HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/1992Next Resolution No. 92-25 *
AGENDA
101 016all 1: ► 11 1 11 It 4-P
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AUDITORIUM
21865 E. COPLEY DRIVE
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
October 26, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 pm
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice
Chairman MacBride, Grothe, Li and Meyer
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.
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:
1. Minutes of September 14 and.October 12, 1992
OLD BUSINESS: -None
NEW BUSINESS: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. Zoning Code Amendment No. 92-2 (Hillside Management
Ordinance): Continued from September 28, 1992.
A City initiated request to adopt Hillside Management
Standards.
Presentation on South Pointe Master Plan
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
4. Staff reports -to City Council -- -
Meeting Date October 20, 1992
Agenda Item No. 5.7 - TM No. 31977
Agenda Item No. 7.1 - VTM No. 47850
Agenda Item'No. 8.2'- Bramalea MOU
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT:
Staff
Planning Commissioners
November 23, 1992
Respectively,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman .
Ak..
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 14, 1992
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at
7:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
Chairman Flamenbaum.
ROLL CALL:
commissioners: Meyer, Li, Grothe, Vice Chairman
MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, and Associate Planner Robert
Searcy
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CDD/DeStefano opened the public hearing and
reported that as a result of the ferendum filed
against the General Plan the City Attorney advises
all pubic hearing matters be continued to September
28, 1992. The commission continued all public
hearing agenda items to September 28, 1992.
INFORMATION:
Discussion ensued regarding the General Plan
status, process and project review 'during the
period preceding the conclusion of the referendum.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
C/Flamenbaum announced a meeting at Brea Civic
Center on Wednesday, September 16, 1992, at 6:30
p.m. in Rm. A regarding 277 acres within Brea's
Tonner Canyon, up for a residential development.,
28 additional acres may also be up for development.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion was made and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn
the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Respectively,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman .
CDD/DeStefano explained that ordinance No. 4
(1992), which was adopted by the City Council mid
September of 1992, contains these two clauses: the
Commission's approval actions makes a finding that
the project is consistent with the General Plan;
and the Commission's approval action makes a
finding that there is a substantial probability
that the project will not be detrimental to, or
interfere with, the adopted General Plan.
Therefore, the City can proceed with every project
on the agenda, and with all of the projects
contemplated for the next several agendas. Staff
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 12, 1992
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at
7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, 'California.
PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
Chairman Flamenbaum.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners:' Meyer, Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman
MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, Deputy City
Attorney. Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz
Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
CDD/DeStefano recommended that approval of the
Minutes of September 14, 1992 be postponed to the
Minutes of
next meeting because a copy of those minutes were
Sept. 14 & 28,
not included in all of the Commissioner's packets.
1992
The Commission concurred.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
-September 28, 1992, as presented.
OLD BUSINESS:.
CDD/DeStefano requested the City Attorney to give
the commission an update on the is -sues pertaining
CUP 89-528 and
to the referendum petition.
DR 92-03
DCA/Curley reported that the proponents of the
petition have brought suit against the
.referendum
City, and are attempting to get a temporary
restraining order seeking to preclude some or all
issuance of building permits. As the matter
proceeded, it was finally stipulated to the City
,alluding itself to acting under ordinance No. 4,
the emergency ordinance in place that mimics the
OPR extension that the City had. Therefore, the
resolutions will be amended, through the course of
the night, to reflect the findings that are set
forth in ordinance No. 4.
CDD/DeStefano explained that ordinance No. 4
(1992), which was adopted by the City Council mid
September of 1992, contains these two clauses: the
Commission's approval actions makes a finding that
the project is consistent with the General Plan;
and the Commission's approval action makes a
finding that there is a substantial probability
that the project will not be detrimental to, or
interfere with, the adopted General Plan.
Therefore, the City can proceed with every project
on the agenda, and with all of the projects
contemplated for the next several agendas. Staff
October 12, 1992
Page 2
will await any further direction from the City
Attorney's office, and/or the courts, on the
referendum issue. I
AP/Searcy presentedthestaff report regardingthe
request for approval to amend existing Conditional
Use Permit 89-528 and Development Review 92-3'. The
applicant is requesting to construct a new Burger
King Restaurant with drive-through facilities.- A
revised site plan has been prepared, by the
applicant, which takes into account the concerns
expressed by the Commission at the last public
hearing. However, staff feels that the following
items have not been adequately addressed: the
concrete sidewalk, on the site that borders the
carwash, still remains, and has not been changed to
landscaping, as was directed; staff does' not feel
that the indicated pedestrian access from Grand
Ave., to the carwash, is possible because of the
change in grade elevation; and the concerns
regarding the entrance to the site have not been
addressed. These outstanding issues have not yet
been reviewed by the City Engineer. it is
recommended that the commission approve Resolution
92-18, Resolution 92-19, Development Review 92-3,
and amendment CUP 89528, with the listed
conditions, and with direction that the applicant
conform the site plan to the conditions and
directions given by the Planning Commission.
AP/Searcy then read the following corrections, as
presented by the City Attorney, to the Findings of
Fact, of the draft Resolutions: part B,
Resolution, item 3, of Resolution 92-18 and 92-19,
will read, "The Planning Commission hereby
specifically finds and determines that" having
considered the record as a whole, including the
findings set forth below, and the changes and
alteration which have been incorporated into and
condition upon the proposed project set forth in
the application, there is no evidence before this
Planning Commission that the project proposed
herein will have the potential for adverse affect
on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence,
this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the
presumption of adverse affects contained in section
753.5d of Title 14 of California Code
Regulations."; item 5, of Resolution 92-18 and 92-
19, will read, "Based on the findings and
conclusions set forth herein, this Commission, in
conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992), of the
City of Diamond Bar, hereby finds as follows:";
item 5, subsection (a), of Resolution 92-18 and 92-
19, will remain the same but subsection (b) will
AFT
October 12, 1992 Page 3 T
now read, "Substantial evidence exist, considering
the record as a whole, to the project as proposed
and conditioned herein, will not be detrimental or
interfere with the adopted General Plan."; and item
8, of Resolution 92-19, and item 6 of Resolution
92-18, is to be deleted because it is a California
Code procedure that is only applicable at the City
Council level, and not at the Planning Commission
level.
C/Grothe stated that he would prefer that either
the City Engineer review the project before the
Commission condition the project, or condition the
project that approval has to be obtained from the
City Engineer. He then stated that since the
concrete sidewalk, on the site that borders the
carwash, now leads somewhere, it can remain. He
also stated that he would like to have a 1 foot
candle as a minimum lighting level on the site.
C/Meyer made the following comments: the
Commission need only provide direction, from a
policy standpoint, that a landing be created, and
the specifics can be left to the City Engineer;
there needs to be a condition attached to the lot,
restricting the off site sign; and specific
reference to the name of the fast food
establishment, as indicated in Resolution 92-19,
item 5, under Planning Division Conditions, should
be eliminated, and referred to generically.
C/Grothe requested staff to review the original
conditions of approval because he was under the
impression that one of the original conditions was
that any one of these three lots, left vacant, was
to be landscaped.
Motion was made by CLMeyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUS tY to approve Resolution 92-
18, as amended by staff.
DCA/Curley, in response to C/Meyer's concern for
the off site sign, stated that he is comfortable
with the way it is presently conditioned.
Motion was made by VC/M 'de, seconded by
r/arothe and �i���MLY to approve
Resolution 92-19 as amende b staff, and with the
following ff-657tso: the applicant shall provide a
lighting plan, which provides for a minimum of 1.0
foot candles over the entire parcel; the applicant
shall provide the City with drawings for the Grand
Ave. entrance, incorporating the driveway entrance,
the "flat" landing area, and the sidewalk area, to
October 12,
1992 Page 4
be designed pursuant to the approval of the City
Engineer'; and that the words "Burger King" be
deleted and replaced by the word "fast food".
NEW BUSINESS:
CDD/DeStefano stated that Hardy Strozier, of the
Planning Associates, will give a presentation on
South Point
the South Point Master Plan, an area of about 170
Master Plan
acres, generally located north of Pathfinder, and
Project
west of Brea Canyon Road. The City encouraged the
developers, who had indicated an interest,
beginning last year, in developing a master plan,
to process their projects to the City. The City
has hired Hardy Strozier to provide the overall
project management, and coordination consultation
to the City.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:52 p.m.
to allow the Commission time to review the
displayed graphics of the project area.
Chair/ Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 8:10
p.m..
Hardy Strozier, of the Planning . Associates,
reviewed the outline of the proposal, the issues
and interests involved, the players involved, and
the four alternatives, presented in the staf
report, for the South Point Master Plan Project.
'During the course of his presentation, Mr. Strozier
outlined the master plan alternatives, utilizing
the displayed graphics. He stated that all State
and School District permits have been approved,
including the certified EIR. However, there may be
additional permits required from the Fish and Game
Department of the State of California, and the U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers, regarding filling
operations in sandstone Canyon. He then reviewed
the development proposal as follows:. a 30' acre
South Point Middle School site; a 40 acre Arciero
single family residential tract #32400, for 93
lots, with an average minimize size lot of 7,200
sq. ft.; a 48 acre RNP residential subdivision
tract #51407, for 92 lots, with a minimum size lot
of 8,000 sq. ft.; a 30 to 31 acre commercial site
that would have 10 to 15 acres of property
transferred to the City as part of a development
agreement vesting transaction between these
developers; a 26 acre park site dedicated and
transferred to the City, from the RnP development
interest, in which the City would be granted about
10 acres of usable park area; a transferring of
approximately 2 acres of land, known as Larkstone
Park, from the City to the School District for
South Point School purposes; an acquisition, of the
October 12, 1992 Page 5 'JRAP-
City, for approximately 4 acres of Water District
land; there is 6 acres of City/County right-of-way,
that would be part of a transfer to Ardiero, RnP,
.and the City's commercial interests; and the
proposed project entitlements entails a development
agreement, a zone change, a Master Development
Plan, and perhaps a CUP for Hillside Management.
He then summarized the four alternatives, to the
proposed development, as submitted to the
Commission. The difference between the
alternatives relates to the land use potential in
the commercial site, the linkage to the South Point
Middle School, the through access of Larkstone
Drive, the amount of usable park acreage, and the
-position, on the site, of the permanent South Point
Middle School. Mr. Strozier stated that their
objective is to present this proposal to the
Planning commission, for review, - in November of
1992, and to the City Council by January of 1993.
Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if, from an engineering
standpoint, various portions of the project can be
extricated so that if there is a problem with the
blue line stream, South Point School can still move
the dirt to the Arciero property . without impacting
the blue line stream.
Hardy Strozier explained that the objective is to
move this request through the Commission to the
City Council as a total Master Plan application, as
was submitted by the property owners. The project
is inextricably tied together by it's master plan
of grading, and it's master plan of land exchanges.
Hardy Strozier, in response to a series of
Commission inquiries, made the following comments:
The Walnut Unified School District is desirous to
move the stockpile of dirt, and *negotiate a land
transaction now owned by the City of Diamond Bar;
the City wants to facilitate a master plan for the
15 acre commercial site, and the 15 acre park area;
RnP is desirous to develop 92 lots, with a land
trade of City property to school property; Arciero
want to develop 93 lots, and obtain land from the
City for the would be excess right-of-way; there is
not yet an application, before the City, by Mr.
Patel, but it is anticipated that he will soon file
a subdivision map; there has not been any comment
made from the environmentalists regarding Sandstone
Canyon; the School District officials, and the City
of Diamond Bar feel that Larkstone Drive should not
be a through road; the Master Plan Project will
comply with the Hillside Ordinance; and this
October 12, 1992 Page 6 OR
project will be presented to the Parks and
Recreation Commission for their input to the
passive/active recreation area.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m.
CONTINUED
CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report regarding
PUBLIC HEARING:
the request, by the applicant Brilliant signs,
Inc., to develop a Planned Sign Program for the
Planned Sign
Sunset Village, located at 1241 S.Grand Avenue.
Program No. 92-1
Staff presented slides, during the staff report, of
the variety of signs presently existing at the
commercial shopping center. It is recommended that
the Commission* approve the Planned Sign Program,
the Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed
within the attached resolution.. One of the
conditions listed is that the Commission approve
not only Exhibit "A", the applicants proposal, but
also Exhibit "A -lot I which is the modifications
outlined by the City staff.
Barbara Cohen, with Brilliant Signs, inc., stated
that the landlord would like to build a canopy, and
extend the fascia to make room for three signs.
The applicant is willing to make any changes deemed
appropriate.
AP/Searcy, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry, stated
that staff sought to allow the applicant to put one
sign on the fascia, that would be centered, and
then two additional signs located under the canopy,
so that it is more compatible with the rest of the
fascia in the center.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was
declared closed.
Following discussion, the Commission concurred that
the design of the sign needs to be more consistent
with the prevailing style of the center.
Chair/Flamenbaum requested the following: the
words "the Orange city code", on page 3, of Exhibit
"A", item E. l.a., should be changed to read "the
Diamond Bar city code."; and item H.2, Immoral or
Unlawful Advertising, on page 5, Exhibit "A",
should be deleted.
DCA/Fox explained that the document expresses
liability and obligations between tenants and
landlords. The City's approval is simply to the
October 12, 1992 Page 7 ORA
concept, and not to what the landlord confines the
tenant to.
AP/Searcy stated that staff suggests that the
reference reading, "allowing this to extend for a
period of five years", should be omitted.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve. Planned Sign
Program No. 92-1, subject to the deletion of the
five year term, as indicated by staff, and that
page 8, of the applicants submittal, be changed to
provide for "a maximum 30 inch high parapet on top
of the existing fascia, constructed of similar
material that would accommodate at least two signs,
and would provide for the total of three signs,
within the area that they have designated." The
special condition in Exhibit "A-111, subsection 1,
that reads, "Wall signs for units E & G, shall
-share the angled fascia centered vertically and
horizontally and not exceed 800 of the angled
fascia length.", should be deleted.
CUP 92-5 Chair/Flamenbaum stated that, because he leases
DR 92-2 space in the adjacent building to this project, he
will abstain from discussion and voting of this
item.
Chair/Flamenbaum left the auditorium at 10:00 p.m.
AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the
request, by the applicant Gary Simning, for
approval to demolish the existing Arco gasoline
service station, located at 3302 S. Diamond Bar
Blvd., and to construct a new 2,700 square. foot, 24
hour AM/PM mini -mart. The proposed convenience
store use will sell gasoline and miscellaneous
products, including the sale of beer and wine for
off-site consumption'. The .89 acre site is in.the
Commercial Planned Development Zone (CPD). The
Development Review application is required for all
new commercial construction to determine
architectural compatibility. . He reviewed the
application analysis), as presented in the staff
report. It is recommended that the commission
approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 92-5,
Development Review No. 92-2, Findings of Fact and
conditions as listed within the attached
Resolutions.
C/Meyer noted that the Sign ordinance may be too
restrictive since most sign. plans , or programs,
before the Commission, have some sort of exception
to the existing code.
October 12, 1992 Page 8
AP/Searcy, in response to C/Meyer, stated that, to
assure that the lot line adjustment would not
create a burden to the existing office building and
create a deficient parking standard, staff required
them to turn in plans for both project sites. The
completion of one project should dictate the other.
C/Meyer stated that one of the conditions of
approval should require that the underground tanks
be removed in the event that the service station
use is abandoned for six months.
C/Grothe stated that the signs on the new building
ought to conform to the Sign Ordinance. He also
objected to the compact parking stalls.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Gary Simning, representing Atlantic Richfield,'gave
the following responses to the Commission's
comments: even though the size of the monument
sign deviates from the City's standards, it is
required by State Law, and is not an option; there
is only one sign on each side of the building,
which is in conformance to the Sign Ordinance; Arco
will be reconfiguring the parking lot, and the work
on the parking lot will be completed prior to
beginning construction; and, as a matter of policy,
we remove the tanks within 6 months, but we will
not object to have that as one of the conditions.
C/Li inquired how much tax, this proposed project,
will generated to the City.
Gary Sinning stated that it is estimated that this
new facility will generate approximately $50,000 a
year in taxes, to the City, which is an increase of
about $30,000 a year.
C/Meyer suggested that the trash enclosures would
be better located more internally within the
project site, as opposed to locating it near the
drive approach.
Gary simning stated t ' hat the applicant is willing
to locate the trash enclosures internally, as so
indicated on the original submittal. In response
to C/Meyer's inquiry, he stated that the owner of
the adjacent office building prefers the
landscaping, over the block wall.
Hearing no further testimony, the Public Hearing
was declared closed.
October 12, 1992
Page 9
AP/Searcy pointed out that. the City Engineer
requires a contribution to traffic mitigation
programs. This will probably be a forthcoming.
requirement for this project as it goes through
plan check.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and
CARRIED to recommend approval of Resolution No. 92-
22 for Development Review 9-02, subject to
Ordinance No. 4. Chair/Flamenbaum abstained.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED to approve Resolution No. 92-23 for CUP
92-5, subject to Ordinance No.4, and with the
addition of condition #12 to indicate that, "If the
project is abandoned for more than 180 consecutive
days, that all underground vessels would be removed
from the site.", and condition #13 to indicate that
"The traffic impact fees, as per the negative
declaration, would be paid as required by the City
Engineer." Chair/Flamenbaum abstained.
Chair/Flamenbaum returned to the auditorium at
10:22 p.m.
ZCA 92-2
CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report. Pursuant
to comments received from the Planning Commission
Hillside
at previous public hearings and additional staff
Management
analysis, a revised Hillside Management Ordinance
Ordinance
is attached for the Commission's consideration.
The revised ordinance has been prepared with the
assistance of Mr. Horst Schorr, acting as the
City's consultant to the development of this
project. Content changes from the Interim
Ordinance are redline to identify new material, and
strikeout to identify deletions. A revised slope
density formula and graphic is provided, as well as
further explanations 'of text through the use of
graphics. It is recommended that the Commission
review and adopt the attached Hillside Management
Ordinance.
Chair/ Flamenbaum inquired if the consultant Horst
Schorr likes the ordinance.
VC/MacBride made the following corrections: page
1, bottom line., correct the spelling of
"complement"; and page 2, top. paragraph, correct
the spelling of "reveg.etation". He inquired why
item 2, under section 5, page 2, has been deleted.
CDD/DeStef ano responded that the consultant Horst
Schorr has previously indicated that he likes the
ordinance. The only area that may differ from the
October 12® 1992
Page 10
Commission's opinion is that he concurs, with my
opinion, that a slope density formula is not the
key issue in terms of determining how many dwelling
units can be developed on .a --given hillside. With
respect to the deletion of section 5, item 2, page
2, because staff had difficult in determining what
real relevance the remnants of a wild fire would
have on grading, it was 'deleted.
VC/MacBride suggested that the sketch, for
conventional grading, on page 15, should be better
drawn to illustrate it's effects.
C/Li noted that the graph on page 9, subsection A.
Calculating Average Slopes, does not indicate a
curve.
CDD/DeStef ano explained that subsection A has an
incomplete graphic. The graphic indicates the
percent of land, to be maintained in it's natural
state, and another access that deals with the
percent of average slope. However, it does not
direct you towards any particular conclusion. The
graphic is one that has been utilized in the City
of La Habra Heights, byt they incorporate a third
line that deals with the size of the parcel. The
difference between La Habra Heights and Diamond Bar
is that La Habra Heights indicates the largest
parcel as being five acres, and the parcels in
Diamond Bar typically start at 15 acres. The whole
issue of calculating the average slope, and what is
done with it in terms of slope density, is one that
has been difficult to respond to. Most cities have
some arbitrary formula wherein a certain average
slope equates to a certain percentage of the lot to
remain in it's natural state. The difficulty with
.that is that there is no explanation as to why this
formula is better than some other formula,
-therefore, it is difficult to determine if it is
applicable to Diamond Bar, or if Diamond Bar should
create our own criteria.
C/Meyer explained that the standards at La Habra
Heights are applicable after the subdivision, and
that each subdivided 'parcel has to comply with
these standards. After the five acres, then 80% of
the site has to be left in an open area, if the
average slope is above 50%. He suggested that the
City would be more responsive to community feelings
to reduce density in hillside areas, I and to good
planning practices, by setting a density formula
that correlates to the average slope of lots, in
which the steeper the slope, the larger the
subdivided parcel has to be.
October 12, 1992 Page 11 r%RAFT
CDD/DeStefano referred the Commission to the
examples, presented in the staff report, of
formulas used in other cities. He explained how
the formulas are calculated.
C/Li noted that, if the natural grading is used for
calculating average slopes, then it appears that
the developer is being penalized for using land
form grading because the average slope becomes
greater, and the percentage of land to be
maintained, in the natural state, becomes gr.eater.
CDD/DeStefano stated that, if the Ordinance can be
interpreted that way, it is the opposite of what is
trying to be achieved. The average slope
calculation is meant to be on the existing natural
grade, as determined by the formula.
C/Meyer suggested that the formula be based on the
existing pad or on an approved pad, and that the
formulas be worked out at the time that the map is
being submitted. The Ordinance.is taking away
design incentives because it is too finitely
written. The standards should be flexible in terms
of the hillside.
C/Li, noting that subcategory B, Slope Category,
items 1-4, provides the technique to comply with
this code, and subcategory A, provides a formula,
stated that the two paragraphs conflict with each
other. He suggested that the Planning Director or
the Planning Commission be given discretionary
review.
CDD/DeStefano stated that he had originally
proposed to eliminate theslope density formulas to
calculate the average slope, and to keep the slope
category discussion, but not relate density to the
average.slope.
The Commission concurred that sub section A,
Calculating Average Slopes, should be deleted.
They also concurred to table the matter to the next
meeting, and that any further Commission comments
should be directed to staff before the next
meeting.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was
declared closed.
ZCA 92-3 CDD/DeStefano recommended that the Commission
review the revised CM Ordinance and adopt a
October 12, 1 1992 Page 11 DRAFT
CDD/DeStefano referred the commission to the
examples, presented in the staff report, of
.formulas used in other cities. He explained how
the formulas are calculated.
C/Li noted that, if the natural grading is used for
calculating average slopes, then it appears that
the developer is being penalized for using land
form grading because the average slope becomes
greater, and the percentage sof land to be
maintained, in the natural state, becomes greater.
CDD/DeStefano stated that, if the Ordinance can be
interpreted that way, it is the opposite of what is
trying to be achieved. The average slope
calculation is meant to be on the existing natural
grade, as determined by the formula.
C/Meyer suggested that the formula be based on the
existing pad or on an approved pad, and that the
formulas be worked out at the time that the map is
being submitted. The Ordinance is taking away
design incentives because it is too finitely
written. The standards should be flexible in terms
of the hillside.
C/Li, noting that subcategory B, Slope Category,
items 1-4, provides the technique to comply with
this code, and subcategory A, provides a formula,
stated that the two paragraphs conflict with each
other. He suggested that the Planning Director or
the Planning Commission be given discretionary
review.
CDD/DeStefano stated that he had originally
proposed to eliminate the slope density formulas to
calculate the average slope, and to keep the slope
category discussion, but not relate density to the
average slope.
The Commission concurred that sub section A,
Calculating Average Slopes, should be deleted.
They also concurred to table the matter to the next
meeting, and that any further Commission comments
should be directed to staff before the next
meeting. I
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing waz
declared closed.
ZCA 92-3 CDD/DeStefano recommended that the Commission
review the revised CM Ordinance and adopt a
October 12., 1992 Page 12 DRAFT
resolution recommending that the City Council
approve' the revised list of permitted and
conditionally permitted land uses.
CDD/DeStefano stated that there should be a clause
added, to become subsection E, on page 159, that
would read, "Properties within the CM Zone, and
located at the southeast corner of Grand Ave. and
Golden Springs Drive, shall submit a planned
development/master plan for City review and
approval." This clause would implement the planned
development requirement within the General Plan for
that portion of our community.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was
declared closed.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's inquiries,
explained that grading projects were excluded
because they are covered under other permits
already required by the City, a ' nd they don't
require a conditional Use Permit. The reason that
farming is not permitted on vacant CM Zone
properties is because staff does not feel that it
would be an appropriate use for the five CM zone
areas presently in the City.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adopt a
resolution recommending that the City Council
approve the revised list of permitted and
conditionally permitted land uses, and as modified
by staff, on page 159, new subsection E . .
INFORMATION: CDD/DeStefano informed the Commission 'of his
decision in the following four Administrative
Development Review items: approval an Mr. Toby I s
8,700 square foot home in "The Country", on Shadow
Canyon; continuance for Mr. Woo's proposal to add
3,700 square feet to his existing 3,700 square foot
home because of engineering issues yet to be
resolved; approval of a 7,200 square foot home at
Braided Mane; and approval of a 1,200 square foot
addition to an existing 2,400 square foot home at
1519 Kiowa Crest.
CDD/DeStefano informed the commission that the City
Council adopted an Interim ordinance which severely
restricts land uses permitted within the
agricultural zoned property, that is also general
planned as agriculture. The only area in the City
that this applies to is our sphere of influence.
October 12, 1992 Page 13
'A W id
CDD/DeStefano informed the Commission on the
following: the Commission has received a copy of
the TTC agenda; staff has provided the Commission
with a copy of a memorandum entitled, "Current
Status of Major Applications"; staff has also
provided the Commission with a copy of staff's in-
house log of projects that have been currently
worked on or has recently been approved; and the
City Council has awarded the project for the
Heritage Park Community Building.
C/Meyer stated that' the Commission ought to
commence reviewing the Development Code, to include
the Sign Ordinance.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission have
study sessions to discuss the Development Code.
The code should be reviewed and analyzed bit by
bit, as opposed to debating the entire document.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair/ Flamenbaum informed the Commission that the
California League of City Annual Conference is to
be held on October 13, 1992.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Meyei',
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
11:28 p.m.
Respectively,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: 'James DeStefano, Community Development DirecW
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 2 - ZCA 92-2, Hillside ManagemeTt
Ordinance
DATE: October 23, 1992
Attached to this memorandum is a revised copy of the Hillside
Management Ordinance. Revisions have been incorporated to the
document as represented by typewriter print. The revisions
represent the cumulative total Of comments received from the
Planning Commission as a result of 'public discussion at our
previous Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 1992.
Several minor changes have been made to the document which will be
enumerated at Your meeting scheduled for October 26.
The only major remaining issue before the Planning Commission is to
determine whether or not the Commission desires the inclusion of a
slope density formula and/or a related preservation of natural area
formula.
At our meeting of October 12, City Staff indicated and enumerated
upon our desire not to incorporate a slope density formula within
the Hillside Management Ordinance. In general terms, we feel that
each parcel considered for development will present the developer
and City with unique challenges which will reveal areas suitable
for development and preservation. Planning Commission members have
indicated a desire- for a slope density formula as a means to
respond to the community's desire to reduce density in hillside
areas. The slope density formula would correlate to the average
slope of the lot. Generally speaking, the steeper the average
slope of the parcel, the larger the subdivided parcel must be
and/or the greater the percent of land to be maintained in its
natural state. As Staff indicated at our meeting of October 12,
most hillside cities have a formula wherein the average slope
equation relates to a percentage of lot coverage or density. The
problem that exists is that most of the cities appear to have
copied each other's ordinances and over the years, have lost all
trace of why the formulas or percentages were created in the first
place. The staffs seem very capable of explaining the formula but
do not seem able to express why it was created within each city's
originating ordinance.
Each city's individual approach has clearly been represented by
products in the field. In Staff's opinion, it appears as though
most formulas have been designed simply to reduce density. The end
product in terms of overall site planning is not only a result of
density, but a result of site characteristics, environmental
factors and development review authority.
Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the revised Hillside
Management Ordinance with changes, deletions as suggested by City
Planning Commission. The "incomplete" slope density graphic
remains. Staff has attached copies of slope density formulas from
nearby hillside cities for comparative purposes.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
review the revised Hillside Management Ordinance and recommend that
the Ordinance be approved without a slope density formula and
forwarded to the City Council for their consideration.
Attachments: 1. Revised Hillside Management Ordinance
2. Draft Resolution of Approval
3. Letter from Hunsaker and Associates dated
October 20, 1992
4. Excerpts from various hillside development
ordinances referencing slope density
formulas.
