Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6/13/1994
} t P • ''1 y � � f 7.00 P.M. South Coast .Air Quality Man.agement District Auditorium 21865 East Copley: Drive Diamond Bar; California /. I Meyer Lydia Plunk Bruce i m % • mm Iii Scbad FrankUn Bong Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community Development Office, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection. If you have.questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of'72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinJ in the Auditorium ,he City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. ' CITY -OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 13, 1994 Next Resolution No. 94-11 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman David Meyer, Vice Chairwoman Lydia Plunk, Bruce Flamenbaum, Don' Schad and Franklin Fong MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commis- sion on any, item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary) There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 1, Minutes of May 23, 1994 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 2. Review of Fiscal Year 94-95 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for conformity with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the Government Code CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 3. Zone Change No. 92-2, Vesting Tentative Map No. 51169, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3, Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3, and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-2. 1 The proposed project is a request for approval of a 13 unit single family subdivision proposed on a 20 acre site located at the southeast- erly terminus of Blaze Trail Drive within "The Country". The pro- posed project is located adjacent to Tonner Canyon and is within the northern most portion of Significant Ecological Area No. 15. The application requests involve a Zone Change from A-2-2, Heavy Agriculture to R-1-40,000, (Single Family Residential, one acre minimum lot size), a subdivision of the site into 14 lots (13 dwelling units and a common lot for a sewer pump station), an Oak Tree Permit for the removal of one oak tree, a Conditional Use Permit for development in a hillside management area, and a Draft Environmen- tal Impact Report which has been prepared to evaluate the impacts the project may have upon the environment and identify mitigation measures to reduce the effects of the negative impacts. Continued from May 23, 1994. Property Owner and Applicant: Unionwide, Inc., 2130 Rockridge Ct., Fullerton, CA. 92631 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared to assess and analyze the environmental effects of the proposed project. The City engaged Michael Brandman & Associates as an independent consul- tant to prepare the environmental documents. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Com- mission open the Public Hearing, receive testimony and continue the Public Hearing. 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4 and Development Review No. 93-1 The Conditional Use Permit is a request for the following purposes: (1) to allow grading within a hillside management area; (2) to allow live entertainment; and (3) to allow the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages in the C -M Zone. The Development Review is a request to allow the construction of a restaurant at the property location of 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Applicant: Dr. Akbar Omar, 2216 E. Merced, Covina, CA 91790. Property Owner: A R Leasing and Investment Inc., 1135 S. Sunset Ave., Suite 308, West Covina, CA 91770. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Although the proposed pro- ject could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project and a mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the 2 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Com- mission approve CUP 93-4 and DR 93-1, Findings of Fact, and condi- tions as listed within the Resolution. PUBLIC HEARING: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 5. Status Report on General Plan Development. ADJOURNMENT: June 27, 1994 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 23, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Meyer; Vice Chairwoman Plunk; Commissionersf Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; Engineer Mike Myers; and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. minutes of April 25, 1994 and May 9, 1994 Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of April 25, 1994 and May 9, 1994, as presented.' NEW BUSINESS 2. Planned Sign Program No. 94-5 AsItP/Lungu reported that the property owner, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., and the applicant, Robert H. Lee & Associates, are requesting approval of Planned Sign Program No. 94-5 which includes a proposed freestanding monument *sign with legal price sign and a legal price sign for an existing automobile service station located at 21095 E. Golden Springs Drive (Parcel Map 7207, Lot 1). She reviewed the application as outlined in the staff report. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Planned Sign Program No. 94-5, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Chair/Meyer opened the meeting and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Mark Butzspan, with Robert Lee & Associates, 1201 S. Beach Boulevard, La Habra Heights, expressed concurrence with the conditions as listed by staff. May 23, 1994 Page 2 There being no one else wishing to speak,.Chair/Meyer closed the meeting and returned the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously to adopt a resolution recommending approval of Planned Sign Program 94-5, with the Findings of Fact, and listed conditions. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 3. Zone Change No. 92-2, Vesting Tentative Map No. 51169l Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3, Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3, and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-2 Chair/Meyer noted that it is staff -Is recommendation to continue this item to the regular meeting of June 13, 1994. C/Flamenbaum inquired , if SEATAC has completed their environmental review regarding this project. C/Schad stated that SEATAC has had a meeting and is in the process of finalizing their report. Chair/Meyer declared the public ublic hearing opened and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Lex Williman, the Planning Director for Hunsaker & Associates, 10179. Huntington Street, San Diego, expressed concurrence to the continuance and waived his right to a speedy review of the tentative map. He confirmed that SEATAC has met and has prepared a draft report on'their environmental review of the project. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, read a letter from Jerry Yeh to the City Council, dated January 21, 1992, which indicated their opposition to the GPAC recommendation of RH 1 du/2.5 ac because itis felt to be inconsistent with existing adjoining land in The Country, and requested a land use designation of RR 1 du/ac.. Mr. Maxwell pointed out that there are quite a few. dates back in 1992 to substantiate the proposal of a 1 du/2.5 ac land designation for the back hills of The Country. He suggested that the applicant hold their project until the General Plan has been approved. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer returned the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. Chair/Meyer directed staff to address Mr. Maxwell's comments, in the staff report available June 13, 1994. Moved by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously to continue the public hearing to the regular meeting of June 13, 1994 May 23, 1994 Page 3 Chair/Meyer suggested that item 5 of the agenda, the South Pointe project, be considered prior to item 4 of the agenda, Parcel Map No. 24031, to assure the Planning Commission has sufficient time to discuss the South Pointe issue as directed by the City Council. There being no objection, the order of the following two agenda items were reversed. OLD BUSINESS 4. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NOS. 92-1 AND 2; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51407, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-8; AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 92-8; VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 32400, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-5, AND OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 91-2; .TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 51253 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-12; OAK TREE PERMIT NO 92-9; THE SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN; AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1 AP/Searcy reported that the Planning Commission has been directed to consider project alternatives identified within the South Pointe Master Plan which were not contemplated as elements of the original project. He stated that Alternatives No. 1 and No. 2 are actual project revisions which supply new information whereas Alternative Nos. 3, 4, and 5 supply no new information. He then reviewed the five alternatives as outlined in the staff report. CDD/DeStefano stated that it is recommended that the Planning Commission . review the submitted request, receive. public comments and direct staff to prepare the appropriate commission recommendation for the City Council's consideration at their special meeting scheduled May 31, 1994. C/Schad read a statement indicating he will not be participating in the final vote pertaining to the South Pointe Master Plan project due to a perceived conflict of interest; however, he will be participating in the public hearing as a citizen. Chair/Meyer stated that the City received correspondence from Sasak Corporation, dated May 13, 1994, requesting favorable consideration of Tentative Tract Map No. 1 51253, and correspondence from Mr. Don Gravdahl, dated May 10, 1994. Chair/Meyer invited the proponents of the project to come forward and provide testimony. Jan Dabney, 671 S. Brea Canyon Road, Ste. 5, stated that he is available to answer any questions. C/Fong asked how the proposed road from Brea Canyon to the development and the school, as outlined in Alternative No. .1, will cross the blue line stream. May 23, 1994 LOOK Jan Dabney explained that it is. anticipated that an arch culvert will be used to go into the stream bed to allow the utilities to cross.at that point without interfering with the structure.. He stated that the structure will be large, and have PCC on one side for access above the water level to allow people who want to utilize the canyon to walk through the structure without disturbing the environment. VC/Plunk, noting that the proposed road has a 9.5% grade at the bottom of the canyon, stated that it was her understanding that a 7% grade was recommended for school buses. Jan Dabney stated that, though the desirable grade is 8%, the Walnut Valley Unified School -District (WVUSD) indicated that the secondary access provided more of a benefit then worrying about a grade application. In response to Chair/Meyer, Jan Dabney stated that the applicants desire the City Councilto approve the original South Pointe Master Plan as presented; however, alternatives were developed in response to requests from several members of the City Council to address the communities concern regarding preservation. He then expressed his opinion that the compromise proposed to the developers compromises the community more than the developers. Dr. Hockwalt, the Superintendent of the WVUSD, stated that the WVUSD is in the position to build the South Pointe Middle School with the cooperation of the City. Council to get the grading permits'to move the dirt from the present site. * . Frank ' Arciero, Jr., 950 N. Tustin Ave., Anaheim, Arciero & Sons, that Alternative No. 1 is,a proposal that gives the opportunity to preserve Sandstone Canyon by dedicating this 75 acre site to the public, and it also facilitates the construction of the school. Chair/Meyer* opened the meeting and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Robert Broddman, residing on Knoll Court, opposed to Alternative No. 1, pointed out that the City. need not take ownership of the 75 acre Sandstone Canyon site because the City can already i restrict development on that piece I of property and maintain it as open space without having any linkage to the Grand Avenue project. He stated that the continuous development of the City is negatively affecting all residents. Fred Fidel, residing at 24046 Shot Gun Lane, expressed concern that wildlife has no where to go with the continuous trend towards development. May 23, 1994 Page S Michael Ferry, residing at 24300 Knoll Court, in opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031, stated that they were specifically told by'Brock and TransAmerica that the proposed site will remain as an agricultural green belt. He pointed out that additional development in that. area will create additional traffic on Grand Avenue, which is already significantly impacted. Tom.Cooper, residing at 1552 Summitridge Drive in opposition to lifting the map restrictions on Parcel Map No. 24031, stated that the development of that parcel provides no benefit to existing homeowners, but rather adds more noise and traffic congestion on Grand Avenue. I He expressed concern that Alternative No. 1 attempts to pit residents against one another by taking *land from one area to give to another. He pointed out that keeping the map restrictions in place does not subject the City to any new legal liabilities, but lifting the restrictions will create legal actions and arguments 'that will occupy the residents, City Council, and the developers for years to come. Don Schad stated that he was against the South Pointe Middle School being constructed in its present location due to its accessibility and impact to the neighborhood, but never against the school actually being built; however, since it is located at that site, the dirt should be removed and the school should be constructed immediately.. He stated that the dirt can be placed on the Arciero property several hundred feet from the stream, which will leave the trees intact, provide water for all the other forms of life, and a strip of land, can be set aside for the development of homes beyond that boundary, without doing.permanent damage to the entire area. He expressed his opinion that the kIR is incomplete and inaccurate. He stated that the canyon is invaluable and must be preserved for the children today and in the future. In response to VC/Plunk's inquiry regarding his preferred alternative, Mr. Schad stated that he would prefer no development in the- canyon, and putting the canyon into a conservancy for preservation and restoration; however, since Mr. Arciero has development rights to his property, then he would concur with putting the' dirt on the Arciero property, to facilitate the construction of the school development, and allowing Arciero to develop his site. In response to C/Fong, Mr. Schad stated that all the proposals should be consideredseparate from one another. He also stated that the Grand . Avenue site should not be developed if it has map restrictions and if the.residents in the area do not want it disturbed or developed. Romaine Biedelman, residing at 1926 Derringer Lane, submitted petitions with 73 signatures opposing Parcel Map No. 24031. She expressed concern with the increase in traffic and noise May 23® 1994 Page 6 resulting from the development, as well as a concern regarding potential mud slides. Sharon Hogan, residing_ at 1556_ Summitridge Drive, in opposition to the development of Parcel Map No. 24031, stated that they were told that the site would always be preserved in its natural state. She stated that the proposal would place an additional burden on local schools and would increase traffic. Chair/Meyer expressed concern that the comments made regarding Parcel Map No. 24031 will only be included into the record for the South Pointe Master Plan but not into the record for the public hearing on Parcel Map No. 24031 unless all comments are repeated at that time. ICA/Montgomery noted that, had the order of the agenda not, been reversed, then Parcel Map No. 24031 would have been discussed prior to the South Pointe issue, . and a decision regarding Alternative. No. i would have been rendered; however, at this point, since both issues overlap, there will be a duplication of testimony. C/Flamenbaum suggested opening the meeting to allow public comments on both items, since the issues are inter -related, and incorporate the comments on the South Pointe issue into the record for Parcel Map No. 24031. ICA/Montgomery stated that he assumes the exchange is. not going to be favored by the proponents in the event that the deed restrictions are not removed; therefore, he concurred that they are partially the same issue. PUBLIC HEARING S. Parcel Map No. 24031 Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened for Parcel Map No. 24031, to run concurrent with the continued public comment portion of the South Pointe Master Plan agenda item, requesting that the public record appropriately reflect all the comments made regarding the South Pointe Master Plan to be considered as part of the record for the Parcel Map No. 24031 public hearing. RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Chair/Meyer stated that the Planning Commission will accept concurrent testimony on the South Pointe project and Parcel Map No. 24031.. He then stated that the City received correspondence from Tamerica Products, Inc., dated May 9, May 23, 1994 Page 7 1994, regarding Parcel Map No. 24031, and from Michael Scott, dated May 12, 1994, regarding Parcel Map No. 24031. Barbara Beach-Courschesne, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, in opposition to Alternative No. 1, stated that the building restrictions on the RnP property in the South Pointe site should remain as was promised to the residents, as should the building restriction on the RnP property on the Grand Avenue site. She pointed out that there are no overriding. considerations to permit the lifting of the building restrict -ions, and there is a strong probability that the project will be detrimental and inconsistent to the future, adopted General Plan since GPAC has recommended that deed and map restrictions be honored. She also pointed out that alternatives to 'the dirt removal may have to be considered since the Department of Fish and Game may not allow dirt to be dumped on the blue line stream on the westerly portion of tract 51407, regardless of what is indicated in the approved EIR. She then expressed opposition to Alternative No. 2 because there are no overriding considerations, and because the blue line stream would " be destroyed on Arciero's property. She stated that Mr. Arciero should not be denied his building rights; however, it must be taken into consideration that his property is environmentally sensitive. She expressed support for Alternative No. 3. She then expressed -opposition to Alternative No. 4, noting the multiple flaws in the EIR report, and to Alternative No. 5, suggesting that it is time for the City to move on. David Capestro, residing at 1652 South Longview,inquired if all comments made regarding the South Pointe agenda item will be included into the record for.this item. Chair/Meyer stated that all comments made will be incorporated into the public record for both agenda items. David Capestro expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031. He noted that the proposed development would substantially 'impact traffic on Grand Avenue. He also pointed out developers do not give away acreage in return for less. Robert Broadny expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031 for the 'following reasons: the proposed development will increase traffic on Grand Avenue; the parcels have map restrictions; the developer purchased the property knowing the area was a green belt; -the two proposals should not be linked together. He stated that the City Council and the Planning Commission should represent the interests of the residents, not the developers. Tricia. Guber, residing at 24303 Rimford Place, expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031 for the following reasons: the parcels have building restrictions; the proposal will increase traffic and noise; and there- has been enough May 23, 1.994 Page 8 development in the City. She stated that the City Council and the Planning Commission should fully support the residents. Sue Peg, -residing at 24336 Rimford Place, and Astko Takada, residing at 24300 Rimford Place, expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031 for the same reasons expressed by Mrs. Tricia Guber. Craig Summers, a resident, Hero Wen, residing on 24328 Rimford Place, and Gordon,.Guber, residing at 24303 Rimford Place, expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031 for the following reasons: the parcels have building restrictions 'which should not be lifted; the wildlife and open space should be preserved; there are no benefits to the residents if the restrictions are lifted; the development will increase traffic, noise, litter, and pollution; the property Was purchased by a Council Member with the knowledge of the established restrictions to preserve and protect. the open space, and sold to Mr. Forrestor who was fully aware of the restrictions; and Diamond Bar became a City to stop undesirable development. Terry Burrell, a resident, expressed opposition to the South Pointe Master Plan for the following reasons: it was approved by the Planning Commission in 1993 in violation to planning and zoning law; the South Pointe Master Plan is inconsistent with the future adopted General Plan regarding open space preservation and the desire to maintain deed and map restrictions; the EIR is deficient in identifying cumulative impacts; there are no acceptable overriding considerations since the housing density negatively impacts the community and increases traffic; the community desires an aesthetically pleasing project that retains open space; the Lavandar Report. does not include the assumptions the conclusions were based upon in regards to economic benefit, nor does it include such information such as the current vacancy rate in the City, the cannibalization implicit in the projections, and the sales and sales tax per square foot numbers; the financial status of the developers has not been properly investigated; the proposed commercial site, owned by the City, may be subject to landslides since it is fill; and there is no benefit to the community by lifting either map restricted property. Haji Dayala, residing on Knoll. Court, a real estate broker, expressed opposition to Parcel Map No. 24031. He stated that developing the parcels will decrease home values .by approximately 15%. He then asked everyone in the audience to stand up and state, "I am sick and tired of being pushed around and I'm not going to take it anymore." It is noted that everyone in the audience, which appeared to be approximately .100 residents, stood up and repeated Mr. Dayala's statement. May 23, 1994 Page 9 Steve Nice, residing on Rising Star Drive, pointed out that over 4,000 people signed both referendums to rescind the General Plan in opposition to the position regarding open .space and map restrictions. He suggested that the Planning Commission should listen to the people here tonight who are expressing what they desire for their City. He expressed support for allowing Mr. Arciero, to develop in Sandstone Canyon since his property does not have map restrictions, as long as he develops in an environmentally sensitive manner. He asked what the WVUSD needs to do to get their EIR approved by the City in order to move the dirt and construct the school. Max Maxwell,. reminding the Planning Commission of the number of recall signatures collected as well as the two successful referendums, suggested that the Planning Commission take no action on any of the alternatives and rescind their prior recommendation regarding the South -Pointe Master Plan. He stated that the alternatives cut off the cougar corridor restricting migration, which is detrimental to the existence of cougars which* often travel as far as 150 miles. He stated that it is Mr. Arciero"s responsibility to move the dirt in a safe manner. He stated that Parcel.Map No. 24031 should not be discussed until after. the adoption of a General Plan. He expressed concern that his copy of the agenda packet did not ot include overriding considerations, and that he is having problem getting information from the City that he has requested. He suggested that nothing be approved this evening until a decision has been made regarding the ownership of the Parcel Map No. 24031 property to determine if there is a potential conflict of interest. Charles Williams, residing on Rimford Place, opposed to Parcel Map No. 24031, stated that the parcels on Grand Avenue is an active wildlife area with a blue -line stream that will require a permit from the Department of Fish and Game to develop. He stated that Jan Dabney indicated at a homeowners meeting that they have every intent to develop the Grand Avenue parcels regardless of the outcome of the South Pointe Master Plan. He asked why staff was not directed to present a staff report after the recess, as had been indicated. He then suggested that the City utilize City On -Line by including Planning commission agendas. RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 9:45 p.m. RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 9:56 p.m. Chair/Meyer requested a staff report on Parcel Map No. 24031. AP/Searcy reported that the applicant, RnP Development, Inc., is requesting approval to merge two (2) existing parcels, Lot 1 of Tract No. 31479 and Lot 61 of Tract No. 42557 to one (1) parcel totaling 68.10 acres, located south of Grand Avenue, May 23® 1994 Page 10. west of Shotgun Lane and east of Summitridge Drive and extends east to the San Bernardino County line, which would require the City's abandonment of currently held Open Space and Building Rights Restrictions on the newly created parcel. He stated that the applicant.is requesting that these approvals be granted as a quid pro quo compensation for non -development of a portion of the South Pointe site by the developer as stipulated in Alternative No. 1 of the South Pointe project. He reviewed the merits of the project as outlined in the staff report. Chair/Meyer invited the proponents of the project to come forward and make a presentation. Jan Dabney clarified that the application did not request removal of any open spacel' or open space recorded easements from Lot 1 or Lot 61, but rather the removal of building restrictions on the property. He noted that the property is' not open space, but has a one hundred (100) foot open space recorded easement to protect: the view. He stated that the restriction on the property is for residential -buildings; however, there are underlying uses for the property which the owner does intend to utilize, even if it is not for residential development. 