HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/8/1993Next Resolution No. 93-2
AGENDA
MY OF DIAMPND BAR PLANNING COACMULSSION
SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AUDITORIUM
21865 E. COPLEY DRIVE
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
February 8, 1993
CALL TO ORDER: 7:.00 pm
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum, Vice
Chairman David Meyer, Jack Grothe, Michael Li, and
Lydia Plunk
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place, f or 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.
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 January 25, 1993
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
2. variance No. 92-3 and Planned Sign Program No. 92-4. A request
to develop a Planned Sign Program and to install six
freestanding monument signs, each fifteen *feet in height with
a sign face area of 120 square, feet located at the Diamond. Bar
0
Village and Professional 'Center at the northwest corner of
Golden Springs Drive and Diamond Bar Blvd. As per the City's
Sign Code, within a commercial shopping center the maximum
height for a freestanding monument sign is six feet, and the
maximum sign face area is seventy-two square feet.
Applicant: Steve Porretta, President
Southland Management,Inc.
601 S. Gl - enoa - ks, Blvd. #301
Burbank,. CA 91502
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to. the terms of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City h a s
determined that this project requires a Negative Declaration.
3. General Plan Amendment No. 92-2; Development Agreement Nos.
92-1, 2, and 3; Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407,
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-8 and Oak Tree Permit No. 92-8;
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400, Conditional Use Permit No.
91-5, Zone Change No. 91-2 and Oak Tree Permit No. 91-2;
Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 and Conditional Use Permit No.
92-12; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-9; the South Pointe Master Plan;
and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-1. This is a request
for approval of a mixed use project consisting of land uses
which include residential, commercial, open space and school
facilities. The project site is approximately 171 acres in
size and is located north of Pathfinder Road, west of Brea
Canyon Road, east of Morning Sun Drive, and south of Rapid
View Drive. The project proposes to develop 30 acres acre of
commercial retail/office space of 290,000 square feet; 200
single-family detached residential dwelling units, a 20 acre
neighborhood park; and the construction of a permanent, 30
acre, middle school.
Applicants: (1) R -n -P Development, Inc., 151 Juanita Avenue,
Glendora, CA 91740; (2) Arciero and Son's, Inc., 950 North
Tustin, Anaheim, CA 92807; (3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th
St., Upland,. CA 91785; (4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E.
Copley Dr. Ste 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the terms of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has
determined that this project requires an Environmental Impact
Report.
4. Vesting Tentative Tract Ni
2, Zone Change Amendment
No. 91-3 is a request for
a 2.33 acre site located
Springs Dr. and Torito
requests architectural an(
. 50519, Development Review No. 91 -
lo. 91-3, and Development Agreement
1 34 unit condominium subdivision on
northeast of the corner of Golden
Lane. Additionally, the applicant
site plan review for the townhouse
development, a Zone Change from C-1 (Restricted Business Zone)
to R-3 (Limited Multiple Residence Zone) and to enter into a
2
Development Agreement with the City.
Applicant: Diamond -Development Company, 1700 Raintree
Rd., Fullerton, CA 92635
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the terms of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has
determined that this project requires, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
PUBLIC HEARING:
5 Development Review No. 92-6 and Variance No. 92-5. A request
to add a childrens, play, area with supervisory seating on an
outdoor patio and a request to reduce the number of parking
spaces required in order to install the play area at an
existing fast food restaurant located at 141 S. Diamond Bar
Blvd.
Applicant: Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc., P.O. Box 4999,
Anaheim, CA 92803.
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the City has
determined that this project requires Negative Declaration.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
ADJOURNMENT: February 22, 1993
CAWP5RAGENDMAGENDA&FEB
91
MATTER FROM Oscar Law, residing at 2150 Pathfinder, expressed
THE AUDIENCE: his concern for the need of an access lane for
emergency vehicles during the construction phase of
the Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project. He also
expressed his concern that the project only
proposes 4 lanes, when in actuality, it requires 6
lanes to maintain the traffic increase from future
growth.
ICE/Wentz explained that the Pathfinder Bridge
Widening Project is under the jurisdiction of Los
Angeles County. The contract for the project has
already been awarded, and the anticipated date for
construction is April of 1993. Staff will contact
the County and Caltrans to discuss the concern
related to emergency vehicle access.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Ab,
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOND
1?4,tp
Minutes of
JANUARY 25, 1993
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at
OLD BUSINESS:
7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Tentative Parcel
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
commissioner chairman Plunk.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners; Plunk, Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman
Meyer, and Chairman Flamenbaum. C/Plunk excused
herself from the meeting at 12:00 a.m.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Interim City
Engineer George Wentz, Deputy City Attorney Craig
Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MATTER FROM Oscar Law, residing at 2150 Pathfinder, expressed
THE AUDIENCE: his concern for the need of an access lane for
emergency vehicles during the construction phase of
the Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project. He also
expressed his concern that the project only
proposes 4 lanes, when in actuality, it requires 6
lanes to maintain the traffic increase from future
growth.
ICE/Wentz explained that the Pathfinder Bridge
Widening Project is under the jurisdiction of Los
Angeles County. The contract for the project has
already been awarded, and the anticipated date for
construction is April of 1993. Staff will contact
the County and Caltrans to discuss the concern
related to emergency vehicle access.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
Minutes of
January 11, 1993, as presented.
Jan. 11, 93
OLD BUSINESS:
PT/Lungu reported that a Resolution of Approval for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629 is before the
Tentative Parcel
Planning Commission for consideration, as well as a
Map No. 23629
memo from the Deputy City Attorney, Craig Fox,
addressing the issues of arbitration and relocation
of tenant, and the addition of statements to the
CC&Rls regarding these issues.
Motion was made by VC/Meyer, and seconded by C/Li
to approve Resolution 93-1.
C/Plunk, noting that Mr. Camp, the applicant's
representative, had indicated, at the last meeting,
his 'willingness to participate in combating
graffiti and partake in a cost benefit analysis of
painting with graffiti resistant paint versus
January 25, 1.993
Page 2
continuously repainting, suggested a substitute
Motion to approve Resolution 93-1, with the
amendment that the applicant be required to
participate in the City's graffiti abatement
program.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that it was determined, at
the last meeting, that it would not be appropriate
to penalize this one single applicant by requiring
him to participate in the City's graffiti abatement
program. The applicant is willing to take
measures, such as additional lighting and
vegetation, as a means for graffiti prevention.
C/Plunk's substitute Motion died for lack of a
second.
The Planning commission voted upon the Motion made
by VC/Meyer, and seconded by C/Li to approve
Resolution 93-1 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23629.
The motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CDD/DeStefano reported that, the proposed before
the Commission, is a request for approval of a
General Plan
mixed use project consisting of land uses which
Amendment 92-2;
include residential, commercial, open space and
DA 92-1, 92-2,
school facilities. The project site, approximately.
92-3; Vesting
171 acres, is located within the South Pointe
TT Map 5140,
Middle School/Sandstone Canyon area, and is
CUP 92-8 &
presently owned by 5 entities, three of which are
Oak Tree Permit
private and two are public. An Environmental
92-8; Vesting
Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance
TT 32400, CUP
with State guidelines, circulated to various State
91-5, Zone
and local agencies, and has been available to the
Change 91-2 &
general public for over 6 weeks. This is the first
Oak Tree Permit
public hearing on the proposed South Pointe Master
91-2; TT Map
Plan project before the commission. The Planning
51253 & CUP
commission will not take any action on the -merits
92-12; Oak Tree
of this project this evening, but will receive
Permit 92-9; the
testimony, and provide comments and direction to
South Pointe
staff. Discussion of the merits of this project
Master Plan; &
will be continued to February of 1993. There can
EIR 92-9.
be no final action on this proposed project, until
the issue of the pending litigation with proponents
of a referendum upon the City's General Plan is
resolved. CDD/DeStefano then introduced Peter
Lewendowski, from the firm of Ultrasystems, who
prepared the EIR, ,and Hardy Strozier, of the
Planning Associates, who is the project manager.
Hardy Strozier explained that a project team as
been pulled together to manage the preparation of
an EIR, which evaluates all topical issues required
January 25, 1993 Page 3 -al-4qtr
under State Law, and put together a Master
Development Plan, which guides the planning and the
execution of various engineering entitlements as
the project develops over the next five to ten
years, if approved. The 42 page staff report,
presented to the Planning Commission, is a
condensed version of the environmental
documentation previously presented to the
Commission. The following 8 specific items will be
reviewed by the Commission over the intervening
weeks: the EIR (the Commission still has the
option to either deny or approve the project, even
if the Planning Commission chooses to recommend
certification of this EIR to the City Council) ; the
General Plan Amendment (the existing water district
property needs to have a redesignation to Planned
Development); the Development Agreement (this will
be provided later for the Commission's review);
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 - Arciero (no
staff report) ; Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 -
Patel (no staff report); Vesting Tentative Map No.
51407 - RnP (no staff report); Hillside Management
Ordinance
rdinance CUP; and an Oak Tree Removal Permit. The
Notice of Preparation of the draft EIR was
distributed for 30 days, in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , and
there was a 45 day review period to allow for
written comments regarding the draft EIR, which
ended January 18, 1993. The notices for public
hearing was mailed,on January 14, 1993, to
approximately 1,100 property owners adjacent to the
project site. The EIR was prepared by the
independent firm of Ultra Systems, and they
provided independent conclusions on the analysis of
all the topical areas found in the draft EIR. Two
impacts were identified, in summary of the
independent consultants review, that could not be
mitigated below a level of significance: traffic
and air quality. The intent this evening is to
solicit community input on the draft EIR, and
respond to any questions that the Commission may
direct to staff and the planning consultants.
VC/Meyer requested Mr. Lewendowski to explain the
purpose of an EIR.
Mr. Lewendowski explained that CEQA requires
governmental agencies, who have authority over
particular projects, to include, in their decision
making process, an analysis of the projects impacts
upon the environment. The City prepared an initial
study for this project and concluded that the
project implementation had the potential to result
in significant impacts upon the environment. Based
January 25, 1993
Page 4
upon that conclusion, the City directed the
preparation of an EIR, which represents a detailed
technical analysis of the project's direct,
indirect, and cumulative impacts upon the
env
n I v - i . ronment.' The -intent of CEQA is to provide an
environmental basis for the decision making
process, and to insure public access to the
decision makers so as to insure a full disclosure
of the projects potential impacts, potential
alternatives that may beavailableto the decision
makers to adopt project alternatives that may
produce lesser impacts, and to identify and develop
mitigation measures which might further reduce the
impacts identified in the analysis and brought
forward through public testimony. Upon conclusion
of the review period, the environmental consultant
will return to the City a document called a
Response to Comments. Based upon all the written
and oral comments received during this review
period, formal written replies will be provided,
furnishing technical, analytical conclusions for
the various comments raised. The Response to
Comment document and the draft EIR, in addition to
whatever other documents the City may wish to
include, constitute the final EIR for the project.
The certification of the final EIR is a precursor
to the City's ability to take any action on the
project.
Frank Arciero, Jr., a principal of Arciero & Sons,
who has owned the property on Brea Canyon Road up
to the existing school site, adjacent to the old
water tank site, and adjacent to the existing
subdivision built by Shea Development for about 7
years, explained that, prior to incorporation, they
sold 23 acres to the School District for the school
site. At that time they were in the process of
moving an R-1 project along through the County,
with the understanding to grade the school site and
move the balance of the dirt onto our piece of
property. Following incorporation, we applied to
City to get the R-1 development built so we could
move the balance of the dirt, from the school site,.
then the School District could build their
structure. The City approached me, two years ago,
and I concurred, to meet with the adjoining
property owners to master plan the entire area.
he concurred. The plan is very beneficial to the
City. He then indicated that Mr. Forrester, the
owner of the adjoining property, who was unable to
attend this meeting, also supports the Master Plan.
Mr. Patel, owner of the property on Morning Sun
Dr., which is adjacent to the RNP tract, stated
January 25, 1993 Page 5 4fto*yAr
that he bought the property 8 years ago and planned
to build about 25 homes. When the City asked him
to join in the Master Plan, he concurred. The
project will benefit the City and the community.
Hardy Strozier gave a brief overview of the
components of the project: 171 acres; Tract 51407
(RnP) identifies 90 dwelling units; Tract 51253
(Patel) identifies 27 dwelling units; ' Tract 32400
(Arciero) identifies 91 dwelling units; a 31 acre
two parcel commercial site; a new collector road,
identified in the Master Plan as Road A, which
connects Morning Sun Drive to Brea Canyon Road; and
a proposed 20 acre park, in which approximately
half passive and half is active. The EIR not only
identifies the adverse impacts of this proposed
project, and those impacts that cannot be
completely mitigated, but community benefits as
well. He then highlighted some of the benefits
identified in the project description: a proposed
community park site, of which 12 acres are usable;
changes in Road A provides a relative benefit to
the park site in terms of access and parking; it
has been identified that the 31 acre commercial
site can generate up to $400,000 to $500,000
dollars a year net revenue to the City; there is a
proposed dedication of 10 to 15 acres of property
to the City that has a value to the City between $4
and $6 million dollars of improved land value; it
would generate 465 new jobs in the City; it would
allow the completion of South Pointe Middle School;
.it would remove 400,000 cubic yards of dirt located
on the school site that, according to the School
District's EIR, would be deposited into the upper
part of Sandstone Canyon to complete the buildout
of the school; the improvement of Street A would
allow a new connection to allow, transit of students
to and from the school, reducing the dependency
upon Larkstone and Lemon' Street to access the
school; and there are numerous off site traffic
improvements provided through the EIR mitigation
program that would provide signalization and other
intersection geometrics in widening of various
streets adjacent to.the project site.
Chai r/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 8:03 p.m.
Hardy Strozier explained that the -purpose of the
public hearing is to receive comments on the draft
EIR. The EIR is an information document. The
Planning Commission is to ensure that there is
enough information, in the EIR, that would allow a
decision on the project. He reiterated that
January 25, 1993
Page 6
approval of the EIR does not connote approval of
the project.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing
opened.
Chair/Flamenbaum reminded the audience that the
consultants will be responding to any questions or
comments made, regarding the EIR, at a later
meeting.
Sharon Bowler, residing at 1603 Morning Sun Ave.,
Walnut, expressed her concern that notice for the
public hearing was put in the San Gabriel Valley
Tribune, a newspaper that one must subscribe to,
and not put in both sections of the Highlander, one
for Rowland Heights/Walnut and one for Diamond Bar.
She made the following comments: since the Morning
Sun Ave. area consists of existing homes on lots
ranging from 1/3 acre to 1/2 acre, there should be
a minimum of 12,000 square foot lots on the
proposed development; the proposed collector street
should be circled through the proposed complex, and
not directly on to the Morning Sun Ave. area;
opening up the street will create more traffic,
affecting the children who play on that existing
cul-de-sac, especially since presently there are no
sidewalks. Since currently' there have been
mudslides running into the cul-de-sac area due to
the recent heavy rains, she questioned what would
happen when development occurred on those unstable
hills in the proposed site, particularly to the 4
homes at the bottom of the hill at the end of the
cul-de-sac; and there is a flood hazard zone in the
middle of the site.
Anne Flesher, residing at 20647 Larkstone Drive,
stated that the residents of Diamond Bar need to
work together to make this the best workable
situation possible, instead of looking to who is
good or bad. She expressed the following concerns:
allowing the 400,000 cubic yards of dirt to be
removed coming down Larkstone Drive, as has been
suggested by some, would require 26,000 truck trips
over a 4 1/2 month period, with a truck leaving
every five minutes, ten hours a day, six days a
week; Larkstone Drive was designed for 200 car
trips a day, but it now carries 1,200 car trips a
day; and something must be done - by the Planning
Commission to alleviate the traffic on Larkstone
Drive that will also benefit the children, the
residents on the existing property, and the
developers. She pointed out that all of the homes
January 25, 1993 Page 7
in Diamond Bar were developed on cut and fill
property.
William Gross, residing at 21637 Highbluff Road,
made the following comments: he questioned what
was known at City Hall about this project while the
City was buying the surplus land from the Water
District; since Mayor Miller, at one time, owned
various parcels in this project, the EIR should
address his involvement in any transaction
involving this property; though the consultant has
indicated that 1,100"homes were notified of the
public hearing, only l about 300 to 400 homes were
actually notified because the mailing lists not
only overlap, but are outdated; the public was
charged .25 cents a page for a copy of ' the mailing
lists; the 4,000 people who signed
d the referendum
are a good representation of the City; mitigation
is a method of ignoring the problems; the EIR
should address the impacts of putting 400,000 cubic
yards of dirt into the Sandstone Canyon, as well as
address how that dirt got there, and who is
responsible for it; the EIR should address
alternative methods of removing the dirt, such as
trucking it out the Brea Canyon side; since it has
been indicated that 400 plus jobs will be created
from the project, then - the vacant centers
throughout the City should be explained; Street "All
will be another means by which motorists will by
pass the freeway and travel through the City; and
there are other alternatives to building the school
and moving the dirt that need to be explored and
that will' save the canyon.
Nellie Reyes, residing at 1728 Morning Sun Ave.,
Walnut, 91789, pointed out that, with all the time
that has passed, the developer could have removed a
quarter of the dirt by now. Furthermore, the
Government apparently recognizes the need to
maintain open land otherwise they would not have
federally funded parks. open land needs to be
preserved for our future children.
Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane,
pointed out that when the hillside along Brea
Canyon Road is graded, 9 million cubic yards of
-dirt that will be pushed into that Canyon, killing
over 97% of the tree existing there. In reference
to Section 10, of the consultants report, regarding
the Hillside Management Ordinance, indicating that
the propbsed project includes grading techniques
which minimize grading in portions of the project
by incorporating extensive open space and
significant use of green belts, he stated that his
January 25, 1993
Page 8
interpretation of the EIR is quite different, and
there are many questions that are being left
unanswered.
Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood Road,
expressed the following concerns: the project will
increase the decibel level from 45 to 55 decibels
to over 90 decibels, severely impacting those homes
along the Pathfinder Road and Shaded Wood Road
areas; the traffic problem will become
insurmountable on Brea Canyon Road; what is the
height of the finished structure, both commercial
and residential, relating to the grade level of the
existing homes on Shaded Wood Road and Starshine;
will the views of the existing homes be impacted by
air conditioning equipment; what will happen to the
wildlife, such as cougars, deer, raccoons, redtail
fox, titmice, when their entire natural habitat is
destroyed; what controls are there for light
ppllution; what controls are there for commercial
development, and Will it be manufacturing,
wherehouses, etc.; will privacy, of the existing
residents be impacted; what kind of land clearing
will come up to the existing properties; will the
toes of the existing hillsides, supporting existing
homes, be disturbed/ and create sliding; what
security safeguards will be used when the natural
canyon, the present intrusion barrier, is
destroyed; the tree count in the EIR is incorrect
because it is based upon the Tree Ordinance, which
does not recognized many of the trees; 97% of the
vegetation in the canyon will be destroyed, along
with some of the wildlife; the City has the last
vestige Black Walnut forest left in the State;
children can no longer go on wilderness trips
through the Canyon; there are trees, in the Canyon,
that are 400 to 500 years old, and many 250 year
old trees; the EIR should have been done during a
peak wildlife activity in order to get a proper
count, particularly for the birds; there are rare
birds, that may exist in the canyon, that were not
accurately observed; and the EIR did not address an
alternative use of the Canyon, such asrecreation
programs that could bring revenue to the City,
preserving Sandstone Canyon.
Phil Duarte, residing at 1343 Red Bluff, pointed
out that the Los Angeles County Planning Commission
denied a similar scope type of project five years
ago for that same area. The purpose of
incorporation was for local control, emphasizing
slow growth for the City. We, as residents, want
to preserve our properties to maintain our
lifestyles, preserving a small amount of open space
January 25, 1993 Page 9
for ourselves, our children, to enjoy nature. We
do not have the resources attainable to the
developer, who chooses to utilize their property
for a profit. He then presented the newspaper
article, headlined "A Radical Change in the
Environment", dated November 22, 1987, which talked
about the project, proposed by Arciero & Sons, that
was rejected by the County of Los Angeles.
Joe Larutta residing at 2546 Sunbright Drive,
stated that he recently relocated his business
office to the north end of Diamond Bar from
Pathfinder Road because his clients were unable to
ingress/egress due to' traffic. This project may be
great for development now, and may encourage the
development of the school site, but the affects to
the City in 20 years need to be considered.
Elaine Kim, residing at 2074 Peaceful Hills Road, a
Real Estate Broker, stated that there must be a
compromise that will allow the property owners to
develop the land to it's highest and best use, yet
still protect the homeowners living in the area.
She stated the following concerns: the density of
the proposed project; preventing slippage of the
hills; who will be responsible for cleaning up the
repairs if slippage was to occur, the City or the
Homeowners Association; and the preservation of the
trees in the Canyon.
Barbara Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful
Hills Road, made the following comments:. if there
is no difference between rural and urban living,
then why do move* to this City which advertises
"Country Living"; if there are no significant noise
impacts exceeding municipal standards, then what
are our standards and perhaps they should be
adjusted; why is the cutting down of 700 trees
considered an "insignificant" impact; there are
hundreds of vacant commercial properties,
throughout the City, including Mr. Arciero's
property at Colima and Brea Canyon, thus indicating
that the 31 commercial acre site may not be a
valuable resource; many citizens do not consider
this project as beneficial, nor is 'it considered to
be without significant impact to the residents; she
was assured by Brock homes that there would always
be open space; since she paid a hefty premium for
the property and view, if the project is developed
as proposed, then she will ask for reassessment,
and lowering of property taxes, resulting in the
loss of revenue to the City; since Brock took back
promised 'land from the community Association, which
involved Mayor Miller, there is a conflict of
January 25, 1993 Page 10
interest; having the City of Diamond Bar as an
involved party in this development is also a
conflict of interest; and people voted for cityhood
to stop the excessive building in Diamond Bar.
Roy Marcosi, residing at 1664 Chappel Hill Drive,
Walnut, stated that the project will put all the
traffic from the proposed development on to Morning
Sun Ave., a short cul-de-sac street, to Shephard
Hills Drive, to Chappel Hill Drive, and to
Tamas6haner, all of which do not have sidewalks.
The school bus pickup, for the neighborhood
children, is located on Tamaschaner Street, which
is presently impacted by heavy traffic. Home
values will decrease because of the unmitigated
traffic, the unmitigated air quality, and the 5 to
10 years of construction in the area. There is no
benefit to the existing area..
Norman Beach Cuschane, residing at 2021 Peaceful
Hills Road, President of the Pathfinder Homeowners
Association, stated that they are currently
investigating if the land below their tract is
actually the property of the Homeowners
Association. He inquired if the development,
proposed by Mr. -Patel, will become part of the
Homewoners Association since Mr. Patel is presently
a member of the Association. He requested that the
EIR address land slippage, specifically in the area
where RnP proposes to developona. canyon with an
89 degree slope downwards.
Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder, pointed
inted
out that the area proposed for development is an
unique environmental area for all of us now and for
future generations. Once that area is destroyed,
the wildlife and vegetation is lost forever, and
can never be seen again except in a make shift
environment such as a zoo. The developers don't
care what is destroyed, as long as they make a
profit.
Boran Ahmed, residing at 1810 Peaceful Hills Road,
requested that the dollar value for both the
advantages of the project, and the disadvantages of
the project be evaluated to determine the actual
benefits of the project.
Art Fritz, residing at 20635 Larkstone Drive,
expressed his concern of the notion that all
development can be stopped by simply preventing
people from doing anything with their property.
This, essentially, would be a taking of property.
None of us would be living here if this attitude
January 25, 1993 Page 11 KLJ% R
prevailed as the City was developing. There would
be "Country Living" for about 5,000 people. The
City appears to be making an attempt to make this a
reasonable development. Those who would like the
property to remain as a park, should consider
buying it.
Bob Roberts, residing on Morning Sun Ave., noted
that the map indicates that part of Mr. Patel's
property is located in the County of Los Angeles.
Jan Dabney, 671 Brea Canyon Road, a development
consultant for the applicants, stated the
following: RNP Inc., Dwight Forrester, is
dedicating 42% of his entire ownership to the City,
for park/open land, and commercial capabilities;
the park dedication of 28 acres, for this proposed
project, far exceeds the requirements in the Quimby
Act; the entire project is within the City of
Diamond Bar; and the land owners, in this proposed
development, feel this project provides the best
opportunity for the community itself. The audience
seems to be confusing the developers with the EIR
consultants. The only association the developers
have with the professional EIR consultants is that
we give the City the funds to pay for their
service, and they give all the directions to staff,
and the public. The intent of the developers is to
develop legitimately within the confines of the
community.
Judy Newman, residing at 1652 Chappel Hill Drive,
inquired how Diamond Bar can open the streets and
funnel traffic into this unincorporated area, if
the City does not have jurisdiction outside of the
City limits. She also inquired when and how
Diamond Bar will settle the traffic problemsthat
will come into the unincorporated area.
Norman Beach Cushane, residing at 2021 Peaceful
Hills Road, inquired who will pay for the traffic
signal at Brea Canyon -Road. He also inquired.how
much of the land, to be dedicated by RnP, is
buildable.
Swany Fong, residing at 20879 Missionary Ridge,
inquired if the elementary schools, which are
already crowded, will be able to hold these
additional children from this proposed development.
She also stated that there are already many parks
in the City that appear to be vacant most of the
time. If a 26 acre park is developed, the City
will have to pay to maintain the park, but if it is
January 25, 1993 Page 12 DRAFT
left as a canyon, nature takes care of it at no
cost.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum
declared the public hearing closed, and continued
to February 8, 1993.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 8:30 p.m.
VC/Meyer directed staff accordingly: he would like
some empirical analysis, provided by a traffic
consultant, relative to the opening of Street "All
into Morning Sun Ave., that includes some
additional data concerning the traffic issues
brought up; additional data relative to how the
grading would occur; and additional data that would
mitigate impacts relative to grading, such as the
issue of the migration of the wildlife.
Hardy Strozier, in response to VC/Meyer, explained
that there is no zone change associated with the
project because the Development Agreement will be
used as the zoning tool. The Planning Commission
will first consider recommending, to the City
Council, the certification of the EIR, then
consider the entitlements, the General Plan
amendment, which changes the Water District
property to PD, the three Tentative Tract Maps, one
Development Agreement, the Hillside Management
Ordinance CUP required for the hillside grading,
and the Oak Tree Removal Permit. The Master Plan
will be considered along. with the Development
Agreement.
C/Grothe expressed his concern that the EIR
indicates practically everything in the canyon to
be nonsignificant. He requested a more detailed
circulation' plan, further information on the
project's impacts regarding noise and view, and
more information regarding the exact placement of
these proposed homes.
C/Plunk requested an analysis of the additional
cost and benefit, if any, if the dirt would be
moved to another canyon. Since the area was not
listed as an SEA in the 1980 Master Plan by LA
County, the importance of Sandstone Canyon is
local, therefore local money will have to pay for
it. She stated that she would prefer that the
development is below grade. She requested an
analysis of the relative safety of slippage
occurring on cut and fill land, and on land left in
its natural state.
January 25, 1993
Page 13
Chair/Flamenbaum requested cons
following: a
discussion of the pros and cons of the openings of
any roads, in this project, to Rapid View and
Larkstone; address the discrepancy in the tree
count; review the Biological Resource Section,
Existing setting, and determine why it indicates
that there are no amphibians, which would include
frogs; distribute, to the Commission, the responses
to the comments made no later than February 2,
1993; a copy of.a more detailed index, only if it
takes half a minute to generate; information
regarding the SCAQMD standards, and their meaning
in practical terms; and a more detailed analysis as
to why concept #4 is good or bad, and how it
compares to concept three.
chair/Flamenbaum stated that the public hearing is
continued to the meeting of February 8, 1993.
CUP 91-1 & AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the
EIR 91-4 request, made by the applicant Inter -Community
Health Services, to develop a three phase 425,000
square foot medical building plaza project, to be
located at 887 Grand Avenue, that will include the
following services: medical office buildings,
acute care hospital, hospital support, outpatient
services, diagnostic and treatment center, and a.
community conference and education *center. Staff
recommended that the Planning Commission open the
public hearing, receive comments on the EIR, and
direct staff to respond to comments addressing the
document, and return with the final EIR at the next
public hearing, which will address the Development
Review and conditional Use Permit application.
Mark Blodgett, from David Evans & Associates,
summarized the process, related'to the Diamond Bar
Medical Plaza application, as follows: the City
prepared* an initial study that identified a
potential for a number of environmental impacts
,that would need further evaluation in an EIR; the
initial study and a Notice of Preparation was
circulated to a number of City departments and
local, county, and State agencies, alerting them
that a draft EIR will be prepared for this project;
the comments received from those agencies are
included in the draft EIR; upon completion ,of the
draft EIR, a notice of completion was filed; and
prior to the circulation of the draft EIR, City
staff, the applicant, and theconsultantattended a
scoping meeting to receive additional input from
interested parties. Mr. ' Evans then briefly
reviewed those areas evaluated, as presented in the
draft EIR before the Commission.
January 25, 1993 Page 14 URAFT
Deborah Nicolas, Vice President . of Corporate
Development for Intercommunity Health Services,
Inc., stated that Intercommunity Health Services is
the parent company of three affiliates:
Intercommunity Medical Center, located in Covina;
Hospice of the San Gabriel Valley; and
Intercommunity 'Foundation. Intercommunity Health
Services purchased the site in May of 1990 after
the strategic planning process identified that the
Diamond Bar area was in need of medical services,
not currently provided in the area. The intent is
to provide a facility that will be utilized long
term. The facility, in phase one, will include a
medical office building, a diagnostic and.treatment
center, based on the demand for out patient
oriented services, and a recovery center. The
second phase facility will include a hospital
building, hospital support facilities, a conference
center, and a helipad. The third phase,.projected
in 10 to 20 years if there is a growing demand,
will be a duplication of phase one and phase two.
She pointed out that the helipad will only be used
in extreme case, which is anticipated to be about
once to twice a year.
Ken Liu, the project architect, presented a
material board illustrating the material and color
to be used for the construction of the facility.
The proposed materials will have substance and
permanence. There will be accent colors as part of
the pallet that will be treated not only at ground
level but from above as well. It is our intent to
be sensitive to the neighbors, who have a view of
the roof tops, by enclosing major pieces of
equipment, or integrating them into the design and
the volumes of the buildings. It is also our
intent to break down the scale of the building, in
regards to the elevation visible to Golden Springs
Road, so that it is not a massive structure. The
facility will be a future building geared towards
evolving health care that will meet the needs of
the community.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing
opened.
Lloyd Duncan, with Comprehensive Property
Management, representing the Montefino Homeowners
Association, expressed the following concerns: it
would be beneficial to actual see the design of the
enclosed structures proposed on the roof top; since
Grand Ave. is already heavily impacted by traffic,
the additional 500 to 800 vehicle access will
create a condition of bumper to bumper traffic back
January 25, 1993
Page 15
rb
to the freeway; emergency access to the facility,
from Grand Ave. and the freeway, will be blocked by
traffic; ambulatory access, or emergency access,
should be gained off of Golden Springs Ave.;, the
parking facility should be made close to this
Golden Springs entrance, to minimize the impact of
traffic in and out of the complex, and perhaps
access to the parking facility should be shared
with the additional development below this area;
the EIR should investigate significant geological
aspects in regards to the movement Of the slope at
Montefino; the fire aspects should be investigated;
the height of the facilities should be restricted,
in the CUP, to 4 stories maximum for the life and
the duration of the project; there should be some
interlocking architectural integrity with this
facility, and future developments to the north; and
there should be some restrictions, in the CUP, that
would not allow a trauma center in the facility so
that helicopter trips are kept at a minimum; and
the location of the helipad should be addressed tc
minimize the noise impacts.
Bert Ramer, residing in Diamond Bar, on the
Citizens Advisory Committee, in favor of the
project, stated that he has been impressed with
Intercommunities willingness to listen to the
communities input, and to make modifications.
Richard Jancowski, residing at . 22801 Shardennay
Drive, #2 in Montefino, expressed the following
concerns: there will be more than the indicated 1
or 2 helicopters a month coming to the facility; if
the facility is to be duplicated in phase three,
then that means there could be 2 or 3 helipads; the
noise impacts could not possibly be mitigated, as
indicated in the EIR, since Montefino is only about
150 feet away from the facility; Grand Avenue is
already seriously impacted by traffic without this
facility; the noise and traffic impacts created
from this proposed facility will destroy the
property values of Montefino; and the notice of the
public hearing could have been better communicated,
other than the notices put in the Tribune and the
Daily Bulletin.
Mrs. Jancowski, residing at 22801 Shardennay Drive,
-4'2 in Montefino, stated that this facility does not
just impact the property value
of all of Diamond Bar. The Cil
air traffic noise pollution as
major hospital expansion in a
need all the noise, traffic,
material, or nuclear medicine
s of Montefino, but
:y is inundated with
it is. This is a
City that does not
congestion, waste
associated with it.
January 25, 1993
Page 16
The Planning Commission should consider denying the
project in it's entirety.
Dan Buffington, residing at 2505 Indian Creek, a
member of the Advisory Committee, pointed out that
the proposed facility is not a major facility, but
a small facility to be comprised mainly of medical
office space, to include an urgent care center that
is much needed in this area.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum
declared the public hearing closed, and continued
to the meeting of February 22, 1993.
Mark Blodgett stated that the consultants will
respond to all the comments raised at the public
hearing, as well as respond formally to all the
comments received from the various agencies, and
included in the final EIR.
Mr. Liu pointed out that there will only be one
helipad at any one time.
Chair/ Flamenbaum recessed. the meeting at 11:00 p.m.
The meeting was reconvened at 11:08 p.m.
VC/Meyer pointed out that there has been
significant notification of this proposed project,
which included literature mailed to households in
the community, as well as a sign on the site
itself. He then made the following. comments:
though motorists may not have difficulty leaving
the proposed site because of traffic signals, the
increase in traffic will significantly impact Grand
Ave., which is already heavily impacted; there
seems to be a tremendous amount of accidents at the
merging area of the 57/60 freeway, which tends to
impact surface streets; there should be serious
consideration to the analysis that the traffic is a
significant impact that more than likely cannot be
mitigated; explore alternatives to access Golden
Springs; it should be considered that air quality,
at build out, may or may not be mitigated to a
level of nonsignificance; arterial intersections
that are impacted by traffic tends to throw the
traffic onto collector streets; there needs to be
consideration of potential spills of hazardous
waste in and around this facility; since phase
three is a 20 year projection that could change
measurably, and may not resemble the original
concept, the scope of the project could be scaled
back to be within the foreseeable construction
budget of the applicant, allowing the Planning
Commission an opportunity to address it more
January 25, 1993 Page 17
intelligently in the environmental review; the
mitigation of the jobs housing balance is a
positive aspect; the facility may generate a
cumulative development of medical ancillary
facilities, and offices in the area to support it;
there needs to be further information relating to
the safety of the heliport in regards to landing,
as well as the possibility of crashing; and he
noted that the design of the facility is pleasing.
C/Li expressed his concern regarding the increase
in traffic. He requested further information
regarding the frequency of the use. of the
helicopter compared to the facilities in West
Covina, and other such comparable facilities, both
now and at it's buildout point in 20 years.
C/Grothe expressed his concern regarding the
traffic impacts to Grand Avenue. There needs to be
some consideration made to transferring some of
that traffic to Golden Springs.
C/Plunk noted that the project is very well planned
out, and, once the concerns regarding traffic and
roofscaping are addressed, it will be a good
project and one that is needed in the City.
Chair/Flamenbaum made the following comments:
input should be solicited from the highway patrol
because they will probably divert their accident
victims to this proposed facility; the potential
impact, of this project, to the existing slope
should be explored; are the proposed suggested
improvements to surrounding roads, as indicated in
the EIR as mitigation measures to traffic, within
the existing right-of-way or is a greater right-of-
way going to* be acquired; the impact to the traffic
mitigation, long term, should be explored if the
use of the adjoining property turns out to be a
high traffic generation facility; there should be
some consideration made to the impacts to the Fire
Station; he 'questioned the validity of the EIR in
the third phase; there needs to be consideration
made to runoff and surface reflectivity of the
parking area when the proposed project is at
buildout; what would be the impact if the flight
path was restricted so that it either does not pass
over the homes in adjacent areas, or is limited in
how low the flight path can be; the amount of paper
product trash generation should be considered as it
relates to AB939 requirements; following all the
rains, the amount of degradation of the existing
slope at the south side, north of the project,
should be explored; and there needs to be further
consideration made to the traffic impacts.
January 25, 1993
Page 18
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that this item will be
continued to the meeting of February 22, 1993.
CUP 92-11 & AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the
DR 92-5 request -1 made by the applicant Smart SMR of CA,
Inc., to locate a 200 sq. ft. building housing an
unmanned mobile radio communication facility and a
74 foot monopole, to be located at the Diamond Bar
.High School. There are two monopoles. and related
repeater stations currently located on that site.
Though the staff report indicates that the pole is
made of wood, the applicant has corrected that the
monopole will be on a 60 foot metal pole,
reflecting the existing light standards on the
football campus. Residents have expressed their
concern that this mobile radio facility will
interfere with T.V. and radio reception, however,
the information provided by the applicant indicates
that the frequency used by this service would not
interfere with either FM/AM radio or T.V.
transmission. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the Negative Declaration,
Conditional use permits 92-11 and Development
Review No. 92-5 with the Findings of Fact and
listed conditions.
Fred Wink, representing SMR of Ca., Inc., 1335 S.
Acacia Ave., Fullerton, presented computer enhanced
slides, to the Commission, simulating what the
project would look like. This location is suitable
because the facility will blend with the existing
light standards, which will mitigate visual impact,
clustering of these facilities is beneficial from a
planning standpoint, and the students will benefit
by an income flow from this lease. The FCC allows
us to operate in the frequency range of an 800 to
900 megahurst range, which is a similar frequency
range the other two facilities currently operate
under.
C/Plunk inquired if a study has been done
supporting that there is not intermodulation
distortion from.the many repeaters so close to each
other.
Mr. Wink stated that intermodulation has been
studied with these two other carriers in several
other locations, which are - on school grounds as
well. All of the studies indicate that, as long as
the frequencies used are coordinated with the
frequencies used by the other .repeaters, there
should not be any interference problem. Presently,
we are planning to start with five radios, and will
probably have a maximum of twelve radios.' We do
January 25, 1993 Page 19 uJ?AFr
not interfere with the new 900 megahurst phones
because we operate under a different frequency
range.
C/Grothe inquired about the difference between this
mobile radio service as compared to the cellular
phones service.
Mr. wink explained that the mobile radio service is
primarily used by fleet users who have dispatchers
talking one person to several persons, possibly at
the same time. There will also be the ability to
place cellular phone calls on the system as well.
VC/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be
amenable to a condition that, in the event that
there is interference with the surrounding property
owners telephone, radio, T.V., that, within a
specified period of time, the applicant would
either fix the situation or cease operation.
Mr. Wink stated that he would not object to such a
condition, given a reasonable time period to
address and identify any problem. The intent is to
be good neighbors.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing
opened.
Joe Larutta, residing at 2506 Sunbright Dr.,
expressed the following concerns: the applicant is
installing a third tower because he is overloaded,
and there is a possibility that he will request a
fourth or fifth tower in the future; the towers and
antennas can be seen from the 57 freeway going
north; and public schools are not the appropriate
place for private concerns to place their
equipment,
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum
declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Wink, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum Is
inquiry, made the following responses: it operates
under a maximum of 100 watts per channel; the other
towers presently existing are owned by Pactel and
LA Cellular, and we do not own any other tower in
this city; there is no objection to condition 7; a
fence is built around the monopole to prevent
climbing; the pole will be of galvanized material
to match the existing light standards; because it
is a line of sight technology, there is a need for
a 60 foot rad center to be able to talk to the
January 25, 1993
Page 20
other sites; and the nearest light standards are
approximately 100 to 110 feet to the north.
p4air/Flamenbau-m, inquired if it is technically
feasible to mount the antennae either around the
existing light standard, or on top of it.
Don LaFoy, the construction expert for SMR, stated
that a structural analysis of that existing pole,
and the foundation that supports it, would have to
be done to determine if that would be possible.
The weight put up there will be insignificant but
the usual problem relates to wind loading. Also,
because the athletic bleachers are in between two
of the light standards, on the west side of the
field, the School District may be concerned it may
fall on the bleachers in case of an earthquake.
C/Grothe inquired why the antennas could not be
placed on the gymnasium, along with the' other
antennas, since they operate under different
frequencies.
Mr. Wink explained that the question of
interference becomes more difficult to deal with
the closer you get to those other facilities. Mr.
Winks inquired if the project could be conditioned
requiring that we first determine if the school
will allow us to put the equipment of the light
standards*, and if not, then proceed as first
proposed.
C/Meyer noted that the School District does have
the authority to exempt themselves, under a given
set - of circumstances, from local zoning
requirements.
CDD/DeStefano stated that it is staff's opinion
that this application does not fall into the
category that allows the School District to exempt
themselves, nor does it fall under a broader PUC
category that allows them to exempt themselves from
local jurisdiction and review.
Motion was made by C/Plunk to deny the project
since there are already two antennas at that
location.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
C/Plunk excused herself from the meeting at 12:00
a. m.
January 25, 1993 Page 21 u#?AFT
variance 92-3
Planned Sign
Program 92-4
C/Grothe requested that there be a condition
restricting the use of microwave dishes on the
pole. He stated that he would prefer a condition
that the applicant mount the equipment on the
existing light standards, subject to the review and
approval of the City Engineer.
DCA/Fox.advised that such the condition, regarding
mounting the equipment to the light standards,
would make this a different application, in which
the Commission would not have had the opportunity
to review the effect of such an installation as
related to potential safety, and other problems
that may arise. The applicant would have to make a
new application.
Motion was made by C/Grothe to continue the
project, with the condition that the equipment be
mounted on the light standards, if engineeringly
feasible and acceptable to the School District.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Resolution as
submitted by staff with the following added
conditions: microwave dishes are not to be
installed on the pole; in the event that this
facility causes interference or disturbance with
audio or television reception of the residents,
within 500 feet of the facility, the applicant will
repair the facility within 21 days of notification,
or cease it's operation; and the plans be modified
to change this from a wooden pole to a steel pole
galvanized of the same color of the existing light
standards.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Li, Grothe, VC/Meyer, and
Chair/Flamenbaum.
None.
Plunk.
None.
& AP/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the
request made by. the applicant Steve Porretta to
develop a Planned Sign Program at Diamond Bar
Village Shopping Center 325-379 S. Diamond Bar
Blvd. and 23341=23499 E. Golden Springs Dr., and
approval of a Variance for six monument signs, each
fifteen feet in height and 84 square feet of sign
face area. Though the proposed project is an
opportunity to correct sign deficiencies and
improve sign visibility for tenants, * staff does not
concur with the applicants request for six (6)
January 25, 1993 Page 22
fifteen foot monument signs, and feel that a
variance from the maximum height allowed by the
Sign ordinance is appropriate with limitations
listed in the staff report. It is recommended that
the Commission consider reducing the 3 monuments
signs, located adjacent to buildings A, D, and H,
to 10 feet in height, and 3 monument signs, located
adjacent to building B, E, and I, to be reduced to
6 feet in height. It is further recommended that
the Commission approve the Planned Sign Program,
the recommended reduction in the height of the
monument signs, Findings of Fact, and conditions as
listed within the attached resolution.
Steve Porretta, President of Southland Management,
Inc., stated that because many of the tenants in
the center do not have a budget for advertising,
which is critical to their operation, they relay on
the advertisement of the center. The signs need to
be 15 feet in height so that they are seen by
motorists traveling 45 mph.
Connie Nicholson, owner of BCN Lighting & signs,
explained that the basis of the design for the 15
foot signs is on sign readability tests which
indicate that the letters need to be between 911 to
1211 in height to be seen in a 45 -mph area.
Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing
opened.
Hearing no testimony, Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the
public hearing closed.
VC/Meyer stated that, since the signs are to be
remodeled, they should be made to comply with the
Sign ordinance. All the businesses along Diamond
Bar Blvd., near the intersection of Grand Ave.,
comply with the Sign ordinance.
Connie Nicholson explained that such a sign, as is
allowed by the Sign Ordinance, which is a 6 foot
maximum, with a 72 square foot sign band area,
allowing a 12 foot width in sign, would block the
line of sight. She further stated that this center
is unique in that it has 106 tenants. Due to the
configuration of the center, everything faces
internally to the center. Exterior advertising is
very important. These plans would allow about 52%
of the tenants to advertise.
VC/Meyer stated that one of the reasons for the
Sign ordinance is to encourage property owners to
advertise the center, and not the individual
January 25, 1993 Page 23
DRIA, t-2�1
tenants. In order for the Commission to approve a
variance, there needs to be a finding that this
center is being denied a substantial property right
that is afforded your neighbors in the same
vicinity or zone.
Mr. Porretta pointed out that if they install signs
permitted under the Sign ordinance, which would
allow a 12 foot long sign. Then a traffic hazard
would be created because it would block Visibility
into the center.
C/Grothe pointed out that, just because the Sign
Ordinance allows a 6 foot sign, with 72 square
feet, does not mean that is what has to be put in.
There does not seem to be any grounds for a
variance of the Sign ordinance.
