Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/22/1992AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND 3 June 3, 1992 June 22, 1992 Variance No. 92-1 A request for a Variance to approve an existing six (6) foot high wrought iron fence with pilasters within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback, over the allowable height of forty-two (42) inches. 2621 Indian Creek Road William A. Stiegler 8724 E. Garvey Ave. Rosemead, CA 91770 Jose R. Cortez 2621 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 The applicant, William Stiegler, is requesting a Variance to approve an existing six (6) foot high wrought iron fencing with seven (7) foot high pilasters and automatic gate within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback. The pilasters are constructed from red brick and have a lamp on each pilaster. The proposed project is located within "The Country" at 2621 Indian Creek Road (Lot 8, Tract 23483). The project site is approximately 1.4 acres. It is zoned R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential -minimum lot size 40,000 square feet) and is surrounded by other single family residences. Located on the site is a four (4) level single family structure. . . . . . . . .. . . ANALYSIS: At this time, the City is utilizing the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code. As per the Code, the following listed sections apply to this project. 22.20.120 A.1. Premises in Zone R-1 shall be subject to the yard requirements provided herein: 'FRONT YARDS. Each lot or parcel of land shall have a front yard of not less than twenty (20) feet in depth. 22.48.160 A. Fences and walls may be erected and maintained in required yards subject to the requirements specified herein: FRONT YARDS. Fences and walls within a required front yard shall no exceed a height of 3? feet. There are three (3) issues pertaining to this project which need to be addressed. The first issue is concerning the fact that the existing fence has been constructed within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback and exceeds a height of forty-two (42) inches. The second issue is, was it necessary to construct the fencing as it exists or could it have been placed behind the twenty (20) foot front yard setback. The third issue is whether the fencing is aesthetically compatible with the area. The street width of Indian Creek is sixty-four (64) feet. The distance from the center line of the street to the property -line is thirty-two (32) feet. At thirty-two (32) feet, the property line for the subject site begins and this is where the equestrian fencing which is required in "The Country" is placed. From this point to twenty (20) feet back is considered the front yard setback. It is in this area that a structure can not be more than forty-two (42) inches in height. As it exists, the fencing (height of 6 feet plus an additional 3 feet for the lamps placed on the pilasters) in the front of this site is placed eight (8) feet behind the front property line and is in violation of the Code. The second issue is whether or not it was necessary to construct the fencing at its location. The topography of the site drops dramatically at a 3:1 ratio. Directly behind the fencing, the ground falls steeply away to the northwest. To locate the fence twelve (12) feet further back would place it well past the crest of a steep down slope. As a result, a car would be "standing" on a much steeper area than at present as the automatic gate opens. This situation would be less safe then what exists. The placement and the height of the fencing does not obstruct the view of on coming cars when exiting the driveway. After the gate, there is approximately a twenty (20) foot area before the edge of pavement, for a car to stand in order to observe the traffic before pulling out on to the road. According to the City Engineering Department, the location of the existing fence does not create a safety hazard for the property owner or passing by traffic. As far as Engineering is concerned, there is no advantage for safety or traffic reasons to relocating the fence back twelve (12) feet, thereby placing it behind the twenty (20) foot front yard setback. The third issue is concerned with whether or not this type of fencing is aesthetically compatible with the area. In "The Country", it is not unusual for fencing of this type or similar to be constructed in the same manner and is the same location or similar location. The white wrought iron is compatible with the architecture of the residences and the white equestrian split rail fencing. The applicant has a letter from the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association dated March 19, 1992 approving the construction of the wrought iron fencing and brick pilasters. The letter also indicated that the architectural design of the fencing is consistent with the standards in the neighborhood. As per the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code, Section 22.56.260, E. (Title 21&22)., the Variance procedure is established to permit modification of development standards as they apply to particular uses when practical difficulties, and unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general purposes of this Title 22, develop through the strict literal interpretation and enforcement of such provisions. A Variance may be granted to permit modification of (E.) wall, fencing and screening requirements. Pertaining to this project, the topography of the site, makes it difficult to enforce the Code setback and height requirements.' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on May 28, 1992, and the Highlander on June 3, 1992. Notices were mailed to approximately twenty (20) property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site on June 11, 1992. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case and a Negative Declaration has been prepared according to guidelines of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 92-1 with the following conditions and Findings of Fact. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Because of special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property, the strict application of the code deprives the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications; and 2. This Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated; and I 3. That strict application of zoning regulations as they apply to such property will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships-inconsistentwiththe general purpose..of. such regulations. andstandards; and 4. This Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of Approval Negative Declaration No.92-5 Application Exhibit "All - site plan, dated June 22, 1992 Exhibit IIBII - photographs of the site and fencing, dates June 22, 1992 Aerial ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 92-001 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.91-51 AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF AN EXISTING WROUGHT IRON PENCE WITH BRICK PILASTERS WITHIN THE 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK OVER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT OF 42 INCHES LOCATED AT 2621 INDIAN CREEK ROAD - LOT 81 TRACT 23483. A. Recitals 1. Jose R. Cortez, has filed an application for a Variance No. 92-1 for a property located at 2621. Indian Creek Road, Diamond Bar, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development 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. 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, 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, ac- tion was taken on the subject Application, as to consis- tency to the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government S 65360. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on June 22, 1992 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said Application. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- tion have occurred. 1 J B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The 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 and determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is a Negative Declaration and has been prepared according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above public hearing and oral testimony provided at the hearing, the Director hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a site comprised of approximately 1.4 acres and is developed with a four (4) level single family residence, within the R-1-40,000 zone, on 2621 Indian Creek Road, City of Diamond Bar, California. (b) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered. The site is adequate in size to accommodate the use and surrounded by single family residences. (c) The Variance approval will not have an adverse im- pact on adjacent or adjoining residential uses. It will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity and will not adversely affect the health or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area. (d) The Variance because of special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property, the strict application of the code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. (e) The Variance authorization will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the K limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. (f) The strict application of zoning regulations as they apply to the subject property will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of such regulations and standards. (g) The architectural design of the Variance is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by the Development Review Ordinance and the proposed General Plan and would provide a desirable environment for its occupant, visiting public, and neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. (h) Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made. (i) 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. Failure of the permittee to cease any development shall be a violation of these conditions. (h) 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. (i) Notwithstanding any previous subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game require 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. 4. 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 June 22, 1992, public hearing as set forth above, the Commission in conformance with the terms and provisions 3 of California Government Code S 65360, hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The granting of this Variance is based on the reasonable probability that the request considered herein will be consistent with the General Plan on the basis of review of the draft- General Plan presently under going evaluation 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 and deleterious impacts which could otherwise arise. Further, this project's 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 project shall substantially conform to all plans dated June 22,1992 as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission labeled Exhibit "All dated June 22, 1992 and Exhibit IIBII dated June 22, 1992. (c) The Applicant shall comply with requirement of Building and Safety, Planning and Zoning and Engineering Departments. (d) 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. (e) The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, based upon the findings set forth above, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. (f) The Planning Commission finds that facts supporting the above specified findings are contained in the staff report and exhibits, and the information provided to this Commission during 4 the public hearing conducted with respect to the project will be made a condition of approval of said project and are intended to mitigate and/or avoid environmental effects identified in this project. (g) 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. 6. This Planning Commission hereby provides notice to Jose R. Cortez that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 The Community Development Director shall: (a) 'Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to Jose R. Cortez, at -the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 1992, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: James DeStefano I, James Destefano, Community Development Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the duly introduced, passed, and adopted, Planning Commission held on the 22nd day A Director of the City of foregoing Resolution was at a regular meeting of June, 1992. NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 92-5 June 22, 1992 Case Number: VAR 92-1 Applicant: Jose R. Cortez 2621 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, 91765 Proposal: A request for a Variance to approve an existing six (6) foot high wrought iron fence with pilasters within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback which is over the allowable height of forty-two (42) inches. Location: 2621 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91965 Environmental Findings: The proposed project, as determined in the City of Diamond Bar, could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a Negative Declaration has been prepared and has been incorporated into the proposed project. 2 ENvIRoNmmAL CMXLIST FORM. I. Background Name of Applicant: Z- 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 3. Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact: 4 Date of Environmental Information Submittal: )1-n -4-2- 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: 6. 7. Le a d Agency Name of Proposal 4?%p prtj (i- E5- W('). (Agency 13 if applicable 9:2--1 Required (Tract No. Checklist): if Subdivision): 8. Related Applications determination): tJO.Wr--- (under the authority of this environmental YES NO Variance: Conditional Use Permit: Zone Change: General Plan Amendment: (Attach Completed Environmental Information Form) I ......._.....�,.;K,...._-'OS.._..S�l.:. ,�. J..., n.. _..�1.'« ... ,...�..�. ...�_ra�..]I�.-1. ..-.. .. ._i .a. �._...��,.a y.� .... ,.__}_. ..-5... _.�-s.�,.:. «. �.. ..._.,. .... .... .l. .tit. r � II. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and additional information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly" answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) YES NO POSSIBLY / 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions, .or..__changes _..in / geologic substructures? y b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 1/r f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or / intermittent standing water? 1/ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: ✓• a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? YESNO POSSIBLY b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? C. Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alterationof surfacewater quality including but not limited to dissolved. oxygen and turbidity? V11— f. Alteration of the direction or rate' of flow of ground waters? 9. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an. aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant.Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction in the numbers'of any unique rare of endangered species of plants? C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? d. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? I I YES NO POSSIBLY 4. t'� 7. :M a 10. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident species? d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. 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 or upset condition? YES NO POSSIBLY': 'an ✓ b. Probable interference with emergency g Y response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect: a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: / a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? /` V d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. Je. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? J f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire Protection? LI 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? _e;.. u. ...,: •? ,,.i. �:. _.: _...L?1... _.. ......_.. i_ ....�..,i.r_..1s•i.1si.,�r t4a .L✓'i .w..��.lJ.,. YES NO POSSIBLY . 4. Parksor other recreational facilities? y 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? J 6. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: Ja. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Jb. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in: V a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: ti a. Creation of any health hazard or potential /• health hazard (excluding mental health)? V b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in: a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? YES NO POSSIBLY b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure / or object? C. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community,'reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, -environmental goals? v' C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: (Attach Narrative) IV. DETERMINATION: On the alis of t ' his initial evaluation: I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signature: Title: For the City ofFramond� Bar, California U- %_JLA DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING �1660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-31.17., VARIANCE APPLICATION %_a39_rr V i Filed Fee $ Receipt &,7-91 By Record Owner(s)-_ Applicant Applicant's Agent Name Cortez, Jose R. Cortez,Jose R. StieglerAM A. (Last name first) Address2621 Indian Creek 8724 E. Garvey 8724 E. Garvey City Diamond Bar Rosemead,Ca. Rosemead, Ca. zip 91765 91770 91770 Phone(81 R60-4154 (818 280-2300 (M. 280-2300 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) CONSENT: X consent to7the ubmisslon of the application accompanying this request.2-( Date8�3/9 Signed (All recorded owners)_ CERTIFICATION: X, -the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name William A. Stiegler (Applicant or Agent) Date % c2-- Signed ---f — (Applicant or Agent) Location 2621 Indian Creeek Rd. (Street address or tract and Lot number) between Braided Mane and Dead End (Street) (Street) Zoning 11NM_ Project* Size (gross acres) 1.4 Project Density Previous cases PresentUseof Site Residence Domestic Water Source City company/District Method of Sewage Disposal Sanitation District q ID L 11-7 C, P"A n Staff Use Project No. ------------------ - - - - - - -- --- -- -- - - - ------------------ ------------------ INITIAL ----------------------------------- INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: -Jose R. Cortez William A. Stiegler NAME NAME 9691 Indian SS Creek Rd- R79LI Fast (,,qrNiPv A\/P.' ass r, Ca. 91765 Rosemead, Ca.9ifNo .714 860-4154 818 280-2300 PHONE # PHONE # 1. Action requested and project description: Approval of Existing Wrought Iron Fence, Gate and Pilasters 2. Street location of project: 2621 Indian creek Rd. T)i;;[Dnnd R'qr, 3a. Present use of site: Residential 3b. Previous use of site or structures: Same 4. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this project: 5. Other related permit/approvals required. Specify type and granting agency._..__ Electrical, Automatic Gate Opener and Pilaster Lamps 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y N) If yes, explain: 7. Project Area: Covered by structures. paving: 6600 S.F. Landscaping, open space: 53,400 S. Total Area: Elmo s -F, 8. Number of floors:4 (SDI J t—LfnLe 1) k 9. Present zoning: Rasi clenti a I 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials?. YES NO If yes, explain N/A 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES NO N / A If yes, explain 21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on- site. N/A 22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES NO N / A If yes, explain 3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees? YES (NO)' I f ye s , t ype and number: 4. Will any natural watercourses', surface flow patterns, etc., be changed through project development?:' YES (NO If yes, explain: 5. Grading: Will the project require grading? YES (N9 If yes, how many cubic yards? Will it be balanced on site? YES 140 If not* balanced, where will 'dirt be obtained or deposited? 6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on the property (including uncompacted fill)? YES (NO If yes, explain: 7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)? YES (NO) Distance to nearest fire station: 8. Noise: Existing noise sources at site: Noise to be generated by project: Fumes: Odors generated by project: Could toxic fumes be generated? Variance Case -Burden of Proof 2621 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765 Home of Jose R. Cortez March 20, 1992 Subject; Existing Ornamental Iron and Pilaster Fence at front of property. This fence will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort, welfare or persons residing in the surrounding area. It will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of the other persons located in the vicinity of the site, nor will it jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, sfaety or general welfare, This fence is beautiful and is an asset to the neighborhood, It was designed and built to cordinate with the motif of the existing home. The site is adequate in size and shape to accomodate the yard land- scaping and other development features prescribed in the ordinance, or as is -otherwise required on order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounfing area; There are special circumstances and exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved namely; to set the fence ten feet further back would (1) not only put it well past the crest of a steep down slope rendering the fence unsightly due to the fact only the top portion would be visible from the street (2) it would be set back further than nearly all other fences, trees and miscelleneous on the entire street. The granting of a variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to the other property or improvements in -'the same vicinity and zone. 5 R -e -e c t f u 7 se e R. Cortez In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board and/or Commission, the following facts: A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not: 1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare or persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or 2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or other wise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Ordinance, *or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. C. That the proposed site is adequately served: 1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and 2. By other public or private service facilities as are required. D. That there are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to other properties in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classification. E. That such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the applicant such as that possessed by owners of other property in the same vicinity and zone. F. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the "public welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone. V iamond Bar 22615 Lazy Meadow Drive Diamond Bar . . . . . . . . . . ountry Estate,s California 91765 (714) 861-4n4 Association FAX (714) 861-2968 March 19, 1992 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: RE: Mr. Jose Cortez 2621 Indian Creek Road Lot/Tract #8/23483 The Architectural Committee approved -the construction of brick - pillars on the above property at a location of 12 feet from the edge of pavement. The above action was taken on May 7, 1991. The architectural design is consistent with the standards in the neighborhood. Sincerely, Jim Gardner General Manager DIAMOND BAR COUNTRY ESTATES ASSOCIATION rm Err TO 4 A ALCch4Y DECK rXI T1W, DUMLING It" 1c, cs I 7V OtT INDIAN CREEK ROAD City of DIAMOND BAR Planning Department ��� k4 +� Iii ..r� ,h. 1! V1, 95 7 L E 6 L -A)!) ........ P1 * A C -L C.owr -7 . Lvr4le- "7D,XLT- 04 c.,QOL 1611,ja& Gri w"t c. H,d. 06- GND ctte.r rUCLuDLs PLANNING 'ENGINEERING SURVEYING p C -A. 90042-(213Y268.-8.157 FL2�:,-, JOB.ADDRESS: 2621 INDIAN CREEK ROAD DIAMOND BAR, CA OWNER. J.R. CORTEZ 07- T. I A r n PLANNING 'ENGINEERING SURVEYING p C -A. 90042-(213Y268.-8.157 FL2�:,-, JOB.ADDRESS: 2621 INDIAN CREEK ROAD DIAMOND BAR, CA OWNER. J.R. CORTEZ 07- T. CITY OF DIAMOND MINUTES OF THE PLANNING JUNE 1, 1992 BAR COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman MacBride called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman MacBride. ROLL CALL: commissioners: Grothe, Meyer, and Vice Chairman MacBride. Chairman Flamenbaum arrived at 6:18 p.m. C/Li arrived at 7:00 p.m. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, District City Attorney Craig Fox, Lloyd Zola, with the Planning Network, Carlton Walters, of DKS, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. OLD BUSINESS: VC/MacBride recessed the meeting at 6:16 p.m. to move the meeting to Room CC -2. General Plan Land Use Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 6:23 Element p•m•• Lloyd Zola explained that the document, before the Commission, contains the Land Use Element, with those changes made Thursday, May 28, 1992, and the other elements of the General Plan, per the Commission's most recent actions. The document also contains an Implementation Mitigation Monitoring, which includes discussion regarding the basic implementation of the General Plan. Under the law, you must provide a method to monitor implementation of the General Plan EIR, and prepare the annual report which will provide for the CEQA mitigation monitoring, The General Plan EIR incorporates the strategies of the General Plan as the mitigation measures. In general, the preparation of plans, the analysis, or the determination if something is feasible, must be completed within 18 months of the General Plan adoption. The city will make a determination, as to it's feasibility, within a certain time frame, and then implement the findings of that analysis within a time frame there after. VC/MacBride inquired if there will be a general introduce of the function of the Plan. CD/DeStefano explained that the Goals, Policies, and objectives is complete with the exception of putting the introductory language, and the acknowledgements on the cover. The document before the Commission is the "working" document. June 1, 1992 Page 2 Lloyd Zola stated that the document, before the Commission, contains the following: a Resolution, prepared by the City Attorney; the EIR, which identifies mitigation measures, and impacts of the General Plan; a response to comments, which are our responses to comments received from other agencies on the draft EIR; exhibit A, which responds to comments received on the draft Housing Element from the Department of Housing and Community Development, based upon the Commission's most recent version of the Housing Element; and the land use map which shows all the changes made on Thursday, May 28th. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he would like the opportunity to fully review the document prior to recommending it. However, any obvious errors should be pointed out tonight. The Commission concurred to begin review of the Land Use Map. The following corrections were made: The portion of the Zelman property, known as "Lot Zero" should be OP; the land behind "Lot Zero", should be open space; the area where the proposed hospital is supposed to be, adjacent to the church, should be OP/PD; the RNP property, in and around Sycamore Canyon, was changed to be consistent to the current zoning and deed restrictions to PD/RL; the property on Brea Canyon Road, just north of the Water District site, should be designated PD/RL; the two open space lots, just south of the aforementioned property, should be designated PD/RL,PK,OS,C; the Little League ball fields are RIM, and the YMCA office buildings are OP; the site, of the Casa O'Briens Restaurant, should be CO; Summit Ridge, right of the first street, the entire area is designated PK, and should be corrected to indicate that just the end is PK and the rest is RL; the area by Armstrong School that appears to be excluded from the school should be amended to delete the lot line; the fire station indicated at Ronald Reagan Park, on Pathfinder, should be eliminated and properly shown as being further down Pathfinder; define the SP in Tonner Canyon, and eliminate the three lower ones; the 2 pieces by Tres Hermanos should be designated SP; the area by the intersection of Gentle Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd. should be designated C; drop the lot lines from the corner lots on Golden Springs by the Goodyear and Carl's Jr. site, and designated C; and the site behind the Church Latter Day Saints should be designated RL. June 11 1992 Page 3 Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:03 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:13 p.m. