HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/24/199241"W M1.11-
[641 kkv&$- 111; 1 ''1 � 1111�!g� 1, 1,11 k"11 R I.A.-Il I'm vmlli 111� i i � i 11�
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AUDITORIUM
21865 E. COPLEY DRIVE
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
February 24, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: 7:.00 pm
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Grothe, Vice Chairman
. MacBride, Harmony, Schey, Flamenbaum
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.
1. MINUTES: Minutes of February 10, 1992
OLD BUSINESS:
2. Consideration of a Resolution of Denial for Development
Review No. 91-3
A request for approval of a Goodyear Auto Service Center
building to be located in the Country Hills Towne Center at
the corner of Fountain Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd. The
proposed service center is located on Pad No. 14 in the
northeast section. of the center adjacent to the Krikorian
Theater. The request seeks architectural approval for a one
floor 5080 square foot building with service bays. The
existing zoning is C-1 and the Center operates under
Conditional Use Permit 87-002 and will not change as a part
of this request.
The applicant is The Wolff Company
Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration
3.
4.
5.
NEW BUSINESS: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12 and Development Review No.
91-5*
A request for a Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12 and
Development Review No. 91-5 which is for a SpeeDee Oil
Change and Tune -Up offering services for lubrication, tune-
up, smog testing & services incidental thereto. Applicant
is also requesting to amend CUP 87-002 for the use of pad
No. 15 from a 10,000 sq. ft. restaurant pad to a 5,000 sq,
ft, drive-through restaurant pad and a 5,000 sq. ft. retail
pad. Location is the Country Hills Towne Center - the
Northwest Corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Cold Springs Lane
in a C-1 Zone.
The applicant is the Wolff Company
Environmental Determination: Mitigated Negative Declaration
PUBLIC HEARING
Administrative Development Review No. 92-1/Oak Tree Permit
92-1
A request to remove two (2) oak trees in conjunction with
the construction of a single family residence of approx-
imately 9,000 sq. ft. on an approximately 1.5 acre lot
located in the private gated community known as the Country
Estates. The project address is 2638 E. Blaze Trail and the
zoning is R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residential, half acre
lots).
Applicant: Paul Kaitz, 646 N. Grand Ave., Covina, CA 91724
Tentative.Tract Map No. 51079/Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit No. 89-551
A request for approval to subdivide a 4.5 acre site into one
(1) lot and 54 condominium units. Currently 'the project is
under construction in compliance with Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) No. 89-551. The density of the project is 12 units
per acre and will not change as a part of this application.
As a part of this request, the applicant is applying to
amend the CUP to upgrade the interior materials and exterior
elevations. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to
add additional on-site parking on the southern portion of
the site. The project is located at 800 S. Grand Ave.,
north of the brand Ave. and Montefino Ave. intersection and
south of the intersection of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs.
The project site overlooks a day care center and office
building located in a commercial center to the north. The
project is zoned R-4 (40U) (Unlimited Residence Zone,
Maximum 40 units per acre density) and will not change as a
part of this application.
Applicant: Diamond Brothers one Partnership, 18645 E. Gale
Ave., Suite 205, City of Industry, CA 91748
Environmental Determination: Mitigated Negative Declaration
6. Tentative Parcel Map No. 22986/Development Review 92-1
A request for approval to subdivide a 2.76 acre site into
two ( 2 ) lots of 1.88 and .88 acres and to construct a two
story office building of approximately 6,000 sq. ft. The
proposed office building will provide on-site parking on the
bottom floor of the structure and offices on the top floor.
Currently, an office building known as Sunset Plaza is
located on the northern portion of the site at 556 No.
Diamond Bar Blvd. The location of the proposed office
building is. the north side of Sunset Crossing at the
intersection of Navajo Springs Rd. on a vacant slope located
east of L.A. Fitness Health Club, north of a condominium
development and a racquet and swim. club, and east of a
single family residence. The project is in the C M Zone and
will not change as a part of this application.
Applicant: Fred Janz, 556 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar
Environmental Determination: Mitigated Negative Declaration
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Report from Planning commission's sub -committee on "White
Paper".'
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Staff
Planning commissioners
7. ADJOURNMENT: March 9, 1992
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 091h.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 1992 UKAF1
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:05
p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Board Meeting Room, 21865 E. Copley brive,
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Mr. Porter.
ROLL CALL: commissioner Harmony, commissioner Schey, Vice
Chairman - MacBride, and Chairman Grothe.
Commissioner Flamenbaum was absent.
Also present were community Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City Engineer Sid
Mousavi, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and
Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MATTERS FROM Dennis Hernandez, from the Walnut Valley Water
THE AUDIENCE: District, addressed the Commission regarding the
Water Shortage Contingency Plan, mandated by
Assembly Bill 11X, requiring that Water Agencies
prepare a plan providing a form of action that can
betaken if the . drought continues. The content of
the plan include both demands, on the water system,
as well as supply. He reviewed the contents of the
plan with the Commission.
Mr. Hernandez, in response to Chair/Grothe's
inquiry, explained that MWD is calculating the
requested 30% reduction in water use from the base
Year of 1989/90.
In response to a series of inquiries from
VC/MacBride, Mr. Herdandez made the following
explanations regarding the memorandum (an executive
summary of the water problem), dated January 30th,
that was submitted to the Commission: the
population forecast in figure 1-1, is based on the
recent census, in Diamond Bar, including a one to
two percent population increase per year; figure 1-
2 is a history of the number of acre feet purchased
since 1961, the number of the consumers in the
district prior to 1978, and the combined total of
consumers; the dark portion in figure 1-2 could
more appropriately be labeled Diamond Bar Water
Company consumers; figure 1-2 will be adjusted to
properly indicate that the current condition, now
labeled Walnut Consumers, be labeled Diamond
Bar/Walnut Consumers; the expected 2% rate increase
on the demands on reclaimed water, as indicated on
page 2-1, will probably increase more than the 2%
over the next few years, however, until there is
additional sources of supply, the increase in the
reclaimed system will probably be somewhat minor;
the construction of a major transmission pipeline
February 10, 1992 Page 2 DRAFT
will be running through the streets of Grand Ave.
and Padillo, in the Covina area, tying into the
Metropolitan's middle feeder, to terminate at the
terminal storage site; the pipeline will be about
five miles long, with the -largest diameter being 51
inch; the construction of the pipeline is due to
start in the summertime and last about a year; and
traffic concerns regarding the construction has
been satisfactorily alleviated.
Q/Schey inquired if there is some means of
expanding the supply of reclaimed water, thereby
allowing the expansion of the use of reclaimed
water for nonpotable purposes.
Mr. Hernandez explained that the Pomona Water
Reclamation Plant, supplying reclaimed water at
this point in time, is not able to meet the demand
during the summertime. There is another treatment
plant, located around the 605/60 freeways, that has
sufficient capacity available. However, there's a
major cost in transporting that water back up to
the district area.
Mr. Hernandez, responding to C/Harmony's inquiry,
stated that he does not have all the figures to
determine the cost of bringing water from the Rio
Hondo treatment facility. In regards to being able
to tap into the proposed Tres Hermanos Ranch
recycled water system, he indicated that, as more
plans become available, all alternatives will be
considered.
CD/DeStef ano thanked Mr. Hernandez for attending
the meeting and providing the Commission with a
synopsis of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan.
He inquired which treatment facility. would the
water come from for the reclaimed water lake
proposed at the Tres Hermanos Ranch.
Mr. Hernandez indicated that he has not yet seen
any plans. However, he would presume that most of
it would probably come from the 605/60 freeway.
CD/DeStef ano announced that there was an error in
the public hearing notification for architectural
review of 3 single family homes located at 2638
Blaze Trail, 22105 Rim -Fire Lane, and 23624 Falcons
View Dr.' Staff has readvertized the projects, for
staff architectural review, for the meeting of
February 24, 1992.
MINUTES: C/Harmony requested the Minutes of January 27, 1992
be amended on page 2, third paragraph, to add
February 10, 1992 Page 3
Jan. .27, 1992 "...the project - that rather than responding to
the Commission's concerns for high density on the
project, the developer changed it to a senior
Citizens complex - cut a few units and reduced
parking, and still had not addressed the
Commission's stated concerns."; and on page 4,
ninth paragraph, to insert :...from the, general
public, and the City Council...".
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
January 27, 1992, as amended.
NEW BUSINESS: CD/DeStefano stated that, pursuant to the
discussion at the last meeting, the clause under
New Agenda Format the heading Matters From The Audience/Public
Comments has been changed to incorporate a
provision to allow the public to speak not only on
non agenda items, but all those items that are not
public hearings within the agenda for the evening.
C/Schey suggested that it should be limited to
items within the Commission's jurisdiction.
Architectural CD/DeStefano stated that, pursuant to discussion at
Design Review the last meeting, City staff has provided the
Commission with a copy of Ordinance No. 5, adopted
March of 1990, which establishes a design review
process.
Chair/Grothe suggested that staff reports also
include a report on design review concerns, to
include color photographs of the surrounding
properties, a couple of views of the subject
property to be either developed or remodeled, as
well as a display of the type of building materials
to be used. He inquired if that would need to be
reworked into the Ordinance, or if it can be
changed as a procedural matter.
CD/DeStefano indicated that the request may be
better inserted into the ordinance. when dealing
with the new Development Code. In the interim,
based upon the Commission's direction, staff can
revise the applications, at the public counter, and
advise applicants verbally that such photographs
are necessary as part of the application package.
There is a catch all clause within the Development
Review application requirements that would permit
the Commission, or staff, to request additional
information.
February 10, 1992 Page 4 DRAF T,
C/Schey suggested requiring video. tapes, of a given
neighborhood or project site, as an effective tool
to visualize the site.
CD/DeStef ano stated that the developer could be
required to provide one of those forms of
documentations. Upon review, staff would display
it - for the Commission. Some cities utilize the
video tape method, however, with this size of
staff, and the capabilities, we don't see it in the
foreseeable future.
C/Harmony, in regards to the recent criticism of
the apartment complex project on Grand Ave.,
indicated that he felt that the problem involved
there was an architectural review concept. He
indicated that Diamond Bar has a history of working
with an architectural review committee with our
CC&Rls, our Homeowners Association, and
TransAmerica. To his understanding, that authority
of architectural review has been transferred to the
Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA). Their
recommendations would then come before the Planning
Commission. He noted that the City Council, in the
original Development Review Ordinance, had proposed
a separate architectural committee. This kind of
interfacing would insure architectural
compatibility within our community, and avoid the
embarrassing situation such as that .particular
apartment - building. C/Harmony informed the
Commission that he obtained a copy of the City of
Ohifs ordinance on architectural review procedure.
He noted that, first off, they appoint an
architectural board of review. Also, there is a
lot more detail and depth within their guidelines.
The Commission has never really seriously dealt
with 'architectural aesthetic concepts. Perhaps
something could be worked out with the DBIA, with
whatever authority they may have in this regard.
He suggested that the Commission may want to
recommend to the City Council, to include into the
ordinance, the formation of some kind of an
architectural review board,, consisting of
architects and landscape architects, that would
review these projects, and make comments to the
Plannning Commission.
Chair/Grothe, concerned with adding another level
of bureaucracy, suggested that standards for issues
like zoning for density, set back requirements, and
landscaping, be toughened to see if we can get by
without more bureaucracy. Staff could be required
to see to it that the developer follows a list of
guidelines as part of our design review.
February 10, 1992 Page 5 DRAFT
C/Schey indicated that he would prefer to have the
flexibility of a committee, rather than legislate
regulations that are essentially arbitrary. There
are circumstances when one set of guidelines may
not be appropriate for a development.
Chair/Grothe pointed out that if there is a
circumstance that a developer feels the standards
should be modified, then he should apply for a
variance. In this way, the ground rules are the
same for everyone up front.
CD/DeStefano, in response to VC/MacBridels inquiry,
explained that the whole question of whether the
DBIA participates, or does the review, has yet to
be resolved. As of now, we're trying to better
communicate with one another in terms of providing
the DBIA with the ability to review projects that
are coming before the City for discretionary
approval, then receiving their letters and
comments, and taking them under advisement.
VC/MacBride, encouraging the process of an ongoing
exchange of information, suggested that the DBIA
send a member, of their committee, to communicate
with the Planning Commission. He indicated that
perhaps the Commission should also set up an
architectural review committee.
CD/DeStefano suggested that, if the Commission
develops a set of standards, guidelines, or policy,
it would make it easier for a body of people to
review a project, based upon. approval of such
standards. It is also easier for the developer if
standards are set up front.