Connie Nicholson, in response to VC/Meyer, stated
that they are not in concurrence with the
recommendation made by staff regarding the sign
height because it would reduce the amount of
tenants that can advertise from 52% to about 30%.
VC/Meyer suggested that the applicant research the
City of Scottsdale, a very economically viable
community, that does not allow any monumen signs
over 6 feet. The sign criteria used by the
applicant seems to be out dated and the method. of
advertising is antiquated. The center should be
advertised, not the tenant, because it is doubtful,
with the amount of conflict occurring in those
driveways, that anyone is going to read the little
signs placed on the monument signs.
Chair/Flamenbaum, noting that staff's
recommendation to allow three monuments signs to be
10 feet in. height would also require a variance,
inquired what criteria was used by staff to
establish a variance.
PT/Lungu explained that staff based the variance
upon the following unique conditions: the
topography of the site; the center is on a slope;
the buildings are set more than 150 feet back from
the street; and the tenants are not visible from
the street. The applicant is attempting to clean
up that center, even though those monument signs
are permitted to remain as. they are. If the
applicant is allowed the 7 monument signs, as
indicated in the code, there would be 504 square
feet total sign face area. But, if staff's
suggestion is followed, there would be 480 square
feet total sign face area.
January 25, 1993 Page 24
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Grothe 'stated that there are other centers in
town, such as the Pepper Tree Plaza, that have the
identical set of circumstances.
Motion was made by C/Grothe to deny the
application.
The motion dies for lack of a second.
C/Li suggested that the item be continued to allow
staff and the applicant additional time to discuss
the matter and to come up with a compromise.
Motion was made by Chair/ Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Meyer and CARRIED to continue the matter to the
next meeting, with direction that staff and the
applicant attempt to resolve the issue regarding
the height of the signs.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
Li, VC/Meyer, and
Chair/Flamenbaun.
Grothe.
Plunk.
None.
Motion was made. by Chair/ Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/Meyer and -CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 12:50 a.m.
Respectively,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning.commis.sionerr
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Planned Sign Program No. 92-4 and Variance
No. 92-3
DATE: February 2, 1993
As directed by the Planning Commission, staff met with the appli-
cant of the above mentioned project on January 29, 1993 to resolve
the issue regarding installation of monument signs which exceed
the height permitted by the Sign Ordinance.
The applicant has determined that additional time is required to
consider this matter .and prepare an addendum to the application
for a Planned Sign Program and Variance. The applicant plans to
present the addendum to the City by March 10, 1993.
The applicant is aware of the fact that March 10, 1993 is the sub-
mittal deadline for the addendum. This will give staff time to
review the addendum and hopefully place it on the agenda for the
March 22, 1993 Planning commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that this project be continued until March
22, 1993 in order to give the applicant time to submit an addendum
to the application for Planned Sign Program No. 92-4 and Variance
No. 92-3.
Attachments:
Correspondence dated February 2, 1993
ra -r U E $0Fa HT 1 1'4
Llglwifg
February 2, 1993
Ms, Ann Lungu
City of Diamond Bar, Planning Department
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 91765
pear Ms LuDgu:
Planned Sign Program -92-1) and, Variance. 92-31
SUBJECT: Continuance to IT
As the result of The Planning Commission Meeting oll '25th and our meeting on
0 ovie prodrqM,
are asking for a continuance of t.11v qb mentioned
Friday January 29th we a
We have determined additional administration is roquirt.'!d t.() cor
iiplete this project. The
options and conditions are too numerous to detail,
Our intention is tQ. PrOpare an addendum to the pror.1-tO bY M81 -ch 10, 1993, This
should provide enough time for your review and recotlim0r)(!ftt, ion.
Please feel free to contact D . le. regarding any quesLiw)--, Or GOT"CelIns you might have
regarding this Project. Your continued assistance and cullaboration, hopefully,
will result in achieving both our objectives,
Sincerely,
�`%' X16
Constance C. Nicholson
cc: Mr. Steve Porretta - Southland Management ComPA-11Y
(Onlradors UCOS0601380
ta NnnHilk. CA 91709 m (714)393,4066 rA Fax (714) 3934068
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
I. SUMMARY/INTRODUCTION
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3
REPORT DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 1993
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 1993
CASE/FILE NUMBER: A) I south Pointe Master Plan Environmental
Impact Report, State clearinghouse No.
PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located in the south-
western area of the City of Diamond Bar,
encompassing an area of approximately 171+
acres. The project site, which is comprised
of a number of existing parcels and ownership
interests, can be generally described as
being situated westerly of the Orange (SR -57)
Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly of the
corporate boundaries of the City (and Tract
No. 27141), northerly of Pathfinder Road and
1
92081040
B)
General Plan Amendment
C)(3)Development
Agreement(s)
D)
Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 (Arciero)
E)
Tentative Tract 51253 (Patel)
F)
Vesting Tentative Tract 51407 (RnP)
G)(3)Hillside
Management Ordinance
Conditional Use Permit(s)
H)(3)Oak
Tree Removal Permit(s)
APPLICATION REQUEST:
Land development request consisting of
Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 involving
the subdivision of 47.4 acres into 93
parcels (91 single-family residential
lots, 7,200 sq. ft. min. lot size and 2
commercial lots), Tentative Tract 51253
involving the subdivision of lots 46, 47
and 48 of Tract 32576 consisting of 6.7
acres up to 26 parcels (all single-
family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft.
min. lot size), Vesting Tentative Tract
51407 involving the subdivision of lot
53 of Tract 35742 and lots 46, 47, 48
and 49 of Tract 32576 consisting of 90.8
acres into 87 parcels (up to 90 single-
family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft.
min. lot size, 1 open space lot and 3
commercial lots), three (3) development
agreements containing a master plan, a
general plan amendment to redesignate
the Water District Parcel P.D., three
(3) conditional use permits relative to
hillside grading, three (3) oak tree
removal permits and review of an
environmental impact report.
PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located in the south-
western area of the City of Diamond Bar,
encompassing an area of approximately 171+
acres. The project site, which is comprised
of a number of existing parcels and ownership
interests, can be generally described as
being situated westerly of the Orange (SR -57)
Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly of the
corporate boundaries of the City (and Tract
No. 27141), northerly of Pathfinder Road and
1
the existing residential area (i.e., Tract
No. 32576) obtaining vehicular access from
the roadway and southerly of South Pointe
Middle School and existing residential and
vacant properties located southerly of Colima
Road.
PROPERTY OWN I ERS: Walnut Valley Unified School District, City
of Diamond Bar, RnP Development Inc., Arciero
and Sons Inc., and Amrut Patel.
APPLICANTS: (1) RnP Development, Inc., 151 Juanita Avenue,
Glendora, CA 91740
(2) Arciero and Sons, Inc., 950 North Tustin,
Anaheim, CA 92807
(3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th St., Upland, CA
91785
(4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr.,
Ste. 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
I. BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
This Staff Report is an Addendum to the South Pointe Master Plan
Staff Report prepared for the January 25, 1993, Planning
Commission meeting. This Addendum Staff Report provides the
framework for the February 8, 1993, public meeting. The focus of
the Staff Report Addendum is consideration of procedures for the
February 8th meeting and as a guidebook for materials presented
to the Planning commission.
II. SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(DEIR)
Section IV Of the January 25th Staff Report consists of a summary
of the South Pointe Master Plan DEIR. The DEIR is divided into
eight chapters and an appendices. Chapter 4 of the DEIR
describes and analyzes potential project environmental impacts.
The subject categories analyzed in Chapter 4 include land use,
earth, water, biological resources, transportation/circulation,
air quality,.noise, public services and facilities,
archaeology/paleontology and aesthetics. For each subject
category the text in Chapter 4 includes a discussion relative to
project setting, project impacts and recommended mitigation
measures.
Table 2 (Pages 2-28 through 2-47) from the DEIR is directed to
your attention. Table 2 provides a summary of environmental
impacts and mitigation measures. This Table displays the
comprehensive approach taken to environmental impact analysis
within the DEIR and the range of recommended mitigation measures
provided.
K
Environmental Impact Reports are designed as informational
documents. The Planning Commission can recommend City Council
certification of the information within the DEIR as adequate for
analyzing the potential project environmental impacts independent
of development project resolutions, Items B-H of the case/file
numbers.
The 45 -day DEIR public comment period closed on January 18, 1993.
Staff will provide a review of the comments received during the
public comment period and an overview of initial responses at the
February 22nd meeting.
III. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA)
One part of the South Pointe application package involves a GPA
to redesignate the Water District ' parcel to planned development.
An analysis of General Plan consis'tency.is provided as Appendix A
of the January 25, 1993 Staff Report. Appendix A discusses
project relationship to each goal of the General Plan. Through
this exercise, consistency with the General Plan is clearly
identified.
IV. TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS
Three tentative tract maps have been filed for subdividing the
project site into residential, commercial and open space/park
parcels. Section III of the January 25th Staff Report
(Application Analysis) provides a summary of the intensity and
type of development proposed with each tentative tract.
V. HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)
Three Conditional Use Permits for Hillside Management are
included within the application package. The impact of project
hillside grading was analyzed in the DEIR in Sections 4.2 Earth
Resources and 4.10 Aesthetics. Section III F of the January 25th
Staff Report addresses how the project grading plan complies with
the Hillside Management Ordinance.
VI. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Staff will brief the Commission on the Development Agreement
status and return draft agreements to the Planning Commission for
your February 22, 1993 meeting.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Receive additional public input on the adequacy of
the DEIR.
B. Close the public hearing relative to DEIR
I comments.
3
C. Staff will review the setting, impact and
mitigation sections of the EIR with the
Commission.
D. Continue consideration of the project and project
public hearing to February 22, 1993.
E. If time permits, Staff will begin the review of
the other discretionary items noted as Sections
III -VI of this Staff Report.
4
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
I. SUMMARY/INTRODUCTION
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 3
REPORT DATE: January 21, 1993
MEETING DATE: January 25, 1993
CASE/FILE NUMBER: A) South Pointe Master Plan Environmental
Impact -Report, State Clearinghouse No.
92081040
B) General Plan Amendment
C) Development Agreement
D) Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 (Arciero)
E) Tentative Tract 51253 (Patel) -
F) Vesting Tentative Tract 514.07 (RnP)
G) Hillside Management ordinance
Conditional Use Permit
H) Oak Tree Removal Permit
APPLICATION REQUEST: Land development request consisting of
Vesting Tentative Tract 32400 involving
the subdivision of 47.4 acres into 93
parcels (91 single-family residential
lots, 7,200 sq. ft. min. lot size and 2
commercial lots), Tentative Tract 51253
involving the subdivision of lots 46, 47
and 48 of Tract' 32576 consisting of 6.7
acres up to 26 parcels (all single-
family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft.
min. lot size), Vesting Tentative Tract
51407' involving the subdivision of lot
53 of Tract 35742 and lots 46, 47, 48
and 49 of Tract 32576 consisting of 90.8
acres into 87 parcels (up to 90 single-
family residential lots, 8,000 sq. ft.
min. lot size, 1 open space lot and 3
commercial lots), a development
agreement containing a master plan and
zone change, a general plan amendment to
redesignate the Water Dis,trict Parcel
P.P., conditional use permit relative to
hillside grading, oak tree removal
permit ..and review of an environmental
impact report.
PROPERTY LOCATION: The proposed project is located in the south-
western area of the City of Diamond Bar,
encompassing an area of approximately 171+
acres. The project site, which is comprised
of a number of existing parcels and ownership
interests, can be generally described as
being situated westerly of the orange (SR -57)
Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, easterly of the
corporate boundaries of the City (and Tract
No. 27141), northerly of Pathfinder Road and
the existing residential area (i.e., Tract
No. 32576) obtaining vehicular access from
the roadway -and southerly of South Pointe
Middle School and existing residential and
vacant properties located southerly of Colima
Road.
PROPERTY OWNERS: Walnut Valley Unified School District, City
of Diamond Bar, RnP Development Inc., Arciero
and Sons Inc., and Amrut Patel.
APPLICANTS: (1) RnP Development, Inc., 151 Juanita Avenue,
Glendora, CA 91740
(2) Arciero and Sons, Inc., 950 North Tustin,
Anaheim, CA 92807
(3) Sasak Corporation, 858 W. 9th St., Upland, CA
91785
(4) City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Dr.,
Ste. 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -
PUBLIC NOTICES
The notice of preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact
Report was distributed on August 19, 1992. The NOP comment
period was 30 days in accordance with CEQA guidelines.
The South Pointe Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report
was circulated for public review and comment between November 30,
1992 and January 18, 1993.
A notice of public hearing was mailed to approximately 1,100
property owners adjacent to the site, on January 14, 1993.
Additionally, a notice of this Public Hearing was published in
the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin Newspapers on January 15, 1993.
II. BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
The South Pointe Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Development
Agreement and concurrently filed Tentative Tract Maps represent a
comprehensive land planning effort on approximately 171 acres of
primarily undeveloped land in the City of Diamond Bar. The South
Pointe Master Plan identifies* the phased development and
subsequent use of the land for residential, recreational,
commercial/office, open space and educational purposes. The
K
project site has been divided into five distinct planning areas
(or enclaves) . For each enclave, project specific development
standards have been established. These enclaves reflect the
primary land, use (e.g. residential, commercial, open space,
school, public facilities, park) which will occupy that
geographic sub -area.
As proposed, project implementation will result in: (1) the
execution of a development agreement(s) between the City of
Diamond Bar and the project applicant (s) ; (2) the adoption of "a
master plan (i.e., South Pointe Master Plan), encompassing the
site
project and containing proje'ct-specific development
standards for future uses; (3) the creation of a residential
subdivision allowing for the development of up to 91 single-
family detached dwelling units on approximately 40+ acres (i.e,,,
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400); (4) the approval of a vesting
tentative map (i.e., Vesting Tentative Map No. 51407) authorizing
the development of up to 90 single-family detached residential
units on a 41.3+ acre component of the project site; (5) the
establishment of up to 26 lot single-family detached residential
subdivision on approximately 6.7+ acres; (6) dedication and
subsequent development of a 20+ acre neighborhood park site; and
(7) creation ofa number of commercial parcels totaling
approximately 31+ acres. Upon recordation of the final maps, a
portion of the commercial acreage will be conveyed to the City of
Diamond Bar for its subsequent use or disposition. Similarly,
the proposed park site will be conveyed to the City and
subsequently developed and maintained as a public park in
accordance with the terms of the proposed development
agreement(s).
To accommodate the proposed land uses, a number of circulation
system improvements have been identified. These improvements
include: (1) the creation of a number of new local streets
internal to the project site; (2) the extension of Larkstone
Drive for emergency vehicles only at South Pointe Middle School
and the development of "A" 'Street between Morning Sun Avenue and
Brea Canyon Road; (4) improvements to Brea Canyon Road along that
segment contiguous with the project site; and (5) a number of
off-site street and intersection improvements designed to
mitigate both project and anticipated cumulative traffic demands.
It is presently the intent of the project applicants to convey
the future local and collector streets internal to the project
site to the City of Diamond Bar who will be responsible for the
maintenance of those public rights-of-way.
3
A number of public actions will be required to assemble the
project site as presently proposed. These actions include, but
may not be limited to: (1) transfer of an undeveloped parcel of
land of approximately 3 acres �(i.e., Larkstone Park) from the
City of Diamond Bar to the Walnut Valley Unified School District
for inclusion within South Pointe Middle School; (2) conveyance
of an area of approximately 2 acres (located southerly --of
Larkstone Drive) from the Walnut Valley School District to the
City; (3) conveyance of that residual 2+ acre site to one (i.e.,
RnP Development, Inc.) or all of the project applicants as a
trade for other acreage on-site to be conveyed to the City; (4)
transfer or vacation of 6+ acres of City -owned right-of-way
located along Brea Canyon Road to the project applicant(s) to be
subsequently utilized for residential and/or commercial purposes;
and (5) acquisition by the City of 4+ acres of existing Walnut
Valley Water District land and subsequent conveyance of that site
to the project applicant(s) to be included as part of the
residential and/or commercial component of the project.
Inaccordancewith the Subdivision Map Act (California Government
Code Section 66410 et seq) and the Subdivision ordinance (Title
21, Los Angeles County Code) approval of a tentative tract map(s)
and vesting tentative
ative tract map will be required for project
implementation. Other discretionary City approvals include: (1)
approval of a development agreement(s) involving the City, the
project applicants and other parties in interest; (2) approval of
the South Pointe Master Plan; (3). approval of a General Plan
Amendment and (4) approval of a Conditional Use Permit(s), as
authorized under the City's Hillside Management Ordinance, and
Oak Tre Permits.
In addition, a number of other discretionary actions are
anticipated from. other Responsible Agencies having jurisdiction
by law over specific aspects of the project. Those permits and
approvals may include, but may not be limited to: (l)- applicable
construction, storm water and National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits from the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works and/or California Regional Water
Quality Control Board; (2) acceptance of real property by the
Walnut Valley Unified School District and conveyance of real
property by the Walnut Valley Water District; (3) acceptance of
real property by the City and conveyance of real property by the
City; (4) Section 401 Water Quality ' Certifications) from the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board; (6),Section 1601
- 1607 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game
(7) Section 404 P ' ermit(s) from the United States Department of
the Army - Corps of Engineers, and (8) annexation of the project
site to the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD).
4
Individual components of the application package are discussed in
Section III (Application -Analysis). Included within Section III
is an analysis of the different alternatives considered for the
project site. Including alternatives associated with South
Pointe Middle School and removal of surplus soil. . The EIR
prepared for the school site assumed disposal of soil within
Sandstone Canyon and Enclave 3.
III. APPLICATION ANALYSIS
A. South Pointe MasterPlan
The South Pointe Master Plan represents a -comprehensive land use
planning. approach designed to provide a mixed use neighborhood
comprised of residential, open space/park and commercial/office
land uses which blend with the adjacent built environment and.
coincide with the natural resource values currently associated
with the project site.
The Master Plan is a superior land planning tool when considered
opposite the piecemeal approach associated with traditional land
planning efforts typical of multiple ownership parcels.
The Master Plan weaves five private and public parcels with
different ownership into a land use strategy which provides for a
full range of land uses and therefore a balanced neighborhood.
Section B describes each enclave and corresponding project
contained within the Master Plan.
.B. Enclave/Project Description
Enclave 1 is situated on the west side of the master plan study
area. This enclave is comprised of single family residential
lots and consists of 109 parcels on 48 acres.. Minimum lot sizes
are 8,000 square feet, and minimum pad sizes are 6,900 square
feet. The residences will be maximum of two-story in height,
each unit will have a 2 -car garage. Enclave 1 is comprised of
two separate -Vesting/Tentative Tracts 51407 and 51253. Each
residential unit will have a minimum 2 -car garage.
The neighborhoods in this enclave are compatible with the
existing style and type of urban development adjacent to the
project.
Enclave 2 is situated in the northern portion of South Pointe and
is the site of South Pointe Middle School. Thisenclave is 32
acres in size, allowable uses are limited * to public school
purposes. Development standards for this enclave shall be
determined through School District Site Plan Review but are
W
required to reflect neighborhood character. Completion of Street
"A"with an emergency access connection to Larkstone Drive will
provide an alternative access to the school site.
Enclave 3 is situated in the northeastern portion of the master
plan study area. This enclave is similar to Enclave 1 in that it
is comprised of simgLe f-616i'ly.homes with similar development
standards. Minimum lot size in this enclave is limited to 7,200
square feet with a 6,000 square foot minimum pad size. Vesting
Tentative Tract 32400 is located in this enclave. Given
proximity to the SR -57 Freeway and Brea Canyon Road, a backyard
fence and combination noise wall will be constructed along the
eastern boundary parallel to the SR -57 Freeway.
Enclave 4 represents the commercial/office development area.
This enclave is strategically located along.Brea Canyon Road near
the Pathfinder Road exit on the 57 Freeway. Development of
commercial uses at this strategic location is supportive of
General Plan objectives which encourage business development
which take advantage of freeway visibility. Furthermore, this
enclave is located at the main entrance into the South Pointe
community (Street "A" at Brea Canyon Road). A maximum of 290,000
square feet of commercial square footage is permitted. Maximum
building height is limited to 50 feet. Master Plan development
standards include ample building, setbacks, sign control,
landscaping of setback areas and parking lots and standards for
trash enclosures, screening of 'mechanical equipment and
limitations on exterior lighting. Design standards were aimed at
providing compatibility with the adjacent residential enclave.
Enclave 5 is the centerpiece of the Master Plan. This enclave
consists of twenty acres of park/open space which serves not only
as a focal point but weaves the individual enclaves into a
cohesive planned community. Enclave 5 will be limited to park
and open space uses which serve not only future residents of
Enclaves 1 and 3 but residents throughout Diamond Bar given the
exceedance of Enclaves 1 and 3 park dedication requirements.
C. Project Phasing
As presently proposed, the project will be developed in a phased
manner over a projected ten-year period. This phasing
ng concept is
based upon both existing market characteristics, the existing
lack of formal development plans for the project's non-
residential components (e.g., formal park plan, commercial site
plan) and the resulting public ownership of a portion of the
resulting commercial site.
6
Under the proposed development'
lopment' plan, all of the residential
dwelling units (i.e., 200 units), one-half of the
commercial/office use (i.e., 145,000 square feet) and the park
site will be completed within a projected five-year period.
Phase I has been further divided into three separate components.
These components include:
0 Phase IA (Enclave 3) includes approximately 91 single-family.
homes (i.e., Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400) that will
have primary access from Brea Canyon Road.
0 Phase IB (Enclave 1) includes approximately 109 single-
family homes (i.e., Vesting Tentative- Tract No. 51407 and
Tentative Tract 51253) that will be located southwest of
South Pointe Middle School. Six homes will be located along
Lar.kstone Drive, with vehicular access to the remaining
homes provided by way of the local streets constructed as
part of the project. Primary access to the project will be
via Brea Canyon Road, with secondary access provided through
the adjoining residential neighborhood to Colima Road. The
project includes the construction of a new collector road
"A" that will tie into both Morning Sun Avenue and Brea
Canyon Road.
0 Phase IC (Enclave 4) includes the commercial component of
the project and is located along Brea Canyon Road, between
Enclave 3 and "An Street. Access to the retail uses will be
provided from the new project roadway and one driveway on
Brea Canyon Road. The exact location of the access point(s)
is (are) not known at this time and will be determined when
the site plan(s) for that use is developed.
The remaining 145,000 square feet of use (i.e.,
Phase II). is projected to be completed within a term of
approximately ten years.
D. Development Agreement
In 1979 the California legislature added Article 2.5 to the
Government Code. Article 2.5 provides municipalities with the
ability to enter into a development agreement with any property
owner. In adding Article. 2.5 to the Government Code the
Legislature found that the lack of certainty in the approval of
development projects was resulting in the waste of resources,
escalating the cost of housing and other development and
discouraging investment and commitment in long term planning.