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the Commission review the definitions of Planned Development and Specific Plan. CD/DeStef ano stated that the Planned Development would take into account the surrounding, existing urbanized development to properly plan for that remaining piece of acreage. The Specific Plan are the two areas on the perimeter, surrounded by vacant land in other communities, which is to be more detailed and comprehensive in it's analysis, both environmentally and from a plan and circulation standpoint. Lloyd Zola stated that all definitions will be under objective 1.1, Strategy 1.1-1. The final version of the Land Use Map will be on page 1-22. VC/MacBride requested that all "high quality of life" statements delete the "high" to read "quality of life". Lloyd Zola inquired if Strategy 1.1.10, on page II - is, regarding diversification of residential developments, is written as the Commission directed. VC/MacBride questioned if the five (5) urban residential units is a feasible standard. C/Grothe pointed out that requiring developers to pay another City fee places a financial burden upon the developer, which in turn raises the cost of the dwelling units. C/Meyer stated that the intent is to establish a reasonable fee to create a housing assistance fund, to be used for financing, to make housing affordable. The development standards should not be lowered to make housing affordable. The fee could be on a sliding scale. CD/DeStef ano pointed out that, most will pay the fee. A couple hundred units, in future developments such as in Tres Hermanos and Tonner Canyon, there will be a greater opportunity to develop some lower income units. Fees paid will go to a fund that can be used in a variety of different ways, yet to be determined. June 1, 1992 Page 4 C/Li stated that both sides must be considered, and the number should be increased. C/Meyer pointed out that 5 unit is reasonable because the tract map starts at five units. It is another fee that goes onto the project. C/Grothe stated his concern that there is not a specifically defined program as to what will be done with the money. C/Meyer pointed out that the State requires that we address housing for low to moderate income. This is just a concept on how to get revenue, and the amount of revenue is a topic of debate during the implementation process. The five units is a logical place to start, since it is consistent with the finding of the tract map, and especially given the size of the vacant land left. It is a positive response to the comments we got from the State on our Housing Element. He noted that we should not have a concept for providing housing for low to moderate income if it excludes the majority of the property in the City. Lloyd Zola stated that the strategy is defensible because the General Plan indicates that a program will be developed six months following the adoption of the General Plan. Five units is a legal definition that separates parcel maps from tract maps. The Commission concurred to keep it at 5 residential units. The Commission concurred to review the Resource Management. CD/DeStefano noted that the statement, under Parks and Recreation, third paragraph, page 111-3, should be reword to state, 11 ..470.8 acres of recreational facilities, including 59.4 acres of developed parkland, and 75.5 acres of undeveloped parkland." Lloyd Zola, noting that the Commission had requested that examples be deleted from the strategies, inquired if the examples in Strategy 1.1.8, page 111-9, page III -10, strategy 1.2.2b, and page III -11, seventh bullet, in strategy 1.3.1, are to remain. June 1, 1992 Page 5 VC/MacBride stated that the examples are appropriate in these strategies, and they should remain. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the words, "public. and private park and" is to be deleted from Objective 1.3, page III -10. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that strategy 2.2.2, third bullet, should indicate that reflective surfaces are to be minimized. There should also be some discussion regarding run-off from large surfaces in the document. The Commission concurred to review the Plan For Physical Mobility. Chair/Flamenbaum noted that page 3, of the Circulation Element, should reflect a residential collector category. CD/DeStefano, referring to the Minutes of the Joint Study Session of May 11, 1992, stated that a residential collector has a roadway volume of 2,501 to 10,000, a local residential has a roadway volume of 1 to 2,500, and a collector has a volume of 10,001 to 20,000. Carlton Walters stated that the document will be changed to reflect the categories, as defined, and Table 2-1, and Figure 2-1 will be changed to be consistent with those limits. C/Meyer, referring to Figure 2-1, stated that Sunset Crossing should stop being a minor arterial at the route 57 southbound ramp, and should become a residential collector. Prospector -and Montefino should be deleted from the map because they are not major collectors. C/Grothe noted that pieces of Lycoming, Washington, and S.Lemon should be deleted as well. Chair/Flamenbaum, referring to page 21, Table 3-3, stated that Diamond Bar Blvd. is to be kept as a major roadway, Lemon (s. of Colima) should be downgraded to a residential collector, and Lemon (n. of Colima) is to be classified as a secondary roadway. The Commission concurred. The Commission concurred that Lycoming should be added to the cul-de-sac classification. VC/MacBride suggested that subsection 8, page 22, should be reworded to read, "...with Washington Street in the vicinity. The City of Industry is considering development of the area with industrial uses to make maximum advantage of its proximity to. freight rail lines. However, the area through which Sunset Crossing is to extend is presently substantially undeveloped. The extension of ... The commission concurred. VC/MacBride suggested that the Issue Analysis, on page 23, be changed to read, "The City could implement measures to maintain...", so that it corresponds with the Issue Analysis on page 22. The commission concurred. VC/MacBride stated that objective 1.1, on page 23, should read, "Participate in local and regional transportation related planning and decision making.". Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the statement, "...to relieve congestion on other roadways within the City of - Diamond Bar.", -should- be deleted from Strategy 1.1.4, on page 23, and "of Diamond Bar" should be deleted from the last the last sentence of that strategy. Chair/ Flamenbaum suggested that the words, "urban village" should be deleted from Strategy. 2.1.3 on page 25. VC/MacBride suggested that the word "utilization" be replaced by "efficiency" in objective 3.2 on page 26. Lloyd Zola stated that discussion of urban storm water discharge will be added in the Plan for Public Health and Safety. The Commission concurred. The Commission concurred to review Public Services and Facilities. VC/MacBride stated that the word "high" should be deleted from bullet one, page VI -1. STAFF COMMENTS: CD/DeStef ano suggested that the Commission submit any further comments to the document by Wednesday, June 3, 1992. C/Flamenbaum stated that there will be a presentation, on the conceptual plan on Tres Hermanos, at the June 8th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe June 1, 1992 Page 6 VC/MacBride suggested that subsection 8, page 22, should be reworded to read, "...with Washington Street in the vicinity. The City of Industry is considering development of the area with industrial uses to make maximum advantage of its proximity to. freight rail lines. However, the area through which Sunset Crossing is to extend is presently substantially undeveloped. The extension of ... The commission concurred. VC/MacBride suggested that the Issue Analysis, on page 23, be changed to read, "The City could implement measures to maintain...", so that it corresponds with the Issue Analysis on page 22. The commission concurred. VC/MacBride stated that objective 1.1, on page 23, should read, "Participate in local and regional transportation related planning and decision making.". Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the statement, "...to relieve congestion on other roadways within the City of - Diamond Bar.", -should- be deleted from Strategy 1.1.4, on page 23, and "of Diamond Bar" should be deleted from the last the last sentence of that strategy. Chair/ Flamenbaum suggested that the words, "urban village" should be deleted from Strategy. 2.1.3 on page 25. VC/MacBride suggested that the word "utilization" be replaced by "efficiency" in objective 3.2 on page 26. Lloyd Zola stated that discussion of urban storm water discharge will be added in the Plan for Public Health and Safety. The Commission concurred. The Commission concurred to review Public Services and Facilities. VC/MacBride stated that the word "high" should be deleted from bullet one, page VI -1. STAFF COMMENTS: CD/DeStef ano suggested that the Commission submit any further comments to the document by Wednesday, June 3, 1992. C/Flamenbaum stated that there will be a presentation, on the conceptual plan on Tres Hermanos, at the June 8th meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe June 1, 1992 Page 7 and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. to continue discussion of the General Plan on Monday, June 8, 1992. Respectively, James DeStef ano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman c1 ti Agenda Item 3. — Variance No. 92-1 — 2621 Indian Creek Site plan found in project f 0.-' c61 -\, File rev';;w-.,,e��/',/by on_=��and is ready for ming c;S� File rev'ewe by for on ' and is ready deeiruction by City Clerk Next Resolution No. 92-15 ........... .......... 11 ii 1 , , . illhill''I 1 .", 1,111111111130W)Mt SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AUDITORIUM 21865 E. COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 June 22, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman MacBride, Grothe, Li and Meyer MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary) . There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 1. Minutes of May 26, May 28, & June -8, 1992 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 50519/Development Review No. 91-2/ Development Agreement No. 91-2 / Zone Change 91-1 A request for approval to subdivide a 2.3 acre site into six (6) lots and 80 condominium units in a Senior Citizen complex designed with underground parking structures. The complex is designed with five (5) three story structures containing 16 units per building. The Zone Change request is to amend the site from the current Zone C-1 (Restricted Business) classification to Zone R-4 (Unlimited Residential). The Development Agreement is required to guarantee the Senior Citizen composition and for the construction of condominiums and structures in excess of two (2) floors in Zone R-4. The Development Review application is required for all' new commercial and multi -family residential construction. Location: Near the northwest of Torito Lane and Golden Springs Applicant: Diamond Development Co., A California Limited Partnership Address: 1700 Raintree Road, Fullerton, Ca. 92635. Environmental Determination Mitigated Negative Declaration PUBLIC HEARING: 3. Variance No. 92-1 A request for approval of an existing wrought iron fence with pilasters within the 20 foot front yard setback, over the maximum allowable height of 42 inches. Location: 2621 Indian Creek in The Country. Applicant: Jose Cortez, Address: 8724 Garvey, Rosemead C ' A 91770 Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration ANNOUNCEMENTS: Staf f Planning commissioners ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 26, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/ Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Mr. Gary Neely. ROLL CALL: commissioners: Meyer, Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, Carlton Walters, with DKS, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride May 11, 1992 and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of Regular Mtg. & May 11, 1992 Study Session and the Minutes of May Study'Session 11, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting. NEW BUSINESS: CIP 92/93 CD/DeStefano explained that the CIP is an outline of the infrastructure needs for the City, it's maintenance, and the acquisition of property, and so forth, that the City proposes to undertake during any particular fiscal year. The Commission's packet contains a brief list of projects currently proposed. In addition, the Commission has just received an updated list of projects, outlined by the engineering department, for consideration. The Commission can approve the list, or table it to Thursday night's meeting. The Commission's authority on the review of these CIP projects is to determine that the projects are consistent with the General Plan. In response to VC/MacBridels inquiry, CD/DeStefano explained that the land acquisition item is the proposed acquisition, over a period of time, of approximately 4 acres, of the Walnut Valley Water District property, located on Brea Canyon Road between Pathfinder and Colima. This years budgetary allocation is proposed as $100,000, for the purpose of providing the first installment of the down payment on that property, to be provided for within the upcoming fiscal year budget. Chair/ Flamenbaum suggested that the item be tabled, to the Thursday, May 28th meeting, to allow the Commission more time to review the list. The May 26, 1992 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Page 2 Commission can contact staff if there is a need for further clarification. The Commission concurred. CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry if - the bicycle lane is to part of the CIP list, stated that since one of the elements does discuss completing the missing link on Grand Avenue, it should be part of the list. Land Use Element Chair/Flamenbaum stated that a letter was received from Gary Neely, dated May 20th, in regards to the Land Use Element. The Public Hearing was declared opened. The Public hearing was declared closed. The Commission concurred to 'begin review of the Land Use Element page by page. Page 1-1• VC/MacBride suggested that the first paragraph, of the Introduction on page 1-1, and the first four lines of the second paragraph, be deleted so that the Introduction begins with the statement, "The Diamond Bar General Plan consists...". He also suggested it properly reflect the accurate amount of elements contained within the document. The Commission concurred. C/Li suggested that the word, "piece", in the third paragraph, second line, be replaced by the word, "parcel". Chair/ Flamenbaum.suggested that footnote one, on page 1, be deleted. Page 1-2: C/Li suggested that the words, "the undisturbed", be deleted from the first sentence, of the first paragraph, under Residential Uses. VC/MacBride requested the following changes: delete the last sentence, "Thus, the land use... State law.", under legal Requirements; replace the word, "touted", in the second sentence, first paragraph, under Existing Conditions, with the word, "identified".; and delete, "in the City", May 26,, 1992 Page 3 from the last line, Existing Conditions. Page 1-3• second paragraph, under C/Li suggested that the last sentence, "Here, lots may ... of the slope.", be deleted from the last paragraph, under Residential Uses, on page three. Page 1-5• Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the classification Vacant Land, in Table 1-1, clarify if it is in the sphere of influence, or not. Page 1-7: VC/MacBride requested the following changes: the statement, "identified in the opportunities and Constraints section of the Existing Setting Report", in the first sentence, under Community Development Issues, should be properly referred to as the EIR; either the words, "(more costly)", or "valuable", in the first paragraph, under Land Use Mix, should be deleted; and the Issue Analysis, under Land Use Mix, should be reworded to, "The City should preserve open land to the maximum extent feasible.". Chair/ Flamenbaum. inquired if the definition of open Space, as described in the three paragraphs, under the Land Use Mix, is consistent with the definition of Open Space found in other General Plans. C/Li inquired if the City, in taking development rights, would be liable to pay for it. Chair/Flamenbaum explained that that issue will be addressed in the Economic section, and that it is also an issue to be later addressed in the Land Use Map. CD/DeStefano explained that the definition of open Space is consistent with the philosophy of GPAC, that all existing virgin land be turned into open space. Therefore, the development rights that presently exist will be severely restricted, or acreages, that had development rights eliminated, could not come back and request development of that acreage. Most cities utilize the open space category for publicly, or privately held recreational spaces or preserves. The open space category can be defined practically anyway that we May 26, 1992 Page 4 wish it to be, with our own densities and development rights within each classification. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he would like to change the definition of open space to land that is either dedicated for public use in a non -park type setting, or land that is left in it's natural environment, not necessarily for public use, such as a private preserve. Then, he would identify park as those areas that are "developed". C/Meyer-suggested that the some of the information on the historical perspective, on the tacit transfer development rights, should go under the Existing conditions. There should also be a vacant land survey, from the Housing Element, included in this section, and a definition of vacant land, referring to the existing use on it, and whether or not it is to be used for open space. There also needs to be a definition of open space, and what open space can be used for. CD/DeStef ano explained that a vacant land survey was done, and is part of the-EIR, and the Existing Setting report, in a summarized form. It is an appendices to the Housing Element and the Land Use Element. Chair/ Flamenbaum suggested that the Commission come to a consensus as to the definition of open space versus vacant land. C/Grothe stated that his definition of open space is land that has been deeded as open space, or land that will restrict building, virtually for ever, for open space. DCA/Curley pointed out that defining land uses, or the use of lands with the open space/slope designation, is later discussed on page 29. There may already be those definitions in the land use designation of park, and recreation area, that may need to be brought out. Chair/ Flamenbaum requested staff to come up with some language, for the land use map, that identifies open space as land that is dedicated, and left open for public and private use. VC/MacBride indicated that he would like to leave the verbiage regarding the historical perspective in this section, and include the open space/vacant land definitions, as proposed. The Commission concurred. May 26, 1992 Page 5 C/Meyer stated that the second paragraph, under Land Use Mix, should be deleted because whether a property* owner turns a profit or not, in the development of land, is not part of the decision making process in laying out land use concepts. VC/MacBride suggested the following changes: add the word "to" to the second line, of the last paragraph, under Economics, on page 8; replace "touted" with "identified" on page 9, second paragraph, under City Image; and on page 10, delete the word "high" from the Issue analysis. The Public Hearing was declared open. Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove, referring to page 1-4, noted that the Sphere of Influence is not entirely owned by the Boy Scouts of America, as it is indicated. CD/DeStefano, concurring 'with Mr. Neely, stated that staff will change the verbiage to indicate that the majority of the property is owned by the Boy Scouts. Gary Neely made changes to the letter he sent to the commission, which suggested a large number of proposed revisions to the Land Use Element. 'He stated that he would like the Commission to take his suggested changes into consideration. He briefly reviewed some his suggested changes. Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, Suite 5, noted that, though the Land Use Element indicates an attempt to solve some of the economic issues, there is very little planned development, and new commercial development, within the document, and no funding mechanism to protect the quality of life so desired. Furthermore, any reference to economics, that addresses commercial use, is a negative reference. He concurred that there needs to be a stronger definition of open space early in the document so that when the map is reviewed, everyone will know what is being discussed. The Public Hearing was declared closed. The Commission concurred to review each Goal. Upon review, the Commission stated that they concur with the fundamental philosophy of each Goal. VC/MacBride suggested that all quotes, around the goal statements, be deleted. The Overall Goal should be reworded to state, "...PRESERVE AND May 26, 1992 Page 6 ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS, AND PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF THE COMMUNITY.". The Commission concurred. Chair/ Flamenbaum suggested that Goal 1 delete the word "planned", and replace the word "Diamond Bar" with "the". The Commission concurred. VC/MacBride suggested the following: Reword Objective 1.1 to read, "Stimulate opportunities for a diverse population to interact, exchange ideas, conduct business, and establish and realize common goals."; delete the words "one or more". "hierarchy of", and "new" from Strategy 1.1.1; delete "school districts, chamber of commerce, and service clubs" from Strategy 1.1.2 and replace with "public and private associations". The Commission concurred. C/Meyer stated that he would like to have more time to personally review the element, and it's Goals and Objectives. He suggested that the discussion be tabled to Thursday, May 28, 1992. The Commission concurred. The Commission concurred to begin review of the Land Use Map. CD/DeStefano stated that the Commission decided, on last Thursday's meeting, to return the General Plan land use classification to one that corresponds as closely as possible to the existing zoning on the property for single family neighborhoods that may be subject to a technical down zoning. Therefore, the majority of single family neighborhoods that are designated at RL (3 DU/AC) will now, most likely, go to RLM (6 DU/AC). Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the commission first address those areas in which letters were received. C/Grothe stated that, because he does not see why there should be a difference between the RR category (1 DU/AC) , and the RH category (1 DU/2.5 AC), he would suggest that they be combined to be 1 DU/AC. Chair/ Flamenbaum noted that the Commission had also requested that Tres Hermanos and Tonner Canyon be designated as a specific plan site. C/Meyer, concurring with C/Grothe, suggested that one category be created, defining it as up to 1 DU/AC, and then have the specifics stated in the May 26, 1992 Page 7 Hillside Management Ordinance. The RR category should be eliminated, and the RH category designated as up to 1 DU/AC. Chair/ Flamenbaum, noting that there are areas in The Country that would now be designated RH, yet the property is on flat lands, inquired if this would create a problem. DCA/Curley stated that the RR category could be addressed in the definition section as being a general characteristics of contiguous area. CD/DeStefano, upon the Commission's direction, stated that the categories will be combined at 1 DU/AC, and staff will determine which designation to use, RR or RH. Chair/Flamenbaum noted that the PD designations should have been eliminated from the map. CD/DeStefano stated that there is a 28 acre site, designated as CO, proposed at Golden Springs and Grand, that is recommended to have a - PD classification. Staff also recommended that the Bramalea property, designated as RH, OS, and PK on the map, be designated with a PD or a SP classification, and that the property represented by Jan Dabney, which is located north of Pathfinder and west of Brea Canyon, be designated as PD. C/Grothe stated that the PD classification does not have to be eliminated. However, Tres Hermanos and Tonner Canyon need to be classified as a specific plan. C/Meyer suggested that the properties, noted by CD/DeStefano, maintain a PD classification, but that the density of 1.4 DU/AC be eliminated. The Commission concurred. c/meyer, concurring with the SP classification for Tonner Canyon and Tres Hermanos, stated that there should probably be another designation along with that. CD/DeStefano stated that it is quite clear, regardless of whether a PD or a SP classification is used, that the Commission wishes to deal with the technical issues of land use planning through some form of more specific site plan, and an analysis, at a later date. He suggested that the Commission first articulate a pallet of potential May 26, 1992 U� land uses within each of those major areas, and then determine the densities from that. ___C/Meyer suggested that it indicate_thatwe want a planned development, that could support a population of up to 1 DU/AC, to be implemented by a specific plan, which would include all land uses. C/Grothe stated that he would like to see a specific plan ,done for the whole parcel. It should be consistent with the rest of the housing in Diamond Bar, and have whatever commercial, and park land that is possible. DCA/Curley stated that the General Plan must provide more specific guidance. The Commission needs to provide a definition for the PD category, and then craft the process within the goals, objectives and strategies. CD/DeStefano suggested that, if the Commission adds a category, in the General Plan, called Agricultural, using the lowest density type figure, then a developer, who wants to do something on that land, would have to come back in with a General Plan amendment. It would then be dealt with on a site, specific issue, through the specific land. Chair/ Flamenbaum stated that because doesn't really know anything about the land, he has a problem with determining how it should be designated. CD/DeStefano indicated that he would prefer that some general land uses, for the area, be established, with the- understanding that the specific impacts of those land uses are not fully understood. He suggested that the Commission first set forth a pallet to paint this land with, then deal with the specifics, with the implementation documents, at a later date, when there is more fine detail, and understanding of what those impacts would be. Following discussion, the Commission concurred to designate Tonner Canyon and Tres Hermanos as SP/RR,RL,REM,C,PF,PK,S,REC, with a density of 1 DU/AC for Tonner Canyon, and 3 DU/AC for Tres Hermanos. CD/DeStefano recommended that the property on the corner of Golden Springs and Grand Ave. be designated as PD/CO, so that the master plan will incorporate that acreage, plus the adjacent acreages. The Commission concurred. May 26, 1992 Page 9 C/Grothe noted, and CD/DeStefano concurred, that the two parcel contiguous to the property on Golden Springs and Grand Ave. should also be labeled as OP/PD. The Commission concurred. CD/DeStefano stated that the GPAC, at their last meeting, changed the designation of the site, where the apartments are presently under construction, on the north side of Grand Ave., from OP to RM. The Commission concurred. C/Meyer suggested that Mr. Reiling's property, known as "lot zero", also be designated as OP/PD. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:09 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m. The Commission discussed the Land use designation requests, and concurred with the following: 1. Fred Janz Real Estate Investment Property located on Diamond Bar Blvd./Brea Canyon as a C designation. - 2. Eric Stone Property located on Golden Springs/Carpio as a RLM designation. 3. Bramalea, California Inc. Property on Goldrush/Diamond Bar Blvd. as a PD/RR,REC,PK,C designation, up to a maximum of 1 DU/AC. 4. Arciero a. The 25 acre property located on Brea Canyon Road, between Colima and Pathfinder, on the east side of the freeway, south of the Gateway Corporate Center, as a RR designation. b. The 47 acre property located on the west side of the freeway, west of Brea Canyon Road, as a RLM/PD designation. 5. Jerry Yeh Property located at the end of Blaze Trail within "The Country" as a RR designation. 6. JCC - Dan Buffington Property located S. of Wagon Train, N. of Tonner Canyon as a RR designation. 7. Tice May 26, 1992 Page 10 Property located at Tract 46485 as a RR designation. 8. TransAmerica Minerals Co. Property located E. of Brea Canyon Road, S, of Diamond Bar Blvd, as a RLM designation. 9. The DFL Partnership located on the northside of Steeplechase between Bent Twig and Wagon Train as a RL designation. 10. Dr. Crowley Property located on Torito Lane near Golden Springs as a RM designation. Following discussion, C/Grothe suggested that the RM designation be changed from 12 DU/AC to 16 DU/AC. The Commission concurred. C/Meyer, suggesting a different approach, stated that 'it could be left designated as commercial, and then an overlay zone could be created that would achieve the residential development consistent with the development proposal. The Commission concurred to stay with the RM/16, but would like the issue of C -mixed use explored, in the future. 11. RNP Property located W. of Brea Canyon Rd., N. of Pathfinder, as a PD/C,REC,RL designation. CD/DeStefano stated that GPAC recently changed their recommendation to reclassify the two areas, below this property, from PK to OS. The Commission concurred. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired why the areas on the north side of the 60 freeway, off of Brea Canyon Rd., are indicated as being down zoned to a RM designation. CD/DeStef ano explained that there are two mobile home parks both zoned as industrial, but utilized as multi family. The RM is an appropriate designation for those three areas. The middle area, that has existing condos, is shown on the downzoning map because the existing zone, R-1 6,000, technically allows 7.2 DU/AC, but the General Plan proposal of RLM allows a cap of 6 DU/AC. 12. Truax May 26, 1992 Page 11 Property located on the back of the Mormon Church on Diamond Bar Blvd. as a RIM designation. Chair/ Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 10:35 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:43 p.m. The commission discussed the land use designations for the following properties: 0 The flat site adjacent to the condominium complex on the north end of the City on Diamond Bar Blvd. is currently designated as open space. The Commission concurred to change it to RM. 0 The YMCA site is designated as REC. The Commission concurred to leave it as REC. 0 The remaining slope on Featherwood is designated as OP. The Commission concurred to change it to RL. o The areas designated as RMH are now RM because the RMH designation has been eliminated. 