In response to VC/MacBride, CD/DeStefano suggested
that the standards be separated as a free standing
policy document, to run concurrently with each
development review application. If the Commission
chooses to make this a high priority, a message
could be sent to the City Manager, and the City
Council, that resources be set aside to prepare
such a document, and to move it into the upcoming
workshop for the next fiscal year.
C/Harmony stated that, if the DBIA came forward and
addressed CC&R kinds of issues, or expanded their•
scope of their committee, he would feel comfortable
with that kind of private/public mix of community
and public structure working together.
Chair/Grothe requested that staff provide the
Commission with immediate assistance with the
February 10, 1992 Page 6 DRAFT
design review concerns. However, in developing the
policy, he feels that guidance should come from the
top and filter down to the Commission.
CD/DeStefano reaffirmed that there is a specific
provision in the ordinance that allows staff the
ability to require additional submittal documents
beyond what the ordinance points out.
C/Harmony suggested that the matter be turned over
to the "White Paper" committee. The committee is
to include the comments made into their report, and
,make a recommendation to the City Council. The
Commission concurred. C/Harmony submitted the Ohi
ordinance.
CONTINUED AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
PUBLIC HEARINGS: request for architectural approval of a one floor
5,080 sq. ft. Goodyear Auto Service Center building
DR 91-3 to be located in the Country Hills Towne Center.
At the last hearing, the Commission directed staff
to address various issues including, but not
limited to, the following: parking; auto and
pedestrian circulation; orientation of the
buildings; and potential noise impacts. AP/Searcy
reviewed these issues, with the Commission, as
indicated in the staff report, and reviewed the
suggested mitigation measures to minimize sound
emissions.
Chair/Grothe stated that, on his request for
parking information, he wanted to know how the
existing facility meets the existing parking code,
taking into effect all the uses in the Center, as
well as a full breakdown of that shared parking.
DCA/Curley advised VC/MacBride that, since he was
absent at the opening hearings, it would be
advisable that he not participate in a vote, at
this time, unless he has had the opportunity to get
up to speed with the rest of the Commission.
VC/MacBride stated that, though he is up to speed
with the issues, he will not participate in the
vote, to avoid any misapprehension on any part of
the audience.
Mark Wieman, on behalf of Landsing Pacific Fund,
the owner of Country Hills Towne Center, Executive
Vice President and Chief Officer for the Fund,
indicated that the difficulties confronting the
real estate industry in Southern California, and
the nation in general, have claimed six retail
operators in the Country Hills. Without the
February 10, 1992 Page 7
Commission's support, there will be more
casualties. The two applications- will help
preserve the economic viability of the Center. He
requested that both applications be approved.
Tom Wolff, President of the'Wolff Company, 7700
Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, Development Manager of
Country Hills Towne Center, indicated that they are
prepared to answer any of the Commission's
concerns. He stated that the members of the
Country Hills Association very much want to see the
Center expanded.
Bill Thackery, owner of Little Professor Book
Store, representing the Merchants Association,
submitted a petition, to the Commission, signed by
all the merchants in the Center, supporting their
interest in seeing this Center expanded.
Tom Wolff stated the following: They have made a
real effort to orient the Good Year building in
such a way that would be beneficial to all of the
various parties involved; they will landscape the
blank wall to look more attractive; the City's
engineer has indicated that the sound report is
satisfactory as far as mitigating the noise; and,
they feel, that the issue of noise can be mitigated
by the construction of the wall indicated on the
plans.
Mark Schaffer, Senior Consultant at Associate
Principal of Mckay Conant Brook, Inc., Sound
Engineer, addressed the Commission prepared to
answer any.questions.
In response to C/Harmony's inquiry, Mr. Schaffer
made the following, comments: the actual maximum
level of a sound jump of.any particular activity
would be 76 decibels - the 84.5 decibel rating was
a summation of several different events if they all
occurred at once; with the 8 foot wall, the sound
jumps are reduced by 5 to 7 decibels, depending on
the specific type of noise source; the ambient
sound level comes from Diamond Bar Blvd. and the 57
freeway; the total amount of sound, that gets out
into the neighborhood, is reduced if the doors to
the unused bays are closed; and the 8 foot wall is
the most efficient way to mitigate the sound jumps,
in his opinion.
Mr. Schaffer responded to a series of inquiries,
from VC/MacBride, pin pointing the specific
location of the sound testing.
February 10, 1992 Page 8 DRAFT
In -response to Chair/Grothe Is concern regarding the
effects of the frequency of the sound, Mr. Schaffer
indicated that the concept of the frequency content
impacting a perceived loudness of sound is taken
into account in the type of sound level meter
instrumentation used. He further indicated that
when he was taking his measurements on Saturday,
7:15 a.m., a passing garbage truck's sound level
was 86.5 decibels.
Tom Wolff made the following comments: They would
be a better looking neighbor if the wall was
landscaped rather that turning the building around;
due to a technical problem, they were unable to
present the slides concerning parking; the results
of taking pictures every hour for 12 hours, Friday
and Saturday, showed that at no time were there
enough cars in any place in the center to warrant
concern over the amount of parking; the way the
building is oriented, as indicated in the
application, is the way we, and the tenant, would
like to see it done; and there are intenuating
measures . which will mitigate the sound to
satisfactory ambient noise levels of the community
that are already.there.
CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Schey's inquiry,
explained that both the Goodyear and the Speedee
Lube stores are development review applications.
The conditional use permit (CUP) is an amendment to
the previous CUP covering the entire property. The
original CUP did not show a pad on the site of the
Speedee Lube. It is primarily for the subdivision
which would permit the Kentucky Fried Chicken
facility in the future.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Jo Vassman, residing at 2509 Sunbright Dr., and
Sara Anderson, residing at 2517 Sunbright Dr.,
addressed the following concerns: the present
driveway creates a hazardous traffic condition;
there should be a sidewalk constructed by the
driveway; the noise levels will be constant and
annoying; the project will decrease home values;
there will be an increase of traffic in an already
dangerous intersection; the owners should first
consider finding tenants for the empty store
fronts; and why is an automotive center being
considered in a residential community.
Wayne Fisher, residing at 2675 Crooked Creek, made
the following concerns: the present wall has never
been landscaped; the intersection of Fountain
February 10, 1992 Page 9 DRAFT
Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd. is already dangerous
without the increase in traffic that will be
created by the project; the sound level study
should not be averaged over a 24 hour period, but
averaged over the hours the store is opened; and
there are retired residents that will have to
listen to the noise all day.
Arthur Ramos, residing on the corner of Fountain
Springs and Crooked Creek, made the following
comments: the street entrance is presently narrow;
the fumes from the traffic is already unbearable;
and the reason there is plenty of parking is
because many of the store fronts are not rented.
Dr. Pamela Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising
Star, made the following comments: noise levels
are already high from the 57 freeway and Diamond
Bar Blvd.; the increase in the sound decibel is on
a logarithmic scale therefore the sound increases
100 units not just 10.6 decibels; there is no
guarantee that the owner will keep mufflers on the
hydraulic lifts, or keep them in working condition;
and what recourse will the residents have if the
noise is unbearable and a burden to the residents.
Don Long, residing at 2640 Rising Star, made the
following comments: the area is already noisy and
additional noise will make that area even more
unbearable; the project will have a detrimental
impact on property values; the traffic will
increase; and there is already ample automotive
facilities on the north side of Diamond Bar.
The following persons opposed the project for
reasons previously mentioned: Ken Anderson,
residing at 2628 Rising Star Dr.; Steve Baben,
residing at 2605 Rising star Dr.; and Bob Gannon,
residing at 2641 Rising Star Dr.
Bart Porter, Executive Vice President of the Wolff
Co., made the following rebuttals: the project is
already an'approved use; there is an element that
is desirous for an automotive use on this side of
Diamond Bar; the traffic study presented was
thorough; the units, on the logarithmic scale for
sound decibels, are multiplied twice, not ten
times, as was indicated; and the residents were
aware that the property next to them was zoned
commercial when they bought their property.
Mark Weiman made the following comments: the
Speedee Lube project has proposed the construction
of a sidewalk on the side of the existing driveway;
February 10, 1992
Page 10 DRAFT
they are willing to make the driveway a one way
ingress; they are willing to landscape the existing
wall if the City can show that such a promise was
made, as - was indicated; the Center is 88% leased,
with rents declining; the Center provides more
parking than is required; and all that is proposed,
under the reconfiguration of the area of the
proposed applications, has, in the aggregate,
decreased the amount of sq. footage proposed.
Ken Anderson stated that the entire Center lacks
sidewalks in all of their entrances. The parking
study, and shared use, is not working even now
without full occupancy.
CD/DeStef ano informed the Commission that though
the automotive use has been permitted within the
zone, the use, and the building is subject to
development review criteria which incorporates
compatibility with design, screening, buffering,
mitigation measures that don't create an adverse
impact upon aesthetics, health and safety, and so
forth. The Commission has three options on this
particular project: approve the application with
appropriate mitigation measures; deny the
application based upon findings; or send the
project back for further work.
CE/Mousavi indicated that because the noise study
was delivered to the City on February 4, 1992,
staff has not had adequate time to review it and
prepare a response. The consultants, however, have
reviewed the report and - concurred with it's
recommendations and findings. Upon reviewing the
report tonight, he indicated that he has some
questions and concerns with respect to the findings
of the report.
William Fisher inquired if the proposed wall will
be specifically constructed as a sound wall.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 10:32 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 10:48 p.m.
DCA/Curley, in response to Chair/Grothe, stated
that the Commission's action tonight is final,
subject to appeal within a 10 day period to the
Council.
Chair/Grothe stated that he would hope that the
owner, Mr. Wieman, would make some real efforts on
some of the resident's concerns regardless of any
February 10, 1992 Page 11
of the public hearing outcomes. He recommended the
following improvements: the signs, for theater
parking around the back of the building, should be
up immediately; the sidewalks ingressing into the
Center would generate more foot traffic, and
traffic into the Center; the existing wall on
Fountain Springs should be landscaped; make the
Fountain Springs driveway an ingress only; the
whole design of the building needs major rework;
having a sidewalk, and landscaping, with the
building, is a lot more aesthetic than another 8
foot wall; turning the building may solve the noise
problem, but if not, he would be against the
project; turning the Center may help the visual
blight, and, with proper landscaping, softened the
entrance into the Center; creating a fenced yard
may be more detrimental; having the roll up door
face the entrance way is unappealing; and he is not
interested in putting a use in, that is not
compatible, or, at least, not appropriately placed.
He stated that he is torn between denying the
project, or extending the application until there
has been a major redesign, as indicated. He
stressed, however, that if the noise level is
increased even one decibel, he would not consider
the project.
Motion was made by Chair/Grothe to continue the
project to the March 23rd meeting, with the intent
that there be a major redesign of the project,
addressing the concerns previously indicated. The
MOTION FAILED for lack of a second.
C/Schey indicated that the traffic issues are not a
problem. However, he is concerned with the impact
that the use will have with the surrounding
residents. If the use was to be included into the
Center, it would be more properly included in a
location that was more remote from residential
development around it. He is inclined to deny the
project.
Motion was made by C/Schey, and seconded by
C/Harmony to direct staff to prepare a resolution
of denial for consideration at the next meeting.
Chair/Grothe inquired if the motion of denial is
without prejudice.
C/Schey stated that, given that his major concern
is the appropriateness of the use in that
particular location in the Center, he would not be
inclined to see the use come back in a different
February 10, 1992 Page 12
to wa
configuration. For that reason, he would not
intend his motion to be without -prejudice.
Chair/Grothe suggested that since only three of the
five Commissioners will be voting, perhaps it
should be continued to allow everyone the
opportunity to vote. He pointed out that there are
citizens that feel that a decent automotive service
center on the south end of town is important.
The Commission voted on the C/Schey's Motion.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony and Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Grothe.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/MacBride.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flammenbaum.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
CUP 91-12; PT/Lungu addressed the Commission regarding the
DR 91-5; & request for a CUP No. 91-12 and Development Review
SR 91-42 No.91-5 which is for a Speedee Oil Change and Tune -
Up. She emphasized that the work at Speedee is not
the same kind of work done at Goodyear. It is a
preventive maintenance service that does not
require the same tools as Goodyear, nor does it
have the same kind of noise factor. Speedee has
proposed to move the building three and a half feet
to the north creating a clearer line of site
exiting from that area into the main part of the
Center. They have also agreed to put in the extra
sidewalk discussed, as well as provide extra
landscaping for the existing wall. The applicant
is also requesting to amend CUP 87-002 for the use
of pad No. 15 for a drive-through restaurant pad
and a retail pad. Staff recommended that the
Commission approve a resolution for this project,
as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and
the Findings of Fact.