Do F-1-3), All,
EXHIBIT "A Ll
CITY F__ DIAMOND BAR HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE L
jJ
Section 1. Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this ordinance is:
a. To preserve and protect the views to and from hillside areas in
order to maintain the identity, image and environmental quality of the
City of Diamond Bar;
b. To maintain an environmental equilibrium consistent with the native
vegetation, animal life, geology, slopes, and drainage patterns;
C. To facilitate hillside preservation through appropriate development
standards -and guidelines of hillside areas. The guidelines are not
intended to be strict standards, but rath6r to provide direction and
encourage development which is sensitive to the unique characteristics
common to hillside properties, which include, but are notlimited to
slopes, land form, vegetation and scenic quality. Innovation in design
is encouraged as long as the end result is one which respects the
hillside and is consistent with the purposes expressed in this section
and in the goals and objectives of the General Plan;
d. To ensure that' development in the hillside areas shall be
concentrated in those areas with the least environmental impact and
shall be designed to iit the existing land form;
e. To preserve significant features of the natural topography,
iniclu'ding swales, cMnyons, knolls, ridgelines, and rock outcrops.
ii Development may necessarily affect natural features by, for example,
roads crossing ridgelines. Therefore, a major design criterion shall be
the minimization of such impacts;
f. To provide'a. safe means of ingress and egress for 'vehicular and
pedestrian traffic to and within hillside, areas, with minimum
disturbance'to the natural terrain;
9. To correlate intensity of development with the steepness of terrain
in 9rder to minimi z e 'grading, removal of vegetation, land instability
and fire hazards;
h. To provide in hillsides, alternative approaches to conventional
flat land development practices- by achieving land use patterns and
intensities that are consistent with the.natural characteristics of hill
s .
areasuch as slopes, land form, vegetation and scenic quality; and
i. To encourage the planning; design and development of heme sites
that provide maximum safety with respect to fire hazards, exposure to
geological and geotechni6 hazards, drainage, erosion and siltation, and
materials of construdtion; provide the best use of natural terrain; and
to prohibit development i4i-a- th tf* will create or increase fire, flood,
slide', or other safety hazards public h4alth, welfare, and safety.
01
Revised 10123192
Section 3. Permitted uses
Section 4. Density
The maximum number of residential dwelling units which may be permitted
to be constructed on a given parcel of land' shall be the calculated
..........
W9.
development
t cr :11 ..... imit
less he riiii� '0 envik6htiffi
determined Pursuant te ons ralils and as
t
Section S. Environmental Constraints
The maximum number of residential dwelling units shal"I bef ther
iiXM, 1�
. I fi---� "R
the impact of the fo-rlowing development
constralhtd*, ..... Wg* .... & by environmental assessment, unless such
development constraints can be shown to have been eliminated or
mitigated to -the satisfaction of the Planning Commission or the City
Council en appeal:
Land areas subject to inundation during a 100-yeak storm
4. Land area's which are above the hillside view line.
401 4. Land areas which are . subject..to geologic hazard,
landslide and debris*over flow.
.5. Land areas which lie within a federally recognized blue
line stream, or which contain significant riparian stream
bed habitats or other established plant formations which
constitute a significant natural feature or ecosystem or
which contain rare or endangered species.
Significant vegetation formations and habitat areas.
-7. Land areas which are within 100 f
ridgeline or hiking trail'. eet of a significant
Revised 10123192
&. Land areas containing significant archaeologic or
historic site
pr`C�it, ) n r -tom=
section 6. Hem tion
Other provisions .of this subsection to the contrary notwithstanding,
lots of record as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance shall be
entitled to a. rAfniiqum of otle dweUin u i{- S" le dwellin unit development
shall be administered in conjunction with the provisions oP&-ap�e� 22,72 of the Diamond Bar
Municipal C$de d:cei8m5(t9 0) -.Development Review)econinisration
Section
This Ordinance shall be administered in conjunction with the provisions
of Chapter 22.56 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code. Where a conflict or
inconsistency t
:::.:;�.._.....::::::..,,..,..:,r.._, y exis
-+.•, ••••• s, rthe -more restrictive regulation shall apply. e
section S. Hillside Management Standards and Guidelines
The felle i~g Hillside Management Standards and Guidelines are intended
to ensure the appropriate management of hillside areas. The Standards
are requirements for the use, development, or alteration of land in
Hillside areas. The Guidelines are to be utilized to provide direction
to encourage development which is sensitive .to the unique
characteristics common the hillside properties.-4he--purpese-fir--t-ate--
Zui.deI ines..3.s. o protac -axist g -kill -s -i -des -ate e-ehc3ex -arse-i nc�vat3-cam---
(,___ __ta.�he_.�ext.eut..-that-.is.,._•the--ex�d-retsi�1�-�s--aa®-�iel�•��sge�s-the--l�i13-s-ire--
-and- is--consis#�nt- Frith-fie.-goals--axed=gci-comes--ems -thi-s-Ar-d-iAae: The
Guidelines shall be used by the Planning Coromission and the City .Council
in evaluating those development proposals for which it is proposed to go
beyond the minimum standards herein specified.
Exceptions to the standards specified herein may be approved,
pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Process, when the
r., :}}:-:r>o xwxa.. },,..};:!yys }. .{±} ..}•y,yp:•.•;•:,>}}ur;y?gst•} '.r':?
....`�.,,:.;; �,.determines
that such exceptions are`!'not"}}mater'aI}ly**''njurious!''to}}}'the intent of
the standards and guidelines set forth herein. in granting any
In .grantincr any such exception, the + Y}
44 'h}.:A+,:�' fi� ',1•BijG-•. C:6}}:,;nw::!L}:.vn:0:! }:•}}••y. ••; : •!:•
<< " ..'shall set forth appropriate
:►•}:.::<::••.:�.:«<.:!:;:.:::.:
•���!:!,.•...n}.<r:..;.�:;h�.. ..:,.::: ..:. `�'inc�ings
hfacts"'supporting its determination.
... ..a!+.t!!m:rtwc •:la�:xcu.!:wrrat,•a•.!a.nu,y..
Y: ..; ......
e Planning Commission;<`.!<?...:. }�>..:•�t
:: f.•pY•f y{+.a}: J:., :..::::x•.v::v.•::v:;: ..: :. ..v::. ::..: .::•i}:,.. N:•..{: :...:... �4z:14:�v''•.�.
i `'�'lt7.if.ir"4,':::;
i.}::..�:,'<:<::�.:::c�et�e=mines that the �iterai
.::: }, � •' '�yqp},}}>y:"Y•'.'24•x't>avrirn}:k>.:::a:}:<.t::�:i::::;zt
r eriforcemen of 'the • provisions of this Ordinance, for parcels which
may be too small and of a configuration which would create a
hardship provided that a variation from the strict application of
the Code be accompanied by reduction in the maximum permitted
density to the extent deemed necessary to maintain the intent of
the Ordinance. The eamm. - .: a #rem the standards
ent,; ned L - - - -
i
Variations may include modification of the'setback requirements to
achieve clustering of development on the parcel, in order to
maintain grading, drainage, siting and circulation objectives of
the Ordinance; except that residential structures shall be sited
3 Revised 10123192
and designed in a manner which will in the u_
,,, „_:,, , judgment of t
p= Rg-Director, maintain a vertical ,and horizontal distance f�
-other re4dential structures which will provide a reasonable degree,
of privacy, light and air between residential structures.
Where development is proposed for a parcel which adjoins one or
more vacant, developable parcels, cooperation of the respective
property owners is -encouraged -in -the planning Of 'the road network,
utilities plan and open space program for the area as a whole. The
mayCity-a_hai1- consider variations from the strict application of the
provisions of: this Ordinance as -May--fie, needed to achieve
cooperation among all contiguous property owners of vacant,
developable properties, to the extent that such variation may
better achieve the objectives of this Ordinance.
ide
section -a 9. Definitions
With fell
The following definitions shall apply to this. See ' :
CONTOUR - A line drawn on a plan which connects all points of
equal elevation.
i 1 1 nrse ea q Ps
i i iii 4 portion of land surface or area from which earth has been
CUT � "Tice mechanical removal of earth material. removed or will be remo%
CUT AND FILL - The excavating of earth material in one place and
depositing of it as fill in an adjacent place.
%•:•...,:,;..}.:rir3:}r�i.t>..;;::.•.•:5:::;c•:r�st>:,rcxu•:ar.•:.:a�.>:::..,•u.•::.x..•:...:::..,�:,:....:...,..,,,.,,.,..... _....
...:+...+.':+w•1rwu••:; - :cif+.2 "
..e.::.::.;::::::>.: •. r::�.:::5::::.,v.:..:.4:.:::.::::::SS:•SS:'•r::;:SSS:'t£:��S.�G.•`'•:.•.'•.,.;, .....i��#%A;iyRi.#R.'F'ilii5i[�i.%i:•�,i.',:3i:��,i:i�' � it
:.:.�'.,SS#S:•S„iF.:S.3S.S#5,:.,•SiCa.S:SS�.S�Ss9,:r� :..i:S.".^.YSAt%F SSSSs.S::Str f%:::�:•';'•�;•'SSSS
DAIVE66fiAY"-.4--�nea°rs---eesr-oar- nt-
A
-ree-e- P y proviig access for vehicles to a park- w
° ing s ace garage,, dwel in -or other structure. n
EFFECT�E BLTLE -The etpfecive visual bink of a structure when seen o
from a'distance of from below. 0
:car,:.
ELEVATION - Height or.distance above sea level.
EROSION - The process by which the soil and.rock components of the
earth's crust are�worn away and removed from one place to another
by natural forces such as wind and water.
FILL - A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means.
FINISH..GRADE - The final elevation of the ground surface after
grading-deve4opmWant; which is in conformity with the approved plan.
GRADING - To bring an existing surface to a desi ned form by
excavating, filling, or smoothing operations. ::. 11
HILLSIDE - Refr-te-� parcel of land which on azns' g=a'des in
excess of 10%.
NATURAL SLOPE -,A slope which is not man-made. A natural slope may
retain natural vegetation during adjacent grading operations or it
may be partially or completely removed and replanted.
PAD - A level area created by grading to accommodate developmen(
RIDGE - A long, narrow, conspicuouselevation of land.
ROADWAY - A means of access over per -property to more than one
residential unit.
SLOPE - An inclined ground surface, the inclination of which is
Revised 10123192
4
5 Revised 10123192
expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance (run) to vertical
distance (rise), or change in elevation. The percent of any given
slope is jaetermined by dividing the rise by the run, multiplied by
100.
SLOP A manufactured slope consisting wholly or
partially of -either cut or filled material.
SLOPE TRANSITION: The area where a slope bank meets the natural
terrain ora level graded area either vertically or horizontally.
PROMINENT RIDGE: A ridge or hill location which is visible from a
major arterial, secondary, or collector street, which forms part of
the skyline or is seen as a distinct edge against a backdrop of
land at least 300 feet horizontally behind it, or is so designated
by the Planning—Direct:or-. Planning Commission or City Council
5 Revised 10123192
>:�:":: ,"�1•�:•?�:{{^b:KY.•>v W,. Y>+\KO%p:Mtti00.. jfiY^
{•:i0.
•'+..'t;?::::S:r::i:::�::?:sti:;:.::;:r:...........:4.fii...:.{ %ic:vaiG. ":b..' ..: :>>:
ate®®rte
w
Revised 10123192
I
�2
Revised 10123192
8
Be Hillside Designation
WN
% Ax LAND
to W
MAIRWRep
LN "
t4AtVW
Vans
H. Slope U060gorx"M
% MaWoO SWOV
The following are standards for hillside slope categories to ensure
that development will complement the character and 'topography of
the land. The standards for one category may be applied to limited
portions of the property in an adjacent category when a project is
developed on property in more than one slope category.
Slope CateadrV% NatuZill Slope Site Standards
1. 10 to 14.9 Special hillside architectural and
design techniques that minimize
grading are required in this Slope
Category.
2. 15 to 19.9 Structures shall conform to the
natural topography and natural grade
by using techniques such as split
level foundations of greater than 18
inches, stem walls, stacking and
clustering. Conventional grading
may be considered by the city for
limited portions of a project when
its- plan includes special design
Revised 10123192
9
3.
4.
features, extensive open space.nr
significant use of green belts.
� 20 to 24.9
Development within this category
shall be restricted to those sites
where it can be shown that safety,
environmental and aesthetic impacts
can be --minimized. - Use of large
lots, variable setbacks and variable
building structural techniques such
as stepped foundations are expected.
Structures shall be designed to
minimize the visual impact of their
bulk and height. The shape,
materials, and colors of structures
shall blend with the natural
environment. The visual and
physical impact of driveways and
roadways shall be minimized by
eliminating sidewalks, and reducing
their widths to the minimum required
for emergency access and following
natural contours, using grade
separations where necessary and
otherwise minimizing grading.
25 and over This is an excessive slope condition
and developmentsy extreme
limited.
10
Revised 10/23192
Revised 10123192
11
Figureer2: Slope ratio percent slope and degree of slope are shover,)r
ff
some hillsides of varying steepness \,
a
20 I 1 I
7:1 73 IE
2�1 50 ( 25
t=)
W
h '
C,
(1j
100 45
RUN (HORIIONT.ALI
I
Revised .10/23/92
12
Grading LF 17
The follqwIng standards define basic grading techniques which are
consistent with the ordinance and avoid unnecessary cut and fill.
Limitations on project grading amounts and configurations will be
- decided on a -case-by-case basis under the conditional use process
. . ...................
VNEWWWRMOM
Revised 10123192
13
�17'*TTfl TT �/a �e
A Y.BJ:::i:
.ACCEPTABLE UNACCEPTABLE
i
i/
J
it
CANYOU ILL,
.10
TRANSITION
/ / ! /
'0, /
l / \ iseEt 10123192
IA -
SINGLE FAMILY GRADING•
CONVENTIONAL. GRADING
LANDFORM GRADING
1
Revised 10123192
Figure 5
MULTI- FAMILY GRADING
CONVENTIONAL GRADING
IIIN.
LANDFORM GRADING
PIAN 'VIEW
OBUQUE VIEW
16
Revised 10123192
......................
Revised 10123192
17
FID
. . .......... ................
......................
Revised 10123192
17
.......................
.........
Revised 10123192
1A
standards
No finished slopes greater than
.... II fifty percent (50% or
2:1) may be created except beneath a structure where the
.maximum created slope is limited to sixty-seven percent
(.67% or 1k:1) or less.
b. Grading shall be phased so that prompt revegetation or
construction will control erosion. Where possible, only
,those areas which will be built on, resurfaced, or land-
scaped shall be disturbed. Top soil shall be stockpiled
during rough grading and used on cut And fill slopes.
Revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall -occur within
three (3) months to the satisfaction of the City.
