noise from locomotives and rolling stock. Moreover, the 1995 Diamond Bar General Plan did not address this in any depth. Since the noise contour maps in the current Draft EIR did not address the railroad noise he noted in his comments, it is as if the City does not recognize the area around Sunset Crossing Road and Prospectors Road as having a problem with railroad noise even though it has been about 25 years since the 1995 General Plan. He asked the Planning Commission and City to look further into how to handle the noise issue that has not been addressed. Gregg Fritchle, a resident of Walnut, has relatives who moved to Diamond Bar in 1969, 20 years prior to incorporation. Back then, nearly all of what is now the City of Diamond Bar was open space, and a lot of the highways did not exist at that time. He is present this evening to agree with concerns expressed by other speakers regarding the continuing designation of the Diamond Bar portion of the Tres Hermanos ranch as keeping open the possibility of development, that it needs to be protected and designated as open space. There has been damage to the wildlife corridor that passes through the property and the cities are suffering the effects because the wildlife are now migrating through residential neighborhoods. In response to comments made by the SoCalGas employee, he argued that the term "renewable natural gas" is a misleading concept. All of the gas that is trapped underground is finite and not renewable. The only truly renewable natural gas is that which is regurgitated by cattle. The other argument that underground natural gas is not as subject to environmental impacts to the extent that electricity lines and storages are is refuted by Aliso Canyon where one can see evidence that this is not true. This is an effort by gas company lobbyists to go around the State and lobby for local support for a resolution that would essentially water down the 100 percent clean renewable energy provisions of SB100. They have gone from city to city including Diamond Bar and Walnut and unfortunately, both cities have given blessing to their resolution without thinking it through. He asked that as several people have pointed out, the Commission recognize that the information being provided does not present all of the facts and he encouraged the City to examine all of the facts carefully and closely before a decision is made. He hopes that when the decision is made it will protect the open space in Tres Hermanos and renew the City's commitment to 100% Clean Renewable Energy. DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Barlas closed the public hearing. C/Rawlings thanked the consultants and staff for their work on these documents. He has been in the City for quite a long time and has seen different iterations of plans, and this discussion captures a lot of concerns people have had over the years. He asked about the gnatcatcher and documents from the Fish and Wildlife Service indicating they have spotted gnatcatchers, and about the possibility of capturing that information in this document. CDDlGubman explained that in the Draft EIR there is a table that acknowledges there have been several recent sightings of the gnatcatcher within the study area and it provides localized sighting areas where those observations were made. C/Mahlke asked about the land use designation for Tres Hermanos which she understands involves other jurisdictions and she would like to know if there is a way to handle that situation with staff providing education on what the Commission's options might be. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Mahlke that the Commission could include in its recommendation to the City Council to designate it as "Open Space" but there are issues to consider, one of which is that in the successful effort to prevent the solar farm from gaining traction, the Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority was reformulated and rebooted to include voting members on the Authority from the cities of Industry (the owner of the real property), Chino Hills and Diamond Bar, The Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority is the custodian of the land and they will be the planning agency that will guide the efforts. The Authority has expressed pretty clearly that development is not something they are interested in. Their interest is to create opportunities for access through trail planning and preservation of the natural features and possibly even finding opportunities to establish mitigation banks within the acreage of Tres Hermanos to restore habitat that other developments have taken. The other issue is that there is still pending litigation. San Gabriel Water and Power is suing the Authority and the individual cities, and Diamond Bar has been advised to not address land use planning issues such as Land Use designations while there is pending litigation. C/Mok asked if the seven member governing board of directors is in place within the Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority with two councilmembers from Chino Hills, two councilmembers from Diamond Bar and three councilmembers from the City of Industry who each have one vote in case a project were to be introduced in the future. DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman said he is not certain how the votes are weighted, but the makeup is as stated by C/Mok so that Chino Hills and Diamond Bar would have a majority vote if they were at odds with the City of Industry, for example. C/Rawlings said he has spent a considerable amount of time over the years with regard to Tres Hermanos. Conservation has been a passion of his for the time he has lived in Diamond Bar and he is fairly satisfied with the level of current protection given by the deed