Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/1993 Minutes - Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: MPT/Papen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by MPT/Papen. ROLL CALL: Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing and MacBride. Councilman Werner arrived at 7:05 p.m. M/Miller was excused from attending due to a perceived potential conflict of interest. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; William P. Curley III, Assistant City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; George Wentz, Interim City Engineer and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 2.1 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8 AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 91-2; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 - CDD/DeStefano presented a brief overview of the South Pointe Master Plan, utilizing slides to illustrate the area and the specific location of each of the proposed projects. The project represents a comprehensive land use planning effort for one of the remaining large undeveloped properties in the City which is owned by the following five land owners: RnP Development, owner of 78 acres (Vesting Tentative Tract 51407); Arciero and Sons, Inc., owner of 45 acres (Vesting Tentative Tract 32400); SASAK Corporation, owner of 7 acres (Vesting Tentative Tract 51253); the City of D.B., owner of 13.5 acres; and the Walnut Unified School District, who occupies approximately 30 acres within the center of the site. He introduced the following individuals retained by the City to participate in the review of this Plan: George Wentz, Interim City Engineer; Hardy Strozier, Project Manager, the Planning Associates; Peter Lewendowski, U1traSystems, for preparation of the EIR. The plan proposes a subdivision of an existing primarily undeveloped 171 acre site to accommodate the phased development of residential, commercial, SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 2 park, open space and school uses. Approximately 82 acres are proposed for construction of single family homes; approximately 30 acres proposed for commercial office development; 28 acres are proposed for a neighborhood public park site with both passive and active uses; with the remaining 31 acres proposed for construction of a permanent South Pointe Middle School. it is proposed to be developed over a ten year period and accommodate the land uses in a number of circulation and utility improvement systems in the immediate area. The project is broken up into five enclaves and through the Master Plan process, each enclave has a specific set of development standards and criteria. Each Vesting Tentative Map is incorporated within a specific enclave and must adhere to the standards that have been created for that enclave. He then described the specific components of each project as indicated in the staff report and represented on the graphics displayed. No specific plans have bee presented to the City for suggested land uses for the commercial area. He reported that the Master Plan project, representing a comprehensive land use planning approach, is a unique opportunity for the City to develop the 171 acre area. In order to accomplish the Master Plan, the property lines must be erased to create a variety of transfers between the five entities to create a better land use pattern for the future. Such transfers require the use of development agreements, which are a land planning contract between public and private agencies providing terms and conditions to provide assurances and commitments to both parties in terms of timing, compliance, implementation, etc. The Arciero project and the RnP project both have requested approval for the Development Agreement incorporating the following: a Hillside Management Ordinance, CUP and an Oak Tree Permit. The SASAK proposal, which does not contain a Development Agreement, contains a Hillside Management Ordinance, CUP and an Oak Tree Permit. The City's Hillside Management Ordinance requires a CUP for each of these Tentative Tract Maps because they all have sites that exceed 10% grade. The impact of the development in terms of grading has been analyzed within the EIR. The Oak Tree Permit is -- required by County Code for each project because each will cause the removal of oak trees that exceed the basic minimum threshold contained within the Ordinance. The details of the Oak Tree Inventory conducted for each of the sites are contained within the EIR. The Code requires that SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 3 all of the removed oak trees be replaced at a minimum 2:1 ratio. A summary of those replacement processes and a table illustrating the various sizes proposed are contained within the suggested list of conditions. Peter Lewendowski, Director of Planning for the Environmental Services Division of Ultra Systems, stated that his firm contracted with the City to prepare an independent environmental assessment of the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the construction and development of the South Pointe Master Plan project. He explained that CEQA requires governmental agencies who have authority over.particular projects to include an analysis of the project's impacts upon the environment. The city