0 The hillside on Diamond Bar Blvd. off the ramp from the 60 freeway is zoned high density ,residential. The Commission concurred to change it to C. 0 The 12 acres on top of the hill, east of Peterson Park is designated RR. The commission concurred to leave it as is. 0 The slope on the northside of the 60 freeway, part of the Tres Hermanos Ranch is designated as OP. The commission concurred to change it to RR. 0 The commission concurred that the three stars for the neighborhood parks on the Bramalea property are to be eliminated, and indicated as PK. 0 The property on Golden Springs, between the 60 and 57 ramping system has no designation as of now. The commission concurred to designate it CO. 0 The commission concurred that the small shopping center on the corner of Lemon and Colima is to be designated as C. May 26, 1992 LM 0 The map incorrectly designates a fire station at Ronald Reagan Park. The Commission concurred to eliminate the fire station designation and to properly- designate it as PK. 0 The I Commission concurred that the identification of the two reservoir sites at Pathfinder and Brea Canyon should be designated as W. 0 The area on Pathfinder Road at Brea Canyon Road, east of the 57 freeway is designated OP. The Commission concurred to change it to Co. 0 The 66 acres of land that has potential access through "The Country" is designated OP. The Commission concurred to change it to RR. 0 CD/DeStefano suggested that BP be changed to Light Industrial. The only property that fall into the BP category is the Shea Center. The Commission concurred to change all BP designations to LI. 0 The Commission concurred that the area contiguous to the Tres Hermanos area should be designated RR/SP. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept the changes to the Land Use Map as recommended by staff. The Plan for The Commission concurred to review the changes made Physical to the Plan for Physical Mobility. Mobility The Public Hearing was declared closed. Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Dr., stated that the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies are not written in a logical progression of thought. He stated that he will provide the Commission with his suggested changes by this Thursday, May 28, 1992. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Objective 1.1 - Add the words, "and participate in regional... 11. Strategy 1.1.2 - Replace the word "distinction" with "distribution". Strategy 1.1.4 - The Commission requested that DKS refer to the minutes of May .11th, and rewrite this May 26, 1992 Page 13 statement to include mention of having a transportation The commission concurred to combine strategy 1.3.1 corridor in Tonner Canyon. Objective 1.2 - Change the word, "with" with "within". Strategy 1.2.2 - Change the second sentence to Objective 2.1 read, "Within these areas, Strategy 2.1.3 maintain flexibility and street light requirements." Strategy 1.3.1 - Delete the word "residentiallf. Strategy 1.3.2 - Delete the words, "from The Commission residential neighborhoods". The commission concurred to combine strategy 1.3.1 with strategy 1.3.2 to make one strategy 1.3.1. Goal 2 Change the statement to read, "...Will Protect, Maintain, and Improve...". Objective 2.1 Delete the word "and". Strategy 2.1.3 The strategy should read, "Support privately funded local transit systems for senior and youths." The Commission concurred to combine strategies 2.1.2 and 2.1.3. Strategy 2.1.4 - Add, it t o maximize transportation efficiency.", to the end of the statement. Objective 2.2 - Replace the word "of" with "within". The Commission requested staff to add a strategy to this objective. Strategy 3.1.4 - Carlton Walters suggested that this strategy include that the pavement management system that tells what needs to be fixed and a maintenance program to fix it as the need arises. The Commission concurred. Strategy 3.2.2 - The Commission requested that the strategy be written to reflect the minutes of May 11, 1992. Strategy 3.2.4 - The statement should be reworded to state, "Encourage May 26, 1992 Page 14 the consolidation of commercial drive approaches and prohibition of turning movements where warranted.". Goal 4 Add the word 11toll after "parking". CD/DeStefafio stated that an objective needs to be added to Goal 4, as well as some additional strategies that deal with review of the zoning code. C/Meyer stated that there should be some Rule 15 issues included at this point. . Gary Neely, noting that the Commission indicated their approval of getting a transportation corridor through Tonner Canyon, pointed out that the Commission has not specified where it is to go. He then suggested that there be a goal that indicates connecting the development in Tres Hermanos to the existing infrastructure. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that, at this time, it is not known where the road through Tonner Canyon would go. He pointed out that strategy 1.3.3 already indicates that the new development in the Tres Hermanos Ranch property should integrate with the community of Diamond Bar -through the roadway system. C/Meyer pointed out that the purpose of the public hearing is to gather testimony and information so that the Planning Commission, itself, can debate those issues to come to a conclusion, and not to debate those issues with an individual. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept the revisions of the Goal, Objectives, and Strategies, of the Plan for Physical Mobility, as amended. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that a sub -committee of the Commission meet with staff to discuss the Land use Element. The Commission concurred. C/Meyer and Chair/ Flamenbaum volunteered to be on the subcommittee, to meet with staff Thursday at 8:00 a.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that there will be a newsletter, coming out around June 5, 1992, that will contain about 85 pages of the May 26, 1992 Page 15 General Plan text, incorporating the Planning Commission changes, minus the Land Use Element. It is only staff's best efforts, and not the General Plan that will be recommended to the City Council. It is meant to be an informational document for the public. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:51 p.m. Respectively, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 28, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/ Flamenbaum. called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chair/Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Li, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. commissioner Grothe was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Lloyd Zola, from the Planning Network, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. OLD BUSINESS: Staff has reviewed the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and find that the projects listed in the CIP staff report are consistent with the proposed General Plan under study and consideration.. It is recommended that the Commission review and approve the FY 92-93 CIP and find conformity with the proposed General Plan. CD/DeStef ano, in -response to C/Meyer Is inquiry, stated that, though the bicycle lane project is not listed, the project will not be hampered if the SP21 funds are received. In response to VC/MacBride's inquiry if, project #4, the Sunset Crossing Western Terminus, will serve as a recreational bridge between the YMCA property with the ball field, CD/DeStefano explained that the project has not yet been designed. CD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, explained that the pavement, on Grand Ave. from Diamond Bar Blvd. to the County line, is being eroded and needs to be maintained. He then informed the Commission that there is also another project being considered, within the budget, to be numbered as #19, which is an acquisition of property from the Walnut Valley Water District, located in the middle of Brea Canyon Road between Colima and Pathfinder. The purchase price is approximately $400,000. The City is desirous of allocating $100,000 as a down payment on the property this coming year. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve CIP FY92-93, with the addition of project #19. CONTINUED Chair/ Flamenbaum. stated that this public hearing is May 28, 1,992 PUBLIC HEARING: The Land Use Element 1� a continued public hearing from Tuesday, May 26, 1992. The Public Hearing was declared open. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the subcommittee, consisting of C/Meyer and himself, met with staff to discuss what could be done to improve this portion of the Plan. He explained that the attempt was to remove the definitions, found throughout this section of the Plan, and place them in one location, objective 1.1, to be consistent with the Commission's prior discussions. If this is acceptable, he would suggest that staff be directed to remove definitions, from those areas of the Plan, still remaining. CD/DeStefano further explained that the attempt is to create a foundational objective that establishes the specific land use classification system, and identifies what each of the classifications are. The purpose is to establish a definition, and an understanding of each term, early in the document. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:23 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:31 p.m. CD/DeStefano made the following suggestions to revise the format of the existing Goals, Objectives, and Implementation strategies: page 1- 11, move Objective 1.1 and it's strategies to be the last Objective 1.6, of Goal 1; replace this objective with the proposed objective 1.1, which reads, "Establish land use classifications and guidelines for public and private use of land.", to include its strategies, as indicated in the handout given to the Commission; since discussion of each the land use classification begins on page 12, and the definitions of each classification has been removed and made a part of Objective 1.1, what remains is a discussion, in the form of strategies regarding each of the land use classification, that should be grouped, as opposed to fragmented, throughout the document; there should be a discussion about planned development, and the differences between planned development and specific plan, as indicated, in the handout under Strategy 1.1 , 7 and 1.1.8; remove a lot of detailed language, in the Goals, objectives, and Implementation Strategies, particularly in the commercial section objectives, and place as background and appendices information, and indicate May 28, 1992 Page 3 that Commercial Office is a combination mixture of offices, and commercial retail and service areas, that has a particular overall floor ratio, with the range of heights, then add a clause that would allow for creative site planning, land uses, and architectural application, through a development review process, and receive an increase in the floor area ration up to a center point; eliminate a lot of the detail that references specific commercial businesses; and, noting that there are objectives that deal with implementing an overall goal that discussing maintaining Diamond Bar as a well planned and aesthetically pleasing community, he suggested that the Commission also discuss establishing an overall theme, for the community. The Commission concurred to replace Objective 1.1, and the strategies, with proposed Objective 1.1 and the strategies, as indicated in the draft handout, and to place it at the end of Goal 1, as Objective The Commission then reviewed proposed Objective 1.1 and the strategies. VC/MacBride suggested that the word, "Designate", be replaced by "Identify" in Strategy 1.1.1.a, and all the proceeding strategies in Objective 1.1. The Commission concurred. C/Meyer, referring to strategy 1.1.1.a, suggested that the 10 slope cutoff does not seem steep enough for the Diamond Bar terrain. He suggested that the cutoff be changed to 25% for the RR category. The Commission concurred. Strategy 1.1.1.a - Replace "Designate" with "Identify", and change the 1110%" to 1#25%11. 1.1.1.b - Replace "Designate" with "Identify". 1.1.1.d - Replace "Designate" with "Identify". Lloyd Zola suggested that a statement which reads, "Pursuant to the provisions of the Housing Element, allow density bonuses above the maximum General Plan density.", be added as one of the strategies so as to make clear that zoning in excess of these maximums will be allowed. CD/DeStefano stated that this statement would be appropriately placed under Objective 1.2. The Commission concurred. May 28® 1992 C/Meyer suggested that, since the FAR isn't critical to the definition of the land use category, it should be pulled out and made a separate section that would indicate the general floor area ratios, with potential modifications based on the quality of the designs. He suggested that the range be established under a different strategy, based upon performance standards. CD/DeStefano suggested adding a statement that the maximum floor area potential would be determined via the City's development review process, and would require factors incorporated within the project, such as assemblage of parcels, access, parking utilization, design, land use, signage programs, and other definable public benefits. This statement could be put into one strategy, within all of the commercial categories, and broadened to incorporate the density bonus provision of residential. C/Meyer suggested that if this is to be done, then laying out performance standards would be best. The Commission concurred to take out the FAR, -and to put it into a separate strategy under the definition section. The FAR for everything would range from .25 to 1.0, based on the performance standard. Strategy 1.1.2 - Remove the FAR. Strategy 1.1.3 - Remove the FAR. Strategy 1.1.4 - Remove the FAR. CD/DeStefano, referring to Strategy 1.1.6, noted that .there are only three parts of town designated REC, the Little League fields, the Golf Course, and The Country's private recreational community. He suggested that instead of having the REC designation, they could all be designated as PK, with an acknowledgment that some are public, some are a pay as you go, and some are private, or designated them all PK, but have a commercial recreational category for the Golf Course and the Little League property. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that they all be generically designated as PK, but to note that The Country is placed in there for convenience. C/Meyer suggested that, since the City does not have any control over The Country park and the Little League fields because they are privately owned, they should be designated RR. May 28, 1992 Page 5 Chair/ Flamenbaum concurred with C/Meyer. Noting that there are other privately owned recreational facilities in the City, such as the Hills Club, LA Fitness, the Diamond Point Club, etc., he suggested that they be designated consistent with its surrounding areas. The Golf Course could have its own unique category since it is a quasi -public agency. VC/MacBride suggested that private neighborhood facilities be designated something other than it's surroundings so as to preserve the integrity of the community's intention. Lloyd Zola suggested that a special category for privately held recreational use could be handled as zoning. Chair/ Flamenbaum suggested that there also be a strategy included which could state, "Identify those privately held recreational facilities, and ensure that the City does what it can to encourage its preservation.". Following discussion, the Commission concurred to change the land use designation of "The Country" to RR, change the land use of the Little League to RLM create a special golf course designation for the Golf Course, designate parks as PK, and add a strategy that encourages the creation and preservation of privately held recreational facilities. Lloyd Zola suggested that a new strategy be added, to Objective 1.1, to state, "Encourage private open space and recreation uses in all General Plan designation.", and then zone them as they occur. He also suggested that The Country can be designated as a private recreational area, when describing the recreational facilities existing in the City, rather than doing it as part of land use. Upon DCA/Curley's advise that the word "private" could be misinterpreted, the Commission concurred to direct staff to appropriately.word the strategy to include the intention of preserving and encouraging recreational opportunities. The Country is to be designated RR. Strategy 1.1.7 - The commission concurred with the statement. Strategy 1.1.8 - The Commission concurred with the statement. May 28, 1992 M4 n" i.� ....___..._._ _.. .__..._. �..,.. t Page S C/Meyer, referring to page 1-3, under Non- residential Uses, requested that the percentages, 19.5 and 78.4, be verified because they seem high. He also pointed out that the term "open space" is used, in Table 1-1, page 1-5, but the correct term is "vacant land". Chair/Flamenbaum informed the Commission that staff confirmed that the 2,763.7 acres, indicated on Table 1-1, on page 1-5, is the amount of vacant land, not including the sphere of influence. CD/DeStefano suggested that Table 3-3, on page 111- 7, of the EIR, which refers to the sphere of influence, also be incorporated into the Land Use Element. C/Meyer made the following suggestions: delete the statement, "for its residents", from page 1-8, fifth paragraph, because it excludes those people that are not residents, but operate a business within the City; replace "foster" with "preserve" on page 1-9, in the Issue Analysis under subsection 2.; delete the statement, "as long as they are of good quality", from page 1-10, under subsection b.Land Use Compatibility; and delete the last sentence from page 1-10, under subsection a.Circulation. The Commission concurred. Objective 1.2 - Reword to state, "Preserve and maintain the quality of existing...". Strategy 1.2.2 - Delete the last statement beginning with, "...and ensuring that...". Strategy 1.2.4 - Reword the statement to read, "Maintain residential areas which provide suburban lifestyles, as well as protect natural resources and hillsides.". 1.2.4a - Delete. 1.2.4b - Relocate to Objective 1.1. 1.2.4c - Change the capital "H" to small "h" in the word "Hillside". 1.2.4d - Change the capital "H" to small "h" in the word "Hillside". Reword the statement to read, " ..grading for compatibility with...". 1.2.4e - Relocate to a grouped section on transfer of development rights and/or mixed uses. The statement should be reworded to May 28, 1992 Page 7 read, "Development of hillside areas should be clustered, where feasible, or development density transferred to a more suitable site, where possible, to preserve natural resources.". Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:02 p.m. Strategy 1.2.5a - Relocate to objective 1.1. 1.2.5b - Relocate to objective 1.1. 1.2.5c - Delete the last part of the statement beginning with, "...and small lot single... 1.2.5d - Delete. 1.2.5e, - Reword to read, "New development shall be compatible with the prevailing character of, the surrounding neighborhood.". Strategy 1.2.6 - Reword to read, "Broaden the range of, and encourage innovation in, housing types.". 1.2.6a - Relocated. 1.2.6b - Delete. 1.2.6c Reword to read, "Require developments within Medium Density areas to provide amenities, such as common usable, active open space and recreational areas.". 1.2.6d - Relocate to be part of a Planned Development and/or Specific Plan discussion, as well as the once deleted subsection (h) and (i) . All planned development discussions should be put into one section. The statements should be .reworded appropriately. 1.2.6f - Relocate to the planned development discussion. 1.2.6g - Relocate to the specific plan discussion, to be reworded to be consistent with previous Commission discussion. 1.2.6h - Relocate to the specific plan discussion, to be reworded to be consistent with previous Commission discussion. Strategy 1.2.7 - Reword to read, "...,encourage the provision of housing for r ...+.._.�..._.......�....�...vis...v2. ..�..;..._..._.J.._..�:✓_ 's�.._., .:...L.._�....:L1v..1 �L6`.: �L++:'�w.l �..4G:1.....4 ..�...��J. :.-1`.... ... �.. .i ... ...... .. ... ..._�_��...�.a _..�..✓..L_....w _�.l v.....�. _.. .._.. ._.. May 28, 1992 Page 8 Objective 1.3 - Strategy 1.3.1 - 1.3.la - 1.3.1b. - 1.3.1c. - Strategy 1.3.2 - 1.3.2a - 1.3.2b - 1.3.2c - low and moderate income households...". Delete the word "residents". Reword to read, "Stimulate commercial development which will serve the needs of Diamond Bar and capture our fair share of the market.". Reword to read, "Identify retail needs which are not currently being met in the community.". Reword to read, "Embark upon a economical development program to attract those uses to the community.". Delete. Reword to read, "Encourage the development of business...". Relocated. Delete the last ' sentence beginning with, "Typical uses include...". Delete. CD/DeStefano stated that the remainder of page 1- 17, page 1-18, and half of page 1-19, should be relocated into the Appendices of the Land Use Element, eliminating the floor area ratio discussion, and replacing the word "nodes". The Commission concurred. Strategy 1.3.2d - Delete. Strategy 1.3.3 - Reword to read, "Encourage neighborhood retail and commercial uses.". 1.3.3a - Relocated. 1.3.3c - Relocate to the Appendices, but delete the specific notations. Strategy 1.3.4 - This statement should be kept within the document and not deleted, as it is indicated. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the statement, "The location of these more localized... Table XX.", on the middle of page 1-23, should be deleted. Strategy 1.3.5 - Reword to read, "Encourage the development or continuation of employment in locations that best serve the needs of Diamond Bar.". 1.3.5a - Relocate to the Open Space May 28, 1992 Page 9 Objective 1.4 definition, with the examples deleted. 1.3.5b - Relocate to the Background section. The four bullets should be eliminated and replaced by the Gateway Center Strategy 1.4.1a - statement as indicated in the minutes of the April 22, 1992. 1.3.5c - Staff will reword. 1.3.5d - Relocate to the Definition section. Strategy 1.3.6 - Reword to read, "Consistent with maintaining its image as a quality residential community, the City will discourage heavy industrial uses.". 1.3.6a - Delete. 1.3.6b - Delete. 1.3.6c - Delete. Objective 1.4 Reword 'to - read, "Designate adequate land for educational, cultural, recreational, and public service activities to meet the needs of Diamond Bar.". Strategy 1.4.1a - Relocate to the Definition section. 1.4.1b - Reword to read, "Typical uses within the Public Facilities category include:", and then relocate. Delete the last three bullets, Neighborhood Parks, Recreational facilities, and open Space/Slopes, and the last paragraph which states, "The lack of a specif is use designation ... adjacent property.". Strategy 1.4.2 - Delete. Strategy 1.4.5a - Delete. Objective 1.5 - Reword to read, "Maintain a feeling of open space within the community by identifying and preserving an adequate amount of open land.". Strategy 1.5.1 - Reword to read, "Maintain an .inventory of previous dedications, designations, or decisions regarding open space." 1.5.1a - Replace the word "verify" with "identify". May 28, 1992 Page 10 1. 5. lb - Strategy 1.5.2 - 1.5.2a - 1.5.2b - Strategy 1.5.3 - 1.5.3a - Delete. Delete. Relocate to the Definition section. Relocate to the Definition section. Reword to read, "Identify those open space lands that the City intends to maintain as open space.". Reword to read, "Investigate the need of a bond issuance to purchase open space areas not already protected.". DCA/Curley stated that there needs to be follow up implementation to those areas that the City has indicated that they will investigate. Lloyd Zola stated that, in a mitigation monitor, it would include the statement, "if the need is determined and it is feasible to implement the program.". Chair/Flamenbaum requested that those words be inserted to those areas, where it is said to "Investigate". Strategy 1.5.3b - Delete. 1.5.3c - Delete and relocate to the Theme Park section. Strategy 1.5.4 - Relocate to the Transfer Development Right section. Strategy 1.5.5 - Relocate to the Transfer Development Right section. Strategy 1.5.6 - I Relocate to the Transfer Development Right section. Strategy 1.5.7 - Delete. 1.5.7a - Delete. Strategy 1.5.8 - Relocate to the Specific Plan discussion. Strategy 1.5.9 - Relocate to the Specific Plan discussion. Strategy 1.5.10 - Relocate to the Specific Plan discussion. Strategy 1.5.11 - Relocate to the Specific Plan discussion. Objective 1.1 was relocated as objective 1.6. Strategy 1.1.2 - Reword to read, "In conjunction with public and private organizations, develop...". Strategy 1.1.3 - Delete the words "large scale". May 28, 1992 Page 11 Strategy 1.1.4 - Delete the word "non -local". Strategy 1.1.5 - Delete. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 10:15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:25 p.m. Goal 2 - Delete the statement, "both within and outside of the City.". Objective 2.1 - Reword to read, "Promote land use patterns and intensities which are consistent with the Plan for Resource Management.". Strategy 2.1.1 - Reword to read, "Ensure that planning programs and development projects are sensitive to environmental resource limitations.". 2.1.1a - Delete the end of the statement beginning with,, "...and that the project sponsor... corporate boundaries.". 2.1.1b - Delete the end of the statement beginning• with, "...of the e n v i r o n m e n t a l consequences ... planning effort.". Delete the following bullets. Strategy 2.1.2 - Reword to read, "Ensure that new . development utilizes contemporary technologies to reduce energy, water consumption, generation of solid and hazardous wastes, air, and water pollutant emissions.". Strategy 2.2.1 - Renumber to be 2.1.4. Reword to state, "Require that new developments be compatible with existing land uses.". Strategy 2.2.3 - Delete the words, "such as churches". Delete the end of the statement beginning with, "...for either use to the extent...surrounding uses.". Strategy 2.2.4 - Delete. Strategy 2.2.5 - Delete. Strategy 2.3.1 - Reword to read, "Ensure through the environmental and development review processes, that adequate services and facilities are available to support each development.". Strategy 2.3.2 - Reword to read, "Require that May 28, 1992 Page 12 new development pay its fair share public facilities and off site improvements need to serve the purposed-use-i".- 2.3.2a urposed use-it'.2.3.2a Delete. . Goal 3 - Reword to read, "Maintain an aesthetically pleasing physical environment.". Strategy 3.1.2 - Delete and replace with the Theme Park. Staff will word it appropriately. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he would like to see trees, and lush landscaping, as the theme for Diamond Bar. VC/MacBride suggested that the strategy, for now, encourage a development of a theme for the City, and indicate a time frame to achieve it. Strategy 3.2.1 - 3:2.la - Strategy 3.2.3 - Strategy 3.2.4 - 3.2.4a - Strategy 3.2.5 - Strategy 3.2.6 .Objective 3.3 Strategy 3.3.2 Strategy 3.3.3 Strategy 3.3.4 Strategy 3.3.5 Strategy 3.3.6e This strategy is to be combined with Strategy 3.2.2. Delete. Delete the end of the statement beginning with, "within the primary arterial ... for the community.". Combine with Strategy 3.2.3. Delete. Delete the words, "including murals". Reword to read, "Encourage the provision and maintenance of neighborhood identification signage.". - Delete the end of the statement beginning with, of of residents... design.". - Replace the word "Require" with "Encourage" in the first and second sentence. Reword the first sentence to read, 11 ... structure as well as. the ultimate right of way of the street.". - Replace the word "Eliminate" with "Minimize the use of... - Delete. - Delete. - Reword to read, "Ensure that non-residential facilities are oriented to the pedestrian by May 28, 1992 Page 13 Objective 3.4 - Reword to read, "Promote the incorporation of seating areas, visual quality and character of courtyards, landscaping, and development.". - similar measures.". Strategy 3.3.7 - Delete. Strategy 3.3.81 - Delete. Reword to read, "Adopt or 3.3.8j - Delete. Strategy 3.3.9 - Reword to read, "Require all Delete. Strategy 3.4.5 auto service facilities be to the minimum necessary.". oriented away from the street - Reword to read, "Where frontage.". Strategy 3.3.10 - Reword to read, "Where techniques be implemented... 3.4.6a buildings will be visible... Strategy 3.3.11 - Delete. - Reword to read, "Require all 3.3.11a - Combine this subsection with planted.". Delete subsection subsection 3.3.11b, and reword (a) through (f) . Strategy 3.4.8 appropriately. Goal 4 3.3.11c - Delete. - Replace the word "with" with 3.3.11d - Delete. Strategy 4.1.1 3.3.11e - Delete. Objective 3.4 - Reword to read, "Promote the visual quality and character of natural areas, and hillside development.". - Strategy 3.4.1 - Replace the word, "Emphasize" with the word "Balance". and "over" with "with". Strategy 3.4.3 - Reword to read, "Adopt or maintain hillside development... Strategy 3.4.4 - Delete. Strategy 3.4.5 - Reword to read, "Limit grading to the minimum necessary.". Strategy 3.4.6 - Reword to read, "Where practical, require that landform grading and planting techniques be implemented... 3.4.6a - Delete. 3.4.6b - Delete. Strategy 3.4.7 - Reword to read, "Require all manufactured slopes to be planted.". Delete subsection (a) through (f) . Strategy 3.4.8 - Delete. Goal 4 - Delete the word "residents". Objective 4.1 - Replace the word "with" with "in". Strategy 4.1.1 - Reword to read, "Take a proactive role in the SCAG Regional Comprehension Plan to achieve coordination between the land use programmers of the May 28, 1992 Strategy 4. 1. 2 Strategy 4.1.3 4.1.3a - Objective 4.3 Strategy 4.3.1 City of Diamond Bar and surrounding communities.". Replace the words, "Include evaluation luation of" with "Consider". Delete subsection (b), (c), and (d). Reword to read, "Take a proactive role to maintain communication with all levels of quasi governmental and governmental agencies, whose planning programs may affect Diamond Bar.". Delete. - Reword to state, "Maintain City boundaries which are reasonable in terms of... 11. - Delete the words, "within the 57 corridor", and delete, "of Diamond Bar in a manner which is fiscally responsible." Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the word "City" be. used, throughout the document, in place of "The City of Diamond Bar". Strategy 4.3.2 - Delete the first paragraph stating, "Pursue an active program... within the City of Diamond Bar.". Relocate the statement regarding Tonner Canyon to the Specific Plan discussion. CD/DeStefano inquired if the Commission had any comments to the EIR. The Commission concurred that the document is satisfactory. The Public Hearing was declared closed. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:25 p.m. to June 1, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. Respectively, James DeStefano May 28, 1992 Page 15 Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman May 26, 1992 Page 15 General Plan text, incorporating the Planning Commission changes, minus the Land Use Element. It is only staf f I s best efforts, and not the General Plan that will be recommended to the City Council. It is meant to be an informational document for the public. ADJOURINXENT: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:51 p.m. Respectively, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 2 REPORT DATE: June 17, 1992 MEETING DATE: June 22, 1992 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Tentative Tract Map No. 50519/ Development Agreement No. 91-3/ Development Review No. 91-2/ Zone Change 91-1 APPLICATION REQUEST: To subdivide a 2.3 acre site into six (6) lots, to construct an 80 unit Senior Citizen project, and to change the zone classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) to Zone R-4 (Unlimited Residence) and to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: 23575 Golden Springs Diamond Development Company 1700 Raintree Road Fullerton, CA. 92635 Same The proposed project was last before the Planning Commission on January 27, 1992 public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning commission directed staff to prepare a Fiscal Impact Analysis and to table the project until an appropriate date. In the intervening period, issues related to the General Plan have arisen which have had an impact on the processing of the project. As submitted, the applicant is requesting a zone change, a development agreement, development review, and approval of a tentative tract map. Per the conditions of the State's Housing and community. Development Department, no projects were allowed to be processed which have a vesting map, development agreement, zone change, or General Plan amendment as a component of the application until the General Plan has received approval from the Planning commission. The Planning Commission approved and forwarded the General Plan to City Council on 80 Unit Senior Citizen Condominium Project 1 June 8, 1992. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: Site Characteristics The 2.3 acre L-shaped parcel is zoned for Restricted Commercial (C-1) and is bounded by Golden Springs Drive to the south and Torito Lane to the west. The site is currently vacant and devoid of any vegetation or structures. Most I recently the site was the location of a vacated 10,000 sq. ft building. The building, at one time, housed the Diamond Bar Post Office. This structure was demolished by the applicant within the last year to remove the potential health and safety hazards the vacant structures presented. The site generally slopes from the north and east from Golden Springs Drive to the west and Torito Lane. The extreme southern portion of the corner lot is a separate parcel which is developed with a commercial retail center. Multi -family residential condominiums are developed to the north of the subject site and a single family residential subdivision is located to the northwest. The Vons Center abuts the proposed subdivision and takes access, via Torito Lane, to Golden Springs Drive. Directly south and west across Torito Lane, professional office buildings and a vacant lot comprise the existing setting. A church is located to the east across Golden Springs Drive. Land Use The request for the 80 unit senior citizen project is accompanied by a Zone Change application to acquire an R-4 (Unlimited Residence) Zone designation. The requested zone change is not consistent with the RM (Medium Density Residential) land use classification identified within the General Plan. The proposed density for the RM designation is 16 units per acre and the Senior's project is proposed at almost 35 units per acre. Pursuant to state law (Section ), a density bonus can granted by a City if the project meets an established criteria. The embodiment can then be enumerated within a development agreement. The Planning Commission had requested that the applicant submit a Fiscal Impact Study. The purpose of the study is to determine the financial impact of residential development and other scenarios of land use development on the City for the provision of services. The project and location of the site had generated discussion from the Commission related to: 1) The appropriateness of reducing the inventory of commercial acreage within the City; 2) The appropriate development intensity; 3) Land use compatibility; and 4) The character and density of the proposed development and consistency with existing Multi -family development and whether this is the direction the City wishes to see multi -family development proceed. 80 Unit Senior Citizen Condominium Project 2 Development Review: The project has been designed as a multi -floor, multi -unit project that incorporates an underground parking structure, three floors of habitable area, recreational facilities, and secured entry into the development. The building heights are 35 feet above average finished grade (afg). The development is proposed to provide five independent dwelling structures containing 16 ,independent units each and a recreation building located on lot No. 6. Each building will contain units as follows: Typical Floor Plan No. of Units Rooms Square Footaq 4 2 Bedrooms 1080 4 2 Bedrooms 1004 6 1 Bedroom/Den 837 2 2 Bedroom/Den 1420 All'buildings are designed with the same architecture and will utilize the same pallet of colors and materials.' The base material for the complex is proposed as an off white stucco. The stucco for the eaves and primary accents is sand in color. A peach stucco will be utilized as the secondary accent. All iron works are to be a mint green color. The roof, constructed at a 4:12 pitch, will utilize typical 'IS" tile. Clay caps are proposed for the chimneys which.designed into each of the buildings. The chimneys will be visible from either end and also at central locations. The complex features balconies for a majority of the units which will be visible from the exterior of the development. Both ground and deck level units will have patios that are comparable to the balconies of the second and third floor units. All balconies and patios will be enclosed with the green iron work. The three floor buildings are designed to be incorporated with the parking structure in various ways. For example, the complex (Bldg No. 1) located closest to Golden Springs Drive is located on grade and connected to the parking structure by pedestrian walkways. Building No. 2 is located partially on grade and on the parking structure. Buildings 3, 4, and 5. are constructed atop the parking structure and access the structure via stairs and elevator. The elevator can be taken from the parking area to the deck level. All of the buildings share a courtyard at deck level which is located atop the parking structure. The deck will also serve as an emergency fire lane so that access to all areas of the structures can be achieved. The deck level courtyard is proposed to provide potted landscaping as may be allowed by the Los Angeles County Fire Department because it is 80 Unit Senior Citizen Condominium Project 3 a fire access area. The courtyard is concrete with geometric pavers proposed for the eastern portion of the deck. At this location the pavers serve as an entry statement where the landing area transitions to the pool and spa area and the community building. Further to the east the deck level meets grade where landscaping is incorporated around Building No. 1 to Golden Springs Drive. As the property slopes up to Golden Springs Drive, the project will provide a 42 inch berm as it abuts the sidewalk. The grassy berm will provide a sound and visual buffer both into and out of the project. The parking structure takes access from Torito Lane on the main level through electronically secured gates at two locations. These gates are located on either side of Building No. 3. Vehicular access is achieved by a ramp located on the interior of the parking structure. No other means of ingress or egress to the parking facility exists. No access from Golden Springs Drive to the parking facility is proposed. There are 114 parking spaces (91x191) provided within the parking structure for both resident and guest parking (20 required) per code requirements. In the past, the Commission has required multi -family parking to be based on 1 parking space per bedroom, which equates to 130 spaces for this design. The parking structure is not accessible to fire engines because of the height of the entrance. The Fire Department has therefore required a 26 foot wide access to within 150 feet of any portion of the site. Additionally, the location of numerous hydrants on-site has been required. For emergencies within the parking structure, the fire fighters will be required to manually access the structure carrying equipment and reach their desired positions on foot. The applicant has submitted a traffic and sewer capacity study to the City and the City Engineer has reviewed these reports. The traffic study identified minimal impacts to the intersection of Golden Springs and Torito Lane and also to the Golden Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd. intersection although the study states that a potential for signalization at the Golden Springs/Torito Lane intersection may be warranted in the future. The City Engineer has stated that the signal is not warranted at the present time. The access to the Von's Shopping Center will remain open at the terminus of Torito Lane. The City Engineer has stated that the circulation and stacking area at the entrances of the complex are still in need of further scrutiny. Special attention should be concentrated on visitor parking inside and out side the electronic gates as well as a turnaround area for cars not able to enter. This application has been slightly revised from the previously (January, 1992) reviewed site plan. The major alteration is the deletion of one floor of underground parking and relocating the unit closest to the Golden Springs frontage further away from the street thereby increasing the front setback to 20 feet. This deletion of one floor of the parking structure is directly attributable to the reduction from 202 to 114 parking spaces which translates into a 43 80 Unit Senior Citizen Condominium Project 4 percent decrease and as a result of the change to senior citizen occupancy. As directed by the Commission, Staff has conducted a profile of senior citizen projects in surrounding cities. The projects identified range from residential care type facilities to active senior projects. CITY Brea San Dimas Mission Viejo Irvine Placentia Whittier Pasadena Rancho Cucamonga County of Los Angeles Current Project STANDARD Nursing/Rest Homes - 5.5 per 1,000 sq. ft. Standard Senior - same standard as apartments Development Agreement - Based on type of senior case by case. 1:1 (Spaces:Units) No change from non -senior projects. Range from 1.5:1 to 2.5:1 Determined on a case by case basis. 1:1 1:3 If age restricted to 65 and over. ). - 0.5:1 with CUP, age restricted - to 62 and over. 0.75 with recorded covenant restricting number of cars per unit and does not require CUP. 0.7:1 If both occupants are over the age of 55. 0.5:1 If occupants are age 62 and over. 1.44:1 Additionally, numerous senior projects were contacted to find out how the provision of spaces work for their particular project. Projects in Diamond Bar, the County of Los Angeles, LaVerne, Pomona, and Anaheim. The most consistent chorus from the project managers was that parking problems are related to the age make up of the residents. The projects which allow younger, more mobile residents, were more likely to experience parking problems. Those projects with mandated minimum age restrictions were operating within acceptable levels with reduced parking standards. Tentative Tract Map: 80 Unit Senior Citizen Condominium Project 5 A tentative tract map is required by the Subdivision Map Act (Chapter 2 Section 66427) for condominium projects. This requirement is necessitated because of the ownership of individual units and the ownership of common areas by the Home Owners Association. The boundaries and legal descriptions for units and common areas are explicitly described within the tract map. For this project, based on the design, it is necessary to delineate lots and units by surface and air space limits. The 2.3 acre project site is an irregularly shaped IILII fronting on Golden Springs Drive for approximately 205 feet and Torito Lane for approximately 310 feet. The site is situated approximately 8 to 10 feet below the top of curb along Golden Springs Drive. The slope of the site from Golden Springs Drive northwest is approximately 5 percent as it changes 25 feet over the length of the property. The subdivision application requests six lots, one common area lot and five lots on which each of the four three (3) story buildings and a two story building are to be constructed. Each building will contain 16 condominium units, of which eight (8) units are to be located on each level. The floor plan for each unit within each building is taken from one of four floor plans. There are two choices of floor plans for both the 1 and 2 bedroom models. Lot Nos. 1 through 5 are approximately 8,800 feet in size and total approximately 1.01 acres. Lot No. 6 comprises the remaining 1.29 acres of the site and the common area. Approximately 46 percent of the site will be covered by habitable structures or concrete. Additionally, lot No. 6 will provide the Fire Department with access to all buildings on- site. Development Agreement: The Los Angeles County Code as adopted by the City of Diamond Bar is cumulative in nature thus allowing residential development in commercial zones, albeit with a conditional use permit (Title 22 Section 28.110). Review of the zoning code led to the discovery that condominiums are not explicitly listed as an allowed use although townhouses, apartment houses, and single and two-family residences are. Within the City of Diamond Bar, there is a multi -family residential development located within a C-1 Zone (Restricted Business Zone). The Cimmaron Oaks Condominium Complex, which is located on north Golden Springs Drive between High Knob Road and Temple Avenue. The complex is developed on approximately 7.44 acres with a density of approximately 21 units per acre. The existing development is surrounded by both multi -family residential and single family residential development. Review of other comparable multi -family developments within the City revealed that the development with the highest density abuts this site. The complex was initially constructed as an apartment complex and subsequently received a condominium conversion approval from the County. The density for the development is approximately 30 units per 80 Unit Senior Citizen Condominium Project 6 acre. The Montefino condominiums are developed at a density of approximately 6.7 units per acre. The units are multi -story townhouses and no units are constructed over any other unit. Similar to this project, the Cambridge Hills condominiums which are located on North Diamond Bar Blvd. and overlook the orange Freeway, display a density of almost 9 units per acre. These two developments contrast the density exhibited at Cimmaron Oaks and the development just north of the subject site in addition to the 34.8 units per acre that are proposed by this application. The project as designed would require a variance for setbacks along Golden Springs Drive. The tract map indicates a 15 foot setback from Golden Springs Drive (20 feet is required) and where the project abuts the single family residential development. Although the project complies with the City's height standards, a variance would be required in the C-1 zone all residential zone classifications for structures with more than two floors and a cellar. The findings ndings necessary for approval of a variance would, in staff's opinion, be difficult to substantiate for the project as designed and submitted by the applicant. Because the development agreement is a discretionary action that can address -very specific development standards and density issues and because of the senior citizen issues, it was the mechanism enlisted as a tool to the review the project. Conclusion: Staff has reviewed the project within the framework of the issues as identified above. There are policy issues that must be expressed which are related to: retention of neighborhood commercial uses versus the provision of senior residential housing, this project's compatability with the type and mix of landuses in the area, the relationship of this landuse to the site, the density as proposed and its conformance and compatability to development of this character and scale in this part of the City, the overall quality of design and architecture and application of standards within the development, and the provision of affordable housing. The site is unique as it is a either an extension of existing commercial development or appropriately used as a transitional parcel between commercial and residential development. The development of the site for residential development would further reduce the acreage for commercial development by two acres. The approval of the application would however create affordable housing for senior citizens at a location within close proximity to commercial uses and public transportation lines. The short term and long term effects can only be surmised but the fiscal impact analysis does indicate that the net benefit to the City would be positive. Multi -family residential development in the City encompasses many diverse forms both in architecture and density. The proposed project 80 Unit Senior Citizen Condominium Project 7 is unique in design and high density by comparison to existing development. The project provides parking at a ratio of 1.4:1 although the project proposes an age limit of 55 years of age. many current senior projects operating find that the parking provision on-site operates most effectively at a 2:1 ratio. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mitigated Negative Declaration NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: This application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Daily Tribune 21 days in advance of the public hearing and in Diamond Bar -Phillips Ranch Highlander in the May 21, 1992 issue. Notices were mailed to 190 residents within a 500 feet radius of the project for the noticed public hearing and for the continued public hearing. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Specific discussion and, direction is needed from the Planning Commission on issues and project specifics. 2. Staff is supportive of multi -family residential development at this location as well as senior citizen housing as a specific land use. Additionally, Staff recommends that the development agreement, incorporating the appropriate density bonus be drafted. However, Staff can not support the massive reduction in parking and potential problems with the internal circulation within the parking structure as proposed by the applicant. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Application Development Plans and Elevations Streetscape Tentative Tract Map 50519 Letter from Fiscal Impact Analysis Agreement Template Section Pomona Unified School District 80 Unit Senior Citizen Condominium Project 8 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names,* addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations) CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this request* Signed Date c S ci e-- (All recorded ovners) Certification: 1, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name:' 'Kc-tLNL--o (Applicant or Agent) Si (App nt or Agent) Location "'PUSSC-s - Date - ...031 1 q) -,TXC-6—, 5 AAb IWO COP-5POAJD/116— (Street address or tract and lot nuaber) Zoning_ (2,-1 BNM 12-0 -.3-IG Previous Cases Present Use of Site - UkII17 I 0—MIMMIA111W . At�cmr,-r Omit Use aT)T)l i ed for (s) 5+ 0 Landscaping/Open space Area devoted to structures 5 7 Proposed density—'. (Units/Acres) Style of Architecture Number of Floors Proposed, 15 Slope of Roof � 2 1 (staff use) PROJECT NLAIBER (s) : ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: "0XN-t- 0rk0 CA. " �r4 , —0 fa kt, l) '1 "_ &Y NAME - NA,E J-100 'Z Pr i Pt'i n-cti `k6 A� i i o o `tc ��c- r► c C �t o ?ril ADDRESS ADDRESS CN Co -L' -Sy L4 PHONE PHONE # PHONE # 1. Action requested and project description: 2. Street location of project:_ ►g--trtc:S 3a. Present use of site: VNC-Ags— L tB ituok"Le,s C.J1�-r N; t_; Y c'�r•4tz '�i-�to� a �rtC'b) 3b. Previous use of site or structures: ` iN-M,)el3 P1kV� ?;,-;; o� cz— 4. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this project: O'Znie 5. Other related permit/approvals required. Specify type and granting agency.�P� 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y N If yes, explain: 7. Project Area: _ Covered by structures, paving: q.s J(� Landscaping, open space: Total Area: 8. Number of floors: - 9. Present zoning: cl\ 10. Water and sewer service: Domestic Public Water Sewers Does service exist at site? (j) N CV N If yes, do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved 'i) projects? 0 ry N 01 If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how will these services be provided? A/A, Residential Projects: 11. Number and type of units: Ito I gDfz- k'F5a� 2_x3Pi;L/-Z_15M-A ) 37- 3 6DJL17-5.1� 12. Schools: What school district(s) serves the property? Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs? NO If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? k K� -i ,-7'- �,M k75 Pd -e-1 PLC& 1-t'koz- -5TU9`e`Vk_,_", AfJ 72k tL&10-9 kA -16 F I - ?L_ArLrLE-D P-Ovz, R/ k Non -Residential projects: 13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) 14. 15. 16. 17 18 Number and floor area of buildings: Number of employees and shifts: Maximum employees per shift: Operating hours: Identify any: End produlcts Waste products Means of disposal 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES C_N'B� If yes, explain 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES CRO-) If yes, explain 21. Identify any flammable,. reactive or explosive materials to be located on- site. 14 0 t'L & 22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES NO If yes, explain J 1. Environmental Setting --Project Site a. Existing use/structures t'WtIe t�►vb��15� �D b. Topography / s lopes 5 _c. 'p e -s . " oP,C✓ Mo'jccs 1A N- iiV, :M,� ora KTIzik2 c:F_ *c. Vegetation *d. Animal s *e. Watercourses t�/(k f. Wltural/historical resources f\L0[-la g. Other t'wsle- 2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area a. Existinguses structures (types, densities): tAW SifLULc b. Topography/slopes t--k..&d —%,o ,,"5�, s *c. Vegetation tVN *d. Animals tt/A *e. Watercourses rA/A� f. Cultural/historical resources tAorl- ,o 7w.k itrL DVA txo g. Other * Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural, undeveloped land. 3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees? MEMO] If yes, type and number: —_%- t -,F PcPPt2oX� M n� i Lt ; F G rli' M `► 51 F--Uc, An.. '; V ?'U S., ?I rie _ Ac0,9 --5-1 irf- 4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed through project development?: YES CNO) If yes, explain: 5. Grading: Will the project require grading? YES NO If yes, how many cubic yards? '4k' -oma Will it be balanced on site? YES NO If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited? 6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on the property (including uncompacted fill)? YES If yes, explain: 7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)? YES ft Distance to nearest fire station: 8. Noise: Existing noise sources at site: t'1otA C Noise to be generated by project: t-i►c.Stt-AAL. Fumes: Odors generated by project: goWC Could toxic fumes be generated? t�o 10. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used? CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Z �Z .a'/ �( 1 ckl_ i, Date Signature For: �i lM�t o n1 n -y �Mi W ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMIST FORM I. Background 1. Name of Applicant: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 3. Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact: 4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal: 5. Da t o o f Environmental Ch e c l i s t Su b mi t t a 1: 6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist): 7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision): 8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): Variance: Conditional Use Permit: Zone Change: General Plan Amendment: (Attach Completed Environmental Information Form) Il. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and additional information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly" answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) YES NO POSSIBLY 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? ✓ b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ✓ C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? ✓ d The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? ✓ e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? ✓ f Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? ✓ 9. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: ✓ a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ✓ b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any . changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: ✓ a. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? ,...:,:..: YES NO POSSIBLY ✓ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? C. Alterations -of the course or flow of flood waters? +✓ d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? ✓ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quali ty including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? ✓ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ✓ g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? ✓ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ✓ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ✓ a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? ✓ b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare of endangered species of plants? ✓ C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? ✓ d. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? ✓ e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? YES NO POSSIBLY 4. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier, to the normal migration or movement of resident species? d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: ✓ a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: V/ a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: ✓ a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. 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 or upset condition? YES NO POSSIBLY b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal: _ ✓ a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect: a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal f. 1 result in: ✓ a. Generation of Substantial additional YES NO POSSIBLY b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal: _ ✓ a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect: a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: f 1. Fire Protection? ✓ 2. Police Protection? V 3. Schools? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: ✓ a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? ✓ C. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? ✓ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. ✓ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f.! Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: f 1. Fire Protection? ✓ 2. Police Protection? V 3. Schools? YES NO POSSIBLY V/ 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 6. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Useof substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in: a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in: a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? YES NO POSSIBLY b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? C. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ✓ d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, -environmental goals? C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? ✓ d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? II. Environmental Impacts: 1.b. The proposed project will require a small the relocation of approximately 6000 cubic yards of earth with cut of 8 feet and fill of 7 feet to permit construction of parking structure. 1.c. The proposed project will be built to existing grades as much as possible, however, the building of the parking structure will require some grading (see 1.b. hereinabove). 11.a. The proposed project will add 80 condominiums to the area. 12.a. The proposed project will add 80 condominiums to the area. 14.a.1-4 The introduction of 80 new homes into the area will have a minor impact on the existing fire protection, police protection, schools and parks. No need for new or altered governmental services are anticipated. �.-.0 '::.i.:. •.. ..::.... .,v _:y r1.�..., .:.... .'...:_.: ...r_�: ....'.. _..:...�.... ... .1.cu r' J -'�•_ •.Tn L.�c�.,_ij;hf�ivi<Le�.,. r.l,...:_.` .',.. ..... .. t III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: (Attach Narrative) IV. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION KILL BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: Signature: Title For the City of Diamond Bar, California CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE—BURDEN OF PROOF In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board and/or Commission, the following facts: A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not: 1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or 2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Title 22, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. C. That the proposed site is adequately served: 1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and 2. By other public or private service facilities as are required. —sl&e ?PV6e- - 'a 1:16) S 0) M we] a * 1119143 am A. The proposed 80 unit condominium project will be build to modern architectural, structural and seismic, energy, electrical, mechanical, acoustic and fire prevention standards. These standards are significantly more stringent, and thus produce a much safer environment, than buildings built only a few years ago. Additionally, gated entries into the complex will provide security from unwanted intruders. With regard to the health, safety, etc. of people living and working in the neighborhood, the new project is a significant improvement. The new complex will replace two old buildings, which previously housed the Diamond Bar Post Office, a beer bar known as The Blue Jeans Saloon and a nursery. Beer bars are known to have high potential for problems as evidenced by the high cost of insurance on such establishments. Nurseries use a number of pesticides which can be detrimental to the health of people. The existing buildings are not up to any of todays standards and have been found to contain large amounts of asbestos. In summary, the existing, dilapidated, unsafe buildings are being demolished and replaced by an attractive, modern, condominium complex. B. - The proposed project integrates well with uses in the surrounding area. It will serve as a natural transition between commercial and residential, in that it is bordered on the SW by a large commercial retail complex, the SE by office buildings, the NW by single family homes and NE by condominiums. The design of the new complex has only a 34.5% coverage with buildings; the balance devoted to landscaping, courtyards and recreation facilities. C. The subject site is a very desirable location; it is located within a few minutes walking distance of public transportation as well as retail and commercial facilities. Further, it is only one block from two of the main thoroughfares in the city, Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Road, both of which can easily carry the kind and quantity of traffic 80 condominiums are likely to generate. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. I, the undersigned state: We I am the owner We are of the real property described .in the above -numbered conditional use permit. I am aware of, and accept, all the stated "conditions in said We are Conditional Use Permit Case No. Executed this day of 19 I certify (or' declare) under the penalty of perjury that'the We foregoing is true and correct. (Where the owner and applicant are not the same, both must sign) Type or Print Applicant Name Address City, State Signature_ Owner Name- Address- City, ameAddressCity, State Signature_ This signature must be acknowledged by a notary public. Attach appropriate acknowledgements. July 22, 1991 UV469 TV F—Mr, FACILrrY PLANNING DEPARTAIENT &. I F 1._ 1 1- 1 Distn"ict 800 South Garey Avenue, P. O. Box 2900, Pomona, California 91769. Phone: (714) 397-4920 FAX: (714) 397-5050 cn Planning Commission c/o Rob Searcy, Associate Planner City of Diamond Bar Planning Department 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA. 91765-4177 Commissioners.:-- `"-`__-.—_.-- __ _- SUBJECT Tentative Tract map 50519 Following are comments for the proposed actions on a project at Torito Lane: This project will absolutely impact us beyond our capabilities to mitigate. The attached Board of Education statement regarding schools, currently serving this area, will serve as our statement for this proposed project. If you have any questions, please direct them to me at (714) 397-4920. Sincerely, WO�' (Avsi'stant ne R. Medina Planner, Facility Planning M:ca POMON,A UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT The District schools currently serving new homes for this tract area: Golden Springs Elem. 245 South Ballena Drive, Diamond Bar (714) 397-4597 Lorbeer Jr. High 501 Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar (714) 397-4527 Ganesha High 1151 Fairplex Drive, Pomona (714) 397-4405 The District cannot guarantee that there will be room to house students, generated by this project, at the above schools. Students from this project may need to attend other, less impacted, schools within the Pomona Unified School District. All three of these schools are at capacity. Golden Springs and Ganesha cannot be further expanded, either permanently of temporarily, without demolishing existing structures or further diminishing already inadequate outdoor teaching facilities. Student enrollment now exceeds the State's calculated capacity of District schools. In order to reduce current overcrowding, provide new schools for expected growth, and modernize old schools, the District has taken the following actions: • Two of the District's elementary schools, Roosevelt and Washington, will be implementing a multi -track year-round schedule beginning July 1991. • Other District elementary schools will also be implementing year-round schedules by July 1992 to place 30% of students in the kindergarten through 6th grades on multi -track year-round schedules. • School Developer Fees are collected by the District for all new residential, commercial, or industrial development. • The District has approved applications for new school construction and modernization under the State School Building Lease -Purchase Program. • District residents recently, passed a gene:dalobligatich, bond which will generate $62.5 million for new school construction and .modernization over the next five years. The above actions will reduce overcrowding and enable the District to construct and modernize several schools. While not fully meeting the demand of new growth, the above actions will accomplish a large portion of the projects needed to provide adequate schools for our growing student population. Board of Education June 1991 9qR R�'` � g 1 o Qgg N L � R�ppi� 2 CEiC Y . �t 1lap in '7 r---- a � w- \ 4 r/ \�:?tN •P 4th'+�,,_` � ` � C v \� �`"riri�„Fq„ \ ' \ y b. 0 `��\yfl/1���e�{ pl� 1 `,U ctl \ }`�\\4• ,;"` \ 11 �' ( \ �. � �� +�'' / �' \ `' s- � .rte \ / Y l �� t °s�'%s - G, .. .. ;yam• •�ti � ., �:,,. : FS Y STQREs' L?' , ,♦ i♦ , \STORES G .k • syn, `� % •~' V, t p .r D K' •��, :a ° •rte S 4 2 .. • sroREsr� • ,O QBLD '24� •t% •' r^Z .•�. a'�~ 3 �t ., t� \• .. �•. • , �2 ors•, :° y� 6• � STOnRPy' ' v 8 • • 0 �'\ 0.� ' 4 . • pg� ��+ �J ,tTo� ' \��ys s•. �0.+ �� �'� ?q, .j1\a00 y, . r6• Z e •�• '�•, • •.ti '!''� 6 w-Q': /py �� •� PCr �! Z� dpVICE loo •d; : i y �.nu.44 ;,/:/ 1I �' ass�a°• r S 3t ,r sr' �' 9 .tom; i • 9 CDO Y tilt\ •.�•, r . \.. ORy • moi, ° .d•� t''0 ✓O,ji�' i' . •B `�. r � yx. • . �? p9 ' g � . • . �{r� . ✓ y r �� � �i, S. � ` •, •fib .?! v���N3�� ►y e+,� a ;� 1 . o°' y 'tb , IN • f' .� \ '' ' i g 6y • � •. s?. 4' FSS '.�, • • IS 0 f °:- , 6 :' 6� i r° • ,aC YFi ? t[� r�� . g� Sl �"'�i �• pY s� � tic : off, `' a,�, „� 4�:; �• . ,Y,•, �,�N�1 Ti `� ds r, ,� • • • • . So .,�, . - .. '� . � •.. �t,o° a .fix. % �' ' •, 90 as p,. •��0,•4. ` b yy•- ♦o' •p�, ,sad .B•' !�, •' � �r.�iN..SaL°'�'��� �f •�. swr:y+,� ti J,. C• `� • •..�� • oN O . J a tP� • , •x �Z• f S .rS•' IeN TY .:W+rya fay ! ; ��.. :e: .. N Y•., p, '�• .tr +� , u� `} ♦ �} 4' .. • , .t>' T- I% itµ O 'r•. v ds° �`y S� f �. ✓4c +, 'o r»y=. t^ .a : "1�t �+• �. p � � �� ,}� • d8 � • a Ste. • _ • �tJ .6 „ °� s0 1 a� � 9 y Of J �� -• Ste• ,► •,Lt,, ,� �" a•A. . �� �7i•.`% 'ep da .��. Cq°s „• v 4 m •� 4�p 's •s• •' a mss`.: •' �p:.�• �, •©" a,+ ♦*•,' J.o ,�c'2' td' °'' tt•. . CJ3n •e, SINGLE FALULY RESIDENCE d� ti ' ♦v r•7ra 9 �' .•! \ ",DUPLEX APARTM. _. O , = . • A. Y ay 4r o� a tW� - . ' •c• 7N,. .O . �..: 'N.a °+s (� ' . act ®^ENT 4 •, o , 4j, a:.• � s• a , � , a.. .a .... �,� � .. IS REIDENTUU. LOT.'' •• 4 COMMERCIAL , COMMERCIAUREMNETIAL ill 'COMMERCIAL LOT - 6 RETAIUCOMMERCI�IL„.• SUDJECi PROPERTY�7"--- - .. .. ..........— "'" • PROJECT iNF•pRMAlrxcw hl1 RE$7Eq SgOS.TORJTOLANE ,C!' DIAMOND RAR, CA '� rtnowarw a •`\, ' � awrarwuc•a•nnwra..w.a .. ' ' LAND USE MAP r,, -G , - _ X F_> I m F-4 t-, i,.. Pi -4 rq W F:q R C Z Y H S K I Recorded At the Request Of And When Recorded Mail To: Lynda Burgess City Clerk City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765 P_ f2i :9 1- 1 :9 DEVELOPMERT RGRrEMENT NO. CONCERNING PAOPNRTY LOCATED AT TD)fvl ND BAR, CALIFORNIA THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 11P .,ffeatil,re Dater, set forth herein by and betwe�-n 4jif Fig nafter collio=cvol�_ ("Dovelop ) a_nd­the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation ozganized and existing under the laws of the State of California ("City"). W I I N A g S E T Hs A. Reci Ir 110 UtA _,4. (i) California Government Code Sections 65864, et seq, authorize cities to enter into bi.r.dijig devIN-lopment agreement -9 with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of mien property. (ii) Developer owns all interest in and to that real property located entirely within City, the common and legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit "A", dated -attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and hereinafter is referred to as 11the Site." (Iii). The Site is now zoned thii - ) pursuant to provisions of Vl_t,yrs Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, as amended to data hereof. Developer and city desire to provide through this Development Agreement more specific development controls on the Site which will provide for maximum efficient u.tilizatrion. of the Site in accordance with sound planning principles. (iv) Ordinance No. Agreement with On 1991, City adopted its thereby approving this Development Developer—and said Ordinance was effective on . 1992. 0 . ........ UN- 1 6-9.' TUE I 1 :0 1 M A R K, M A H ;D ARC:;Yk4SK I P 4 M NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree a8 f011OWS1 10 Def i nillons # In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise rYqujresj the following terms shall have the -following zean.ing: at "City" is the City of Diamond Bar. b. "DeVeIOPGr" is a California Lim!t-ed Partnership, or any a8signee thereof. "Development Plan" are -those plans and specifications attached hereto, marked as Exhibits and incorpo]c,)-C�7fT l -�.irk bY and comprised of the documents inQ11adi-119, but not limited to, landscape plan, a site plan and architectural elevations, TThe Development Plan,H,cHeT various u S conditions of approval set forth in Exhibits modified ):)7 this Development Agreement Unless specifically set forth Jierein. The project also includes the records of applications by Developer, the proceedings before the Planning Commission and City Council, and all such: records and files in thsse matters are incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. d. up--ojeot" is that development- approved for the Site as provided in this Development- Agj:-eer,-,ent comprised of a cls. as reflected in the Development Plans attached hereto as Exhibits .T conditions set forth in n_cF —tE—e o "Effective Date" shall neark the 31st calendar day following adoption of the ordinance approving this Agreement by City's City COUncil-. 2. Re ptea. LThe Recitals are part of the agreement between _IA the parties, and shall be enforced and enforceable as any other provision of this Agreement. 3* interest 0 ert pynjtg. Developer warrants and represents that it has full legal title to the Site, that it has K .L M. - V __ 1 11 t= L L Z W-1 .Z:: III" r- 1".112 I -A (14 110 " t--: I_ -1 _r I'l-I L; K'. I full legal right to enter into this persons executing this Agreem-ent on authorized to do so and thereby bind conditions of this Agreement.. �` - U:=, " I .6 Agreement and that the behalf of Developer are duly DEVELOPER to the terms and 4. q'nereby subject's the Ai;. Developer he project and the land described in Exhibits hereto _t6_the covenants, reservatiOns and 'e tri �icns as sit forth in this Agreement. The city and the Developer hereby declare, represent and warrant that their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deamed covenant8 running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon Developer's successors and assigns in title or interest to the Project. Each and every contract, dsed'or other instrur.Vnt hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the project or any portioTi thereof shall, conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted subject to the covenants, reaervations and restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether such covenants, reservations and restrictions are set forth in such con -tract, deed or other instrument. City and Developer hereby declare their understanding and inten-'C. that the burden of the covenants, reservations and restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that the Developer" s, legal interestin the Project is rendered less valuable thereby. The City and Developer her8by further declare their understanding and irtent that the benefit of such covenants touch and concern the land by enhancing and in-.reasing the enjoyment and use of the Development by Developer and the future occupants of the Project, the intended beneficiaries of such covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by furthering the public purposes for which this Agreement is adopted. Further, the parties i12rc#=o agree that covonants, reservations and restriotions benefit all other real property located in the City of Diamond Bar, provided, however, thi�i_ only city shall be entitled to enforce the provisions ;jereof pursuant to paragraph 16,'below. It is understood that the contractual relationship between City and Developer is such that Developer is an independent party and is not the agent of City for any PUrpoc.e whatsoever and shall not be considered to 'be the agent of City for any purpose whatsoever. 6. T&L-M 21 Aa_-eomon , The tern, of the Agreement- shall commence on the effective date and shall expire on so long as Developer remains in material cG11-1pilin-00 Agreement, as from time to tiII10 amended. 3 7. cons &ruatio - Developer shall complete construction work for the Project- on the Site, and all phases thereof, including, but not limited to, landscaping and all off-site improvements, pursuant to a building permit or permits issued by City within three (3), years following the Effective Date. Notwithstanding any other tern. or provision of this Agreement, Developer shall complete rough grading of the Site, in accordance with appro',,,ed grading plans, within eighteen.(18) months of the effective date, Subject to the provisions of paragraph 28 hereinbelow, the failure to construct the Project shall. cause this Agreement to b -n void and of no further force and efftectl provided, however, that completion of the car wash portion of the Project, together with all required off-site improvements and perimeter landscaping req-oirements, alla c:oAipliance with the terms of this Agreement Assi nment AD4 Fnicumbrangoo. Developer shall have the right to sellt lease, ground lease, mortgage, hypothecate, assign or transfer all. or any portion of this Site (as may )�e subsequently subdivided) , to any person or entity at any time clkiring the term of thi8 Development Agreenkient. Any such transfer shall be deemed to include an assignment of all rights, duties and - obl igat ions created by this Development Agreement with respect to all or any portion of the Site. The assumption of any or all of the obligations of Developer under this Agreenent pursuant to any such transfer s"nall relieve Developer, without any act or concurrence by the City, of its legal duty to perform those obligations exQ�.,pt to the extant that Developer is in . default with respect to any and all obligations at the time of the proposed transfer. 9. - t _G_P_t�xl PtaLiAar estrictions Per Al-ri-1019 :�_o ja,� An d P of the f!JtA-. The following, spe._-ific restrictions 5hall apply to the use of the Site pursuant to this Development Agrenent: a. Developer shall have the right to develop the Project on the Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and City shall have the right to control development Of the Site in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. b. The density and intensity of use, the uses allowed, the size of proposed building,-,, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the m,-rIximum height of pr<jposecl VLildings and location of public improvements, together with other terms and conditions of developnent applicable to the Site, shall be as set forth in this Development Agreement and the attached Development ,Plan. 4 u t-4 - i is -9 -r UE I I rt :F. M A R K Ill A t-4 nL A R C Z Y H S K I P 0 6,-' 1 Z 7. cons &ruatio - Developer shall complete construction work for the Project- on the Site, and all phases thereof, including, but not limited to, landscaping and all off-site improvements, pursuant to a building permit or permits issued by City within three (3), years following the Effective Date. Notwithstanding any other tern. or provision of this Agreement, Developer shall complete rough grading of the Site, in accordance with appro',,,ed grading plans, within eighteen.(18) months of the effective date, Subject to the provisions of paragraph 28 hereinbelow, the failure to construct the Project shall. cause this Agreement to b -n void and of no further force and efftectl provided, however, that completion of the car wash portion of the Project, together with all required off-site improvements and perimeter landscaping req-oirements, alla c:oAipliance with the terms of this Agreement Assi nment AD4 Fnicumbrangoo. Developer shall have the right to sellt lease, ground lease, mortgage, hypothecate, assign or transfer all. or any portion of this Site (as may )�e subsequently subdivided) , to any person or entity at any time clkiring the term of thi8 Development Agreenkient. Any such transfer shall be deemed to include an assignment of all rights, duties and - obl igat ions created by this Development Agreement with respect to all or any portion of the Site. The assumption of any or all of the obligations of Developer under this Agreenent pursuant to any such transfer s"nall relieve Developer, without any act or concurrence by the City, of its legal duty to perform those obligations exQ�.,pt to the extant that Developer is in . default with respect to any and all obligations at the time of the proposed transfer. 9. - t _G_P_t�xl PtaLiAar estrictions Per Al-ri-1019 :�_o ja,� An d P of the f!JtA-. The following, spe._-ific restrictions 5hall apply to the use of the Site pursuant to this Development Agrenent: a. Developer shall have the right to develop the Project on the Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and City shall have the right to control development Of the Site in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. b. The density and intensity of use, the uses allowed, the size of proposed building,-,, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes, the m,-rIximum height of pr<jposecl VLildings and location of public improvements, together with other terms and conditions of developnent applicable to the Site, shall be as set forth in this Development Agreement and the attached Development ,Plan. 4 i f r- L IC f :LO. Kff _qp , * X 4, t pt g ty gectulations on Dave! Tgjnt Oje - L- -M - _f 2 __ - jq_ Except as expressly provided in this Do-velopment Agreement, all substantive and procedural requirements and provisions contained in city's ordinances, specific plans, rules and regulations, including, but not limited to; the Zoning -ordinance, in effect as of the effective date o -Ar.- this Development 9111greement, shall apply to the construction and development of the Site. a. The provisions of this parag-raph 2.0 shall not preclude the application to the development of the Site those changes in City ordinance,,-, regulations, plans or specifications which are specifically mandated and required by changes in state or federal laws or regulations as provided in Ca'Lifornia Govc-rrament Code Section 65869.5 or any successor provision or provisions. b. The payanent of fees associated with the construction of the Project, including land use approvals, development fees, building permits, etc,, shall be purouant, to those fees ill at the time application is made for such approvals or permits. c. City may apply any and all new ordinances, rules, regulations, plans and specifications to the development of the Site after the eftective date provided such new rules and regulations do not conflict with t'he terms of this Davalopment, Agreement as of the eff6otive date. d. Nothing hereinshallprevent the application of health and safety r�:gulatiolls (i.e., fire, building, seismic, plunbing and electric Codes) that become applicabltt-, to the City as a whole. 11. pOrAIJtt@4 Those uses allowed on the Site shall be as follows: a. per-,0J,tt, p ., Uses. 2. a Q. ry J - -cle -S - W M b. uses Rgauiring Qpnditional Use Permit. C. -Cit-y- Q2Ua,.rJa A-PPIK-0—Ye-I PI Each use which requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall, prior to City accoptance of such application, bc- reviewed and approved by the City Council. The cou1jail's review shall consider, anong other factors, the reputation of restaurant, the experience of the operator and the design of the proposed facility. 12. Annq_ql kqyJpW. During the terry of this Development Agree-mentr City 5hall annually review the ext'Fntl of good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this DeVelOPMent Agreoment. Developer shall file an annual report with the City indicating information regarding compliance with the -term; Of this Development kgreenent no later than March 15 of each calendar year. 13, tlevelop?r agrees to, and shall, hold City 0 ,nts and enploy-O--S and its elected offiCials, officers; ace - harmless from liability for dan.age or claims for damage for ms personal injuries, including death, and clai for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of Developer or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting can Isis behalf which relate to the construction and operation of the Project. Deve1oper agrees to, and shall, defend city and its elected officials, Office�"sr agents and e).Dpioyees with respect to actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of DeVeloper's activities in connection with the Project. a'his hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims fo:: damage suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this Development Agreement regardless oJE whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Project. 1.4. An, Lents, This Agreement may be amended or canceled, in sridir whole or in part, only by mutual written consent of the parties and then in the manner provided for in California Government Code Sections 6586$, et seq., or their successor provisions. 15. r.1no Amandments �; q DaveloPmgnt kLs—jn- upon the written application of Developer, -minor modifications and changes to the Development Plan may he approved by the Director of Community Development pursuant to the terms 02" City's Zoning ordinance. 6 Ut-4— I is .^_ 7 LJ E 1 1 G r -I A R K r -I A t4 sl A Fe C 2: Y N S. K I P 0 S 1 :9 M b. uses Rgauiring Qpnditional Use Permit. C. -Cit-y- Q2Ua,.rJa A-PPIK-0—Ye-I PI Each use which requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit shall, prior to City accoptance of such application, bc- reviewed and approved by the City Council. The cou1jail's review shall consider, anong other factors, the reputation of restaurant, the experience of the operator and the design of the proposed facility. 12. Annq_ql kqyJpW. During the terry of this Development Agree-mentr City 5hall annually review the ext'Fntl of good faith compliance by Developer with the terms of this DeVelOPMent Agreoment. Developer shall file an annual report with the City indicating information regarding compliance with the -term; Of this Development kgreenent no later than March 15 of each calendar year. 13, tlevelop?r agrees to, and shall, hold City 0 ,nts and enploy-O--S and its elected offiCials, officers; ace - harmless from liability for dan.age or claims for damage for ms personal injuries, including death, and clai for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of Developer or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting can Isis behalf which relate to the construction and operation of the Project. Deve1oper agrees to, and shall, defend city and its elected officials, Office�"sr agents and e).Dpioyees with respect to actions for damages caused or alleged to have been caused by reason of DeVeloper's activities in connection with the Project. a'his hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims fo:: damage suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations referred to in this Development Agreement regardless oJE whether or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Project. 1.4. An, Lents, This Agreement may be amended or canceled, in sridir whole or in part, only by mutual written consent of the parties and then in the manner provided for in California Government Code Sections 6586$, et seq., or their successor provisions. 15. r.1no Amandments �; q DaveloPmgnt kLs—jn- upon the written application of Developer, -minor modifications and changes to the Development Plan may he approved by the Director of Community Development pursuant to the terms 02" City's Zoning ordinance. 6 z - -r UE: 1 1 : 1 1 MAF.KMAN ;D AF CZYNv K I F _ 02 16• EnfoXSLWith the sole exception of the provisions set forth in paragraph 2a, in the event of a default under the provisions of this Agreement by Developer, City shall give written notice to Developer (or its successor) by registered or certified mail. addressed at the address stated in this Agreement, and if such violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of City within sixty (60) days after such notice is given, or if not corrected within such reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default if said breach or default cannot be cured within sixty (60) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default must be commenced within said sixty (60) days and must thereafter be diligently pursued by Developer), then City may, without further notice, declare a default under this Agreement and, upon any such declaration of default, City may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of Developer growing out of the operation of this Development Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by Developer of any provision of this Agreement, or apply for such other relief as may be appropriate. 17. BY—Oft of DefaulA. Developer is in default under this Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following events or conditions: a. If a material warranty, representation or statement is made or furnished by Developer to City and is false or proved to have been false in any material respect when it was made; b. If a finding and determination is made by City following an annual review pursuant to paragraph 12 hereinabove, upon the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not complied in good faith with any material terms and conditions of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as described in paragraph 16 hereinabove; or c. A breach by Developer of any of the provisions or terms of this Agreement, after notice and opportunity to cure as provided in paragraph 16 hereinabove. is, n yJalver of Remedie.a. city does not waive any claim of defect in performance by Developer if on periodic review city does not enforce this Agreement. Nonperformance by Developer shall not be excused because performance by Developer of the obligations herein contained would be unprofitable, difficult or expensive or because of a failure of any third party or entity, other than City. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agrecmeint are available to the parties to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Development Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or 7 .. - , .:• � 1.... _:._ s, Gam... .. �_�s: ......_ts .,_..... ,.. ... __........,.., z.. ._ _ ..._ .. .. ....._ ..... .. .� ..... _ _ 'N. 3 UN -16 -92 -TUE 1 1 : 1 a, MARKMAH •i1 ARCZYMSK I P. 02 default under this Development Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder. 19. RJ_qhtk 9f. Lenders V,�X this Agement. Should Developer place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary ("Lender") of said encumbrance or lien shall have the right at any time during the term of this Agreement and the existence of said encumbrance or lien to: a. Do any act or thing required of Developer under this Agreement, and any such act or thing done or performed by Lender shall be as effective as if done by Developer; b. Realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings or power of sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by the security document evidencing the encumbrance or lien (hereinafter referred to as "a trust deed"); c. Transfer, convey or assign the title of Developer to the Project.to any purchaser - at any. foreclosure sale, whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed; and d. Acquire and succeed to the interest of Developer by virtue of any foreclosure sale, whether the fore- closure sale be conducted pursuant to a court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust deed. 20. Notice JLq Lender. City shall give written notice of any default or breach under this Agreement by Developer to Lender (if known by City) and afford Lender the opportunity after service of the notice: to: a. Cure the breach or default within sixty (60) days after service of said notice, where the default can be cured by the payment of money; b. Cure the breach or default within sixty (60) days after service of said notice where the breach or default can be cured by something other than the payment of money and oan be cured within that time; or c. Cure the breach or default in such reasonable time as may be required where something other than payment of money is required to cure the breach E3 TUE 1 1 : 1 - 1-1►= RK P1 AH .sI ARt_`,c.