Grading operations shall be planned to avoid the rainy
season, October 15, to April 15. Grading permits shall
only be issued when a plan for erosion control and silt
retention has been approved by the City Engineer without
regard to time of year.
4. No excavation or other earth disturbance. shall be
permitted on any hillside area prior to the issuance of
a grading permit -with the exception of drill holes and
exploratory trenches for the collection of geologic and
soil data. These trenches are to be properly backfilled
and in addition, erosion treatment provided where slopes
exceed twenty (20) percent.
e. No point on -any structure subject to the provisions of
this Section shall be closer to a prominent ridge than
one hundred (100) feet measured horizontally on a
topographic map or fifty (50) feet measured vertically on
a cross section, whichever is more restrictive. And in
no case, ' shall the roof line or any other.'portion of a
structure extend above the line of sight between a ridge
line and any public right. of way, whether said ridgeline
.is above or below the right of way.
Lot pad grading is limited to the boundaries of the
structure's foundation, vehicle parking space and a yard
area asfshown on the approved grading plan.
g.
Gut elepes #er purpeses e# estabiishinq bui1ding pads
shall not emeeed twenty (2e) feet In height and E-13:4:
slepes shall net emeeed eight (8) feet in depth at anj;,
pelat en the site.
Retaining walls associated with lot pads are limited to:
Upslope (from the structure) walls not to exceed
four (4) feet in height. Terraced retaining
structures may be utilized which are separated by a
minimum of three (3) feet and appropriate
landscaping.
Revised 10123192
19
Nt
0
Downslope (from the structure) walls not to ex cfl-%d
OUV
eet heig",
Where an additional reta:'"'
15onion isin necessary
due to unusual or extreme conditions, (such as lot
configuration, steep slope, or road design) then
the- use of terraced retaining structures shall be
considered on an individual lot basis. Terraced
walls shall not exceed three.(3) feet in height and
shall be separated by a minimum of three (3) feet
and appropriate landscaping. Terracing shall not
be used as a typical solution within a development.
walls—i part ef—the
stLzueture shall net emeeed eight (8) feet -1 -ft
hel"t. Their v4:qual lapaet shall be mJ:t=Jqat_ed
—Z-71671"PIM: ee
thre a- a I I aiiiii b h J
n—Nes.
Lot lines shall be placed two feet beyond top of major
slope areas within public view corridors to help ensure
their maintenance by the downhill owner.
Where Possible, graded areas should be designed with
manufactured slopes located on the uphill side of
structures, thereby, hiding the slope behind the
structure.
20 Revised 10123192
Revised 10123192
21
f
1
I•
}
NOT THIS
Y
s
F
i
THIS
z.
larger manu(actuted Slopes Should
be located on the uphill Side of the
atruetut• 10 reduce the a PP+arance
f
or grsdloq from the street retaining walls may be used `
•.. Slopes should be rounded to
`' •+.� provide
a more natural appearane•
.Street
• N
Retaining walls are limited to one upslope
(from the
structure) not to exceed 4 feet in height.
Otherwise,
'
terraced retaining structures shall be utilized
which are
separated by a minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping.'
Retaining walls hidden by p g•
structures may be
y permitted.
(also see Figure 17)
THIS NOT THIS
or
�... 7 z
min'
£3
+A. 14' max
Revised 10123192
21
a
Onedownslopefrom the structure not to exceed 3 1/2 feet
in height. Where an additional retained portion is
necessary due to unusual or extreme conditions, (such as
lot configuration, steep slope, or road design) then the
use of terraced retaining structures shall be considered.
on an individual lot basis. Terraced walls shall not'
exceed 3 feet in height and shall be separated by a ""'
minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping. Terracing
is not to be. used as a typical solution within a
development.,
On lots sloping with the street, and other configurations
not discussed above, one retaining wall, not to exceed 3
1/2 feet in height may be used in a side yard where
necessary (also see roadway).
d. Walls which are an integral part of the structure may
exceed 8 feet in height; however, their visual impact
shall be mitigated through contour grading and landscape
techniques.
4.The following factors shall be taken into consideration
the design of a project:
a. When space.and proper drainage requirements can be met
with approval by the City Engineer, rounding of slope
tops and bottoms shall be accomplished.
b. When slopes cannot be rounded, vegetations shall be used
to alleviate a sharp, angular appearance.
C. A rounded and smooth transition shall be made when the
planes of man-made and natural slopes intersect.
d. When significant landf orms are "sliced" for construction,
the landforms shall be rounded as much as possible to
blend i 0 to natural grade.
S. Manufactured slope faces shall be varied to avoid
excessive "flat -planed" surfaces.
No manufactured slope shall exceed 30 feet in height between
terraces or benches.
22 Revised 10123192
Retain the integrity
THIS •-... ,t of the natural glop•
NOT THIS
Over•etnphasized vertical
structures disrupt the natural
siMaus tt•�o fl the hillside
Where cut or fill conditions are created, slopes would be varied
rather than left at a constant angle which may be unstable or
create an unnatural, rigid, "engineered" appearance.
Varying cut or fill slaps creates
a more natural appearance
i
i
i
/ I
/
Not this i
This t
23 Revised 10123192
. The angle of any graded slope should be gradually adjusted to the
angle of -the natural terrain.
Existing development Proposed P d development
r
Tract poundar7
INatural grade \`\ Variaolo
�.� Proposed slope extension
Existing drainage device
\ \ This Natural grade
Not this \ "�
Combine s1oP611 to more closely
aPProsimat® natural grad®
Revised 10123192
24
li
E Manufactured slopes adjacent to roadways sheuid be t a
eient
i4R�c:�'i.Aiii::S:iii. ' : c'v'•;'• v: , }: i.:. v:::.:' ::::.::.:':.:.
n•:•}iiii:::::'h;:•i'•i:ti•i•,}}:':: •;: t<•�4:ti.iii:}::::::iiiii:::.:;,,:i:•X;:!:......::.::..: ......
:: n}�♦ •:.•:••:;,,i4:::::•.::.•.:.: ;:v}: �'.::..... ::::: x:.�:n�.. ••x: .: .. :.:::.: Y:: y}•....:. :.:::gin>y:;:: .............. �•'•::: vv;; ..................:...:. .lR:r�:�:��i:7
.:.•..:.:.:.. to create........visualT::....:::..::.;.::::.�.�::.::::::.ii.:::ry>.:..,..::...::,:.:�.i:.i;:s.::.,:�::::>;::>::»»>::;::::.:»>::>:
�<;«> y interesting and pleasing
•streetscapes.
THIS
Variety in / /
undulating stops
bank creates
pleasing
roadscap
NOT THIS
Straight
slope bank
heightens
monotony of road
way iandsespe
25 Revised 10123192
sect Drainage
Where a conflict exists between the provisions of this section and
Provisions
Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, the drainage, soils and geology
prevail, unless in the
opinion of the .City Engineir, t
e, pr sions of this section'
sound engineering standards-eeAs-��*�,, 4,,-- -,
zit meet
Standards
Debris basins, rip rap, and energy dissipating devices shall
be provided where necessary to reduce erosion when grading is
undertaken. Except for necessary flood control facilities
significant natural*draiAage courses shall be protected from
grading activity.. In instances where crossing is required, a
natural crossing and bank protection shall be preferred over
steel and concrete systems. Where brow ditches are required,
they shall be naturalized with plant materials and native
rocks.
ROD
an
ACCEPTABLE
=4
CONVENTIONAL I
26 Revised lol23192
PWKWA284:11491M I'M
F1 FE� �M/A
��� fir`'J;
THIS NOT THIS
Small irregular berm accentuates
the top Of the slope
Variety in
31006 bank I 30i 44
grading
Landscaping
creates a accentuates
Otainage,
natural appearance --tji contour undulation features
more resembling4w %C'j C'o .j 7 become
nature
v*1`Y visible
Engineered slap
Drainage
banx4 look lot
and unnatural ;d
features are \ \
obscured
Use at radii and uneven slopes Use of angles and uniform slopes
Revised 10123192
27
Building and grading permits shall not be issued for construction on ank' `e
without an approved location for disposal of runoff waters, including but not
limited to such facilities as a drainage channel, public street or alley,or
private drainage easement.
4. The use of cross lot drainage shall be subject to Pand lanning Co um
mi" ssion
review and may be approved after demonstration that this method will not
adversely affect the proposed lots or adjacent properties, and that it is
absolutely required in order to minimize the amount of grading which would
result with conventional drainage practices. Where cross lot drainage is
utilized, the following shall- apply:
a. Project Interiors - One lot may drain across one other lot if an
easement is provided within either an improved, open V-swale gutter,
which has a naturalized appearance, or within a closed drainage pipe
which shall be'a minimum twelve (12) inches in diameter. In both
cases, an integral wall, shall be constructed. This drainage shall be
conveyed to either a public street or to a drainage easement. If
drainage is conveyed to a private easement, it shall be maintained',.
a homeowners association, otherwise the drainage shall be conveyed
to a public easement. The easement width shall be determined on an
individual basis and shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic
studies and access requirements.
b. Project Boundaries - Onsite drainage shall be conveyed in an improved open
V-swale, gutter, which has a naturalized appearance, or within an
underground pipe in either a private drainage easement, which is to be
maintained by a homeowner's association, or it shall be determined on an
individual bas's and shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies
and access requirements.
THIS
NOT THIS
Varlaala , .
Use e! naU,t tasks
naturalist man•,tadt
ares dittoA.r-. at Ororr
A.C. or
!Y
2$ ed 10123192
-
B. Guidelines.
1. Where possible, drainage channels should be placed in
inconspicuous location, and more importantly, they should
receive a naturalizing treatment including native rock,
colTmd concrete and landscaping, so that the structure
V
appears as an integral part of the environment.
JJ
17
.46
j
2. Natural drainage courses should be preserved and enhanced to
the extent possible. Rather than filling them in, drainage
features should be incorporated as an integral part of the
project design.
Parkin
section Access nd
A. Standards.
1. Driveway grades up to a maximum of twenty (20) percent are
permitted, and shall be aligned with the natural contours of
the land. Proper design considerations shall be employed,
including such items as vertical curves and parking landings.
In any case, parking landings shall be utilized -on all drives
over ten (10) percent grade.
ae ess, ef net mere than ten (10) f eet may have a :�Iepe ef
twenty twe �22) pereent.
3. Grooves for traction shall be incorporated into the
construction. of driveways with a slope of twenty (20) percent
or greater, a coarse paving matter into the construction.
Where retaining walls are necessary adjacent to roadways or
within street setbacks, they shall be limited to three (3)
feet in height in order to avoid obstruction of motorists' and
pedestrians' field of view, and to create an aesthetically
pleasing streetscape. No more that three (3), three (3)
foot high terraced or stepped retaining walls shall be
utilized which are separated by a minimum of three (3) feet
and appropriate landscaping. Slopes met greater than fifty
(50) pereent (er 2s!) will be permAted upen Feview and-
e"reval by the Fire Marshall..
Revised 10123192
29
3'
max
Of
Stre!et
T MA x
Street
Driveways shall enter public/private streets maintaining
adequate line of sight.
Local hillside street standards shall be used to minimize
grading and erosion potential while providing adequate access
for vehicles, including emergency vehicles. The 3F1_U
be a %!"!mum ef 48.5 feet with 40 feet of pa
th Old-Ele-8 and a
6 -7. Grades of streets in the hillside areas shall be as provid-4
in this subsection. Hillside collector and arterial strep
shall not exceed percent. Hillside residential local
streets shall not e'k6'-"e"ied percent.
7 Cul-de-sacs to a maximum of O"'Of bi feet in length may be
permitted with a maximum of 30 ling units., and te a
maximuRr ef !GOO feet in length w!:hi% a er- 20 dwel".ng
"Its amd'shall teL9ainate •with a turn areund aLmea met less
than 35 feet in radius te eur*-�.
8-9% All other street improvement standards shall conform to the
standard plans and specifications for public streets of the
City of Diamond Bar.
9 4:4. The PlannirW Commission may
approve
modificationto the abov =q; gam
--standards
standards
.provided such modifications are in substantial conformance
with the objectives stated in this section.
B. Guidelines.
1. Roadways and. driveways, where feasible, where freaei 1-1 - -should
conform to the natural landform. They should not greatly alter
the physical and visual character of a hillside by creating
large. notches in ridgelines or by defining wide straigt.'
alignments or by building switch -backs on visually promine_
hillsides, split sections and parking bays should be utilized
in -the layout of hillside streets.
Revised 10l23192
M,
No parking
Stabilize and reforest
distributed banks --
Separate sidewalk
'Steep slope
Parking ba
!i 1
Possible trail
I
Split section Roadway
Stoop slope$
Sidewalk
Roadway
latter slope
31
Revised 10123192
THIS
NOT THIS
i
Roads and hillside grading
i
Reduce
It grading by
r aligning roads along
natural grades
Avoid funning counter
to steep graces
No parking
Stabilize and reforest
distributed banks --
Separate sidewalk
'Steep slope
Parking ba
!i 1
Possible trail
I
Split section Roadway
Stoop slope$
Sidewalk
Roadway
latter slope
31
Revised 10123192
2. Where road construction is permitted in hillside areas, the
extent of vegetation disturbance and visual disruption sh -ld
be minimized by the combined use of retaining structures
re-idr ing to approximate the natural slope. The following
techniques should be used where feasible:
a• Utilize landform planting in order to create
a natural a
ppearance acid provide a sense of privacy.
b. Reduce the visual and safety impacts by use of terraced
retaining walls and landscaping.
c. Split roadways increase the amount and appearance of
landscaping and the median can be used to handle
drainage.
THIS
Round off cut slopes
Remove small knob"
on roadway cut
\ to conform to the
natural grad*
Roadway vista
Round off
cut slopea split roadway see tions tr
accommodate grade
change
Roadway Natural grade
RoadwaL/ .
NOT THIS
Unnaturai odge condit
cut atop*
into .hill3id
Roadway
Knob remaining
from roadway e.ut
Roadway
Too steep for planta
• to boeonte established
f f '
Mass grading to accommodate
one level arterial highway
Roadway -N
Natural gr
Revised 10123192
D
r
Li H/� ?a
Trails are an integral part of a hillside area and provide
recreation areas for equestrian, -hiking and biking uses. They can
also fun ?tion as a means to take up grade . or to convey drainage.
In hillside areas, it is not always necessary to provide full
improvements -for trails. A more natural experience may be
achieved, and the amount of grading required can be reduced, by
providing minimal improvements in appropriate areas, such as
undevelopable, steep slopes.