C/Harmony questioned if the 3 to 4 vehicles
serviced daily for smog tests would be profitable
for the business. He inquired what the -emissions.,
from testing cars, would do to the local
neighborhood.
Mark Weiman, on behalf of Landsing Pacific Fund,
stated that they will do everything in their power
to do those items, suggested by Chair/Grothe,
relating to both the Goodyear and the Speedee
projects.
Tom Wolff stated the following: there will be a
sidewalk leading down into the Center from Fountain
Springs; the building has been moved three feet
back to accommodate parking in front of the
February 10, 1992 Page 13
DRAFT
building; the trash enclosure has been removed
creating a clear line of site; the architectural
design is consistent with the architecture in the
.Center; the KFC is strictly a drive-through and
does not contain seating within the store; and the
remaining building will be retail.
CD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Grothe's
inquiry, confirmed that, at this time, the
commission is looking at a pad division for lot 15.
It's specific uses and architecture would be
subject to development review at a later date.
Secondly, the Commission is looking at a
development review for the Speedee Oil facility.
C/Harmony stated that he has problems with this
particular lot split because it is his philosophy
that lot splits should have a development plan.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Bart Porter, of the Wolff Company, explained that
the commission is being asked to approve the CUP,
and the design review, to allow Speedee on the site
because there was not a pad drawn there on the
original CUP. Also, that same CUP includes the
splitting of the lot for the purposes of providing
two identifiable spaces. The reason for this is
because the restaurant use is going to be on a
ground lease. To make the lease with the owner, we
need to know that it is an approved use at that
location. The CUP asks for your approval of that
site as a drive-through facility, with the design
to be determined later.
Al Bolton, the KFC franchise operator and owner,
explained, ideally, they like a location that is
on the going home side of the transitory public,
and on a full corner. since this was not possible,
it was decided that a downscale drive-through take
out would be more appropriate. They cater to a
going home crowd during dinner time, and have a 60
second service time record. Therefore, the 8 car
stacking capacity is not perceived to be a problem.
Mike Benette, 41 Gulling Dr., Laguna Niguel, real
estate representative for Speedee, responding to
questions from the Commission, stated that:
Speedee will have one air compressor used to pump
the oil out of the tanks, and filling air into the
tires; Speedee typically has three primary profit
centers, which is oil change, tune-up and smog
checks; smog check is the only about 10% of it's
service, amounting to about 3 to 4 cars, and it
February 10, 1992
Page 14 DRAFT
usually entails doing tune-up type work as well;
mature stores are servicing about 40 cars per day,
with a ticket average of about $50.00 per car; 60%
of the business will be oil change.
Bob Gannon, residing at 2641 Rising Star, stated
the following concerns: the location of an
automotive repair or service is not appropriately
placed abutting R-1 property; it would be better
located by the Alta Ski & Sport and the Wherehouse;
the proposed location is too close to the theater
and creates a dangerous traffic situation; they may
decide to use air wrenches in the future; and
grease pumps are very noisy.
Don Long, residing at 2640 Rising Star, stated that
he is concerned with the increase of traffic from
the 40 per day customers they anticipate. Also,
that area does not need an increase in noise that
will be generated from the facility.
Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, stated
that the grade of the driveway will obscure vision
ingressing and egressing from the driveway to the
facility. He is also concerned with drainage if
further grading is done upon construction.
Bart Porter stated the following: the suggested
change in location would not be feasible because
the main anchor stores, in the Center, would not
allow the facility on those sites because it would
obscure their line of site; Speedee will employ 4
workers therefore parking is not a problem; the
wall will be landscaped with a creeping fig that
will not only block the view of Speedee, but also
help block any noise; and servicing 40 cars a day
is only about 1 car every 15 minutes, which is not
a big increase in traffic.
Mike Benette made the following rebuttals: Speedee
has been in existence for about 13 years and has
never altered their service, which is preventive
maintenance; only have 1 air compressor in back of
the sore; there is no noise coming from the lube
guns; and there is a substantial demand for this
type of automotive service in the area.
Mark Weiman urged the Commission to make the
distinction between the Goodyear application and
this Speedee application.
Ken Anderson cautioned against approving the
Speedee simply because the Goodyear project was
denied.
February 10, 1992 Page 15 DRAFT
Bob Gannon questioned why Alpha Beta signed the
petition to allow these businesses, yet they will
not have the Speedee facility located by them.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Schey, noting that the square footage totals for
the split of pad #15, #14 and, the new pad #13 was
less than what was permitted on the original CUP
for pad #14 and #15, stated his concern that if a
new pad of this type was allowed, it not result in
an overall gain in the total sq. footage of
building that was permitted on the site.
C/Harmony inquired as to why Alpha Beta would be
opposed to having the Speedee facility across from
them.
Mr. Weiman explained that the reason the anchor
stores have stipulated to certain site quarters is
because they believe they rely very heavily on site
advertising. The densities at the Alta Ski
location is the maximum that they would agree with.
Chair/Grothe stated the following: turn the
building 90 degrees and backed up so it is not the
leading building coming into the Center; would
consider a potentially increase in signage if the
effect of the building is decreased; and most of
the other items could be conditioned such as: the
compressor., pumps, and motors be placed in a
compressor room; no air tools; and no major
automotive repair.
C/Harmony inquired at what time will we require
development plans for lot subdivisions.
C/Schey stated that the commission is not creating
a lot, but allowing development on this pad to be
configured as two separate buildings. The split of
these pads is being done for lease of the property
and we are not creating two legal parcels.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
Chair/Grothe, and CARRIED to continue the matter to
the next regular meeting, and direct staff to draft
a Resolution of Approval that mandate that the
total square footage of the KFC pad and the
Goodyear pad will not be exceeded by the allocation
of square footage to this new pad and the other two
pads; prohibit the use of noematic tools; mandate
the enclosure of the compressor units; mandate the
appropriate landscaping of the existing wall along
Fountain springs; mandate the creation of a
February 10, 1992 Page 16
sidewalk along the entrance road off of Fountain
Springs; and with the City Enginee ' r recommendation,
mandate an entrance only configuration for that
driveway or mandate the maintenance of that as a
two way driveway; and mandate that a detailed
landscaping plan be submitted to staff consistent
with the other landscaping on the site. The
Resolution would cover the proposed CUP 91-12, the
development Review 91-5, and the Sign Review 91-42.
AYES:' COMMISSIONERS: Harmony, Schey and
Chair/Grothe.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum.
CUP 91-14 CD/DeStefano reported that the application is for a
request to open a dry cleaning establishment which
will maintain a dry cleaning plant on the premises.
The proposed project is located at 11397-99 Diamond
Bar Blvd., which is in a C -3 -BE Zone. A dry
cleaning establishment is allowed in this zone by
right, however -1 since this facility will have a
plant on site, a conditional use permit is
required. Staff has received numerous letters from
citizens who are in opposition to this particular
application because there are existing dry cleaners
within the City, and several different dry cleaners
within this immediate area. The citizens are also
concerned. about the impacts to air quality from the
chemicals used with this kind of operation. Upon
contact with the AQMD, they indicated that there is
no maximum facilities that can be located within
one jurisdiction, as long as each of them receives
the proper permits through the procedures
established by AQMD. Secondly, staff is unaware of
a single City that gets into the issue of
separating land uses, or over concentration of land
uses (with the possible exception of adult uses).
Staff recommended The Commission approve the
application, with the mitigated negative
declaration, the findings of fact, and conditions.
C/Harmony indicated that the last prior approval
for the dry cleaning establishment had a problem
with their exhaust venting into the back door of
one of the upstairs offices. The venting was
reduct to solve the problem.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Douglas Levine, a dry cleaning in-house consultant
for PECO Equipment Co.', explained that the only
venting done in a dry cleaning facility today is
the venting of the boiler. There are no chemicals
February 10, 1992 Page 17 Mn
U KPA 9- 0
vented to the atmosphere, or discharged to the
sewer. This facility has already been approved by
AQMD. It is just in the process of a name change.
He further stated that, to his knowledge, there are
only two cleaners in the general area. One cleaner
is across the way, and the other is in the adjacent
center.
CD/DeStefano explained that there are two separate
centers with two separate owners that are adjacent
to one another.
John Hitan, owner of the existing cleaners located
within 75 yards of the proposed new facility,
stated that there are already 6 cleaners within a
quarter of a mile distance. Another facility,
especially so close to their existing business, may
drive them away. Furthermore, parking is already a
problem within that center.
Grigori Hitan, owner of Thrifty Clean Cleaners,
stated that the shopping center, that they are
presently located, is small and competition is
already difficult. If this proposed discount
cleaners is permitted to come into the Center, it
will closeout his business.
Bill Tinsmen, residing at 1014 Capon Ave.,
indicated that City Planners should not allow
business failures by allowing too many of the same
uses to operate within one area.
Doug Levine pointed out that the issue here is one
of free enterprise, not of planning, because you
have two different shopping centers, with two
different landlords.
Grigori Hitan stated that though the centers are
separate, they are adjacent, and both are too small
for two cleaners to exist.
John Hitan stated that it is unfair to expect free
enterprise when his competition is next store to
him within a small area.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
PT/Lungu, responding to C/Harmony, explained that
staff didn't receive application for a permit
before the name change. The AQMD issued the permit
under the old name. They are now coming to the
Commission for a CUP under the new name.
February 10, 1992
Page 18
__D"l AFT
C/Harmony stated that though he believes in liaise
faire government, he has trouble with seeing this
type of development going in when there are six dry
cleaners in the area. Any good landlord would not
allow 2 cleaners in one center, except for the fact
that they are two separate landlords.
Motion was made by C/Harmony to deny the CUP.
-The Motion Failed for lack of a second.
Chair/Grothe indicated that, it is not the
Commission's responsibility to chose which business
goes in which center.
C/Schey stated that deciding which business is
viable and which isn't viable exceeds our planning
function..
C/Harmony, noting staff's efforts to make sure that
churches could not go in commercial zoning, or the
City's effort in avoiding the development of two
car washes across from each other, stated that the
Commission often makes decisions based on economic
determination. .
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED to approve the CUP as recommended by
staff and subject to the conditions outlined in the
Resolution.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schey, MacBride, and
Chair/Grothe.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum.
INFORMATIONAL C/Schey stated that the "White Paper"
ITEMS: intends on having a draft available
advanceofthe next meeting.
sub -committee
for review in
ANNOUNCEMENTS: CD/DeStefano confirmed that the Planning Institute
is to be held in Anaheim.
C/Harmony noted, for the record, Mr. Piermarini's
excellent response in preventing a mudslide, during
construction of his development,' after the rains.
When he completed his grading, he gave, the
surrounding residents free car washes in Rowland
Heights.
CD/DeStefano " , responding to C/Harmony's request for
an update to the Hills Club incident, stated the
City Manager has requested staff to negotiate with
the Hills Club, within 60 days, and develop a
policy to prevent large parties in the future.
February 10,'1992 Page 19
DRAFT,
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
*C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 1:30 a.m.
Respectively,
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning commission
Attest:
Jack Grothe
Chairman
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 911-03, A
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 5,080 SQ. FT. GOODYEAR TIRE AND
SERVICE CENTER IN THE COUNTRY HILLS TOWNE CENTER WITHIN
THE C-1 ZONE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) The Wolff Company, has heretofore filed an appli-
cation ds described above in the title of this Resolution. Here-
inafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review
Application is referred to as the "Application".
(ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State
of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the
California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No.
1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances
of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles
County- Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los
Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, in-
cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
(iii) Because of its recent incorporation, the City of
Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action
was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the
proposed General Plan, pursuant to the terms, and provisions of
California Government Code Section 65360.
(iv) On January 13, 1992 the Planning Commission of the
City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
X application and concluded said public hearing on February 10, 1992
prior to the adoption of this Resolution.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.,
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by
the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this
Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on September
23, 1991, and concluded on November 25, 1991, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in
conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government
Code Sections 65360, this Commission hereby specifically finds as
follows:
(a) The Application pertains to a 5,080 sq. ft.
Goodyear Tire and Service Center proposed for site no. 14 within
Country Hills Towne Center - Diamond Bar. The site is zoned C-1
(Restricted Commercial).
(b) The Country Hills Towne Center operates under
Conditional Use Permit 87-002 approved by the County of Los
Angeles December 23, 1987.
(c) Country Hills Towne Center, as described in
the Conditional Use Permit, is contemplated to be a mixed used use
commercial center serving the residential development surrounding
the center.