conducted an initial study for this project and concluded that the project implementation had the potential to result in significant impacts upon the environment. Based upon that conclusion, the City directed the preparation of an EIR. The intent of CEQA is to provide an environmental basis for the decision making process and to insure public access to the decision makers so as to insure a full disclosure of the project's potential impacts, potential alternatives that may produce lesser impacts and to identify and develop mitigation measures which might further reduce the impacts identified in the analysis and brought forward through public testimony. The Planning Commission, at their final hearing on May 24, 1993, recommended certification of the EIR as well as adoption of the Mitigation monitoring Reporting Program, Findings of Fact and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The following topical issues were addressed in the EIR: a geotechnical report; traffic studies; hydrology studies; biological assessment; noise and air quality studies. In addition to those independent studies, the following relevant documents were reviewed: the Final EIR on the City's General Plan; the Master Environmental Assessment and the Final EIR prepared by the Walnut Valley Unified School District for the South Point Middle School project. Mr. Lewendowski reported that the following project alternatives and mitigation measures were considered in compliance with CEQA: no project; project developed in full compliance with General Plan and zoning policies; a reduction in project SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 4 size, deleting one or more of the individual property owners; as project designed by which residential development was clustered in outlying areas; a maximum development; and Vesting Tentative Tract 51253 in isolation. Based on the assessment of those project alternatives, the EIR concluded that the "no project" alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed action and that the "clustered development alternative" would also be environmentally superior. In addition to the Response to Comment document and the Technical Appendix document, companions to the draft EIR, as detailed Springtime Survey was conducted to assess the existence of three potentially recurring plant species. The survey concluded that the three species examined did not exist on the project site. The Technical Appendix also brought forth the change in status of the California Gnatcatcher, recently elevated to a threatened status. He then explained that the Final EIR contains all the information derived from dialogue, the draft EIR and information that materialized through further analysis based upon public testimony. The EIR attempts to represent a non -biased, professional, technical opinion of the project's impacts to assist the decision makers to make a well-balanced, informed decision. The City can request further analysis as may be required. If the assisting environmental record is sufficient, the City must then certify the environmental analysis before taking action on a proposed project. In certifying the EIR, the City is not further obligated to take any particular action on the proposed project. The following three documents are presented that currently comprise the EIR: the Draft EIR: the Response to Comment and the Technical Appendix. If the Council elects to open the Public Hearing this evening and solicit additional oral and written testimony, the City will be required to prepare an additional Response to Comment document. CDD/DeStefano reported that the packet prepared for the City Council and the public incorporates the staff report, the executive summaries of the EIR process and Planning Commission's actions, staff reports and minutes of each meeting, all -- Resolutions that the Planning Commission forwarded to the City Council for consideration, maps of the project sites, copies of the legal notice provided for the Public Hearings and all of the documents outlined by Mr. Lewendowski. He stated that the legal notice for the Hearing was mailed and SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 5 published over 30 days prior to this meeting. Notices were mailed to all property owners resident within 500 feet of the project's boundaries. In addition, several hundred interested parties on the city's mailing list also received notices. There have also been several newspaper articles in both the Bulletin and the Tribune describing this proposal. Jan Dabney, Senior Consultant for RnP and Arciero & Sons, Inc., explained that Mr. Forrester and Mr. Arciero could not attend this meeting due to unavoidable circumstances. It was believed that the meeting was to be a staff presentation addressing the environmental considerations for the project. He requested that the developers be allowed to save their presentation for the Master Plan and the development consideration until the next meeting. James Budke stated that he, too, was not prepared to give a presentation at this meeting. He suggested that it would be more appropriate if all the developers made presentations at the same time since all projects are related. MPT/Papen stated that Public Hearing comments will focus on the EIR and discussion on the Development Agreements