At. Where reta' ' !is are Preve"
adjaeent- *gk :MM;dways er within street
limi4coa- te 3 feet in heiqht in erder
meterist I I's
te be abse
setbaejes,
_4w- aveaid
. lutely i4eeessary
they shall be
Obstruetien of
s and pedestrian f-j:e3:d
aesthetleally pleasing st-reetseape. Oth
ef- v
ise, terraeed*
ffl- te ereate an
or stepped
struetures shai! Ige' -at4:3:j:zed, whleh are
3 feet and apprepriate land6eapinq-r
sepaLuated
byL I e
Revised 10123192
33
section i, site D®sicYII
A. standards.
1,. Tiie'dimensions of a building parallel to the direction of the
Slope shall be maximized in order to limit the amount of
''Cutting and filling and to better fit the house to the natural
terrain.
THIS NOT THIS
Terracad docks do not C e
increase building bulk dyer^a^ging decks .�
make building /L^� r"'F
'
seem more --
( •
Effective bulk w'th ,-.i''+—" massive
of w, tnout 'leeaa •, %✓
Effective bulk
Bu'l'ling correctly fits.
into the „ig^ profile budding
ground and atan'la ou
minimizes the effect �•--�— �� ton the
hiliaida
on the b'''o'i'l _
_ Avoid docks hanging
Us* of root decks, low �---
level docks, and side of from the downhill side
v supports
..
building docks with long pole �•--•..
Terracing reduces bulk
Cantilever makes building
appeartailor• more
nt
monuentar
Effective bulk Effective bulk✓ p ""'•�"
F
Eseosairoof overhang
In , ✓///
visuals In additional _
visual bulk
Effective bulk -
Effective bulk
Smaller overnangs for Individual floors W.F.
Of windows help break."® mass and
protect against sacessive sunlight
Be' Guidelines
le Design of Vuilding sites should be sensitive to the natural
terrain. Structures should be located in such a wayas t
minimize necessary grading and to preserve natural eatures
such as prominent knolls or ridgelines.
2. Views of significant visual features as seen from both within
and outside a hillside development should be preserved. The
following provisions shall be taken into consideration:
a Dwellings should be oriented to al-1oiew opportunities,
although such views may be 1�mitede Residential privacy
should not be unreasonably sacrificed.
be Any significant public vista or view corridor as seen
from a secondary, collector or major arterial should be
protected.
Revised 10123192
34
3. Projects should incorporate variable setbacks, multiple
orientations and other siteplanning techniques to preserve
open spaces, protect natural features and offer views to
residents.
THIS NOT THIS
section Architeclue
A. '.Standards.
.1. The building envelope for all structures shall be as follows:
finished grade
a. Downhill Lot - A maximum/height
of thirty-five (35) feet
as measured from natural grade at the front setback,
extending towards the rear of the lot. The maximum height
at the side setbacks shall be twentt2-01 feet extending
up to the center of the lot at.a fo tY-five (45) degree
angle to a maximum height of thir five (35) feet as
measured from natural grade., ?_
or approved finished grade five (25)
BUILDINd ENVELOPE FOR DOWNHILL LOT
�7
45
Minimum front 309*&Ck 15
3S
�
DownihilI S SecCtt
ion*
1--, Minimum side attoaci
Rest: setback
Strett Bivation
Revised 10123192
35
THIS
Height limit —� � o
:T
F1& -1 -At-
"-f--�-��imum--t�s►i}�,� -�-mea-s��re,r}--f--nat�xra� -gr �' �-
-�------.�i<x#�nci�"xsg.—gyp--
-------�.4�---�qr�- �--��$ ....�rs�ar®ry:-t►t •�t:iii��,�.f9'E -d'�
------- mem m--iia-tur,,j--C ra",iTe--�3s}-€E'er-38-
}
Large root sections to NOT THIS
Parallel the average slope
�Ouil4in9 envelope
Maximum
Softening of large
vertical suit leas
Rigid vertical slam..,
2. The building shall be terraced to follow the slope.
3• Architectural treatment shall be provided to all sides of the
structure visible-p2opert ies-,- roaF
� -e�-wk��r-�-- Y's-or'pTrb'�
strtc-
4• Exterior uctural supports and undersides of floors and
decks not enclosed by walls shall be permitted provided fire
safety and aesthetic considerations have been adequately
addressed.
5• Exterior flood lighting for safety shall be located and
shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties. Decorative
lighting to highlight a structure is prohibited.
B': Guidelines
1. The form, mass and profile of the individual buildings a�,_
architectural features should be designed to blend with the
natural terrain and preserve the character and profile of the
natural slope. Some techniques which may be considered
includes
Revised 10/23192
36
i
a. Split pads, stepped dd ,
permit structure to&%our � �- �-� �j ,
P u
i�p
b. Detaching parts of a dwelling such as a garage.
c.r-- Avoid the use of gable ends on downhill elevations. The
slope of the roof should be oriented in the same
direction as the natural slope and should not exceed
natural slope contour by twenty (20) percent.
2. Avoid excessive cantilevers on downhill elevations.
3. Excavate underground or utilize below grade rooms to reduce
effective bulk and to provide energy efficient, and environ-
mentally desirable spaces. However, the visible area of the
building shall be minimized through a combined use of
regrading and landscaping techniques.
4. Use roofs on lower levels for the deck open space of upper
levels.
THIS
Large root areas broken up
Use of natural materials and window
placement in small increments treat*
interesting %mail scale pottern%
Break up massing of structural elements
to more Closely approximate the natural
slope
Stone foundations and retaining walls
relate to the ground
NOT THIS
Massive roof area is very visible in
contrast to the natural slopes
Large facade of one material, even
if modulated by windows, seems plain
5. Building materials and color schemes should blend with the
natural landscape of earth tones and natural chaparral
vegetative.growth.
6. To the extent possible, the width of a building measured in
the direction of the slope, shall be minimized in order to
limit the amount of,cutting and filling and to better "fit"
the house to the natural terrain.
0
37
Revised 10/23192
THIS t-
Building pulls back from
st®aper slopes and ravines
on tho. hitiside r
i
Minor building
Protrusions wnich.
aro pvrpendieular to the
Contours are seeootable
but should be staoped or
inset in the hillside
Building is oarallel with
the contours
section >'A F ncea and L adaicap
A. Standards
NOT THIS
°
s
Building is perpendicular to the contours
1. Walls and fencing, not exceeding six (6) feet in height,
visible from roadways or public rights-of-way
visually open and non-opaque. shall be
2. Privacy walls and fences, not exceeding six (6).feet in
height, are permitted adjacent to structures, in order to
provide a private outdoor area. Walls and fences shall be of
materials and colors compatible with the structure's facade.
3. Native or naturalized plants or other plant species that blend
with the landscape shall be utilized in all areas with
required punting.
4• Fire retardant plant materials shall be utilized. Plants
selected as ground cover, shrubs or trees shall be from the
dist^as approved by the City.
5 • A permanent � ' � ::; { irrigation s
establishing ncmanti'inq required system, forlnm4ft Purposes of
shall
be .installed on all slopes. The emphasis ffl"e �toward
using - plant materials that will eventually need minimal
irrigation. Water and energy conservation:,techni
es ll
utilized °includin but not limited to® such items as drbe
irrigation
. ..:.0$:-0:{2{�{<d,�"�i:•'•:'+.•:Si'v ii:ii'v:54\{:i:24w� _ •..
Revised 10123192
�A
THIS
Planting pockets on stepped
retaining wall allow screen
planting at several levels
M
No effective bulk
NOT THIS
7
Effective b
No planting Possible due
to 100 Of retaining wail
Lx?90 concrete retaining wall
surfaces can be soon for mild
and take your, to conceal
with planting and trees
6. Landscaping shall be used to screen views of downslope
building elevations. When the structure height exceeds twenty
(20) feet from finished grade on a downslope, additional
landscaping is required and a landscaping plan shall be
.submitted for review with the submittal package.
7. Slopes with required planting shall be planted with informal
clusters of trees and shrubs to soften and vary the slope
plane. Where slopes are 2:1 and five (5) feet or greater in
height, jute netting shall be used to help stabilize planting
and minimize soil erosion.
8. Native vegetation shall be retained and supplemented within
canyons and along natural drainage courses as allowed by state
and federal resources agencies (State Department of Fish &
Game, U. S. Fish and Wildlife, U. S. Army Corp. of Engineers).
THIS
k- planig naturally follows
C!t the average slope
Open too-thru tenting that
blends into the natural qn,.n. C-3 NOT THIS
retaining ..It
Settle ing required.,. t. -K-
-1V
Trfnillion area i
Highly visible solid well
N,
I No screening
tleSir Out soparall
between natural condition
:n
and dOvOlOPO4 &too -lith no transition
39
Revised 10123192
B. Guidelines
1• Natural landform planting should be used to
mafufactured slopes, soften
reduce impact of development on steep
slopes or ridgelines, and provide erosion control.
2• Maintain a 1°vegetative backdrop" by replanting with approved
trees
' h_ vegetationshould structures to 'the extentpossibleatmturityand preserve hppearance of hillside.
the
t
ir
Typical building clustering
40 Revised 10123192
THIS
.row
jfJiA
A
y
Landform planting
Conventional planting
Ifte(juiat vi3uai plane
.4
in cross-section--W—'A-
A,
Uniform visual piano,,,
in
cross-section
i4
W
de
ST
Section
41
a
t
Revised 10123192
x
NOT THIS
Conventional planting
Uniform visual piano,,,
in
cross-section
de
ST
41
a
t
Revised 10123192
® 7 "% CN
N,
I Nft%tft """ quo -.0 s®°
SLOPE LANDSCAPING
&OHM
atnba. spaww
. for untfam "ver"o
Revised 10123192
42
7,
Section Public Safety Standards.
A. Fire Protection Standards
1. mpe&ider_z—developments shall be constructed in such a
manner so as to reduce the potential for spread of brushfire
through consideration of, the following:
a. In the case of a conflict where more restrictive
provisions are contained in the Uniform Building Code or
in the Fire Code, the more restrictive provisions shall
prevail.
b. Roofs shall be covered with noncombustible materials as
defined in the Building Code. Open eave ends'shall be
stopped in order to prevent bird nests or other
combustible material lodging within the roof and to
preclude entry of'flames.
C. Exterior walls shall be -surfaced with noncombustible or
tire resistant materials.
d. Balconies, patio roofs, eaves and other similar overhangs
shall be of noncombustible construction or shall be
protected by. fire-resistant material pursuant to the
Building Code.
2.. Resldentla4.developments shall be constructed with
adequate water' supply and pressure for all proposed
development in accordance with standards established by the
Fire Marshal.
3. A permanent fuel modification area shall be required around
development projects or portions thereof that are adjacent or
exposed to hazardous fire areas for the .purpose of fire
protection. The required width of the -fuel modification area
shall be based on applicable. building and f ire codes and a
Fire Hazard Analysis Study developed by the Fire Marshal.
4. Fuel modification areas shall incorporate soil erosion and
sediment control measures to alleviate permanent scarring and
accelerated erosion.
5. the Fire Marshal determines in any specific case that
difficult terrain, danger, of erosion or other unusual
circumstances make strict compliance with the clearance of
vegetation undesirable or impractical,<he may suspend
enforcement thereof and require reasonaile alternative
measures designed to advance.the purposes of this ordinance.
6. In the event the abatement , is not performed as required in
subsection C of this section, the City. Council may instruct
the Fire Marshal to give notice to the owner of the property
upon which said condition exists to correct such prohibited
condition and, if the -owner fails to correct such condition,
the City 'Council may cause the same to be, done and make the
expense of such correction a lien on the property upon which
such conditions exist.
Revised 10123192
7. Require special construction features in the design of
structures where site investigations confirm potent,i -1
geologic hazards.
Section Application Filing Re
A. A natural features map,• which shall identify all existing slope
banks, ridgelines, canyons, natural drainage courses, federally
recognized blue line streams, rock outcroppings, and existing
vegetation. Also depicted shall be landslides and other existing
geologic hazards.
B. A conceptual grading plan, which shall include the following items
in addition to those required by the Municipal Code or as part of
the Submittal Requirement Checklist:
1. A legend with appropriate symbols which should include, but
not be limited to, the following items: top of wall, top of
curb, high point, low point, elevation of significant trees,
spot elevations, pad and finished floor elevations, and chan7-%
in direction of drainage.
2.. A separate map with proposed fill areas colored in green and
cut areas colored in red, with areas where cut and fill exceed
depths established in the hillside development guidelines and
standards clearly shown. Additionally, the areas Of cut and
fill, calculated as a percentage of the total site area, shall
be included on the plan.
3. Contours shall, be shown for existing and 'natural land
conditions and proposed work, Existing contours shall be
depicted with a dashed line with every fifth contour darker,
and proposed contours shall be depicted as above except with
a solid line. Genteers Shall be she a6Gewdlftef te- th-e
felle-W.-Ing- sete"lee
leave in ->
Above 20X- -
5
C. A conceptual drainage and floor control facilities map describing
planned drainage improvements.
D. A Slope Analysis mapfor the purpose of determining the amount and
location of land as . it exists in its natural state falling int -
each slope category as specified below. For the slope map, tl'
applicant shall use a base topographical map of the subject site,
prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer or licenses land
surveyor, which shall have a scale of not less than 1 inch to loo
feet and a contour interval of not more than 2 feet provided that
Revised 10123192
4WJ-
the contour interval may be 5 feet when the slope is more than 20
percent. This base topographical map shall include all adjoining
properties within 150 feet of the site'.boundaries. Delineate slope
bands in he range of to 10 percent, iO up to 15 percent,. 15 up to
20 perceAt, 20 up to 25 percent, 25 up to 30 percent, 30% to 35%
and 35 percent or greater. Also included shall be a tabulation of
the land/area-in each slope category, specified in acres.
E. Provide a sufficient number of slope profiles to clearly illustrate
the extent of the proposed 'grading. A minimum of 3 slope profiles
shall be included.",
The slope profiles
shall:
1. Be drawn atthe same scale and indexed, orkeyed, to the slepe
analysis map, grading plan, and project site map.
2. Show existing and proposed topography,'% structures, and
infrastructures. Proposed topography,.structures, and
infrastructures shall be drawn with a solid, heavy line.
Existing topography and features shall be drawn with a thin or
dashed line.
3. The slope profile shall extend far enough from the project
site boundary to clearly show impact on adjacent property, at
least 150 feet.