(d) The Application as submitted would contradict
the goals and objectives of the proposed General Plan and would
promote detrimental conditions to the persons and properties in
the immediate vicinity of the Site insofar as it would locate an
auto repair and maintenance facility in a location that would
prohibit the neighboring residential development from the full
enjoyment of there property.
(e) The design of the Application is not
consistent with the proposed General Plan insofar as requiring a
sound barrier in excess of the allowed standards.
(f) The Application, if approved, would create an
unsuitable type of development that and
be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare, and mentally injurious to the
properties or,improvements in the vicinity.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to
this Planning Commission during the above -referenced public
hearing, and upon the specific findings of fact as set forth
above, this Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as
follows:
(a) The Application is not in conformance with the
goals and policies of the proposed General Plan and the codes of
the City of Diamond Bar.
(b) Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Government Code section 65360, this Planning Commission hereby
finds and determines as follows:
(i) The City of Diamond Bar is proceeding in
a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan.
(ii) There is a reasonable probability that
the proposed Application will be inconsistent with the General
Plan proposal being considered or studied.
(iii) There is a probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan
if the Application as proposed were approved and determined to
ultimately be inconsistent with the General Plan.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in
paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission
hereby denies the Application described herein.
5. The Planning Commission Secretary shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Reso-
lution, to the Wolff Company at the address as set
forth on the application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1992
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
FW
ATTEST
Jack Grothe, Chairman
James DeStefano, Secretary
I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning commission of the
City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu-
tion was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning com-
mission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 24th day of February, 1992, by the
following vote -to -wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
[COMMISSIONERS:]
[COMMISSIONERS:]
[COMMISSIONERS:]
I
Grothe, Harmony, Schey
MacBride
Flamenbaum
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE:, February 18, 1992
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12, Development Review
No. 91-5, and Sign Review No. 91-42
BACKGROUND:
On February 10, 1992, at a continued public hearing, staff
presented C.U.P. No. 91-12, D.R. No. 91-5, and S.R. No. 91-42 to
the Planning Commission for review. At that time, two issues were
raised which needed to be resolved before a Planning Commission
decision could be made. Also, the Commission direct staff to
prepare two Resolutions.
The following are the issues that needed to be addressed:
1. Fountain springs Road Driveway:
The issue of Fountain Springs Road driveway being used
for ingress only was discussed. The Planning Commission
directed the City Engineer to review this matter. After
review, the City Engineer supports the idea of using this
driveway as an ingress only driveway to the shopping
center with proper modifications. Attached to this
report is his statement of support.
2. Maximum Total Building Square Footage:
The maximum total building square footage allowed by the
original C.U.P. approval is 177,267 square feet. The
total building area designated on the plans for the
proposed C.U.P. amendment is 179,437 square feet. The
total building area approved in the original C.U.P. for
pad #13 and #15 was 16,800 square feet. The proposed
C.U.P. is requesting pad #13, #14, and #15 total to
17,407 square feet. This amount exceeds the amount
allowed in the original C.U.P. by 607 square feet. As a
result, pad #14 will need to be reduced by 607 square
feet. Attached to this report is a matrix comparing
building square footage from the original and amending
C.U.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning commission approval Resolution
92 -XX which is for C.U.P. 91-12'and'R`e�sblution - 9 1 2 -RX which is for
S.R. 91-42 and D.R. 91-5 with the Findings of Fact, the Negative
Declaration NO. 92-02, and listed conditions.
Attachments:
Resolution NO. 92 -XX
Resolution NO. 92 -XX
Negative Declaration NO. 92-02
Memo of City Engineer dated 2-18-92
Exhibit "All dated 2-24-92
Exhibit "B" dated 1-13-92
Exhibit "C" which is the matrix
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. The proposed project is in substantial compliance with the
proposed General Plan pursuant to the terms and provisions of
Government Code Section 65360.
2. The proposed project will not adversely affect the health or
welfare of persons residing or working in the. surrounding
area.
3. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact on
adjacent or adjoining residential and Commercial uses. it
will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or
valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity
of the proposed project.
4. The subject site for the proposed project is adequately served
by Diamond Bar Blvd. and Fountain Springs Road.
5. The subject site for the proposed project is adequate in size
and shape to accommodate the proposed use.
6. The proposed project will be in compliance with the Sign
Ordinance, Sections 110.D.1. and D.2.
7. The proposed project will be in compliance with Development
Review Ordinance NO.5 (1990), Chapter 22.72, Sections 010,
020, and 040.
"I OR DO ftllo IP 0)_1110_kNn9 RIPFAM;W,4
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 91-12 (WHICH IS TO AMEND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.87-002-1) AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.92-002, AN
APPLICATION TO LOCATE A SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE
AND TUNE-UP FACILITY ON PAD #13 AND TO ALLOW
TWO (2) USES ON PAD #15 FOR A RESTAURANT AND
A GENERAL RETAIL AT COUNTRY HILLS TOWNE
CENTER LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DIAMOND
BAR BLVD BETWEEN FOUNTAIN SPRINGS ROAD AND
COLD SPRINGS LANE.
A. Recitals
1. The Wolff Company, located at 7700 Irvine Center Drive has
filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to
amend CUP No. 87-002-1 for Country Hills Towne Center located
in Diamond Bar, California, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Conditional Use Permit, Development Review and sign Review ap-
plication is referred to as "Application".
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a
duly organized municipal organization of the State of
California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the
California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its ordinance
No. 14, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the
ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22, as
amended, of the Los Angeles County, Code contains the
Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently
.applicable to development applications, including the subject
Application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
3. Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar
lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken
on the subject Application, as to consistency with the Draft
General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of
California Government S 65360.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on February
24, 1992 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said Appli-
cation and concluded said hearing on such date.
5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Plan-
ning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of
the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution
are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Negative
Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and guidelines
promulgated thereunder, and, further this Planning Commission
has reviewed and considered 'the information contained in the
said Negative Declaration with respect to the project
identified in this Resolution.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above referenced public hearings and oral testimony
provided at the hearings, this Commission, hereby specifically
finds as follows:
(a) The project relates to a site which is comprised of 17.7
acres with retail shops, restaurants, and a cinema within
the C-1 zone, on the North side of Diamond Bar Blvd,
between Fountain Springs Road and Cold Springs Lane, City
of Diamond Bar, California.
(b) Generally, property to the North is Single Family
Residential (R-1-7,500) zone; property to the South is
Residential Planned Development (RPD -1-15U) zone; property
to the East is R-1-201000 zone; and property to the West
is R-1-7,500 zone which is separated form the subject site
by a flood control channel.
(c) The Conditional Use Permit will not have an adverse impact
on adjacent or adjoining residential commercial uses. It
will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment,
or valuation of property of other persons located in the
vicinity and the Conditional Use Permit will not adversely
affect the health or welfare of persons residing or work-
ing in the surrounding area.
(d) The subject property shall be maintained and operated in
full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any
law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to
any development or activity of the subject property. Fail-
ure of the permittee to cease any development shall be a
violation of these conditions.
(e) It is hereby declared that and made a condition of this
permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any
law, statue, or ordinance is violated, the permit shall
lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written
notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for
a period of thirty (30) days.
(f) Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this
Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires
payment ayment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and
Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant
prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other
entitlement.
5. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusion set forth
herein above, and conditions set forth below in this
Resolution, presented to the Planning commission on February
24, 1992, at the public hearing referenced herein, this Commis-
sion in conformance with the terms and provisions of California
Government Code S 65360, hereby finds and concludes as follows:
(a) The granting of this Conditional Use Permit is based on
the reasonable probability that the project request
considered herein will be consistent with the General Plan
on the basis of review of the draft General Plan presently
under going review by the City. There is little or no
probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the finally adopted General Plan if this application
is granted and the same is ultimately inconsistent with
the Plan because the unique physical circumstances
applicable to the subject site, together with the
conditions applied hereto, serve to minimize any and
deleterious impacts which could otherwise arise. Further,
this project has demonstrated compliance with all
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance
in addition to the referenced conditions serves to insure
this entitlement is harmonious with and beneficial to the
community.
(b) The development shall substantially conform to all plans
dated February 24, 1992 as submitted tted to and approved by
the Planning Commission labeled Exhibits "All as amended
herein.
(c) This grant allows for the construction of a SpeeDee Oil
Change and Tune -Up facility located on pad #13 and the
development of two (2) uses on pad #15 a drive-thru
restaurant and general retail.
(d) The Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan with
additional plants required and irrigation plan within
thirty ( 3 0 ) days of receipt of the certified copy of this
resolution and prior to the issuance of Building Permits,
for the review and approval by the Planning Division.
(e) The Applicant shall provide a sidewalk from Fountain
Springs Road to the parking area below. The sidewalk
shall be brought completely around the corner to neet the
exisiting bominite crosswalk.
Fountain Springs Road driveway shall be utilized for
ingress only. The Applicant shall provide required
signage and required striping for this change to the
specifications of the City Engineer.
The nature of SpeeDee business shall be preventive
maintenace only and exclude tools which are operated by
air compression. major repair work shall not be allowed.
All maintenance shall be completed within the SpeeDee
structure and shall not contribute to an increase in noise
or excessive fumes.
(h) The Applicant shall restripe the parking spaces, to City
specification, located at the rear of the cinema. The
Applicant shall also install additional lighting in this
area to insure the safety of patrons.
(i) Operation of the SpeeDee facility shall be limited between
the hours of 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday
For the purpose of shared parking, SpeeDee shall allow
theater parking on pad #13 during the hours that SpeeDee
is closed and shall install a sign stating this fact.
(j) The Applicant shall install additional signage indicating
that additional parking is provided at the rear of the
center behind the cinema. The appropriate location for
these signs shall be approved by the Planning Director.
(k) Pad #14 shall be reduced by 607 square feet (from 5,.076
square feet to 4,469 square feet) so as not to exceed the
original approval of total building area for Cup 87-002.
(1) Applicant shall obtain proper permits for this project as
required by the City of Diamond Bar and pay an additional
processing fee to the Planning Division..
(m) The development approved by this Resolution shall be
substantially completed within one (1) year of date of
approval. A year extension may be requested in writing
prior to the expiration day of this grant.
(n) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until
the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other
than the permittee) have filed, at the City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department, their affidavit stating
that they are aware of and agree to accept all the
conditions of this grant.
(o) The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determined that, based upon the initial study, findings
set forth, and conditions applied to this application, the
proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a
significant adverse effect on the environment.
(p) The Planning Commission finds that facts supporting the
above specified findings are contained in the Negative
Declaration, the Staff Report and Exhibits, and the
information provided to this Commission during the public
hearing conducted with respect to the project and the
Negative Declaration, mitigation measures have been made a
condition of approval of said project which mitigate
and/or avoid environmental effects identified in the
Negative Declaration.
(q) The Planning Commission hereby . finds the Negative
Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of - 1970, as amended,
and the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information
contained in said Negative Declaration and effects will
occur with respect to the project identified, in this
Resolution, and that the project will not individually or
cumulatively have and adverse effect on wildlife
resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and
Game Code.
(r) All conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-002-1
shall remain in effect unless superseded by Conditional
Use Permit No. 91-12.
The Planning Commission Secretary shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by
certified mail, to The Wolff Company, at the address as set
forth on the application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1992.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
ATTEST
Jack Grothe, Chairman
James DeStefano, Secretary
I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning commission of the City of
Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on
the 24th day of February, 1992, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
NOES:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSENT:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING SIGN REVIEW
NO. 91-42 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 91-5 AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.92-0021 AN
APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A SPEEDEE OIL CHANGE
AND TUNE-UP FACILITY -ON PAD #13 AND TO ALLOW
TWO (2) WALL SIGNS AND ONE (1) MONUMENT SIGN
AT COUNTRY HILLS TOWNE CENTER LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF DIAMOND BAR BLVD BETWEEN
FOUNTAIN SPRINGS ROAD AND COLD SPRINGS LANE.
A. Recitals
1. The Wolff Company, located at 7700 Irvine Center Drive has
filed an application for a Sign Review and a Development Review
for SpeeDee Oil Change and Tune -Up Facility at Country Hills
Towne Center located in Diamond Bar, California, as described
in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this'Resolu-
tion, the subject Conditional Use Permit, Development Review
and Sign Review application is referred to as "Application".
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a
duly organized municipal organization of the State of
California. on said date, pursuant to the requirements of the
California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance
No. 14, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the
ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22, as
amended, of the Los Angeles County Code contains the
Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently
applicable to development applications, including the subject
Application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
3. Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar
lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken
on the subject Application, as to consistency with the Draft
General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of
California Government § 65360.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on February
24, 1992 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said Appli-
cation and concluded said hearing on such date.