and the Master Plan will be held the next meeting. C/Werner suggested that since it was anticipated that the developers would be giving a presentation along with staff and that the EIR was not to be discussed at this meeting, perhaps it would be appropriate to hold all discussion until the next meeting. MPT/Papen stated that since all the necessary information had been provided, there is no reason why the Council cannot proceed with opening the Public Hearing on the EIR and receive public testimony at this time. C/Werner, noting that it was indicated in the staff report that Vesting Tract Map 51407 proposes to supersede provisions of Tract Maps 32576 and 35742, inquired if staff provided notification to the benefactors of the previous subdivision as required by the subdivision map Act, when provisions of a previous subdivision are modified. ACA/Curley explained that staff believes that the City's notification procedures were accurate. However, the procedure will be verified and if it SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 6 was not done accurately, renoticing will be recommended. C/MacBride expressed support of proceeding with the Public Hearing on the EIR. MPT/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Joyce Hill, 1836 Shaded Wood Rd., expressed opposition to the project as currently proposed. She stated that many citizens desire the remaining canyons and wilderness areas to remain. People who purchased homes in the Sandstone Canyon area were told that the property would remain open space. The Council needs to consider other possibilities for the area with less damage to the environment, such as a museum, trails, an observatory, etc. As elected officials, the Council should do everything possible to protect the citizens. Michael Shay, 1042 Capen Ave., stated that D.B. does not need more shopping centers, commercial office space, supermarkets, a new park and 200 new ._ homes, particularly at a time when people can't sell their current homes. The project would only compound the problems currently plaguing California such as crime, pollution, etc. The Council needs to support the desires of the citizens. Clair Harmony, 24139 Afamado In., stated that the property owned by RnP, which incorporates nearly half of the entire project, has been set aside as unbuildable, open space, and designated as a future park. Approving this project would result in rejecting the principle of density transfer which guarantees open space and low density for the benefit of the public for the public good. If the Council aggregates these public guarantees and gives up map restrictions placed by the County, which are still in effect, then, at a minimum, the council should hold a General Plan hearing to amend the Plan accordingly. He expressed concern that no financial due diligence has been required. He asked if the City has looked into the cost benefits and risks involved. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd.,.stated that the -- project would increase noise, pollution, traffic and crime. since 97% of the canyon would be destroyed, it would be impossible to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. The project is in direct violation of General Plan guidelines. He expressed concern regarding the destruction of SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 8 development but rather a retention of what is left of D.B.'s country living. The Council needs to respond to the citizens who elected them. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the traffic study on Page 4-73 in the EIR identified, at buildout, that the total project increase in traffic will be 13,320 vehicles for all phases of the project. Only approximately 50% of all project -generated traffic will travel on Brea Canyon Rd., or approximately 6,660 per day, not the 15,000 identified by Mr. Law. The environmental analysis, as presented on Page 4-146 of the EIR, identifies both existing and future conditions at the six receptor locations identified. The noisiest part of the project site, which is directly adjacent to Brea Canyon Rd. in the area where there is no intervening topography, has a current CNEL of 74.8 and a projected CNEL of 75.7 at project buildout in the year 2002. The highest noise increase on the project, which is identified to be in the vicinity of Larkstone, has a current CNEL of 42 and a projected CNEL of 62.6 at project buildout in the year 2002, which is less than the 65 CNEL standard adopted by the City. In regard to the issue of air quality impacts, a number of criteria pollutants that will exceed AQMD standards have been identified in the EIR. However, any project development generating 500 vehicle trips per day, even perhaps a southwest museum, would be deemed significant and any grading activity which resulted in fugitive dust emissions would, in all likelihood, exceed established standards. Dr. Joe Gorman, 1333 Mountain, Claremont, asked if the issue at hand for discussion is the DEIR or 1992 or the Final EIR. Mr. Lewendowski explained that the title of the document before the Council is the DEIR. The Council has not taken any action to certify that document; therefore, CEQA finds the document under review as the Draft document until it is certified. Dr. Gorman expressed concern that the proposal