4. The profiles shall be drawn along thoselocations of the
,project site where:
(a) The greatest alteration of existing topography is
proposed; and,
(b)* The most intense or bulky development is proposed; and,
(c) The site is most visible from surround land uses; and,
(d) At all site boundaries illuatrating maximum and minimum
conditions.
5. At least two of the slope profiles shall be roughly parallel
to each other and roughly perpendicular to existing contour
lines. At least one other slope.profile shall be roughly at
a 45 degree angle to the other slope profiles and existing
contour lines.
F. Beth the slepe aaa=T-3vjx---:,-- 3".M.5 slope profiles shall be stamped and
signed by either * registeri andscape architect, civil engineer,
or land surveyor indicating the datum, source, and scale of
topographic data used in the slope analysis a slope profiles, and
attesting to the fact that the slepe analysis A slope profiles
have been accurately calculated and identified.
G. The exact method for computing the percent slope and area of each
slope category should be sufficiently described and presented so
that a review can be readily made. � Also, g. heavy, solid line
indicating the 8 pereent grade differeitial shAl.1 be clearly marked
on the plan,.and an additional copy of the map'shall be submitted
with the slope percentage categories depicted in contrasting
colors.
es"
G. A geologic and soils report, prepared by at approved soils
engineering firm and in sufficient detail to.- substantiate and
46r 5 Revised 10123192
support the design concepts presented in the application
submitted.�, %-Additional environmental studies and investigations,
such as, but not limited to, hydrologic, seismic,
access/ circulation, and biota 'research may also be required in
order to he . 1p'in the determination of the buildable area of a site.
A statement - of . c - o - nd , itions for ultim I at I e I o - wne I rshi p a . nd maintenance of
all parts of the development including streets, structures and open
spaces.
In the event that no grading is proposed, i.e., custom lot
subdivision, a statement to that effect shall be filed with a plan
which shows possible future house plotting, lot grading,.driveway
design, and septle system location for each parcel proposed, to be
prepared on a topographic map drawn at the same scale as the
conceptual grading plan.
z� When unit development ' is proposed, illustrative building
elevations, that show all sides of the proposed structure(s) and
which accurately depict the building envelope for each lot, shall
be provided.
The following items may be required it determined necessary by—the
Planning 91reeter eLa o aid in the analysis of
the proposed project to illustrate existing or proposed conditions
or both:
/'
1. A topographic model;
2. A line of sight or view analysis;
3. Photographic renderings; -
4. Any other illustrative technique determined necessary to aid
in review of a project.
Exceptions to the filing requirements shall be determined by the
plan "in —Director Wil;*
V
FAWP51XWORKM4SMYNXHHJLSk%.DM
4�&
Revised 10123192
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR. RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPT AN ORDINANCE WHICH ESTABLISHES
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS (CASE NO.
2CA 92-2)
A. Recitals.
The city of Diamond Bar has determined that the
existing development standards applicable to hillside development
in the City of Diamond Bar fail to provide standards suitable and
appropriate for the City. The existing Los Angeles County Code
standards allow for the development and placement of hillside
development of which the site planning, grading, drainage,
landscaping and architectural characteristics contribute to
deleterious conditions within the City.
(ii) The City Council has charged- the Planning
Commission with development of Hillside Management and Development
Standards which constitute and establish for the City standards
which satisfy the aspirations and expectations of Diamond Bar.
(iii) The Planning Commission has reviewed the Hillside
Management and Development Standards at public hearings. The
Commission has duly considered public testimony presented at the
hearings, as well as technical analysis provided by City Staff.
(iv) The Planning Commission, after due consideration
of public testimony, staff analysis and the Commission's
deliberations has determined that the Hillside Management and
Development Standards attached hereto as Exhibit "All: and
1
incorporated by reference into this Resolution satisfy and
exemplify the goals and needs of the community. The Planning
Commission has duly considered the issues related to a balanced
Hillside Management Ordinance so as to provide maximum benefit and
minimum detriment to the community.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred. &
B. Resolution.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond
Bar as follows:
1. In all respects as set forth In paragraph A, Recitals,
as set forth hereinabove.
2. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City
Council adopt the Hillside Management and Development standards
for the City of Diamond Bar attached hereto as Exhibit "All and
incorporated herein by reference. Such Ordinance deletes the
existing conflicting standards set forth in the Los Angeles County
Code as adopted by the City of Diamond Bar.
3. The Planning Commission finds and determines that the
ordinance proposed by this Resolution is categorically exempt from
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder
pursuant to Sections 15307 and 15308 of Division 6 of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations.
4. The Planning Commission finds and determines that there
is a substantial probability that such project will not be
2
detrimental to or interfere with the General Plan adopted by the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar and that such project is
consistent with the General Plan as adopted by the City.
5. the Secretary of the Planning Commission is hereby
directed to certify to the adoption of this Resolution and is
further directed to promptly submit recommended Hillside
Management ordinance to the City Council for their review and
consideration.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS _ of October, 1992.
Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the
City of Diamond Bar,,do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu
tion was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar held on held on the
of October, 1992, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:]
NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:]
QW51\RESOLUTWULLSIDE
Secretary
Commission
3
to the Planning
Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
Planning • Engineering • Surveying • GPS
October 20, 1992
Jim DeStefano
Community Development Director
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. - r
21600 E. Copley Drive '
Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-3117
RE: City of Diamond Bar Hillside -,
Management Ordinance
Dear Jim:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed revisions to
the City of Diamond Bar Hillside Management Ordinance. Based on our experience with
implementing the ordinance we have the following comments:
® We approve of the flexible language included in the ordinance which
allows a case by case evaluation of projects.
® The clarification in definitions and the intent of land form_ grading is
much easier to understand for implementing purposes.
We are concerned about Section 10, Slope Analysis, page 9.
Specifically we would request the elimination of the language regarding
average slope and retained open space. Based on our experience,
formulas such as this are arbitrary in nature and provide no flexibility
for case by case review. We believe tying the average slope to site
standards as currently presented in the ordinance allows the flexibility
necessary to produce innovative, sensitive and cost effective grading
designs.
10179 Hicennekens Street • San Diego, CA 92121 • (619) 558-4500 • FAX: (619) 558-1414
Offices: San Diego • h -vine • RiversidelSan Bernardino
David Hammar • Jack Hill
r
Finally, there appears to be a minor discrepancy between D. Use of
Variable Slope, page 19, which discusses the ability and circumstances
under which slope ratios greater than 2:1 can be used and E.
Standards, page 19, which indicates a maximum slope gradient of 2:1.
If there are any questions regarding these comments, we would be happy to discuss
them at your convenience.
Respectfully,
HUNSAKE
R D ASSOCIATES
S4�SANVIEGO NC.
illiman
Planning Director
LW:kb
953-14
wp:953.60A
t.t....a7iwr»�ie..*t'i ,r'�.j:�:ih'!'.
community. Specifically this Chapter:
A. Insures, insofar as practicable and in permitting reasonable
usp of land and minimizing fire hazard, the maximum retention of
ground cover to aid in protection against flooding, erosion, earth
movement, siltation, and other similar hazards.
B. Protects property values by insuring the maximum preservation of
the natural scenic character of the area consistent with the
reasonable use of such property.
C. Insure; that the development of each parcel of land, as well as
water courses, streets, and other public lands and places, occurs
in a manner harmonious with adjacent lands so as to minimize
problems of flooding, drainage, erosion, earth movement and similar
hazards, and to maintain the visual continuity of hill and valley
without unsightly continuous benching of building sites.
8502 Applicability. -
(a) The Grading Development Management Program shall apply to any lot
or parcel of land located within the corporate boundaries of the City of La
Habra Heights. Additionally, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to
previously graded lots, for which no building permits currently in effect have
been issued.
(b) For the purposes of the Grading Development Management Program.
.Uaverage slope" shall be defined as the relationship between the change in
elevation (rise) of the land and the horizontal distance
(run) over which that
change in elevation occurs. The average slope "S" is computed on the net area
Of the parcel by the following formula:
S = 0.002296 1 L
A
Where S = Average percent slope
I = Contours interval vertical in feet
L = Summation of length of all contours in feet
A = Area in acres of parcel being considered
(2)
Rf
10 20 30 40 50
a
O
80
60
40
20
x
10 20 30 40 50
% Slope Avg.)
80
ME
EM
RM
85 96"
5
J.
C.r
3 PG2 PcPG
10 20 30 40 50
% Slope Avg.)
80
ME
EM
RM
i
Section 17.24.080
AAAZRO
Section 17.24.080 Density
Slope density regulations which correlate intensity of development to steepness of
terrain will be used to minimize grading, removal of vegetation, land instability, and
fire hazards. The total allowable residential dwelling units shall be calculated based on
the total (buildable) land area within each slope category multiplied by the capacity
factor for each to the slope category.
A. Calculation of density. The maximum number of units that may be permitted in a
proposed development shall be determined by multiplying that area of land in each
"slope category" by the "capacity factor" shown in the following table, taking the
products of these calculations converted to square feet, and dividing this figure by
the required site area unit in square feet prescribed in the underlying zoning
district (except the Hillside Residential District where there is no minimum lot
size required). In the Hillside Residential District, the allowable amount of
buildable area resulting from the Capacity Factor calculation will constitute the
adjusted net buildable area.
B. Land Capability Schedule.
Adusted Net
*Buildable Area Capacity Buildable Area
'Slope Category in square feet Factor (square feet)
Under 10 percent X 1.00 =
10-14.9 percent X 0.75 =
15-19.9 percent X 0.50 =
20-24.9 percent X 0.25 =
.25-29.9 percent X 0.025 =
.30+ percent X 0.0
Divided Permitted
by minimum number of
lot size units
requirement
of under-
lying zoning
district ex-
cept in Hill-
side Residential
* Buildable area is a contiguous area of the lot which is less than 30 percent in
natural slope, or in the area determined, through environmental studies and
investigation, as buildable.
-217-
Nkomo"
(Density Range
MINIMUM@
Slope
Category in
Percent
/Ty 01=' 4(04AW404
TABLE I SLOPE DENSITY STANDARDS
SD_l*
of 1 acre per dwelling unit to 20 acres per dwelling unit)
Gross Area Min.Lot Area Slope Cate- Gross Area Min -Lot Area
Per Dwell- per Dwelling gory in per Dwell- per Dwelling
ing Unit Unit in Percent ing Unit Unit in
in Acres Acres in Acres Acres
(1)
0
1.00
.9,2
1
2
1.02
1.04
.94
25
1.90
1.75
3
1.06
.95
.97
26
27
1.98
2.05
1.82
1.89
4
5
1.08
.99
28
2.14
1.97
6
1.10
1.02
29
2.23
2.05
7
1.13
1.04
30
2.33
2.15
8
1.15
1.06
31
2.43
2.24
9
1.18
1.08
32
2.55
2.35
10
1.21
1.23
1.11
1.13
33
2.68
2.48
11
1.26
1.16
34
35
2.82
2.99
2.61
2.75
12
13
1.30
1.19
36
3.16
2.93
14
1.33
1.36
1.22
1.25
37
3.37
3.12
15
1.40
1.29
38
39
3.60
3.86
3.33
3.58
16
17
1.44
1.48
1.32
40
4.17
3.87
18
1.52
1.36
1.40
41
42
4.52
4.20
L 19
1.56
1.44
43
4.95
5.46
4.61
5.09
20
21
1.61
1.48
44
6.10
5.70
22
1.67
1.72
1.53
1.58
45
6.90
6.46
23
1.78
1.64
46
47
7.94
9.35
7.46
8.83
24
1.84
1.69
48
11.36
10.81
49
14.49
13.94
50 & over
20.00
19.61
The values in this Table are derived from the equations:
(1) Gross Area Per Dwelling
Unit in Acres
1.0-0.019S
(2) Minimum Lot
Area per Dwelling
Unit in Acres
I
1.6-89 - 0.020769
where S is the average natural
ground slope in percent.
1/3-4
C11Y OF 646WWAA
WNW
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (CONTINUED)
(b) Maximum Land Coverage: The maximum land coverage on
a parcel shall be determined by the following table:
Average Slope Maximum Land Coverage
Percentage Percentage of Parcel
10 - 15 ...................................
40
15 - 20 ...................................35
20 - 25 ...................................30
25 - 30.. ............... ................25 I
30 - 35 ...................................20
35 - 40 ....................... ..........15
40 - 45• ...................................10
Over 45.......,
For purpose of this subsection, the term "land covera a on a parcel"
shall mean that portion of the parcel cove
threa cy permanent struc- j
tures or other impervious surface.
(c) No graded cut or embankment with a slope greater than
three (3) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical shall be located
adjacent to a publicly maintained right-of-way. The applicant
shall provide suitable guarantees, satisfactory to the reviewing
authority, for landscaping and perpetual maintenance, at no cost
to the City, of all slopes greater than fifteen (15) feet in total
elevation.
(d) Within six (6) months, or such other period established
by the reviewing authority, after the commencement of grading
activities, all graded areas not covered by impervious surface
shall be stabilized in such manner as shall be approved by the
reviewing authority.
(e) Landscaping coverage and stabilization of graded slopes
shall be selected and designed to be compatible with surrounding
natural vegetation or to replace removed natural vegetation and
should recognize climatic, soil and ecologic characteristics of
the region. Plant materials that require excessive water after
becoming established should be avoided. Native dry climate grasses
and other zerophytic materials shall be selected wherever feasible.
(f) Trees which have a six (6).inch or greater trunk diameter
at a point three (3) feet above grade shall not be removed. The
location of all such trees shall be shown on all plans submitted
for approval. The reviewing authority may authorize removal if
the applicant can show that such requirement is unreasonable as
applied to his particular property.
(g) The overall shape, height, grade or any cut or fill
slopes shall be developed in concert with existing natural contours
and scale of the natural terrain of a particular site.
(h) Where two cut or fill slopes intersect, the intersection
shall be horizontally rounded and blanded.
(i) Where any cut or fill slopes intersect the natural
grade, the intersection of each slope shall be vertically and/or
horizontally rounded and blended with the natural contours so as
to present a natural slope appearance.
(j) Where any cut or fillslope exceeds one hundred (100)
feet in horizontal length, the horizontal contours of the slope
shall be developed in concert with existing natural contours.
(k) All cut and fill slopes, as hereinafter defined, shall
be planted and irrigated with a sprinkler system to promote growth
Of plants and ground cover, to prevent erosion. In developing a
site, the developer shall plant and maintain all slopes where
SECTION 9206.4 (Cont.)