restrictions, primarily because the Conservation Authority is already in the JPA and the intent there and the reason the Authority was founded and the Board was set up, in order to preserve the gains that have been made, the only way that the City could gain stronger protection is having the State of California or Federal Government intervene in the use of that land which he does not believe will happen anytime soon. He looks forward to seeing how the pending litigation gets resolved and regarding it being designated as a "planning area", he would prefer that it be designated as a planning area rather than naming a certain type of use for it because that certain type of use would drive the agenda for whatever development that might be. Open Space may be an option, but that may undo some of the work that has already been done. C/Rawlings heard Mr. Paulson from Responsible Land Use talking about the language being more specific rather than being more flexible which he hears and understands. His response to that is, with the language being as it is currently, it would not create a problem for the City to have more restrictive and specific Zoning Codes, regulations and site specific requirements. He asked if that was correct. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Rawlings that he was correct. When the Development Code is updated it will have specific development standards and restrictions that are regulatory. C/Rawlings said that while he would prefer more specific language throughout the document as the staff and GPAC had created, he will focus on making sure that the code language provides the enforcement that is intended. As the City creates these topical documents that have an extended life and it is really mportant for everyone involved to hold the City Council and Planning Commission responsible for making the right decision on how the Zoning Code is developed, what kind of development is allowed and, what the culture of the City really looks like. He believes the documents under consideration provide a good framework and as the discussion moves to the details, that is what everyone needs to pay attention to. DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Rawlings said that with respect to Mr. Barcon's concern about the noise component, he would like for staff to explain the process for determining where the City chose to include data on the noise component versus not doing so around the rail traffic. Is there a reason why there was not more detail included about how the City responds to how it can mitigate the noise. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Rawlings that the answer is that the noise readings were taken along City surface streets and not the freeway or the railroad. He believes the investment in taking the noise measurements along the City surface streets is very informative because the noise levels along Grand Avenue and some segments of Diamond Bar Boulevard are surprisingly higher than one would intuitively think, which is important when the City continues to have infill and other types of development occur to know what those noise levels are that one normally assumes are only along the freeways. Having said that, any general plan that does include freeways in its noise contours at the freeway right-of-way line would find 70 to 75 decibels. And, staff knows that development adjacent to the freeway is subject to noise analysis. In fact, moving on to the railroad noise, the General Plan does include some very specific language with regard to the Transit -Oriented Development Mixed Use District and its adjacency to the railway (Page 7-41 of the Public Safety Element). It states that noise impacts from the railway will need to be considered as the Transit -Oriented Mixed Use area is developed, particularly with respect to sensitive receptors. The freeway noise and the railway noise is addressed explicitly in the General Plan document, but would it have been nice to also have those noise contours delineated on that map? Yes, and at some point it will be a business decision to have a map that is based on technically valid information to add those contours, but it is also the case that there is policy language and analysis in the General Plan and it is obvious to a reasonable person that development adjacent to those noise sources will have to be addressed when the City is planning developments within those proximities. C/Mok asked if the Planning Commission was supposed to discuss the specific changes that were made from the Draft General Plan to the one being considered this evening as part of tonight's agenda. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Mok that the Planning Commission's recommendation would be whether to accept those changes. During the October 8th Study Session, in response to the comments and direction staff received at the September 25th Study Session, staff provided redline strikeout versions of all of those policies that were of concern to the Planning DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission and City Council. The feedback received after the October 8'h meeting was that the changes staff drafted were acceptable to the joint body and as a result, staff incorporated them into the General Plan document with one exception. Staff reverted back to the policy language related to electric vehicle charging stations to say that the City will develop requirements for projects to incorporate accommodations for electric vehicles, which is consistent with the mitigations in the EIR and with the Climate Action Plan. C/Mahlke referred to Chapter 51 Page 5 29, figure 5.4 and said it shows a map where the coastal California gnatcatcher may or may not be located in Diamond Bar's areas of interest, which indicates to her that it puts the