'He pointed, out that the canyon property is privately owned and will be fenced and utilized at the owners discretion. He stated that it is felt that the development of the South Pointe Master Plan allows for a more expansive use and community benefit by providing a park and a passive open space; however, if the.South Pointe Master Plan is denied, there will be no parks and the property will be fenced off. He stated that the property owners feel they have been misrepresented by the community, and to have had to put up with the abuse for three years has.been intolerable. He stated that the developers are asking for their right,• provided by law, to have consideration .given to their application.. C/Flamenbaum asked what benefit the City would derive by removing the restrictions on the Grand Avenue site. Jan Dabney stated that they will be back before the Planning Commission regarding this site and most likely, through the negotiations between now and then, the necessary benefit will be derived to the surrounding owners. . . In response to VC/Plunk's inquiry regarding possible underlying uses, Jan Dabney stated that, though the property is restricted from building residential developments, a good allowable use for that facility could be an equestrian center. Frank Arciero, Jr., responding to a statement made that developers would never trade land of greater value for land of lesser value, clarified that he had intended to point out that the City has an opportunity to acquire some :land that is May 23, 1994 Page 11 currently privately owned, thus giving the City control over it now and in the future, and not that. there is a, trade of land of lesser value for more value. He pointed out that the South Pointe property is privately owned, Mr. Schad should not invite the community to visit the site because the community does not have the right to trespass on the property, in consideration of liability concerns. C/Fong, realizing that Mr. Arciero does have the privilege to build on his land with hopes of making a good profit and return, inquired if he would be willing to restrict development to the eastern portion of the site and not interfere with the existing blue line stream and oak trees on the westerly portion of the property. He suggested that the soil be moved from the South Pointe site down across the stream to the easterly portionof the site, restricting development to the easterly portion of the property. Frank Arciero, Jr., stated that they have researched various plans on how to develop the property with minimal disturbance. He stated that there are geological problems and soil problems associated with the property, and when the property is graded, about 90% of it will be affected by the grading operation in order to stabilize .it. He pointed out that there are landslides on the slopes adjacent to Brea Canyon, and that moving the dirt into the canyon would fill the blue line stream. He explained that it is impossible to move 425,000 cubic yards of dirt to the easterly portion of the property because there is not enough property to accommodate that amount of dirt. C/Fong inquired if Mr. Arciero has given consideration to other alternatives for moving that dirt, such as using, a conveyor belt to haul it to the easterly portion of the site or to Brea Canyon Road, thus not affecting the canyon. Frank Arciero, Jr. stated that the only.feasible alternative since 1982 has been to take the dirt and move it into the canyon. He reiterated that the easterly portion of the site cannot accommodate 425,000 cubic yards of 'dirt because he would not be able to get to the property from Brea Canyon to develop that part of it. It could not be utilized unless people are brought in by helicopter. C/Fong reiterated his suggestion that the dirt be brought over by a conveyor belt to the easterly portion of the property, so as not to impact the canyon, restricting development to only that easterly portion of the property, thus preserving the westerly portion of the property. He suggested that Mr. Arciero and the WVUSD keep an open mind on other ways to move the dirt, and consider developing the property by utilizing other procedures perhaps not yet thought about. He suggested that there be more engineering feasibility. studies performed, May 23® 1994 Page 12 and that a contractor be contacted to see the various kinds of equipment available. Frank Arciero, Jr. reiterated that. he cannot develop the easterly portion of the property by 'accepting the dirt on the school site, nor can he afford to move the dirt off of the site. He explained that the cheapest estimate he has received to move the dirt by truck loads off of the property was over $1 million, and to convey it over to the easterly portion of the property ' first before removing it by trucks would. be even more cost prohibitive. He stated that he would be willing to listen to any new ideas on how to move the dirt, in a cost effective manner, to develop the property. C/Fong stated that he is attempting to find -a solution that accommodates the construction of the.school, saves the canyon, and allows development. He suggested that he and Mr. Arciero discuss the issue at another time during a work session. Mr. Patel stated that he has not received any objections to his development, nor does he have a problem with the cut and fill process, or with oak trees on the site. C/Fong stated that he met with Mr. Patel on May 16- 1994 to view his property. He pointed out that a blue line stream runs across Mr. Patel's property and that there are several oak trees along the stream. He stated that he was under the impression that Mr. Patel's property also has building restrictions allowing only 3 dwelling units; therefore, his proposal.of 23 homes is inconsistent with the draft General Plan. Haji Dayala pointed out that $1 million to move the dirt is not an extreme expense when compared to the Amount of homes to be constructed. He pointed out that the cost of the removal of the dirt can easily be added to the cost of the homes, which would be about $5,000 per home. Max Maxwell expressed concern that Mr. Patel had indicated to him earlier in the evening that there were no restrictions on his property, when actual there is. CDD/DeStefano explained that currently Mr. Patel's property is restricted to 3 homes; however, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to lift that restriction to accommodate his proposal in conjunction with the South Pointe Master Plan, which is before the City Council for consideration. A resident pointed out that Diamond Bar became a City to control such development as the ones being proposed. He expressed concern that Mr. Forrestor has never constructed homes before, and the City should be cautious considering he has no track record. He stated that many of the neighbors May 23, 1994 Page 13 have expressed opposition to Mr. Patel I s proposed development, contrary to what he has indicated.. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed the meeting and returned the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. C/Flamenbaum made the following comments: there seems to be a tradeoff of environmental damage from one area to another with Alternative No. 1; Alternative No. 1 would exacerbate traffic conditions in an area already highly impacted; there is no real public benefit to the City with removing the restrictions on Parcel Map No. 24031; and there appears to be no real public benefit with Alternative No. 1 as compared to what is already offered in.conjunction with the South Pointe Master Plan. VC/Plunk expressed her opinion that it is ill advised to proceed with Parcel Map No. 24031 based upon'the information presented before the Planning Commission. C/Fong stated that, based upon what can be anticipated with the General Plan, there is to be no lifting of restrictions on open space; therefore, approving Parcel Map No. --24031 would be contrary to the draft General Plan. VC/Plunk inquired if it is appropriate to assume that there will be absolutely no lifting of restrictions forever, if such as provision is indicated in the General Plan., ICA/Montgomery stated that if there is a vote of the people determining there will never be a lifting of restrictions, then the only way a restriction can be lifted is by another vote of the people. He stated that,.if the General Plan indicates that restrictions are not to be lifted, a City Council could amend the General Plan unless the General Plan. went to ballot, then the lifting of restrictions would require a vote of the people. C/Fong expressed opposition to lifting current restrictions on Parcel Map No. 24031. Chair/Meyer made the following comments: since there is no General Plan, making the required findings of fact that the subdivisi-on is consistent with the General Plan is impossible to do; Lot Nos. 1 & 61 were given restrictions for a purpose in terms of view preservation and open space enjoyment in regards to the Brock subdivision; and there appears to be no public benefit to lifting the restrictions. Moved by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by-VC/Plunk to adopt a resolution recommending denial of Parcel Map No. 24031, as amended by the Community Development Director. May 23, 1994 Page 14 CDD/DeStefano made the following amendments to the Resolution of Denial:. change the heading on page 1 to read, 11 A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar Recommending to City Council Denial of Parcel Map No. 24031..."; replace the word "Director" with "Planning Commission" as indicated on page 2, subsection B.2.; insert finding (i) on page 3 to read, "Based upon substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above referenced public hearing, and upon specific findings presented herein, the Planning. Commission concludes that it cannot find conformity with Government Code Sections 51093 and 6587.4 regarding abandonment of the open space easement."; and reword subsection 3. on page 4 to read, "Based upon ...this Commission hereby recommends the City Council deny the application for Parcel Map No-. 24031 and abandonment of the existing open space easements and building rights restrictions." The Motion Carried 4-0-1 with the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk and Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS.* None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Schad ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Meyer asked the Planning Commission to provide comments regarding the alternatives presented with the South Pointe Master Plan. C/Flamenbaum stated that the Planning Commission approved the South Pointe Master Plan last year under the rules and laws in effect when it was first proposed to the City, and based upon the benefit received by the City from the project; however, it appears the current i motivation of the City Council and the t general public is o preserve as much of the canyon as possible. He stated that the City Council has the capabilities to preserve the vast majority of the canyon by deeding a portion of its acreage to the public for the purpose of a secondary road on the north side of the canyon, thus preserving the southern portion of the canyon, and by reducing the density within the proposed tract maps. He then made the following comments: Alternative No. 1 is unacceptable as indicated previously; Alternative No. 2 has no real benefit because the cahyon,would be impacted once the dirt is moved around; and there has not been any viable solution offered for the removal of the dirt. He pointed out that the original South Pointe Master Plan proposal contains all the parameters needed for the City Council to deliberate and approve the project. VC/Plunk stated that, since the original approval last year, she now feels that the public benefit of lifting the May 23, 1994 Page 15 restrictions, on the SASAX was not demonstrated to her satisfaction. C/Fong stated i that Alternative No. 1 is no longer an option based upon the decision made regarding Parcel Map No. 24031. He stated that Mr. Arciero has the right to develop his land, as indicated in Alternative No. 2; however, he must respect the. City's desires to preserve the canyon and the WVUSDIs desire to construct the middle school. He stated that if the Sasak property is developed, and the restrictions lifted, the blue line .stream should be preserved, the oak trees saved, and there. should be minimal grading on the land so that the development is an asset to the community. He stated that the restrictions should not be lifted on the RnP property, unless a plan is developed that would enhance the community and not take away from it, leaving as much open space as desired by the City. C/Flamenbaum, noting that RnP can erect a 6 foot high block wall around their property and grade (weed abate) the property until it is bare, leaving the City with nothing, pointed out that the recommendation made by the Planning commission does at least provide the City with some benefit in return to allowing some development. He then recommended, that Alternative Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 be rejected as a recommendation to the City Council, and that the City Council consider his recommendation of Alternative No. 6 as follows: construct the RnP project and the Arciero project as proposed, to exclude the commercial and park development, and moving the road to the north half of the canyon under the Arciero property line, but on City property, utilizing the bottom half of the canyon as a City owned park or'open space. Chair/Meyer noted that the direction of the City Council was to discuss the Alternatives, and that there is no need to reach a consensus on the issue. VC/Plunk pointed out that private property cannot be considered a "park" for the community's use. She expressed her opinion that Alternative No. 2 needs further modification to include commercial development. Chair/Meyer pointed out that, the community seems to desire all the benefits of urban services, but not development or growth that goes along with it. He stated that the benefits of urbanization and preservation are difficult to measure and require compromising on everyone's part. He expressed his opinion that the benefit of active recreational areas for children, as well as passive open space, was well balanced with the urbanization of commercial and residential development offered within the South Pointe Master Plan, which offered a revenue source to create and pay for the urban services desired and demanded by the community.. He stated that the alternatives offered have more'problems than the May 23, 1994 Page 16 original proposal. He expressed support for the Planning Commission's original recommendation. Chair/Meyer noted that there is consensus of the Planning Commission that Alternative No. 1 is not a viable recommendation based upon the recommendation made on Parcel Map No. 24031, and that there is no consensus of the Planning Commission on the other alternatives. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Fong and carried unanimously to direct staff to provide a report for the City Council's review summarizing the Planning Commission's comments made.this evening. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Fong and carried unanimously to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at.11:28 p.m. Respectfully, James DeStefano secretary Attest: David Meyer, Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: June 9, 1994 TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioner FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Dir SUBJECT: REVIEW OF FY 1994-95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ROGRAM (CIP) FOR CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 65401 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE California Government Code Section 65401 requires the Planning Commission to review public works projects proposed for the ensuing fiscal year and determine compliance with the City's General Plan prior to the adoption of the CIP Program by the City Council. City staff has prepared the attached CIP list which briefly outlines each proposed project. The project list includes park improvements and a variety of street improvement projects. The CIP has been developed by the Public Works Department and the Community Services Department reflecting capital improvement needs for the upcoming year. According to the City Manager's budget message to the City Council, the total CIP appropriation is $4,356,080 for FY 94-95. Funds to support the CIP come from several sources including: General Fund, Intermodal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act (ISTEA); Gas Tax; Proposition ."A" and "C" (transportation); Proposition "A" (parks); Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); Traffic Safety (OTS); Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) grant; Grand Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fund; Southern California Edison (Rule 20); Development Impact Fees; and Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District No. 38. The list of CIP projects has been reviewed relative to its conformity with the contemplated General Plan. The draft General Plan, dated July 27, 1993, and currently under study, contains a variety of goal and policy statements. The proposed FY 94-95 CIP is consistent with numerous Goals, Objectives, and Strategies contained within the Draft (e.g., Land Use Element- Goal 3, and Strategy 3.2.8; Resource Management Element- Goal 1, Objective 1.3, and Strategy 1.3.1; Circulation Element- Goal 1, Objective 1, Strategy 1.1.5.e, Objective 1.2, Strategies 1.2.1, 1.2.3, and 2.1.7, and Goal 3, Objective 3. 1, Strategies 3.1.4 and 3.1.7) etc.). In addition the CIP is consistent with the "Vision Statement" of the current draft Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 94 -XX finding conformity with the contemplated General Plan and.recommending City. Council Approval of the FY 1994-95 CIP. Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution JD: GAW:ls C:\WP60\IINDAKAY\CIPmemo 111—E Capital Imp. Programming 1 11111 l Improvements moi., . a Programming Local jurisdictions use both police and corporate powers to serve their residents. Planners have traditionally relied upon the police powers to protect public health, safety and welfare through zoning and subdivision regulations. The corporate powers of local government, however, also have a major impact on land use issues. Corporate powers are used to develop physical facilities which have long term usefulness. These physical facilities include streets and highways, public buildings, water and sewer lines, and park and recreation facilities. Capital improvements programming is the multiyear planning of public infrastructure improvements. Since local government can seldom pay for these facilities through an annual operating budget, numerous techniques have evolved to finance capital improvements over a longer period. The total in- vestment, therefore, includes not only the cost of purchase or of design and construction, but also the cost of long term financing. Financing techniques include the use of current operating budgets, various types of bonding, special districts, special assessments, state and federal grants, and tax increment financing. The capital improvements program must take a longer view than the annual budget process, and must anticipate when new public facilities will be needed or when existing facilities must be replaced. The capital improvements program is a valuable implementation tool for carrying out the general plan. Because the general plan establishes policies for the direction, intensity, and rate of future growth, the capital improvements program is instrumental in maintaining the local government's control of de- velopment. Government Code Section 65402 requires that acquisition or dis- posal of real property be reviewed by the planning agency for conformity with the general plan. Acquisition includes dedications for street, park or other public purposes as well as construction of public buildings or structures. Disposal includes street vacations or abandonments as well as the sale of public lands. Special districts, school districts, and joint powers agencies must also refer their capital improvements programs to the planning agency of each affected city or county for review of consistency with the applicable general plan. How these capital improvements projects fit the goals and policies of the general plan will determine to a large extent the success of the planning program. The capital improvements program is also a useful planning tool. The avail- ability of public facilities can serve as a basis for approval or denial of devel- opment proposals. In many cases, the costs of public improvements.are borne by the private developer and eventually passed through to the home buyer or the commercial/industrial user. In other cases, local government will pay im- provement costs for developments which will provide significant employment opportunities, increase sales tax revenues, or further adopted goals and poli- cies. The prioritized list of capital improvements, therefore, ed s flexible o respond to development opportunities, yet must e 9 b Y the long term benefits which will accrue to the local jurisdiction and its residents. There are four basic steps in developing a capital improvements program: project identification, prioritization, reconciliation, and adoption. Needed capital improvements should be identified and reliable preliminary cost estimates should be prepared. Once identified, projects should be listed according to need. This listing should include why each project is important and, what the consequences will be if it is or is not funded. The next step is to reconcile this prioritized listing into a comprehensive capital improvements program which coordinates improvement scheduling and recognizes the constraints of mun- cipal financing. Finally, the capital improvements program should be formally reviewed and adopted by the local government. 4� RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 94- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65401 PERTAINING TO THE CITY'S FISCAL YEAR 1994-95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. A. Recitals. (i) California Government Code Section 65401 requires this Commission to review proposed public works projects for the ensuing fiscal year to determine compliance thereof with the City's General Plan. (ii) The City Manager of the City of Diamond Bar has heretofore prepared a proposed Capital Improvement Program for the City's 1994-95 fiscal . year which briefly describes certain public works of improvement proposed to -occur during the 1994-95 Fiscal year. Said Projects include, but are not limited to, street and highway improvements, traffic signal installations, and modifications and park improvements. (iii) I This Commission conducted a duly noticed public meeting on June 13, 1994 on the City of Diamond Bar Fiscal Year 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program, and the projects contained therein, and concluded said discussions prior to.the adoption of this Resolution. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution. 2. The City of Diamond Bar was incorporated on April 18, 1989 and is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a general plan. 3. Based upbh the facts and evidence presented during the public meeting conducted by this Commission regarding the City's Fiscal Year 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program, including oral and documentary evidence provided by City staff, this Commission, in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65360 and 65361, hereby finds as fo llows: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the public works projects identified in the City's proposed Fiscal Year 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered and studied by the City; (b) There is little or no probability that the public works projects identified in the City's Fiscal Year 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program will be of substantial detriment to, or interfere with, the proposed general plan; and (c) The proposed public works projects comply with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances, regulations and standards. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the CIP as proposed has been determined to be Categorically Exempt by the City of Diamond Bar and is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and; 5. This Resolution shall serve as the Planning Commission's report to the City Council regarding the conformity of the public works projects proposed in the City's Fiscal Year 1994-95 Program as required by California Government Code Section 65401. 6.. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above, this Planning Commission hereby approves the 1994-95 Capital Improvement Program as proposed which conforms to Exhibit "A" dated June 13, 1994. 7. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify as to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy hereof to the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar for use in its deliberations regarding said Budget. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 13th day of June, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar EXHIBIT "All June 13, 1994 Capital Improvement Program (F.Y. 1994-95) STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Area 5 Slurry Seal Slurry Seal 2. Diamond Bar.Boulevard*: Golden Springs Sidewalks Drive to Goldrush Drive 3. Diamond Bar Boulevard: Grand Avenue to Rehabilitation/ Brea Canyon Road Reconstruction 4. rings Drive to Grand Avenue: Golden Springs Rehabilitation/ Easterly City Limit Reconstruction 5. Golden Springs Drive Medians: Gona Ct. Landscaped to Westerly City Limit Medians, 6. Sunset Crossing Road: Golden Springs Rehabilitation/ Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard Reconstruction 7. Golden Springs Drive/Sylvan Glen Road Pavement Seepage Drainage System 8. Diamond Bar Boulevard Rule 20A Under- utilities under - grounding: Temple Avenue to Goldrush grounding Drive TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS 9. Diamond Bar Blvd. at Shadow Canyon Traffic Signal Road/Fountain Springs Road 10. Golden Springs Drive at Carpio Drive Traffic Signal 11.. Golden Springs Drive at Golden Prados Traffic Signal Drive 12. Golden Springs Drive at Prospectors Traffic Signal Road 13. Grand Avenue SR -57 to Easterly City signal limit Synchronization 14. Diamond Bar Boulevard @ SR -57 On/Off Traffic Signal Ramps 15. Grand Avenue/Longview Drive Mastarm Extension 16. S/B Golden Springs Drive/Diamond Bar Left -Turn Signal Boulevard 17. N/B Diamond Bar Boulevard/Pathfinder Left -Turn Signal Road 18. N/B & S/B Brea Canyon Road/Golden Left -Turn Signaf Springs Drive 1 -19. Three (3) Traffic Signals - To be Determined Based on warrant studies at the following: -Diamond Bar Boulevard @ Tin Drive -Diamond Bar Boulevard @ Goldrush Drive -Diamond Bar Boulevard @ Silver Hawk Drive -Diamond Bar Boulevard @ Palomino Drive -Golden Springs Drive @ Calbourne Drive -Golden Springs Drive @ Racquet Club Road -Pathfinder Road @ Peaceful Hills Road -Sunset Crossing Road @ S/B SR -57 NOTE: At the intersection of Brea Canyon Cut-off.Road and Fallowfield Drive, development occurring in Los Angeles County may require construction of a traffic signal in the City. This signal project, though it may occur in the city, is not programmed for construction by the City for FY 1994-95. PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS 20. Parks City Wide Retrofit ADA 21. Parks City Wide Signage Retrofit 22. Pantera Park Design and Development 23. Peterson Park Lights 24. Peterson Park Picnic Shelter 25. Heritage.Park Basketball Court Ext. 26. Sycamore Canyon. Playground Pilings 27. Starshine Picnic Table 28. Maplehill Tennis Light Fixture 29. Reagan Park Tennis Light Fixture MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES 30. Handicapped Access Ramps:Retrofit along various major/commercial arterials 31. Diamond Bar Boulevard Park -N -Ride Lot (Northeasterly corner O/C SR -60 and Diamond Bar Boulevard) -Expand existing lot Indicates Projects carried over from F.Y. 1993-94 CIP C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\CIP94-95 2 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: � X11_ _,� 1►M., M1"T, APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond i. PLANNING COMMISSION •!> Staff Report 3 June 6, 1994 June 13, 1994 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3, Zone Change No. 92-2, Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3, and Certification of. Environmental Impact Report No. 92-2 The proposed project is a. request for approval of a 13 unit single family subdivision on a 20 acre site located in Significant Ecological Area No. 15. Additionally, the application is for the removal of one oak tree, a zone change to -bring the project into conformance with the General Plan (1992), and the certification of the environmental document. The proposed project is located at the southeasterly terminus of Blaze Trail Drive within "The Country Estates". Jerry Yeh Unionwide, Inc. 651 Brea Canyon Road Fullerton, CA The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for this 13 unit residential subdivision project on December 13, 1993. At the conclusion of receiving public testimony on the draft EIR the public hearing was continued. Subsequent to this public hearing, the project was reviewed B:\VTM51169.PC 1 by the Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) and a Final SEATAC Report was prepared. The report was included in the Response to Comments .which was made available to the public. This project was initially submitted to the City in January of 1992. Following the preparation of the General Plan and the City's inability to complete the General Plan, an Extension of Time was received from Office of Planning Research. The extension's prohibited the processing of vesting entitlements such as vesting tract maps and zone changes. As a result, the applicant withdrew the project and resubmitted it in June of 1992, as permitted under the extension's conditions. The project "vested" its rights for development in the draft General Plan approved, by the Planning Commission in June of 1992. The land use designation for the site is RR (Rural Residential, one unit per acre). The City is currently operating under a second General Plan extension granted to the City in a letter dated January 31, 1994. Pursuant to condition No. 4, "The City may not initiate, accept or process new applications for vesting maps ... except for those initiated prior to the effective date of this extension." Submission of this project to the City in June 1992, enables it to progress through public review. This public hearing designated by staff as an additional opportunity for the public to comment on the EIR. These comments will be included in the EIR's Response to Comments section. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: Project Overview The 14 lot,. 13 unit residential subdivision project is located adjacent to the gated community known as "The Country Estates", at the southeasterly terminus of Blaze Trail Drive. The project is located within Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15, in the northern portion of Tonner Canyon. The application request for this project includes the following required permits: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169 for the subdivision of the 20 acre site into 13 residential.. lots and one common space lot designated for the sewer pump station; Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3 required for development in an SEA and Hillside Management Areas; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3 for the removal of one oak tree; and Zone Change No. 92-2 to modify the existing zoning classification from A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture) to R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential - one acre minimum lot size) in order to develop the project site in conformance with adjacent residential development. Approval of these permits is premised on the certification of EIR No. 92-2 which has been prepared by the City's environmental consultant. Additionally, the project is required to comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance (HMO). The HMO is required for sites with an average slope in excess of 10 percent. The HMO standards are requirements for the development and alteration of land in hillside areas. The B:\VTM51169.PC 2 HMO encourages sensitivity to the natural contours and promotes maintaining these valued characteristics. This site has an average slope of approximately 32.4 percent with the majority of, the site ranging between 22 to 32 percent. The project site is currently vacant and most recently used as a grazing area for cattle. It can be characterized as two ridges falling gently into a two valleys. The site has one oak tree. Stands of walnut trees dot the site. There is an intermittent blue line stream traversing the site which will be disturbed as a part of the project. The proposed project requires approximately 184,000 cubic yards of grading to be balanced on- site. A total of 14 acres would be graded leaving six acres undisturbed. The steepest slopes will be maintained in the eastern and southern portion of the site in their natural condition. The project will use landform grading techniques in order to comply with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance. The proposed 13 residential lots will vary in size from 1.0 acre to 2.43 acres. The applicant proposes custom homes with a minimum lot frontages of 125 feet, pad sizes of 10,000 square feet and an average pad size of 17,000 square feet. Lot shapes vary, but the average size of each pad measures roughly 125 feet in width by 100 feet in depth. An equestrian trail will be provided along the southeastern property line, through lots 8, 9, 13, and "A". Presently, some equestrians cross the site to access Tonner Canyon from trails in "The Country". The proposed vesting map includes an easement trail. The proposed project will include on-site improvement of the trail to standards of the Los Angeles County Master Plan of Trails. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the review and analysis of the Initial Study Questionnaire completed by the City, an EIR was prepared by the City's environmental consultant, Michael Brandman Associates. The EIR for the proposed project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CEQA Guidelines, and through the direction of the City of Diamond Bar's Community Development Department. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Process: The purpose of an ETR is to provide objective planning and environmental information. This information is utilized to guide and assist the City staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and the public in the consideration and evaluation of the potential environmental implications that may result from construction of the proposed project. The preparation of an EIR is based on the initial study completed by the City. The Initial Study Questionnaire identified areas that the project may produce an impact of significance. The proposed project was deemed to have impacts which necessitated the preparation of the EIR B:\VTM51169.PC 3 document currently before the Planning Commission. The procedure for the preparation of the EIR included the distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) which was sent to a dozen agencies who have or may have responsibility for providing a service to the project or may be impacted by the implementation of the project. The NOP requests that comments be forwarded to the City concerning issues that should be addressed in the-EIR - he EIR: Agencies have - 30 -days from the date of receipt of the NOP to respond. Nine - responses were received and are included in the Response to Comments. The draft EIR has been distributed to the State Clearinghouse and agencies requesting a copy of the document. The review of the EIR was designated for a period of 45 days. For this project, the City scheduled December 15, 1993 as the closing date for public comments but has extended comments on the document to include this public hearing. The EIR did not identify any areas of significant ecological impacts. All potentially significant impacts were found to mitigated to insignificant levels by the implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the conditions of approval. Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATACI: Tonner Canyon was established as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA 15) by the County of Los Angeles in 1976 to preserve one of three hilly .areas in eastern Los Angeles County that still supports a relatively undisturbed stand of the southern oak woodland/chaparral coastal sage scrub/riparian woodland complex that was once common in this part of the country. Vegetation on the project site is mostly disturbed due to past grazing activities. However, the project proposes the removal of one oak tree. A USGS-designated blueline stream bed of intermittent flow runs from the southern portion of the site and continues southward to Tonner Canyon. The City's SEATAC committee met on November 19, 1993, January 6 and May 9, 1994 to discuss the biota report contained within the Draft EIR for this project. The Final Report was prepared and has been included in the Response to Comments. .The final Report primarily focused on habitat removal and mitigation measures to replace and, preserve the Walnut woodland. The alternatives for mitigating the loss of approximately 9.7 acres of the Walnut woodland, which is approximately .6 percent of the regional Walnut woodlands, includes a replacement ratio as high as 2:1. All Walnut trees to be placed on-site are for the creation of habitat that once existed on the project site but is absent since the introduction of grazing and fuel modification achieved by periodic discing of the site. The remainder of the Walnut trees not able to be planted on-site require an in -lieu fee to be paid by the applicant to insure that other off-site areas can be rehabilitated or created to offset the loss of trees on-site. PUBLICATION: B:\VTM51169.PC 4 The notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on November 13, 1993. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 20 property owners within a 500 foot radius on November 12, 1993. The public hearing on the project.has been continued from the December 13, 1993 meeting to the March 28 and June 13, 1994 Planning Commission meetings pursuant to state law. No written responses on the project have been received to date from private citizens. RECOMVAENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and receive comments on the draft Environmental Impact Report and project entitlement requests, continue the public hearing and direct staff as appropriate. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner Ann Lungu, Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: Vesting Tract Map NO. 51169 Applications Notice of Public Hearing Minutes of Planning Commission Public Hearings Applicant Letter Response to Comments (Transmitted June 3, 1994) B:\W 51\WORK\VTM51169.PC B:\VTM51169.PC 5• .I Oj 114 >� j oN I I i �� I li I w RIPE 10 1-4 Rn --� I "�♦ ~ y �' I I � '" ''' k�, MIS � J I r `� NZ I ' a�•s I��11 IIrX i i' �� \ I e8 os o 9< v �'' I h: ..�' .fid �� F a 0 =-•-- p� ; •� %' JI• 3 8 �88=PEES=7L^8Y !� � "_ ' ��1� g o '6 Z �• '� 1 :YCYN7 YLCCLYLY E5 �� til�i� 0O O O Oa.UG ^^ iU CUn$ s m 5 "m S'm§0A cgs m .o \.♦'f m .m m az 07? 5s'"?gy zE� m € N s g gv�t:. ° m �Z�1a0"PP oo WMO O� y� N Z 9�1 '�Q aa. �j SIA ol� tprGn All "PGPy lo6W../OS=Z • CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Case4--T UEPAIMAENT OF PLANNING Fi I ed 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 Fee S > d5)0 (714)860-3195 Fax (714)860-7427 rtceiT)t SUBDIVISION APPLICATION. Ve- TRACT # 51169 (b 1-;L Record Owner(s) Applicant Applicant's Agent Name UNION WIDE, INC. UNION WIDE, INC. HUNSAKER &..NSSOCtATES (Last nate (iril) Address671 BREA CANYON, STE.3 671 BREA CANYON, STE.3 10179 HUENNEKENS ST.— City WALNUT, CA WALNUT, CA —SAN DIEGO ,CA Zip 91789 91789 92121 Phone(714 598-2661 (714) 598-26.61 (619) 558-4500 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, Joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) CONSENT: I to the su on of the application accompanying this request. ��-_� Signed_ Date. t" (All recorded ovaers) CFERTIFMITION: 1, the undersigned. hereb ' v certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided Is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name Kppli.cant or Actal) gned (Applicant of stent) Location SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF BLAZE TRAIL ROAD Da t e— (Slicel addiciror Iract and lot nuibet) between PROPOSEDROCKYTRAIL ROAD and INDIAN CREEK ROAD (Street) (Street) Zoning EXISTING A2-2 PROPOSED R-1-40,000 11M 102 H 341 Previous Cases NONE Present Use of Site VACANT/ UNDEVELOPED Use applied for R-1-40,000 - 13 CUSTOM SINGLE FAMILY LOTS Domestic Water Source- WALNUT VALLEY WATER Company/DistrictWALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRT Method of Sewage Disposal SANITARY SEWER Sanitation District COUNTY OF LOS ANGELr Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES X NO Amount (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (All ownership comprising the proposed lots/project) if petitioning for zone change, attach legal description of exterior boundaries of area subject to the change.) PARCEL 14 OF P.M. 1528 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN_BOOK 26.PAGES 19-30 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR; COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Project Site: 20.0 Tentative Map Number 51169 Gross Area Lots: Existing NONE Proposed 13 Area devoted to : Structures Open Space Residential project 20.0 ACRES and Gross Area No. of floors Proposed Density Unity/Acre Number and types of Uni t s 13 Residential Parking:Type Required Provided N/A N/A Total N/A N/A I (staff use) PROJECT NMBER(s): INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: UNION WIDE, INC. PIERMARINI ENTERPRISES 671 BREA CANYON,I STE. 3 NAME 2100 S. RESERVOIR STREET NAME ADDRESS ADDRESS WALNUT, CA 91789 POMONA, CA 91766 714/598"2661 714/590-4809 PHONE # PHONE # 1. Action requested and project description: APPROVAL OF A 13 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVI! MAP 151169. 1E I,R- � -2 2. Street location of project: END OF BLAZE TRAIL ROAD. 3a. Present use of site: VACANT/UNDEVELOPED 3b. Previous use of site or structures: AGRICULTURAL USES WERE .—ONCE ON THE SITE. 4. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this project: N/A 5. Other related permit/approvals,required. Specify type and granting agency. 160 FISH AND GAME AND -ARMY CORE 404. 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y N If yes, explain: 7. Project Area: Covered by structures, paving: Landscaping, open space: Total Area: 8. Number of floors: 9. Present zoning: A2-2 10. Water and sewer service: Domestic Public Water Sewers Does service exist at site? Y N Y N If yes, do purveyors have .-.capaCi,tY to meet demand of project and all other approved projects? — Y) N Y N If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how will these services be provided? Residential Projects: 11. Number and type of units: 13 CUSTOM SINGLE FAMILY 12. Schools: What school* district(s) serves the property? WALNUT VALLEY T V- TTXTI ED SCHOOL DISTRICT Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs? (YES) NO If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT TO SCHOOL FEES AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. Non -Residential Projects: N/A N/A 13. . Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc. N/A 14. Number and floor area of buildings: N/A 15. Number of employees and shifts: N/A 16. Maximum employees per shift: N/A 17. Operating hours: N/A 18. Identify any: End products Waste products . Means of disposal N/A19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES NO If yes, explain N/A20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES NO If yes, explain N/A21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on- site. N/A22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES NO If yes, explain TRACT"# 51169 1. Environmental Set-ting-'Prolett Site' a Existing. use/structures THE EXISTING SITE IS VACANT AND HAq NO STRUCTURES LOCATED ON IT. b. Topography/s lopes THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE HAS LQRIX=EBRATN AND HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED. THE ELEVATIONS -RANGE FROM 910 TO 1120. *C. Vegetation DISTURBED GRASS LANDS, WALNUT TREES, SOME SCRUB OAKS AND CHAPPAJJRAL. *d. Animals ANTMAT.9 THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY OBSERVED BUT MAY POTENTIALL F,XTST ONSTTE QR_WTT THR AREA JNCT,UpE BUT ARE NOT T TMTTrn_Tn COTIONTAI POCKET GOPHER, COYOTE, SKUNK, SQUIRRELS, WOODRAT AND VARIOUS MICE SPECT *e. watercourses A USES DESIGNATED BLUELINE STREAMBED OF INTERMITTENT FLOW DOES RUN FROM THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROJECT AND CONTINUESSOUTHWARD. f. Cultural/historical resources NO 'KNOWN CULTURAL/ HISTORICAL RESOURCES EXIST ONSITE. g, Other - 2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area a. Existing uses structures (types, densities): NORTH -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,-SOUTII-TONNER CANYON, EAST -SINGLE FAMILY WEST -VACANT LAND. Y AND INCLUDE ROLLING b. Topography/s lop -es THE SURROUNDING 'SLOPES VAR TO STEEP HILLS, TONNER CANYONISLOCATED TO THE SOUTH _Qf_THF. .__a11E_ *C. Vegetation DTSTURRED GRASS LAND, ORNAMENTAL I AND SfA2J1tG-CHA22AR2-&L *d. Animals qAMF. AR n ABnvi Watercourses THERE ARE SEVERAL .USGS,DESIGNATED BLJELINE STREAUDEDS-OF INTERMITTENT FLOW IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. f. (bltural/historical resources NO KNOWN CULTURAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES EXIST IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. 9, Other Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural, undeveloped land. 3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees? YES .)-. - NO If yes, type and numbert SEVERAL SCRUB OAK TREES AND WALNUT -TREES HAVE BEEN INDENTIFIED ONSITE. 4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed through proj.ect development?: ( YES) NO If yes, explain: A DESIGNATED USGS BLUELINE STREAMBED FOR -INTERMITTENT FLOW POTENTIALLY MAY BE AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT. AT THE VERY SOUTH EASTERN CORNER OF THE SITE CONTINUES 5dRwftRD OFFSITE INTO TONNER CANYON. . Will the project require grading? (YES) NO If yes, how many cubic yards? 150,000 CY:CUT.; 150,000 CY:FILL Will it be balanced on site? (YES) NO Lf not balanced, -where will dirt be obtained or deposited? 6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geol-ogic hazards on the property*(including uncompacted fill)? YES (NO If yes, explain: 7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)? I ( -YES ) NO Distance to nearest fire station: APPROXIMATELY 4 MILES 8. Noise: Existing oise- Existing noise sources at site: NONE Noise to be generated by project: NO SIGNIFICANT SOURCES 9. Fumes: Odors generated by project: NONE Could toxic fumes be generated? NO 10. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used? DEVELOPMENT ONSITE WILL BE SUBJECT TO TITLE 24 REQUIREMENTS. CERTIFICATIONo I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in / the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my know ge and belief. -�D t Signature For- a or: a The subject property contains no oak trees. t 1 The subject property contains one or more oak trees, however the applicant anticipates that no activity .(grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak tree. 1 X 1 The subject property contains one or .more oak trees and the applicant states that activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak tree, an Oak Tree Permit has been or will be applied for prior to any activity taking place on the property. .tApplicant°t Signature) matdl r 1�_Leiffll [a _0= I ' a. - -;•,- a-� • is r 'STA= CF CA XMA CCAJ= OF LOS ANC:ELE CITY OF D=AWQ BAR declare under petsai ty of perjury, pursuant to Soo ion 2013.1 of the Code of Civil Procedurep that the attached list eontains the nuns and addresses of all persons vho are shmm on the latest Availabiv assessasent roil of the County of'Los Angeles as,oeners of the tub}ett property and as ownin; property within s distance of live hundred (500) feet from tht exterior botmdaries of property legally doicribed aha LOT 14 OF PARCEL ME 1Sx$ AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOR 26 PAGES 19 THROUGH 30 12 JEJ CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COMM OP LOS ANGELES# STATE 01 CALIFORNIA,n„ , e«ttvd $t i7inrrtn ��- r� �® C41 i forni a, this .day of �..5, �fi _ m.l u I4 Environmental Information Form for Residential Proiects (To be completed by applicant) General Information: Date Filed: Pertinent Permits/Applications: CUP FORA.TRACT 51169 Project Information: 1. Name, Address and Phone Number of Project Sponsor: UNIONWIDE, INC. 671 BREA CANYON, #3 - 714/598-2661 .WALNUT, CA 91789 CONTACT: JERRY YEH 2. Name, Address and Phone Number of Key Contact Person(s): HUNSAKER-AND ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC. PIERMARINI ENTERPRISES 10179 HUENNEKENS STREET 619/558-4500 2100 S. RESERVOIR STREET 714/590=4809 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121.. LEX WILLIMAN POMONA, CA 91766 FRANK PIERMARIN 3. Project Address: NONE CURRENTLY EXISTS, THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF BLAZE TRAIL ROAD. -.4. Project Assessor's Block and Parcel Number(s), BK 8713-24-03 5. Other Ident If Itiqr1(orher recordedlmap location information), LOT 14 OF PARCEL MAP 1528, RA # 51169 6-A. Does the project require any of the following actions by the Cl-ty, Variance: Conditional Use Permit: Zone Change: General Plan Amendment; ftm� I X M 6-B. List and describe any other related standards, permits and other public approvals relevant to this project, including those required by city, regional, state and federal agencies: A 1603 FISH AND GAME PERMIT AND A 404 ARMY CORE PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED.. 7. Land Use Designations: Adopted General Plan Designation: N/A Adopted Zoning: A2-2 REZONE REQUEST TO CHANGE ZONE 70 R-1-40,000 IS CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BY STAFF. Community Plan Designation: NON -URBAN (1 DU/AC OR LESS) 8. Proposed Specific Use of Site: 13 LOT SUBDIVISION ZONED R-1-40,000 SINGLE FAMILY CRSTUM BUILT LOTS Project Description 9-A. Site Dimensions and Gross Area: GROSS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 20.00 ACRES. FOR SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS SEE TENTATIVE MAP. 9-13. Legal Description of the Project: (attach copy to this form if necessary) PARCEL 14 OF ,PARCEL MAP 1528 AS PER MAP'RECORDED IN BOOK 26 PAGES 19 THROUGH 30 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF"LOS A CALIFORNIA. NGELES, STATE OF Are the following (Discuss below all as necessary) items; applicable to the proposed project or its effects? Items which apply to this project: attach additional sheets 15. Grading: Maximum depth of excavation: 35' Maximum depth of fill: 40' Quantity of soil moved: 150,000 cubic yards. Will there be an on site balance of cut and fill?: YES 16. Viewshed: Describe any change in the appearance of the site resulting from the project as proposed. THE -SITE HAS BEEN DISTURBED BY PAST AGRICULTURAL USES AND IS PRESENTLY VACANT, EXCEPT FOR NATURAL BRUSH AND GROUND COVER. THE SITE OVERLOOKS TONNER CANYON BUT IS NOT HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM ADJOING DEVELOPED AREAS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL RESULT IN AN ENHANCEMENT OF THE ESTHETIC VALUE OF THE SITE AS LANDSCAPING MEASURES WILL BE IMPLANTED WITH THE PROJECT. 