has been piece-mealed. Since the project has not been coordinated, it is difficult to assess noise impacts and the overall environmental impacts of the treatment of Sandstone Canyon. He pointed out that cougar tracks have been identified in the canyon. He then noted that the project, for some reason, has been cloaked as the South Pointe Master Plan when in actuality, it should be the SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 9 Sandstone Canyon Project. Mr. Lewendowski stated that, in conducting the environmental assessment, the criteria is clearly in accordance with the methodology identified by AQMD. Furthermore, a technical study in the Technical Appendix, to determine the presence of mountain lions on the project site, concluded that, because of the isolated nature of the project site, it is inconclusive to conclude definitely whether the site functions as part of a wildlife corridor. In response to Dr. Gorman's inquiry regarding notification, he explained that there is a statutory requirement that ten days prior to certifying the final EIR, the document or the responses to all comments will be provided to governmental agencies who have provided comments. Paul Parmentier, 20404 Tam O'Shanter, Walnut, stated that he felt that the proposed project of over 100 homes would have a significant impact on the existing neighborhood. He questioned whether the Council would consider the change from rural to urban as an insignificant impact. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the traffic study included an assessment of traffic impacts upon Tam O'Shanter and other streets in the project area. Though there is a potential that traffic will increase on those roadways, based upon traffic diversion from the construction of the collector street linking those residential areas with Brea Canyon Rd., all streets analyzed will not result in an increase in LOS standards of those roadways beyond established City standards. Max Maxwell, referring to a letter submitted by Kevin Thomas of Pacific Southwest Biological service regarding a study of mountain lions by Dr. Beier, which can be found as an addendum letter in the EIR, stated that Dr. Beier, responding to a letter written by Mr. Maxwell dated April 9, 1993 inquiring into the accuracy of the information provided by Mr. Thomas, stated that no extensive tracking was done west of the 57 freeway but only east of the 57. He pointed out that the EIR, which concluded that there had been a study made showing that there are no cougars west of the _ 57 freeway, is inaccurate. He stated that he would like the letter included in the record. He expressed opposition to the project and felt that the project is being misrepresented. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the survey conducted by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, which is SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 10 a very reputable biological company, and the on- site investigation done by his firm's in-house biologist and other consulting biologists participating in this project, did not identify the existence of tracks on-site. It was concluded that, although mountain lions may occupy this site for limited time periods, the site is not conducive to long term habitation, nor as a wildlife corridor. CEQA indicates that disagreement among experts is quite understandable in any sort of environmental analysis. Elizabeth Hodges, 1604 Morning Sun, Walnut, expressed opposition to the entire project; specifically, the connection of Street "A1' to Morning Sun Ave., which is located in County area. The Response to Comment document includes statements from the following individuals opposing the connection: Frank Menessee, L.A. County Department of Regional Planning, Impact Analysis Section; Todd Chavers, Chairman of the City's Traffic & Transportation Commission; John Beke, Commission on the City's Traffic & Transportation Commission and Carl Blum, Assistant Deputy Director of L.A. County Department of Public Works, Planning Division; Richard Anderola, Deputy Superintendent, Walnut Valley Unified School District, Administrative Services; and comments from the Planning Commission and residents in the area. No developer has the right to adversely impact existing communities especially to the magnitude created by this project. Jay Nelson, Traffic Engineer, Linspot, Law & Greenspan, stated that the traffic study concluded that the increase in traffic on morning sun would be minimal. The majority of the project traffic is expected to ingress and egress the project from Brea Canyon Rd. The traffic volume near the connection on those cul-de-sacs would substantially increase but within the capacity of those streets as they are currently designed. William Gross, 21637 Highbluff Rd., stated that since the City is a proponent of the project, the Council is not qualified to objectively determine the best interest of the City. He questioned whether the City would have the ability to make sure the project meets the standards. He then expressed the following concerns: the Council indicated a few months back that hillsides are important; yet the project proposes to throw a hillside into a canyon; density criteria and open space criteria is being changed for the project; if this project meets