5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
B. Resolution
2nd Reso. CUP 91-12 Pg. 1
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Plan-
ning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar As follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of
the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution
are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Negative
Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and guidelines
promulgated thereunder, and, further this Planning Commission
has reviewed and considered the information contained in the
said Negative Declaration with respect to the project
identified in this Resolution.,
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above referenced public hearings and oral testimony
provided at , the hearings, this Commission -hereby specifically
finds as follows:
(a) The project relates to a site which is comprised of 17.7
Acres with retail shops, restaurants, and a cinema within
the C-1 zone, on the North side of Diamond Bar Blvd,
between Fountain Springs Road and Cold Springs Lane, City
of Diamond Bar, California.
(b) Generally, property to the North is Single Family
Residential (R-1-7,500) zone; property to the South is
Residential Planned Development (RPD -1-15U) zone; property
to the East is R-1-20,000 zone; and property to the West
is R-1-7,500 zone which is separated form the subject site
by a flood control channel.
(c) The Sign Review and Development Review will not have an
adverse impact on adjacent or adjoining residential
commercial uses. It will not be materially detrimental to
the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other
persons located in the vicinity and the Sign Review and
Development Review will not adversely affect the health or
welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding
area..
(d) The subject property shall be maintained and operated in
full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any
law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to
any development or activity of the subject property. Fail-
ure of the permittee to tease any development shall be a
violation of these conditions.
(e) It is hereby declared that and made a condition of this
permit that if any condition hereof is violated, or if any
law, statue, or ordinance is violated, the permit shall
lapse; provided that the applicant has been given written
2nd Reso. CUP 91-12 Pg. 2
notice to cease such violation and has failed to do so for
a period of thirty (30) days.
(f) Notwithstanding any previous Subsection of this
Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires
payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and
Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant
prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other
entitlement.
5. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusion set forth
herein above, and conditions set forth below in this
Resolution, presented to the Planning Commission on February
24, 1992, at the public hearing referenced herein, this commis-
sion in conformance with the terms and provisions of California
Government Code S 65360, hereby finds and concludes as follows:
(a) The granting of this Sign Review and Development Review is
based on . the reasonable probability that the project
request considered herein will be consistent with the
General Plan on the basis of review of the draft General
Plan presently under going review by the City. There is
little or no probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the finally adopted General Plan if this
application is granted and the same is ultimately
inconsistent with the Plan because the unique physical
circumstances applicable to the subject site, together
with the conditions applied hereto, serve to minimize any
and deleterious impacts which could otherwise arise.
Further, this project has demonstrated compliance with all
applicable requirements of State law and local ordinance
in addition to the referenced conditions serves to insure
this entitlement is harmonious with and beneficial to the
community.
(b) The development shall substantially conform to all plans
dated February 24, 1992 as submitted to and approved by
the Planning Commission labeled Exhibits IIAII,and "B" as
amended herein.
(c) This grant allows for the construction of a SpeeDee Oil
Change and Tune -Up facility located on pad #13, two (2)
wall signs, and one (1) monument sign.
(d) The Applicant shall submit a final landscape plan with
additional plants required and irrigation plan within
thirty (30) days of receipt of the certified copy of this
resolution and prior to the issuance of Building.Permits,
for the review and approval,by the Planning Division.
(e) The Applicant shall provide a sidewalk from Fountain
Springs Road to the parking area below. The sidewalk
shall be brought completely around the corner to neet the
2nd Reso. CUP 91-12 Pg. 3
exisiting bominite crosswalk.
(f) Fountain Springs Road driveway shall. be utilized for
ingress only. The Applicant shall provide required
signage and required striping for this change to the
specifications of the City Engineering.
(g) The nature of SpeeDee business shall be preventive
maintenace only and exclude tools which are operated by
air compression. Major repair work shall not be allowed.
All maintenance shall be completed within the SpeeDee
structure and shall not contribute to an increase in noise
or excessive fumes.
(h) The Applicant shall restripe the parking spaces, to City
specification, located at the rear of the cinema. The
Applicant shall also install additional lighting in this
area to insure the safety of patrons.
(i) Operation of the SpeeDee facility shall be limited between
the hours of 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Saturday
For the purpose of shared parking, SpeeDee shall allow
theater parking on pad #13 during the hours that SpeeDee
is closed and shall install a sign stating this fact.
(j) The Applicant shall obtain proper permits for this project
as required by the City of - Diamond Bar and Pay an
additional processing fee to the Planning Division.
(k) The development approved by this Resolution shall be
substantially completed within one (1) year of date of
approval. A year extension may be requested in writing
prior•to the expiration day of this grant.
(1) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until
the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other
than the permittee) have filed, at the City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department, their affidavit stating
that they are aware of and agree to accept all the
conditions of this grant.
(m) The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determined that, based upon the initial study, findings
set forth, and conditions applied to this application, the
proposed Development Review and Sign Review will not have
a significant adverse effect on the environment.
(n) The Planning Commission finds that facts supporting the
above specified findings are contained in the Negative
Declaration, the Staff Report and Exhibits, and the
information provided to this Commission during the public
hearing conducted with respect to the project and the
Negative Declaration, mitigation measures have been made a
2nd Reso. CUP 91-12 Pg. 4
condition of approval of said project which mitigate
and/or avoid environmental effects identified in the
Negative Declaration.
(o) The Planning Commission hereby finds the Negative
Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1570, as amended,
and the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, this
Commission has reviewed and considered the information
contained in said Negative Declaration and effects will
occur with respect to the project identified, in this
Resolution, and that the project will not individually or
cumulatively have and adverse effect on wildlife
resources, as defined in Section 711.'2 of the Fish and
Game Code.
(p) All conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-002-1
shallremainin effect unless superseded by Conditional
Use Permit No. 91-12, Development Review No. 91-5, and
Sign Review No. 91-42.
The Planning commission Secretary shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by
certified mail, to The Wolff Company, at the address as set
forth on the application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1992.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Kw
ATTEST
Jack Grothe, Chairman
James DeStefano, Secretary
I, James Destefano.,, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City
of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on
the 24th day of February, 1992, by the following vote -to -wit:
AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:]
NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:]
2nd Reso. CUP 91-12 Pg. 5
2nd Reso. CUP 91-12 Pg. 6
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-02
Case Number: CUP 91-12 / DR 91-5
Applicant: The Wolff Company
7700 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 710
Irvine , CA, 92718
Proposal: A request to construct a building for the use of a
SpeeDee Oil Change and Tune -Up offering additional
services of lubrication, smog testing and services
incidental thereto.
Location: Country Hills Towne Center
Northwest Corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Cold
Springs Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91965
Environmental
Findings: The proposed project, as determined in the City of
Diamond Bar, could have a significant effect on
the environment. There will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation mea-
sures described on the attached sheet have been
incorporated into the proposed project.
II. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation:
Negative Declaration
Explanation to supplement "yes" and "Possible" answers given
in initial study.
Environmental Impacts:
1. Earth.
a. Will the proposal result in disruptions,
displacements, compaction or overcovering of
soil? Yes
Explanation:
The grading required will cause the removal of 200
cubic yardsofsoil for the creation of the pit.
mitigation:
The 200 cubic yards of soil- will be deposited at
the nearest approved disposal location. The
location shall 'be designated on the grading plan
which shall be submitted in advance of the
issuance of permits.
10. Risk of Upset.
a. Will the proposal result in a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including but not limited to,
oil, pesticides.- chemicals or radiation) in
the event of an accident. Possibly
Explanation•
a. Waste oil and automatic transmission fluid
will be by Products of the proposed use.
Mitigation:
a. These waste products will be stored in metal
containers and hauled away by a licensed
individual.
13. Transportation/Cirdulation.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or
demand for new parking? Yes
Explanation•
b. The proposed use will be displacing forty-
seven (47) parking spaces in order to create
a pad for the construction of the building
which will house the proposed use.
Mitigation•
b. SpeeDee will be providing twenty-eight spaces
on site for their use. During the hours of
operation for this use, it is not the peak
hours of business for the cinema. Therefore
the parking facilities can be shared. Also,
there is additional parking to the rear of
the cinema which can be used during the
cinema's peak hours of business. A
directional sign can be used to remind patron
of the additional parking and the spaces can
be restriped.
17. Human Health.
a. Will the proposal result in exposure of
people to potential health hazards? Possibly
Explanation•
a. Waste oil will be stored on site.
Mitigation•
a. Waste oil will be periodically haul off the
site by a licensed individual.
PC 9 11 DO 11013 0 -IN Do 4 D) MWIV-1441
TO: Sid, Mousavi, City Engineer
FROM: Ann Lungu, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: C.U.P. 91-12, D.R. 91-5, and S.R.91-42 which is a
request to create a pad (#13) for SpeeDee Lube and
Oil Change, a.Development Review, and Sign Review,
and divide a pad (#15) for two uses - general re-
tail and restaurant with a drive-thru isle.
DATE: February 11, 1992
As per the direction of the Planning Commission which met at a
continued public hearing on February 10, 1992, Engineering is to
study the issues concerning the driveway on Fountain Springs Road
being used for ingress only, for the above mentioned project.
Your comments are needed by February 18, 1992 so they can be in-
corporated into the staff report for the February 24, 1992 meet-
ing.
Thank you, in advance, for your cooperation.
,(-?nn
1(41/
.911101 1-
12
�Gf'fI-S
G%�G �� f�`t��h��J>
G � � �v �� 7�7�"" ���``IGfiY�
7eld
Leµcl of Seg-��� � LDS)
't'/00 ula ku� "ae44va-114
Vo n.
_0 �o Pi
Z3
C G�iF3'3 f9
CD
CD
JH
>
jz?
erg
:2, 91
UT
Fr
.3V
'El
0
A OpeeDee
�19 - OIL CHANCE a. TUPJE-UP*
F.
*j
a
.;RICK MARKS, I c
nARCHITECTUE , DESIG11 -- FLAWING
pO
YI Py
.;RICK MARKS, I c
nARCHITECTUE , DESIG11 -- FLAWING
n
11
OIL - CPA TUN
?inn. 5nry,• 40 L
ITIIT I'll
ar
\c
0,
.41
\ ss
b-ZIYo
m r- cn
a
to
07
0
0
6
om
CID
ar
\c
0,
.41
\ ss
b-ZIYo
E
ROAD ------
Aa >
y mo 1
SITE PLAN COUNTRY HILLS TOWNE CENTER LANDSING PACIFIC FUND
DIAMOND DAF, CALWORRIA (41511324-7100
0
m r- cn
a
to
07
0
0
6
om
E
ROAD ------
Aa >
y mo 1
SITE PLAN COUNTRY HILLS TOWNE CENTER LANDSING PACIFIC FUND
DIAMOND DAF, CALWORRIA (41511324-7100
0
m r- cn
a
to
07
0
0
6
OIL CHA
r I C-1 M r-, N T P, 9: E2 L U I,
r
ToTt&,L O-C�. rOCTt&,cq E
�,Jb Q. �T.
SIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Logo: Screened logo on a formed Lexan@ face
with red, white and blue copy. Illuminated
by cool white high output fluorescent lamps,.
City of D1. MOND BA Ro,eme,t lines are non -illuminated
Planning Dep artmmt
Ef 11" M eon Letters: Pigmented 3/16" thick R&H #2793 red faces
I/ with white trim cap and letter returns. 13+mm
IT
r - double row.
lear red neon tubes
vMble with U.L. approved construction when
date:
77, 1 i'm I1Y,0W f i ie i.____ W/\LL �161N WILOGODATE SCALE
IOMP/11 N 0 WE
DRAWN JOB
64 TT 0 f 1) 114', 1 MONU REV F—S H E E T'
RICK MARRS, INC.
ARCHITECTURE - DESIGN - PLANNING
rml 8330 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
LA MESA, CA 02041
CHANGE.
b
L.L. MOUNTED ENTRANCE SIGNS
tiv,T-r��s "59 m -lL-Luml\li/-\TFlt2 rl(�IMENTF-tb
p- I r W/ -\t- L ,
i�?LUF, - 5TUE) 1110UNT&iD F�LIIGH NITH
,2 U#'rZ fOOT
coo
TOT,k,L (7— 51CjNe2)
TOT� L 17 5 161, N
ToTtbllll Sl(�o)
(0/ DAy POOr
ESCAENT
���
-2
DRAWN
JOB
RICK MARRS, INC.