•,•N S K I P _ 04 M M or default and cannot be performed within sixty (60) days after said notice, provided that acts to cure the breach or default are commenced within a sixty (60) day period after service of said notice of.default on Lender by City and are thereafter diligently continued by sender. 21. Aotiop iso LqA49r. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Lender may forestall any action by City for a breach or default ander the terms of this Agreement by Developer by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien on the Project. The proceedings so commenced may be for foreclosltre of the enoumbrance by order of court or for Foreclosure of the encumbrance, under a power of sale contained in the instrument creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not, however, forestall any such action by the City for the default or breach by Developer unless: a. They are commenced within sixty (60) days after service on Developer of the notice described herein- above; b. They are, after having been commenced, diligently pursued in the manner required by law to completion; and Co. Lender keeps and performs all of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement requiring the payment or expenditure of money by Developer until the foreclosure proceedings are complete or aro discharged by redemption, satisfaction or payment. 22. PSot- tgg. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided by certified mail, return receipt requested, at the address of the respective parties as specified .below or at any other such address as may be later specified by the parties hereto: To Developer: To City: 9 - . _ I=> ti r-. Y u e 1 1 1 3 piARF:t• AN M .TJ ARCZ% NS- I M 22e At�0rT1$��a, Fes• In any proceedings arising from the enforcement of this Development Agreement or because of an alleged breach or default hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred during the proceeding as may be nixed within the discretion of the court. 24. pindW Nffeat. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective parties hereto and their legal representatives, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits. 25* pppiis ble Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California. 26. garter I lid ty. If any provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions hereof shall not in anyway be affected or impaired thereby. 27. Req2xdAt jp 'This Agreement shall, at the expense of Developer, be recorded in the official Records of the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles within ten (10) business days following the Effective Date. IN WITNESS THEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties and shall be effective on the effective date set forth hereinabove. CITY of DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation Dated: Mayor Dated: ATTEST: Lynda. Burgess, City clerk City of Diamond Bar 10 T U N- 1 6 --:;:t 2 7 U E 1 1 1 M MARKMAN G) ARCZ ,• NSK— 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF THOS ANGELES ) P _ Fr On , 7991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared and Lynda Burgess proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persons who executed this instrument as Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation existing and organized under the laws of the State of California, and acknowledged to me that the City of Diamond Bar executed it. STATE OF COUNTY OF Notary Public in and for said State On , 1991, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public Jn and for said County and State, personally appeared _ , Managing General Partner, a California Partnership, proved to me on the bas s ofsa�ctory evidence to be the persons who executed this instrument. N11012%DEYAGREE� Notary public in and for said State 11 . i..»:. .._. Lr...._.. .. ...�.1>. :�... .::..-._...i'...i":,.s.'-. -a XL. n_� �r...�r...,....... asl A...... ..::.,. .�.t l....._e. ..._.... .J. �1. x.(..t.._.. .. .,. 4.r.. �.�..+._n �. �.._. _ ......u.. ..� ......_..... �:1 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE USES ON 2.3 ACRES ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES FISCAL. IMPACT ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE USES ON 2.3 ACRES Prepared For: N1999W���N; 1992 E ALFRED LOBAR ASSOCIATES 721 Kimberly Avenue, Placentia, CA 92670-6300 (714) 524-1000 FAX (714) 524-0149 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES CHAPTER PAGE I INTRODUCTION............................................................ 1 II SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................... 7 III CITY REVENUES AND COSTS .......................................... 12 City Revenues: City Costs: PropertyTax .......................................................... ... 12 ............ RetailSales Tax ...................................................... Business License Fees 13 ............................................... Franchise Tax Fees 19 .................................................. 19 Property Transfer Tax ................................................ Public Works Infrastructure ............................................... 20 Per Capita Revenues... ............................................... 21 Other Revenues General Government and Overhead Cost ......................... ....................................................... 22 City Costs: Police Protection ..................................................... FireProtection 23 ........................................................ Parks and Recreation 24 25 ................................................ Public Works Infrastructure 27 ........................................ Population -Based Services .......................................... 29 General Government and Overhead Cost ......................... 29 Revenue and Cost Summary ......................................... 30 EXHIBIT I-1 Subject Site Location Map ................................................... 5 I-2 Development Assumptions for Project Proposal and Alternatives .............................................. 6 II -1 Summary of Net Fiscal Implications Per Acre of Developed Land Use City of Diamond Bar ......................................................... 10 II -2 Summary of Net Fiscal Effect for Project Proposal and Alternatives.................................................... 11 III -1 Estimated Annual Cost of Utility/Franchise Service Consumption Per Developed Acre 32 .......................................................... ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES TABLE OF CONTENTS EXHIBIT PAGE 111-2 Estimated. Annual Franchise Tax Revenue Per Developed Acre .......................................................... 33 111-3 Estimated Cost of Police Protection Per Developed Acre of Land Use .City of Diamond Bar ......................................................... 34 111-4 Summary of Net Fiscal Implications Per Acre of Developed Land Use City of Diamond Bar ......................................................... 35 ii ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES This report summarizes projections of the fiscal implications to the City of Diamond Bar of a proposed development for senior housing consisting of 80 condo flat - style units on 2.3 acres generally located on the northwest corner of Golden Springs Drive and Torito Lane, as shown on the map in Exhibit I -I. This report also summarizes the fiscal implications to the City of Diamond Bar of five development alternatives involving lower density residential land use, and nonresidential retail and office land use. Fiscal implications of the proposed development and development alternatives are described for each project concept at buildout and also expressed in terms of net fiscal effect per acre of developed land use. The Consultants developed estimates of City revenue assigned to alternative forms of land use under consideration at the subject site and converted these to per acre estimates by key revenue source. A per acre cost coefficient to provide public services and maintenance was also calculated on a similar basis for each form of land use. A straight -forward comparison of per acre revenue and cost factors was used to determine the net fiscal implication per acre of land use relative to the proposed development and development alternatives. Fiscal implication of each project concept overall was then calculated allowing for revenue or cost adjustments applicable to development of the site but not necessarily assignable on a per -acre basis to each type of land use considered in the alternatives. Chapter III of this report describes revenue and cost calculations per acre of land use development. Chapter II summarizes per acre revenue and cost calculations and net fiscal effects implied by each development alternative including the applicable proposal. 1 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES Assumptions describing the development proposal and development alternatives are shown in Exhibit I-2. The development alternatives identify project concepts suggested by Planning Department Staff for this comparative fiscal analysis. Alternative A - applicant proposal - is a senior housing development consisting of 80 condo flat -type units built over a ground -level parking garage with an effective density of 35 dwelling units per acre. Unit size and pricing ranges from an 837 -square - foot dwelling with a taxable value of $120,000 to a 1,420 -square -foot dwelling with a taxable value of $180,000. The proposed unit size and pricing structure equates to a value ratio of approximately $143 per square foot for the smallest unit to $127 per square foot for the largest unit. The applicant's proposed pricing schedule is supported by an independent marketing study prepared by The Meyers Group. Total taxable value of Alternative A upon completion is $11,660,000. The net incremental taxable value of the proposed project supporting an increase in property tax revenue streams to the City of Diamond Bar equates to $11,200,528 after deducting the subject site's existing tax base value.of $459,472. Resident population increase induced by Alternative A equals 140 persons based on an assumed average household size of 1.75 persons per household defining the character of senior housing for this development. Alternative B - City -suggested project concept - is a condo flat development designed for the conventional homebuyer market and consist of 46 units constructed over individual garages and assigned carports with an effective density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Unit size and pricing ranges from a 975 -square -foot dwelling with a taxable value of $145,000 to a 1,400 -square -foot dwelling with a taxable value of $195,000. The identified size and pricing structure is consistent with a unit value index of approximately $149 per square foot for the smallest unit to $139 per square foot for the largest unit. Net taxable value of this project concept at completion is $7,550,528. Resident population increase attributable to Alternative B is 128 persons based on an assumed average household size of 2.2 persons per household for units below 1,000 2 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES square feet; 2.9 persons per household for units between 1,000 and 1,400 square feet; and 3.5 persons per household for units above. 1,400 square feet. Alternative C consists of 28 townhomes designed fora conventional homebuyer market with an overall density of 12 dwelling units per acre. Unit size and pricing for this project concept ranges from 1,100 square feet for the smallest dwelling unit with a taxable value of $180,000 to 1,500 square feet for the largest dwelling unit with a taxable value of $220,000. The unit size and pricing structure of this conceptual townhome project equates to a value index of approximately $164 per square foot for the smaller units to $147 per square foot for the largest units. The net incremental taxable value of the development alternative upon completion is $5,140,528. Resident population increase generated by the project equals 86 persons. Alternative D identifies a convenience -oriented retail commercial development with an approximate floor area ratio of 0.25 or overall building area of 25,000 square feet. The retail commercial concept is not expected to require a ground -level parking structure and should support a site development value of $125.00 per square foot of building area or a net incremental taxable value of $2,665,528 upon completion. Alternative E identifies an office commercial project achieving a floor area ratio of approximately 0.35 or 35,000 square feet of building space overall. The conceptual development intensity suggests a ground -level parking structure beneath rentable office space supporting a development value of $125.00 per square foot or a net taxable value of $3,915,528 upon completion. Alternative F identifies a mixed-use development divided equally between retail and office space with an overall floor area ratio of approximately 0.25 or 25,000 square feet of building space. The conceptual development intensity does not suggest a ground - level parking structure will be necessary supporting a development value of $130.00 per square foot or a net incremental taxable value of $2,790,528 upon completion. 3 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES All development alternatives described above are evaluated with respect to the fiscal effects that can be reasonably anticipated from competitively developed and operated projects of similar scope. The fiscal analysis is prepared without benefit of a market-based demand analysis for the project proposal or development alternatives under consideration. Consequently, the fiscal analysis is not a determination of project feasibility or market performance supportable at the subject site location but evaluates the fiscal implication of competitive development consistent with project concepts under consideration for the subject site. 4 z C:)_ H Q V O W i— tn W 7 m N OW N rads r \ 47 -' CLQ � \`. \� '�� / •• I ~ �. �•\•qy./ \\ \ �0 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT I • 2 DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROJECT PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVES Development Taxable Alternative Use Description Intensity Units Sq. Ft Unit Value Total Taxable Value A Condo Flats (Seniors) 35 DU/AC 30 837 $120,000 /unit $3,600,000 (Proposal) 20 1,004 135,000 /unit 2,700,000 20 1,400 178,000 /unit 3,560,000 10 1,420 180.000 /unit 1,800,000 Total 80 $145,750 avg. $11,660,000 12 Less: Existing Tax Base' 459,472 Net: Taxable Value $11,200,528 (Project induced resident population for Alternative A equals 140 persons.) • • $ 8,010,000 B Condc Flats (Conv.) 20 DU/AC 8 975 $145,000 /unit $1,160,000 12 1,100 160,000 /unit 1,920,000 14 1,300 185,000 /unit 2,590,000 12 1,400 195.000 /unit 2,340,000 Total 46 $174,130 avg. $ 8,010,000 Less: Existing Tax Base • 459.472 Net: Taxable Value $7,550,528 (Project induced resident population for Alternative B equals 128 persons.) • • C Townhomes (Conv.) 121DU/AC 8 1,100 $180,000 /unit $1,440,000 12 1,300 200,000 /unit 2,400,000 8 1,500 220,000 /unit 1,760,000 Total 28 $200,000 avg. $5,600,000 Less: Existing Tax Base* 459,472 Net: Taxable Value $5,140,528 (Project induced resident population for Alternative C equals 86 persons.)' ` D Retail Commercial 0.25 FAR 25,000 $125 /sq.ft. $3,125,000 Less: Existing Tax Base` 459,472 Net: Taxable Value $2,665,528 E Office Commercial 0.35 FAR 35,000 $125 /sq.ft. $4,375,000 Less: Existing Tax Base* 459,472 Net: Taxable Value $3,915,528 F Retail/Office (50/50) 0.25FAR 25,000 $130 /sq.ft. $3,250,000 Less: Existing Tax Base* 459,472 Net: Taxable Value $2,790,528 Note: Existing tax base value reflects current 1991-92 taxable value of the subject site. • • Project induced resident population based on assumption of average household size equal to 1.75 per/hshld for all age restricted senior housing; 2.2 per/hshld for conventional units below 1,000 sq. ft.; 2.9 per/hshld for units 1,000 to 1,400 sq. ft.; and 3.5 per/hshid for units above 1,400 sq. ft. Source: Alfred Gobar Associates diamond\assume.xis 8 ALFRED LOBAR ASSOCIATES 1. Revenue and cost implications related to major classes of land use characterizing alternative development concepts considered for the subject site location are noted in Exhibit II -1 based on per acre increment of development. The net fiscal effect per developed acre of land use reflects revenue and cost structures of the City of Diamond Bar and serves as a basis to determine the overall impact from each of six development alternatives under consideration, including the applicant's proposal. Revenue and cost factors supporting the Consultant's per acre estimate of fiscal effect are evaluated in detail in Chapter III of this analysis. 2. Property tax revenue generated from land use development at the subject site and at other locations Citywide is uncharacteristically low - one-third to one-fourth the level of property tax typically received per dollar of taxable value - for this source of revenue. Citywide, the average proportion of the 1.0 percent basic property tax levy allocated to the City of Diamond Bar is below 4.5 percent and less than 4.0 percent at the subject site location. Net fiscal performance per acre of developed land use activity being considered at the subject site is diminished due to restricted property tax revenue streams. Net fiscal performance per acre of garden -office style development is particularly impacted since property tax revenue is the primary source of income offsetting the cost of public services associated with this land use. 3. Net fiscal effect on the City of Diamond Bar of the project proposal and alternative development concepts considered for the subject site is summarized in Exhibit III -2. Alternative A, the applicant's proposal, implies the second largest net cash flow benefit to the City among all six alternative development concepts considered with an annual income stream of $12,750 and revenue cost ratio of VA 4. G1 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES 3.00:1.00. The calculated revenue/cost ratio describes the relationship between revenues generated and maintenance or service obligations created. Alternative B, condo flats at 20 dwelling units per acre, implies the third highest level of net fiscal benefit to the City among the residential alternatives - $11,047 a year - and the highest revenue/cost ratio of the residential alternatives - 3.23:1.00. Based on the figures shown in Exhibits II -1 and 11-2, it would appear that retail development at the site location represents the most significant fiscal benefit to the community among alternatives considered. It is the Consultant's position, however, that as a practical matter, retail development at the site will generate a negligible net increase in retail sales tax revenues received by the City and actually dilute current levels of taxable sales for existing City -based retail merchants. Due to the limited project scale and site size, realistic potential for a competitive retail anchor attracting consumers from beyond the City limits or capturing current consumer expenditure outleakage to other cities is minimal. Retail development at the site under concept Alternatives D or F will exacerbate an existing City-wide problem of low taxable sales achieved per square foot of retail space - $88 per square foot in Diamond Bar versus $145 per square foot typically in Southern California - by increasing the amount of convenience - oriented retail space now in oversupply. Discounting retail sales tax revenue of Alternatives D and F to reflect negligible net fiscal benefit to the City from this revenue source, the fiscal implication of retail development at the site based on the Consultant's investigation detailed in Chapter III is as follows: Alternative Revenues Cost Net Revenue/Cost Ratio D $1,198 F $1,454 $4,505 $ <3,307> $4,505 $ < 3,051 > N. 0.27:1.00 0.32:1.00 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES 6. The negative fiscal implication of retail development that does not effectively increase net sales tax revenue above the level currently received by the City underscores the importance and need for a strong retail anchor and points out the dilemma created by an existing property tax revenue structure that significantly restricts income potential typically associated with the ad volerum benefits of non-residential development. 9 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT II - 1 SUMMARY OF NET FISCAL IMPLICATIONS PER ACRE OF DEVELOPED LAND USE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Residential Commercial Commercial Ret./Off. Condo @ Condo @ Condo 0 Retail @ Office 0 Mix 0 12 DU/AC 20 DU/AC 35 DU/AC FAR=0.25 FAR=0.35 FAR=0.25 Revenue: 1. Property Tax 2. Retail Sales Tax 3. Business License Fees 4. Franchise Tax Fees S. Property Transfer Tax 6. Per Capita Revenue Total Revenue Per Acre Cost: 1. Police Protection 2. Fire Protection 3. Parks and Recreation 4. Public Works S. Pop. Based Services Subtotal 6. General Government and Overhead @21.01%/2 Total Cost Per Acre Net Fiscal Benefit/<Cost> Per Acre Revenue/Cost Ratio $858 $1,260 $1,869 $445 *653 $549 1,420 2,086 2,271 9,578 NEG. $4,789 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 207 318 537 76 90 $83 59 84 127 NEG. NEG. NEG. 2,138 3,182 3,480 N/A N/A N/A $4,682 $6,930 $8,284 $10,099 $743 $5,421 $850 $948 $948 $1,749 $1,749 $1,749 NIA N/A N/A N/A NIA N/A 728 903 1,453 NEG. NEG. NEG. 14 14 14 14 14 14 11 50 55 N/A N/A N/A $1,603 $1,915 $2,470 $1,763 $1,763 $1,763 168 201 259 185 185 185 $1,771 $2,116 $2,729 $1,948 $1,948 $1,948 $2,911 $4,814 $5,555 $8,151 ($1,205) $3,473 2.64:1.00 3.27:1.00 3.04:1.00 5.18:1.00 0.38:1.00 2.78:1.00 Public Works maintenance cost estimate is for traffic safety signage and stripping only and does not reflect cost associated with traffic signal maintenance. Refer to Exhibit analysis of specific development alternatives for consideration of traffic signal maintenance cost. Source: Alfred Gobar Associates; City of Diamond Bar 1991.92 Operating Budget. dismond\feel l .xis U) W L W z LL Li: LL W W J N � Q LU m 'J X z LU LL IL 00 >. CC a LU �v O N cr. CL Z0 m :, In ;N co cv h C4 m r- �'-- c0 00 N h N Q U <CI N X G G G 9 G C N o M N LL LL 0 O d V a p Oc O tl O II II C C _ t- O f0 N Q o m V O W W CL LO NC14 FZI O M00 M It O N cop .- M h M M N tri O N In ;N co cv h C4 m r- �'-- c0 00 N h N Q U <CI N X G G G 9 G C N o M N LL LL 0 O d V a p Oc O tl O II II C C _ t- O f0 N Q o m V O W W CL LO NC14 FZI M � CO h n00 � "' N c0 h N LO Nco ri h h C14 CO h h fA co N h N LA N to In In Ln N N N N. N O O O p p In ;N co cv h C4 m r- �'-- c0 00 N h N Q U <CI N X G G G 9 G C N o M N LL LL 0 O d V a p Oc O tl O II II C C _ t- O f0 N Q o m V O W W CL AMi CITY REVENUES AND COSTS CITY REVENUES: 1. Property Tax ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES Property tax revenue generated from development at the subject site is defined by the taxable value of each development alternative, current tax base value of the subject site, and the Tax Rate Area dictating the proportionate share of property tax revenue ultimately received by the City of Diamond Bar. The subject site described as Assessor Parcel Number 821-010-055 has a current 1991/92 assessed value of $459,472 and is within Tax Rate Area 10010. The City of Diamond receives property tax revenues based on its proportionate share of the basic 1.0 percent property tax imposed under Proposition 13. The City's proportionate share of property tax is equal to 3.8385975 percent of the basic 1.0 percent levy. The project site in its current vacant condition generates approximately $176.00 a year in property tax revenue to the City of Diamond Bar. Utilizing the tax rate distribution of 0.038385975, net property tax increases generated by each development alternative overall and per acre of development is noted below as follows: Citywide, less than 4.5 percent of the 1.0 percent basic property tax levy is distributed to the City of Diamond Bar. In contrast, other recently incorporated communities throughout Southern California have received from 12.0 to 14.0 percent of the basic property tax levy on a Citywide basis. The rate of property tax distribution 12 Annual Property Tax Revenue Net Taxable Project Per Acre of Alternative Value Overall Development A $11,200,528 $4,299 $1,869 B 7,550,528 2,898 1,260 C 5,140,528 1,973 858 D 2,665,528 1,023 445 E 3,915,528 1,503 653 F 2,790,528 1,071 466 Citywide, less than 4.5 percent of the 1.0 percent basic property tax levy is distributed to the City of Diamond Bar. In contrast, other recently incorporated communities throughout Southern California have received from 12.0 to 14.0 percent of the basic property tax levy on a Citywide basis. The rate of property tax distribution 12 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES characterizing this element of revenue to the City restricts fiscal performance of all developed land uses including the alternatives. under consideration. In particular, office development is disproportionately affected since a large measure of its fiscal performance is dependent upon. property tax revenues generated. 2. Retail Sales Tax Retail sales tax revenue derivative of alternative developments being considered at the project site can be estimated on the basis of residential and retail commercial land use elements that may be developed. For Alternatives A, B, and C, retail sales tax revenue is generated from retail expenditures by residents of the concept development. For Alternatives D and F, retail sales tax revenue is received by the City via taxable retail sales performance achieved by stores operating at the developed project site. Alternative E proposes office activity which does not achieve significant levels of taxable retail sales and therefore retail sales tax from this development concept is considered negligible. To a large degree, retail sales tax revenue attributable to resident expenditures and taxable sales performance achieved by the retail shops represent two different manifestations of the same source for retail sales tax revenue received by the City, i.e., consumers are the source of retail sales taxes, stores are a vehicle to capture these sales. The ability of each development alternative to generate increased retail sales tax revenue to the City determines its fiscal efficiency with respect to this revenue source. Taxable expenditures from new residents buying or locating in new housing developments within the City represent an increase in sales tax revenue based on their level of taxable expenditures and the proportion of total taxable expenditures that flow to merchants located within the City. The resident population of any given market area also represents the basis of support for sales achieved at retail outlets. Retail facilities are developed in response to growing consumer demand for goods and services which may be offered at a given retail location. The ability of City -based merchants to capture 13 ALFRED LOBAR ASSOCIATES taxable expenditures from consumers residing outside the City limits or capture expenditures by City residents that are otherwise made outside the City determines the level of fiscal efficiency achieved by a new retail facility in generating net increases in retail sales tax revenue. To the extent taxable sales performance achieved at retail facilities within the City reflect existing taxable expenditure pattern of City residents, sales tax revenues realized should be attributed to those housing developments generating an increase in resident population. In contrast, retail facilities are fiscally efficient in terms of sales tax revenue generated when taxable sales performance exceeds the potential for taxable expenditures by City residents in the market area, i.e., by filling a market void not currently met by the existing supply of retail facilities, or drawing consumers from beyond the City limits. Without an independent analysis to determine market demand for additional retail space at the site location, fiscal efficiency of development Alternatives D and F is subject to considerable speculation. When the supply of retail facilities in the City is increased without a corresponding increase in consumer support or capture of consumer support beyond the City limits, the increase in taxable sales revenue to the City is likely to be negligible. Unwarranted increases in the supply of retail space dilutes consumer expenditures among an increased number of merchants and results in no net increase in retail sales tax revenues to the City. The basis of estimating sales tax revenue potential from development Alternatives A, B, and C relies on an estimate of household incomes implied by assumed housing values of each project concept as noted in Exhibit I-2 (Chapter I). It is assumed owner households will take on mortgage debt equal to one-third their gross income. Mortgage debt is assumed at 90.0 percent of unit value for conventional housing products proposed in Alternatives B and C, and 70.0 percent of unit value for the senior housing product proposed in Alternative A. Further, it is assumed that households at the site location 14 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES will make 60.0 percent of their taxable expenditures at retail establishments within the City of Diamond Bar. The average home value identified for Alternative A is $145,750, implying gross household income of $34,000 per year on average based on income assumptions described above. Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, summarized in a consumer expenditure survey for 1986 and adjusted for inflation since 1986, the proportion of total income spent on taxable retail purchases is 37.6 percent of gross household income for households with a 1992 gross average income of $34,000. Retail expenditures are income elastic. Lower income households spend a larger percentage of their income on taxable retail purchases than do higher income households. Likewise, senior households spend a smaller proportion of their gross income on taxable expenditures than is true for an average household with an annual gross income of $34,000. Specifically, seniors tend to spend less for durable goods including vehicle purchases, building materials, furniture and appliances, which constitute roughly 20.0 percent of annual taxable expenditures for households at this income level. Based on these factors, the proportion of taxable expenditures made by senior households identified under development Alternative A is estimated at approximately 32.0 percent of gross household income or $10,880 a year in taxable expenditures per household. This level of household expenditure equates to $6,528 of taxable expenditures per household occurring at retail establishments based within the City of Diamond Bar. Taxable expenditure potential and corresponding retail sales tax revenue to the City is identified for development Alternative A in terms of the project overall and per acre of development as follows: Alternative A Total Taxable Sales in Diamond Bar Sales Tax Revenue to City (1% of Total) 15 Project Per Acre of Overall Development $522,290 227,061 5,222 2,271 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES Alternative B has an identified average home value equal to $174,130. The average home value for this project concept suggests gross household incomes equal to $52,200 on average. Total taxable expenditures for these households, therefore, is equal to 33.3 percent of their gross income or $17,380 per year in total taxable expenditures. Taxable expenditures realized by retail merchants within the City of Diamond Bar is estimated at $10,428 on average for resident households pertinent to development Alternative B. Total taxable sales occurring in Diamond Bar and the corresponding retail sales tax revenue generated under Alternative B is described for the project overall and per acre of development as follows: Project Per Acre of Overall Development Total Taxable Sales in Diamond Bar $479,688 $208,560 Sales Tax Revenue to City (1 % of Total) 4,797 2,086 Alternative C implies an average home value of $200,000. The corresponding gross household income suggested by the estimated average home values of this project concept is $60,000 per year per household on average. Total taxable expenditures are equal to 32.4 percent of gross household income, or $19,440 on average per year per household for households in this income class. Taxable expenditures occurring at establishments within the City of Diamond Bar are estimated at $11,664 on average per year per household from this alternative project concept. Total taxable sales occurring in Diamond Bar and the corresponding retail sales tax revenue is identified for the project overall and per acre of development as follows: Project Per Acre of Overall Development Total Taxable Sales in Diamond Bar $326,592 $141,997 Sales Tax Revenue to City (1 % of Total) 3,266 19420 Fiscal review of larger -scale residential projects generally warrants an investigation of revenue potential from induced retail development implied by retail expenditure potential of the resident population created. Because the residential 16 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES development alternatives imply modest increases in the number of consumer households, coupled with restricted revenue potential related to property tax revenues, business license fees, and permit processing fees available to the City of Diamond Bar, these secondary elements of revenue were not considered for retail development which may be induced by either of these three residential development alternatives. Fiscal efficiency, of retail development not only depends on actual sales performance achieved but also the ability of store operations to capture consumer expenditure not previously made in the City. The key question, therefore, is whether new stores operating at the site would attract new shoppers to Diamond Bar, capture sales that now leak out of the City, or merely redistribute sales tax revenue that would flow to the City General Fund in any case. Notwithstanding the issue of fiscal efficiency, the Consultant estimates retail sales performance that can be reasonably expected at the site on the basis of sales levels achieved at retail facilities Citywide. General indices of retail sales performance achieved by many Southern California communities on an aggregate basis would imply taxable sales levels equal to $145 per square foot. In the City of Diamond Bar, however, the Consultant estimates sales performance on a square -foot basis to be significantly lower based on taxable sales information and directed studies supporting the General Plan. The supportable level of convenience retail floor space is about 28.0 square feet per capita. The General Plan Consultants to Diamond Bar identified an inventory of 1.9 million square feet of retail development in the City in 1990 - approximately 35.45 square feet per capita relative to the City's population. The bulk of retail floor space in Diamond Bar is convenience shopping. Achieved sales in Diamond Bar, therefore, should be 79.0 percent of "typical" taxable sales per square foot for this type of retail space in Southern California or 0.79 x $145 = $114.53 per square foot. Actual reported taxable sales in Diamond Bar in 1990 - $167,449,000 was equivalent to $88.13 17 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES per square foot for the inventory of 1.9 million square feet of retail floor space in the City. This low sales volume per square foot in Diamond Bar suggests that the low level of retail sales tax revenue per capita population in Diamond Bar in 1990 (55.0 percent of the County average) is not a reflection of an inadequate inventory of floor space and is more likely the product of a mix of merchants that does not include enough strong anchor tenants. Development of the site for retail uses is therefore likely to exacerbate the problem of low sales per square foot and not induce a measurable increase in total net sales tax collections. At best, retail development at the site is likely to achieve $88.13 per square foot in taxable sales on the basis of aggregate City-wide performance. For Alternative D, taxable sales achieved for the project overall is equal to $2,203,250 annually. Retail sales tax revenues received by the City are equal to a 1.0 percent share of the general sales tax levy for all retail transactions. For this alternative project concept, annual retail sales tax revenue received by the City as a result of taxable retail sales achieved at the project site location is equal to $22,033 a year or $9,579 per developed acre per year. Even this level is not expected to be a net increase being achieved at the expense of existing merchants. Alternative F involves a 50-50 mix of retail office use and identifies 12,500 square feet of gross leasable building space directed to retail activities. For this level of retail development, total taxable retail sales achieved on site is equal to $1,101,625 annually. Retail sales tax revenue received by the City as a result of sales achieved on site is equal to $11,016 per year, or $4,789 per developed acre per year. Fiscal efficiency of retail development at the site, in terms of net increase in total retail sales tax received, is expected to be minimal. The site is too small to accommodate an anchor tenant likely to attract other than convenience goods shoppers. The taxable sales performance index - $88.13 per square foot - assignable to retail development at the site, actually in large measure, represent sales that would be captured ALFRED LOBAR ASSOCIATES elsewhere in Diamond Bar whether the project concepts of Alternatives D and F are constructed or not. 3. Business License Fees The City of Diamond Bar currently does not collect business license fees from establishments located within its jurisdiction. The County of Los Angeles currently collects business license fees but claims all revenues received are used to offset the cost of administrating and collecting said fees. Consequently, the City does not receive business license revenue from fees paid by local establishments and this revenue element is not considered as part of this fiscal evaluation. 4. Franchise Tax Fees The City of Diamond Bar collects franchise tax revenues from Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas, and Jones Intercable for television cable service offered within the City. Franchise fees received by the City generally are based on a percentage of gross receipts taken in by each franchise operation as a result of utility and franchise service consumption occurring within the City boundaries. Estimates of annual consumption cost for the affected utilities and franchise services demanded by those land use activities in each development alternative are noted in Exhibit III -l. Utility and cable service consumption cost were estimated from information provided by Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas, and City records describing cable service revenues and subscriptions. Franchise fees for gas and electric utilities are calculated on the basis of a complex equation which incorporates the value of distribution facilities within the City, the value of utility throughput, and other factors. In no case, however, is the franchise fee less than 1.0 percent of the total gross receipts from the sale of gas and electric utilities to consumers within the City. The Consultants use an estimate of 1.0 percent of totalgross receipts for the sale of gas and electricity to determine franchise fee revenue from these utility franchises. City franchise fees collected for cable television service is 19 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES equal to 5.0 percent of annual gross receipts from subscription and other cable services offered. Estimated annual franchise tax revenue per developed acre of land use identified in each development alternative is shown in Exhibit I11-2. 5. Property Transfer Tax Cities in California receive half the property transfer taxes collected at the time of the sale of privately -owned real estate. The City's share of revenue from this source is $0.55 per $1,000 of market value for property transferred. The 1991-92 City operating budget projects property transfer tax revenues equal to $70,000 implying total market value of property transferred equal to approximately $127,272,800. By comparison, estimated City-wide assessed value for 1991-92 is $2.92 billion. The implicit turnover rate suggested by property transfers is equal to 4.4 percent of total City-wide assessed value turned over on an annual basis. For purpose of this fiscal analysis and in order to provide a conservative estimate related to this revenue source, the City-wide turnover rate is only calculated for residential land use elements identified. Nonresidential development normally involves a longer holding period for investment purposes than is true for owner -occupied residential units on average. Annualized transfer tax revenue streams related to nonresidential land use elements, therefore, are not considered. Total taxable value transferred annually for Alternatives A, B, and C, and the corresponding transfer tax revenue received by the City is noted below as follows: Taxable Value Transferred Annually Annual Transfer Alternative Project Overall Per Developed Acre Tax Revenue Per Acre A $11,660,000 $5,069,565 $127 . B 8,010,000 3,482,609 84 C 5,600,000 2,434,783 59 20 ALFRED LOBAR ASSOCIATES 6. Per Capita Revenues Cities in California derive a significant portion of their operating revenues from subventions from other agencies, user fees, etc. A summary of revenue sources of this type to the City of Diamond Bar based on the 1991-92 operating budget is as follows: Total Revenue PerCapita Motor Vehicle License Fee $2,700,000 $36.43 Cigarette Tax 80,500 1.09 Vehicle Code Fines 114,000 2.02 Other Fines and Forfeitures 47,500 0.84 Gas Tax Funds 1.244.250 16.79 Revenue Total $4,186,250 $57.17 These revenue sources generally can be defined on a per capita basis reflecting common methods used for appropriation and the basis for revenue generation. Vehicle code fines and other fines and forfeitures noted above reflect fines and charges from violations of the traffic and City codes occurring within Diamond Bar. Motor vehicle license fees, cigarette tax, and gas tax funds are subventions received from the State and generally based on per capita formulas defining the level of revenue support. The per capita revenue figures noted above reflect alternative population levels used to define per capita revenues ultimately received by the City of Diamond Bar. State subventions are based on a City-wide population of 74,115 persons - three times the registered voters at time of City incorporation. Total per capita revenue received from State subventions will be paid until the 1996-97 fiscal year based on per capita formulas reflecting voter registration at the time of incorporation. After the 1996- 97 fiscal year, State subventions will be paid based on current population levels. The Consultant uses an estimate of current population to define per capita revenues from vehicle code fines and other fines and forfeitures. In 1990, the decennial Census identified 53,500 persons in the City of Diamond Bar. The Consultant uses an estimated January 1, 1992 population of 56,500 persons reflecting the State Department of Finance population estimates for January 1, 1991 and an annual average growth rate 21 ' ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES of 3.8 percent as described by the General Plan Consultant's projection of growth within the City through 1995. Per_capita revenues described above are applicable to residential elements of the alternative developments being. considered. Per capita revenues that can be reasonably anticipated from Alternatives A, B, and C on an annual basis are described below for each project overall and per acre of development: Project Project Generated Per Capita Revenue Alternative Population Overall Per Acre A 140 $8,004 $3,480 128 7,318 3,182 C 86 4,916 2,138 Because Alternatives D, E, and F do not involve permanent resident population, per capita revenue streams are not estimated for these project concepts. 7. Other Revenues Another source of revenue related to development of new projects is one-time revenues from development fees - building permits; processing fees; plan -check fees; engineering permits; and other building, engineering and planning fees for services. To the extent these revenues exceed the cost of providing development services, they represent an additional source of financial benefit to the City. In the City of Diamond Bar, those departments responsible for performing development-rdlated services include planning, building and safety, and engineering. The budget for these cost centers as well as appropriate department -generated revenues described in the 1991-92 Operating Budget are noted below as follows: 1991-92 Net Generated Effective Function Operating Budget Revenues Benefit/ < Cost > Planning $392,150* $50,000 $ <342,150> Building 280,000 286,450 6,450 Engineering 201,100 140,000 <61.100> $893,150 $476,450 $ <396,800> *Excludes special study allocation of $100,000 for City General Plan. 22 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES Projected revenues from permits, fees, etc., are about 53.0 percent of the projected operating cost for development -related functions. Net cost of these departments, therefore, is $396,800 a year. Development -related service fees are not likely, therefore, to represent a net financial benefit from the project and are more likely to represent a cost. The net cost of providing development -related services to development at the project site location has been included in the cost section of this Chapter as part of non - allocable overhead costs of City government in Diamond Bar. CITY COSTS 1. Police Protection Police protection services are provided to the City of Diamond Bar under a Contract Services Agreement with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. County Sheriff patrol units which provide police protection operate out of the Walnut/San Dimas regional substation located approximately two miles from Downtown Diamond Bar. The regional substation houses approximately 275 personnel including 150 sworn officers. The Contract Services Agreement assigns approximately 18 patrol cars and 29 patrol deputies to the City of Diamond Bar. In addition, the Contract Services Agreement designates 9.5 sworn personnel to non -patrol duties including detective investigation, community service, drug prevention, crime prevention, and collateral management and supervision. In all, approximately 38.5 full-time equivalent sworn officer positions provide police protection to the City of Diamond. The 1991-92 City operating budget allocates a total cost of $3,953,156 a year for the Contract Services provided. This cost item includes general administration and overhead related to police protection requirements. The cost does not include operating budgets for animal control and emergency preparedness addressed elsewhere in this fiscal analysis. 23 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES In order to make a reasonable assignment of costs for additional police protection services that can be anticipated by alternative forms of development under consideration at the subject site, the Consultant assigns such service cost on the basis of developed land use acreage being served. Different types of land use demand alternative levels of police services. A per capita method of assigning police costs is not used since this cost assignment approach distorts the true cost of services among a broad range of land uses demanding police protection. Assuming a per capita method of assigning costs for police protection, resulting cost calculations would suggest nonresidential elements of land use do not require police protection services. In reality; this is not true. Both residential and nonresidential land use activities within the City of Diamond demand police protection services. The Consultant, therefore, uses an index cost assignment for alternative forms of land use based on detailed studies of police service costs in other Southern California.communities. Based on the 1991-92 Net Operating Budget for police protection and a 1990 survey of developed land uses, the total and average cost per acre of developed land use is identified in Exhibit I11-3. Total police service cost assignable to each development alternative on the basis of this approach is described as follows: Annual Cost of Police Protection Alternative Project Overall Per Developed Acre A $1,955 $ 850 B 2,180 948 C 2,180 948 D 4,021 1,749 E 4,021 1,749 F 4,021 1,749 2. Fire Protection Fire protection services extended to all developed portions of the City of Diamond Bar plus large amounts of vacant land within the City is provided by the Consolidated Fire District of Los Angeles County. The Consolidated Fire District is a separate taxing jurisdiction supported by a proportionate share of the basic 1.0 percent 24 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES property tax levy charged against all taxable properties. At the subject site location, the Consolidated Fire District's proportionate share is equal to 16.8 percent. The City of Diamond Bar incurs limited fire protection costs totaling $7,526 annually as allocated in the 199.1-92 operating budget. This minor cost obligation is limited to open land protection for areas not within the Consolidated Fire Protection District. This cost element is not applicable to the subject site location. The cost of fire protection of land use development ultimately occurring at the site is the fiscal responsibility of the Consolidated Fire Protection District and is supported by the corresponding property tax revenues received by said Agency. 3. Parks and Recreation Parks and recreation costs are identified as a cost center of the Community Services Division as detailed within the 1991-92 Operating Budget. Community service operations describing parks and recreation duties include City provided parks maintenance directed to eight improved park sites and recreation services provided . through a Contract Services Agreement with the City of Brea. The Community Services Division budget allocated to parks maintenance includes parks administration and parks maintenance functions which total $339,775 a year. The City of Diamond Bar has ten dedicated park locations totalling 134.9 acres, of which eight park locations are improved and total 59.4 acres. Parks maintenance cost is assigned per acre of developed park land and totals $5,720 per acre per year for the improved park sites served. Site development alternatives involving housing elements are subject to Quimby Act regulation that requires park land dedication per increment of population generated. An acquisition fee may be paid in lieu of park acreage dedication. The formula used by the City to determine acreage or fee requirements for residential developments is as follows: 25 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES In -Lieu Fee = 0.003 x Number of Units (U) x Project Factor (P) = Acreage Dedication Where: P = 3.4 for Single Family Detached 2.9 for Townhome 2.1 for Condo Flat/Apartment 2.0 for Mobile Home Fee obligation in lieu of acreage dedication must reflect the market value of land area required. The fee structure is designed to secure sufficient revenues so that the City can acquire park acreage for those residential developments unable to dedicate such acreage at the site development location. Regardless of which medium - fee or acreage - is used to meet Quimby Act requirements as adopted by the City, residential development results in long-term parks maintenance obligations to the City of Diamond Bar. Long-term parks maintenance obligation derivative of Alternatives A, B, and C is noted for the project overall and per acre of development as follows: Annual Park Maintenance youth and adult sports, concerts in the park, etc. The .1991-92 Operating Budget Allocation is $312,000 a year and includes program -related administration provided by the Contract Agency. Programs offered generate user fees which offset a portion of the total contract agreement cost. Annual program revenues total $130,000 reducing the net City cost of recreation programs to $182,000 a year. Recreation programs offered reflect a population based service. The Consultant estimated population for the 1991-92 fiscal year is 55,600 persons implying a net service cost of $3.27 per capita. Net program service cost implied by the resident population of Alternatives A, B, and C is shown for the project overall and per acre of development as follows: 26 Acreage Project Per Acre of Alternative Units Unit Type Dedication Overall Development A 80 Condo 0.50 $2,883 $1,253. B 46 Condo 0.29 1,658 721 C 28 Townhome 0.24 1,393 606 Contract recreation program services include such activities as leisure classes, youth and adult sports, concerts in the park, etc. The .1991-92 Operating Budget Allocation is $312,000 a year and includes program -related administration provided by the Contract Agency. Programs offered generate user fees which offset a portion of the total contract agreement cost. Annual program revenues total $130,000 reducing the net City cost of recreation programs to $182,000 a year. Recreation programs offered reflect a population based service. The Consultant estimated population for the 1991-92 fiscal year is 55,600 persons implying a net service cost of $3.27 per capita. Net program service cost implied by the resident population of Alternatives A, B, and C is shown for the project overall and per acre of development as follows: 26 ALFRED LOBAR ASSOCIATES Total parks and recreation cost obligations of the City derivative of each development alternative involving residential elements is noted below for the project overall and per acre of development as follows: Annual Cost for Parks and Recreation Project Per Acre of Alternative Overall Development A $3,341 $1,453 B 2,077 903 C 1,675 728 4. Public Works Infrastructure Long-term maintenance and service obligations of the City of Diamond Bar Public Works Division are directed to roadway maintenance. Within the City, approximately 157 roadway miles plus 35 signalized intersections are maintained. A direct Operating Budget expense of $1,139,150 a year is allocated for roadway maintenance excluding the cost of public works administration and engineering overhead. Direct roadway maintenance cost incurred City-wide, therefore, is $7,256 per centerline mile or $3,628 per mile of parcel frontage abutting a public roadway. No additional roadway, widening, or expansion improvements will be required for any of the development alternatives under consideration. Different levels of traffic system management improvements, however, may be required for developments at the subject site in order to mitigate traffic movement and safety concerns identified by the engineering department. Possible roadway enhancements include traffic safety, striping, and signage to restrict turn movements at the corner of Golden Springs Drive and Torito Lane or intersection signalization to control traffic movement. Consequently, ongoing maintenance cost obligation created by development at the site location is defined by 27 Annual Cost of Recreation Pr rams Alternative Project Population Protect Per Acre of Overall Development A _ 14.0 __128 $458 $199 B 419 182 C S6 282 122 Total parks and recreation cost obligations of the City derivative of each development alternative involving residential elements is noted below for the project overall and per acre of development as follows: Annual Cost for Parks and Recreation Project Per Acre of Alternative Overall Development A $3,341 $1,453 B 2,077 903 C 1,675 728 4. Public Works Infrastructure Long-term maintenance and service obligations of the City of Diamond Bar Public Works Division are directed to roadway maintenance. Within the City, approximately 157 roadway miles plus 35 signalized intersections are maintained. A direct Operating Budget expense of $1,139,150 a year is allocated for roadway maintenance excluding the cost of public works administration and engineering overhead. Direct roadway maintenance cost incurred City-wide, therefore, is $7,256 per centerline mile or $3,628 per mile of parcel frontage abutting a public roadway. No additional roadway, widening, or expansion improvements will be required for any of the development alternatives under consideration. Different levels of traffic system management improvements, however, may be required for developments at the subject site in order to mitigate traffic movement and safety concerns identified by the engineering department. Possible roadway enhancements include traffic safety, striping, and signage to restrict turn movements at the corner of Golden Springs Drive and Torito Lane or intersection signalization to control traffic movement. Consequently, ongoing maintenance cost obligation created by development at the site location is defined by 27 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES appropriate maintenance requirements for signage and striping or signalization improvements being considered. The 1991-92 Operating Budget allocates $60,000 a year for maintenance of roadway signage and striping improvements provided for traffic safety and control. Ongoing cost obligations incurred by the Public Works Division for these improvements is $382 a year per roadway mile or $191 a year per mile of parcel frontage abutting public roadways. The project site is a 2.3 -acre parcel with an "L" configuration and roadway frontage along Golden Springs Drive and Torito Lane. Total roadway frontage of the site is 452 lineal feet. Annual maintenance cost for roadway signage and striping allocable to the site, therefore, is $33 a year or $14 a year per developed acre. Ongoing maintenance of signalized intersections cost the City $90,000 per year for maintenance and electricity according to the 1991-92 Operating Budget and Public Works expenditure records for utilities. On average, the annual cost of maintenance per signalized intersection within the City is $2,571 per year. Engineering Department consideration of intersection signalization at Golden Springs Drive and Torito Lane has been initiated by the prospect of development at the site location. The corresponding maintenance cost obligation, however, is allocated on a fair share basis according to the development's proportionate share of peak hour traffic flows, specifically intersection utilization attributable to Development Alternative A. A traffic impact analysis prepared by Weston, Pringle and Associates identifies Alternative A's contribution to intersection utilization equal to 2.8 percent of peak hour traffic flows. Assuming 20.0 percent of peak hour traffic flow is attributable to ambient traffic, the site development's effective share of traffic flow increases to 3.5 percent. This cost allocation adjustment is necessary since ambient traffic, presumably from beyond the City limits, involves land uses for which cost recovery is not realistically feasible. Based on these assumptions describing a fair share cost allocation, the annual maintenance cost attributable to site development is $90 a year or $39 per developed acre. M ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES 5. Population -Based Services Other population -based services supported through the General Fund but not previously discussed include animal control. Animal control is provided by the Pomona Valley Humane Society through a Contract Services Agreement costing the City $50,000 a