17. Describe how the proposed project will fit into its surroundings (ie: will the proposed project blend into and existing neighborhood? How will it relate to the size, scale, style, and character of the existing surrounding development?). THE PROPOSED 13 SINGLE FAMILY CUSTOM LOT SUBDIVISION WILL BE CONSISTENT AND COM- PATIBLE WITH ADJACENT USES. ESTATE LOTS OF } ACRE OR MORE CURRENTLY EXIST ABUTTING THE SITE. THE R-1-40,000 PROPOSED ESTATE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SURROUNDING. AREA. BECAUSE OF THE HOUSING TYPE PROPOSED,. THE PROJECT WILL ENHANC' VALUATIONS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT -WILL DEMONSTRATE CREATI` fpAND IMAGINATIVE DESIGN RESULTING IN A VISUAL QUALITY THAT WILL COMPLIMENT THE U-Descri eAanyRalteration of the existing drainage g patterns, or potential for changes in surface or ground water quality or quantity. (ie: will the flow of any permanent or intermittent surface/subsurface water change as a result of this project? How?: will there be any injection wells, septic systems, or other facilities which may affect surface or subsurface water quality?) ALTHOUGH GRADING WILL TAKE PLACE THEREBY CAUSING A SLIGHT CHANGE IN THE EXISTING FLOW OF WATER, LAND FORM GRADING WILL BE USED, CREATING NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES THAT WILL NOT CAU13E_,1,)RASTTC CHANGE 1 QUANTITY. ALE,RO ND WATER QUALITY OR 19. Describe any long-term noise and/or vibration which may occur as a result of this project: (after construction will this project directly or indirectly cause the generation of noise and or vibration greater than any that exists now?) THE ONLY NOISE WHICH MAY OCCUR WITH THE PROJECT WOULD BE INITIAL NOISE CREATED BY THE GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRACTAND POTENTIAL T FFIC N BY THE ADDITIONAL STREETS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED REsTUNCES THE POTENTTAT NOISE AND OR VIBRATION SHOULD BE ONLY SLIGHT Y A EXISTS DUE TO THE LOW DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. Y 24. Describe the surrounding properties (synopsis).. This narrative shall include a -description of the soil stability, Slopes. plants. and animals which may exist. Indicate the p drainage, scenic quality, commercial. etc.), intensity of land use (single-familof land use (residential, commercial, professional etc.), and Ye multi -family, density, scale of development (height. frontage. set- back, etc.) in the adjacent surrounding area. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY R-1-10,000 RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND EAST, VACANT LAND TO -THE WEST, AND TONNER CYON TO SOUTH. THE THE SLOPING TERRAIN IS TYPICANAL OF THE AREA AND THE VEGETATIVE ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FOUND AND ANIMAL POPULATIONS ONSITE AND IN THE TONNER CANYON AREA. Certification: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for initial environmental evaluation of the proposed project. All information is to the best. of my knowledge, belief and ability to determine factual, true, correct and complete Date : a? �i�'' ,9Z�- Signature: For Completion of this form is required to begin review of a within this form. and the re project. Information quired attached materials will assist the City in determining whether a Negative Declaration may be Negative Declaration may be granted, or whether Environmental ental mpact Repo, whether a rt [gated be required. port shall i! i ,ii)hll BAR DLP AR TMENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TRACT # 51169 Cason Recvd Fee $ �— Recei Y L ,.1 rd Owner(s) 2-( ) Applicant Applicant's Agent Name_ ON WIDE. INC. UNION WIDE, INC. (Last name first) Address 671 BREA CANYON,STE.3 671 BREA CANYON, STE.3 HUNSAKER & ASSOC. 10179 HUENNEKENS ST. City_WALN1T 'CA T.IALNUT. CA SAN DIEGO, CA zip 91789 Phone(714)598-2661 91789 (714) 598-2661 92121 1610 558-4500 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations)_ CONSENT: I c sent to th su a application accompanying this request Signed `a Date (All recorded owners) Certification'.-* X, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name:_ &A LK T. r,47P-P— (Ap scant or Agent) Signed � Date' Applicant or Agent) -- Location SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF BLAZE TRAIL ROAD (Street address or tract and lot number) Zoning EXISTING A2-2; PROPOSED R-1-40,000 HNM102 H 341 Previous Cases NONE Present Use of Site VACANT/UNDEVELOPED Use applied for R-1-40,000 - 13 CUSTOM SINGLE FAMILY LOTS Project Size (gross acres) 20.0 Project density Domestic Water Source WALNUT VALLEY WATER company/DistrictWALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Method of Sewage disposal SANITARY SEWER Sai,itation District COUNTY OF'LOS ANGELES Grading of Lots by Applicant? Yes X No (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent map) APPROPRIATE BURDENS OF PROOF MUST ACCOMPANY REQUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION (all ownership comprising the proposed lots)/parcel(s) PARCEL 14 OF PM 1528 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 26 PAGES 19 THROUGH 30 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Area devoted to structures Landscaping/Open space Residential Project: 20.0 ACRES and 13 CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL (gross area) (No. of lots) Proposed density _ _65 DU/A. (Units/Acres) Parking . Required Provided Standard N/A N/A Compact Handicapped Total N/A N/A e Staff Use Project No. ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ ------------------ INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: UNION WIDE, INC. NAME PIERMARINI ENTERPRISES 671 BREA CANYON, SUITE 3 2100 S. RESERVOIR STREET ADDRESS ADDRESS WALNUT CA 91789 POMONA. CA 91766 714 598- 2661 714/590-4809 PHONE # PHONE # 1• Action requested and project description- REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A 13 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS:. '• �,-Q cltb�t `�`} '• Street location of projezt:SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF BLASE TRAIL ROAD 3a. Present use of site: VACANT/UNDEVELOPED 3b. Previous use of site or structures: NONE d. Please list all. previous cases (if any) related to this project: NONE 5. Other related permit/approvals required. Specify type and granting agency. 1603 FISH AND GAME PERMIT A 404 ARMY .ER PERMIT AND A CUP PERMIT FOR HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y (N) If yes. explain: 7. Project Area: Covered by structures. paving: Landscaping: Open space: Total Area: 20.0 ACRES 8. Number of floors: N/A 9. Present zoning: A2-2 10. Water and sewer service: Domestic Public Water Sewers Does service exist at site? (Y) ' ' N (Y) N If yes. do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved projects? (Y) N (Y) N If domestic water or public sewers are not available. how will these services .beprovided? Residential Projects: 11. Number and type of units: 13 SINGLE FAMILY CUSTOM DETACHED UNITS ON 13 LOTS. 12. Schools: What school district(s) serves the proper' ty?WALNUT VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs? ( YES ) NO If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT TO SCHOOL FEES AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. Non -Residential projects: N/A 13. Distance to nearest residential use or gensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) N/A 14. Number and floor area of buildings: N/A 15. Number of employees and shifts: N/A 16. Maximum employees per shifts N/A 17. Operating hours: N/A 18. Identify any: End products Taste products Means of .disposal N/A 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil. pesticides, chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES NO If yes. explain N/A 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES NO If yes. explain N/A 21: Identify any flammable. reactive or explosive materials to be located on- site. N/A 22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? V1 INNIMS If yes. explain 8. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 1. Environmental Setting --Project Site a Existing use/structures THE EXISTINGI I STRUCTURES ON IT. SITE IS VACANT AND HAS NO b. Topography/slopes THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE HAS SLOPING TERRAIN AND HAS-BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED. ELEVATION LEVELS VARY FROM 910 TO 1120 ACROSS THE SITE. *c. Vegetation . DISTURBED GRASSLANDS. WALNUT TREES AND SOME SCRUB OAKS AND CHAPPARAL. *d. Animals THOSE ANIMALS COMMON TO THE TONNER CANYON AREA SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO SKUNKS.-COYOTE,SQUIRRELS, POCKET GOPHER 'COTTONTAIL WOODRAT, AND OTHER MICE SPECIES. *e. Watercourses A USG DESIGNATED BLUELINE atR I EAMAED OE IDITERMTTTENT,FLOW .DOES RUN FROM THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE, AND CONTINUES . SOUTHWARD OFFSITE. f. CLiltural/histarical resources THERE ARE NO KNOWN CULTURAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES ONSITE. 9. Other ----- 2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area a. Existing uses structures' (types, densities): NORTH: SJNCLE FAMILY RES- TDENTIAL, SOUTH* TONNER CANNON EAST* SINQJ,E EAMILy gESIDEIIIJAI. WEST: VACANT LAND. b. Topography/slopes SHE SURROUND N OPES VARY ANTI TNrTrmF ROLLING TO STEEP HTT,T,S- TONNER CANYON Tc T.00ATEI) TO T14F. 90111H QF THF SJ1E,' *c. Vegetation --DT SITIERPT) CRAq . RT -ANDS, ORNAMRNTAT. T,AND_qrAPTNCAND CHAPP . *d. Animals SAME AS D. ABOVE. *e. Watercourses THERE ARE USGS BLUELINE STREAMBEDS OF INTERMITTENT FLOW IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. f. (Oultural/historical resources NONE KNOWN TO EXIST. 9. Ot her ------ Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural, undeveloped land. 3. --.Are there any major trees on the site. including oak trees? (YES ) No If yes,. type and number: SEVERAL SCRUB OAK TREES AND WALNUT TREES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ONSITE 4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow Patterns, etc., be changed through project development?: (YES NO If Yes, explaint A USGS. DESIGNATED B-LUELINE STREAMBED FOR INTERMITTENT FLOW POTENTIALLY MAY BE AFFECTED BY7 OPMENT. 71 AT THE �J,vx VERY SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE -SITE AND CONTINUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 5. Grading: OFFSITE I NYO1 Will the Project require grading? (yr=S) NO If yes. how many cubic yards? 150,000 CY CUT; 150,000 CY FILL Will it be balanced on site? (YES) NO If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited? 6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on the property (including'uncompacted fill)? YES ( No ) If yes. explain: No. see soil report. 7. Is the property located within a . high I fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)? (YES ) NO Distance to nearest fire station: APPROX. 4 MILES 8. Noisei Existing noise sources at site: NONE Noise to be 'generated by project: NO SIGNIFICANT SOURCES Fumes: Odors generated . by project, NONE Could toxic fumes be generated? NO 10. What energy -conserving designs or material will -be used? ANY DEVELOPMENT ON SITE WILL BE SUBJECT TO TITLE 24 RFQ,TTTgPmp TTc CERTIFICATIONS 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in - _ the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability. and that the facts, statements. and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date ignature For: ,f/HvSeX `f �SS4(i I I. Background 1. Name of Applicant- UNION WIDE, INC. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 671 BREA CANYON SUITE 3 WALNUT CA 91789 714/598-2661 CONTACT JERRY YEH 3. Name Address a n d Phone of Project Contact: PIEAMARINI ENTERPRISES HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC. 2100 S. RESERVOIR STREET 10179 HUZNNt&tN6 STREET POMONA, CA 91766 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 714/590-4809 CONTACT FRANK 619 /558-4500 — CONTACT:--— PIERMARIVI LEX WILLIMAN 4. Date of Envi,ronmen a I Information Submittals ----------------- 5. Da t e of Environmental Checklist Submittal: 6. Lead Agency (Agency Required C h k I i 7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract. No. . if TRACT # S 1169 VnP UNION WIDE. . INC. . Subdivision): 8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): 1603 FISH AND GAME AND 404 ARMY CORE YES NO Variance: x conditional Use Permit: x Zone Change: x General Plan Amendment: —x (Attach Completed Environmental Information Form) II. Environmental Impacts: _ (Explanations and additional information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly" answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) YES NO POSSIBLY 1, Earth. Will the proposal result in: _-X a' Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? X b. DiorupCinos, displacements, compaction or overooveriog of the soil? X__ C. Change in topography orground surface rel icI features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? � ___� f, Changes in *deposition, crosioo*of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify- the channel of . constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? _][ g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as eartbquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? ` %. Air. Will the proposal result in: X a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? X C. Alteration of air movement, moiuture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water.. Will the proposal result in: X a. Changes in currents or the course- or direction of water movements? YES NO POSSIBLY X b Changes in absorption rates, drainage ofany species of plants (including trees, ` patterns, or the rate and amount of surface X b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare run-off? X C. Alterations of the course or flow of flood areas or plant communities which are waters? recognized as sensitive? d. Changes in theamount of surface water in an area, or in a barrier to the normal any body of water? X e. Discharge into surface waters, o'r in any ' crop? alteradouof xorfacewaterquality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? X f' Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _�� Q, Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions -or withdrawals, or through interception of an ugdiycr by cots or excavations? _X ` b. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available Yor- public water supplies? ' X I. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: X a. Change in the diversity of species, or number ofany species of plants (including trees, ` shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare of endangered species of plants? C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? d' Introduction of new species of plants foto an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural ' crop? YES NO POSSIBLY X X X X X X 4. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of'species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or. in a barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident species? d. Peduct ion in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides. chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? - YES ' POSSIBLY Xb. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation ' plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal: Xa. Alter the location, dictiibutlon, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12' Housing. Will the proposal affect: Xo. Existing housing, or create a demand for , additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: X a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? , X b. Effects on existing parktuD facilities or demand for new parking? C. Subs tanti al impact cmcxixCtuQ transportation systems? Xd. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. D�_ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air ' traffic? yf. Increase in- traliic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: � a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the.following areas: X 1. Fire Protection? X 2. Police Protection? ____. __X__ _____. 3. Schools? YES NO POSS I BLY X X X X X X X X X X• 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 6. Other governmental services? 15. Energy.. Will the proposal result in: a.. Use of subs tant ial amount s of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in: a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? 17.- Human Health. Will the proposal- result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. . Exposure of people to. potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. W-ill,the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in: a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? W U: N 0 0�� -POSSIBLY b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? _-X_- ' C. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? l�d. Restrictions on existing rcllgiuus.or sacred oueu within the potential impact area. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? Xa. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish nrwildl1fe species, cause fish orwildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate' or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plantor animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods oYCalifornia history or prehistory? X b. Does the proposed project have the'potential _ to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually l.imitcd but cumulatively considerable? _��d, Does the project pose environmental effects which wilI cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE -BURDEN 0F.'PROOF In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to t h e satisfaction of t h e Zoning Board and/or Commission, the following facts: A. That the requested use at the location proposed will. not: 1. Adversely affect the health. peace, comfort or welfare of person ' s residing or working in t h e surrounding area, or 2. Be materially detrimental t.o the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons 'located in the vicinity of the site, or 0 Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constilutea menace to the public health, safety or .general welfare. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 13 CUSTOM BUILT LOTS ,.OF APPROXIMATELY 20.0 ACRES WILL N�A PAyE,,".AU4Ag6.Jr6L;_LgN. � OF THE WITH THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 13 CUSTOM BUILT HOMES THE LOW DENSITY PROPOSED WILL NOT IN ANY WAY ENDANGER THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR GENERAL jg�R WILL UL11MAILLY HRUVIUt AN 1NUKtASt_lN INE VAr_tI1!S OF TH B. That . the proposed site is adequate ill size and shape to accommodate 'the yards, walls, fences, parking and loadingfacilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Title 22, or as is otherwise* required in order to integrate said use with the uses in t h e surrounding area. THE LOTS PROPOSED ARE ONE ACRE MINIMUM AND THE MINIMUM PAD SIZES ARE 10,000 SQUARE FEET. THE LOT SHAPES VARY BUT THE PAD AREAS AVERAGE SHAPE MEASURES ROUGHLY 100 FEET IN WIDTH BY 100 FEET IN DEPTH. THE PROPOSED LARGE LOT CONCEPT ALLOWS FOR AVALETY.. OF CUSTOM STYLE HOMES AND ACCOMODATIONS FOR DIVERSE YARD, LANDSCAPING.FENCING AND WALLS, PARKING FACILITIES, AND ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT FEATURES DESCRIBED IN TITLE 22. C. That the pr opo site is adequately served: 1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use Would generate, and 2. By other public or private service facilities as are required. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE SERVED BY BLAZE TRAIL ROAD A PRIVATE STREET AND ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED SITE WILL BE VIA ALAMO HEIGHTS DRIVE. PUBLIC SEWERWATER UTILITIES WIIL BE AVAILABLE AND WILL BE SERVED BY BLAZE TRAIL ROAD AND INTERNAL STREETS. AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. I. the undersigned state: We I am the owner We are of the real property described in the above -numbered conditional use permit. I am aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said We are Conditional Use Permit Case No. Executed this day of 19 I certify (or declare) under the penaltyof , We perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (Where the owner and applicant are not the same, both must sign) Type. ,or Print Applicant Name UNION WIDE, INC. Address— 671 BREA CANYON STE. 3 City, S t. a t e WALNUT. CA 91789 Signature Owner Name UNION WIDE INC. Add r •e s s 671 BREA .ANYON STE 3 City, S t a t e_WAI NJIT, ra g1789 Signature This signature must be acknowledged by a notary public. Attach appropriate acknowledgements. VESTING CITY OF DLANIOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-.5676 Fax (714)861-3117 ZONE CHANGE -APPLICATION TENTATIVE MAP TRACT # 51169 Record Owner(s) Applicant Case# Def —Feel 04V Receipt By jj�Fj Applicant's Agent NameUNION WIDE, INC. UNION WIDE, INC. HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES, SD INC. (Last nam first) Address 671 BREA CANYON,#3 671 BREA CANYON,#3 10179 HUENNEKENS ST. City WALNUT, CA WALNUT, CA. SAN DIEGO, CA. Zip 41784 91789 - - 92121 Phone(714) 598-2661 (714) 598-2661 (619) 558-4500 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) CONSENT: I consent. to the submission of the application accompanying this request. Signed_� (ALL recorded owners Date CERTIFICATION: 1, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided Is correct to the beat of my knowledge.. Printed Name v4s LN�� -4 (� (Applicant or Age -,,*,A Signed SAppilcant or Agent) Location -LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF BLAZE TRAIL RQ A71_ (Street address or tract and Lot number) between PROPOSED ROCKY TRAIL RD. and INDIANCREEKRD. (Street) (Street) Zoning.- A2-2 Hm- 102 H 341 Project size (gross acres) 20.0 AQ_ Project Density .65 _DU/AC Previous Cases N/A Present Use of Site VACANT/UNDEVELOPED Use applied for ESTATE RESIDENTIAL R-1-40,00,0. EXISTING COMMUNITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE IS NON URBAN (I DU/AC or LESS). Domestic WAter Source WALNUT VALLEY WATER Company/District WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRIC' Method of. Sewage Disposal SANITARY -a-EWER Sanitation District COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Grading of Lots by Applicant•? YES X NO Amount 150P000 CY (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (All ownership comprising the proposed lots/pr-qj,ect) if petitioning for zone change, attach legal description of exterior boundaries of area subject to the change.) PARCEL 14 OF P.M. 1528 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 26 PAGES 19 THROUGH 30 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Zone: From Acres TO Acres A2-2 20.0 R-1-40,000 20.0 In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Commission, the following facts. Answers must be made completeand full: A. Modified conditions warrant a revision in the zoning plan as it pertains to the area or district under consideration because: IT WILL BRING THE ZONING INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES AND THEREBY MAKING COMPATIBLE ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON SITE, THE COMMUNITY GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS NON URBAN 1 DU1AC OR LESS. B. A need for the proposed zone classification exists within such area or district because: CURRENTLY PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO AND HAVE JOINT A('('ESS WITH THIS SITE HAVE R-1-20,000 RESIDENTIAL ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS. THE CURRENT A2-2 ZONE IS A HOLD OVER FROM PAST ARGRICULTURAL USEq SUCH AS CATTLE GRAZING. THIS A2-2 ZONE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH OR COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE LOTS THE REZONE WILL PROVIDE HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY.HOUSING ELEMENT. C. The particular property under consideration is a proper location for said zone classification within such area of district because: THE PROPOSED R-1-40,000 ZONE IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES AND EXISTING ESTATE HOMES. D. Placement of the proposed zone at such location.will be in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare, and in conformity with good zoning practice because: THE PROPOSED ZONING WILL PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING CONSISTENT WITH•THE CITY POLICIES. THE ZONE WILL ALLOW SENSITIVE AND c OMPATTBLE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL ESTATE HOMES IN AN AREA PRESENTLY DEVELOPED AS SUCH. Use additional sheets as necessary INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: UNION WIDE, INC. NAME 671 BREA CANYON, STE 3 ADDRESS WALNUT CREEK, CA 91789 Staff Use Project'No. HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC. NAME 10.179 HUENNEKENS STREET ADDRESS SAN DIEGO, -CA 92121 (7 14) 598-2661 (619 558-4500 PHONE # PHONE # 1. Action requested and project description: REQUESTING THE REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 20.0 ACRES FROM A2-2 TO R-1-40.000. _ 2. Street location of projects SQUTR nF THE END OF BLAZE TRAIL.. 3a. Present use of site: VACANT UNDEVELOPED. 3b. Previous use of site or structures: VACANT UNDEVELOPED 4. Please list all previous cases N/A (if any) related to this project: 5. Other related permit/approvals required. Specify type and granting agency. FOR FUTURE TENTATIVE MAPS, APPROVAL WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1603 FISH & GAME. 404 ARMY 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y If yes, explain: N/A 7. Project Area: Covered by structures, paving: N/A Landscaping, open space: N/A Total Area: N/A 8. Number of floors: N/A 9. Present zoning: A2-2 CORP. 10. Water and sewer service: Does service exist -at -site? If_ygs, do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved projects? Domestic Water ( Y) N Public Sewers (Y) N ( Y) N (Y) N If domestic Water or public severs are not available. how Will these services beprovided? Residential Projects: 11. Number and type of units: N/A - THIS IS A REZONE REQUEST FOR A 13 LOT SUBDIVISION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #51169 12. Schools: What school district(s) serves the property?WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Are existing school facilities adequate to meet prosect needs? ( YES ) NO If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT TO SCHOOL FEES AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT Non -Residential projects: N/A N/A 13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) N/A 14. Number and floor area of buildings: N/A 15. Number of employees and shifts: N/A 16: Maaieum employees per shift: N/A 17. Operating hours: N/A 18.. Identify any: End products Waste products Means of disposal N/A 19. Do project operations use. store or produce hazardous substances such as oil. pesticides. chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES NO If yes. explain NA/ 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES NO If yes. explain N/A 21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on- site. NA/ 22• Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES NO If yes, explain a •• is -�- • 1. Environmental Setting --Project Site a. Existing use/structures THE EXISTING SITE IS VACANT AND HAS NO STRUCTURES LOCATED ON IT. b. Topography/slopes THE MATORTTY OF THE SITE HAS T.OPTNr TERRAIN AN11 HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED. THE ELEVATIONS -RANGE FROM 910 TO.1120 ACROSS THE SITE. *c. Vegetation DISTURBED GRASS LANDS, WALNUT TREES, SOME SCRUB OAKS AND CHAPPARRAL. *d. Animals ANIMAT.S THAT HAVE NOT BEEN nTRECTLy OBSERVED BTT AV POTENTIALLY EXIST ONSTTF OR WTTHTN THF. AREA TN('T.TiDF. BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO COTTONTAIL POCKET GOPHER, COYOTE, SKUNK, SQUIRRELS, WOODRAT AND VARIOUS MICE SPECIE *e. Watercourses A USGS DESIGNATED BLUELINE STREAMBED OF INTERMITTENT FLOW DOES RUN FROM THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PROJECT AND CONTINUES SOUTHWARD. f. Clultural/historical resources NO KNOWN CULTURAL/HISTORICAL RESOURCES EXIST ONSITE. g. Other ----- 2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area a. Existing uses structures (types, densities): NORTH -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, SOUTH-TONNER CANYON, EAST -SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. WEST -VACANT LAND. .b. Topography/s lopes THE SURROUNDING SLOPES VARY AND INCLUDE ROLLING TO STEEP HILLS. TONNER CANYON IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF THF SSTTF- *C. Vegetation D' sniRBF.D O AGG T.AND; nRNAMF.NTAT. T.ANngrAPTMr.