City standards, yet raises SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 11 noise levels unreasonably, then it is the responsibility of the Council to change the standards based upon what is best for the City; the current noise standards in D.B. are deafeningly loud; the current traffic conditions in the City are bumper -to -bumper during peak hours; the current standard for air quality in the City is unhealthful smog; and the citizens voted for incorporation in order to raise our standards to excellence. He stated that the consultants have an opportunity to refute comments made by citizens; however, citizens do not have an opportunity to refute those responses and it becomes one person's word pitted against another's. He expressed the following additional concerns: there' is no project manager and no mention in the EIR as to what would occur if this project is not completed by.one of the components; there are no answers as to who is RnP and there is no financial due diligence requested. Mr. Lewendowski stated that CEQA allows the applicant to also be the lead agency. U1traSystems acted independently in assessing the project -related impacts and was not influenced by the applicant. Economic considerations are not required under CEQA and the EIR does not include an economic assessment of the project impacts and no cost benefit analysis was conducted. In regard to the City's standards, he stated that those standards are, for most instances, compatible and consistent with the standards adopted by other agencies and are neither over -demanding nor excessively lax. In regard to the concern if specific aspects of the project are not completed, he stated that this is not an EIR issue; however, it is assumed that the Development Agreement will place adequate safeguards for project implementation. MPT/Papen indicated that a financial analysis of the project is scheduled to be discussed at the next meeting. Eileen Ansari, 1823 S. Cliffbranch, expressed opposition to the project, the one-time destruction of the canyon, holding the South Pointe Middle School as hostage, the removal of trees and the impropriety of the City being involved in the development. She asked if the 21 - acre area proposed for park use includes the park land promised the City by Arciero as a fine for cutting down the oak trees near the water tower. The Council needs to weigh the benefits to the City. SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 12 Mr. Lewendowski stated that the EIR identifies, as mitigation measures for removal of trees, compliance with the oak tree Ordinance and other mitigation measures concerning replacement of the trees. The EIR concludes that the impacts upon oak trees would be deemed significant. C/Werner inquired if any of the trees are conducive for relocation so that when the site has been graded, the area can have some resemblance to what was there before with a mature tree setting. Mr. Lewendowski explained that the EIR does not specifically address the issue of relocation, but does quantify the number of trees that should be replanted in compliance with the oak tree Ordinance. The Planning Commission recommended approximately 24 trees currently identified for relocation. The arborist indicated that oak tree relocation is a very difficult and expensive process with questionable results. Ann Flesher, 20647 Larkstone Dr., pointed out that Larkstone Dr. currently has traffic problems that _ need mitigation.. The street should not be designed as a thoroughfare, as indicated, since the situation, as it currently exists, already exceeds standards for how the street was designed. Originally, the plan was to make Larkstone Dr. an emergency access only. She questioned how a straight thoroughfare from Brea Canyon Rd. directly through Larkstone Dr. emptying onto Lemon and Colima could be a benefit to the project. She then expressed support of the project as a unified approach to solve various needs. Jay Nelson explained that the project is intended to create a new access from the school to Brea Canyon Rd. so that bus traffic and the majority of the traffic to and from the school can go directly to Brea Canyon Rd. without passing a residential neighborhood. It is also possible to make Larkstone Dr. a turn -around point. George Barrett, 1884 Shaded Wood Rd., stated that he was under the impression that the South Pointe Middle School would be built with or without this project. He questioned how the Planning Commission approved a project that is 1/3 -- incomplete and how the City Council can consider an incomplete plan in regard to the park and the commercial center. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the Walnut Valley Unified School District's FEIR indicates that the SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 13 soil material identified on the site which requires relocation will be deposited in the South Pointe Project site. Relative to the aspect of the phasing of the project, he explained that there are aspects of this project that have not been precisely defined at this stage. In order to complete the environmental assessment, certain sets of assumptions were made concerning some of the development characteristics, primarily of the commercial site. As that site progresses, further environmental review will be necessary. C/Werner asked if the Master Plan presented is an optional step chosen by the developers or a mandatory step. He also inquired if each of the developers can proceed individually without the Master Plan or if there is something in the City's regulations that mandates that a Master Plan precede any discretionary approval. Mr. Lewendowski stated that there are a number of individual property owners who are attempting to pursue development concurrently. Each of those projects could proceed under their own merits, recognizing some intertwining aspects in terms of land exchanges and the effects of one development on another piece of property. Whether the project's advance as a series of individual applications or occurs under the umbrella of a Master Plan, under CEQA, the environmental assessment must look at each of the project components to evaluate their cumulative impacts. The Development Agreement would provide the implementing mechanisms to assure project phasing. Mason Wind, 1389 S. Lemon Ave., a recent graduate of the University of Colorado, stated that he used to hike through Sandstone Canyon and he knows there are deer, rabbits and other wildlife. One cannot measure the option of a park for the replacement of the canyon. Children need a place to explore and adventure. He questioned how this project would benefit the children and raise standards of living. Mr. Lewendowski stated that part of the environmental review record is a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which delineates the benefits of the project. Art Fritz, 20635 Larkstone Dr., stated that it is extremely difficult to get out of one's driveway because of the traffic on Larkstone Dr. The SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 14 General Plan discusses an objective of maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and discourage through traffic. He pointed out that if the school is to be constructed regardless of this Master Plan, there are two options for the dirt on the site: to dump it into the canyon or haul it out. Hauling out the dirt would require about 28,000 truck loads and Larkstone Dr. was not designed for such activity. Terry Birrell, 1528 S. Gold Canyon Dr., pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended certification of the EIR after the recision of the 1992 General Plan and the adoption of the 1993 General Plan, which is inconsistent with Section 65.360 of the Planning & Zoning Law. Perhaps the EIR, as well as the Master Plan, should go back to the Planning Commission for their reconsideration in accordance with the 1993 General Plan, when it is adopted. She expressed concern for the impacts that cannot be mitigated and the impacts to the area. She questioned the appropriateness of considering this Master Plan project when there is no 1993 General Plan in place. ACA/Curley stated that the authority under which the Planning Commission considered the South Pointe Project is currently in litigation regarding the applicability of Ordinance No. 4 and it would not be appropriate to discuss the issue at this time. RECESS: MPT/Papen recessed the meeting at 9:45 p.m. RECONVENE: MPT/Papen reconvened the meeting at 10:04 p.m. Barbara Beach-Courchesne expressed concern that public comment is being permitted when the public has not yet received a full presentation. She questioned why public comment is'limited to five minutes during a Public Hearing, denying the public their rights to adequately address this EIR. She then made the following comments and inquiries: what happened to the money placed in escrow to guarantee the removal of the dirt to build South Pointe Middle School; how can the project be mitigated and established in the event of seismic activity, as indicated in the EIR; John Gutwein, the County Planning liaison for D.B. when Arciero illegally cut down oak trees, stated that replacing the oak trees with saplings is not advisable because of environmental conditions and because it would take nearly 50 years to benefit D.B.; though the Gnatcatcher is best detected in the months of January through March, the SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 15 consultants did their study August through September; Page 4-143 of the EIR indicates that there are no significant impacts in terms of noise when the window is closed; the citizens should determine public policy; the Department of Fish & Game has written a letter disagreeing with the findings of the EIR, yet it .is not included in the document; the project does not meet the vision of the General Plan in the areas of retention of rural and country living, community character, preservation of open space and reduction of traffic impacts; and the land is presently map restricted with a prohibition on building and should remain so. Mr. Lewendowski stated that independent studies conducted both for the Water District and the individual applicants concluded that, from a geotechnical perspective, the project could be developed to satisfy existing design standards. In regard to the oak trees, the current oak tree ordinance requires a certain size tree to be provided as mitigation. In regard to the California Gnatcatcher, the existing established protocol for that species allows surveys to be conducted for 12 months of the