Yards required by this zone are also subject to the general provisions,
modifications and exceptions contained in Section 9301 which shall apply
as specified.
SECTION 9206.5 - Zone R -A -- Required Area
The minimum net lot area for parcels in Zone R -A shall be determined by
the numerical suffix following the R -A designation of a specific parcel.
In the case of properties designated R -A-1 , the minimum net lot size
shall be 40,000 square feet.
The following slope density provisions shall be preeminent over the
Zoning designation for new subdivisions of land:
Average Slope Gross Area Per
of Overall Site Dwelling Unit In -Acres
Less than 30 ......................... 1.00
30 ......................... 1.06
31 ......................... 1.13
32 ......................... 1.21
33 ......................... 1.30
34 ......................... 1.44
35 ......................... 1.61
36 ......................... 1.84
37 ......................... 2.14
38 2.55
39 ..... 3.16
40 4.00
41 E above 5.00
When a project is located adjacent to predominantly developed areas, the
intensity and topography of such development may be used to override
or modify the above slope density provisions. In such cases it must be
shown that:
1. The variance from the slope density formula will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to other
improvements in the same vicinity, and
2. The variance from the slope density formula is necessary for the
preservation of a substantial property right of the applicant such
as that possessed by owners of other property in the same vicinity,
and
3. The majority of the surrounding area contains similar topography
and is developed at a greater intensity than allowed by the slope
density formula, or
Ordinance No. 609 3
4�11ty %AW PA$110
Section 223.58. Density. The number of lots permitted
shall be determined by the following slope density formula:
A. Density Yield Per Gross Residential Acre (see also
Graph I ) .
When designated SF -H, the yield is:
1. Y = 1.5 - .03S
(a) "Y" is the maximum yield of lots per
gross residential acre, and
(b) "S" in the average slope of the parcel
in percent as determined in Section
223.60.
2. When designated SF -Hb, the yield is Y = .45 -
.0081S.
(a) "Y" is the maximum yield of lots per
gross residential acre and
(b) "S" is the average slope of t - he parcel
in percent as determined in Section
223.60.
When the designation of;SF-Hb is used, all
other standards of the SF -H Zone shall apply.
B. Maximum Number of Lots
N = AY, where:
1. "N" is the maximum number of lots in any
subdivision, and
2. "All is,the gross developable -area of the
total parcel in acres inclusive*of public
utility easements or rights-of-way, park land
dedications, or other public easements or
dedications existing or required for the
subdivision. The number of lots determined
by the above formula should be rounded down
to the next whole number,
C. Lot Size
1. For all subdivisions with an average slope of
less than 20%, the minimum net lot area shall
be 25,000 square feet.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT IN HILLSIDES
I. IMPLEMENTATION UNDER JURISDICTIONAL (CITY-WIDE)
REGULATIONS
WORKING WITH HILLSIDE GRADING ORDINANCES AND GUIDELINES
COMMON PITFALLS
o Applying arbitrary guidelines to unique landforms with special
constraints
o Hillside design guidelines often conflict with standard engineering
practices
OPPORTUNITIES
o Flexibility in guidelines can result in higher quality and greater value
(i.e. clustering density, adaptive architecture, road widths, etc.)
o Adhering to "spirit and intent" rather than letter of law can expedite
development (guideline vs. ordinance)
COMMON CONFLICTS
AESTHETICS VS. MECHANICS
o Meandering contour grading may create wet and dry spots
o Bench drains, irrigation pipe and other facilities can be eyesores
DEVELOPER AS VICTIM
Id
o Battles between the planning and engineering departments can
affect schedules and =Ids
o Imposing ribTd standards may result in poor public acceptance
NO WIN OR EVERYONE WINS
o Consensus building and mediation of conflicts prior to grading
permit application
i
0 Get everyone on board with desired results
Sec.9-4.3006. Abates
(a) Declaration Q
Any building or struct CITY
altered, moved, or ma
provisions of this ch.,
used contrary to the p
or any failure to Corr
attached to the grant
permit, special use per
and the same is hereby
and a public nuisance
9-4.3006 -9-4.3100
tructure and building is disc n -
use is not reestablished f r a
OF THOUSAND OAKS y (90) days or a speci use
Hillside Planned Develo mentw use has not been app ed for
Ordinance
facts constituting a nuisance, th duly con-
stituted authorities of the City sha immediately
commence actions or procee Ings for the
abatement, removal, and enjoin lent thereof in
the manner provided by law. uch authorities
shall take such other steps o may apply to a
court of competent jurisdic ton to grant such
relief as will abate and ,ren ove such buildings,
structures, or uses and restrain and enjoin
any person, firm, or c rporation from con-
structinP, erecting, altering, moving, maintain-
irr, or using any pr perty contrary to the
provisions of this Cha ter or failing to comply
with any condition a tached to the granting of
any development pe mit, special use permit, or
variance.
(b) Service s rions. Notwithstanding any
of the provisions f this chapter to the contrary,
gasoline service tations are hereby declared to
be a special clan of land use.
(I) A y change from a service station
use shall only be permitted through the issuance
of a special use permit, even though the pro-
posed new use is otherwise permitted in the -
zone wit] ut such a permit. No special use
permit r y be issued for any use not otherwise,
conditi ally or unconditionally, allowed by the
zoning Any change from a service station use
witho it the prior issuance of a special use
porn t shall he unlawful, and the buildings and
str 'tures which are the subject of such a change
in use are lrer-by declared to be a public
n :isance.
(2) When the service station use of any
555
ninety (90) day per od, any
use permit or var' nce shall
;ome null and vo' , and the
ntildings and struc res shall be,
leclared to be, a ublic nuisance
batedfoll0wi notice and a
... _,ommission. I , after notice and
a hearing as herein provide the Commission
declares that .the building and structures are
public nuisances, the bu en of proof shall be
upon the applicant to s ow that the ninety (90)
day abatement requir ment will cause irrepar-
able and unnecessar hardship. If the owner
submits facts sufficnt to convince the Commis-
sion that a hards p as described in thus section
exists, then the Commission, at its discretion,
may grant one inety (90) day period in which a
special use rmit for a change in use or to
reestablish t e service station use may be applied
for.
(c) ernedies none.vchisire. The procedure
provid in this section shall be in addition
to an other remedy provided elsewhere by law.
(§ Ord. 196 -NS, eff. April 8, 1971, as
a nded' by §- I, Ord. 631 -NS, eff:. May 26,
1 77)
Article 31. Hillside Planned
Development Zones (H -P -D)
Sec. 9-4.3100: Purpose and policy (H -P -D).
The Cbuncil hereby finds that the terrain of
certain areas of the City provides a unique and
substantial character to the area and forms an
integral part of the City's total environment.
Due to their physical dominance on the City's
landscape. development of the hillside areas will
definitely affect the visual and environmental
character of the community. The City's primar%
objective` regarding hillside development is to
J
9-4.3106
f.
The density for
shall be computed
following scale:
property within this zone
in accordance with the
Average Percent Maximum Density
of Slopes (D/U per Gross Acre)
10 - 14.9%
2.0
15 - 19.9%
1.6
20 -24.9%
1.2
25 -29.9%
.8
30-34.9%
.4
35 and over
.1
For certain unique properties within this
zone, where the average slope percentage is less
than ten (10%) percent, the Council may allow
the maximum density of four (4.0) units per
gross acre for the entire development.
All parcels of record which have been re-
corded prior to September 9, 1971, and which
subsequently are placed in the H -P -D Zone, shall
be subject to all the provisions of this article
except, when such parcels are located in natural
slope areas of twenty-four and nine -tenths
(24.9%) percent and above, all parcels sliall be
permitted at least one dwelling unit.
Q 1, Ord. 224 -NS, eff. September 9, 1971,
renumbered by § 11, Ord. 383 -NS, eff. July 12,
1973)
Sec. 9-4.3106. Grading control (H -P -D).
(a) Land with twenty-five'(25%) percent or
greater slope should not be graded except at
the specific discretion.of the Council and only
where it can be shown that a minimum amount
of development is in the spirit of, and not
incompatible with, the purposes and policies set
forth in this article.
(b) The following table indicates those
minimum percentages of the ground surface of a
site which shall remain in a natural state (no cut
or fill) or be developed solely for recreational
purposes based on the average percent slope of a
parcel:
558
r
Minimum Percent of Site
to Remain in Natural
State (No Cut or Fill.) or Be
Average Percent
Developed Solely For Recrea-
Slope of Site
tional Purposes
0.0- 14.9%
32.5%
15.0 - 17.4%
40.0%
17.5 - 19.9;"0
47.5%
220.0 - 22.41'0
55.0%
22.5 - 24.9%
62.5%
25.0 -27.4%
70.0;"0
27.5 - 29.9%
77.5;'0
30.0 -32.4%
85.0%
32.5 - 34.9%
92.5%
35.0 and above '7r,
100.0%.
558
r
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Di
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 3 - Study Session regarding he
South Pointe Master Plan.
DATE: October 23, 1992
On October 12, 1992, the Planning Commission received a briefing on
the- proposed 170 acre South Pointe Master Plan. Staff will
present, on October 26th, a more detailed review of the project;
it's components, proponents, land use issues, opportunities,
constraints -and anticipated project processing.
Q I M."s.•.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger , City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 20, 1992
FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer
AGENDA NO.
REPORT DATE: September 14, 1992
TITLE: Approval of Tract Map No. 31977 located generally along Highcrest Drive and Goldrush Drive.
SUMMARY: This project which involves the construction of a 22 lot residential development. The lots will
range in size from 20,000 square feet to 109,734 square feet has been submitted to the' City of Diamond Bar
for a final tract map approval.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council (1) approve the attached Tract Map No. 31977; (2) authorize
the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Agreement; (3) authorize the Interim City Engineer to sign the map; and
(4) direct the City Clerk to process the map for recordation.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Ordinances(s) X Other Tract Map Subdivision Agreement
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
X Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
_ Yes X No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_ Yes X No
Which Commission? '
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
X Yes No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
Planning
A
VIEWED BY: J
errence L. Belanger Ge(
City Manager Intc
City
MEETING DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ISSUE STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
October 20, 1992
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Terry Bellanger, City Manager
Tract Map No. 31977
Approve Tract Map No. 31977 located either side of Highcrest Drive
between Goldrush and Armitos, north of Goldrush Drive, south of
Cromarty Drive and west of Radbury Place in the City of Diamond
Bar.. This project is a 22 lot single family home development on a
sixteen acre site.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council: (1) approve the attached
Final Tract Map No. 31977 and Subdivision Agreement; (2) authorize
the Mayor to execute the Subdivision Agreement; (3) authorize the
City Engineer to. sign the map; and (4) direct the City Clerk to
certify and process the map for recordation.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
Approval of the map will not have any impact on the City's 1992-93
budget.
BACKGROUND
Tentative Tract Map No. 31977 was originally submitted and. approved
by Los Angeles County Planning Department as twenty two single
family lot on a sixteen acre site. This map is a non -vesting
Tentative Tract Map.
After a 8eies of public hearings at City of Diamond Bar Council
Meetings on November 21, 1989 through February 6, 1990, Tentative
Tract Map 31977 was conditionally approved and Resolution No. 90-'16
adopted by the City Council.
A one year extension of time was applied for by the Developer
Andrew King. A duly noticed public hearing on the subject matter
was held by the Planning Commission on March 23 and April 13, 1992.
Upon conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning Commission
carried unanimously to recommend to the City Council a one year
continuance to the project subject to the already approved grading
plans being modified to substantially comply with the Hillside
Development Ordinance.
Tract Map No. 31977
October 20, 1992
The City Coucil conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 19
and approved a six month time extension. The approval included
several conditions 'including implementation of single driveways,
submission of landscaping and irrigation plans and CC&Rs. On June
211 1992 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-35 .,which
included all of the required conditions of approval.
DISCUSSION
As a result of Resolution No. 92-35, the map and grading plans were
adjusted to meet all of the concerns of the City. The grading
plans have 'now been approved by the City from a grading and soils
point of view.
According to the utility companies and other. agencies which will be
servicing this project, all of their conditions have been met. All
offsite sewer, storm drain and street improvements for the Tract
have been installed. A grading bond of $253,800 has been taken by
the City and will not be released until all slope planting and
irrigation is complete. A $6,400 monumentation bond is also being
held by the City.
Prepared By:
Anne M. Garvey
Engineering Technician
SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT
Tract No. 31977
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of this twentieth day
of October, 1992, by and between Goldrush Investment Group
(hereinafter referred to as "Subdivider") and the CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City").
A. Recitals.
There has been previously approved a Tentative
Tract Map for Tract No. 31977 in the City of Diamond Bar.'
(ii) Subdivider seeks approval of a Final Map covering
a portion of the area of Tentative Tract No. 31977 and bearing
Final Tract No. 31977.
B. Agreement.
It is agreed by and between the parties hereto as
follows:
1. In consideration of City's approval of and filing
Tentative Subdivision Tract Map No. 31977 and Final Tract No.
31977, Subdivider undertakes and agrees that it will, at
Subdivider's sole cost and expense, make all the improvements
upon and in connection with said Tract in accordance with plans
and specifications therefor on filewithCity, incorporated
herein and made a part hereof, and including all matters required
by the Planning Commission and City Council of city in connection
with the various steps leading to approval of said Tentative
Tract No. 31977. Subdivider also undertakes and agrees upon the
same consideration to comply with all ordinances and regulations
of City, and to do all other and further acts required of it
pursuant to this Agreement. Subdivider agrees in connection
therewith to pay or cause to be paid all amounts becoming due to
contractors, subcontractors', and persons renting equipment or
furnishing labor or materials to the foregoing Final Tract with
respect to such improvements, or to Subdivider with respect
thereto. Subdivider agrees that all such improvements shall be
constructed and completed in accordance with City standards as
determined by the City Engineer and in accordance with any
applicable conditions as hereinabove referred to, and in
accordance with the remaining provisions of this Agreement. In
case of any dispute, the good faith judgment of the City Engineer
shall be final and binding upon the parties.
2. Subdivider undertakes and agrees that all the work
of improvement shall be completed within 365 days from the date
of this Agreement.