gnatcatcher under "special status animals" in the General Plan Update. Because it has been designated as a "special status animal", is there another layer that needs to happen to make sure it is protected or to ensure that the information the Commission has recently received from the California Fish and Wildlife has been represented well in the General Plan Update. Gina Kotos responded to C/Mahlke that information about the gnatcatcher's critical habitat is located on Page 3.3-12 of the Draft EIR, on Page 3.3-15, and is also included in Table 3.3-4 titled "Special Status Animal -Wildlife Species occurring or potentially occurring within the Planning Area" and the records column on the back states "several recent recorded occurrences in the study area at Summitridge and Pantera Parks, Steep Canyon and the hills south of Diamond Bar Ranch High School - high potential and sage scrub habitats; and, also provided in Table 3.3-5 titled "Focus Habitat Evaluations of Surveys" it states there is a high potential for occurrence, which is included as part of Mitigation Measure Bio-1f for impacts 3.3-1. C/Mahlke said she believed some of this information mimics what was recorded in the Hamilton Report as well with respect to location and Ms. Kotos responded "yes". Steve Nelson responded that with respect to C/Mahlke's question regarding whether there were additional things that had to be done to preserve and protect the animal, first, there was a question about critical habitat and Critical Habitat is a Federal designation that is mapped by the Federal Government to ensure the recovery of the species. At this point, there is no Federal Critical Habitat designated in Diamond Bar. That does not mean that the habitat in which the gnatcatcher occurs in Diamond Bar is not regulated. It is regulated under the Endangered Species Act under Section 7 and Section 10, Section 7 of that Act is if somebody has a Federal action that they are proposing — for DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION instance, should someone propose to fill or remove something from a federally jurisdictional wetlands, they can go through Section 7. And the Army Corps of Engineers has to go to the US Fish and Wildlife Service to do a Section 7 consultation to ensure that the gnatcatcher is not going to be adversely affected. If there is no Federal action required, then the proposal has to go through a Section 10, which is the Habitat Conservation Plan fore the gnatcatcher. So, the gnatcatcher, as far as the City is concerned, other than making sure as it says in the EIR, anytime you get into such a project or you project any removal of impacts to its habitat (Coastal Sage Scrub), surveys must be done. Other than that, it is a federal action after that point in time. There was never an attempt to diminish the gnatcatcher as occupying habitat in Diamond Bar. The second thing to remember is that there is a reason it was not mapped. These are birds and they fly. And they have obviously flown from either Bonelli or from the Puente Hills into Diamond Bar and now occupy the habitat. And if you start specifying where exactly they are found as opposed to saying what was said in the EIR that anytime you are involved in Coastal Sage Scrub you have to do surveys for the gnatcatcher, it might mislead the naive person to think that well, it's not been found here so we can do whatever we want in this area. That is not the case and that is not what the EIR says. C/Rawlings felt it would be helpful to further discuss how the City has talked about the need to do specific surveys when it has projects coming up and how it means doing something site specific because he believes a lot of the "active" protection of species is going to occur when we have the site specific surveys. To that end, he asked that staff offer an explanation about what happens when a proposed project comes into City Hall and what steps are taken to ensure that the proper surveys are being conducted. CDD/Gubman explained that if a project such as the recent Hampton Inn project is presented to the City, the City hires a consultant to do the environmental analysis and based on their expertise and site conditions such as freeway adjacency it requires comments from Caltrans. There were other issues set forth in CEQA about light and shadow impacts, noise impacts, traffic intersection impacts, and so forth. Through staff's knowledge and understanding of the planning process and through working with the environmental experts that the City enlists, staff moves through that analysis process. When a project that may be more relevant to the subject matter under discussion such as the currently vacant land at the south end of Crooked Creek where there was previously a subdivision approved which expired, the current owners are interested in proceeding with a new subdivision proposal DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION and that project will be subject to an Environmental Impact Report. There has been observation of a species of Special Status Animal (bird) called the least Bell's vireo that was encountered during the Edison overhead line project in Tonner Canyon and as a result, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is already aware and concerned about that. There are woodlands on the property and there are a whole host of other potential environmental sensitivities associated with that site. So, as part of the EIR, the scope of work is going to include surveys for certain special status plant species that occur during certain times of the year when per protocol, that is when the survey for that plant species is done and gnatcatcher surveys would be part of that survey as well, and other indicators based on the plant communities in that area that would support certain