7
Development agreements provide assurance to the applicant that
upon project approval, the applicant may proceed with the project
in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and
conditions of approval
1 in force.at the time of execution of the
agreement. A development agreement shall specify the duration of
the agreement, the permitted uses of the property,
dens ity/intensity of use, maximum building height and size- and -
provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public
purposes. The agreement may provide that construction shall
commence within a specified time, including the identification of
phase s.
Simply, the development agreement establishes the terms and
conditions by which development can proceed and provides the
applicant assurances based on the applicant's commitment to
timing and compliance with the terms and conditions.
E. Land Trades/Transfer or Development Rights
Assemblage of the project site will require several actions: (1)
transfer of a 3+ acre undeveloped parcel (Larkstone Park) from
the City of Diamond Bar to the Walnut Valley Unified School
District*; (2) conveyance of an area of approximately 2 acres
(located southerly of Larkstone Drive) from the School District
to the City; (3) conveyance of the 2+ acre parcel to RnP
Development; (4) conveyance of parkland (Enclave 5) from RnP
Development to the City (5) vacation of 6+ acres of City -owned
Brea Canyon Road right-of-way to project applicants for
residential/commercial purposes and (6) acquisition by the City
of 4+ acres of existing, Walnut Valley water -District land and
subsequent conveyance to the project applicants for
residential/commercial purposes. The City may also pursue the
acquisition or trade of the 3+ acres hilltop and at the end of
Larkstone Drive from the SchoolDistrictfor park purposes.
In addition, the City will receive 10+ acres of commercial
property per the terms of the development agreement from RnP. if
the City permits a transfer of development rights (TDR) to
another site then the commercial dedication can be increased to
15 acres once entitlement is obtained at the TDR receiving site.
F. Compliance with Hillside ordinance
The City of Diamond Bar's adopted Hillside Management Ordinance
contains several sections which provide guidelines and standards
for evaluating hillside development projects. The following
analysis focuses on those sections of the ordinance which set
specific guidelines or standards.
E
Section 1 Purpose
The South Pointe Master Plan is consistent with the purpose
statement of the Hillside Management ordinance in that:
The location of Enclave 5 (Park/open Space) is situated in a
manner that itpreserves views to -the hillside area, concentrates
the development enclaves (Enclaves 1-4) in those areas with the
least environmental impact, utilization of Enclave 5 for
parks/open space preserves where.possible the.natural topography
and significant swales. The Master Plan contains hillside
development standards (Section VI) which provide direction and
encourage sensitivity hillside grading. The project EIR assessed
the environmental impacts of the project. The open space design
of the plan coupled with project mitigation measures provides an
environmental equilibrium relative to native vegetation, geology,
slopes and drainage patterns. The combination of hillside
development 'standards and land planning provide a correlation
between the intensity of development with the steepness of the
terrain. The plan includes an effective circulation pattern.
Sections 2-5
The proposed Master
uses appropriate to
the General Plan a
whereby development
(reference project
Section 10
Plan would
a hillside
n
d a maximum
constraints
EIR).
permit a project which introduces
setting, density consistent with
number of residential units (200)
have been eliminated or mitigated
The proposed project includes grading techniques which minimize
grading in portions of the project. Limited portions of the
project include conventional grading, however, the plan
compensates by incorporating extensive open space : and significant
use of green belts.
Section 11
The project grading plan, illustrates slope design which includes
rounding of ridgeline cuts, concave canyon fills and rounding of
transition. edges where appropriate. Grading design with these
elements is especially prevalent within Enclave 5 transition
areas which border Enclaves 1 and 3.
The South Pointe Master Plan (Section VI) includes hillside
development standards which are complimentary to the standards
and guidelines contained within the City's Hillside Management
Ordinance.
9
development standards and land planning provide a correlation
between the intensity of development with the steepness of. the
terrain. The plan includes an effective circulation pattern.
Sections 2-5
The proposed Master Plan would permit a project which introduces
uses appropriate to a hillside setting, density consistent with
the General Plan and a maxi -mum number of residential units (20Q)
whereby development constraints have been eliminated or mitigated
(reference project EIR).
Section 10
The proposed project includes grading techniques which minimize
grading in portions of the project. Limited portions of the
project include conventional grading, however, the plan
compensates by incorporating extensive open space and significant
use of green belts.
Section 11
The project grading plan illustrates slope design which includes
rounding of ridgeline cuts, concave canyon fills and rounding of
transition edges where appropriate. Grading design with these
elements is especially prevalent within Enclave 5 transition
areas which border Enclaves 1 and 3.
The South Pointe Master Plan (Section VI) includes hillside
development standards which are complimentary to the standards
and guidelines contained within the City's Hillside Management
Ordinance.
G. Sales Tax Revenue
The project as proposed includes approximately 290,000 square
feet of commercial/office development within Enclave 4.
Depending on the mix of uses within Enclave 4 the resultant sales
tax revenue received by the City can vary.
Three commercial/office land use mix scenarios were developed to
demonstrate the range of sales tax revenue.
SCENARIO LAND USE
1. Commercial (100%)
2. 50% Commercial/50% office
SQUARE FOOTAGE
3. Office (90%)/Commercial (10%)
290,000
ANNUAL REVENUE
$791,700
145,000 each use $376,283
G. Sales Tax Revenue
The project as proposed. includes approximately, 290,000 square
feet of commercial/office development within Enclave 4.
Depending on the mix of uses within Enclave 4 the resultant sales
tax revenue received by the City can vary.
Three commercial/office land use mix scenarios were developed to
demonstrate the range of sales tax revenue.
SCENARIO LAND USE
1. Commercial (100%)
2., 50% Commercial/50% office
SQUARE FOOTAGE
3. office (90%)/Commercial (10%)
ANNUAL REVENUE
145,000 each use
261,000 Office
39,000 Commercial
$791,700
$376,283
Scenario 1 assumes 100% development with -commercial uses. It was
assumed that the commercial uses would function similar to a
neighborhood center (upper decile), given the site's proximity to
residential neighborhoods and visibility from the 57 Freeway.
Scenario 1 sales tax revenue was estimated -at $273.98 per square
foot.* Scenario 2 assumed a 50% split between commercial and
office uses. Sales tax revenue for the commercial square footage
was assumed at 100,000 square feet (neighborhood center) .45,000
square feet as convenience center/office support ($227.34 per
square. foot).* Scenario 3 assumed a predominantly office
environment with a 10% convenience commercial support.
Obviously the greater amount of square footage devoted to
commercial uses results in higher annual revenues to the City.
Market demands will drive the land use mix for Enclave 4.
However, given visibilityfrom the 57 Freeway and accessibility
from surrounding residential neighborhoods, it is reasonable to
assume that a fair percentage of the square footage will be
devoted to neighborhood and convenience commercial uses. The
site's proximity to the Pathfinder Road on and off ramp provides
potential for freeway -orientated regional commercial. During
site plan review of the commercial/office parcels it may be
prudent to evaluate the proposed land use mix.
$435,600.00 per acre. Ten acres of commercial property would
sell for approximately $4.3 million dollars. If the City choose
to lease the land, City revenues would*be approximately 8-10% of
land value annually, or $430,000.00. This value does not
consider a 5 -year escalator associated with long term leases.
H. Alternatives Considered
The project EIR analyzed a range of project alternatives
including alternative site plans (Concept Plans 1-4) which
considered design options for the project to a full range of land
use/development alternatives as discussed in Chapter 6 of the
EIR.
* Source Urban Land institute, Urban Decision Systems
12
EIR Land Use/Development Alternatives
The State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126(d)) require that in
addition to the project, a reasonable range of alternatives to
the pending action (Which could feasibly attain the basic
objectives of the project) be evaluated.
The consideration of a "no project" alternative is required by
statute as one of the alternatives which require analysis. The
first of these "no project" alternatives assumes that the project
area is retained in its existing condition and that no
development of that. area would be anticipated to occur at this
time. The second scenario (i.e., development in accordance with
existing plans and policies) acknowledges that site
intensification may occur over time in accordance with applicable
public policy (i.e., no discretionary approvals are issued upon
the project site).
In addition to the two "no project" alternatives identified
above, four other project options were analyzed including a
reduced project size (e.g., deletion of that area comprising
Tentative Tract No. 51253), an alternative site plan
incorporating cluster development, development of only that area
comprising Tentative Tract No. 51253 and a more intense
development alternative (i.e., reduction of the proposed park
site and a corresponding increase in residential and non"
residential development).
No Project Alternative
The Master Environmen'tal Assessment contains a number of policies
supporting the preservation of existing undeveloped land within
the City for both their aesthetic and biological -value. In
reference to those policies, "Sandstone Canyon" (which includes a
portion of the project site) is identified as an area of
potential preservation. In conformance with those policies the
"no project" (i.e., no development) alternative assumes that the
project site would be retained as undeveloped land.
Under this alternative, development rights to the project would
be conveyed (through either public acquisition or implementation
of a transfer of development rights).
Without public intervention and in recognition of existing market
forces, there is little likelihood that the site would be
retained in its existing condition. The proximity of adjoining
residential and commercial land uses, the ready availability of
existing infrastructure improvements and the land use policies
contained in both the City of Diamond Bar General Plan and Zoning
ordinance all positively influence the site's subsequent
urbanization. Based upon these factors, the "no project" option
should not be considered a feasible alternative without public
and/or private participation.
General Plan Authority Alternative
The project site includes a number of General Plan designations,
including Planned Development (Low Density Residential) , Planned
Development (Low -Density Residential, Park, open Space, General
Commercial) , School, Park and Water (Facility) . In accordance
with those designations and corresponding public policies,
allowable land uses and densities for the subject property were
defined.
Development of the project site in accordance with the land use
policies presented in the General Plan would authorize the
intensification of the project area to a greater extent than that
proposed under the South Pointe Master Plan.
Hillside -Management Ordinance Alternative
The City's Hillside Management Ordinance imposes specific
standards upon those areas subject to the jurisdiction of that
ordinance.
Based upon the methodology outlined under the Hillside Management
Ordinance, of the 139+ acres (excluding the existing South Pointe
Middle School site) — contained within this project area, an
estimated 98.2+ acres must be retained for active and/or passive
recreational use.
Under this alternative (and in accordance with the provisions of
the City's Zoning ordinance), an estimated 130 dwelling units can
be developed on-site.
Alternative.Site Plan - Cluster Development
Under this alternative, development is restricted to those areas
of the site which would produce the least impact to Sandstone
Canyon. Development is proposed only along Brea Canyon Road (in
the vicinity of the Walnut Valley Water District site) and in the
western area of the site. Under the cluster development concept
Enclave 1 consisted of 5,000 square foot postage stamp lots, -
Enclave 3 contained attached townhomes (14-20 dwelling units per
acre) with extensive use of retaining walls and Enclave 4
consisted of 2.5 acres of commercial land uses.
Preservation of Sandstone Canyon through this land use concept
introduces high density residential development patterns which
are not consistent with the character of existing neighborhoods
and reduces the commercial development potential of land with
freeway visibility to a minimum, thereby not fulfilling City
objectives associated with increasing employment opportunities
and the sales tax revenue base.
"r-1
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ti
"r-1
Maximum Development Alternative
Under this alternative the project site is further intensified
through both the introduction of additional single-family
detached dwelling units and by further expanding the acreage
allocated for commercial/office uses. A total of 220 residential
units and an estimated 302,960 square feet of non-residential use
would be developed under this option.
Tentative Tract No. 51253 Alternatives
A separate tentative tract map (i.e., Tentative Tract No. 51253)
has been filed on that 6.87+ acre property location in the
northwestern *corner of the project site. Development
alternatives for this site were analyzed in the EIR.
Summary of EIR Alternatives Compared to Project Alternative
In selecting between project alternatives, there is not a single
solution which minimizes environmental impacts and' maximizes
public benefits for each of the topical issues addressed under
this environmental analysis. For example, while the "no project"
(preservation) alternative minimizes or avoids many of the
adverse environmental effects, that. alternative requires the
development of alternative solutions'to remove and dispose of the
surplus soil presently stockpiled on the South Pointe Middle
School site, reduces job opportunities as encouraged under the
Growth Management�Plan (SCAG, February 1989) and may inhibit the
City's goal to expand active recreational opportunities
throughout the community. In addition, the "no project"
alternative is inconsistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
and would require the adoption of a General Plan amendment
identifying the site as permanent open space.
In accordance with Section 1,5092 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
alternatives which provide a reduction in project density should
only be considered if there does not exist another mitigation
measure * or measures which will provide a comparable level of
mitigation. Referencing those guidelines, "with respect to the
project which inc * ludes housing development, the public agency
shall not reduce the proposed *number of housing units as a
mitigation measure if it determines that there is another
feasible specific mitigation measure available that will provide
a comparable level of mitigation".
Concept Plan Alternatives
Concept Plan•No. 1
Concept Plan No. 1 includes the development of roadway linkages
between Larkstone Drive and Brea Canyon Road and Morning Sun
Avenue and Brea Canyon Road as-- proposed in the South Pointe
Master Plan. Access between Enclaves 3 and 4 is provided by a
stubbed street. Underthisconcept plan, a conceptual park plan
is provided. The park is approximately 8 acres in size and could
accommodate several baseball fields and public parking.
Concept Plan No. 2
The linkage between Larkstone Drive and the proposed internal
roadway connecting Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon Road was
modified to accommodate only emergency access. A turnout
(illustrated by a loop road) is provided from the proposed
collector road to facilitate drop-off and/or pick-up of students
attending the South Pointe Middle School.
The commercial site plan is modified to reflect two primary
points of ingress and egress (including additional emergency
access from Tentative Tract No. 32400), allowing vehicular access
from both Brea Canyon Road and the -proposed internal collector
road. . Commercial uses are situated within the quadrants formed
by that access with additional circulation provided by a
peripheral driveway.
Concept Plan No. 3
Under this concept plan, no direct vehicular linkage is provided
between Larkstone Drive and Brea Canyon Road (although access
continues to exist between Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon
Road). Vehicular access to the school site is, however, provided
from Brea Canyon Road by way of a local collector street. That
collector provides access to a cul-de-sac adjoining South Pointe
Middle School, offering ingress/egress to on. -site parking and
drop-off/pick-up opportunities for school-age children. The cul-
de-sac further services a single centralized parking area for the
proposed park site.
In order to create a large area for organized recreational
activities, the alignment for the collector street is re -oriented
in a southerly direction. The 3+ acre undeveloped school hilltop
at the end of Larkstone Drive is added to the park for a total of
10-11 acre park site. In relocating that roadway, a larger
playing field can be' provided. In addition, Collector "A"
provides ample on -street parking opportunities for park users.
16
Under this concept access between commercial land uses (Enclave
4) and park lands is. enhanced. In addition, Enclaves 4 and 5
(commercial and open space) are visually and physically linked
through reduction in grade differential.
Concept Plan 3 provides increased pedestrian safety by providing
improved access between . commerc.ial structures and supporting
vehicular parking areas. Pedestrians do not have to cross
collector road "A" while moving between the commercial and park
enclaves.
Concept Plan No. 4
Under* this concept plan, the internal collector road (i.e.,
Street "A") connecting Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon Road
has, been realigned in a northerly direction . to position the.
eastern segment of that roadway between Enclave No. 3 (i.e.,
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400) and Enclave No. 4 (i.e.,
commercial/office use). This layout may increase traffic noise
due to street grade, for Enclave 3 residences which back-up to
Collector "A". This design concept *increases both the physical
separation between those residential and non-residential uses and
increases the park acreage potentially usable for active and/or
passive recreational pursuits. By limiting street frontage in
the vicinity of the proposed park site, vehicular access
opportunities to that future park area may, however, be reduced.
In addition, this street layout tends to isolate the* park/open
space .acreage as opposed to making the parkland the center of the
South Pointe community.
School Site Alternatives
Implementation of the proposed development will require landform
alternations affecting most of the project area and including a
portion of the existing South Pointe middle School site.
Fill materials for Enclave 3 will be derived in part from the
existing school site which adjoins the project. - In recognition
of this proposed off-site grading, the area encompassing the
South Pointe Middle School (i.e., approximately 32 acres) has
been included in the "total master plan area".
cubic yards of grading. The dirt from the hills of
si.te will be pushed east into the. valley which lies
the school site and the tract". That environmental
further states:
the school
in between
assessment
"The (South Pointe Middle School) project will be
constructed by typical hillside grading operation's (i.e.-,
the excavation of hilltops and filling in of depressions in
areas proposed for development). (In this case however, the
grading pattern ' is more dramatic, because of the steep hills
and deep valleys.) The alteration of this particular
landform will involve a total of 1.8 million cubic yards of
grading for the entire project area (school site plus
Tentative Tract No. 32400 tract) . This entails 997,000
cubic yards for the school, and about 800,000 cubic yards
for the tract. The maximum depth of fill is estimated at
100 feet".
"The- easterly adjacent f.ill disposal site will receive
excess soil materials derived from the school site grading.
Compacted fill materials de"rived from the school site
grading (sic) . Compacted fill materials will be placed
within the major north to south trending natural drainage
course in thickness varying up to 60+ feet. 'A 2:1 fill
slope is also proposed at the southerly end of the canyon to
a height of up to 80+ feet. Grading is not planned at the
present time in peripheral areas located beyond the canyon.
Tentative Tract (No.) 32400 is ultimately proposed within
the fill disposal area".
No Project (South Pointe Middle School)
If a "no project" alternative is selected for the site then an
alternative plan would be required to dispose of the surplus
(stockpiled) soil presently on the South Pointe Middle School
site. As proposed, as part of the project, the stockpiled soil
will be used within the project boundaries. Under a "no project"
alternative the surplus soil would require off-site exportation
to an approved depository. In addition, depositing the soil at
an alternative site could require an addendum or supplement to
the South Pointe Middle School FEIR prepared by the Walnut Valley
Unified School District. The additional
tional time to prepare the
revised EIR (six months) and cost would be borne by the School
District.
The need for additional environmental analysis under a "no
project" alternative is based on a substantial increase in
construction related environmental impacts associated with
removal of the stockpiled dirt.
N V.,
If the stockpiled dirt were disposed of at a sanitary landfill it
would impact landfill capacity. In addition, the transportation
of the soil to the landfill or alternative development site would
require 25,640 truck trips (average disposal truck can hold 31.2
cubic yards) . If disposal occurred over a one year period and
you consider that construction. activity occurs only during
weekdays, then one could anticipate approximately 150 truck trips
to occur each day for a year. These trucks would emit noise and
air pollutants traveling back and forth from the disposal site.
If the trucks used local residential streets then adjacent
residential neighborhoods would be impacted. If a -haul road was
created through the project site there would be an increase in
PM10 emissions.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A. Background
Public Resource Code 21000 et seq imposes specific statutory and
procedural"requirements upon "discretionary projects proposed to
be carried out or approved by. public agencies". That statute,
more generally referred to as the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) , indicates that public agencies must prepare
an environmental impact report (ETR) when it is determined that
the proposed action "may have a significant effect on the
environment".
Based upon the submittal of formal applications and payment of
fees by a number of property owners (i.e., Arciero & Sons, Inc.,
RnP Development, Inc., 8asak Corporation) to amend the City of
Diamond Bar General Plan to authorize the development of a mixed-
u'se project on a 171 + acre site within the City, the City caused
to be prepared an InTtial Study for the purpose of conducting a
p 'liminary assessment of the potential environmental effects of
re
both the approval and the subsequent development and habitation
of the project area in accordance with those applications. The
Initial Study concluded that the project had the potential to
produce significant adverse environmental impacts upon a number
of topical environmental issues and concluded that an.EIR should
be prepared to more thoroughly address the direct., indirect and
cumulative effects of those actions.
As a result of that preliminary conclusion and as required under
the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines), the City
prepared a Notice of Preparation
reparation (NOP) indicating the City's
intent to prepare (or cause to be prepared) an EIR forthe
project and transmitted that NOP to those public agencies
required to receive notice and to those individuals who formally
19
requested notification. Receipt of the NOP by the State office
of Planning and Research, acting in its capacity as State
Clearinghouse, commenced a 30 -day comment period during which
public agencies submitted comments to the City addressing issues
warranting inclusion in the environmental analysis.
Subsequent to the conclusion of that comment period, the City
released the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South
Pointe Master Plan, SCH No. 92081040 (Draft EIR) analyzing the
project's potential impacts and containing that information
required under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In
'conjunction with the Draft EIR, a Notice of Completion (NOC) was
disseminated in a manner as required by law. Receipt of the
Draft EIR and NOC by the State Clearinghouse initiated a 45 -day
comment period for both governmental agencies and the general
public concerning the adequacy of that environmental analysis.
To facilitate public review of the Draft EIR, the City published
a notice in a newspaper of general circulation, notified
adjoining property owners and posted the project site. Based
upon those actions, the State review period concluded on January
14, 1993 and the public comment period concluded on January 18,
1993.
Based upon written comments received during that review period,
the City "(acting through its environmental consultant) is
currently in the process of preparing a draft Response to
Comments document, providing a. technical response to each of
those written inquiries. That Response to Comment document will
be returned to ' the Planning Commission subsequent to the closure
of the Commission's public hearing(s) on the project's
environmental documentation.
The Draft EIR, Response to Comments and such other. documents as
deemed appropriate by the . City, constitute the Final
Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed project.
Prior to taking action on the project,.the City must certify the
Final EIR, make appropriate Findings as required by statute,
state in writing the 'specific reasons to support its actions when
such actions will allow the occurrence of significant
environmental effects (i.e., Statement of Overriding
Considerations) and adopt -a Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring
Program to ensure the incorporation of those mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR and make conditions of project
approval. Should the City elect to deny a project, no
certification is required by statute; however, should the City
determine that the Final EIR adequately addresses potential
project -related impacts, actions upon the environmental document
can be undertaken independently of actions on the proposed
project.
20
B. Summary of Significant Impacts
Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft
EIR will reduce many of the identified project related
environmental impacts to a level which is not significant.
However, unavoidable adverse air quality and traffic impacts will
continue to remain after the application of mitigation measures.
These impacts relate predominately to cumulative development
activities anticipated to occur within the project area and will
occur notwithstanding whether the City elects to adopt the South
Pointe Master Plan. Environmental impacts found to be
significant are listed below:
0 Air Quality. Implementation of the proposed project will
not result in the generation of either short-term. (i.e.,
construction -related) or long-term air quality 'impacts. As
a result, the project, when examined in isolation of other
development activities anticipated to occur during the
buildout term of the project, will not produce a significant
air quality impact. However, in recognition of cumulative
development activities in conjunction with the existing
"non -attainment" status of the South Coast Air Basin,
cumulative air quality impacts have been determined to be
significant.