REV
SHEET'
-DESIGN - PLANNING
mARCHITECTURE
8330 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
LA MESA, CA 92041
F
E?LM �NAMYU,
4WINV TF4,1M
I
oafs
SIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Aluminum extrusion sign cabinets painted
with a glossy blue enamel finish.
Four (4).F48T 12 Cool White high output flu-
orescent lamps for brilliant night time illumi-
nation.
I LW M I V\TW 01 L 5F.M L? :U C1 N
DATE
10/1("'P/11
SCALE
NONff.
SIGN SMALL DISPLAY:
"Mu"BIL OIL.
WITH LOGO
I (TOTP\ L.: I &
DRAWN
JPO
JOB
3 1E2
RICK MARRS, INC.
SIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Aluminum extrusion sign cabinets painted
with a glossy blue enamel finish.
Four (4).F48T 12 Cool White high output flu-
orescent lamps for brilliant night time illumi-
nation.
I LW M I V\TW 01 L 5F.M L? :U C1 N
DATE
10/1("'P/11
SCALE
NONff.
DRAWN
JPO
JOB
3 1E2
RICK MARRS, INC.
REV
SHEET'
ARCHITECTURE - DESIGN PLANNING
8330 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
C� LA MESA. CA 92041
__�J
HI&H IRF,0
WHITF, I�GK-C-fZOUNL?
HIGH ILUFI
J��,qF,
I-rr-T , MA,,T6H t�ULPIWC-7
M P -T �, L LATS rr-, t�
61TT r-6ZMT5.
MONUMP,NT
5161N FA6,P, =:25-1r7 5.F (:21' 5-f. MAXIMUM)
TOT/&\ L � 1,1 � t eo.
SIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Vacuum formed and embossed Lexan faces with red,
white, and blue copy silk screen printed,on,the
inside surface of the sign for long lasting graphic
protection.
Aluminum *extrusion sign cabinets painted with glossy
blue enamel finish.
Internal Illumination: Cool white high output
fluorescent lamps.
DATE SCALE
MC)NUMENT -S 161 N N0�1F,
DRAWN JOB
j t2v - 9 1 30t 1 ' �
RICK MARRS, INC REV SHEET
ArIC111TI.C.T0111: - L)r.SIGN - PLANNING
11 C� J 8330 UNIVERSITY AVENUE
LA MESA. CA 92041
Exhibit C
CUP 87-002
1111CUP
91-14
(AMENDING CUP 87-002)
BUILDING
SQUARE FEET
BUILDING
SQUARE FEET
---E
# 1 Bank
Not A Part (NAP)
# 1 Bank
N.A.P.
# 2 Day Care
10,140
1111,
V2 Day Care
7,450
# 3 Shop Bldg.
9,100
# 3 Shop Bldg.
9,100
# 4 Shop Bldg.
8,700
# 4 Shop Bldg.
8,700
# 5 Alpha Beta
23,200
jij
# 5 Alpha Beta
23,200
# 6 Shop Bldg.
14,000
# 6 Shop Bldg.
14,000
# 7 Thrifty
21,440
# 7 Thrifty
21,440
# 8 Shop Bldg.
11,000
# 8 Shop Bldg.
10,720
# 9 Shop Bldg.
9,600
# 9 Shop Bldg.
6,580
#10 Shop Bldg.
3,788
#10 Shop Bldg.
3,795
#11 Cinema
28,990
#11 Cinema
23,428
#12 Shop Bldg.
3,788
#12 Shop Bldg.
3,795
#13 Shop Bldg.
-9,100
#13 SpeeDee
-2,847
#14 S & L Bldg.
N.A. P.
#14 Good Year
-5,080
#15 Restaurant
*7,700
#15 Restaurant/Retail
9,500
#16 Retail
7,700
#16 Burger King
3,240
#17 Fast Food
3,500
#17 Retail
9,750
#18 Retail
3,500
#18 (No such parcel)
#19 Retail
21,000
#19 Alta Ski & Sport
16,812
TOTAL BUILDING AREA
196,648
TOTAL BUILDING AREA
179,437
Total Bldg. area shown on plans 177,267)
(#13)
*9,100
(#13)
*2,847
(#15)
-7,-70-0-
(#14)
(Reduce to 4469) -5,076
TOTAL BUILDING AREA
(#15)
"9,500
APPROVED
16,800
TOTAL BUILDING
AREA REQUESTED
17,407
Over the Approved Area
607
...... .....
PARKING SPACES
PARKING SPACES
Provided
1,067
Provided
1,053
Required
1,064
Required
933
m
Physical Count
MEN=
1,065
*Compares the total square footage for building area of pads affected
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4
REPORT DATE: February 20, 1992
MEETING DATE: February 24 1992
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Administrative Development Review 92-1/ Oak
Tree Permit 92-1
APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to remove one (1) oak tree in
conjunction with the construction of a single
family residence of approximately 9,101 sq.
ft. and to obtain Administrative Development
Review Approval on the residence.'
14 Z41 WM *61qN 0 ke) � in
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
2638 E. Blaze Trail
Paul Kaitz
646 N. Grand Ave.
Covina, Ca. 91724.
Same as Above
The Administrative Development Review project was forwarded by the
Director of Planning to the Planning Commission to be reviewed in
conjunction with Oak Tree Permit No. 92-1. The project proposes the
construction of an approximately 9,100 sq. ft. residence with swimming
pool on a lot approximately 1.5 acres in size and located in the private
gated community known as the Country Estates. The project is zoned is
R-1 -20,000 (Single Family Residential, half acre lots).
Analysis:
The single family residence is proposed as a two story residence with a
cellar. The house features a covered swimming pool and patio. The
construction of the residence requires the incorporation of retaining
walls behind. the residence (maximum height 6 ft.) and the northeast
property line (max. height 6 ft.). Additionally, the retaining walls
will be used within the foundation of the structure itself and will not
be visible as a retaining wall.
The exterior materials utilized in the composition of the residence
includes La Habra Rose Dust stucco with formed Crystal White trim. The
roof material is proposed to be a staggered blend of Monier Mission 'IS"
Flashed Tile. The slope of the roof is 8:12. The height of the
residence is in conformance with the 35 ft. height limit.
The following are required development standards for R-1-20,000 zone and
the proposed project's status concerning these standards:
Development Standards
1. Setbacks - 51 & 101 side yard
201 front yard
151 rear yard
2. Height - 2 stories, 351
3. Parking - 2 covered spaces
4. Basement/Cellar
5. Lot size
Oak Tree Removal
Proposed Project Status
101 & 101 side yard
201 min. front yard
Meets rear yard
requirements
2 stories, 351 max. height
4 car garage
N/A
1.5 acres
One oak tree over the 811 threshold for permit requirements will removed
and an a multi -base oak tree of approximately 611 in diameter will be
removed as a result of the construction of the residence. The largest
oak and the multi -base oak tree are located on the northeast property
line. The trees are located in the footprint of the house.
The applicant states that the relocation of the tree is his preference.
Because of the configuration of the site, the applicant would prefer to
PP relocate the 'tree off-site to his personal residence in The Country.
The applicant has additionally submitted a landscape plan which will
provide six (6) replacement oak trees of various sizes i at the rear
portion of the site where additional oak trees are located.
The remaining oak trees on-site are to be protected with a 5 ft. high
fence extending beyond the drip line in compliance with the oak tree
provisions set forth in the City code. .
Related Permits
The applicant is concurrently processing a stockpile and grading permit.
The review of these applications is completed and issuance of these
permits from the Engineering Department is contingent on the approval of
this application.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This project was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin on February 3, 1992 and in the Highlander on
February 5, 1992. Mailers were sent to 23 property owners within the
required 300 ft. radius of the property.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the project as
submitted by the applicant.
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COM ISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 6
REPORT DATE: February 19, 1992
MEETING DATE: February 24, 1992
CASE/FILE NUMBER: T e n t a t i v e P a r c e l M a p
22986/Development Review 92-1
APPLICATION REQUEST: To subdivide an existing two lot
parcel, to reconfigure the lot lines
for a new two lot subdivision and to
construct a two (2), floor office
building, approximately 6,000 square
feet in size, with parking on the
lower level and office space on the
upper level.
PROPERTY LOCATION: East of Diamond Bar Blvd., westerly of
Sunset Crossing Rd at Navajo Springs
Rd
23475 Sunset Crossing
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Lot 8 & 9, Tract 28853
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
BACKGROUND:
Ed and Shirley Jaworsky
3349 Paloma
LaVerne, CA
Fred and Norma Janz
2683 Shady Ridge
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
The Planning Commission heard this project at a public hearing held on
March 11, 1991. At that hearing the Planning Commission directed the
applicant to prepare a traffic report and to submit the report to the
City staff and the Traffic and Transportation Commission for review and
'^ to address design issues related to constructing the proposed office
building on a hillside.
overview
The 2.76 acre site is currently developed with a three story (16,500
sq. ft.) office building with 142 parking spaces provided. As a condi-
01
tion of approval for the project, the lots were to be included in a
covenant to hold them as a single lot. This condition was instituted
to guarantee that the parking, which' was located on lots eight and
nine, could not be reduced for the existing office building as a result
of future development.
Not withstanding this condition, the applicant is -requesting -to ---con-
struct
s- requesting -to --don-
struct a two story office building with underground parking on what is
currently the bisecting line of lots eight and nine. The proposed
parcel map will create two lots which will maintain compliance with
intent of the condition and yield an additional viable lot.,
The location of the proposed building is situated to the southeastern
portion of the site. The office building is oriented to Sunset Cross-
ing Road and is proposed for a portion of the undeveloped site with a
slope which varies from 1.5:1 to 1:1. The adjacent development around
the site includes the Great Western Bank to the north, L.A. Fitness
Center health club to the west, condominiums and a racquet and swim
club directly to the south of the proposed project, and to the east a
single family residence is constructed on an elevation above the sub-
ject site.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
Parcel Map
The parcel map is for the creation of two viable lots on which to
construct a new office building and to maintain the existing.
development with the required parking. The lot lines are being
adjusted to achieve this and the revision is substantial enough to
require a new parcel map.
Conditional Use Permit
The conditional use permit request is for a two story office building
with 6,000 sq. ft. of interior floor area. The building height is
designed at a height of approximately 35 ft. above average finished
grade. The building is designed with 16 subterranean parking on the
first floor of the structure and office space on the top floor.
Eighteen parking spaces in total will be provided for commercial non-
medical professional office uses and will include one handicapped
parking space.
Design
The site has features which create circumstances that must be dealt
with in the design of the office building. Because of the dramatic
change in grade that the site possesses, the use of ' a retaining wall is
necessary in order to create an adequate foundation. The retaining
wall proposed will actually be visible as a portion of the structure's
overall mass on the rear and side sections of the building. The office
building is designed to be constructed on top of the retaining wall
with the retaining wall incorporated into the exterior aesthetics thus
contributing to the overall appearance of the height of the structure.
The location of the building has not been altered from the previous
proposal. The building is however designed with an approximately 5 ft.
reduction in height, less interior habitable square footage and has
added on additional underground parking space.
The materials to be utilized in the construction of the office building
are unchanged and include a white stucco exterior finish and spanish
"Is" tile on the roof. The roof will be flat and a parapet wall will be
constructed along the exterior of the roof line to give the face a more
angular appearance when viewed from below. The entrance to the parking
structure will take access to Sunset Crossing Road on the south
elevation as well as the only pedestrian entrance which is on the
bottom floor. The top floor is designed with walk out patios to three
suites and abundant window area on all elevations. The eastern
elevation features a walkout patio/breezeway that overlooks the
remaining landscaped areas.
Parking/Traffic Issues
Parking for the office building as required by minimum code standards
for commercial office use is 1 space per 400 sq. ft. of gross area.
Professional office uses are required to provide parking based on a 1
space per 250 sq. ft. The revised design provides 18 parking spaces,
which exceeds the minimum requirements for general commercial office
(15 spaces) use but does not meet the professional office standard (24
spaces). The current ratio yields 1 space per 331 sq. ft. Sunset,
Crossing Road will not be adequate to absorb the additional parking
that would be generated if inadequate on-site parking is provided and
should not be encouraged in any manner.
The ingress and egress to the site generated safety issues with the
Commission. The 'traffic report prepared for the project did not
identify any existing traffic problems at the Navajo Springs and Sunset
Crossing intersection. The report cited the absence of problems as an
indication that no clear sight problems exist and that there would be
no additional problems with respect to this project. The report
suggested that a "Right Turn Only" sign be posted at the exit of the
project.