year. The project biologists conducted the surveys in full accordance with established protocol for that species and concluded that the Gnatcatcher does not exist on that site. In regard to noise impacts, no noise standards will be exceeded by project implementation. He pointed out that they have attempted to eliminate personal judgment from the conclusions presented in the EIR and have deferred to public policy documents, as established by the City and other appropriate agencies as the threshold criteria. The letter from the California Fish & Game is included in the Response to Comment document as well as a letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior raising similar issues. Stan King, 1304 Rapid View Dr., noted that C/Werner is the only Councilmember that appears to show any concern for citizens, issues. The removal of 700 oak trees is a travesty. He pointed out that the residents on Larkstone Dr. were also once told that there would not be any traffic problems resulting from the school and now those same people are before the Council pleading for relief. The Council should be able to understand why the citizens want to keep the area as is. Jeff Nelson, 23051 Rio Lobos, commented on the SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 16 importance of meeting in a City Hall belonging to D.B. with a more personal atmosphere. The Council needs to respond to the public's desire to retain open land and encourage only acceptable growth. Technical standards are not nearly as important as the standards of the public. He then noted that most recommendations made recommend that a project go forward. Ken Anderson, noting a discrepancy in the actual percentage of traffic to utilize Brea Canyon Rd., inquired of the actual number of vehicle trips projected. He pointed out that a 20 dba actually translates into a 100% increase in noise. Jay Nelson stated that 80% of the project traffic will come out of Brea Canyon; however, in any one location, whether north of the project access or south of the project, the maximum amount of traffic on Brea Canyon is 40%. John Anderson, 1896 Shaded Wood Road., stated that Brock developers assured him when buying his property that the surrounding property would _ remain as open space. Brock developers would have developed that remaining property; however, because of the density factor, the County of L.A. did not permit them to do so. He questioned why all of the Councilmembers are not making inquiries regarding the EIR. MPT/Papen explained that the Council usually holds their comments to receive input from the public first. Tom Van Winkle noted that the proposed project will gridlock traffic in the surrounding areas. It appears that this project is pretty much a done deal. The Council needs to take the citizens' issues into consideration. Norman Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills, President of the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn., stated that the HOA opposes the project and objects to the misrepresentation of J.C. Dabney using our land to enhance his open area. He made the following comments: L.A. County restricted the land to open space and future park land; there will actually be over 2,000 trees removed; why are 24-hour average decibel levels used when most use hourly decibel readings; since the streets around South Pointe School were never engineered to carry heavy school buses and the increase in traffic, the City should require funds to mitigate the early replacement and destruction of local streets SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 17 in D.B. and L.A. communities and the homeowners are still trying to find out who is responsible. He then requested to see the letter from the Department of the Interior that is supposed to be in the Response to Comment document. Mr. Lewendowski stated that the two letters referenced can be respectively found under section 5.2, commencing with comments 61, on Page 5-41, and under Section 5.3, commencing with comments 76, on Page 5-57. In regard to the number of trees removed, he explained that the only trees surveyed are oak trees and only those that met a certain height standard as delineated in the oak tree ordinance. James Roberts, 829 Silver Fir Road, inquired how the project can be considered without a Tentative Tract Map from RnP. CDD/DeStefano stated that the maps for each of the specific projects, as well as a composite map, were contained within each of the Council packets and all packets made available to the public. The issue of map restrictions will be addressed at subsequent meetings. Frank Dursa, 2533 Harmony Hill Dr., asked why Pathfinder Rd. and Golden Springs have not been addressed in regard to further traffic impacts from the development. He questioned the accuracy of the noise level projections. Mr. Lewendowski stated that state -of -the heart computer technology is utilized in completing all studies and it is believed that all conclusions are accurate based upon the assumptions utilized. Jay Nelson stated that the traffic study addresses all the traffic impacts on Golden Springs, Pathfinder Road and other key roadways in the study areas. Since it was known that the Pathfinder Bridge widening project was to occur, it is accounted for in the traffic studies. Irving