0 Traffic/Circulation. Based upon cumulative development
activities, in combination with ambient traffic volume
projections, 'a number of project area intersections are
anticipated to experience a deterioration in their existing
service levels. Although identified roadway improvements
will minimize many of those identified impacts, select
intersections will 'exhibit LOS E or LOS F level of service
conditions..
If the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
approve the development package, then it will be necessary for
the City -Council to adopt Findings and a Statement of overriding
Considerations outlining the factors associated with the
decision.
C. Development Within Sandstone Canyon
While no significant biological resources have been identified
within the project site pursuant to State and federal law, the
General Plan Master Environmental Assessment identifies Sandstone
Canyon as a "site of local concern", indicating that the site
would be. "considered for preservation". Based upon this
reference, the ultimate disposition of this site (e.g.,
development vs. preservation) constitutes an area of potential
controversy.
21
Although not developed as a policy document,. the Master
Environmental Assessment (MEA) represents a companion document to
both the City of Diamond Bar General Plan and Final Environmental
Impact Report developed for that planning document. Referencing
the MEA, "this document provides comprehensive information
regarding thephysical, social and economic elements influencing
the planning of - Diamond Bar. This information- is intended -_ a - s
baseline data for the General Plan program".
Only limited direct references to the project site are provided
in the MEA. In its di.scussion of the process of prioritizing
existing open space resources for potential preservation, the
document includes the following project area reference:
"The various building constraints and/or environmental
resources of each area must be weighed relative to each
other including the owner's right to develop some portion of
the property. The City may wish to consider the following
areas (among others) within its boundaries for potential
preservation: slopes and/or canyons west of the (SR-) 57
Freeway, both north and south of Pathfinder (Road): east and
south of South Pointe Intermediate School (Sandstone
Canyon)".
The Master Environmental Assessment has identified the proposed
project site, particularly Sandstone Canyon, as a potential
wildlife corridor to nearby Puente Hills. Although the site may
(at one time) have been a wildlife corridor, extensive
development currently surrounding the site has essentially
established an effective barrier making the site an isolated,
fragmented system where an existing viable corridor seems highly
unlikely. No conclusive data, documentation or justification
exists to support the supposition that the site is an active
wildlife corridor.
As indicated in the MEA, "the major issues facing the City
regarding biological resources deal with possible preservation of
natural areas (canyons, hillsides, etc.) within the City versus
development potential". As indicated in the alternatives
section, a 100% preservation option would require purchase of the
project site. The site is valued at over 10 million dollars
(excluding Tentative Tract 51253).
Given the lack of public funds for open space acquisition and the
land owners right under current General Plan designations, the
South Pointe Master Plan represents a prudent land use plan which
provides parkland and open space resources. In addition,
Enclaves 4 and 5 will maximize development alternatives
associated with proximity to regional transportation facilities
(SR -57) and planned expansion of public facilities (South Pointe
Middle School).
22
D. Oak Tree and Native Vegetation Removal
The majority of the vegetation on the site is Inland Sage Scrub
and Coast Live Oak Woodland. The sage scrub and some mixed
chaparral is found on the slopes of the property. The oak
woodlands are associated with the canyon bottoms and side
channels.
In accordance with City requirements an oak tree inventory was
conducted. In total, 835 Coast Live Oak Trees over 3 inches or
more in diameter at a five foot height were located on the
project site.
Ninety-two percent or 768 of the 835 oak trees will be removed as
a result of proposed grading activities on-site. In accordance
with the Oak Tree Permit ordinance, the oak trees' which will be
removed from the site will be replaced as identified in the
ordinance at a rate of 2:1. 1,536 replacement oak trees will be
placed both on-site in accordance with the landscape plan and
off-site in accordance with a replacement plan acceptable both to
the applicant and the City.
The EIR contains mitigation measures (Section 4.4.3) which
require a project -landscape palette emphasizing drought tolerant
and native plant species thereby off -setting the loss of native
vegetation. The ETR concluded that although project
implementation will result in the removal of oh -site vegetation
and given that the site does not contain any endangered plant or
animal species, elimination of the existing vegetation will not
significantly affect regional biological resources.
E. Blue -Line Streams
There presently exist two drainage courses on the project site
which are illustrated as blue -line streams on the 7.5 minute
United States Geological Survey Yorba Linda Quadrangle. All or a
portion of these drainages are subject to the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Fish and Game (under Sections 1601-1607
of the California Fish and Game Code) and United States
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (pursuant to Section
404 of the Federal Clean Water Act).
California Fish and Game Codes 1601-1607 establish the need for
an "agreement" for any project which will *direct, obstruct or
change the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any stream
designated by the Department of Fish and Game in which there is
at any time an existing fish or wildlife resource or which
benefit can be derived.
23
Li ' kewise the Corps.of Engineers 404 permit regulate the discharge
of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. In
both circumstances blue -line streams are used as an indicator of
a wildlife resource and/or water of the United States.
Therefore, prior to placing fill material within the blue -line
streams on-site the applicant must obtain a 404 permit and/or
1601-1607 agreement. If -the placement of fill material involves
the loss of habitat values, then a mitigation plan will be
required with the 404/1601 application.
F. Transportation/Circulation
Regional access to the project site is provided by the Orange
(SR -57) Freeway and the Pomona (SR -60) Freeway. Key local
roadways serving the project site include Brea Canyon Road,
Colima Road and'Pathfinder Road.
A traffic study was completed in conjunction with development of
the project EIR. The traffic study was based on existing traffic
count data and included project phasing, traffic forecasting,
impact evaluation (based on traffic generation forecast and
traffic distribution and assignment), intersection analysis and a
cumulative impact assessment.
Although project implementation will not significantly impact the
area's roadway network, cumulative (i.e., related project
activities and ambient- growth factors) traffic . -related
-related impacts
are anticipated to result in a deterioration of existing service
levels, beyond a LOS D threshold criteria, at a number of project
area intersections. Ambient traffic growth anticipated to occur
in the project vicinity, as modeled through the year 2012, will
result in Level.of Service (LOS) forecasts of LOS E or LOS F
during at least one peak period at the following intersections:
(1) Colima Road/Brea Canyon Cut ' off; (2) Colima Road/Lemon Avenue;
(3) * Colima Road/Eastbound SR -60 Ramps; (5) Brea Canyon
Road/Colima Road/Golden Springs Drive; and (6). Pathfinder
Road/Northbound SR -57 Rampsi. It is important to remember that
with or without this project ambient, traf f ic growth would result
in unacceptable traffic levels at the intersections identified in
the previous sentence.
Based upon these conclusions, cumulative traffic -related impacts
at select project area intersections are -projected to be
significant. The EIR includes mitigation measures to insure
intersection and roadway improvements which will ' help off -set
project impacts.
24
G. Air Quality
The first echelon in the air quality impact analysis consists of
comparing project -induced air pollutant emissions to the South
Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) New Source
Review (NSR) threshold values. The NSR threshold values have
been developed by the SCAQMD as an indices to determine the
significance of a project. A project capable of producing daily
emissions of one or more of these criteria pollutants at or
beyond these NSR threshold values is considered significant. The
NSR threshold values are identified in the following table. .
SCAQMD NSR THRESHOLD VALUES
Air Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
Sulfur Dioxide
Nitrogen oxides
Particulates (PM)
Reactive Organic Gases
Lead
Threshold Values (lbs/day)
550
150
100
150
75
3
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Total Constr * uction-Related Emissions. When the total daily
exhaust emissions from the construction equipment are added to
the estimated fugitive dust emissions, only one of the SCAQMD NSR
threshold values (i.e., nitrogen oxides) would be exceeded, as
shown in the following table. The amount of nitrogen oxides
emissions is more than seven times the SCAQMD's NSR value;
therefore, No emissions represent a potentially significant
short-term air quality impact. Impacts based on NSR threshold
levels for carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, particulates
and reactive hydrocarbons would not be considered significant
(i.e., do not exceed NSR threshold criteria).
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION -RELATED EMISSIONS
Emissions (lbs/day)
Source: Ultrasystems
W
SCAQMD
Fugitive
NSR Threshold
Air Pollutant
Exhaust Dust
Total
(lbs/day)
Carbon Monoxide
292
292
550
Reactive Hydrocarbons
52.1
52.1
75
Nitrogen oxides
785
785
100
Sulfur oxides
81.5
81.5
150
Particulates (PM)
62.3 55
117
150
Source: Ultrasystems
W
Long-term Emissions. Long-term impacts associated with the
proposed project consist of emissions, . generated by both
stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources.include off-
site generation of electricity, as well as on-site use of natural
gas for space heating and water heating. Mobile'sources refer to
motor vehicle traf f ic- . generated from uses . within the proposed
project.
Total Build -out Emissions (Long-term) . Total daily build -out
emissions are given in the following table titled Total Daily
Build -out Emissions. These long-term emissions include those
from both stationary sources (i.e., natural gas consumption and
electrical generation) and mobile (i.e., motor vehicle) sources.
As shown in the table, the total daily emissions associated with.
the build -out of the proposed project were determined to range
from 1.5 pounds per day of sulfur oxides to 603 pounds per day of
carbon monoxide.
Project Significance. The SCAQMD has suggested general NSR
threshold values for air pollutant emissions as a means of
assessing the potential significance of a proposed project's
emissions upon ambient air quality. It should be noted that
according to the SCAQMD's Air Quality Handbook for Preparing
Environmental Impact Reports, the NSR threshold values are to be
considered as suggestions only. * The original intent of the
SCAQMD ,NSR threshold values was to provide guidelines for
stationary sources. Subsequently, the SCAQMD requested that
total project emissions (mobile and stationary) be compared to
the NSR threshold values in order to generally determine the
significance of project emissions. This analysis utilized the
NSR threshold values as the criteria to determine the potential
significance of the air pollutant emissions associated with the
build -out of 'the proposed project. In the table titled
Comparison of Total Build -out Emissions with SCAQMD NSR Threshold
Values, the NSR threshold values are compared to the estimated
total build -out emissions. As shown in the table, emissions of
carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides would exceed their respective
NSR threshold values. These emissions, primarily associated with
the vehicular traffic, would be considered to have a potentially
significant adverse impact.
26
COMPARISON OF TOTAL BUILD -OUT EMISSIONS
WITH SCAQMD NSR THRESHOLD VALUES
SCAQMD
Total Project Emissions Threshold Values
Air Pollutant (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Carbon Monoxide 603- 550
Reactive Hydrocarbons 57.3 75
Nitrogen oxides 325 100.
Sulfur oxides 1.5 150
Particulates (PM) 69.7 150
Source: Ultrasystems
During construction operations., projected nitrogen oxide
emissions are anticipated to exceed established SCAQMD threshold
criteria for significance. Long-term emissions for both carbon
monoxide and nitrogen oxides, due predominantly to motor vehicle
traffic generated by the proposed project, are expected to have a
significant impact on regional air quality according to the
SCAQMD's-New Source methodology.
H. Noise
The only appreciable existing noise sources affecting the project
area is -motor vehicle traffic noise associated with 'the orange
(SR -57) Freeway and Brea Canyon Road. The impact of these noise
sources on the project site were modeled as a result of the noise
analysis conducted for the EIR. All existing residential land
uses proximate to and in the vicinity of the proposed project
will experience noise levels within acceptable ranges as
identified in the City's General Plan Noise Element.
To minimize noise levels in the vicinity of SR -57, noise
attenuation will be required for future residential uses located
in proximity to -the Freeway. Based upon the EIR noise analysis,
construction of a noise barrier of a minimum height of 8 feet
(solid masonry wall, earthern berm or combination of both) will
need to be placed along the rear of Lots 34 through 42 of Tract
32400. Construction of the noise barrier as described will
effectively mitigate noise to levels consistent with the City's
noise guidelines.
27
I. Parkland/Open Space
Currently, the City of Diamond Bar has approximately 1.1 acre of
developed parkland per thousand residents within its
jurisdictions, based on a total 59.4 acres of developed parkland
and a resident population of .. 5.5,500 'indivi-duals.. With the
development of those existing and planned facilities identified
above, totalparkacreage would increase to 134.9 acres. At
build -out, with the development of these parks and based on :,a
projected population of 75,000 individuals the park -to -population
ratio would increase to 1.8 acres' of park area per thousand
residents. This ratio falls below park dedication requirements
of 3 acres per thousand individuals as outlined in the
Subdivision ordinance and National Parks and Recreation
Assoc'iation- recommendations of 5 acres per 1,000 individuals.
Based upon Los Angeles County standards of 3 acres, the City
would need a total of 225 acres of public parkland to support a
projected population of 75,000 residents. When comparing this
standard with projected park acreage within the City, a shortfall
of 90 acres can be identified. Provision of additional parkland
beyond those levels anticipated to result from development -
related exactions can only be accommodated through the active
efforts of the City.
In order to increase park acreage within the City, a draft Master
Plan of Parks is being developed and scheduled for completion in
November 1993. Under this plan, future park dedication
requirements of 5 acres per thousand population may be proposed
to alleviate this current,,shortfall of park space.
Under the proposed development plan, Larkstone Park (undeveloped)
would be conveyed by the City to the Walnut Valley Unified School
District. In exchange, the School District would convey an area
of approximately 2 acres (located southerly of Larkstone Drive)
to the City of Diamond Bar. The City would subsequently convey
the newly acquired residual parcel to the project applicant
(i.e., RnP Development, Inc.) or applicants- who would develop
replacement park acreage elsewhere within the project boundaries.
As a component of the project, the project applicants propose to
dedicate (in accordance with the terms of a proposed development
agreement) and develop a 20+ acre park. The park/open space
dedication included as part of the South Pointe Master Plan far
exceeds existing and proposed park 'dedication requirements
therefore representing a net benefit to the City.
In addition to the 20 -acre park dedication, the project includes
several open space additions. Two open space areas in the east
and the west of the project will be maintained by the Home Owners
28
Association. The open space areas will provide for the
protection of natural resource values and will total
approximately 35 acres. South Pointe Middle School (Enclave 2)
consists of 32 acres, of which half will be devoted to active
open space uses. Total Park/open Space acreage within the South
Pointe Master Plan will approximate 91 acres.
J. Aesthetics
The project site is presently vacant and contains only limited
physical improvements except for past grading activities in the
northern end of the project site where extensive. disturbance has
already occurred within Sandstone Canyon associated with Vesting
Tentative Tract 32400. As discussed under item B the majority of
the site' is currently covered by natural vegetation. Sandstone
Canyon contains a dense vegetation cover including a significant
number of oak trees. According to the Visual Resource Analysis
contained in the EIR, the site's existing botanical resources
constitutes the site's most significant aesthetic values.'
Development of the project will require landform alterations to
create building pads and accommodate roads. Grading plans denote
the removal of existing ridgelines and filling of low-lying
areas. In order to illustrate proposed changes in site
topography a number of section drawings were developed pursuant
to, the City's Interim Hillside Management ordinance and are
contained within the project EIR.
The. areas of maximum cut and fill fall within the boundaries of
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 32400. The maximum cut identified
therein will occur in that area of the abandoned Walnut Valley
Water District tank site and is estimated to be approximately 97
feet. The maximum fill will occur in the area of Sandstone
Canyon and will be approximately 75 feet.
Project implementation will further result in the elimination of
the existing soil stockpile now evident in proximity to the South
Pointe Middle School. The projected maximum cut in.the area of
that borrow site is approximately 70 feet.
Implementation of project grading plans will both alter existing
site topography and change the perception of the site as
perceived by off-site observers. Motorists traveling along Brea
Canyon Road are offered only a limited view of the ptoject,site,
with the majority of the site obscured by intervening slope
areas. In the vicinity of the commercial site grading activities
will result in the removal of those slope areas and allow a
great-er view of the interior of the project. To a lesser extent
existing residential observers within a number of adjoining
a$]
tracts (e.g., Tract Nos', 27141 and 30893) may be afforded a
greater view 'of the site when intervening slope areas are
eliminated or reduced.
Residential observers located along Peaceful Hills Road and
Shaded Wood Road willexperience the - most perceptible - - visual I I vsual
impacts. The elevation and orientation of those homes provides
many observers with an unobstructed view of the property. Upon
implementation, that view will change from a predominantly opdn
space perspective to that more characteristic of urban area.
Through the creation of a 20+ acre park site in the southern area
of the property and 71+ acres of open space throughout the
balance of project site, visual impacts as perceived from
adjoining residential areas (along Peaceful Hills Road and Shaded
Wood Road) will be partially mitigated. In addition, the
introduction of landscape elements on-site (including the
implementation of both a street tree planting program and
landscape program for the site's manufactured slope area) will
result in the provision of design elements which will further
minimize impacts associated with the removal of existing site
vegetation and provide compatibility with adjacent urban
development patterns.
K. General Plan Consistency
Appendix A of the South Pointe Master Plan provides an
explanation of project consistency with the Goals and
nd objectives
of the various elements of the City of Diamond Bar General Plan.
Please reference Appendix A for this analysis.
V. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
A. Incorporation of Comments
Section 15044 of the State CEQA Guidelines grants any person or
entity authority to submit comments to the Lead Agency concerning
the environmental effects of a'proposed project subject to CEQA.
All written comments received in response to the noticing. and
distribution of the Draft EIR and which are received during the
Notice of Completion review period (and any extensions . authorized
by the City) will be included and addressed in the Response . to
Comments document.
All written comments received in response to the dissemination of
the Draft EIR and publication of the Notice of Completion and
received by the City as of the date of the preparation of this
staff report have been included in Attachment A (Written
Correspondence) of this document.
0]
B. Planning Commission Review
Pursuant to Section 15025(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, where
an advisory body such as a planning commission is required to
make recommendation on a project to the decision-making body, the
advisory body is required to review and consider the EIR in draft
or final form. The Planning Commission's consideration of this
environmental assessment is undertaken pursuant to this statutory
obligation.
As indicated under Section 15087(8) of the State CEQA Guidelines,
public hearings may be conducted on the environmental documents,
either in separate proceedings or in conjunction with other.
proceedings of the public agency. Although public hearings are
encouraged, public hearings are not required as an element of the
CEQA process.
C. Planning Commission Comments
On December 14, 1992, the City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
initiated its review of the Draft EIR as part of a noticed public
meeting. At that meeting, individual Commissioners raised
specific questions concerning that document and offered specific
comments regarding information presented in that environmental
assessment.
It is the intent of City staff to prepare a formal response to
each of the items raised at that meeting and to incorporate those
responses as part of the Response to Comment document which will
be developed at the close of the Commission's. public hearing(s).
That Response to Comment will then be returned to the Planning
Commission for their consideration.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public
hearing and invite public input on both the Draft EIR and the
project. The Planning Commission should close the public hearing
and direct discussion among the Commissioners. Staff and
consultants are available to respond to Commission questions. At
the conclusion of the meeting the Commission should continue the
hearing to February 8, 1993, at which time additional public
input will be taken on the Draft EIR and the project.
30a
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
I. INTRODUCTION
Each goal of the General Plan has been stated within
the following text' After each goal statement is a
discussion explaining project consistency with the
objectives .(includes strategies) which support goal
obtainment. At the end of each discussion the reader
will find a reference identifying the specific
objective the written text addresses.
31
II. LAND USE GOALS
GOAL 1 "Maintain a mix of land uses which enhance
the quality of life of Diamond Bar residents,
consistent with its desire to maintain its
quality and distinctiveness as a planned
community".
Y
The South Pointe Master Plan ("project") is consistent
with the land use classification system established to
guide the development of public and private lands
through a planned community concept. The project site
contains a number of distinct land use designations,
including: school, planned. development (low density
residential, park, open space, general commercial) ,
water and park. The design and relationship of the
five project enclaves represents an innovative use of
land resources,provides a means of coordinating the
provision of services and facilities and addresses the
unique needs of project area lands. (objective 1.1)
Enclaves 1 and 3 establish a system of identifiable and
complimentary neighborhoods. Single family neighbor-
hood enclave design discourages throughtraffic within
residential neighborhoods. Enclave 5 (Open Space/park)
provides for the protection of natural resources.
(Objective 1.2)
Enclave 3 (290,000 square feet of commercial/office)
provides adequate land for retail and service
commercial to meet local and community -wide needs.
Development of Enclave 4 will minimize sales tax
leakage, provides for business development which takes
advantage of freeway visibility, supports the
establishment of neighborhood serving retail and
service uses, and encourages employment generating
uses. (objective 1.3).
Enclave 2 (School) provides 32 acres of land for
educational purposes thereby meeting the needs of
Diamond Bar residents. (Objective 1.4)
Enclave 5' (Open Space/Park) provides 20+ acres of park
land which will maintain a feeling of open space within
the South Pointe planning area. In addition, 71 acres
of open space lands will be provided at the school site
and in hillside locations. (objective 1.5)
The South Pointe Master Plan provide for a series of
integrated enclaves which provide cohesiveness between
land uses and a greater level of community amenities
(20+ acre park site) and therefore creates a more
desirable living environment. (Objective 1.6)
32
Enclave 5 includes the provision of a 20+ acre open
space/park component which will serve as a community
social gathering place (recreational and organized
sports activities): The South Pointe Master Plan
includes a mixture of complementary development
(residential, recreational, sales tax and employment
generating) in an integrated manner. The residential
neighborhoods in Enclaves 1 and 3 (residential) have
been designed to discourage through traffic on local
streets. (objective 1.7)
GOAL 2 Manage land use with respect to the location,
density and intensity and quality of
development in order to maintain consistency
with the capabilities of the City and special
districts to provide services and to achieve
sustainable use of environmental and man-made
resources.
Review of the South Pointe Master Plan has included
preparation of an EIR which addresses the project's
relationship to sensitive environmental resources,
establishes mitigation measures which utilize feasible
contemporary technologies to reduce impacts and was
based on time -specific issue evaluation. (objective
2.1.)
The South Pointe Master Plan consists of a series of
enclaves providing land use types which are
complimentary to adjacent development. The project
consists of single family lots,. middle school,
parks/open space and commercial office development
which is reflective of the intensity and density of
surrounding development and complementary to the site's
proximity to the 57 Freeway. (objective 2.2)
The South Pointe Master Plan includes a Public
Facilities Plan (Section II Master Plan Notes) which
outlines consistency of the project with the
availability and adequacy of public services and
facilities. The project EIR Section 4.8 (Public
Services and Facilities) addresses project impacts and
provides the implementation of satisfactory mitigation
measures including the payment of fair share cost of
public improvements. (Objective 2.3)
GOAL 3 Maintain recognition within Diamond Bar and
the surrounding region as being a community
with a well planned and aesthetically
pleasing physical environment.
KS]
The South Pointe Master Plan includes an open
space/park enclave . which will provide a visual
reference point and open space linkage which highlights
community identity. (Objective 3.1)
The open space/park enclave provides for the
preservation of hillside/open space landforms and
vegetation and incorporates the recreational area as a
central component of the residential neighborhoods.