� rMAPPARRA1 'd. Animals CAME AS n AAQUR *e. Watercourses THERE ARE SEVERAL USGS DESIGNATED BLUEL'INE STREAMBEDS. INTERMITTENT FLOW IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. f. Wltural/historical resources NO KNOWN CULTURAL/HISTORICAL RESUL�_ EXIST IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. g. Other --- Answers are not required if the area does not contain nacuri. undeveloped land. 3. Are -there any major trees on the site. including oak trees? LYES ) NO If yes, type and numbers SEVERAL SCRUB OAK TREES AND WALNUT TREES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ONSITE. 4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc.. be changed through project development?s (YES ) NO If yes. explains USGS DESIGNATED BLUELINE STREAMBED FOR INTERMITTENT FLOW POTENTIALLY MAY BE AFFECTED BY DEVELOPMENT. THE STREAM BEGINS AT THE VERY SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE SITE AND CONTINUES OFFSITE INTO TONNER CANYO 5. Gradings Will the project require grading? (YES) NO If yes, how many cubic yards? 150,000 CY CUT; 150,000 CY FILL Will It be balanced on site? (YES) NO If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited? 6. Are there any identifiable landsildes or other major, geologic hazards on the property (including uncompacted fill)? YES ( NO ) If yes, explains No. see soil report 7. Is the property located within a'high fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)? (YES ) NO Distance to nearest fire station: APPROXI, 4 MILES 8. Noise: Existing noise sources at sites NONE Noise to be generated by projects NO SIGNIFICANT SOURCES Fumess 9. Odors generated by projects NONE Could toxic fumes.be generated? NO 10. What energy-conserving designs or material will be used? ANY DEVELOPMENT ON SITE WILL BE SUBJECT TO TITLE 24 RFQijTRFMFNTS CERTIFICATIONi 1 hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. �o D to i n cure For zVv�prr �1�.�.r,-a,.� tFwnScala r �t Q�-SSa►aK S 3 CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNER'S LIST AFFIDAVIT ZONING CASE NO STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS.ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR I. JERRY K. YEH declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Section 2015.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons who are shown on the latest available assessment roll of the County of Los Angeles as owners of the subject property and as owning property within a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the exterior boundaries of property legally described as: LOT 14 OF PARCEL MAP 1528 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 26 PAGES 19 THROUGH 30 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF -LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Executed at California, this day of 19 —7 Signature Environmental Information Fora for Residential Pro ects (To be completed.by applicant) General Informations Date Filed: Pertinent Permits/Applications Project Informations A CUP , SUBDIVISION, AND AN OAK TREE PERMIT 1. Name. Address and Phone Number of Project Sponsors UNION WIDE, INC. 671 BREA CANYON. #3 PHONE # (714) 598-2661- WALNUT, 98-2661WALNUT, CA 91789 CONTACT! .TERRY YFH 2.,.,.., Name. Address and Phone Number of Key Contact Person(s): HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO. INC. PTERMARTNT F 10179 HUENNEKENS STREET PHONE # (619)558-4500 2100 S. RESERVOIR'ST SAN DIEGO. CA '92121 CONTACT LEX WILLIMAN POMONA, CA 91766 PHONE # (714)590-4809- 3. Project Addresss CONTACT: FRANK PIERMARINI NONECURRENTLY EXISTS. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF BLAZE TRAIL ROAD. 4. Project Assessor's Block and Parcel Number(s)s _BK 8713-24-03 5. Other Identification (other recorded/map location Information): LOT 14 OF PARCEL MAP 1528 6-A. Does the project require any of the following actions by the City: YES Variance: Conditional Use Permit: X Zone Change: X General Plan Amendment: X RE 6-13. List and describe any other related standards, approvals -relevant to this project. Including those re permits and other pupal, state and federal agenclest A 1603 FISH AND GAME PERMIT AND A 404 red by IARYMY rCORP. PERMIT .WILL BE RE UIRED. 7. Land Use -Designations: Adopted General Plan Designation: N/A Adopted Zoning: A2-2 REZONE RE UEST TO CHANGE ZONE ID R-1=40,000 IS CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BY STAFF. Community Plan Designation: NON -URBAN 1 DU/AC OR LESS e. Proposed Specific Use of Sitet 13 LOT terSUBDIVISION ZONED R-1-40,000 ,.,.-- -----_ Project Description 9-A. Site Dimensions and Gross Areas GROSS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 20,00 ACRES. FOR SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS SEE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP. ------------ 9-13. Legal Description of the Projects (attach copy to this form if necessar ) PARCEL 14 OF PARCEL MAP 1528 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 26.PAGES 19 Y THROUGH 30 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY• OF' i.(1S eurFr �e (SAT TLInnIT I@. Project Detail (SEE ATTACHED SHEET) Attach a.separate page of descriptive data for each housing type included in this project: a. Number of Housing Units by type. b. Floor Area by type (minimum, maximum, and average square footage). C. Number of floors (stories) for each type. d. Housing market targeted (demographic profile). e. Estimated market sales price or estimated market rents. f. Describe all amenities proposed (for example, landscaping, recreation equipment, common use facilities, trials. etc.). g. Minimum lot size. (Net lot area, not including Right -of -Way). h. Maximum lot size. (Net lot area, not including Right -of -Way). i. Average lot size. (Net lot area. not including Right. -of -Way). J. Number of lots which do not meet City Standards. 11. Describe public or private utility easements, utility lines, structures or other facilities which exist on -the surface or below the surface of the project site. THERE ARE EASF.MF.NTR WMTrN RYTCT nu Irur nnnnanmv PES AND OTHERS. SEE TITLE REPORT FOR DETAILS 12. Associated Projects# (Projects or potential, projects which are directly related to this project, ie: potential developments. Which require completion of this project)i THIS REOUF.ST TS FOR A RF7.ONTNr OF THE SITE FROM A7-? TO R -1-4n M Q TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMANCE WITH ADJACENT USES. A CUP, OAK TREE PERMIT, AND A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT-MAP—.ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REZONE REQUEST 13:' Describe any anticipated Phasing for this project: (Number of Units do Time Frame) N/A 14. Attach one copy of each of the.followingt a. Preliminary Soils Report b. Preliminary Geologic Investigation. C. Drainage Study. d. Topographic Map highlighting any existing slopes of 25% or more. e. Tract. Map, Parcel Map, or Plot Plan clearly shoving each area of cut and each area of fill: all residential unit pads (if known), and any areas with slopes 25% or more. f. Photographs showing the site from different (let north, south, est. west) vantage points and photographs showing vistas (ie: north. south. east, west) from the site. l 10. Project Detail a. n/a b. n/a c. n/a d. n/a e. n/a f. The landscape treatment for this project has two primary goals. 1. To recreate a woodland habitat to mitigate the loss of natural vegetation, and 2. To providea drought tolerant landscape comprised of native and non-native species to help soften and screen the proposed development. The development will include equestrian trails which will link up to the trail system which is established in the .country community. g. 'Minimum lot size: 1.00 acre h. Maximum lot size: 2.31 acres i. Average lot size: 1.34 acres J. none Are the following itesti applicable to the proposed project or Its effects? (Discuss below all items which apply to this projects attach additional sheets as necessary) 15. Gradings Maximum depth of excavation: 351 Maximum depth of fills 40' Quantity of soil moved, 150,000 cubic yards. Will there be anon site balance of cut and fill?. YES 16. Viewsheds Describe any change in the appearance of the site resulting from the project as proposed. EXCEPT FOR NATURAL BRUSH AND GROUND COVER. yiTHE LSITE JOVERLOOKSKTONNERYCANYON TBUT IS NOT HIGHLY .VISIBLE FROM ADJOINU DEVELOPED AREAS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL RESULT IN AN ENHANCEMENT OF THE AESTHETTC VALUE OF THE SITE AS LANDSCAPING MEASURES WILL BE IMPLANTED WITH THE PROJECT. 17. Describe how the proposed project w{I1 fit Into its surroundings (let will the proposed project blend into and existing neighborhood7 flow will it relate to the size, scale, style, and character of the existig surrounding development?) n AND IMAGINATIVE DESIGN RESULTING Ig U r%Tscr eA�nyRal terat i for changes in surface or gr of any permanent or intermit this project? How?s will th facilities which may affect ALTHOUGH GRADING WILL TAKE FLOW OF WATER, LAND FORM G UTTIN WITH ENHA. CREA' on of the existing drainage patterns, or potential ound water quality or quantity. (les will the flow tent surface/subsurface water change as a result of ere be any injection wells, septic systems, or other surface or subsurface water quality?) PLACE THEREBY CAUSING A SLIGHT CHANGE IN THE EXISTING RADINt'-- THAT WTT.T. N[1T react DRAQTTC C AN('FS TN ctroune�t nv r+Rn„l,n , t ,A t OR 19. Describe any long—term noise and/or vibration which may occur as a result of this projects (after construction will this project directly or indirectly cause the generation of noise and or vibration greater than any that exists now?) THE ONLY NOISE WHICH MAY OCCUR WITH THE PROJECT WOULD BE INITIAL NOISE CREATED BY THE GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRACT AND POTENTIAL TRAFFIC NOISE-Z7MM BY THE ADDITIONA STREETS REOUTRED F_ Tut Dvn�n�cn RESTD1 _."r M POTF (TTA NOISE AND OR VIBRATION SHOULD E Y EXISTS DUE TO THE LOW DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. RRENTLY 20. Describe any residential construction proposed on. filled land (iei identify the lot number of each structure proposed.to be built of filled land). 5 OF THE 13 PROPOSED LOTS WILL BE FILL LOTS. RESIDENTIAL HOMES ARE'PROPOSED ON LOTS 1,2,3,10, & 11. 21. Do any significant trees exist on the project site now? Describe the effect this project will have on them. (let Oak and Walnut trees are considered significant. Describe whether the proposed project will disturb or cause removal of any of these trees). YES. SEVERAL SCRUB OAK AND WALNUT TREES DO EXIST ONSITE IF NECESSARY, AN OAK EE PERMIT WILL BE PROCESSED THROUGH THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 22. Is the project site located in a national, state. regional or locally designated area. of historical, environmental orother significance. If so describe. (ies is the site an area designated as.a hillside management area, significant ecological area. significant mineral resource area, etc.) THE SITE FALLS WITHIN THE TONNER CANYON SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AREA NO 15 BUT IS NOT LOCATED IN AN AREA OF KNOWN HISTORICAL OR CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE.' THE AREA IS DESIGNATED AS A HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT AREA. Environmental Settings 23. Describe the environmental setting (synopsis) of the project site. This narrative shall include a description of the soil stability. slopes. drainage, scenic quality, plants, and animals which may exist on the site now, and any existing structures and the existing land use of the project site. THE SITE HAS BEEN DISTURBED BY PAST AGRICULTURAL USES AND IS PRESENTLY VACANT. THE SITE IS COMPRISED OF.2 RIDGES AND 2 SMALL VALLEYS WHICH FALL GENTLY IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION FROM BLAZE TRAIL. THERE ARE DISTURBED GRASS LANDS CHAPARRAL, WALNUTS AND A FEW SCRUB OAK TREES LOCATED ONSITE: THE SITE OVERLOOKS TONNER CANYON TO THE SOUTH BUT IS NOT HIGHLY VISIBLE -FROM ADJOING DEVELOPED AREAS. THE ANIMAL POPULATION ONSITE WOULD CONSIST OF THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH DISTURBED CHAPARRAL AND GRASSLAND. THIS COULD INCLUDE COTTONTAIL RABBITS, COYOTE, SKUyk:, SQUIRRELS, WOOD RATS AND VARIOUS MICE SPECIES. f 24. Descrl be the surrounding properties (synopsis). This narrative shall include a description of the soil stability, slopes, drainage, scenic quality, plants. and animals which may exist. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (single-family, multi -family, density, commercial, professional, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set- back, etc.) in the adjacent surrounding area. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY R-1-10,000 RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND EAST VACANT LAND TO -THE WEST AND TONNER CANYON TO THE SOUTH. THE SLOPING TERRAIN IS TYPICAL OF THE AREA AND THE VEGETATIVE AND ANIMAL POPULATIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FOUND ONSITE AND IN THE TONNER CANYON AREA.. Certifications I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for initial environmental evaluation of the proposed project. All information is to the best of my knowledge, belief and ability to determine factual. true, correct and complete. Dater (o 9 —._ Signaturet ____T7 4A - - - For {� a Completion of this form is required to -begin review of a project. Information within this form and the required attached materials will assist the City in determining whether a Negative ELclaration-may be granted, whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration maybe granted, or whether Environmental Impact Report shall be required. CITY DF DIAMCND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)860-3195 Fax (714)860-7427 OAK TREE PERMIT APPLICATION TRACT # 51169 Record Owner(s) Applicant Name UNION WIDE, INC. (Last nave first) Address 671 BREA_ CANYON. STE City_WALNUT, CA Zip 91789 Phoned 14X598-2661 OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION Case# r / l2 - 3 Filed Recei BY Applicant's Agent UNION WIDE, INC. HUNSA_KER & ASSOCIATES 3_671 BREA CANYON. STE.3 WALNUT, CA _917&9 014) 598-2661 '10179 HUENNEKENS ST. SAN DIEGO. CA —92121 (619.) 558-4500 I certify that he owner of erein described property and permit the applicant t ile t is / I Signed r Date (All recorded ornery) f -- Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my. knowledge. Printed Name Z!WV24ef c'A7 (Applicant or Ateoi) Signed / / Date tApplicint or'Atentl . Location (i.e. address or general description'of location) and legal description of .property in question: (use additional sheets as. "necessary) LOCATION: SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF BLAZE TRAIL ROAD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 14 OF PARCEL MAP 1528 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 26, PAGES 19-30 How many oak trees will be cut, removed, relocated or damaged? one How many oak trees will remain estimated 30 to 40 oak trees to remain Will trees to be removed be replaced? yes* If yes, indicate the proposed size, type, location (indicated on site plan) and schedule for planting. 36" box size oak tree, location to be determined in the field, Are trees to be relocated? no If yes, identify who will move them and his qualifications for doing this. [ I The subject property contains no oak trees. .,a _ [ I The subject property contains one or more oak trees, however the applicant anticipates that no activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet' of the outer dripiine of any oak tree. [ X I The subject property contains one or more oak trees and the applicant states that activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak tree. an Oak Tree Permit has been or will be applied for prior to any activity taking place on the property. iApplicaat't Sitaalurel (Date) Two (2) oak tree reports certified by the applicant to betrue and correct and acceptable to the director and county forester and fire warden, of each tree shown on the site plan required by subsection 5 below which shall contain the following information: 1. The name, address and telephone number during business hours of the preparer. 2. Evaluation of the physical structure of each tree as follows: a. The circumference of the trunk measured four and on -half feet above natural grade. b. The diameter of the tree's canopy establishing the dripline. C. Aesthetic assessment of the tree considering factors such as but not limited to symmetry, broken branches, unbalanced crown, excessive horizontal branching. d. Recommendations to remedy structural problems where required. 3.' Evaluation of the health of each tree as follows: a. Evidence of disease such as exfoliation, leaf scorch an exudations. b. Identification of insect pests such as twig girdler - borers, termites, pit scale and plant parasites. c. Evaluation of vigor such as new tip growth, good leaf color, poor leaf color abnormal bark, deadwood end thinning of crown. d. Health rating based on the archetype tree.of the same species. e. Recommendations to improve tree health such as insect or disease control, pruning and fertilization. 4. Evaluation of the applicant's proposal as it impacts each tree shown on the site plan including suggested mitigating and/or future maintenance measures where required and the anticipated effectiveness thereof. 5. The location of all oak trees subject to regulation under the provisions of Section 22.56.2060 and 22.56.2070 of the Zoning Ordinance, proposed to be removed and/or relocated or within one hundred feet of proposed construction, grading, landfill or other activity. Each tree shall be assigned an identification number on the plan which shall be utilized in the oak tree report and for physical identification on the property where required. The dripline shall be shown for each plotted tree. The requirement for an oak tree report may be waived by the director where a tree is proposed for removal and such information is deemed unnecessary for processing the application. Submit additional sheets describing how the following findings will be satisfied. A. That the proposed construction or proposed us -e will -be accompl-i-shed without endangering the health of the remaining trees subject to this Par 16, if any, on.the subject property. and H. That the removal or relocation of the oak tree(s) proposed will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated, and C. That in addition to the above facts at least one of the following findings apply: 1. That the removal or relocation of the oak tree(s) proposed is necessary as continued existence at present location(s) frustrates the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject property to such an extent that: a. Alternative development plans cannot achieve the same permitted density or that. the cost of such alternative would bP prohibitive. or b. Placement of such tree(s) precludes the reasonable and efficient use of such property for a use otherwise authorized, or 2. That the oak tree(s) proposed for removal or relocation interfPr- with utility services or streets and highways either within ^r outside of the subject property and no reasonable alternative to such interfere exists other than removal of the tree(s), or 3. That the condition of the oak trees) proposed for removal rl reference to seriously debilitating disease or danger of falling such that it cannot be remedied through reasonable preservati.-n procedures and practices. Lite: Applicant's Signature. — Environmental Information 1 --ors for Residential Projects (To be completed by applicant) General Informations Date Filed: Pertinent Permit s/ApplicatIons t CUP FOR TRACT 51169 Project Information:, 1. Name, Address and Phone Number of Project Sponsor: UNIONWIDE, INC. 671 BREA CANYON, #3 714/598-2661 WALNUT, CA 91789 CONTACT: JERRY YEH 2. Name. Address and Phone Number of Key Contact Person(s): HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO INC. PIERMARINI ENTERPRISES 10179 HUENNEKENS STREET 619/558-4500 2100 S. RESERVOIR STREET 7147-59-0-4809 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121- LEX WILLIMAN POMONA, CA 91766 FRANK PIERMARI 3. Project Addresst NONE CURRENTLY EXISTS THE PROTECT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF _BLAZE TRAIL ROAD. 4. Project Assessor's Block and Parcel Number(s)t BK 8713-24-03 5. Otter Identifjrl„�other recorded/map location information): LOT 14 OF PARCEL MAP 1928,a"TRA�T # 51169 6-A. Does the project require any of the.folloving actions by the Citys Variances Conditional Use Permits Zone Changes General Plan Amendments YES NO X X 6-13. List and describe any other related standards, permits and other public approvals relevant to this project. including those required b cit state and federal agencies A 1603 FISH AND GAME PERMIT AND A 404 A MAY CORE nal, PERMIT WILL BE RE UIRED. 7•. Land Use Designations: Adopted General Plan Designations N/A Adopted Zonings A2-2 REZONE RE UEST TO CHANGE ZONE ID R-1-40,BEIN REVIEWED BY STAFF. 000 IS CURRENTLY- Community Plan Designations NON -URBAN Q DU/AC OR LESS) 8. Proposed Specific Use of Sites 13 LOT SUBDIVISION ZONED R-1-409000 SINGLE FAMILY CWSTQM BUILT LOTS Project Description 9-A- Site Dimensions and Gross Areas GROSS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 20.00 ACRES. FOR SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS SEE TENTATIVE MAP. 9-B. Legal Description of the Projects (attach copyto this form if necessari,) PARCEL 14 OF PARCEL MAP 1528 AS PER MAR RECORDED IN'BOOK 26 PAGES 19 THROUGH 30 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY.OF'LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 10. Project Detail sere: A -r -roc H -A 5Ht-�-T Attach a separate page of descriptive data for each housing type included in this projects a. Number of Housing Units by type. b. Floor Area by type (minimum, maximum, and average square footage). C. Number of floors (stories) for each type. d. Housing market targeted (demographic profile). e. Estimated market sales price or estimated market rents. f. Describe all amenities proposed (for example, landscaping, recreation equipment, common use facilities, trials, etc.). g. Minimum lot size. (Net lot area, not including Right. -of -Way). h. Maximum lot size. (Net lot area. not including Right -of -Way). i. Average lot size. (Net lot area, not including Right-of=Way). J. Number of lots which do not meet City Standards. 11. Describe public or private utility easements. utility lines. structures or other facilities which exist on the surface or below the surface of the project site. THERE ARE EASEMENTS WHICH EXIST ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF'TRAILS, SLOPES, STREETS, AND VARIOUS OTHER PUBLIC UTILITIES SUCH AS GAS, ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE, DRAINAGE, AND OTHERS. SEE TITLE REPORT FOR DETAILS. 12. Associated Proiectst (Projects or potential projects which are directly related to this project, iei potential developments which require completion of this project): NONE OTHER THAN A' PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED REZONE*REQUEST TO CHANGE ZONING FROM A-2-2 TO R-1-40,000. 13. Describe any anticipated Phasing for this project: (Number of Units & Time Frame) N/A 14. Attach one copy of each of the following: a. Preliminary Soils Report b. Preliminary Geologic Investigation. C. Drainage Study. d. Topographic Map highlighting any existing slopes of 25% or more. e. Tract Map, Parcel Map, or Plot Plan clearly showing each area of cut and each area of fills all residential unit pads (if known), and any areas with slopes 25% or more. f. Photographs showing the site from different (jet north, south, est. west) vantage points and photographs showing vistas (ie, north. south. east. west) from the site. 10. Project Detail a n/a b n/a c n/a d n/a e n/a f. The landscape treatment for this project has two primary .goals. .1. To recreate a woodland habitat to mitigate the loss of natural vegetation, and 2. To provide a drought. tolerant landscape comprised.of native and non-native species to help soften and screen the proposed development. The development will include ude equestrian trails which will link up to the.trail system which is established in the country community. g. Minimum lot size: 1.00 acre h. Maximum lot size: 2.31 acres i. Average lot size: 1.34 acres j. none Are the following iters'applicable to the proposed project or its effects? (Discuss below all items which apply to this projects attach additional sheets as necessary) 15. Grading, Maximum depth of excavations 35' Maximum depth of fills 401 Quantity of soil moveds 150,000 cubic Will rds there be an on site balance of cut and fill?saYES. 16. Viewsheds Describe any change in the appearance of the site resulting from the project as proposed. mTT . _ . TONNER CANYON BUT ED PRn.TFCT LTTT T 17. Describe how the proposed project.will fit into its surroundi------------ ngs (ie: will the proposed project blend into and existing neighborhood? How will it relate to the .size, scale, style, and character of the existing surrounding development?) `•'��LLL ^iln w.,auGtv'r USES. ESTATE LOTS OF ACRE OR MOREYCURRENTLYGNK EXISTllABUTTING THE SITE. THE R-1-40 000 PROPOSED ESTATE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE SURROUNDING.AREA. BECAUSE .OF THE HOUSING TYPE PROPOSED, THE PROJECT WILL ENHAN VALUATIONS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL DEMONSTRATE CREAT ��AND IGINATIVE DESIGN RESULTING IN A VISUAL QUALITY TRA WILL COMPLIMENT THE U lJiy#gAJT;Ralteration of the existingdrainage ainage patterns. or potential for changes in surface or ground water quality or quantity. (ie: will the flow of any permanent or intermittent surface/subsurface water change as a result of this project? How?, will there be any injection wells# septic systems, or other facilities which .may affect surface or subsurface water quality?) ALTHOUGH GRADING WILL TAKE PLACE THEREBY CAUSING A SLIGHT CHANGE IN THE EXISTING FLOW OF WATER, LAND FORM GRADING WILL BE USED, CREATING NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES THAT WILL NOT OA TG D ASTTr �* T I,Ar ('FC IN SLTRFAfiF no lTDninm r,. en.... .,-- • _ _-- 19. Describe any long-term noise and/or vibration which may occur as a result of this projects -(after construction will this project ly or intly cause the generation of noise and or vibration greater than iany tthat existsrecnow?) THE ONLY NOISE WHICH MAY OCCUR WITH THE PROJECT WOULD BE INITIAL NOISE CREATED BY THE GRADING AND CONSTRtt�TrnN ns T!vr „.