year. This contract service, however, does not generate revenues (license fees, etc.) retrievable by the City of Diamond Bar to offset the total cost of contract services. The net annual cost for animal control services is equal to $0.90 per capita of population served. Ongoing cost for this population -based service implied by the residential elements of Alternatives A, B, and C is noted for each project overall and per acre of development as follows: 6. General Government and Overhead Cost Theoretically (by definition), overhead costs are costs that are relatively unaffected by changes in the level of direct services being provided. It can be argued, therefore, that increases in the cost of direct services provided by the City would have no impact on general government and overhead functions such as the City Council, City Administration, City Clerk, Finance, etc. In contrast to accounting theory, however, nonallocable costs of general government and overhead do tend to increase as the cost and scope of direct services increases. A summary of cost elements from the 1991-92 Operating Budget that could be considered as general government and overhead is provided below: 29 Annual Cog of Animal Control Alternative Project _Population Project Per Acre of Overall Development A 140 $126 $55 B 128 115 50 C 86 25 11 6. General Government and Overhead Cost Theoretically (by definition), overhead costs are costs that are relatively unaffected by changes in the level of direct services being provided. It can be argued, therefore, that increases in the cost of direct services provided by the City would have no impact on general government and overhead functions such as the City Council, City Administration, City Clerk, Finance, etc. In contrast to accounting theory, however, nonallocable costs of general government and overhead do tend to increase as the cost and scope of direct services increases. A summary of cost elements from the 1991-92 Operating Budget that could be considered as general government and overhead is provided below: 29 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES 1991-92 Net Department/Activity O erating Cost City Council $114,950 City Attorney 185,000 City Manager 299,300 City Clerk 183,250 Finance 171,750 Community Promotion 75,000 Insurance 210,000 General Government 197...200 $1,436,450 Community Development - Planning, Building (Net) $335,700 Public Works - Admin., Eng. (Net) 61,100 Emergency Preparedness 32,000 Total Government Overhead Expenditures $1,865,250 These overhead costs represent 17.36 percent of the total 1991-92 City Budget less capital expenditures and related debt service - $10,742,831. Overhead cost as a percent of direct operating costs Citywide - $8,877,581 - is equal to 21.01 percent. For purposes of this fiscal analysis, overhead costs related to increases in direct services is assumed at a rate equal to one-half the direct overhead cost currently experienced - 21.01 percent divided by two. While overhead costs cannot be reasonably expected to remain constant as direct service costs increase, future increases in overhead cannot be realistically expected to rise in direct proportion to direct costs either. To assign overhead costs at a directly proportional rate to service cost increases suggest that the current administrative body has not achieved any operating efficiencies with respect to the public services it administers. REVENUE AND COST SUMMARY Identified revenue and cost factors per acre of land use development characterizing alternative development concepts considered for fiscal purposes at the site location are shown in Exhibit 111-4. Also noted is the net fiscal effect per acre of land 30 ALFRED GOGAR ASSOCIATES use development and the corresponding revenue cost ratio.. Per acre fiscal implications identified represent the net fiscal effect per acre of land use at the site location based on current revenue and cost structures of the City of Diamond Bar identified by the 1991-92 Operating Budget. Per acre estimates of net fiscal effect are used to determine and compare fiscal implications to the City of Diamond Bar resulting from alternative development concepts at the subject site. 31 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT 111 - 1 Estimated Annual Cost of Utility/Franchise Service Consumption Per Developed Acre Land Use Gas Electricity Cable* Total Residential 12 D.U./AC, SFA $2,304 $6,048 $2,467 510,819 20 D.U./AC, CONDO 2,880 8,640 4,053 15,573 35 D.U./AC, CONDO 5,040 13,440 7,044 25,524 Retail FAR = 0.25; 2,500 sq. ft./unit Office FAR= 0.35; 2,500 sq. ft./unit Retail/Office Mix FAR =0.25; 2,500 sq. ft./unit 785 6,802 915 8,052 4,420 7,427 Neg. 7,587 Neg. 8,967 Neg. 11,847 Note Cable service cost is estimated using a $26.90 monthly service charge per household on average and .a subcription rate of 62.74% of all servicable households based on City records. Source: Alfred Gobar Associates; Southern California Edison; Southern California Gas; City of Diamond Bar ldiemondVran.xI9 ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT III - 2 Estimated Annual Franchise Tax Revenue Per Developed Acre Land Use Gas Electricity Cable Total Residential 12 D.U./AC, SFA 20 D.U./AC, CONDO $23 $60 $123 $207 35 D.U./AC, CONDO 29 86 203 318 50 134 352 537 Retail FAR= 0,25; 2,500 sq. ft./unit 8 68 Neg.' 76 Office FAR= 0.35; 2,500 sq. ft./unit 9 81 Neg. 90 Retail/Office Mix FAR =0.25; 2,500 sq. ft./unit 44 74 Neg. 118 Source: Alfred Gobar Associates; Southern California, Edison; Southern California Gas; City of Diamond Bar %di4M0nd%1r&vev.x1s ALFRED LOBAR ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT III - 3 ESTIMATED COST OF POLICE PROTECTION PER DEVELOPED ACRE OF LAND USE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Notes: Developed land use distribution based on 1890 survey of existing land use conducted by The Planning Network. ' • Total Police cost reflects the 1991-92 adopted operating budget for contract services from the Los Angeles County Sherrif Department including cost for general administration, traffic control and crime prevention. The cost does not include operating budgets for animal control and emergency preparedness. Source: Alfred Gobar Associates; City of Diamond Bar Planning Department; 1991-92 City Operating Budget. diunond%vallcect.xh Citywide Service Cost Cost of Developed Per Developed Demand for Acreage* Acre (Gross) Services"• Residential Single Family Densities Very Low (<2 DU/AC) 855.5 327 $279,670 Low (2-4 DU/AC) 3656.8 654 2,390,873 Med (4-7 DU/AC) 0 1,144 0 Condo/Apt. Densities Low (<7 DU/AC) 0 392 0 Med (7-15 DU/AC) 418 850 355,283 High (15-35 DU/AC) 0 948 0 Mobile Homes 22.1 752 16,617 Commercial lRet./Off.) 319.6 1,749 558,987 Indust./Bus. Park 83.6 454 37,988 Public/Quasi-Public 211.7 464 98,273 Perks 464.2 464 215,486 Freeways/Major Roads 787.1 0 0 Vacant Land 2763.7 0 0 Totals 9,582 $3,9 Notes: Developed land use distribution based on 1890 survey of existing land use conducted by The Planning Network. ' • Total Police cost reflects the 1991-92 adopted operating budget for contract services from the Los Angeles County Sherrif Department including cost for general administration, traffic control and crime prevention. The cost does not include operating budgets for animal control and emergency preparedness. Source: Alfred Gobar Associates; City of Diamond Bar Planning Department; 1991-92 City Operating Budget. diunond%vallcect.xh ALFRED GOBAR ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT III - 4 SUMMARY OF NET FISCAL IMPLICATIONS - PER ACRE OF DEVELOPED LAND USE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Residential Commercial Commercial Ret./Off. Condo @ Can;; @ Condo @ Retail @ Office @ Mix @ 12 DU/AC 20 DU/AC 35 DU/AC FAR -0.25 FAR=0.35 FAR=0.25 Revenue: 1. Property Tax 2. Retail Sales Tax 3. Business License Fees 4. Franchise Tax Fees S. Property Transfer Tax 6. Per Capita Revenue Total Revenue Per Acre Cost 1. Police Protection 2. Fire Protection 3. Parks and Recreation 4. Public Works - 5. Pop. Based Services Subtotal 6. General Government and Overhead @21.01%/2 Total Cost Per Acre Net Fiscal Benefit/< Cost > Per Acre Revenue/Cost Ratio $858 $1,260 $1,869 $445 $653 $549 1,420 2,086 2,271 9,578 NEG. $4,789 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 207 318 537 76 90 $83 59 84 127 NEG. NEG. NEG. 2,138 3,182 3,480 _ N/q N/A N/A $4,682 $6,930 $8,284 $10,099 $743 $5,421. $850 $948 $948 $1,749 $1,749 $1,749 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 728 903 1,453 NEG. NEG. NEG. 14 14 14 14 14 14 11 50 55 N/A $1,603 $1,915 $2,470 $1,763 $1,763 $1,763 168 201 259 185 185 185 $1,771 $2,116 $2,729 $1,948 $1,948 $2,911 $4,814 $5,555 $8,151 ($1,205) $3,473 2.64:1.00 3.27:1.00 3.04:1.00 5.18:1.00 0.38:1.00 2.78:1.00 Public Works maintenance cost estimate is for traffic safety signage and stripping only and does not reflect cost associated with traffic signal maintenance. Refer to Exhibit analysis of specific development alternatives for consideration of traffic signal maintenance cost. Source: Alfred Gobar Associates; City of Diamond Bar 1991-92 Operating Budget. dismondVsci t .xis Weston Pringle 8. Associates TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING April 9, 1991 Mr. Ronald J. Crowley, Ph.D. RJ. Crowley 1700 Raintree Road Fullerton, CA 92635 Dear Mr. Crowley: This study presents our review of traffic factors related to the proposed 80 unit residential project located northwest of the Golden Springs and Torito intersection in the City of Diamond Bar. L The analyses are based upon information provided by you, contact with City Staff, field studies conducted by our staff and standard reference materials. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a three story, 80 unit condominium project which will have two levels of parking. The project is planned to be located on the old post office site. Two accesses would be provided, both at Torito Lane. The northerly access, at the Torito cul-de-sac, would serve the first level of parking while the more southerly driveway provides access for the second level of parking. EXISTING CONDITIONS As illustrated on Figure 1, Golden Springs Drive has a northeast -southwest alignment in the vicinity of the project. Four travel lanes are provided on Golden Springs Drive which are divided near the site, but undivided to the north and south. The posted speed limit on Golden Springs is 40 miles per hour near the Diamond Bar Boulevard. intersection and •45 miles per hour north and south of this section. 680 Langsdorf Drive 9 Suite 222 9 Fullerton, CA 92631 • (714) 871-2931 9 FAX(714) 871-0389 r 0 m No scads�G ® PROJECT SITE \�F IN �v I �O �O G3P PROJECT LOCATION VOMON PWNGLE & ASSOCIATESi 1 -2— Torito Lane is a cul-de-sac street which exists on the northwest side of Golden Springs Drive. Tonto is 40 feet wide with parking on both sides of the street. An access for the Vons/Save-On shopping center is located at the end of the cul-de-sac. A stop sign controls Torito at its intersection with Golden Springs. A horizontal curve of Golden Springs somewhat limits the sight distance of drivers exiting Torito. In order to evaluate the existing traffic conditions, AM and PM peak hour counts were conducted at the Golden Springs Drive/Diamond Bar Boulevard intersection, by Weston Pringle and Associates. Existing intersection geometrics field data were also collected for use in the evaluation. The field data were utilized in the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology of intersection analyses. An ICU value is calculated in the methodology based on the peak hour intersection volumes and the available roadway capacity. These values are then related to Levels of Service (LOS) which are qualitative descriptions of intersection operations and range from "A" (the best) to "F" (the worst). It is generally recognized that LOS A through D represent acceptable operations while LOS E and F indicate an over capacity situation. Appendix A contains a more detailed explanation of ICU and its relationship to LOS. Table 1 summarizes the results of the ICU analysis at the Golden Springs/Diamond Bar intersection. It can be seen that the intersection operates at anacceptable level (LOS D or better) during both the AM and PM peak hours. i � Golden Springs Drive/Torito Lane Existing conditions from an access viewpoint were examined at the Golden Springs/Torito intersection. Torito is located on the inside of a horizontal curve (Golden Springs) which limits the sight distance for drivers exiting Torito. A PM peak hour count was taken at Golden Springs/Torito and a relatively high amount of traffic turning to and from Torito was observed. It is likely that the majority of this traffic is associated with the Vons/Save-On shopping center. Table 1 INTERSECTION ANALYSES SUPOKARY Golden Springs Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard - Existing Conditions - Exist + Other Conditions - Exist + Other + Project Conditions ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS = Level of Service ICU/LOS AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR 0.51/A 0.72/A 0.51/A 0.72/C 0.52/A 0.72/C -4 - Traffic signal warrants contained in the CalTrans Traffic ManualM were reviewed based on the existing PM peak hour volumes. Peak hour volume warrants are given for "rural' and "urban" conditions. The "rural' warrant would be applicable if the 85th percentile speed limit on the major street (Golden Springs) exceeds 40 miles per hour. The posted speed limit along this section is 40 miles per hour, which is at the borderline. It was decided to review the "urban" warrant first, which would be more difficult to satisfy. The total volume for the major street approaches is 1,409 vehicles, while the minor street approach has 123 vehicles (68 left turn, 55 right turn). Figure 9-2C from the Traffic Manual gives the "urban" peak hour signal warrant and has been provided in Appendix C of this study. It can be seen that a signal is not warranted for "urban" conditions. The "rural' warrant is also provided in Appendix C and if these conditions are used, a traffic signal would be warranted. It should be noted that either factor can be pertinent in determining if a signal is warranted. The close proximity of the Golden Springs/Torito intersection to Golden Springs/Diamond Bar makes signalization less desirable. Overall,. regarding signalization at Golden Springs/Torito, there is a borderline situation. The peak hour warrants (rural and urban) indicate a borderline situation. The sight distance and close proximity of an existing signal also are important considerations. This situation warrants review by the City Engineering Department. OTHER AREA PROJECTS CONDITIdNS The traffic impacts related to other potential projects in the study area were considered, in these analyses. City of Diamond Bar Planning Staff were contacted to obtain a list of other area projects. A list of three potential projects was provided to us which included a grade school addition, an office project and a hospital. (1) Traffic Manual, CalTrans, updated November, 1989. Trip generation rates for these types of uses were referenced from Trip Generation( ), Fourth Edition and are presented on Table 2. The rates were applied to the other area projects and the results are shown on Table 3. The approximate location of these other projects are shown on Figure 2. These trip ends were assigned to the surrounding street system and the impact on the study intersection was evaluated. The ICU worksheets contained in Appendix B document the cumulative impacts of the other area projects. The "other volume" column of the ICU worksheets represent the volume increases. The increases in intersection operations are reflected in Table 1. Assuming the other area projects to be constructed, the study intersection would maintain its currently acceptable LOS operations. PROPOSED PROJECT CONDITIONS Trip Generation It was necessary to determine the trip generation potential of the proposed project so the project impacts could be evaluated. Trip generation rates referenced from Tri- Generation(') were presented earlier on Table 2. The trip rates applicable to condominium projects were utilized and are shown again on Table 4, along with the resulting trip generation for the proposed 80 unit project. It can be seen that approximately 470 daily trip ends would be generated of which 35 (5 In, 30 Out) and 45 (30 In, 15 Out) would occur during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Trip Assignment Based on the location of trip attractors, type of land use, proximity of freeway access and the surrounding street system, trip distribution percentages for the proposed project were obtained. These distribution percentages are illustrated on Figure 3. In accordance with the distribution percentages, the project generated trip ends were assigned to the surrounding street system. (2) Trip Generation. Fourth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), September, 1987. (3) Trip Generation, Ibid. Table 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES TRIP EQUATIONS: Office - Daily - AM Peak Hour - PM Peak Hour Ln (T) = 0.75 Ln (A) + 3.77 Ln.(T) = 0.86 Ln (A) + 1.34 (In 87%, Out 13%) Ln (T) = 0.83 Ln (A) + 1.46 (In 16%, Out 84%) NOM = Nominal I DU =Dwelling Unit T = Trip Ends A = Building Area in 1,000 Square Feet TRIP ENDS PER DESCRIPTOR AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE DESCRIPTOR DAILY IN OUT IN OUT Elementary School Student 1.0 0.14 0.09 NOM NOM Hospital Bed 11.75 0.77 0.30 0.46 0.75 Condominium DU 5.9 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.19 TRIP EQUATIONS: Office - Daily - AM Peak Hour - PM Peak Hour Ln (T) = 0.75 Ln (A) + 3.77 Ln.(T) = 0.86 Ln (A) + 1.34 (In 87%, Out 13%) Ln (T) = 0.83 Ln (A) + 1.46 (In 16%, Out 84%) NOM = Nominal I DU =Dwelling Unit T = Trip Ends A = Building Area in 1,000 Square Feet PROJECT SIZE 1. Grade School Additions (Golden Springs/ Diamond Bar) 125 Students 2. Office (Sunset Crossing/ Diamond Bar) 6,000 SF 3. Hospital (Golden Springs/ Grand) 100 Beds _7_ Table 3 TRIP GENERATION Other Area Projects TRIP ENDS AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOM DAILY IN OUT IN OUT 130 20 10 NOM NOM 170 15 5 5 15 1,200 75 30 . 45 75 SOURCE: Trip Generation Fourth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),. September, 1987. SF = Square Feet Table 4 TRIP GENERATION Proposed Project AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE IN OUT IN OUT Condominium - Trip Rate(a) DU 5.9 0.07 0.38 0.38 0.19 - Trip Generation 80 DU 470 5 30 30 15 DU = Dwelling Units (-a) Referenced from Trip Generation, Fourth Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), September, 1987. The rates are in terms of trip ends per dwelling unit. O No some 9G w PROJECT SITE To v a, � ♦ O �ti 2 OTHER AREA PROJECTS LOCATIONS & ASSOCIATES EA•�' F► r- IY PROJECT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES VIMON MiCiLL & ASSOCIATES MOURE 3 r O No Saw �5% �25% fi15, PROJECT ops 15° SITE 35 b �6 10° �CJMINGo W ..1 W 10% F► r- IY PROJECT DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES VIMON MiCiLL & ASSOCIATES MOURE 3 The ICU worksheets contained in Appendix B show the amount of project traffic affecting the study intersection, under the "project volume" column. ANALYSES The project volumes were combined with the existing plus other traffic so the project impacts could be evaluated. The ICU analyses were again calculated for these project conditions. The results are shown on Table 1 which was presented earlier in this study. Acceptable operating conditions are expected for project conditions as the study intersection would maintain LOS A and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. It was identified earlier that a traffic signal is at the borderline of being warranted at the Golden Springs/Torito intersection. The proposed project trips would not substantially change the borderline situation. The projected volumes have a higher inbound movement during the PM peak hour, which is not the critical movement in the traffic signal warrant analyses. We were also informed that the Vons/Save-On access at Torito could potentially be restricted. This could lower the traffic on Torito, which would lessen the need for signalization at Golden Springs/Torito. ACCESS A northerly and southerly project access at Torito Lane will be provided to serve the first and second parking levels, respectively. The two parking levels will operate independently. with no internal connection. Currently, there are six potential guest spaces at the southerly driveway, outside the gated area. It has been expressed that some guest parking may need to be provided within the gated parking structure. This would require the driveways to have a median where a guest "callbox" could be provided. If it were not possible to provide the median at both driveways, guests could be restricted to access at one driveway only. 20 The design of accesses would need to be reviewed subsequent to clarification of the guest situation. Potential vehicle stacking in relationship to Torito Lane would be a primary consideration, however, this would be less critical if the Vons/Save-On access at Torito is restricted. The design would also need to allow guests some sort of turnaround or exit path, to account for the situation where they approach the gate and discover the resident is not home. This study contains a review of traffic factors related to the proposed 80 unit condominium project off Torito Lane in the City of Diamond Bar. Existing conditions were quantified. The impact of other area projects were included to provide a pre -project base condition. Trip generation and assignment analyses for the proposed project were completed so the project impacts could be evaluated. The following are the principal findings of the study. 1. The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 470 daily trip ends of which 35 (5 In, 30 Out) and 45 (30 In, 15 Out) would occur during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 2. The intersection analyses show that acceptable operations are maintained, assuming the proposed project traffic is added to the surrounding street system. 3. A traffic signal is at the borderline of being warranted at the Golden Springs/Torito intersection based on existing conditions. The proposed project does not significantly change the existing situation. Further review by the City Engineering Staff is recommended. 4. The project accesses may be changed to accommodate visitors parking inside the gated structure. Potential vehicle stacking at the gate will need to be considered as well as a way for visitors to turnaround or exit the "callbox" area without passing through the gate. 5. It was expressed that the Vons/Save-On access at Torito Lane may be restricted. This would serve to lessen the signalization needs at Golden Springs/Torito and could reduce potential impacts at the project driveways. We trust that these analyses will be of assistance to you and the City of Diamond Bar. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 WSP:SS #910470 APPENDIX A EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION LEVEL OF SERVICE EXPLANATION OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION The capacity of a street is nearly always greater between intersection and less at intersections. The reason for this is that the traffic flows continuously between intersections and only part of the time at intersections. To study intersection capacity, a technique known as Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) has been developed. ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each conflicting movement; (b) summing the times for the movements; and (c) comparing the total time required to the time available. For example, if for north -south traffic the northbound traffic is 1,000 vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is 800 vehicles per hour, and the capacity of either approach is 2,000 vehicles per hour of green, then the northbound traffic is critical and requires 1,000/2,000 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for the east -west traffic, 40 percent of the signal time is required, then it can be seen that the ICU is 50 plus 40, or 90 percent. When left -turn phases exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. As ICUs approach 100 percent, the quality of traffic service approaches Level of Service (LOS) E, as defined in the Hi'0'hwav Car)..a..c,Jtv Manual, Special Report 87, Highway Research Board, 1965. Level of Service is used to describe quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service A to C operate quite well. Level of Service D is typically the Level of Service for which an urban street is designed. Level of Service E is the maximum volume a facility can accommodate ccommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Service F occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop -and -go traffic with stoppages of long duration. A description of the various levels of service appears on the following page. The ICU calculations assume that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed. Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized intersection is not valid, the presumption is that a signal can tie installed and the calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of accommodating the expected volumes. It is possible to have an ICU well below 1 .0, yet have severe traffic congestion. This would occur because one or more movements is not getting enough time to satisfy its demand with excess time existing on other moves. Capacity is often defined in terms of roadway width. However, standard lanes have approximately the same capacity whether they are 11 foot or 14 foot lanes. Our data indicates a typical lane, whether a through lane or left -turn lane has a capacity of approximately 1600 vehicles per lane per hour of green time. The 1985 Highwav CaRacity Manual found capacities of 1800 vehicles per land per hour of green time; however the 1600 value has been widely utilized and results in a conservative analysis. APPENDIX A LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS NOMINAL RANGE OF ICU (al A Low volumes; high speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles; 0.00 - 0.60 all signal cycles clear with no vehicles; all signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle. B Operating speeds beginning to be affected by other traffic; 0.61 - 0.70 0 between one and ten percent of the signal cycleshave one or more vehicles which wait through more than one e signal cycle ,during peak traffic periods. C Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other 0.71 - 0.80 0 traffic; between 11 and 30 percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard. D Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have 0.8-1 - 0.90 0 one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban areas. E Capacity; the maximum traf c volumes an intersection can 0.91 - 1.00 accommodate restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal cycles 0 have one or more vehicle which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. F Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages of long duration; Not Meaningful traffic volume and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service E. (a) ICU (Intersection Capacity Utilization) at various Levels of Service versus Level of Service E for urban arterial streets. - ICU WORKSHEETS I z 0 -------------------------- -------------------------- Ln tn PQ -+;,v ------------ 10 tl 9 i 9 9 i 10 N I ri lu 01 00 --- 01 0 m H m r. N 0 O to it Z W 1 9 9 i 9 9 i 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ul 0 0 0 0 x pa + lu ----------- 19 E-4 0 i O i 0 x — — — — -- — — — — — — — -- — — — — 0 m m m 0 a 0 0 o 00 > w to ------------ 9 ,to E-4 Cd H ------------ ;E114 0 0 r% m 0 N N 0 0 v v 0 0 r, I U2 m N N r1 m r - w r E-4 > tl U) E*14 yCH tol x 0 pa ------ 0 ------ 004 C4 ------------ 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 a %Qr4l ION NNWWW CH m 0 MX 0 N V 0o 0 Ps 0:2 0 3 '0 W. 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0,0 0 H u 0 --------> ---- viM N 0 P4 0 z xx Now 0 H E4 0 0 0 m o ,' 1 1 U 1 I 1 __ N i-- —.�— i— tl 1 1 on 1 1 --- — 1 a N 1 R7 E. Y m m O O+ tl h 1 O 1 N U N I Y r o 1 ----------- co ---------tlm O 01 1 ut U N 1 w+ u u 1 u 1 1 Y I U ♦ — — — — — — — — — � — U 1 I tl I — 1 C9 11 m h O O� m N N N U h I O I to II N 1 n h 1 1 H 4 o o 0 0 0 0 o O o u O 1 O 1 O u0 1 V 1 N 7 II U 1 I II 1 H U n 1 1 Y I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — r u — '— 1 E p O M O N N m n O O O O M 1 C1 1 N 1 D IN 1 N U I U 1 N T 1 a.' 1 a n O O O O O O N O H O I I H ab o In u a 1 ---------- 1 ---------1 Q �j u O 1 H O Y 1 x U I O �yq r7 V O ___ I S W U H t7 ----------------- 1 M I Q i+ Y O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 O a 1 O u h 1 1 H o rxi i a t7 u _________ 1 _ 1 nn woti c9 u o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 i s H 1 x N' O O O o O O O O O 1 I H 1 Qex iS� I H H U �oM NM O �O N N N �O �o m ( 1 Q 1 (1 Ti a H 1 H 144' I n M M M �1 1 1 y 1 OH v a_ o o 19 n' in m O 1 a n �C 1,4 a tl o H a x W a a i IH N p .i N O vl N O N N M .-1 M O 1 pip �t2�y� (p h •4Zy! •[pTYn• 1 W 2 n Nco 0 E4 O OHC I E U 1 D3 O O to 1 x II 1 as E� aE. x 1 u' tn z 0 z iw19 z 1 o 1— x— --- — --.�-- 1 M S Al A x a i F000I01F:CM CALTRANS PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANTS Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-13 12-1SW HdA—HOVOUddVawn1OA H01H 133UIS UON1W I I I I 9 0 0 cr a. a. 0 z -9 Ui Uj Uj z Q) UA U3 Uj -=--Z 0 LU 0 0 N2 _m4_ -= w 0 Uj 44 z LU cc C4 HdA—HOVOUddVawn1OA H01H 133UIS UON1W I I I I 9 0 0 cr a. a. 0 z -9 9-12 TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING Traffic Manual 12•IS86 -9 -x MME 0 oa 0 0 0 C7 N .- HdA--HOYOdddb 3yyniOA HOIH 133H1S UONIW s a as W s GJ 4 O s CL CL 4 s H O m U. 0 .J 4 a O F W W H U) CC O a U Z Ui � J i O z_ U O CL J 1 W Uj i0 > z O _■11■ ■It■ ■■1111■ �■■�Ii1 FARM ErAffiffilm Grua o� E WA MWA 00 v�► u MME 0 oa 0 0 0 C7 N .- HdA--HOYOdddb 3yyniOA HOIH 133H1S UONIW s a as W s GJ 4 O s CL CL 4 s H O m U. 0 .J 4 a O F W W H U) CC O a U Z Ui � J i O z_ U O CL J 1 W Uj i0 > z O