Landscaping, perimeter wall, sign and development
standards have been incorporated into each encla(ve's
development standards thereby insuring that new
development yields a pleasant living, working or
shopping environment through --exemplary master plan
design. (objective 3.2)
The provision of open space and park land uses and
hillside development standards within the South Pointe
Master Plan ensures the protection of the visual
quality and character of remaining natural areas. The
provision of a grading plan and hillside fire safety
standards ensures that hillside development will not
create unsafe conditions. (Objective 3.3)
GOAL 4 "Encourage long-term and regional
perspectives in local land use decisions, but
not at the expense of the quality of life for
Diamond Bar residents".
The project EIR evaluated and considered potential
impacts on neighboring jurisdictions and regional
service providers. The project NOP and Response to
Comments document was coordinated with interested
local, regional, State and Federal agencies.
(objective 4.1)
The project does not involve the annexation of any
lands therefore the project does not affect the
strategies established in objective 4.2.
34
III. HOUSING GOALS
GOAL 1 "The City should provide opportunities 'for
development of housing suitable to meet the
diverse needs of residents and to support
healthy economic development".
The project will supply housing opportunities which
meet the needs of residents and future residents which
comprise the upper 'category of the City's five year
housing need. This category represents 43% of the
City's housing needs. (objective 1.1)
GOAL 2 "Encourage adequate housing opportunities for
all economic segments of the. community,
regardless of age, race, ethnic background,
national origin., religion, family size, sex,
marital status, physical conditions or any
.other arbitrary factors".
Development of the project site (vacant) will not
affect the supply of existing low or moderate cost
housing. (objective 2.1)
As a site specific development project whichwill
provide new housing opportunities the project does not
affect the implementation of objectives 2.2 or.2.3.
GOAL 3 Preservation and conservation of existing
housing stock and maintenance of property
values and residents' quality of life.
The South Pointe Master Plan provides residential and
open space/park development - (exceeds City park
dedication standards) which will compliment and enhance
adjacent existing single family neighborhoods.
(objective 3.1)
Goal 3 including objectives 3.2 and 3.3 address the
preservation and enhancement of the existing housing
stock. Given that this project will expand the housing
stock on currently vacant land this project does not
directly affect implementation of Goal 3 or Objectives
3.2 and 3.3.
35
IV. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS
GOAL 1 "Create and maintain an open space system
which will preserve scenic beauty, protect
important biological resources, provide open
space for outdoor recreation and the
enjoyment of nature, conserve natural
resources and protect public health and
safety".
The South Pointe Master Plan includes hillside
development standards (Section VI) and project design
components which require contour and land form grading,
provide that ridge lines and landscaping serve as a
backdrop for development, provides for the preservation
and replacement of significant vegetation and
incorporates viewshed opportunities. (Objectives 1.1
and 1.2)
Enclave 5 includes the provision of a twenty acre open
space/park component which exceeds City park dedication
requirements. The project will significantly enhance
recreational opportunities within the City by linking
recreational opportunities at South Pointe Middle
School and support the development of a system of
greenbelts by integrating 71 acres of open space with
adjacent development. (Objective 1.3)
GOAL 2 "Identify limits
support existing
City of Diamond
influence and ens
wisely".
on the resources needed to
and future uses within the
Bar and its sphere of
ire that resources areused
If grey water becomes available the project proponent
will consider using reclaimed water for landscape
purposes. Residential and office/Commercial buildings
will be constructed' according to the Uniform Building
Code which incorporates numerous conservation
standards. Project mitigation (EtR - Biological
Resources) includes the provision of using native
plantings for project landscaping requirements.
Office/Commercial enclave development standards include
standards which address parking lot landscaping thereby
ensuring shading and reduction of beat gain.
(Objectives 2.1 and 2.2)
South Pointe is a mixed use project which provides a
land use pattern containing housing, recreational and
employment opportunities within walking distance.
(Objective 2.3) -
36
objectives .2.4 and 2.5 require a coordinated approach
at the governmental level and therefore do not contain
project specific strategies. The Master Plan process
with its companion EIR reinforces coordination amongst
government agencies.
37
V. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY GOALS
GOAL 1 "Create a secure public environment which
minimizes potential loss of life and property
damage, as well as social, economic or
environmental disruption resulting from
natural and man-made disasters".
A project grading plan has been completed. A component
of the plan includes a geologic feasibility study which
provides provisions to minimize the -effects of ground
shaking and other geologic events. All site specific
analysis of soils will be conducted as required by the
UBC. (Objective 1.1)
The drainage study completed for the project concluded
that existing facilities for the conveyance of storm
waters are adequate, except at P.D 1467. The EIR
mitigation measures and Master Plan Public Facilities
Plan provide measures to improve drainage conveyance at
P.D. 14.67 so that all master plan of drainage
requirements and Los Angeles Cou.nty design parameters
are satisfied prior to grading permit .issuance..
(Objective 1.2)
The Master Plan Public Facilities Plan (Section II
Notes) provides a wildland fire hazard component
including measures to protect properties in wildland
areas. (objective 1.3)
The project EIR addressed the provision of fire and
police protection and emergency services. The Public
Services and Facilities chapter of the EIR provides a
series of mitigation 'measures to ensure adequate
provision of emergency services (see Sections 4.8.1 and
4.8.2 of the EIR). (Objectives 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6)
Objectives 1.7 and 1.8 require Ci.ty disaster planning
and regional coordination. Implementation bf this
objective requires a citywide effort, therefore this
specific development project will not affect
implementation.
The project EIR addresses the relationship of site
specific development to regional air quality goals and
construction standards. Section 4.6.3 of the EIR
identifies mitigation measures which will be
implemented to reduce project impacts on local and
regional air quality. The master plan concept includes
a mix of land uses thereby providing an opportunity to
reduce reliance on the automobile for trip making.
(objective 1.9)
38
Section 4.7 of the project EIR establishes the
relationship of the project site with. the area noise
environment. The project includes. construction of a
noise barrier along lots 34 through 42 of TT32400
consistent with the site specific noise study to ensure
compatibility with General Plan noise standards.
(objective 1.10)
39
VI. PHYSICAL MOBILITY GOALS (CIRCULATION)
GOAL 1 "Enhance the environment of the City's street
network. Work toward improving the problems
presented by the intrusion of regionally
oriented commuter traffic through the City
and - into residential neighborhoods. --Consider
programs to reinforce the regional
transportation and circulation system to
adequately accommodate regional needs".
The South Pointe Master Plan includes a street network
designed to accommodate trips to and from the project
with, access points which do not conflict with the
capacity of local residential streets. In addition,
traffic is reduced on local streets such as Larkstone
and Lemon. (objectives 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3)
GOAL 2 Maximize the use of alternative
transportation modes with -in and through the
City to decrease reliance on single -passenger
automobiles.
The South Pointe project represents a mixed-use
development concept which maximizes efficiency of the
transportation system by providing for a full range of
land uses (residential, commercial/office, parks,
schools) and provides an opportunity for reduced
automobile trip making by future residents. (objective
2.1)
The project includes a new through connection between
Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon Road thereby
maximizing connection of all areas within the City and
County areas.. (Objective 2.2)
GOAL 3 "Maintain an Adequate Level of Service on
Area Roadways".
The project EIR (Section 4.5) and the Master Plan
Public Facilities Plan (Section II Notes) provide
measures which ensure that adequate improvements will
be made to area roadways and intersections to improve
the safety and efficiency of existing transportation
facilities with the addition of project related
traffic. (Objective 3.1)
Roadway improvements will be funded by the applicant as
identified in the EIR and tentative tract maps.
(Objective 3.2).
40
GOAL 4 "Provide or Regulate the Provision of the
Supply of Parking to Meet the Needs for Both
Residents and Commercial Businesses".
The project EIR (Section 4.6.3) identifies a series of
mitigation measures including preferential parking for
high occupancy vehicles which are designed to ensure
compliance with trip reduction requirements.
(objective 4.1)
Project development
standards
require
parking
consistent with City
standards
thereby
ensuring
adequate parking for all
land uses.
(Objective
4.2)
41
VII. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES GOALS
GOAL 1 Provide adequate infrastructure facilities
and public services. to support development.
and planned growth.
The South Pointe Master Plan"'includes within Section Ii
(Notes), a Public Facilities Plan containing components
addressing the provision of public services and
facilities needed to support development of the project
site. Implementation of the Public Facilities Plan and
mitigation measures contained within Section 4.8 Public
Services and Facilities will ensure that adequate
infrastructure systems are available to meet project
demands. (objective 1.1)
Cost for infrastructure development will be borne by
the project proponent through existing fee structures
and conditions of project development. (objective 1.2)
The project includes 32 acres for school facility
development within Enclave 2. (objective 1.3)
Objective 1.4 involves the provision of regional
facilities which do not apply to this specific site
development project; -therefore implementation of this,
project will not affect obtainment of the strategies
needed to fulfill objective 1:4.
GOAL 2 Achieve a fiscally solvent, financially
stable community
The project involves development of 290,000 square feet
of Commercial/office Use (Enclave 4). Devel.opment of
Enclave 4 will promote the intensification of the sales
tax generating potential of future commercial and
office areas. A 50% commercial, 50% office development
could be expected to generage $376,283.00 annually in
sales tax revenue. In addition, the City will increase
its financial worth by selling or ground leasing 10-15
acres of commercial property in Enclave 4. (objective
2.1)
The project design encourages the cooperative use of
facilities by locating Enclave 5 (open Space/park)
adjacent to Enclave 2 (South Pointe Middle School).
This physical land use arrangement promotes efficiency
in the provision of public services and facilities.
(objectives 2.2 and 2.3)
W�
A
qa`m �w iii itii.u`•i.ii�i. i3
S.P.M.P.
PREPARED
U
'SOUTH POINTE PLANNED COMMUNITY
ZONING REGULATIONS
AND
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Prepared by:
THE PLANNING Associates
3151 Airway. Avenue, Suite R-1
Costa Mesa, California 92626 -
September, 1992
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
1
SECTION
II
NOTES
3
SECTION
III
PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
RESIDENTIAL GROUP
11
SECTION
IV
PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
INSTITUTIONAL AND OPEN SPACE GROUP
13
SECTION
V
PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GROUP
14
SECTION
VI
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
17
SECTION
VII
PLAN REVIEW
18
SECTION I. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The South Pointe Planned Community has been divided into five (5)
enclaves:
1.
Western Residential Enclave Tract No. 51407 and
51253
2.
Northern Institutional Enclave -
South Pointe Middle
School
3.
Northeastern Residential Enclave
- Tract No. 32400
4.
Eastern Commercial Enclave -
5.
Central Open Space Enclave -
Enclave
Number of
Number
Use
Lots/Sq. Ft.
Acres
1.
Single Family Residential
109
48+
2.
School
N/A
32;
3.
Single Family Residential
91
40;
4.
Commercial/office
290,000 S.F.
31;
5.
Open Space/Park
N/A
2'0-;
TOTAL:
200 Lots
171 AC
290,000 S.F.
1
SECTION II. NOTES
1. Except as otherwise stated herein, the requirements of the
Code of ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar Zoning Code,
shall apply. The project entitlements shall entail a
Development Agreement, a Zone Change and a Master
Development Plan.
2-. School facilities shall be provided as follows:
A., 30+ acre South Pointe School site (site partially
graded and facilities constructed on graded portion
only).
B. Grading on the eastern portion of the existing South
Pointe school site to accommodate new school facilities
(this activity has been previously reviewed and
approved with all State and School District permits
approved including a certified EIR).
C. A transfer of 2.8 acres of land (Larkstone Park) from
City to School District for South Pointe school
purposes.
3. The City shall acquire 4+ acres of Water District -land to be
included in the residential and commercial component of the
Master Plan.
4. The City shall transfer or vacate 6 acres of City owned
Right -of -Way to be used for, residential and commercial
purposes.
5. Master Plan implementation shall include the termination of
Larkstone Drive at South Pointe school and a new through
connection from Morning Sun Avenue to Brea Canyon Road.
6. An assessment of the mitigation monitoring program shall be
completed as a function of each administrative or
entitlement action associated with future land use approvals
or permit activities.
7. California Government Code Sections 65450 and 65401
authorize cities to prepare, adopt and administer Specific
Plans for portions of their jurisdictions. This Master Plan
has been prepared to serve as the Specific Plan for that
portion of the City of Diamond Bar referred to as the South
Pointe Planned Community.
8. No building permit . or grading permit, conditional
development permit, tentative tract or parcel map or site
3
plan or any other entitlement may be granted for any parcel
within the South Pointe Planned Community which would be
inconsistent with the provisions of these zoning regulations
and.development standards.
9. Public Facilities Plan
A. Grading Component
Implementation of the proposed development will require
landform alterations affecting most of the project
area. ' The project's grading plan (Figure 15 of EIR)
has been developed in response to the site's existing
topography and can. be characterized as the removal of
earthern material at higher elevations and the
deposition and recompaction of these soils in low-lying
areas.
(1) All geologic, geotechnical and soils studies
conducted for the project and all engineering
analyses conducted for the proposed grading plan
shall be submitted to and approved by the City
prior to the final approval of the tentative maps.
(2) All grading, earthwork and associated development
activities shall be designed and conducted in
accordance with applicable City and County
standards and shall conform with recommendations
contained in the Preliminary Soils Engineering
Investigation for Tentative Tract No. 32400,
County of Los Angeles (Petra Geotechnical, Inc.,
October 18, 1988), Geotechnical Feasibility
Investigation for 80 Acre Development NIO
Pathfinder Road. and W/O Brea Canyon Road. (RMA
Group, September 21, 1992) and such other
geotechnical reports as may be prepared for the
site and/or required by the City and County.
B. Drainage and Flood Control Component
Project implementation will result in a change to
existing drainage patterns and require fill within
blue -line streams.. Post development drainage
conditions have been broken down into three distinctive
drainage areas. Drainage area one discharges into an
existing 60 -inch RCP which is part of an existing
Caltrans drainage facility within Brea Canyon Road.
Drainage area two discharges into an existing RCP which
is part of Los Angeles County Drainage Facility P.D.
1411. The third drainage area is part of Los Angeles
County Drainage Facility P.D. 1467. Based on the
4
project's drainage plan (Figure 18 of EIR) it can, be
concluded that both the Caltrans Facility and the Los
Angeles County Drainage Facility (P.D. 1411) can
adequately accommodate storm run-off from the project.
county Drainage Facility P.D. 1467, located in Fairlane
Drive, will require subsequent improvements to
accommodate projected design discharge.
(1) The project applicant(s) shall be financially
responsible for the following items: (1) the
construction or advancement of funds for the
construction of any required on-site drainage
improvements - as contained in the Master Plan of
Drainage Facilities.approved by the City Engineer
and County Engineer of Los Angeles County; (2) the
construction of in -tract and off-site storm drain
system improvements; and (3) any permits or other
assessments imposed by the County Engineer.
(2) ' Drainage shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the City Engineer and County
Engineer of Los 'Angeles County. The design and
installation of project drainage facilities shall
be in accordance with the flow criteria, design
standards and construction requirements of both
the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works
and the City of Diamond Bar.
(3) Prior to the approval of the final tract map(s), a
special maintenance district or other funding
mechanism acceptable to and approved by the City
and/or County Engineer shall be established for
the maintenance of on-site storm drainage
facilities.
(4) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any
proposed alteration to the streambed, the project
applicant(s), if applicable under State and/or
federal law, shall obtain a Section 404 permit
from the United States Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers for the placement of dredged or
fill. materials into the "waters of the United
States" and a Section 1601-1607 permit from the
California D6partment of Fish and Game for
proposed streambed alterations which may impact
existing wildlife.
5
(5) Prior to the initiation of grading operations, the
project applicant(s) shall obtain all applicable
construction, stormwater and NPDES permits as may
be required by the City, the County of Los Angeles
and the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board for the discharge of urban pollutants.
C. Circulation Component
Note 5 within this section identifie's that this project
shall include a provision for a new through connection
between Morning Sun Avenue and Brea Canyon Road.
Project collector and residential streets and Brea
Canyon Road shall be built to the ROW standards for
each. enclave. The project proponent shall contribute
on a fair share basis for near term and long term
intersection improvements identified in Section 4.5.3
of the EIR.
(1) Brea Canyon Road shall be constructed to the
planned four -lane cross-section between Colima
Road and Pathfinder Road. Plus, left -turn lanes
shall be provided at each of the three project
access points along Brea Canyon Road. The
location of the . three new project points along
Brea Canyon Road shall be designed to provide
adequate sight distance. Care shall be taken that
the future grades and landscaping adjacent to
these intersections, as well as all internal
project intersections, do not obstruct the
necessary line -of -sight.
(2) With the development of the site plan for both the
retail and residential components of the project,
a traffic signal warrant shall be conducted to
determine if a traffic signal is required..
D. Wildland Fire Hazard Component
The project site is currently designated' as a wildland
fire hazard area. However, development of the site,
including the reduction in natural open space areas and
the removal of existing vegetation, may effect the
status of the fire,
hazard designation and consequently
development standards may be revised to reflect changed
conditions.
6
(1) If applicable, Los Angeles County Fire Department
requirements for development in a wildlandfire
n I
area shall be incorporated to reduce potetial
fire hazards. These provisions include, but may
not be limited to: (a) fire -resistive protection
of exterior walls/openings; (2) fire-retArdant
roof covering; (3) fire -resistive construction for
decks, balconies and support structures; and (4)
chimney screens installed on each chimney flue.
(2) Project design and maintenance activities shall
,comply with brush clearance programs administered
by the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
(3) Prior to the initiation of construction
activities, the project applicant(s) shall submit
and the County Forester and Fire Warden shall
approve a fire hazard reduction/fuel management
plan to minimize brush fire hazards on-site. That
plan shall include, but may not be limited to: (a)
use of fire retardant construction materials; (b)
brush clearage and maintenance activities within
100 feet' surrounding individual structures; (3)
irrigated planting areas with provisions for
maintenance activities; and (4) the provision and
maintenance of fire breaks.
(4) In order to limit the potential threat of wildland
fires, low -fuel volume plants. shall be
incorporated into the revegetative plan.
(5) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Los
Angeles County Fire Department shall review
building plans for compliance with Los Angeles
County Fire Department.standards for construction,
access, fire hydrant, fire flow and water main
requirements.
(6) The project's water system shall be designed in
response to final fire flow requirements
identified by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department. Final fire flow will be based on
building occupancy, the size of the buildings,
their relationship to other structures and
property lines and type of construction materials
used.
VA
(7) Project approval shall include the completion of
public water main improvements as may be required
to meet final fire flow requirements imposed by
the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
(8) Prior to the commencement of any structural
framing, fire hydrants shall be installed, tested
and accepted by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department.
E. Water Supply and Wastewater Facilities Component
Project implementation will require the extension of
existing services onto the site and the development of
new sanitary sewer facilities throughout the project
area. Wastewater generated by the project will be
discharged into local sewer lines and conveyed to the
Diamond Bar Trunk Sewer to treatment facilities
operated by the County Sanitation Districts. Based.on
current available capacity and planned expansion at the
San Jose Creek facility, project wastewater generation
can be accommodated..
(1) Prior to final tract map approval, the project
appl.icant(s) shall submit a sewer study to both
the County and City Engineer identifying project
wastewater flow and tributary flow to the existing
County trunk and local sewer lines. This study
shall identify: (a) the location, phasing, bonding
and details of any proposed sewer facilities and
improvements by street configuration, lot layout
and gravity flow; (b) any current capacity
shortfalls of the County trunk and/or City sewer
lines; and (c) specific design recommendations to
provide additional lines or sizing upgrade, if
required.
(2) The project applicant(s) shall convey access and
property easements and rights-of-way to the County
Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, as
deemed necessary by the County and City Engineers,
for the construction and maintenance of sewer
lines and associated facilities.
(3) The project applicant(s) shall contribute an
appropriate share of cost, as established by the
City, to fund improvements to the area's main
lines, pumping stations, etc. required as result
of project development.
EV
F.
G.
(4) Prior to final tract map approval, sewer.
connection fees as established by the County of
-Los Angeles and/or City of -Diamond Bar shall be
paid by the project applicant(s).
(5) The project applicant(s) shall provide to the
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
information regarding the construction and/or
building schedule of the project so that the
timing of the County Sanitation. Districts
expansion may be coordinated with the projected
increase in demand.
Parks and Open Space Component
In accordance with the terms of the proposed
development agreement the project proponent proposes to
dedicate and develop a 20+ park site (Enclave 5). This
proposed dedication exceeds both existing park
dedication requirements (3 Ac/1000 residents) and
proposed revisions (4 Ac/1000 residents).. By exceeding
park dedication requirements the project will help
offset the current park acreage shortfall within
Diamond Bar.
(1) Prior to the approval of the tentative tract maps,
the project applicants shall coordinate
development plans with the Los Angeles County
Department of Parks and Recreation to facilitate
implementation of the County's regional trail
system. If required by the County, adequate
provisions (e.g. trail dedication, signage) shall
be provided to ensure the dedication of any
required trail links.
(2) Dedication , and development of the proposed park
site shall comply with design standards for park
size, location, relationship to adjacent
properties and community facilities as contained
in the Master Plan of Parks or as may be * otherwise
required by the Parks and Recreation Commission
and the Director of the City of Diamond Bar Parks
and Recreation Department.
Educational Facilities Component
As a result of the. introduction of additional
residential dwellings, the project will directly result
in an increase in the number of students within the
0
Walnut Valley Unified School District. The School
District collects school fees (on a square foot basis)
from both residential and non-residential development.
This fee will be collected upon issuance of building
permits. Development of the project will. result in the
removal of surplus/stockpiled soil from the South
Pointe Middle School site, thereby allowing the
subsequent expansion of that facility in accordance
with the approved facility plan. Implementation of the
projects circulation plan. will improve existing
vehicular access to South Pointe Middle School.
10
SECTION III. PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Residential Group Enclaves
1 and 3
A.
INTENT AND PURPOSE
It is the intent of
this group to allow
residential land
uses within a planned
community setting.
The regulations
specified in this section
apply to Enclaves
1 and 3.
B.
PERMITTED USES
1. Single family detached
residential dwelling units
2. Accessory uses
and structures where
related and
incidental to the
permitted use.
C.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Enclave 1
Enclave 3
1.
Minimum Lot Size
8000 s.f.
7200 s.f.
2.
Minimum Lot Pad Size
6900 s.f.
6000 s.f:
3.
Minimum Lot Depth
100 ft.
100 ft.
4.
Minimum Lot Frontage
60 ft.
60 ft.
5.
Minimum Lot Frontage
on Knuckle
45 ft.
40 ft.
6.
Minimum Lot Frontage
on Cul -de -Sac
40 ft.