„ NOISE AND OR VIBRATION SHO D O , THAN THAT WHICH EXISTS DUE TO THE LOW DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. rTJggENTT.y 20. Describe any residential construction proposed on filled land (iet identify the lot number of each structure proposed to be built of filled land). Lots 1,2,3,7,8,10 and 11 will have residential structures built on filled land. 21• Do any signiffcan.t trees exist on the effect this Prosect site now? Describe the project will have on them.. (set Oak and Walnut trees are considered significant. Describe whether the proposed project will disturb or cause removal of any of these trees). OAK __ ___....,� ..�Li.,,L �t«r;� yu t•;x1ST ONSITE. IF NECESSARY, AN E PERMIT WILL BE PROCESSED THROUGH THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. 22. Is the project site located in a national, state, regional or locally designated area of historical, environmental or other significance. If so describe. (let is the site an area designated as a hillside management area, significant ecological area, significant mineral resource area, etc.) THE SITE FALL3 WITHIN THE TONNER CANYON SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AREA NO. 15 BUT IS NOT LOCATED IN AN AREA OF KNOWN HISTORICAL OR CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: THE AREA IS DESIGNATED AS A HILLSIDE MANAc:R.MRUT ADVA Environmental- Settings 23. Describe the environmental setting (synopsis) of the project site. This narrative shall include a description of the soil stability, slopes. drainage, scenic quality, plants, and animals which may exist on the site now, and any existing structures and the existing land use of the project site. THE SITE NAS RRVM nTQTrtnncr -- "" - �•�� ��L�i� wtttt;ti PALL GENTLY IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION FROM BLAZE TRAIL. THERE ARE DISTURBED GRASS LANDS CHAPARP,N', WALNUTS AND A FEW SCRUB OAK TREES LOCATED ONSITE. THE SITE OVERLOOKS TONNER CANYON TO THE SOUTH BUT Z5 NOT HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM ADJOING DEVELOPED AREAS: THE ANIMAL POPULATION ONSITE WOULD CONSIST OF THOSE ASSOCIATED WITH DISTURBED CHAPARRAL AND GRASSLAND. THIS COULD INCLUDE COTTONTAIL RABBITS, COYOTE, SKt"NF, SQUIRRELS, WOOD RATS AND VARIOUS MICE SPECIES. 24. Describe the surrounding properties (synopsis). This narrative shall include a description of the soil stability, slopes, drainage. scenic quality, plants, and animals which may exist. Indicate the type of land use (residential. commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (single -family, multi-family. density, commercial. professional, etc.). and scale of development (height. frontage, set- back. etc.) in the adjacent surrounding area. THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY R-1-10,000 RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND EAST VACANT LAND TO'THE WEST AND TONNER CANYON TO THE SOUTH. THE SLOPING TERRAIN IS TYPICAL OF THE AREA AND THE VEGETATIVE AND ANIMAL POPULATIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FOUND ONSITE AND IN-THE TONNER CANYON AREA. Certifications I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for initial environmental evaluation of the proposed project. All information is to the best of my knowledge. belief and ability to determine factual. true, correct and co plet Date: Signature: For✓ex�1 d HSS4gilttt� Completion of this fora is required to begin review of a project. Information within this fora and 'the required attached materials will assist the City in determining whether a Negative Dleclaration nay be granted, i*ether a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be granted, or whether Environmental Impact Report shall be required. STAFF USE ONLY i• Mandatory Findings of Significance? ' a• Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade t_hety f substantially reduce thehabitatvofoamfish orwildlife species, cause a fishor wildlife Population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a community, Plant or animal Y, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history of prehistory? b• Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? "' c• Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? d• Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONt (Attach Narrative) DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluations I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have -a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project csignificant effect on the environmento thereowilll note be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been Incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Dates Signatures December -13, 1993 Page 11 am , ending line four of the title of the Planning Commission Resolution.to read. "An application to install a temporary franchise for an unmanned cellular."; delete Finding of tact (e) on page 3 and insert- the sentence "The City is operating without a General Plan, therefore the Commission has reviewed the 'project as a short term utility franchise in conformance with the California Public Utility Code Section No. 6264"; change condition (g) on page 4 to'indicate that the repair would be within .5 working days- of notification; add condition (1) to read "The pole must be removed within 5 working days and the applicant shall post a cash bond to secure removal in a -bond amount to be determined by the City.!'; change condition (c) to indicate that no more -than one six month extension of this grant may be requested; and add a condition to exclude the microwave dish. RECESS: Chair/Meyer-recessed the meeting at 9:11 p.m. , ECONVENE: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 9:2.6 p.m. LR ZCA No. 92-2; o CDD/DeStef ano reported that the proposed project is V e s t i n g located within Significant Ecological Area (SEA) -Tentative No. 15 and has been determined by the City to Map No. 51169; require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to CUP No. 92-3; analyze the project's impacts and appropriate Oak Tree Permit mitigation measures for those specific impacts. No. 92-3; and The DEIR review periiod is scheduled to close on EIR No. 92-2 December 15, 1993. He stated that a Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) is in the process of reviewing the project, and will provide the Planning Commission with a report regarding their review of the biota aspects of the DEIR. CDD/DeStefano then stated that since the City is presently operating without a General Plan, review of the DEIR, as anticipated, cannot occur. ICA/Montgomery stated that he had a preliminary discussion with the applicant regarding the issue of the lack of a General Plan. Since the Mayor has indicated a desire to adopt a new General Plan within 90 days, ICA/Montgomery asked the applicant if they would be agreeable to continue the matter for 90 days, without prejudice to any time limits that may be under consideration-. He stated that the applicant can make a presentation if they so desire, However, since the present General Plan has been suspended by virtue of the filing of the referendum petitions, a decision cannot be made this evening by this body. December 13# 1993 Page 12 Lex Williman, the Planning Director for Hunsaker and Associates, 10179 Hunikans, San Diego, representing the applicant, stated that �.the applicant will acquiesce to continuance, without waiving any rights regarding the hearings, or the vesting map associated with the existing General Plan as originally approved. Upon the recommendation mmendation of ICA/Montgomery, the Planning Commission concurred with the applicant's agreement to a continuance, until such time as the General Plan is Adopted, upon the condition that the agreement does not constitute a waiver of any rights. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open, and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Mr. Max Maxwell requested clarification of the applicants reference to the General Plan. Chair/Meyer explained that the applicant has indicated a concern that there may big some legal rights associated with the vesting tentative map. Mr. Don Schad pointed out that originally GPAC recommended IDU/2.5 acres for that area. He offered to submit his comments regarding the DEIR. However, upon being advised by ICA/Montgomery that since he may be considered as a candidate for Planning Commissioner in the near future, he may want to consider that any"testimony presented,may foreclose him from voting on the application when it i comes before the Planning Commission. Mr. Schad chose to offer no further comment. CDD/DeStefano recommended that the matter be continued to the meeting of March 28, 1994. Moved by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by Chair/Meyer to continue the matter to the regular meeting of March 28, 1994. The Motion carried. with the following ROLL CALL vote: AYES: Grothe, Flamenbaum, Plunk, and Meyer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Li ANNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStefano reported that the City staff has. filed a response to the City of Industry's Notice of Preparation opposing the site for the proposed Reduction Recycling Element and the Material MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MARCH 28, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL Present: chairman Meyer; Vice chairman Plunk; commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong Also Present: Associate Planner Searcy; Planning Technician Ann. Lungu; Interim City Attorney* Michael Montgomery; and Recording Secretary Liz Myers Absent: None MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove, inquired if any investigation has been done regarding his suggestion to install an off-site electronic sign off the 60 freeway at Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs to advertise the center in that location. Chair/Meyer stated that the matter will be brought before the City Council for their consideration. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 14, 1994 Moved by C/Schad, seconded by C/Flamenbaum and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of -March 14, 1994, as presented. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW,BUSINESS - None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 2. Zone Change No. 92-2: Vesting tentative Map No. 51169; Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3; Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3; and Environmental Impact Report No. 92-2 AP Searcy reported that, on December 13, 1994, the commission decided, with the applicant's concurrence, to continue the I March 28, 1994 Page 2 public hearing for this application to the March 28, 1994 meeting due to the absence of a General Plan. He noted that the,City received an Extension of Time from the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) , but that the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) is still in the process of reviewing the General Plan, and the Significant Ecological Advisory Technical Committee (SEATAC), whose recommendation is'made a part of the environmental report, has not yet completed their review of this project. It is recommended that the public hearing be continued to 60 days from.this date to allow time to schedule another SEATAC public hearing on this item. C/Flatenbaum. suggested that the EIR be -presented to the Planning Commission for review while SEATAC is completing their review of the project. Chair/Meyer stated that he would prefer to receive the staff report and the environmental report at the same time. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. 'Brian Bier, the legal representative for Union Wide, stated that the applicant, with reservation of all of its rights, continues to request processing for approval of its map by the City and reserves all of its rights as an -applicant for approval under vesting tentative map, including those rights under General Plan as already approved. Without waiver or prejudice to any of its rights and reserving all of its rights as a vesting tentative map, Union Wide agrees to the recommendation of the Planning Commission staff to a continuance for 30 to 60 days of this Planning Commission hearing in order to provide the Planning commission with information from the SEATAC review. Gary Neely questioned why a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required with azone change. He inquired who is on the SEATAC. AP/Searcy explained that the CUP is required for a hillside development project. He stated that the SEATAC consists of three individuals: Dr. David Berry, a geologist; Craig Nelson, a professor; and Dr. Hewitt, a professor of biology. The SEATAC is a City of Diamond Bar committee. Gary Neely pointed out that the location. of the proposed project is in the same general area of the northern terminus of the proposed City of Industry dam, if it is moved south to include part of Tonner Canyon, which could flood the park in the Country. MArch 28, 1994 Page 3 In response to C/Fong, AP/Searcy stated that staff will provide a complete packet to all Commissioners prior to the scheduled public hearing. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer returned the matter back to the Commission for consideration. Moved by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Plunk to continue the public hearing to May 23, 1994. Moved by C/Flamenbaum to amend C/Schad's motion to continue the public hearing to May 9, 1994. The amended notion Died for lack of a second. The Planning Commission voted on the motion made by.C/Schad and seconded by VC/Plunk to continue the public hearing to May 23, 1994., The Motion Carried 4-1 with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, VC/Plunk, and Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS C/Flamenbaum suggested that a letter be drafted; representing the Planning commission, respectfully requesting that the City Council learn to get along,. and that comments be confined to City business items only. C/Schad requested that the Tree Ordinance be brought before the Planning commission for reconsideration. Chair/Meyer stated that the item should be placed on the agenda as an action item, to include a staff report determining its priority based upon the Planning commission's authority to generate this kind of activity and'the staff workload. VC/Plunk suggested that City Consultant Dale Beland - chair % the General Plan discussion when it comes before the Planning Commission for review. She then suggested that a risk analysis be conducted to determine the feasibility of the City remaining incorporated if the City is unable to settle its problems and develop 4 General Plan. Chair/Meyer requested that the Development Code also be placed on the agenda for consideration by the Planning Commission, with input from staff on'ways to update it. June 1, 1994 Mr. George Wentz Interim City Engineer City of Diamond Ear 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Re: Response to Preliminary Engineering Comments for VTM 51169 Dated November 3, 1993 Dear George: The following is our response to the above referenced comments: 1, The request for a notarized letter from the adjacent property owner to the west giving permission to grade is typically provided with finial engineering after the tentative tract map has been approved. The request to include a hold harmless clause, we believe, is inappropriate. Additionally, all offsite grading proposed occurs within existing street and th slope easements recorded wiparcel map 1528 and these easements are intended to be retained. The City has also in earlier meetings required that the owner of Tract 51169 work with adjacent owners to coordinate the street grades for Blaze Trail and. Gullrock Vane in the existing alignment. The profile and alignrnent shown on the vesting TM is the one agreed to by all parties. 2. Again, the request for a permission to grade letter usually occurs with final engineering processing as stated above. A letter has been requested from Triad Foundation Engineering Indicating, that the proposed fill key excavation along the southeast side will no longer extend beyond the tract boundary due to slight modification in the grading design in that area, Therefore, a permission to grade letter would not be necessary. 3. The vacation and relocation of a portion of an existing "access easement" on Lot 14 of Parcel Map 1528 has no affect on any of the other parcels in that map, nor does it provide access to any of these other parcels, The vacation and relocation of approximately 970' of existing road and* slope easement is consistent with past City actions and policies of the Country," a.gated community. The existing road easement does not provide physical access to the adjoining property owned by the Boy Scouts of America, Primary access to 10179 Hzcennekens Street - San Diego, CA 92121 # (629) a.S8-4500 - FAX.- (629),558-1414 Offices. San. Diego - frviiie - RiversidelSun Bernardino Datdcl Hainmar •, jack, H111 [ RECEIVED 06/06 14:36 1994 AT 909-861-3117 PAGE 3 (PRINTED PAGE 3) 1 JUN 06 '94 14:55 HUNSAKER SAN DIEGO CITY OF DIAMOM BAIL VTM 51169 June 1, 1994 Page 2 the Boy Scout's property is provided by Tonner Canyon Road to the west. The extension of Tonner Canyon from Grand Avenue to the east could provide additional access. Currently there are eight points of potential access to the Boy Scout property from the "Country" not including the proposed vacation and the access provided by Gull bock Lane will be maintained. In summary, we believe the vacation of a portion of an existing street easement will not adversely affect access to the Boy Scout site. 4. Easement vacations are a part of.final engineering / final map processing and should not be necessary at this time. GTE has reviewed the map and is aware of the proposed development. S. Lot lines on VTM 51169 have been aligned to provide, minimum one acre lots. They also jog to follow proposed land form grading and top of slopes. If the City wishes, these lines may be straightened to some extent when final engineering drawings are prepared, 6. Access to the urban pollution basin is shown on the, VTM through Lots A and 13. It is proposed to be I5' wide with a turn around and a maximum grade of 20%. 7. The storm drain is intended to be private and maintained by a Homeowner's Association. Cross lot easements for drainage and maintenance will be provided where necessary. Easement will be relocated, abandoned or recorded as required and will be provided for street, sewer, water, storm drain, telephone, electrical, gas, cable and slopes. S. Cross lot drainage easements will be provided on all lots where necessary, The maintenance of common drainage facilities will be the responsibility of a Homeowner's Association, The Vesting Tentative Map as currently designed would require cross lot drainage easements for Lots 5 through 13. 9, The soils report recommends over excavation for all lots bisected by a out and fill line to mitigate concerns regarding differential settlement. 10, An N.P.D E. S. permit and any other possible Army Corps or fish and Game, permits (if necessary) will be obtained and passed on to the City for their records. These are provided after the Vesting Tentative Map has been approved. 11. "Will serve" letters from wet and dry utilities will be obtained and forwarded to the City, 12, Driveway grades of 15% have been proposed to reduce the amount of grading required to gain access to the developable portions of Lots 1, 4 and 5. Per the adopted hillside ordinance, driveway grades of up to 20%n are permitted. LW:kk msworWU IOS1002,doc wo 1105.3 C RECEIVED 06/06 14:37 1994 AT 909-861-3117 PAGE 4 (PRINTED PAGE 4) JUN 06 '94 14=56 HUNSAKER SAN DIEGO P.4 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR VTM 51169 June I, 1994 Page 3 13, An agreement with the developer of TTM 46485 has been signed regarding the common street profile and will be provided to the City. 14, Lot .4 may be conditioned in the CC&R's that a fire department acceptable turnaround be provided upon City approval of a site plan. Lot 5's driveway is less than 150' in length and therefore should not require a turriaround. 15. The final trap will indicate private driveways as "Fire Lanes" which will be maintained in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code. 16. The out and fill slopes along both Blaze Trail and Gull Rock are proposed to undulate with varying slope gradients and have minor intrusions into the private road easements. These intrusions are consistent with past City policy and the Ifuside Management Ordinance. The maximum intrusion proposed.is 5'.. Should there be any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call our office, Sincerely, Hunsaker &Associates San Diego, E ic. Lex Williman Director of Planning LW:kk mswordlk:\11031a02*c wo 1105.3 .:•;?: .. _rte, ..., . ., ixtu ,�': .'"'�.�.,...'. , .+ , .« .^.".:: -w t. -J. �.� ,:.r, . �.; e �.. n :; .� ,-., il.:,^.'} . , ....� �,...� ; .,i. �.r.f , #. _ _ °'u����� City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 4 REPORT DATE: May 26, 1994 MEETING DATE: June 13, 1994 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. 93-1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4 APPLICATION REQUEST: The Development Review, is a request to allow the construction of a restaurant. * The Conditional Use Permit is a request for the following purposes: (1) to allow grading within a hillside management area; (2) to allow live entertainment; and (3) to allow the sale and on-site consumption sumption of alcoholic beverages in the C -M Zone. PROPERTY LOCATION: 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Dr. Akbar Omar. 2216 E. Merced Covina, CA 91790 PROPERTY OWNER: A R Leasing and Investment Inc. 1135 S. Sunset Ave., Suite 308 West Covina, CA 91770 BACKGROUND: The proposed project was originally presented to the Planning Commission, at a public hearing, on June 28, 1993. At that time, and at subsequent Planning commission hearings, the proposed project was continued until project concerns could be resolved. At the January 24, 1994 Planning commission continued public hearing, the proposed project was tabled, allowing staff to work with the applicant to address project concerns. 1 The property owner/ applicant, Dr. Akbar Omar is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the proposed project. The Conditional Use Permit is for the following purposes: (1) to allow grading within a hillside management area; (2) to allow live entertainment; and (3) to allow the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages in the C -M Zone. The Development Review to allow construction of the proposed restaurant structure. The proposed project site is a vacant lot within the Gateway Corporate Center located at 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive (Lot 4) adjacent to the Radisson Hotel. The project site contains 2.033 acres. Generally, the following zones and uses surround the project site: .to the north is the Pomona Freeway and the orange Freeway interchange; to the east is the Commercial-ManufactUring-Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral Contract (C-M-BE-U/C)Zone and the Radisson Hotel; and to the south.and west is C-M-BE-U/C Zone. The project site has a contemplated draft General Plan land use designation of Profession Office (OP). On August 27,. 1990, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 90-701 a similar project without the ability to provide live entertainment. On August .26, 1991, the Planning Commission granted and extension of time and approval for live entertainment for Conditional Use Permit No. 90-70. The applicant did not exercise the approval. Consequently, the approval expired. In January 1993, a new application was submitted.to the City. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: Development Review: Pursuant to Chapter 22.72, Section 020 of Ordinance No. 5, any and all commercial projects which are new construction on vacant property will be subject to the Development Review process. This process ensures that development projects comply with all applicable local design guidelines, standards and ordinances with minimum adverse effects on surrounding properties and the environment. It also requires consistency with the contemplated draft General Plan which promotes hi * gh aesthetic and functional standard to complement and add to t ' he physical, economic, and social character of Diamond Bar. The proposed project is commercial, new construction, on a vacant property. As such, is subject to the Development Review process. The property owner/applicant is proposing to construct a two (2) story "up -.scale" restaurant of 11,100 square feet. The upper floor is 7,435 square feet and will consist of several dining areas, bar/lounge, dance floor, two (2) bandstand areas, kitchen, one (1) storage area, rest - rooms, office, Waiting area, vestibule, and service yard area. The 2 lower floor is 3, 665 square feet and will consist of a storage area, office, restrooms, and telephone room. The proposed restaurant will not provide banquet facilities. The last time this project was presented to the Planning Commission was at the January 24, 1994 continued public hearing. Since that time, the applicant has worked with staff to resolve the concerns of the Commission.. The result incorporates the following revisions: 1. Deleted balconies to reduce the restaurant structure's occupancy in order to provide the required number of parking spaces; 2. Deleted five (5) underground parking stalls; . 