types of plant or animal species would be part of that biological impact analysis component of the EIR and would be subject to public review, and review by California Fish and Wildlife. And because the property is in the vicinity of Brea Canyon Creek, there is potential Army Corps of Engineers interest in that site. It will be subject to the EIR process and the public review process, and it will go through the state, and the State Clearing House will also make decisions on who should be reviewing the Draft EIR. And the engaged public will look at the document very closely as well and will zero in on those site specific potential impacts. Steve Nelson stated that initially, before an EIR is determined to be needed, CEQA requires that an initial study be done that follows Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. One of the questions of the six or seven that are included regarding biological resources is, "could the project have an effect on any listed or special status species" so before a decision is made about an EIR, the applicant would have to come in to the City with his initial study and typically, that is going to involve a study by a biologist to determine what is on site, what could be on site and what might be effected by it. And that is the early warning position that makes the City aware that there is an issue. Plus, the City has the General Plan and the policies and mitigation measures required therein. So it is not something that can be overlooked. C/Mok said that he received a document this afternoon that referred to the project at Sycamore Canyon Park and it was noted that in the repair of the slope that some oak trees were removed or had fallen as a result of the storm and water runoff. What disturbed him was the notation that several City staff were quoted to have said that "oak trees were not protected" and that "they were removed with no permits and no replacement of nAtive vegetation and, that the area is classified as Sycamore riparian". He asked staff to respond to those comments. DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION Steve Nelson stated that oak trees, as an individual species, are not protected. The City has a Tree Ordinance that governs the permit requirements and replacement of trees that are removed of a certain size. There is a State law about the conservation of oak woodlands that has to be recognized. And this was made clear in the EIR that in addition, you cannot just take out a bunch of oak trees and say that because you are going to meet the City's requirements that that action has mitigated that to less than significant. You also have to consider the taking of the oak woodlands and what that is going to do from a long-term conservation and preservation standpoint. But as an individual species, no, the oak tree is not protected. C/Mahlke said that in the letter received from Robin Smith, she stated that when Sycamore Canyon Park erosion repair was done the idea that she promoted was that the erosion repair project replaced a certain type of vegetation with other vegetation that was going to be detrimental to that entire area — that it was going to take over and erode everything and it did not speak to the nature of what that land was supposed to do in terms of supporting the biodiversity. C/Mahlke asked what in the document protects this from happening. Steve Nelson said he could not speak to the actions of the City because he was not involved in the project, but the EIR is pretty specific about replacing native vegetation and habitat with native vegetation and habitat. From the standpoint of a private development, they are required to adhere to those mitigation measures. The City may have felt it was necessary to put in something that would better protect the slope against future floods. He was not involved in that as it was not part of the General Plan Update, but it is taken care of in the EIR in the General Plan policies as something that needs to be done moving forward into the future. C/Mahlke asked if the City was due to update any of the plans in terms of protective trees and environment, etc. The Housing Element update is in 2020 and she agrees with C/Rawlings that some of this is bigger and more detailed at the more expert level between the staff and Commissioners who have an understanding of those types of updates. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Mahlke that the City has to undertake a comprehensive Development Code update. To implement the General Plan, the City also has to update its zoning regulations, and tree preservation and protection which is an entire chapter in the Code. Chair/Barlas said she is aware that once this moves to the City Council, the next step for the Commission is to move forward with the zoning codes, Development Code, etc., and she wondered if staff had set a timeline for these updates. DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman explained that staff has to move forward with the Housing Element next in order to get it completed and submitted on time. The schedule has not yet been set for update of the Codes and Ordinances. Chair/Barlas asked for an explanation of the General Plan change from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Commercial along Diamond Bar Boulevard, south of Sunset Crossing. CDD/Gubman responded to Chair/Barlas that the Neighborhood Mixed -Use District is shown in pink on the illustrations on the screen. The district in the public review draft Land Use Plan extended from Highland Valley Road on the north to the eastbound SR60 off ramp on the south so it jumped Sunset Crossing Road to those properties on the south. Currently, those properties south of Sunset Crossing Road that are shown in pink on the left illustration are zoned General