40 ft.
7.*
Rear Yard and Side Yard
Slopes
2:1 and /or
2:1 and/or
1 1/2:1
1 1/2:1
8.
Maximum Grade Shown on
Roads (15% Maximum
Allowable)
12%
12%
9.
Maximum Height of
Architecture
351 Ht./
351 Ht./
2 Stories
2 Stories
10.**Setbacks Front
201 from
201 from
Right -of Way
Right -of -Way
Side
51 and 101 Flat
51 and 101 Flat
'Rear
201 Measured
201 Measured
from Structure to
from Structure to
..Top or Toe of Slope
Top or Toe of Slope
of Building Pad
of Building Pad
11.
Parking
2 Car Garage/
2 Car Garage/
Guest in Driveway
Guest in Driveway
11
As approved by Geotechnical Consultant '
Average setback, homes shall be staggered minimum setback
shall be 181
Mi
Enclave 1
Enclave 3
12.
Driveway Garage Minimum
Garage Minimum.
201 from
201 from
Right -of -Way
Right -of -Way
13.
Street Widths:
Collector 641 ROW/
641 ROW/
401 Paved
401 Paved
Residential 601 ROW/
601 ROW/
3611 Paved
361 Paved
Brea Canyon
Road: N/A
77, ROW/(Varies)
521 Paved (Varies)
14.
Maximum building coverage of all structures,
including
accessory structures shall not exceed 65%.
15.
Side walls which face on any street or
open space area and
rear walls shall be 61 tall, consist
of masonry material
with a stucco exterior and pilasters.
Front yard walls
behind the right-of-way may not exceed 3
1/2 feet in height.
Views maybe preserved by utilizing a combination of a low
masonry stucco wall with wrought iron
between pilasters.
Wooden blank fences shall be permitted between homes to
define private yard area.
As approved by Geotechnical Consultant '
Average setback, homes shall be staggered minimum setback
shall be 181
Mi
SECTION IV. PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Institutional and Open Space Group, Enclaves 2 and 5
A. INTENT AND PURPOSE
It is the intent of this group to allow land uses which
support community functions related to education and
recreation. The regulations specified in this section apply
to Enclaves 2 and 5.
B. PERMITTED USES
1. Public School (Enclave 2 only)
2. Parks; including active and passive areas, open space
3. Accessory uses and structures where related and
incidental to the permitted use.
C. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Development standards within Enclave 2 shall be
determined through Site Plan review conducted by the
School District.
2. Development standards within Enclave 5 shall be
determined through Site Plan review conducted by the
Parks and Recreation Commission.
3. Setbacks, building height and bulk, and landscaping
should reflect neighborhood character.
13
SECTION V. PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE GROUP ENCLAVE 4
A. INTENT AND PURPOSE
It is the intent in this group to allow a combination of
commercial activity and business and professional offices.
The regulations specified in this section *apply to Enclave
4.
uIWVVXMI_
1. Professional and business offices
2. Service businesses
3. Government facilities
4. Retail establishments including restaurants
5. Parking structures
6. Accessory uses and structures where related and
incidental to a permitted use
C. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
1. Lot Minimums , N/A
2.* Cut and Fill Slopes 2:1 and/or 1 1/2:1
3. Maximum Grade Shown on Roads 12%
(15% Maximum Allowable)
4 Maximum Height of Architecture 501
5. Setbacks: Str.eet 30.1 from Right -of -
Way
Side .201 Measured from
Structure to Top or
Toe of Slope of
Building Pad
6. Street Widths: Collector 641 ROW
401 Paved
Brea Canyon Road 771 ROW (Varies)
521 Paved (Varies)
7. The following structures and -improvements are
specifically permitted in the setback area:
a. Walks
b. Paving and ass - ociated curbing, except that vehicle
parking areas shall not be permitted within ten
feet of the street property line.
C. Landscaping
d. Planters, architectural fences or walls not to
exceed three and one half feet in height.
14
8. Parking Standards Per Code
9. Sign Standards
A planned sign program shall be prepared which
illustrates the.number, size, color and lighting of all
proposed *signs. No more than two free standing
monument signs shall be permitted per street frontage.
10. Landscaping
a. Fifteen percent landscaping is required for each
improved building site
b. Trees shall be provided within the street setback
at a ratio of one tree per each thirty linear feet
(trees may be grouped in clusters)
C. All required trees shall be a minimum 15 gallon
size
d. All unpaved areas shall be planted with a ground
cover and/or shrub material
e. Damaged plantings and irrigation equipment will be
repaired or replaced within 30 days
11. Drives and Parking Areas
a. The intent of providing landscaping in parking
areas is to offer relief to the monotony of -rows
of parked cars and to create an overhead canopy
thus -providing a vertical -dimension to an
otherwise dominantly horizontal element of the
landscape.
b. A minimum of fifteen percent of that portion of
the site devoted to parking shall be landscaped.
C. A minimum of one fifteen- gallon tree per. four
parking stalls shall be required in the parking
area. The trees must be clustered with at least
two (2) trees per grouping. The trees shall be in
planters that are located within the parking areas
to ensure that the trees reduce heat gain. In
order to be considered within the parking area,
the trees must be located in planters that are
bounded on at least three sides by parking area
paving. The planters must have a minimum
dimension of five feet by sixteen feet.
d. Open parking areas shall be screened from view
from adjacent properties and streets using walls,
berm's and/or evergreen landscaping. The screening
shall have an eventual minimum height of three and
one half feet.
M
12. Storage and Refuse Collection Areas
All storage and refuse areas shall be constructed and
contained as to eliminate odors, insects, dust or other
similar nuisances. They shall be screened from view of
adjacent streets, on-site entry areas and guest parking
areas. The screening material shall consist of a solid
masonry material which is designed to blend with the
architectural style of the main building.
13. Screening of Equipment
All. mechanical, utility and operational equipment
located on the exterior of the building (roof mounted
included) shall be screened from off-site view.
14. Lighting
Parking lot lighting fixtures are to have an overall
maximum height * of sixteen feet. Walkway lighting
fixtures are to have an overall maximum height of
twelve feet. Security lighting fixtures are not to
project above the fascia or roof line of the building
and are to be shielded.
15. Exterior Design
a. No part of the roof may project above the parapet
b. All ext ' erior wall elevations of buildings facing.
streets are to have architectural treatment.
16. Development plans for Enclave 4 shall be reviewed
pursuant to the City of Diamond Bar's development
review process.
* As approved by Geotechnical Consultant
16
VI. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
All development within the South Pointe Master Plan shall
comply with City of Diamond Bar ordinance 7-1922.
17
VII. PLAN REVIEW
A. Prior to issuance of any grading permit the applicant shall
submit a hillside grading plan and a hillside landscape plan
for review and approval by the Community Development
Director.
1. Filing Requirements
a A natural features map, which shall identify all
existing slope banks, ridgelines, canyons, natural
drainage courses, federally recognized blue line
streams, rock outcroppings and existing
vegetation. Also depicted shall be landslides and
other existing geologic hazards.
b. A conceptual grading plan, which shall include the
following items in addition to those required by
the Municipal Code or as part of the Submittal
Requirement.Checklist:
(1) A legend with appropriate symbols which
should include, but not be limited to, the
following items: top of wall, top of curb,
high point, low point, elevation of
significant trees, spot elevations, pad and
finished floor elevations and change in
direction of drainage.
(2) A separate map with proposed fill areas
colored in green and cut areas colored in
red, with areas where cut and fill exceed
depths established in the hillside
development guidelines and standards clearly
shown. Additionally, the areas of cut and
fill, calculated as a percentage of the total
site area, shall be included on the plan.
(3) Contours shall be shown for existing and
natural land conditions and proposed work.
Existing' contours shall be depicted with a
dashed line with every fifth contour darker
and proposed contours shall be depicted as
above except with a solid line.
C. Provide a sufficient number of slope profiles to
clearly illustrate the extent of the proposed
grading. A minimum of 3 slope profiles shall be
included. The slope profiles shall:
Be drawn at the same scale and indexed, or
keyed, to the grading plan and project site
map.
(2) Show existing and proposed topography,
structures and infrastructures. Proposed
topography, structures and infrastructures
shall be drawn with a solid, heavy line.
Existing topography and features shall be
drawn with a -thin or dashed line.
(3) The slope profile shall extend far enough
from the project site boundary to clearly
show impact on adjacent property, at least
150 feet.
(4) The profiles shall be drawn along those
locations of the project site where:
(a) The greatest alteration of existing
topography is proposed; and,
(b) The most intense or bulky development is
proposed; and,
(c) The site is most visible from
surrounding land issues; and,
(d) At all site boundaries illustrating
maximum and minimum conditions.
(5) At least two of the slope profiles shall be
roughly parallel to each other and roughly
perpendicular to existing contour lines. At
least one other slope profile shall be
roughly at a 45 degree angle to the other
slope profiles and existing contour lines.
d. The slope profiles shall be stamped and signed by
either a registered landscape architect, civil
engineer or land surveyor indicating the datum,
source and scale of topographic data used i -n the
slope profiles and attesting to the fact that the
slope profiles have been accurately calculated and
identified.
e. A geologic and soils report, prepared by an
approvedsoilsengineering firm and in sufficient
detail to substantiate and support the design
concepts, presented in the application as
submitted. Additional environ * mental studies and
investigations,. such as, but not limited to,
hydrologic, seismic, access/circulation and biota
research may also be required in order to help in
the determination of the buildable area of a site.
19 .
f A statement of conditions for ultimate ownership
and maintenance of all parts of the development
including streets, structures and open spaces.
9. In the event that no grading is proposed, i.e.,
custom lot subdivision, a statement to that effect
shall be filed with a plan which shows possible
future house plotting., lot grading, driveway
design and septic system. location for each parcel
proposed, to be prepared on a topographic map
drawn at the same scale as the conceptual grading
plan.
h. The following items may be required if determined
necessary by the Planning Director or Planning
Commission to aid in the analysis of the proposed
project to illustrate existing or proposed
conditions or both:
(1) A topographic model;
(2) A line of sight or view analysis;
(3) photographic renderings;
(4) Any other illustrative technique determined
necessary to aid in review of a project.
i. Landscape plan for all manufactured cut and fill
slopes.
B. prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall
submit a Site Plan for review and approval by the Community
Development Director. The Director shall review each site
plan in relation to the development standards identified
within these planned community regulations and applicable
City ordinances.
1. Site Plan submittals shall at a minimum include:
a. plan view relating building footprint to coverage
and setback requirements.
b. Detail of walls, fences and any screening
apparatus
C. Landscape plans (Enclave 4)
d. Location of hardscape (Enclave 4)
e. Lighting plan (Enclave 4)
f. Sign program (Enclave 4)
2. site Plan. denials may be appealed to the Planning
Commission within 15 calendar days of such action by
the Community Development Director. Actions by the
planning commission may be appealed to the city Council
for final consideration.
20
N
t
0 200' 400'
SOURCE:
THE PLANNING ASSOCIATES
South Powis Master Pias
4b841DEIR.
�ui
f
ExHIBIT 1
PLANNING ENCLAVES
Page I
O
z'
C7 LLj
Q
TA
9fi
z
U,
w
Z
CC Z
mp
¢
�
O60
m
/
I
-
OSS
HOA PROPERTY
4
HOA PROPERTY
1 �
pATtiF1tNORR ROAD
N
t
0 200' 400'
SOURCE:
THE PLANNING ASSOCIATES
South Powis Master Pias
4b841DEIR.
�ui
f
ExHIBIT 1
PLANNING ENCLAVES
Page I
■"5F
"
Y
" rr
brae
r "
r `®
®"`morI
Q�m°®B1®
ji
10.77 ACNES
PV10T 20541.
30.64 ACNES A D E :�fZ!,11"
j. !4.toAcl
aAnxj , .a
r.
Q �,
W
COMMERCIAL
EXISTING OWNERSHIP PATTERNS
A Arciero & Sons, Inc.
B RnP Development, Inc.
C Sasak Corporation
D Walnut Valley Unified School District
E Walnut Valley Water District
F City of Diamond Bar
EXMrr Z !i
SOURCE:
J.C. naBrrEY & AssocrATEs PROJECT' LOCATION ANI?
EXISTING OWNERSHIP MAP
Page 2 sj
L01 31 10 35711
21.65 ACNES 3
"
Y
" rr
brae
r "
r `®
®"`morI
Q�m°®B1®
ji
10.77 ACNES
PV10T 20541.
30.64 ACNES A D E :�fZ!,11"
j. !4.toAcl
aAnxj , .a
r.
Q �,
W
COMMERCIAL
EXISTING OWNERSHIP PATTERNS
A Arciero & Sons, Inc.
B RnP Development, Inc.
C Sasak Corporation
D Walnut Valley Unified School District
E Walnut Valley Water District
F City of Diamond Bar
EXMrr Z !i
SOURCE:
J.C. naBrrEY & AssocrATEs PROJECT' LOCATION ANI?
EXISTING OWNERSHIP MAP
Page 2 sj
SOUTH POINTE •�- a ea
' SCHOOL
I ter: '„''v�''�'c%'\•"s,.,';t%.J,'�, "�� ',+ �?S 8w.1� f - � F .•-,.
.x- _ .r'�� s l ,.:., • es elk
as ����j-" • � � \ � :� ��li• 't. r •• '� •. ..i, ,_ _ .�4 � 1
- r:3 30 __ ••"""'y%iii33m°° 1 ':, ��:'' .' .1�. ,',zg,,' 'i. :'�: _rr• � •
'� • .�. a - _ .. , � 't ' �' . '!:' � --"kt RH5?�•5='= t�?, - '`s'fr'.'. y, . ' "�. r , •X 'm::oo... '� �'`' ���' ,�' �
�'� "_� -� � I logy .� .i,- •i,itc. rna •,••••"" '• •-"„y
17.
_ + �w 1� nF � �2 � _' •.%" lei=•�'����i4•./////1��••.�ti J . � -Wy '_ � -`f `7\'^l�Ji
a} %•'•' �• _ tet. � .. �r -. ��..� '�•%r, ... � r- %-
�_"• ,i' �' - • ` _ by - vc•'^ � [.7iQ' 35i. > - " •"` :1... ,_. I .-r
•, oy = ;pACi.NO. 3[5}6'' , '- , 1' : i +�. - --- - - ..3•, t..
1'
1
FxHmrr
SOURCE: 3
J.C. DABNEY & ASSOCIATES
SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN
Page 3
City • Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff
-••
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4
REPORT DATE: February 1, 1993
MEETING DATE: February 8, 1993
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Vesting 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 34 individual ownership
lots/units and three (3) common
lots, to change the zone
classification from C-1
(Restricted Business) to Zone
R-3 (Limited Multiple
,Residence) and to enter into a
Development Agreement with the
City.
PROPERTY LOCATION: 23575 Golden Springs
APPLICANT: Diamond Development Company
1700 Raintree Road
Fullerton, CA. 92635
PROPERTY OWNER: Same
BACKGROUND:
The Planning commission public hearing for this project was opened
at the meeting of. December 14, 1992. The Commission received
presentations by the staff and applicant and opened the public
hearing for comments. No comments were received from the public.
The Planning Commission then directed staff to draft- Resolutions
and conditions of approval. Staff has determined in the
intervening period that the Development Agreement is no longer
required.
Since the project has evolved into
compliance with the General Plan
standards and therefore no specific
The Development Agreement is usually
circumstances are present.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
the present design, it is in
and the current development
exceptions are necessitated.
a tool used when extraordinary
Staff has crafted conditions for each application into a format
that requires the site plan, landscape plan and tentative map,to be
amended to comply with the conditions that are not exhibited on the
plans. The items not exhibited are minor and are not substantial.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map:.
The Vesting Tentative Map illustrates an (8) building 34 unit
condominium I project with three common lots. The site is located on
a IILII shaped 2.3 acre site northeast of the intersection of Golden
Springs' Drive and Torito Lane. The loop street proposed will
comprise the majority of the common space with the recreation/open
space area entailing the remainder.
The Public Works Department As requiring that the applicant
participate in mitigations measures above the standard requirements
as necessitated by the impacts created by this development. These
conditions are shown on the attachment, Exhibit "A-111. The most
prominent conditions require that the developer post a $120,000
bond for the future signalization of the intersection of Torito
Lane and Golden Springs Drive if conditions warrant. Additionally,
the applicant is required to either pay for the resurfacing of
Torito* Lane or to ensure the completion of the 'work and to
financially participate in the cost of traffic signal phasing for
the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd and Golden Springs Drive.
Zone Change:
The zone change application . requests that the current C-1 zone
(Restricted Business Zone) classification be revised to a R -3-(15)U
zone (Unlimited Multiple Residence Zone) classification which will
bring the site into compliance with the General Plan land use
designation.
The density designation, (15)U, reflects the proposed density of
the project and falls with the maximum density of 16 units allowed
in the General Plan land use designation of RM (Medium Density
Residential).
Development Review:
The Development Review application is for the, site plan review and
2
architectural, treatment and maintenance thereof. The conditions as
drafted limit the site plan and architectural design and treatments
to those items which were presented at the public hearing. The
exceptions to this are the locations of the mail boxes and the
lighting for project in general including the area of the around
the trash enclosures.
The approval is conditioned that it will not be effective if the
City council does not approve the zone change or vesting tentative
tract map applications.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve DR 91-2 and
recommend approval of ZC 91-1 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
50519 to the City Council via the attached Resolutions and findings
therein.
Prepared By:
Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
Attachments:
Conditions of Approval
Resolution 93 -XX for approval
Resolution 93 -XX, Recommending
Resolution 93 -XX, Recommending
Map No. 50519
CROWLYS.RPT
of DR 91-2
Approval of ZC 91-1
Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract
3
Community Development Department
EXHIBIT "A-1"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a
duly authorized representative of the owner of the property
involved has filed at the office of Planning Division of the
Community Development Department the Affidavit of Acceptance
and accepts all the conditions of this permit;
2. That the applicant must comply with all state, Zone R -3-(15)U,
Engineering Department, and Building and Safety Department
requirements, and that all grading, drainage plans and wall
plans shall conform to all City standards or as amended by
this action and shown on the approved plans;
3. That three copies of the elevations, site plan, irrigation
plan, and landscape plan, similar to that presented at the
public hearing and marked Exhibit "All and conforming to such
of the following conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be
submitted for approval of the Community Development Director.
All construction materials must comply with the materials
board approved by the Planning Commission and marked as
Exhibit "A-111. The property shall thereafter be developed and
maintained in substantial conformance with approved plans.
4. Drought tolerant landscaping shall be incorporated where
possible on the landscape plan. All landscaping shall be
installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
5. No construction shall occur within setbacks as delineated on
the approved site plan.
6. Street trees with year round foliage shall be planted along
western elevation of Golden Springs Drive per the approved
landscape plans.
7. All exterior lights above wall height shall be shielded and
directed away from adjacent development;
8. Trash enclosures and the location of the mail boxes shall be
1 ' ocated shall be. located to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director and the Public Works Director and
illustrated on the approved site plan.
9. The project shall comply with all State and local ordinances
for noise level standards.
10. All air conditioning units will be ground mounted and screened
from street level view.
11. The applicant shall satisfy the Park Obligation by
contributing land acreage or the in -lieu fee to-, the City
prior to recordation of the final map.
12. Notwithstanding any pr evious'Subsect ion 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.
13. Conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rls) shall be
provided to the Community Development Director and the City
attorney for review and approval prior to recordation of the
final map. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall created and
responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within said
CC&Rls.
14. A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&Rls which requires
disputes involving interpretation or application of the
agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a
neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be
included). The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally
by the parties. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, the
parties shall agree to submit the dispute to binding
arbitration under the laws of the State of California. A
Homeowners Association (HOA) shall created and
responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within said
CC&Rls, such as maintenance of common areas..
15. All walls open to the public from outside the project shall be
textured in earth tones and shall additionally be covered with
ivy or other similar vegetation.
16. The 'property shall be maintained in a condition which is free
of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or
implementation of the entitlements granted herein. The
removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or
subsequent to construction, 'shall be done only by the property
owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor who
has been authorized by the City to provide collection,
transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential,
commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the
City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that
the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the
City of Diamond Bar to provide such services.
17. The applicant shall submit a development program and schedule
to the City prior to recordation of the final map and all
amendments to said schedule shall
all be submitted to the
Community Development Director for approval.
18. The outside storage of recreational vehicles is prohibited.
19. The separation between building No. 3 and No. 4 shall be
designed to the maximum extent possible.
20. The following conditions shall apply to the common lots and
the recreational lots:
a. Open space areas and common lots shall be shown on the
site plan and tract map and shall be:
1. Conveyed as a mandatory fractional undivided
. interest to each purchaser, or
2. Conveyed to a Homeowners Association charged with
the operation and maintenance of such common areas
for the benefit of all owners, or
b. open space areas shall be maintained in a manner
satisfactory to the Community Development Director;
c. Use all recreational areas shall be restricted to owner -
tenants and their guests;
21. No signs are approved as a part of this approval. All signs
must be submitted to the City under separate application and
must comply with all standards in effect at the time of
application.
22. This Resolution shall be null, void, and of no effect if the
Council of the City of Diamond Bar fails to approve Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 50519, as described in the Resolution
of the City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission No. 93 -XX.
23. This grant is valid for one year and must be exercised (i.e.
construction. started) within that period or this grant will
expire. A'one year extension may be requested in writing and
submitted to the City 30 days prior to the expiration date.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMEWT
(1) Applicant shall contribute $12,500 toward additional
signal phasing requirements at Diamond Bar Blvd. and
Golden Springs Drive based on additional traffic
generated from the proposed development.
(2) Contribute towards the street overlay of Torito Lane in
the amount of $40,000 or complete the work as approved by
the City Engineer. If any required public improvements
have not been completed by the developer and accepted by
the City prior to the approval of the final map, the
developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with
the City and shall post the.appropriate security.
(3) No street parking is permitted within the development
based on the street width being allowed and the internal
streets shall be designated .as'private streets.
(4) The street section for the internal streets shall be
shown on the tentative map.
(5) Delete the previous requirement for installation of
medians on Golden springs.
(6) Modify the condition requiring the installation of a
traffic signal at the intersection of Torito Lane and
Golden Springs to require a bond be posted by the
applicant in the amount of $120,000 for a period of three
years from date of approval. The bond is to be released
and or reduced by any other contributions received by the
City should a traffic signal be warranted during the
period.
(7) Handicap ramps shall be installed at the corner of the
Torito Lane and Golden Springs Drive.
(8) The site plan shall incorporate internal lighting to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
(9) The applicant shall obtain approval by County Sanitation
on the location of the structures affecting County
Sanitation easements.
(10) The applicant shall comply with all other standard
conditions of approval unless referenced amended herein.
FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT
(1) Provide water mains, f ire hydrants, and f ire f lows as
required by the County Forester and Fire Warden for all
land shown on the map to be recorded.
(2) Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs
and building address numbers prior to occupancy.
(3) Fire Department access shall be extended.to within 150
feet distance of any portion of structure to be built.
(4) Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code
which requires all weather access. All weather access
may require paving.
(5) The private driveways shall be• indicated on the final map
as "Fire Lane" and shall be maintained in accordance with
the Los Angeles County Fire Code.
(6) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and
accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be
provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
(7) Private driveway/fire lane shall be 26 feet clear to sky
width. All buildings shall be less than 3 stories and
less than 35 feet high.
(8) The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this
location is 2,500 gallons per minute at .20 psi for a
duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily
domestic demand.
(9) The required on-site fire flow for private on-site
hydrants is 2,500 gallons' per minute at 20 psi. Each
private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 2,500
gallons per minute at 20 psi with any two hydrants
flowing simultaneously.
(10) Fire hydrant requirements as follows: 3 existing fire
hydrants. Existing private on-site Fire hydrants.
(11) All hydrants shall measure 611 x 411 x 2-1/211 brass or
bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or
approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a
minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a two
(2) hour fire wall.
(12) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and
accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be
provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
(13) Additional on-site hydrants shall be installed, tested
and•accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access
must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
(14) Additional on-site hydrants may be required during the
building permit process.
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO.
91-2, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 34 UNIT CONDOMINIUM
COMPLEX ON A 2.3 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 23575 GOLDEN
SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. 'Recitals.
(i) Diamond Development Company, 1700 Raintree Road;
Fullerton, California, has heretofore filed an application for
approval of Development Review as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Development Review application shall be referred to as "the appli-
cation".
(ii) on April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State
of California. On saiddate, pursuant to the requirements of the
California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No.
14, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances
of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles
County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los
Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, in-
cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
(iii) Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application
as to the consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms
and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the, City of Diamond
Bar.
(iv) on December 14, 1992, the Planning Commission of
the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application and concluded said public hearing on February 8,
1993.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all
of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
2.
Resolution are true and correct.
The Planning Commission hereby finds that the initial study
prepared and reviewed by the City of Diamond Bar and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
19,701 --as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder
and further said Negative Declaration^- reflects the
independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar.
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a whole
including the findings set forth below, and changes and
alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned
upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there
is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the
project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse
effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this
Planning commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse
effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations. 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.
4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the Planning
Commission during the above -referenced public hearing opened
on December 14, 1992, continued to and concluded on February
8, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, and in conformance with ordinance No.
4 (1992) of the City Diamond Bar, hereby specifically finds
as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located
at 235757 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar
with a gross area of 2.33 acres and is zoned
C-1 (Restricted Commercial).
(b) Properties to the east and south are devel-
oped with single family residences, nces, to the
north the site is developed with a multi-
family complex and the sites to the west are
partially developed by commercial development
and single family residential home.
(c) The applicant's request is for architectural
and site plan review of the project to
construct a 34 unit condominium complex.
2
(d) The subject.property has graded and currently
is a vacant undeveloped parcel.
(e) The site is sufficient in size and can pro-
vide adequate ingress and egress to allow
multiple family development in character with
surrounding current land uses.
(f) The subject site lies within the Diamond Bar
General Plan commercial designation. The
current zoning of the site is in compliance
with the land use designation.
(g) Notification of the public hearing for this
project has been made.
(h) The design and layout of the proposed devel-
opment will not unreasonably interfere with
the use and enjoyment of the neighboring ex-
isting and future developments, and will not
create traffic or pedestrians hazards;
(i) The architectural design of the proposed
restaurant is compatible with the character
of the surrounding current and proposed
development and will maintain the harmonious,
orderly, and attractive development
contemplated by this -Chapter and the General
Plan of the City;
(j) The design of the proposed development would
provide a desirable environment for its occu-
pants and visiting public as well as its
neighbors through good aesthetic use of
materials, texture and color that will remain
aesthetically appealing and will retain a
reasonably adequate level of maintenance.
(k) The proposed use will not be. detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare or be
materially injurious to the properties or im-
provements in the vicinity.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Planning Commission hereby
approves the application subject to the following
restrictions as to use:
Planning Department
(1) This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until
3
a duly authorized representative of the owner of the
property involved has filed at the office of Planning
Division of the Community, Development Department the
Affidavit of'Acceptance and accepts all the conditions
of this permit.
(2) That the applicant must comply with all state, Zone R -3-
(15)U, Engineering Department, and.Building and Safety
Department requirements, and that 'all grading, drainage
plans and wall plans shall conform to all City standards
or as amended by this action and shown on the approved
plans;
(3) That three copies of the elevations, site plan,
irrigation plan, and landscape plan, similar to that
presented at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "All
and conforming to such of the following conditions as
can shown on a plan, shall be submitted for approval of
the Community Development Director. All construction
materials must comply with the materials board approved
by the Planning Commission and marked as Exhibit "A-111.
The property shall thereafter be developed and
maintained in substantial conformance with approved
plans.
(4) Drought tolerant landscaping shall be incorporated where
possible on the landscape plan. All landscaping shall
be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of
occupancy.
(5) No construction shall occur within setbacks as
delineated on the approved site plan.
(6) Street trees with year round 'foliage shall be planted
along western elevation of Golden Springs Drive per the
approved landscape plans.
(7) All exterior lights above wall height be shielded and be
directed away from adjacent development;
(8) Trash enclosures and the location of the mail boxes
shall be located shall 'be located to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director and the Public Works
Directorandillustrated on the approved site plan.
(9) The project shall comply with all State and local
ordinances for noise level standards.
(10) All air conditioning units will be ground mounted and
screened from street level view.
(11) The applicant shall satisfy the Park obligation by
4
contributing land acreage or the in -lieu f ee to the
City prior to recordation of the final map.
(12) 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.
(13) conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&Rls) shall
be provided to the Community Development Director and
the City attorney for review and approval prior to
recordation of the final map. A Homeowners Association
(HOA) shall created and responsibilities thereof shall
be delineated within said CC&Rls.
(14) A clause shall be incorporated into. the CC&Rls which
requires disputes involving interpretation. or
application of the agreement (between private parties),
to be referred to a neutral third party mediation
service (name of service may be included). The cost of
such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties.
In the event, mediation is unsuccessful, the parties
shall agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration
under the laws of the State of California. A Homeowners
Association (HOA) shall created and responsibilities
thereof shall be,delineated within said CC&Rls, such as
maintenance of common areas.
1
(15) All walls open to the public from outside theproject
shall be textured in earth tones and shall additionally
be covered with ivy or other similar vegetation.
(16) The property shall be maintained in a condition which is
free of debris both during and after the construction,
addition, or implementation of the entitlements granted
herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse,
whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be
done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly
permitted waste contractor who has been authorized by
the City to provide collection, transportation, and
disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial,
construction, and industrial areas within the City. It
shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the
waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the
City of Diamond Bar to provide such services.
(17) The applicant shall submit a development program and
schedule to the City prior to recordation of the final
map and all amendments to said schedule shall be
submitted to the Community Development Director for
9
approval.
(18) The outside storage of recreational
prohibited.
(19
(20
vehicles is
The separation between building No. 3 and No. 4 shall be
designed to the maximum extent possible.
The following conditions shall apply to the common lots
and the recreational lots:
a. open space areas and common lots shall be shown on
the site plan and tract map and shall be:
1. Conveyed as a mandatory fractional undivided
interest to each purchaser, or
2. Conveyed to a Homeowners Association charged
with the operation and maintenance of such
common areas for the benefit of all owners,
or
b. open space areas shall be maintained in a manner
satisfactory to the Community Development
Director;
C. Use all recreational areas shall be restricted to
owner -tenants and their guests;
(21) No signs are approved as a part of this approval. All
signs must be submitted to the city under separate
application and must comply with all standards in effect
at the time of application.
(22) This Resolution shall be null, void, and of.no effect if
the Council of the City of Diamond Bar fails to approve
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519, as described in
the Resolution of the City of Diamond Bar Planning
Commission No. 93 -XX.
(23) This grant is valid for one year and must be exercised
(i.e. construction started) within that period or this
grant will expire. A one year extension may be
requested in writing and submitted to the City 30 days
prior to the expiration date.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
(1) Applicant shall contribute $12,500 toward additional
signal phasing requirements at Diamond Bar Blvd. and
Golden Springs Drive based on additional. traffic
generated from the proposed development.
11
(2) Contribute towards the street overlay of Torito Lane in
,••-the amount of $40,000 or complete the work as approved
by the City Engineer. If any required public
improvements have not been completed by the developer
and accepted by the City prior to the approval of the
final map, the developer shall enter into a subdivision
agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate
security.
(3) No street parking is permitted within the development
based on the street width being allowed and the internal
streets shall be designated as private streets.
(4) The street 'section for the internal streets shall be
shown on the tentative map.
(5) Delete the previous requirement for installation of
medians on Golden Springs.
(6) Modify the condition requiring the installation of a
traffic signal at the intersection,of Torito Lane and
Golden Springs to require a bond be posted by the
applicant in the amount of $120,000 for a period of
three years from date of approval. The bond is to be
released and or reduced by any other contributions
received by the City should a traffic signal be
warranted during the period.
(7) Handicap ramps shall be installed at the corner of the
Torito Lane and Golden Springs Drive.
(8) The site plan shall incorporate internal lighting to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
(9) The applicant shall obtain approval by County Sanitation
on the location of - the structures affecting County
Sanitation easements.
(10) The applicant shall comply with all other standard
. conditions of approval unless referenced amended herein.
7
FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENT
Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as
required by the County Forester and Fire Warden for all
land shown on the map to be recorded.
(2)Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs
and building address numbers prior to occupancy.
(3) Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150
feet distance of any portion of structure to be built.
(4) Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code
which requires all weather access. All weather access
may require paving.
(5) The private driveways shall be, indicated on the final
map as "Fire Lane" and shall be maintained in accordance
with the Los Angeles County Fire Code.
(6) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested
and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access
must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
(7) Private driveway/fire lane shall be 26 feetclearto sky
width. All buildings shall be less than 3 stories and
less than 35 feet high.
(8) The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this
location is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a
duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily
domestic demand.
(9) The required on-site fire flow for private on-site
hydrants is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi. Each
private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 2,500
gallons per minute at 20 psi with any two hydrants
flowing simultaneously.
(10) Fire hydrant requirements'as follows: 3 existing fire
hydrants. Existing private on-site Fire hydrants.
(11) All hydrants shall measure 611 x 411 x 2-1/211 brass or
bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or
approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a
minimum of 2-5 feet from a structure or protected by a
two (2) hour fire wall.
(12) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested
and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access
0
must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
(13) Additional on-site hydrants shall be installed, tested
and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access
must be.provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
(14) Additional on-site hydrants may be required during the
building permit process.
6. The Planning Commission Secretary shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified- copy of this Reso-'
lution, to Ron Crowley of Diamond Development
Company at the address as set forth on the
application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
BY:
Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed,
and adopted, by the Planning Commission on the 8th day of
February, 1993 with thd following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
DR91-2.RES
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 50519 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 2.3
ACRE SITE INTO 3 COMMON LOTS AND 34 CONDOMINIUMS LOCATED
AT 23575 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) Diamond Development Company, 1700 Raintree Road,
Fullerton, California, has heretofore filed an application for
approval of- a Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50519 and a
Development Agreement as described in the title of this Reso-
lution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the. subject Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 50519 application shall be referred to as
"the application".
(ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State
of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the
California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its ordinance No.
14, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances
of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles
County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los
Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, in-
cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
(iii) Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application
as to the consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms
and provisions of ordinance No; 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond
Bar.
(iv) On December 14, 1992, the Planning Commission of
the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application and concluded said public hearing on February 8,
1993.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
11
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all
of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the initial study
prepared and reviewed by the City of Diamond Bar and a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder
and further said Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar.
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a whole
including the findings set forth below, and changes and
alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned
upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there
is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the
project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse
effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, , this
Planning'Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse
effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations. 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.
4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the Planning
Commission during the above -referenced public hearing opened
on December 14, 1992, continued to and concluded on February
8, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together,
with public testimony, and in conformance with Ordinance -No.
4 (1992) of the City Diamond Bar, hereby specifically . finds
as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located
at 235757 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar
with a gross area of 2.33 acres and is
currently zoned C-1 (Restricted Commercial)
but in conformance with the General Plan land
designation of RM (Medium Density Residential
16 du/ac), the applicant is requesting a zone
change to R-3-(15 U).
(b) Properties to the east and south are devel-
oped with single family 'residences, to the
north the site is developed with a multi-
family complex and the sites to the west are
K
partially developed by commercial development
and single family residential home.
(c) The applicant's request is for approval of a
vesting tentative tract map, zone change,
site plan architectural review via
development review to develop and construct a
34 un it_ condominium complex.
(d) The subject property has been graded and
currently is a vacant undeveloped parcel.
(e) The site is sufficient in size and can pro-
vide adequate ingress and egress to allow
multiple family development in character with
surrounding current land uses.
(f) Notification of the public hearing for this
project has been made.
(g) The design and layout of the proposed devel-
opment will not unreasonably interfere with
the use and enjoyment of the neighboring ex-
isting and future developments, and will not
create traffic or pedestrians hazards;
(h) The design of the proposed development would
provide a desirable environment for its occu-
pants and visiting public as well as its
neighbors.
The proposed use will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare or be
materially injurious to the properties or im-
provements in the vicinity.
(j) The site is sufficient in size and can pro-
vide adequate ingress and egress to allow
multiple family development in character with
surrounding current land uses.
(k) The subdivision proposed in the application
isconsistentwith the General Plan;
(1) There is little or no probability that the
subdivision of said real property, as
proposed in the application will be a
substantial detriment to, and interfere with,
the implementation General Plan for the area
surrounding the project of the site; and
(m) 'The application,. as proposed will and
3
conditioned herein, complies with all other
applicable requirements of state and local
ordinances.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 -above, this Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of the application subject to the
following restrictions as to use:
Planning Department Requirements
(1) This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until
a duly authorized representative of the owner of the
property involved has filed at the office of Planning
Division of the Community Development Department the
Affidavit of Acceptance and accepts all the conditions
of this permit;
(2) That all requirements of the Zoning ordinance and of the
underlying zoning of the subject property must be
complied with, unless set forth in the permit or shown
on the approved plan;
(3) That three copies of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
50519 similar to that presented at the public hearing
and marked Exhibit "All and conforming to such of the
following conditions as can, shown on'a plan, shall be
submitted to the Community Development Director.
(4) The applicant shall satisfy the Park obligation by
contributing land acreage or the in -lieu fee to the
City prior to recordation of the final map.
(5) 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) Conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall.
be provided to the Community Development Director and
-the City attorney for review and approval prior to
recordation of the final map. A Homeowners Association
(HOA) shall created and responsibilities thereof shall
be delineated within said CC&R's.
(7) A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&RIs which
requires ' disputes involving interpretation or
application of the agreement ' (between private parties),
to be referred to a neutral third party mediation
0
service (name of service may be included). The cost of
such mediation shallbe borne equally by the parties.
In the event mediation is unsuccessful, the parties
shall agree to submit the dispute.. to binding arbitration
under the laws of the State of California.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Applicant shall contribute $12,500 toward additional
signal phasing requirements at Diamond Bar Blvd. and
Golden Springs Drive base on additional traffic
generated from the proposed development.
(2) Contribute towards the street overlay of Torito Lane in
the amount of $40,000 or complete the work as approved
by the City Engineer. If any required public
improvements have not been completed by the developer
and accepted by the City prior to the approval of the
final map, the developer shall enter into a subdivision
agreement with the City and. shall post the appropriate
security.
(3) No street parking is permitted within the development
based on the street width being allowed and the internal
streets shall be designated as private streets.
(4) The street section for the internal streets shall be
shown on the tentative map.
(5) Delete the previous requirement for installation of
medians on Golden Springs.
(6) Modify the condition requiring the installation of a
traffic signal at the intersection of Torito Lane and
Golden Springs to require a bond be posted by the
applicant in the amount of $120,000 for a period of
three years from date .of approval. The bond is to be
released and or reduced by any other contributions
received by the City should a traffic signal be
warranted during the period.
(7) Handicap ramps shall be installed at the corner of the
Torito Lane and Golden Springs Drive.
(8) The site plan shall incorporate internal lighting to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
(9) The applicant shall obtain approval by County Sanitation
on the location of the structures affecting County
Sanitation easements.
(10) The applicant shall comply with all other standard
5
conditions of approval unless referenced amended herein.
FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS
(1) Provide water mains, fire hydrants. and fire flows as
.required by the County Forester and Fire Warden for all
.land shown on the map to be recorded.
(2) Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs
and building address numbers prior to occupancy.
(3) Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150
feet distance of any portion of structure to be built.
(4) Access shall comply.with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code
which requires all weather access. All weather access
may require paving.
(5) The private driveways shall be indicated on the final
map as,"Fire Lane" and shall be maintained in accordance
with the Los Angeles County Fire Code.
(6) All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested
and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access
must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
(7) Private driveway/fire lane shall be 26 feet clear to sky
width. All buildings shall be less than 3 stories and
less than 35 feet high.
(8) The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this
location is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a
duration of 2 hours, over and above maximum daily
domestic demand.
(9) The , required on-site fire flow for private on-site
hydrants is 2,500 gallons per minute at 20 psi. Each
private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 2,500
gallons per minute at 20 psi with any two hydrants
flowing simultaneously.
(10) Fire hydrant requirements as follows: 3 existing fire
hydrants. Existing private on-site Fire hydrants.
(11) All hydrants shall measure 611 x 411 x 2-1/211 brass or
bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or
approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a
minimum of 25 feet from a structure or protected by a
two (2) hour fire wall.
(12) All required fire hydrants shall be, installed, tested
and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access
must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
(13) Additional on-site hydrants shall be installed, tested
and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access
must be provided and.maintained serviceable throughout
construction.
(14) Additional on-site hydrants may be required during the
building permit process.
6. The Planning Commission Secretary shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution,
to Ron Crowley of Diamond Development Company at the
address as set forth on the application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Sw
Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed,
and adopted, by the Planning Commission on the 8th day of
February, 1993 with the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
7
TT50519.RES
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE
CHANGE NO. 91-1 FOR REZONE OF REAL PROPERTY CURRENTLY
ZONE C-1 (RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) TO ZONE R -3-(15)U FOR
2.3 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 23575 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE,
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) Diamond Development Company, 1700 Raintree Road,
Fullerton, California, has heretofore filed an application for
approval of a Zone Change No. 91-1 as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Zone
Chanae application shall be referred to as "the application".
(ii) on April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State
of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the
California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No.
14, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances
of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles
County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los
Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, in-
cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
(iii) Pursuant to the order issued by the Los Angeles
County Superior Court, action was taken on the subject application
as to the consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms
and provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond
Bar.
(iv) on December ,14, 1992, the Planning Commission of
the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application and concluded said public hearing on February 8,
1993.
(v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of. this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
11
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This Planning. Commission hereby specifically finds that all
of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this
Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the initial study
prepared
repar and
I ed reviewed- by "the City of' - Diamond -'Bar . -And a
Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder
and further said Negative Declaration reflects the
independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar.
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a whole
including the findings set forth below, and changes and
alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned
upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there
is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the
project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse
effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the
wildlife depends. Based upon. substantial evidence, this
Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse
effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations. 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.
4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to the Planning
commission during the above -referenced public hearing opened
on December 14, 1992, continued to and concluded on February
8, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together
with public testimony, and in conformance with ordinance No.
4 (1992) of the City Diamond Bari hereby specifically finds
as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located
at 235757 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar
with a gross area of 2.33 acres and is
currently zoned C-1 (Restricted Commercial)
but in conformance with the General Plan land
use designation of RM (Medium Density
Residential 16 du/ac), the applicant is
requesting a zone.change to R -3-(15)U.
(b) Properties to the east and south are devel-
oped with single family residences, to the
2
north the it::: site is developed with a multi-
family- complex and the sites to the west are
partially developed by commercial development
and single family residential home. ,
(c) The applicant is requesting approval of a
zone change, vesting tentative tract map, and
site plan and architectural review via
development review as a part of this and
other related applications, to develop, and
construct a 34 unit condominium complex.
(d) The subject property has been graded and
currently is a vacant undeveloped parcel.
(e) The site is sufficient in size and can pro-
vide adequate ingress and egress to allow
multiple family development in character with
surrounding current land uses.
(f) Notification of the public hearing for this
I project has been made.
(g) The site is sufficient in size and can pro-
vide adequate ingress and egress to allow
multiple family development in character with
surrounding current land uses.
(h) The proposed use will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare or be
materially injurious to the propertie's or im-
provements in the vicinity.
(i) There is little or no probability that the
change of zone of said real property, as
proposed in the application will be a
substantial detriment to, and is in
compliance with the General Plan land use
designation for the site and is an
appropriate transitional zone for the site;
and
(j) The application, as proposed will and
conditioned herein, complies with all other
applicable requirements of state and -local
ordinances.
(1) The change in the land use designation
creates a favorable condition for the change
in zone classification from C -I to R -3-(15)U.
(m) The applicant is seeking to remedy the non -
3
conforming status of the site as it relates
to the General Plan la'nd,use designation.
(n) The placement ofthe{{.proposed zoning at such
location is in the interest of public health,
safety, and general welfare, and in
conformity with good zoning practice.
(o) The proposed zone change is consistent with
the adopted General Plan for the area.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this. Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of the application:
6. The Planning Commission Secretary shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution,
to Ron Crowley of Diamond Development Company at the
address as set forth on the application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1993
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Fl -W
Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman
I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed,
and adopted, by the Planning Commission on the 8th day of
February, 1993 with the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
4
0 0 � Y Q 20 1&0):* 00149 yvwv cej�*KV d di
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: Development Review No. 92-6 and Variance No. 92-5
DATE: February 2, 1993
�d b0W5.*V5! elil
The above mentioned project is a request to construct a children's
play area with supervisory seating to an outdoor patio. Addition-
ally, the applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the parking
requirements of the existing fast food restaurant in order to in-
stall the play area. .
,The,or,estaurant is identified as Carl's Jr.
It is loca-ted-at141 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard.
It has been Y -d 6Ffnihed that the application submitted for this
project requires an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Per-
mit. This amendment will require a public hearing and as such
must be advertised. When the project is presented to the Planning
Commission it will be identified as Conditional Use Permit No. 93-
1 and Development Review No. 92-6.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending that this project be continued until Febru-
ary 22, 1993 in order to readvertise the project.
q
File r® ISw d by
'ready for
dOSWCtion by City Clgrk