Gassowitz, 1644 Chapel Hill Dr., stated that the residents on Chapel Hill do not want signs and sidewalks as is being proposed. _ Furthermore, the golf course area will also be affected. He stated that he is resentful of the problems being created by the City. Chuck Bowler, Morning Sun, stated that Walnut Leaf and Colima will be very much affected by traffic coming through the area. he inquired why SASAK is SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 18 being allowed to build on that property when L.A. County denied building permits about ten years ago. Jay Nelson stated that less than 15 cars were forecasted for the a.m. peak hours on Walnut Leaf with 16 to 20 cars during the p.m. peak hours on Walnut Leaf for both phase one and phase two projects, and about 30 cars in the peak hours, each direction, on Colima Road during peak hours. CDD/DeStefano stated that SASAK Tract Map 51253 contains a building restriction similar to the larger adjacent tract proposed by RnP, which is a restriction allowing only one unit per lot. There is also a flood hazard area on the SASAK property. As a product of the resubdivision of the property, those restrictions would be erased. C/Werner requested staff to investigate why SASAK was restricted to 1DU/AC. Jay Nelson, in response to an inquiry regarding Colima Road, stated that the existing traffic volume on Colima Road are significant enough that the addition of the amount of traffic added by the project traffic would not change the existing condition significantly. Hearing no further testimony offered, MPT/Papen closed the Public Hearing. C/Werner stated that there are many issues needing further consideration. Perhaps once the developers have made their presentations, there will be a better understanding of the project based upon their intent and what they are willing to commit to. He then requested staff to address the following issues: the actual peak and ambient noise levels; the history of the land use restrictions on the SASAK properties and the RnP property and if there are legal implications to changing those restrictions; the General Plan recognizes that the City does not have adequate noise standards and relies on CEQA guidelines to give a better sense of what are proper noise standards; how many trees to be removed are indigenous trees to have value to the City; the inclusion .of the HOA property on the map should be addressed; and it would be helpful to get the information from the L.A. County Animal Control Department as to the amount of calls received siting bobcats. He suggested that the Council continue the meeting out to the site so that the Council can hear the noise for themselves and get SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 19 a better feel for the project. He suggested that the Public Hearing be continued to allow the public to address any further environmental issues, particularly when it was indicated that this meeting was to be a presentation meeting. MPT/Papen stated that the purpose of this discussion was to decide if the EIR is adequate to certify as an information document. The law provides for a reasonable professional difference of opinion, thus the question is if there is enough scientific information within the document for the Council to make a decision. Certifying the EIR does not mean that the project will be approved. She concurred to continue the Public Hearing to September 28, 1993, allowing Mr. and Mrs. Courchesne to speak first since they did not receive a full report. She directed staff to draft two Resolutions --one to certify the EIR and one to reject the EIR. Following discussion on the certification of the EIR, a financial analysis of the project has been scheduled. _ C/Forbing stated that he had visited the site numerous times during the last eight years and a visit to the site is unnecessary. MPT/Papen agreed that a visit to the site was unnecessary, particularly since she and C/MacBride attended the field trip with the Planning Commission toured by Mr. Schad. In response to C/Werner's inquiry regarding the economic report, she explained that she scheduled a consultant to attend the next meeting to make a presentation. Hardy Strozier stated that the City commissioned a cost revenue/cost benefit study reviewed by the Planning Commission. MPT/Papen requested that the consultant be present at the next public meeting in order to review the study with the City Council. C/Werner asked if it would be acceptable to the owners of the project site if he entered the site before the next meeting to review the material. Jan Dabney, speaking for the owners of the property, indicated that he would have no problem with escorting C/Werner and members of staff to visit the site. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride announced that the City's library services have been cut in half. The Friends of the Library will conduct a meeting on September 22, SEPTEMBER 14, 1993 PAGE 20 1993 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the Community Room at the Library to discuss ways to support and assist the Library. 4. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, MPT/ Papen continued the Public Hearing to September 28, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. Ly a Burgess, City Clerk ATTEST: Mayor r