3. Should Subdivider fail to comply with any of the
terms or provisions of this Agreement, Subdivider shall be liable
to City for the reasonable value of any work or improvements not
completed or improperly done or performed. In the event of any
such failure, City shall give to Subdivider written notice
thereof. Unless the work or improvements covered by said notice,
including defective work and improvements, are commenced by
Subdivider within fifteen (15) days of the date of said notice
and diligently prosecuted to completion, City may at its option:
(a) Collect from Subdivider the reasonable value
of the work and improvements not so done and performed by
Subdivider, to be measured by the anticipated costs and expenses
of completing the same; or
(b) City may complete said work and improvements
not so completed by Subdivider and collect its costs and expenses
in completing the same; or
(c)- City may as to some of such work and
improvements proceed under remedy (a) above, and as to the
remainder under remedy (b) above.
City may change any election prior to trial of any
lawsuit, and prior thereto no election of remedies shall be
binding upon city. In either event there shall be included in
said "costs and expenses"- the reasonable overhead expenses of
the City. In addition to the foregoing, Subdivider shall be
liable to City for reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs
incurred by City in enforcing the obligations of Subdivider under
this Agreement.
4. All slope banks over three (3) feet in vertical
height within said Tract shall be landscaped with plantings
approved by the City Engineer. sprinklers shall be installed on
all slopes over three (' 3) feet in vertical height along arterial
streets and shall be of a type and according to a sprinkler plan
approved by the City Engineer, with sprinkler turn -ons at the
tops of the slopes, and connected with the remainder of the water
systems of the lots of which such slopes are a part.
5. Subdivider shall give bonds with a corporate bonding
company, or similar instrument, satisfactory to City in the
following amounts and for the following purposes:
a. A bond in the amount of $10,000 securing
payment to the contractor, his subcontractor and to persons
.renting equipment or furnishing labor or materials to them with
respect to said public improvements;
b. A bond in the amount of $6,400 securing the
setting of monuments.
6. Acceptance of any work or improvements by City shall
not constitute an acknowledgment by City that the same are
properly done or performed, except as to any items or matters
readily apparent from an inspection thereof. Except I as to such
matters so readily apparent, Subdivider shall repair any defects
which occur in the work of improvements within a one (1) year
period thereof following acceptance by City.
As a condition precedent to the acceptance of the
improvements hereunder as being complete and prior to the release
of any bonds required under paragraph 5, hereof, securing the
faithful performance of Builder's obligations hereunder,
Subdivider shall give a bond with a corporate bonding company, or
similar instrument, satisfactory to City in the amount of $25,000
as guarantee and warranty of the work for a one (1) year period
following the completion and acceptance thereof against any .
defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished.
7. All notices to Subdivider may be sent to 1595 So.
McPherrin Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754, or at such other address
of which City shall actually receive notice in writing
specifically calling attention to this Agreement.
2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Agreement as of the date and year first above written.
BY
BY
CITYOF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal
corporation
B
Mayor
By
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. {
TO: r Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 20, 1992 REPORT DATE: October 14, 1992
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
TITLE: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850.
SUMMARY: The applicant, Diamond Bar Associates, has requested approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 47850 in order to construct a residential subdivision of 73 acres located on Steeplechase Lane and within
Significant Ecological Area No. 15. The applicant agreed to provide the City with additional soils and
geotechnical information in April of 1992. The City Council directed that the project be brought back for
review within the time period of September 1 through October 31, 1992. The applicant has provided the City
with revised detailed drawings now incorporating 53 dwelling units and has suplemented previous geotechnical
reports. The City's geotechnical consultant has reviewed the submittal and has requested additional clarification
from the applicant. The applicant has requested an extension of the processing time and City Council
consideration of this matter until November 17, 1992.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council continue discussion of this project, direct
staff to advertise, and notice a public hearing for November 17, 1992.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:_ Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
_ Ordinances(s)
Agreement(s)
X Other Letter from Diamond Bar Associates dated October 15, 1992
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
_ Yes X No
by the City Attorney?
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
MAJORITY
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
_ Yes X No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_ Yes X No
Which Commission?
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
X Yes _ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
ENGINEERING
c� • { �,
®rffrence WLB3elanger Jai'fies DeStefano
City Manager Community Development Director
October 115,-1992
Jim DeStephano
Community Development Director
City of Diamond Bar
21660 Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, California 91765
71-7
Associates RE: Diamond Bar ASSOC&. Vesting Tract 47850
Dear Jim:.
Per Qarl er discussion, we respecEtul.ly request an extension of
proc e s g time for vesting Tract*
i . . 41815-0. The tentative -nap and
s '
the 40 stale grading plans were submitted on September 1, 1992..
The soilsreport was submitted on.'Seoterber 3, 1992. The Cit -i's
Geotethnical Consultant, Leighton . -and Associates, has completed
their prej--im1na.7.-Y review of the so Is. -report and has -recluest:ed
6dditiona-1 detail on specific areas of the grading plan.
Harrington Geotechnical is currently preparing those details for
4
resubmittal and rei±proV
ew. -rP. order Lde adequate time f,cr
compl;.ate review by the City staff and their consultants we would
reque"St that the first city Council hearing on thi5-matter be
scheduled for the sec.ond meeting in. November, November 17th.
-Tf there are anj-- questions or comm, ' ents concerning th-'s matter,
please do not hesitate to contact us_.
Very truly yours,
DTA�MOND PAR ASSOCIATES
Ja C C' . CamerOT.L, Pres26ent
J'k-C; t -lb --
DIAMMD BA19 ASSOCIATES, INC.
3460 Torrance Blvd., Seita 30orran-e,
L
Te1epho.r-,P-(21-3-)54a3990 - FAX, (2- )31r -5 -?133
01
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. g
TO: Mayor and City Council
MEETING DATE: October 20, 1992 REPORT DATE: October 16, 1992
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Consideration of Memorandum of Understanding between Bramalea California, Inc. and the City of
Diamond Bar.
SUMMARY: Bramalea California, Inc. and the City of Diamond Bar have concluded negotiations of a non-
binding agreement which is set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The MOU sets forth rights
and duties related to the development of approximately 110-135 single-family detached homes to be located on
approximately 70 acres within the City of Diamond Bar. The proposed development is located to the east of
Diamond Bar Boulevard, east of the Tin Drive intersection. The non-binding agreement sets forth the general
terms of understanding between the City and Bramalea which provides the basis for negotiations of a definitive
agreement according to concepts presented therein. It is important to note that the final discretion and approval
of the City's Planning Commission and Council as to any actions required by each of these bodies are not
restrained by the MOU.
(narrative continued on second page)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding,
,as presented.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:_ Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinances(s)
X Agreement(s)
Other
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office)
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
X Yes No
by the City Attorney?
_
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
MAJORITY
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
N/A _ Yes No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_
N/A _ Yes No
Which Commission?
_
5.
Are other departments affected by the report?
N/A _ Yes No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
RE W,E�DD BY.
wl J�
Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
BRAMALEA - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
October 20, 1992
Bramalea offers as consideration, for the right to develop the 70± acre parcel, the conveyance of approximately
350 acres of property to the.City of Diamond Bar. The property to be conveyed consists substantially of four
parcels: one parcel is located easterly of the city -owned Pantera Park site. The conveyance of this parcel
expands the City's parksite. The second parcel is located between Gold Rush and the first southerly ridgeline.
The third parcel, approximately 1.2 acres, located at the southeast corner of Gold Rush and Diamond Bar
Boulevard, would be graded for the purpose of ultimate development of public facilities. The final parcel,
which includes in its entirety the upper Sycamore Canyon, is located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and south
of the proposed development site.
The property that would be conveyed to the City through this development process would have its use restricted
to parks, commercial recreation, open space, or other purposes of benefit to the City. Prohibitted uses of the
property would include private commercial or private residential uses. The proposed MOU includes provisions
whereby Bramalea would install a traffic signal at Tin Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard.
The City's recently adopted General Plan designates this property to be Planned Development (PD). The
current zoning is one unit per 20,000 square feet. The overall density of the Bramalea project proposal ranges
from 1 unit for 3.1 acres (135 housing units) to 1 unit for 3.8 acres (110 housing units). The actual density
on the site proposed for development ranges from 1.6 units per acre to 1.9 units per acre. The existing zoning
allows 2+ units per acre. The maximum number of units that theoritically could be developed under th�
current zoning classification is 915 units.
The concepts contained within the non-binding agreement are consistent with the General Plan strategies which
encourage density transfers from land with open -space resources to land more suitable for development,
clustering development and maintenance of areas biologically significant.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding is made and entered into
this day of
, 1992, by and between Bramalea
California, Inc., a California corporation ("Bramalea") and the
City of Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation ("City"). This
Memorandum shall not create a binding agreement between the City
and Bramalea, but only sets forth in general terms an
understanding between the City and Bramalea which will provide
the basis for negotiation of definitive agreements according to
the concepts present herein, (reserving final discretion and
approval to City's Planning Commission and city council as to any
actions required of them to effectuate said definitive
agreements).
The understanding between Bramalea and City is as follows:
City, Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of tract 31479 and Lots 50 and 51 of
Tract 42576, consisting of approximately 350 acres, exclusive of
the portion of Lots 5, 6, and 7 thereof shown on the map attached
as Exhibit "All as "Retained Property." The property to be
conveyed to the City ("Property") is for use as parks, commercial
recreation, golf course, open space or the purposes of benefit to
City but excluding use for private commercial or residential
development (P"Perm-itted Public Uses").. Bramalea shall provide
to City statements as to its knowledge of geologic faults and any
toxic or other contamination on the Property that may require
remediation and any documents in its possession regarding the
same.
2. Bramalea-and City propose to enter into a Development
Agreement providing Bramalea the right to develop the Retained
Property substantially on the terms and conditions set forth in
this Memorandum. The Retained Property will be subdivided so as
to permit the development of not less that 110 nor more than 135
single family detached homes. Lots in the Retained Property
shall have a minimum pad size of not less than 6,000 square feet,
except that not more than 10 of the lots may have a pad area of
not less than 5,300 square feet.
3. The houses developed on the Retained Property will be
comparable to the houses developed by Bramalea in the City of
Diamond Bar. Any such development will adhere to the exist . ing
CC&R's on the Retained Property. The Property and the Permitted
Public Uses on the Property shall be considered in determining
the density permitted on the Retained Property and be credited
toward the environmental mitigations required of Bramalea in
connection with Bramalea's development of the Retained Property.
4. In connection with Bramalea's subdivision of the
Retained Property, any open space not included within private
lots shall be conveyed by Bramalea to a landscape maintenance
district, either by annexation to an existing district or
creation of a separate such district.
5. City proposes to develop one or more of the Permitted
Public Uses on the Property.
HS\BRAHDIA2.MOU
081792 (9) 10850.284
In connection therewith:
K
5.1 Bramalea and City will process an environmental
impact report covering both City's potential alternatives on the dj
Property and Bramalea's proposed development of the Retained
Property and the proposed development agreement. City and
Bramalea will each bear 50% of the cost of such environmental
impact report, except, that Bramalea shall initially advance 100%
of the cost of the environmental impact report and City shall pay
to Bramalea its 50% share of such costs on or before December 31,
1995, together with interest on the funds expended from the date
expended until repaid at the rate of 7% per annum.
5.2 The City will engage as a project coordinator a
person reasonable satisfactory to both City and Bramalea, who
will be responsible for coordinating, expediting and obtaining
City and other governmental approvals of both the City's proposed
alternatives on the Property and Bramaleals proposed development
ofthe Retained Property. City and Bramalea will each bear 50%
of the cost of such project coordinator, except, that Bramalea
shall initially advance 100% of the cost of the project
coordinator and City shall pay to Bramalea its 50% share of such
costs on or before December 31, 1995, together with interest on
the funds expended from the date expended until repaid at the
rate of 7% per annum..
5.3 If City is ready to commence its grading
activities when Bramalea proposes to commence grading the
Retained Property, the grading of the Retained Property and the
Property shall be coordinated.
HSXBRAMDIA2.MOU
081792 (9) 10850.284 3
6. At or about the same time that Bramalea grades the
Retained Property, Bramalea shall, at its sole cost and expense,
also grade that portion of the Property outlined in Exhibit "All
as the "Property To -Be -Graded;" on -the following terms and -
conditions:
6.1 City will, at its sole cost and expense, prepare
all of the grading plans and perform all soil testing and
engineering work necessary in connection therewith.
6..2 Such work by City will be performed in a timely
fashion so as to enable Bramalea to conduct grading operations at
or about the same time as Bramalea grades the Retained Property.
6.3 Bramalea shall only be responsible for grading a
sufficient amount of the Property to create not less than a 1.2
acre level pad. Bramalea shall have no obligation to construct
or pay for retaining walls, provide for erosion control, pay any
governmental fees, or to grade slopes on or adjacent to the pad
area so as to eliminate the need for any retaining walls,. Any
cost of grading more than a 1.2 acre pad shall be at the sole
cost and expense of the City.
6.4 Bramalea shall, at is sole cost and expense
perform any and all remediation work necessary y with respect to
the "Property to Be Graded" including, but not limited to, toxic
or other contamination.
7. Bramalea will install a traffic signal at the
intersection of Tin Street and Diamond Bar Boulevard at the sole
cost and expense of Bramalea. Said. installation shall satisfy
HSNBRAMIA2.MOU
081792 (9) 10850.284 4
0
City requirements for system improvements and/or "developer
impact fees") (not including "in tract" improvements).
8. City will permit the construction of water tanks on the
Property at the locations provided in the master plan of Walnut
Valley Water District or other locations reasonably acceptable to
said Water District.
9. City will waive all park fees for the homes to be
developed on the Retained Property.
10. Application and processing fees, grading permit and all
related building and public improvement permit fees shall be
charged at the then current fee schedule of the City. However,
for a period of five (5) years following the date of the
Development Agreement, the City will not impose any development
fees that are not now imposed upon developments similar to the
proposed development of the Retained Property.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this
Memorandum of Understanding as of the date and year first above
written.
BRAMALEA CALIFORNIA, INC. a
California Corporation
By: _
Its:
By: _
Its:
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a
Municipal corporation
By: _
Its:
HSNBRAMDIA2.MOU
081792 (9) 10850.284 5
EXHIBIT "A"
Plat Showing Retained Property and Property to be Graded
HSNBRAMDIA2.MOU EXHIBIT "A"
081792 (9) 10850.284 A-1
n
N
. ---�-- _
`�'d
As!
�-' VVI (1011julleeb
dbY
onend is ready for
onI an
som
4ye
g
File re e d by ==--
and is ready for
on destr`ucfi n by Cid► Clea