Commercial (GC) and at that corner is Wienerschnitzel. The property south of Wienerschnitzel site is, for the most part, a slope (hill) and homes on Decorah Road are on top of that hill. There is very little opportunity for development with very little flat area on the site, and given the topography and adjacency to the freeway off ramps, would be very unlikely that a building could be placed there because the building could not abut the street and it would lack parking etc. In addition, with the freeway off ramp there is no opportunity to turn left into that site which has physical barriers that are not conducive to being part of that neighborhood mixed use as envisioned. Therefore, there was agreement that it was unlikely that development on that site could meet those policies and objectives for what the City wanted as character for the Neighborhood Mixed -Use District. In short, it was, in the opinion of staff, more appropriate to keep the area as a commercial designation. CIRA ahlke moved, C/Rawlings seconded, to adopt the attached resolutions recommending the City Council Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, that they prepare and adopt the Statement of Overriding Conditions and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Diamond Bar General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan; that the City Council adopt the Diamond Bar General Plan Update and, that the City Council adopt the Diamond Bar Climate Action Plan, with the added recommendation to the City Council for special consideration of a zoning change for Tres Hermanos to a General Plan designation of Open Space when appropriate. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke, Mok, Rawlings, VC/Farago, Chair/Barlas NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATION ITEMS: C/Mok thanked staff for all of the time spent preparing all of this material and to his colleagues for reading it all. He especially thanked the public for their participation, many of whom were members of the GPAC. It has been repeated many times and bears repeating again, the amount of effort and time it took to contribute what these people have contributed to this document, which was no small task. What the Commission did in reading it was nothing compared to what all of the public and especially the GPAC members contributed. He appreciates everyone coming to the Commission to express their opinions and passions about certain things in the documents. C/Rawlings said the participation in this effort is such a testament to what makes our democracy work at the City level. Sometimes it feels like we don't make a difference, but he can say that having seen quite a number of participants at these meetings on a regular basis, they have and are really making a difference. While we do not always get to a point we want to reach, he believes that the City is at a very good place, especially around the idea of conservation and preservation of biodiversity. There is more work to do, especially when it comes to the details of the different codes and regulations, and he knows everyone will be engaged in that process as well. Thank you to everyone in the public for their participation and feedback and for doing their best to hold the City accountable by being made aware of the issues and concerns of the residents. This process helps inform staff and staff are here to serve and support the residents. And as we move forward, we need to stick with it and keep supporting staff in making Sure we are doing the right thing. C/Mahlke echoed her colleagues and said for those who are disappointed in the Commission or feel like the staff and Commissioners did not hold up their end of the bargain or didn't stand by them, it does not change the respect she has for members of the public who spoke out this evening. As a Cal Poly instructor who teaches argumentation advocacy, these participants are often times the examples she gives to her students about why learning how to publicly speak and be critical thinkers and come out and stand up for their beliefs is important and significant. What everyone says makes a difference. Whether the public knows that or not, it is important that she says it. What you say to Commissioners and staff educates us with your passion, and your experience makes a difference in the decisions the Commissioners and staff make. Thank you to the participants for their time and energy and thank you to staff for their time and energy. Chair/Barlas thanked staff and consultants and especially all of the speakers who spoke out this evening. C/Mahlke said it well that whatever the Commissioners hear from the public, they try their best to incorporate those things and the public's participation is very, very crucial to this process. She appreciates their engagement in the process. DECEMBER 4, 2019 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Project Status Report. CDD/Gubman stated that tonight was a Special Meeting and next Tuesday, December 10th will be the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting for which there are three public hearing items on the agenda — the proposed parking lot expansion to accommodate additional medical tenants at 750 N. Diamond Bar Boulevard, consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the Jasmine Restaurant to establish outdoor dining which requires a Variance, and a new custom home at 2244 Indian Creek in The Country Estates. The December 24th Planning Commission will be canceled. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Barlas adjourned the regular meeting at 8:31 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 14th day of January, 2020. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, f Greg Gubman Community Development Director Naila Barlas, Chairperson