3. Deleted high retaining walls along the north and west property lines; 4. Reduced the restaurant structure's square footage by approximately 2,700 square feet in order to provide the required number of parking spaces; 5.' Relocated the service area to the side of the restaurant structure instead of at the front; 6. And located the restaurant structure 30 feet from top of north slope instead -of 15 feet 'to accommodate the County of Los Angeles sanitary sewer easement. The property owner/applicant did obtained. approval from Gateway Corporate Center architectural committee. However, the proposed project has been revised. Considering these.revisions, the applicant will be required to obtain approval from Gateway Corporate Center architectural committee. The architectural style of the restaurant structure is. contemporary Mediterranean. The architectural style differs- from the existing buildings within the Gateway Corporate Center. But, the architectural style within Diamond Bar is eclectic. The uniqueness of the architectural style of the restaurant will enhance the appearance of. the Gateway Corporate Center and Diamond Bar. The restaurant structure's exterior* will be stuccoed in an off-white color. The roof. will be constructed from clay 'IS" tiles in a terra cotta dolor. Brick veneer will be utilized as an accent on the round wall adjacent to the main entry of the restaurant structure. Awnings will be utilized above several windows. The awnings will be constructed from canvas in n a dark teal color. The following is a comparison of the City's required development standards, Gateway Corporate Center's development standards, and the proposed project's development standards. 3 CITY GATEWAY LOT 4 PROJECT 1. Setbacks: 01; Front Setback: 451; Front Setback: 491; Side Setback: 101; Side Setbacks: .143'. Rear Setback: Top of & 2001 plus; slope; Rear Setback: 3V from top of slope; 2. Height: 13 times Height: 9 stories or Height: 2 stories - buildable area; 150,1; 36"; 3. Parking: 1 stall Parking: N/A Parking: 90 stalls for every 3 occupants; 4. Parking Design: Parking Design: Parking Design: Standard spaces- Standard spaces -81 x Standard.spaces-9' x 82' x 18"; 18,1; Aisle: 261; Aisle: 271; Aisle: 261; Handicapped: 1 Handicapped: must be Handicapped: 3 per 40 stalls - provided, size not' stalls with 51 load - 91 x 181 with 51 addressed; ing zone adjacent; loading zone adjacent; 5. Landscaping: Min- Landscaping: Minimum Landscaping: 29% of imum 10% of 150 of the gross site; entire lot or usable lot -area; parcel; The proposed project complies with the City's development standards. It complies with Gateway Corporate Center design guidelines except for the width of back-up aisles which are required to be 27 feet. If the drive aisles are changed to 27 feet, the minimum required parking spaces may not be provided. Pursuant to the City's standards 261 back-up aisle is adequate. The unused western portion of the project site will remain undeveloped. This portion of the site will not be divided as an independent parcel for future development. As such, staff feels that provision should be made for the planting and maintenance of the unused portion of the project site. The proposed restaurant's hours of operation, pursuant to the applicant's request, are Sunday through Saturday from 11.a.m. to 2 a.m. There will be two shifts. Ten employees per shift. In the future, the applicant may wish to serve breakfast and/or brunch. If this becomes the case, staff feels that the - restaurant should be closed between '2. a.m. and 7 a.m. 4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) requires that applicant to obtain permits for emissions' control from broilers utilized for cooking. Before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant will be required to obtain all required SCAQMD's permits. Signage is not a part of this application. In the future, a Planned Sign Program will need to be submitted to the. City for review and approval. The proposed project was reviewed by the Los , Angeles County Fire Department. - Attached to this staff report is a copy of the Fire Department's conditions. The applicant is required to comply with these conditions. Landscaping- Although andscaping Although the proposed landscaping is adequate, staff feels that the unused westerly portion of the site should be landscaped. This landscaping should match existing slopes" planting materials. Irrigation will need to be installed for this area.,. The contemplated Draft General Plan Land Use Element strategies directs staff to enhance amenities and landscaping Within commercial areas and use. trees, shrubs, or vines to break visual monotony, soften the appearance of walls, reduce glare, heat, and reflection. With the strategies of the contemplated Draft General Plan in mind, staff feels that additional trees should be added in the parking lot area as follows: 1. Ten (10) - 15 gallon trees, within the planter area along the east property line, adjacent to the Redesign Hotel site; 2. Seven (7) - 15 gallon trees, within diamond shape planter areas that would be located between two parking spaces which face each other; 3. Locate the proposed large trees, which should be 24 inch box site midpoint between the existing pine trees within- the planter area adjacent to the sidewalk along Gateway Center Drive; - 4. - Define landscape. limits and type of planting materials to, be utilized in an area between the main entrance and the service yard. The applicant will be required to submit an irrigation plan and landscape plan indicating the above mentioned 'changes. The landscape plan should indicate the names and sizes of all planting materials for review and approval by the City. The finger shape planter area within the parking lot area are three (3) feet wide, measured from outer curb to outer curb. Due to the size constraint of these planter areas, staff feels the applicant should provide root barrier control boxes around each tree. The purpose of the barrier is to encourage the trees' root systems to grow deep below the 9 pavement instead of 18 inches to two (2) feet below the pavement and stop the heaving of pavement because of the shallowness of a tree's root system. Parking Requirement: Pursuant to Chapter 22.52, Section 1110 of the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code, for every three (3) occupant one or more parking spaces shall be provided for entertainment, assembly, dining uses. occupancy is calculated by the Building official pursuant to the 1991 Uniform Building Code.. As calculated by the Building official, the occupancy for the proposed restaurant will be 270 person. As such, the proposed project will be required to maintain a minimum of 90 parking spaces. The proposed as submitted provides 90 parking spaces. Lighting throughout the parking lot area has.been proposed (see revised site plan attachment).. The adequacy of the light isnot addressed. The Walnut Valley Sheriff Department has reviewed the proposed project and has recommended that the parking lot lighting be designed in a manner that provides a minimum of one lumen of light per square foot at ground level at any location in the parking area. The applicant will need to indicate the minimum lighting yield on a revised site plan. Conditional Use Permit: Hillside Development: A Conditional Use Permit is required for development within a hillside area pursuant to the Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992). The Hillside Management Ordinance is applicable to all parcels of land containing grades in excess of ten (10).percent. The purpose of the Hillside Management Ordinance is to preserve and protect the views to and from hillside areas in order to maintain the identity, image and environmental quality of Diamond Bar; to provide in hillsides alternative approaches to conventional flat land development practices and complement the character and topography of the land; to provide maximum safety in hillside development; to maintain and environmental equilibrium consistent with the native vegetation, animal life, geology, slopes, and drainage patterns; 'to preserve, where possible, significant natural topographical features; and to minimize the grading impacts. Slopes located at the site vary from one (1) to ten (10) percent at the southern boundary and.within the center portion of the site, 25 to 50 percent at the western portion of the site, and 50 to approximately 77 percent at the northern and eastern boundaries. Since there are slopes on the project site that are more than ten (10) percent, the applicant is required to comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance. Grading will consist of approximately 2,603 cubic yards of earth for both cut and fill. Earth from the eastern portion of the site will be 0 dispersed to the western portion of the site in order to create a more workable pad. Importing and exporting of earth is not proposed. The site plan indicates that off -site grading (previously proposed) will not occur on the adjacent property which is developed with the Radisson Hotel. The change is due to the deletion of a retaining wall along the east property line and under ground parking area and a revised location of the restaurant structure. One (1) retaining wall is proposed at a maximum height of four (4) feet. The retaining wall will be located approximately 50 feet south` of the north property line along the outer limits of the parking area. Pursuant to the City Engineer's Department's review, the retaining wall could exceed four (4) foot height to accomplish improvements indicated in the plans. The Planning Commission may wish to give a latitude of up to six (6) feet, as a maximum height for the retaining wall. The existing drainage capacity of the site may not be adequate with the the construction of the proposed project. The applicant is required to provide a hydrology study and hydrology calculations showing the estimated run-off and capacity of the existing drainage system. If the existing drainage inadequate, the applicant is required to design an adequate drainage system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sale and -On -Site Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages/Live Entertainment: A Conditional Use Permit is required pursuant. to Chapter 22.28, Part 6, Section 260, of the Code. The purpose of the Conditional use Permit is to allow the sale and on-site consumption of -alcoholic beverages and live entertainment in connection with a restaurant which has an occupancy of at least 200 persons within the C -M Zone. The proposed restaurant is within the C -M Zone with an occupancy of 270 persons. The restaurant structure incorporates a bar/lounge, band stand for live entertainment and a dance floor. As such, this project requires a Conditional Use Permit. The type of live entertainment will be limited to a small band, vocals, and dancing. Since the project site is within a corporate center and devoid of single-family residential structures, adjacent to a hotel and a freeway, the proposed entertainment will not have a noise impact. However, for the safety of patrons and employees security should be provided between the hours of 9 p.m. and until the last employee leaves after closing. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: This item has been advertised in the San 'Gabriel Valley Tribune and the 1 Inland Valley Daily Tribune on May 23, 994. Notices were mailed to seven (7) property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site 7 on May 19, 1994. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Although -the -proposed- project -could -have - a- signif-icant-effect : on the - environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project and a mitigated Negative Declaration has -been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4 and Administrative Development Review No. 93-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions, as listed within the attached resolution. - Prepared by: Ann J. Lunqu, Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Negative Declaration No. 93-7 3. Initial Study 4 Exhibit "All - Revised Plans - Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, Conceptual Landscape Plan, and Grading and Drainage Plan dated June 13, 1994 5. - Los Angeles County Fire Department Preliminary Review 6. Aerial Photograph K . RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX A -RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 93-1, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.' 93-4, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 93-7, AN APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY "UPSCALE" RESTAURANT STRUCTURE, TO PERMIT THE SALE AND ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THE C -M ZONE, AND GRADING IN A HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT AREA LOCATED WITHIN GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER AT 21671 E. GATEWAY CENTER DRIVE, (TRACT 39679, LOT 4). A. Recitals 1. The property owner, A R Leasing and.Investment Inc. and the applicant, Dr. Akbar Omar have filed an application for Development Review No. 93-1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4 for a vacant lot located within Gateway Corporate Center at 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive, Dia- mond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review and Conditional Use Permit application is referred to as,the "Application". 2.' On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond 'Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the State of California. on said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the .City of Diamond Bar adopted its ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances ' of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains ' the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly-, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the future adopted General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the office of Planning and Research extension granted pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65361. 1 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, . on June 13, 1994 conducted a -duly noticed public hearing on said'Application. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- tion 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. The Planning Commission hereby specifically f inids 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 review and Negative Declaration No. 93-1 has been prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of .1970, as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder. 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 Commission that the project as proposed by the Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife .resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before the Commission, the Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of, Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, and in conformance with the terms and provisions of the California Governient' Code Section 65361, this Commission, hereby finds'as.follows: (a) The project relates to a vacant, lot of approximately 2.033 acres located within Gateway Corporate Center. The project site is within the Commercial -Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion - Unilateral Contract (C-M-BE-U/C) Zone with a contemplated draft General Plan land use N designation of Professional Office (OP). The project site is located at 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive., City of Diamond Bar, California. (b) Generally, the following zones and uses surround the project site: to the north it the Pomona Freeway and Orange Freeway interchange; to the east is the C-M-BE-U/C Zone and the Radisson Hotel; to the south and west is C-M-BE-U/C Zone. (c) The project site is adequately served by Golden Springs Drive and Copley Drive and by other public or private service facilities as are required. Development Review: (d) The design and layout of the proposed project is consistent, with the applicable elements of the City's, contemplated draft General Plan, design guidelines of the appropriate district, and any .adopted architectural criteria for specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme area, specific plans, community plans,- boulevards, or planned developments. (e) The design and layout of the proposed project will not unreasonably interfere with the. use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (f) The architectural design of the proposed project is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Development Review - Chapter 22.72 and the contemplated draft General Plan. (g) The design of the proposed project would provide a desirable environment for its occupants 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. (h) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to . the, properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3 Conditional Use Permit: (i) The proposed project will not be in substantial conflict with the contemplated draft General Plan. (j) The proposed project at the project site will not adversely affect the 'health, peace, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area or be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site., ,or jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to public health, safety, or general welfare. (k) The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences,. parking and loading facilities, landscaping, and other development features prescribed within the -Code, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. (1) The proposed project is located and designed so as to protect the safety of current and future community residents and businesses, and will not create significant threats to life and/or property due to the presence of geologic, seismic, slope instability, fire, flood, mud flow, or erosion hazard. (j) The proposed project is compatible with the natural, biotic, cultural, scenic, and open space resources of the area.. (k) The proposed project is conveniently served by neighborhood shopping and commercial facilities, can be provided with essential public services without imposing undue, costs on the total community, and is consistent with the objectives' and polices of the contemplated draft General Plan. (1) The proposed project demonstrates creative and imaginative design, resulting in a visual 1 quality that will complement community :character and benefit current and future community residents and businesses. 5. Based upon findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: 4 (a) The project shall substantially conform to all plans dated June 13, 1994,. collectively labeled Exhibit "All as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. (b The project site 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. (c) This project shall 'adhere to the Hillside Management Ordinance No.7 (1992). (d) Retaining walls shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. (e) The unused western portion of the project site shall remain undeveloped , and shall not be subdivided into an independent parcel for future development. (f) This, project, shall comply with all State handicap and American Disabilities Act's requirements. (g) This project shall provide lighting within the parking lot area that maintains a minimum of one (1) lumen of light per square foot at ground level at any location in the parking_ lot area. A revised site plan shall be submitted, within 60 days of approval of this grant, indicating said lighting requirements for review and approval by the City. (h) The applicant shall obtain required permits from South Coast Air Quality Management District ) . (SCAQMDbefore the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (i) The applicant shall comply with all requirement of the Los Angeles County Fite Department. 5 (j) The applicant shall obtain the written approval from Gateway Corporate Center architectural committee'before the issuance of any city permits. (k) The restaurant structure shall not exceed an occupancy of 270 persons. (1) The proj-ect shal-1--maintain a minimum of 90 parking spaces. (m) The restaurant shall not be open for business 'between the hours of 2 a.m.' and 7 a.m. (n) Live entertain shall be "minor" in nature, ancillary to the restaurant use, and limited to a small band, vocals, and dancing. (o) All operations of the restaurant and entertainment I uses shall be subject to the provision of the 'City's Noise Ordinance. Individual entertainment shall be suspended should noise levels exceed the .Noise Ordinance's limits. (p) Security shall be provided from 9 p.m. until the last employee leaves after closing. (q) The applicant shall submit, within 60 days of .approval of this grant, a landscape and irrigation plans for review and approval by the City which shall incorporate the following: (1) Ten (10) - 15 gallon trees within the planter area along the east property line, adjacent to the Radisson Hotel site; (2) Seven (7) - 15 gallon trees within diamond shape planter areas that will be located between two parking spaces which face each other; (3) Locate the proposed large trees, which shall be 24 inch box size, midpoint between the existing pine trees within the planter area adjacent to the sidewalk along Gateway Center Drive; (4) Def ind landscape limits and type'of planting material to be utilized 'in an area between the main entrance and 'the service- yard; (5) Planting materials utilized to landscape the unused western portion of the. site and slope area shall match existing slopes' planting materials; (6) Names and sizes of all planting materials; and (7) Root barrier control boxes for each tree. (r) The applicant shall provide a hydrology study and hydrology calculations showingestimated run-off capacity of the existing drainage system for review and approval by the City. If the existing 0 drainage is inadequate, the applicant shall design an adequate drainage system to the satisfaction -of the City Engineer. (s) The applicant shall submit a Planned sign Program for this project for review and approval by the Planning Commission before the issuance of any sign permits. . (t) 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 therefore shall be made by the applicant prior to tke issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. (u) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee.andowner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of "Diamond. Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining Planning Division processing fees. (v) The City reserves the right to review the Development Review and Conditional Use Permit, and any amendment thereto at a public hearing, at any time and modify the conditions herein listed, as deemed appropriate. (w) The subject property shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to any development or. activity of the subject property. (x) The Applicant shall comply with Planning and Zoning, Building and Safety, and Engineering requirements. (y) This grant shall be valid for one (1) year and -must be exercised (i.e. construction) within that period or this grant will expire. A one (1) year extension may be requested in writing and submitted to the City 30 days prior to the expiration date of this grant. VA The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and nd (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to, A R Leasing and Investment Inc., 1135 S. Sunset Ave., West Covina, CA 91770 and Dr. Akbar Omar, 2216 E. Merced, Covina,-CA--91790.- APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 1994, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. 19M David Meyer, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the. Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular* meeting of the Planning commission held on the 13th day of June, 1994, by -the following vote: AYES: (COMMISSIONERS:]• NOES: . (COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: (COMMISSIONERS:) ABSTAIN: (COMMISSIONERS:] ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary L -*3 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 93-7 June 4, 1993 Case Number: Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4, Development Review No. 93-1 Applicant: Dr. Akbar Omar 2216 E. Merced Covina, CA 91790 Proposal: Development Review No. .93-2 is a request to construct a two story structure. on a vacant parcel. The two story structure is to be utilized as I a restaurant . with a lounge/bar and entertainment. Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4 is a request to include a lounge/bar and entertainment. A Conditional Use Permit is required pursuant to Chapter 2.2.28, Section 260 in order to permit entertainment in -conjunction with a restaurant that will have an occupancy of more than 200. persons within the Commercial -Manufacturing (C -M) zone. .Location: 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91965 Environmental Findings: The proposed project, as determined in the City of Diamond Bar,. could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on herein have been incorporated orporated into the proposed project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.,/ II. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: Mitigated Negative Declardtion 11V__11 n-nA Environmental Impacts: 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?* Yes. C. Changes in topography or ground surface relief features? Possibly. Explanation: The project site is a vacant lot with slopes ranging from 1 to 10 percent, 25 to 50 percent, and 50 to 100 percent. A flat pad exists within the site and slopes at the boundaries of the site. In order to construct the restaurant structure, 2,500 cubic yards of soil will be utilized for cut and 2,500 cubic yards of soil will be utilized for fill. There will ' be no importing or exporting of soil for the proposed project Mitigation: The .5, 0 ' 00 cubic yards of soil will be balanced on the site. Grading for the proposed project is required to comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance - No.7 (1992). 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? Yes. Explanation: Due to the proposed grading and the construction of structures drainage patterns and surface run-off will change. Mitigation: The applicant is required to provide. drains which will has the capacity to accept surface run-off that will result from the proposed project. The applicant is also, required to, comply with the Hillside 'Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992) which provides guideline for drainage patterns and surface run-off. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: a. significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of dight and glare? Possibly. Explanation: The proposed site is an undeveloped parcel. With the development of a restaurant, new light and possible - glare will be introduced with -in the surrounding area. Mitigation: The proposed .location of the parking area is below street grade and set back from the front property line (adjacent to Gateway Center Drive) by 25 feet. This 25 foot area incorporates a landscaped berm. This will eliminate the glare.of headlights 'from cars within the parking lot area,to the street or adjacent properties. All lighting for the project is required to be positioned in a manner - that. will shield glare to adjacent properties and the public right-of-way. 13.Transportation/Circulation: Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Possibly. Explanation: The development of the proposed restaurant on a vacant site will cause additional vehicular movement. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? Possibly. Explanation• The traffic study and final EIR for Gateway Corporate Center identified one restaurant as a planned used within the Gateway Corporate Center developmentalong with a restaurant facility within a hotel. At this time, Gateway Corporate Center has a restaurant facility within a hotel. As part of the original approval for Gateway Corporate Center, development standards and mitigation measures included a restaurant as proposed by this application. The development of the proposed restaurant on a vacant sill could cause a traffic' hazard due to the increase e of vehicles to the area. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background: The pro -posed Project is for the construction of a. two story structure - of 13,804 square feet on a vacant parcel. The two story structure will be utilized -to accommodate a restaurantwithbar/lounge and entertainment with an occupancy of 328 -persons. 1. Name of Applicant: Dr. Akbar Omar 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2216 E. Merced, Covina, CA 91790, (818) 919-0504' 3. Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact: Syed Raza, SRA Architects, 12600 Central Ave., Chino, CA 91710, (909) 591- 7441 4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal: January 11, 1993 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: June 4, 1993 — 6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist): City of Diamond Bar 7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision): Development Review No. 93 -1 -and Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4 8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): None'...._. YES NO Variance: x Conditional Use Permit: x Zone Change: x General Plan Amendment: x (Attach Completed Environmental information Form) H. Environmental bnpacts: (Explanations and additional. information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly " ansivers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) YES NO POSSIBLY X — — X X X X X X X X X 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: X Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? X Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface X d. The destruction, covering or modification X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either,on or off the site? X Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, X X — — X X X X X X X X X 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either,on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as .well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? 9-' Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground. failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient,air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally?. 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? C.- Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? YES NO POSSIBLY X 9. change in the quantity of ground. waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of _X water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: X a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare of endangered species of plants? X* C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? X d. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? X e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or _X number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of hay unique rare _X or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into _X an area, or in a barrier to the normal. migration or movement of resident species?' d. Reduction in size or. deterioration in _X quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise, Will the proposal result in: X a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: X a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly, to existing levels of light and glare? 8. Land use. Will the proposal result in: X a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? YES NO POSSIBLY X X X X X X X_ X X X X X X X X X — 0 10. 11. 12. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect: a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking?. C. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and - goods. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air. traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? 5. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? 6. other governmental services? YES NO POSSIBLY 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: _X a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in: X a. A need for new systems, or •Substantial alterations to public utilities? 17. Human Health. Will,the proposal result in: X a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: X a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in: _X a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: _X a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? _X b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? X C. Aphysical change which would affect unique ethnic thnic cultural values? X d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance?' X a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish - or wildlife. species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered -plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YES NO POSSIBLY X b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? X d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: (Attach Narrative) IV. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -is required. Date: June 4. 1993 Signature: .Title: Planning Jc'hi 'an t1l For the City of Diamond Bar, California (staff use) PROJECT MA93ER(s) : ------------------ ------------------ INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORM&TION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: Dr. Akbar Omar. SRA Architpnt- NAME NAME. 2216 E. Merced 12600 Central Ave. ADDRESS ADDRESS West Covina, CA 91790 Chino ,`CR 91710 (818) 919-0504 (714) 591-7441 PHONE # PHONE # 1. Action requested and project description: This is a new 2. Street location of project: 21671 E. Gateway Center Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91790. 3a. Present use of site: Vacant 3b. Previous use of site or structures: Vacant 4. Please list all previous cases None (if any) related to this project: 5. Other related permit/approvals required. Specify type and granting agency. None 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y If yes, explain: N/A 7. Project Area: Covered by structures, paving: 49,159 Sq. Ft. Landscaping, open space: 8,866 Sq. Ft. Total Area: 581025 Sq. Ft. 8. Number of floors: 2 9. Present zoning: CM 10. Water and sewer service: Yes Walnut Water L.A. County Sanitn, Domestic Public Water Sewers 0 1 1 1. Environmental Setting --Project Site a Existing use/structures None, Vacant b. Topography/ slopes Flat pad, slopes at boundry of site. *C. Vegetation Groundcover at slopes *d. Animals -None *e. Watercourses None f. Cultural/historical resources None 9. Other None 2. Environmental Setting Surrounding Area .a. Existinuses structures (types, densities): Commercial hotel directly adjacent- high density b. Topography/slopes Slopes at boundry *C. Vegetation'Groundcover at boundry *d. Animals None *e. Watercourses None f. Cultural/historical resources None 9- Other None Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural, undeveloped land. 3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees? YES NO If yes, type and number: N/A 4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed through project development?: YES NO If yes, explain: N/A 5. Grading: Will the project require grading? YES NO If yes, how many cubic yards? 2500 Cu. Yds. + Will it be balanced on site? YES NO If no't balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited? N/A G. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on The property (including uncompacted fill)? YES NO . If yes, explain: N/A 7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)? YES NO Distance to nearest fire station: 1/2 Mile (Grand Ave.) 8. Noise: Existing noise sources at site: None Noise to be generated by project: None 9. Fumes: Odors generated by project: None Could toxic fumes be generated? No 10. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used? This project uses i nsul ated walls and the rei l i rng- has insulated attic ,space Doe's service exist at site? N Y N .If yes. do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved projects? N Y N - If domes -tic water or public sewers are not available, how will these services be provided? Domestic water and public sewer are available Residential Projects: N/A 11. Number and type of units: 12. School s: N/A What school district(s) serves the property? N/A Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs? YES NO N/A If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? T\T A Non -Residential projects: 13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc. ) 1/2 mile 14. Number and floor area of buildings: 1 building- 13,816 Sq. Ft. 15. Number of employees and shifts: 2 shifts 16. Maximum employees per shift: 10 17. Operating hours: 11 AM to 2 AM 18. Identify any: End products None Waste products None Means of disposal N/A 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pestic,JAQs, chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES NO If yes, explain N /A 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES lv0 If yes, explain N/A 21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on- si te. None 22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES O If yes, explain N/A CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information' required for this initial evaluation,to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date Signature For: >K&_Amat L TECPI� CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 CONDITIONAL USE PF10M APPLICATION . I Record Owner(s) Applicant Name Dr. Akbar Omar Dr. Akbar Omar (Last name first) Address 2216 E. Merced 2216 E. Merced Case#L>-,01 Recvd i j I !a-) Ct-tr Fee $ Receipt By Applicant's Agent SRA Architects 12600 Central Ave. City Diamond Bar Chino Zip 91790 91790 91710 Phone(818) 919-0504 (818) 919-0504 (714) 591-7441 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations) CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this request Signed fDate r (ALL recorded own Certification: X, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my,knowledge. Printed Name: Si Syed Raza f&—firnnt nr Aopnt) pate Location 21671 E. Gateway Center Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91790 (street address or tract and lot number) Zoning HNM 111337 Previous Cases Present Use of Site NOt used, vacant. Use applied for Restaurant Project Size (gross acres) 1.33 Acres Domestic Water Source Yes Project density N/A Company/District Walnut Water Method of Sewage disposal Public Sewer Sanitation District L.A. County_ Sani tat i or Grading of Lots by Applicant? Yes X No (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent map) APPROPRIATE BURDENS OF.PROOF MUST ACCOMPANY REQUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION (all ownership comprising the proposed lots)/parcel(s) A PORTION OF LOT 4 AS PER TRACT NUMBER 39679 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, BOOK 1083 PAGES 14-21 OF TRACT MAPS IN THE OFFICE nF THE CQ1TT\TTV TAT: C RDER OF SAID COUNTY. Area devoted to structures 9200 Sq. FtLand scapi ng /Open space 8866 Sq. Ft. Residential Project: N/A and N/A (gross area) (No. of lots) Proposed density N/A (Units/Acres) Parking Required Provided Standard 112 112 Compact O O Handicapped 2 2 Total 114 114 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE -BURDEN OF PROOF In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Zoning. Board and/or Commission, the following facts: A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not: 1. Adversely affect the he * alth, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or 2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. .See Attached Sheet B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls,, fences, park.ing and loading f . acilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Title 22, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. See Attached Sheet C. That the proposed site is adequately served: 1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and 2. By other public or private service facilities as are required. See Attached Sheet r. Conditional Use Permit Case -Burden of Proof A. (1,2 and 3). The project is located adjacent to the 60 and .57 freeways next to a large hotel. This is-also,a commercial area with no.residences close by. This restaurant will not adversely affect the health, peace, com- fort, or welfare of people living and working close by but will .;. improve these conditions by giving fac'ilitie s to the hotel guests, and other consumers in the area. This project will also rraise the values. of properties close by and be enjoyable to people in the vicinity. this project's use is helpful and consistant with the surrounding; properties, therefore it will not jeopordize, endanger, or constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. B The project size, including parking, landscape, and all other require- ments is well, suited to the property. As shown on our site plan, the building only takes up 16% of the site area, and parking, landscape and other requirements fit well within the site. C. (1 and 2) This project is served by the 57 and 60 freeways that are directly adjacent to the site. Diamond Bar Boulevard is one of the freeway exits that can be used to reach the project. This is a major road and should be adequate to serve this projects traffic quantities. The other surface streets used to reach the project are also large enough to serve traffic needs. Utilities for the project are readily available with water, sewer, gas and electric along Gateway Center Drive.' Any other service, public or private can be served by the streets. JIJL 23 193 12:13 LA CO FD FIRE FREV FORM 182 12/90 HYDRANTS, FIRE FLOW .AND ACCESS GENERAL PXQUIREM?ENTS F.P.D. No. J_ NAME " ADDRESS V. GOMV CqtV PM� CITY Vii W B*_ AREA. BLDG - SQ. FT. OF SIDE STORIES TYPE BLDG. APXA'" YARDS OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION b RMM ARCHITECT PHONE Building Pern; its WILL NOT be issued prior to. acceptance of the hydrant location, fire f -10W and,.4nY additional requir,�-nents by the ".pire Preventicn, DivisiOn of the Fire D -Oka nen qqRRBCq_1E0 SETS OF PLAyj5 y PLUS qMME- be submitted for approVal). (PLUS 11DING PLANS, CONTACT INSPECTOR: FOR INFOPUMATIoN CONCE WING Yaga PHONE NOTE: Inspectcrs's. phone hours are, between SaTa and 10an e 6n!y Friday. Office _m etiMls 'ar"� b -Y aPPO'at� UNLESS OTHERWISE IRDIC.-ATED, - ALL FxRE DEPP-RVIENT REQUIREME14TS MARYXD v INOT SEC)Wkilt SHAH -.,L BE INCORPORATED AS A VERBATIM ',NOTE INTO THE BLUE PRINTS ON SITE PX-LV,1- " — j" 1".. only, Monday, -thru 140T SHOWN 99OVN VX% provide and indicate on site plan, Fire Departm ent access -, with specif ic�ltions or vehictilar turn -P accordance beJ ,,ow: ucted w idth of-- (�F,) Provide a minimum, �,_nobstr feet clear to Sky, 'vehicular access to wit150 feet of all po-6tjon o -11-f tine ext eriOr walls - Fire Code 10.207. : 2 1 The resp fired, fire flow for hydraj),ts at this for. a location isper iftinute at 20 Vsi � gallor s daily ovenave maximum duratl= Of �F5 hours .- ad domestic demand. 3. . The inquired fire flow for 01 -11 -SITE hydrant8j.s, inxe itat 20 pi�l. Pc -r Ya , . (OVER) JUL 23 '93 12:14 LA CO FD FIRE PREV HSin VjXTS-,r VxRn FLOW AND ACCESS GZXZgAL F.3 Page 2 NOT S R _07N 4. Fire hydrant requirement6 are as follows: Instal.]. PiLiblic Eydrant(s) Upgrade Public ire V_yd7r,_,nF(s) 3:nstall, on-site Fire !Tjdrant(S),- Location S. All hydrants shall jueasure 611 X 40 x 2 1/214, brass or bronze, conforming to cutrerl'Z! ATMA. Standard 0503 or approved equal.. HY,0_rants shall be installed per specificatfon of the Jos Anqe.jes County Water Ordinance No. 7834. (Title 20) UtilitY Manualf SeOtJOn 4.0 to 4. 6. 6. All reqUire . d pub_,-jr_- fire !hydrants shall, be installed, tested and accepted prior to conztruction. ?,*ular Veh, cacceso junst. he provided alld maint-ained sez,vicea-ble thl:oughout construU P. ovjde an approved Cla:Sr? _.__ starjdnjpr,, system. The 'he ri scars in Class I or Claes III slhalll Crass-conliected at the base. Table, 38, 3so-5 of -tjie 13uildinc -one, ire sprinkler sys"elu.. SUbm"Jt P14ns Provide an approved fi for approval Priar to installation. Fire Code 2.10-1, P90A ?A,t , ? - (C Reason 10. The iire spriDkler system shall be calrxlated per Paraphlet #13t #13Dj #23! or 42$1Cj whichever J,s appliCable. ILS.. The fire sprinkler sy$teja $r�alj be sixr,-,,-rvised as raquired jr; ti.e BW jd2ina . Cc-dej 3Z,03 I 12. Plans showing andarground YJ pon- ing f on— hydrants, qprinklersystems shall- be � I jjbja!:tted for approval. to installation. on_site protection Taclj4ties hydrint s.,, sprinkler :L3 Systen's, etc. shall be for approval prior to 0,�=Pancy 14. The inspection, hydrosta'.-__Jc. test and f lush:j�ng of the hydrant and/or sprinkler': System shall be w J.tnessed by the Dep- -e ark Ad ,Artment reore��erjtatjN �d ljo 'undergf�= Dro.�:)er Fire from or MiddennGriewp1pi , ng shall be covered with earth un -til, the Fire Department re-'Vre$011tative has been notified van no lcn_- 15-pQr,t such 41.4 q *I , tl,,;&rl r18 hours in Whinh to in Installations, 91M —T -din ors -Site 'Plan: ss I how al 3. e I xjsti.jig fire 'hydrart(s) within. 300 feet of all property arad call out hydral't size. and dimension to property linOS- NOTEv :Additional fire liydrant raybe made 014 1'ed. af. 1 er thIs InforiDation iz PP 111 Ar j kt coriniete ar�d- ret, X�"i q1y irn 3,jfihq'rV'rAvaT abi To= - JUL 23 '013 12:15 LA CO FD FIRE PREV FORM IS 6 12/90 FIRE AM. LIFE SAFETY BUXLDING REQUIRSILVMTS GENERAL REQUIAMMENTS NOT SHOWN SHOWN on-site PlMn.. Indicate Occupanoy, Type of construction and provide the center line distance fron- nearest cross street to property line. (Provide accurate dimensions) Provide area justification per table 5C, 5050 506 and 702(a) of the Building Code. (Incorporate calculations on plans) 3. Provide a fire resistive separation-Be"Neen -theana Ehe + R11, ing--ode Table 5B or T_j'_tT_e_f4_,Tab1'e 5B. _Mn_d16_at_'E On floor plan) 4.- Fire resistive asse-r-'bties ' for protection of openings to Comply with Title 24 4306. (Indicate on floor plan and in door schGdule) Shafts to be enclosed in oompliance with Tit -le -24, 1706. Indicate on plans. The fol.lowing occupant load counts are approximate and any deviation is to be _ustjfi('_t�d by the applicant: Title 24, 3302- Table 33A. + additional means of exiting (indicate OF1 floor:plan) Tit --ii-f-1-T-73-302, Fbre 33K. 7. EXit doors sba11swing in the direction of exit travel when serving any hazardous area.ter_when serving an occupant load of 50 or more. Title 24, 3304. Exit . doors shall be openable from the inside without use of a key or any special knowledge or effort., Title 24, 3304-c. (Indicate in door schedule) Widthand height of required exit doorways to comply with Title 24,, 3304-f. (indicate in door schedule) 10. provj&, an approved one-hour, rise -resistive oorridor. Title 24, 3305.* (indicate on floor p"Ian) "shall of 11. ridr oninmeet the re-cpArement Aix coropegs -h, in-ludii -ig steel frames, 20-iainute Building Code 3301 labeled doors, hinges, latching devices, and closures. Title 24, 3305-h. (Indicate in door sc-hwdule) Deadend corridors over 20. feet in length are *jot permitted. g. Title 24, 3305 -e - Ic- iikd as w) elf f6r i6-twwj). (OVER) .2 UL 23 '93 12:16 LA CO FD FIRE PRE -,i V P.r_• IFXU 4UM 7411M SAFETY RUIX01so REQuIUMONTS Page 2 iwowv r'HOWN 13. interior and exterior staivways of buildings four or store stories in height to comply With Title 24, 3306. Walls and soffits of enolose d usable space under interior ;5tairway;s that are, not required to be enclosed by Building Code 3309-f shall he protected on the enclosed side as required for ohe-hour fire resistive Construction. Title. 24,, 3306-m.. (Indic ate W1 planli) All openings classified as hcrizontal rzxitz sball be protected by 1-1./2 hour rated fire asset-blios which are automatic closing upon actuation of -smo%e d4tector. Title 24, 3308. (Indicate on plans'll Interior Staj.rWay, ramp Qr e.5cajator shal.1 be a-nclosed as specified in Title 24e 31309. k'xndiCoate on plans) "Exit court to comply Oit.b ' Tit2 e' 24, 3311. (Indicate on. plans) 18. EXits shall be illuminated at any time the building is occupied, with light having an intensity of not 10,ss than one foot. -candle at floor level. Title 24, 332.3. provide R_ -4i t signz pl-*-,r Title 24., 3314. 20. Provide Lour -level BY -it Sicj'r'$ per Title 24, 3314-e plan. provide Toj-3evej Exit path .Ka—kingper Title 24, 3314-f. 2 2 Provide approved exiting jiluminatlon dnA ill"Immated exit signs which are powered f_-om f-m-p-a—ratq f, -C LU_ —rc- Title 241 3313 (b) - 011 Plalls) 23. Elevators, dumbwaiterie,, escalat-OrS d.nd 4ovinq walks to Conply uji4--h Title 24, Ch#.ter. 51. (Indicate. on PIWIS) 24. Fire eJtihgvishar requirelaWnts shall be d'ete.mined by field inspector. Fire C.4!4e 10.301-4. 25. Building address nirzbers to be provided on the front of all biaildbigs and shall be vi$*iblE zrid leigible from street fronting the property. said nutibers &."11 contrast With their background- Fire code 10.208. 26, Provide a key b6x as reqaired by Fire Code 10.209. L44oation PANT -per Key box to a -_ L paHEent co=ercial dunpsters or containers with an individual capacity of 1.5 cubic yards o- greater skaaa.l not be stared or pla(>Pd within fiv_' leet of co�mbustible walls, openings or �conbustible root eave lines -unless area.-, cor4taining duimpsters are pxotscted by an approved sprin-k1er system,. Fire Code 1.1.201. ('Indicate. on plasms ! JIJL 23 '93 12:16 LA CO FD FIRE PRE': FORM 184 7/90 SPECIAL BUXLDING AND OCCUPANCY RVOIREMENT.8 GROUp A OCCUPIMCIES "WORK SHEM NOT SHOWN :L 81YOWW Fire Provide an extra seating :plan for. Fire Departnent use. Indicate proposed aisles that comply with Fi-EeCo4e secIdti. ons, 1- 07 and 25.112. but " tux P i3. de approved panic hardware on required exit, doors. Title 24, 3319-0 (Indicate on door schedule),. 3. provide an approved fi,-,.ed fire extinguisher sy8t-em for the kitchen hood, ducts and cooking surfaces. indicate U.L. approval, system 2-rimber, and submit U.L. approved schematic drawing to area inspection LLnit., Fire Code 10-313. 4. Interior finish shall be provided 111. accordance with Title 24t 4204, as follOWS: Class I - Vertical Enclosures; Class 11 - Corridors; Class III Roams. (Noteand Indicate in finish schedule) .5. All drakes, r--anglngs, curtains, drops and all other decorative material to comply with Fire Code. 25,103. (I-ndicate on plans) Pro -Vida an approved fire alai -m system. Submit plans to area office prior to installation. Title 24, 5.1.5 a 809. Fire Code A.rtiole 14. 7*. The main exit shall comply v7ith Title 24, 3317-a. (Note and indicate on floor plan) 8. provide side exits that comply with Title 24, 3317-b, (Note and indicate on floor Plan) 9. (4:00 Comply with posting of roorl capacity. Fire Code 25-114. .(subject to field., inspection appioval) 10. The maxilaum occupant load 'for an assembly use shall not exceed the occupant load as determined in accordance with Title 24, 3302-a. Table 33A. (Note and incorporate calculations on plans) 46- WAI vloinq led., solef, -qard TUC '�n*"!�:- 1-e: 17 LR CID' Fb 'FfFff PRtV. P.7 FIRE DEPART MENI' 5823 MMAWKIER ROAD. 31 ADDITITIQNAL BUILDING AND OCCUPANcy �EqUj-v ..MEWS NOT CcX,1j)1Y with Fire Code 10.207 (d) regarding firs lane verbatim pavi.nq requirements. (incorporate approved note & specifications into plans.) indicate Maximum allowable slope for the fire lane is 151. (indicate actual slope of the road.) Post along vehicular. access as "Fire Lane verbatim ParRing. note & indicate, Cu-rve radii shall be not less than 22 feet determined at the centerline of the road. Fire.Code Access Standard 10.207 (a), (b) . 3. -Provide an approved. Fire Department Turnaround. verbatim Fire Code Access Standard 10.207 'a), (b), note & indicate 4- Indicate the assumed properl-y line required by Title 24, 504 (c), Or'B.C., 504 (C) . Then.. call out the fire, resistance of exterior walls and - Openings Per TJLtle 24, Table SA or B.C. Table 5A. 5. Comp'.y with the reporting requirements as set forth �rerbatIm in Title 2 of the Los Angels County Code cotc,erning note Hazardous Ma.terials Disclosure. 6. C r QmPlf.lte and return the fowl-jerls St,--Atene-rjt of Intended Uselljorju. If affirmative, special requirements til.i.11be made. 7. V) HYdrant 10cationF,* shall be ide-ntified by the verbati)u %. L .of approved blue refiect.ive Aarkej--s. note & Fire e Code 10.301(4) indicate A: \FORM185 `-JUL 23 '93 12:18 LA CO FD FIRE PREY FORM , 1$ 5 ADD3:T1,0NAL BUILDING AVD OCCUPANCY REQUIRKWENTS NOT CTr11WW fZHOW 1. Provide a receipt from the water company that shows that all funds have beef paid for the installation and/or upgrade of the required public Fire Hydrant(s). 2. Provide a letter from tl4e water company on their letterhead that shows the approximate date the work Will be started and completed for the required public fire hydrant(s). 3. NOTE: Ikll required pablic fire hydraiTts shall be Inst-alled, Tested and Accepted prior to construction (as per note 46 - Hydrant, Fire Flow and Access; General Requirements Form) P.3 J o � ' Cf)l m f 1U (QQiy�J 1� n 11{!� i N Q Q,QStUW U' Qi°� lglliIII i{illlittl l�' MCCcn Ml LLM 29 C] Q tCgZpU¢ ��g :%iQ¢ ¢4CJ `'Uv !�II�1!�ililll�lll �' cab 75 'ziU1 �S t'. `o Z.z Jill Yr CL , / / • � ,� op T / . Z. ZIA 0 4L lkid LL z Mw at eE cpp5g a a , a 4 �tloB23�� •' i � i� A '/ naa � � .I I � CLsif f✓ r (o Cl as } _ it i\ \^- .i.f'f��'gciU-��,3 llN... ....... _., .....-.. �..... V F | § 3 § ■ 3 ;■' I � � »° a ■ `� d� k ■� . ) 2 . . ©� :A,« / « ■#a R ;\.K2 - f 39 a— �, FI■ m Ii titR!i''� (CM SKS d W G3 m gg t1J 0 fil m 'WfT CO 'a. cc � S U B II i S to Z .d Xo W W a d d FI■ m Ii titR!i''� (CM SKS d W G3 m gg Y o cocc 2 � I a cIc _. _ __ -'.S i. '_ -- J Q�two M� I o Fil5109 ie� entl i$ on File eN d b ind is reedy for on City Clerk destnaotion by