Landscaping
Landscaping for the site will utilize a major portion of the existing
stand of trees located to the west of the proposed structure. There
will be additional trees planted along the rear of the structure to
reduce the massiveness of retaining wall. Shrubbery will be planted in
the front of the structure as well as along the side elevations. Land-
scaping and open space will extend east from the proposed office build-
ing and will comprise approximately 30 percent of the site's -gross
square footage.
Landuse Alternatives
The appropriateness of this landuse at this location is an issue raised
by the Commission. The proposed project is one which complies with the
zoning but may not be the most appropriate use in reference to the
adjacent uses.
The small. office use is a low intensity transition from the 3 story
office use to the north and the health club to the west. From a
traffic generation standpoint, this project will generate less traffic
that the existing condominium complex but more traffic than if the
project were to be developed as a single family residence. This
alternative is not possible under the provisions of the current CM
zone.
The appropriateness of a single family residence at this location is
also debateable. The landuse would more appropriately reflect the
landuse to the east, but it would abut a commercial use on the west and
north. Additionally, to construct a pad sufficient in size to
comfortably locate the residence and any type of yard, extensive
grading would have to be undertaken.
Conclusion
The project site is unique in topography and will require substantial
use of retaining walls and grading for any development deemed
appropriate for the site. The project as submitted has been revised to
increase the parking ratio and to reduce the height of the building.
Landscaping is proposed to be utilized to reduce the massiveness of the
,development.
The traffic report identified posting turn restrictions in the form of
signage to mitigate potential impacts. The cumulative impacts of the
project are not foreseen to create excessive negative impacts but the
project can not create additional off-site demands for parking.
The landuse which is most appropriate for this site will not be
compatible with all adjacent uses simply because of the nature of the
location. Any project approved for this site must be deemed to be most
compatible with the most sensitive uses and not to generate non-
mitigatable negative impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Mitigated Negative Declaration
PUBLIC NOTICE:
The public notice was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and
the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on February 3, 1992 and in the
Highlander on February 5, 1992. Mailers were sent to approximately 155
property owners within the required 500 ft. radius of the property.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning staff requests that the public hearing be continued to the
March 9, 1992 Planning Commission hearing in order that parcel map
comments from the City Engineer can forwarded to the Planing Division
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 229861 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-1
Applicant: Ed and Shirley Jaworsky
3349 Paloma
LaVerne, CA.
Proposal: To subdivide a two lot parcel into a newly
configured two lot parcel map and to construct a
two floor office, building, approximately 6,000
square feet in size, with parking on the lower
level and office space on the upper level.
Location: East of Diamond Bar Blvd, westerly of Sunset
Crossing Rd at Navajo Springs Rd;
23475 Sunset Crossing
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Environmental Findings: The proposed project, as determined by
the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar, will not have a significant
effect on the environment. This
conclusion is based on the attached
environmental checklist.
9,
Mitigated Negative Declaration
All "yes" and "possibly" answers and mitigation measures.
1. Earth. (c,d)
Explanation:
Due to the necessary grading which will be required as a part of
the construction phase and the change in topography, there will be
a changes to the existing conditions. During the construction
phase there will be an increase in wind blown soil on the site.
Mitigation Measures:
During the construction phase the site will be required to be
watered down to reduce the occurrence of blowing soil and
landscaping will be required to be planted and maintained on the
site at the earliest opportunity that construction will allow.
3. Water. (b)
Explanation:
There will be an increase in non -permeable surfaces as a result of
the construction of the office building thusdecreasing the
absorption rates.
Mitigation Measures:
The project will require the placement of a drainage system and
connection into the existing municipal facilities.
9. Natural Resources. (a)
Explanation:
There will be an increase in the use of electricity and water as a
result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures:
The proposed project will be required to comply with the Building
Code concerning the use of water conserving toilets equipment, the
use of recycled water for landscaping and the use of xeriscape
drought tolerant plants, and compliance with Building Code energy
conserving calculations are required'as part of this application.
13. Transportation/Circulation. (a,b)
Explanation:
The project will generate more trips per day than the current on-
site development on Sunset Crossing Road and may create the need
for more parking than is currently planned for the office building.
Mitigation Measures:
The office building will be restricted to low volume generating
tenants that will exclude medical/professional users. To further
reduce the negative impacts to on -street parking, staff will
investigate imposing no parking restrictions in the vicinity of the
project on Sunset Crossing Road.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 11, 1991
CUP 90-0125
C/MacBride requested to be removed from the proceeding because of
his proximity to the project. Upon the advice by the City
attorney, he disqualified himself from the hearing.
AP/Searcy stated that the public notice was mailed February 13,
1991. He presented the request for a CUP to construct a two floor
office building located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and westerly
of Sunset Crossing Road -at Navajo Spring Road. Staff recommended
the adoption of the Resolution of approval and the attached
conditions.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Fred Janz, applicant, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge, requested the
CUP to build the other building, and specified that it would not
affect the existing building.
VC/Harmony noted that the area is very congested.
Mr. Janz explained that the county mandated the two parcels be used
as one to provide and ensure maintaining adequate parking. He
would like a CUP to build an office building on the remaining
portion site.
C/Grothe requested drawings of the building to be set into
photographs to. get a better idea of the proposed project. He
stated he is concerned with the increase of traffic and the
availability of parking. He would like the traffic issue addressed
by the Traffic Commission, a traffic study, if necessary, and
assurance that there is adequate parking.
VC/Harmony stated his concerns that parking and traffic are a
problem, and sees no reason to approve further construction. He
asserted that the building itself is in violation of the goals and
intent of the Hillside Ordinance.
David Ayala, designer, stated that the reason for the siting was to
preserve the forest like setting. He stated upgrading parking
would widen the building, more trees will be planted in the rear,
it does not block the view of existing homes, and there are plans
for further landscaping.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Schey requested further review by staff in regards to the
traffic increase. He inquired if the applicant would concur if the
Commission is inclined to continue the project.
Mr. Janz gave his concurrence.
VC/Harmony asked the City Attorney to advise the Commission, when
the project is returned, as to whether there is a mandate to allow
further development of the property, or if the denial of
development constitutes some sort of a taking.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by Chair/Schey and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the second meeting in April
pending submittal by the applicant of a traffic analysis
specifically oriented towards the traffic safety issues relating to
the project as prepared under the scope of the direction of the
Traffic Commission.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS - INCORPORATED AREAS
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR -
TRACT 22986
1. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by County Forester and Fire
Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded.
2. Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs, building address numbers prior to
occupancy.
3. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any portion of structure
to be built.
4. Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires all weather access.
All weather access may require paving.
5. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds
suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map.
Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire
Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways which
extend over 150 feet.
6. The private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "FIRE LANE" and shall be
maintained in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code.
7. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular
access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction.
8. Provide 28'width, clear to sky "Fire Lanes" to within 150' of all portions of the 3 -story building
on Lot 1.
9. When proposed buildings or portions of buildings are more than three stories or 35 feet in height
above the ground level, the center line of the fire lane roadway shall be located parallel to and
within 30 feet of the exterior wall of at least one side of such building.
10. Provide and label 26' width, clear to sky "Fire Lanes" to serve proposed building on Lot 2.
11. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 4000 gallons per minute at 20
psi for a duration of four (4) hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand.
12. The required on-site fire flow for private on-site hydrants is 2500 gallons per minute at 20 psi.
Each private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 1250 gallons per minute at 20 psi with
any two hydrants flowing simultaneously.
FIRE CONDITIONS M2986 Pg. I
13. Fire Hydrant requirements as follows:
Install one (1) Public Fire Hydrant. Install two (2) Private On-site Fire Hydrants.
14. All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA
standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrantsshall be installed a minimum of 25' from a
structure or protected by a two (2) hour fire wall.
Location: As per map on file with this office
15. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular
access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction.
16. Additional on site hydrants may be required during the building permit process.
All hydrants shall be installed in conformance with Title 20, L. A. County Government Code or
appropriate'city regulations. This shall include minimum six-inch diameter mains. Arrangements
to meet these requirements must be made with the water purveyor serving the area.
C AWP51 \WORK\22986 F1R.DEP
FIRE CONDITIONS T122986 Pg. 2
R
,SKS Associates
2700 North Main Street, Suite 900
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Phone: (714)543-9601
Fax: (714)648-0402
August 7, 1991
Mr. Sid Mousavi
City Engineer/Director of Public Works
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Subject: Revised Traffic Study Review
23475 Sunset Crossing
Owner Fred Janz Realty
Dear Mr. Mousavi:
P911320
Pursuant to our previous review of the submitted report, the enclosed revised report has
included several of the comments and covers most of our concerns. The report has evaluated
the driveway sight distance based on the assumption that through traffic will either stop or at
least reduce speed should it be confronted with an exiting vehicle from the project driveway.
Based on this assumption, the available sight distance is sufficient for the safe stopping of
vehicles on Sunset Crossing.
We agree with the mitigation measure recommended by the report to design the driveway as
a right -turn out only driveway. The design should be such that it physically prevents the exiting
vehicle from making a left turn.
Additionally, I would suggest that the limit line be installed as . close as possible to the "three
feet outside curb line" indicated in the report.
Sincerely,
DKS Associates
Gvw y'
Abi Mogharabi, P.E.
Senior Transportation Engineer
AXM:kk
enclosure: Copy of Revised Report 33613.291132x0.1et
July 31, 1991
TRAFFIC SAFETY ENGINEERS
Mr. Fred Janz
Fred Janz Realty
556 N. Diamond Bar Blvd, Suite 304
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
R EF C v D
A LING 1991
Gt 0 K G
U�4GE CCju'jl-y
-i
SUBJECT: PROPOSED OFFICE PROJECT AT 23475 SUNSET CROSSING ROAD,
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Dear Mr. Janz:
In response to the concerns raised by the City Planning Commission,
we have conducted a study to determine the adequacy of safe sight
distance between motorists exiting out of the proposed office
project dirveway and the approaching westbound traffic on Sunset
Crossing Road. Our findings and conclusions areas follows:
PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The proposed 6j800 square -foot office development is to be located
on the north side of Sunset Crossing Road, immediately west of
Navajo Springs Road. Sunset Crossing Road is a two-lane collector
street serving primarily a residential area. Its street width is
44 feet, curb -to -curb. A vertical curve (10% grades) exists east of
Bower Cascade Place.
SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE (ITE METHOD)
Stopping sight distance used for street geometric design is the sum of
two distances: (1) the distance a vehicle travels after the driver
sights an object and before braking and (2) the distance it travels
after braking.
The stopping sight distance (SSD) in feet is determined from the
following formula taken from ITE's Transportation '& Traffic
Engineering Handbook:
V2
SSD = 1.47PV +
30 (f +g)
Where V = speed from which stop is made in miles per hour,
P = perception -reaction time in seconds,
f = coefficent of friction,
g = percent of grade divided by 100 (added for upgrade
and subtracted for downgrade).
3100 MARYWOOD DR. ORANGE, CA 92667 (714) 974-7863 FAX (714] 974-1043
September 12, 1991 Page 3
`
Services the walnut valley Unified School District (WVUSD)
f crossing;ard services at the inter ctions of
'em
�s Ion
No orn Glenwick, and L olima.A
warran study must be conducted t determine if
these in!nsec sections warrant a cr sing guard. It
is recomm ndiaR that the Commis
*on direct staff to
conduct a warrlctkt study.
CE/Mousavi stated t t the warrant study would be
conducted in house.
Motion was mad y, C/Chaver seconded by C/Beke
and CARRIE UNANIMOUSLY t adopt staff's
recommenda on as written.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Cha - e Gravdahl,
and Chair/Ortiz.
NO COMMISSIONERS: None.
SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz.
Traffic Report CE/Mousavi reported that the owners, Fred and Norma
Janz, of the property located at 23475 Sunset
Crossing, submitted a plan earlier this year to
develop an office building on the undeveloped
portion of their property. Currently, the 2.76
acre site is developed with a three story building,
with 120 parking spaces. In April of 1991, the
Planning Commission directed the applicant to
submit a traffic impact report to the City, to be
reviewed by the Traffic and Transportation
Commission. It is recommended that the commission
concur with the recommendations made by DKS and
Associates.
Fred Janz, the developer, described the site to be
developed. He explained that, because his existing
building and the Racquetball Club would. be able to
share the parking areas, customers would not have
to park on Golden Springs.
Sgt. Rawlings, . in response to Chair/Ortiz's
inquiry, stated that the "right turn only", as
recommended by DKS and Associates, would be
enforceable.
Motion was made by C/Chavers, seconded by C/Beke
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's
recommendation, and pass it back to the Planning
Commission with the Traffic and Transportation
Commission's approval.
AYES: , COMMISSIONERS: Chavers, Beke, Gravdahl,
and Chair/Ortiz.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Fritz.
Page 2
The existing speed limit along Sunset Crossing Road is posted for
30 MPH. However, radar speed surveys indicated an 85th percentile
speed of 33 MPH for westbound downhill traffic approaching the
vicinity of the proposed project driveway. The required safe
stopping sight distances are computed as follows:
33 M.P.H.
SSD = (1.47 x 2.0 x 33) +
= 97 + 151
33 x 33
30 x (0.34 - 0.10)
248 feet (for wet pavement) Fey- Z3 2-73
Field Measurements indicate the following sight distances available
on Sunset Crossing Road between the project driveway and the
westbound downhill traffic sighted from the crest of vertical
roadway curve..
Location of
Driveway Vehicle
Avalaible Sight Distance (feet)
3 feet outside
curb line
3251
At curb line
275'
As evidenced from the above analysis, the available sight distance is
greater than the required safe stopping distance.
Page 3
Project Traffic
Summarized below are traffic gener - ation forecasts on an A. - M. peak
traffic hour and P.M. peak traffic hour for the proposed project.
TSF denotes 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Source of Generation Rate: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Land -Use Code 710 (General Office)
Trip distribution indicates that 90%(19 vehicles) of the outbound
project traffic during the P.M. peak traffic hour will be making a
right -turn out of -the project driveway. Right -turn movement has
been known as the safest traffic turning movement because of its
least exposure to other conflicting traffic.
AM Peak Traffic Hour
PM Peak Traffic Hour
Land Use
Inbound
OutboundTotal
Inbound
Outbound
Total
Generation Rate
13.48
General Office
(Trips/TSF)
3.09
0.39
0.64
3.13
3.77
Traffic Generated
General Office
(6.8 TSrln1
21
.3
24
5
21-
26
TSF denotes 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Source of Generation Rate: Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Land -Use Code 710 (General Office)
Trip distribution indicates that 90%(19 vehicles) of the outbound
project traffic during the P.M. peak traffic hour will be making a
right -turn out of -the project driveway. Right -turn movement has
been known as the safest traffic turning movement because of its
least exposure to other conflicting traffic.
Page 4
SAFE SIGHT DISTANCE (AASHTO METHOD)
The safe sight distance required by the AASHTO 'method is slightly
over 500 feet. This sight distance is twice as long as compared to
the ITE method.
The reason for this discrepancy are:
1. AASHTO method assumes no reduction in speed by the through
traffic on the major roadway when approaching the side street.
2 AASHTO method requires the stopped vehicle exiting from the
side street to attain the travelling speed of the major roadway
without impeding or slowing down the approaching through traffic.
3. AASHTO method applies only to a major roadway crossing a
stopped controlled side street. It requires a longer sight
distance than the ITE method to ensure no reduction or slowing
down of approaching through traffic on the major roadway.
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
Exiting traffic from Navajo Springs Raod has approximately a safe
sight distance of 250 feet from the downhill approaching westbound
traffic on Sunset Crossing Road. This sight distance meets the ITE
method but less than one-half of the distance required by the
AASHTO method.
Review of the traffic accident data compiled by the Los Angeles
County Sheriff Department for the intersection of Sunset Crossing
Road and Navajo Springs Road from 7-1-89 to 7-25-91 did not
indicate any accidents involving exiting Navajo Springs Road
traffic with Sunset Crossing Road traffic. Based on the good
accident history of this intersection, it is reasonable to conclude
that the ITE method is appropriate for determining the safe sight
distance along a residential street such as Sunset Crossing Road.
Page '5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Our analysis indicates that the proposed project driveway location
offers an adequate safe stopping sight distance for approaching
westbound downhill traffic on Sunset Crossing'Road. Since 90% of
the project traffic will be making a right turn out of the project
driveway, it is suggested that a "RIGHT -TURN ONLY" sign be posted
at the proposed project driveway. No other mitigating measures will
be needed as part of the project implementation.
If you have any questions concerning
cerning our findingsandconclusions or
require further clarification, please us at any. time.
Respectfully submitted,
TRAFFIC SAFETY ENGINEERS
C. Hui Lai, P.E.
Traffic Engineer,',ti`Q�O—"U �Iz
`
^ '
-60
"
LOCATIUN, PROPOSED PROJECT DRIVEWAY AT 23475 SUN-SE'T' CROSSING
0IRE,CTION:
E/W
50TH PERCENTILE SPEED: 32.1
DATE':
07/*31/91
85TH PERCENTILE SPEEDx 33.1
DAY:
WED
10 MPH PACE SPEED,: 27.0 TO
36.0
TIME':
I200
TO 1,400
M'OUQS
PERCENT IN PACESPEED: 98.01%'
POSTED
SPEED
LIMIT:
30
RANGE OF SPEEDO: 27 TO 38
'
VEHICLES OBSERVED.- 1OU
ADJ
DVEVL:
RESIDENTIAL
SKEWNESS INDEX: 1.01
NUM-
ACCUM
SPEED�
BER
PERCT
P[RCT
+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
1
2
O
0.00
0.00
100
.....................
+
3'
4
O
U.00
0.00
:5
:6
U
D 0
0.00
95
+
7'
8
0-
O.O&
[y.OU
9
IO
O
0.00
D.t)O
90
+
11
12
O
0.00
0.00
-
13
14
O
0.010
0.00
85
`
+
15
16
O
0.00
Of. UD
-
17
18
O
0.00
0.00
80
+
19-
2U
0
0.00
O.00
-
~ 21
22
O
0.00
0.00
75
+
23
24
0
0.00
(}.00
-
25
36
O
O -OO
0.00
70
.
+
27
28.
6
5.0O
5.00
-
23
30
18
1-8.00
23.00
9
65
+
31
32
46.
46. 00
G-9.80
E'
-
33
34
23
23.O0
92.00
R
60
+
35
36
6-
6.00.
98.00
C
-
37
38
3
2.00
100.00
E
5-5
+
39.
40
O
O.OQ
100.00
M
-
41
43
0
0.00
100.O0
T
50
+
43
44
Q
U.UO
1OU.OG.
S
-
45
46
Q
0 .00
100,00
45
+
47
48
O
O.00
100-. GG
-
49
'5O
O
0.00
100.00
4.0
+
51
52
O
9. 00-
1010.00.
-
5 3
54
O
0.g0
100. 00
-
35
*
55.
56
Or
U.U&
100.00
-
57
58
-0
0.00
100.00
30
+
53
6O
O
0.00-
1 O[l.00
-
61
62
O
O.QO
18O.00
25
+
6.3
64
0
Or. 00
100.00
.65
66
O
0.00
lioO.0O
20
+
67
68
0
D.QO
100-.00,
-
69
70
U
Q.Q.0
10-0.80
is
'
+
71
72
D
0-.0--0
IOU.. OG
-
73
74
O
0.0-0
1OO.00
10
+
76
76
Q
0. UG
10-0.00
-
77
78
O
'U.OU
1O0.00
5
.
+
79.
80
O
0.'. OO
100.00
-
O..............
+
O ----I----2
---- 3 ---- 4----5----�----7----
8
O
U O 0 O O D U
O
SPEED, IN MILES PER: HOUR
RECENED CT,-Ii','IUNITY
DEVELOPIENT
1992 FED 19 RM 12: 33
d17Y PZII,-VIV,,IV,-_-
6R
-Pm-lLtalvD
:2,94670 XaAls,6z-T dO-5-511VC, #B
VIM',
I-V 7-17�F /VO 7'/ e,-- 0/=- Z
7IV7-x--I<, . OOs� y W cl.�c7lelv
ro
6- Al,f-vlf Vo
— 17-
12
Y
y 14, L 11q,4
T
me , v ums 1 3� wino
UU-C66(-rd n 1", k5aaa 1 11 i°
NOisaa awoH.wQLsno— zuvr MEW .1,
S31VIZ)OSSV VIVAV UIAWJ )JO:J Mims 3ow:j0 03SOdObid V 1 3mw I
AMud 2E)Iyvbro
bYe
%low
0
U)
Z
w
U)
M
w
A
U)
22
Ell
in 2 1p
Z
AMud 2E)Iyvbro
bYe
%low
0
U)
Z
w
U)
M
w
A
U)
22
Ell
in 2 1p
Z
U)
Z
w
U)
M
w
A
U)
22
Ell
in 2 1p
Z
z
U)
W0
Ej m
b D
0 z U) Z
S 0
zLLI
a,
m
> u.n unum'nn nal nmllm'mnnuv kkL4•I�G (NL)9H� GfW\14 L
y�i�'••NI
• u.v lulu OI nl LYI'UlnN11M I4q eoGL •y� 1-Jvq OIMWW �N Ic kadsJ+�++•
iai•cwa-FA OIbv.W'H �' a5aaa ja4} �• o S
ZLEL•E86(6LUHd _
nm am olm.uu i1M' OY1J L i' b}ai �` .� ; • T
—Mo NOIri�Qi u • . —
N'JI530 3WOFI•WO1SflD � aJtixdH�"t '� � 3v J
ZMdf (MY'�
S3 LdI�OSSV d7VCV QIAVQ
HOd Eftai S 3O1ddO O3SOdOdd V LN31NW
� �
�
v4 g
a-
� r
-
H
a w _ `-
�os r�s� aMr
9ONVijo W
o ��j• � '�••a„s � � a•>_ i= ten' t
5 N Z E
-14 1
a
w
a
a
� ` Ir4•Fgt \• • • 1�
/!
C. i( \ g � C � .. 0
' }� \\ 1141 �1 y \\,�•e �� � } \ � •'
.c ) . �? ' . '�, t. r ♦ \\I . �� s'§r•y 1
w � �i::. ,'• .: i�'� '^ f:�'rJ.i: �•11'i, \ �\.. \ y $9'y, 1 S �0~—i vnanl a Sn�i
+le
0
2.
«81. —. �,' ,� .,9: IYI c� 191 m� „_ •
!3 E
2
MM V ro nr° Me'a°rx V -no on
"0-IQ(NU 9WW VIS{-1NK N401V+'+'N
60LIL"1I—N4 OIiTwb q+x.�a kHm6 kxa'J�'•
E696- Z9(64L)Hd
IaO1�'y`6 � a;.JU "4" %
833NIJN3 TA13
e3 M° Ho
mva bnoa
ZNnr 03ud
n
1103 NVId ONIa` UD IVIOd3WW00 V
su aum
ii'j
� i;� � ii:j s= ii 1 i � f aj' ii=• r'•i �3 � ici� (! �a y.i !Ij t
.! S 5; ii; , i! :3='! li: a} i �!r, ii , ti`• s'= �
ssr i {!t ai ,:. I s j• it!i iri r ` 1 it' i.i i�! !
;:,
$ r t 2
, ! s _ i a :� !.1a ,!; :: =i iija it ,: ;�`_• :;,
Y ._Si: ail tl S! iii= `ti iii ii
ja ai, qa
a: ii. i!
,�; i •�sz Ej il; i . t ; � ir;; i,i r:. i :;ai �i ils �� ��i 1i
'i dr i 'r iir t f ga • lr ls, s. l:� ti: ,:. rt
i i ; i� �i i it t`i !ir li i
+�!i'1 ' i ia' a inti ,f,! ii !r, Y l;i
rll i!ri
'r si, ;°fi�e� lr :3g, = ; r !� i !J i�i a'i= 1 ljar
ti jrY ; =ti_ • : ! i la j!.l:
Rn i!r� frig i-
iii_' isj : :
ss tsai is ii, of ti!i ; i t !: i i ;i :ii sr(; ei: At isrs. t: tl: 1 i e:s 11
III
kkk
��-
1 .1 i l,) 1
�\ i
t.�� �7 � p I / , . i• i11 r-11
11T 1, N4-
�3
N
+IVA
n
III
kkk
��-
1 .1 i l,) 1
�\ i
t.�� �7 � p I / , . i• i11 r-11
11T 1, N4-
�3
N
+IVA
Ir"1 I6
Iiv'I�
Q w
IIv I IIv 118 IIv (5L m o
W
W
J
•
G1
Z
0
v
W
U)
W.
m
ti
J
W
W
J
•
v
LL
Agenda Item 5. — Tentative Tract Map No. 51079/amendment to
CUP 89-551
Documents found in file.
loi
Z4."SVBw
d by
c and is ready for
nt '
File revired by �=
! (' and is ready for
destruction by City Clark