HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/11/1994JULY 119 1994
11U
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
irrrr �-
irrr Aa,
t rr a o r
DW Wd Meyer
r , Plunk
Bruce Ramenba ri
Itr Scbad
r r Fong
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) 3.96-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled, meeting.
S
P[case refrain from smoking, satiny or drinking The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
in the Auditorium 2and encourages you to do the same.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
July 11, 1994
Next Resolution No. 9413
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 Cardfor the recording
Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary) There 1s a five minute maximum time llmrt
when addressme 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 June 13, 1994
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Planned Sign Program No. 94.6
A request for approval of a Planned Sign Program which includes two
(2) proposed wall signs for an office building at 1350 Valley Vista
Drive, Diamond Bar. Continued from June 27, 1994.
PROPERTY OWNER/AppLICANT: Steve Kay, 1350 Valley Vista
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve Planned Sign Program No. 94-6, Findings of
Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3. Appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 94-3
A request to appeal the decision to approve construction of a first
and second story addition of approximately 1,291 square feet and
deck/patio cover to an existing 1,750 square foot two-story residence
located at 1243 S. Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
Continued from June 27, 1994.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Behdin Shahin and Alavia Mandana
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1243 S. Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, CA
91765
APPLICANT FOR APPEAL: Chalikorn Mimi Chan
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has
determined that this project is Categorically Exempt § 15301 Class 1.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the 'Planning
Commission sustains the Community Development Director's
approval of ADR 94-3.
4. Parcel Map No. 22102
A request to subdivide a 4.39 acre parcel located at 1575 Valley Vista
Drive, Diamond Bar, into two lots of 3.5 acres and .89 acres. Lot No.
1, the 3.5 acre lot is currently developed with a two-story office
building. Lot No. 2, the .89 acre lot is currently graded, with minor
drainage improvements, but devoid of structures. No development
projects are included as a part of this application. Any future projects
will require additional applications. The project site is located in
Gateway Corporate Center and is zoned CM-BE-U/C (Commercial
Manufacturing, Billboard Exclusion, Unilateral Contract Zone). The
zoning will not change as a part of this application. Continued from
June 27, 1994.
APPLICANT. Specialty Equipment Market Association, 1575 Valley
Vista Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the terms of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Negative
Declaration has been prepared.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the public hearing be
continued to the July 25, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting.
5. 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. .
The proposed project is a request for approval of a 13 unit single
family subdivision proposed on a 20 acre site located at the
southeasterly terminus of Blaze Trail Drive within "The Country". The
proposed project is located adjacent to Tonner Canyon and is within
the northernmost 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
Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared to evaluate
the impacts the project may have upon the environment and
identification of mitigation measures to reduce the effects of any
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 Ultrasystems Engineers and Constructors, Inc. as an
independent consultant to prepare the environmental documents. An
Executive Summary of the environmental review record is attached.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the public hearing
be continued to the July 25, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting.
6. Adoption of the General Plan. The General Plan is a statement of
goals, objectives and strategies to guide the long-range physical
development of the City. The Plan is required by State Law and
determines the size, form and character of the City over the next
twenty years. It is the most significant tool utilized by the community
to ensure a balanced, comfortable environment in which to live and
work. It represents the community's view of its future and serves as
the "blueprint" to define the long term character of the City. In
January the City Council appointed a General Plan Advisory
Committee to develop the Draft General Plan. Fifteen public
workshops have been conducted to identify key planning issues and
define General Plan policy. The results have been forwarded to the
Planning Commission for consideration.
The purpose of the July 11, 1994 Public Hearing is to begin the
Planning Commission review of the Draft 1994 General Plan
commencing with the Land Use, Resource Management and
Circulation Elements.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Planning
Commission open the Public Hearing, receive a presentation from
staff, receive public testimony, forward comments to City staff and
continue the Public Hearing.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
ADJOURNMENT: July 25, 1994
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 13, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. in the AQMD
Board Hearing Room, 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;
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, and Schad.
Commissioner Fong arrived at 7:13 p.m.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano;. Associate Planner Rob Searcy;
Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City
Attorney Michael Montgomery; Engineer Mike
Myers; Senior Engineer David Liu; and Contract
Recording Secretary Liz Myers -
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of May 23, 1494
VC/Plunk requested that the minutes of May 23, 1994 be amended
to indicate the proper spelling of Terry Birrell.
Moved.by C/Schad, seconded by C/Fong and carried unanimously
to approve the minutes of May 23, 1994, as amended.
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
VC/Plunk suggested, and the Planning Commission concurred,
that the. intersection' of Quail Summit and Diamond' Bar
Boulevard be added to the list of warrant studies for traffic
signals.
Chair/Meyer opened the meeting and invited those wishing to
speak to come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed the
meeting and returned the matter to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
June 13, 1994 Page 2
Chair/Meyer requested clarification how the Planning
Commission can find the CIP to be in conformity with the
General Plan without an adopted General Plan.
- ICA/Montgomery, noting item 8_3{c)- of. the Resolutionrequires
the proposed projects to comply with all other applicable
requirements of State law and local ordinances, regulations
and standards, stated that the letter of extension from the
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for the General Plan
allows for such a finding.
C/Schad suggested that the Community Services staff
investigate ways to prevent vandalism of the lighting at Maple
Hill Park.
Chair/Meyer questioned the appropriateness of so many traffic
signals on Diamond Bar Boulevard in consideration of the
existing traffic congestion problem.
SE/Liu explained that the intent of the list pertains strictly
to warrant studies to make a determination regarding the needs
of the listed locations. He stated that staff will make a
recommendation to the City Council to consider three traffic
signals for this coming fiscal year.
In response to C/Schad, SE/Liu stated that staff is currently
working with the City of Pomona and the County regarding the
synchronization of traffic signals on Diamond Bar Boulevard.
VC/Plunk suggested, and the Planning Commission concurred,
that the CIP list include the beautification of the City Entry
Signs with appropriate landscaping.
Moved by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously
to adopt a.resolution recommending approval of the CIP list,
as amended.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
3. Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4 and Development Review No.
93-1
As'tP/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the request
made by the applicant, Dr. Akbar Omar, for approval of
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) NO. 93-4 to allow grading within
a hillside management area, to allow live entertainment, and
to allow the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic
beverages in the C -M; and approval of Administrative
Development Review (ADR) No. 93-1 to allow the construction of
a restaurantat the property location of 21671 E. Gateway
Drive, Diamond Bar. She then reviewed the revisions made to
the project proposed at the January 24, 1994 Planning
Commission continued public hearing, as outlined in the staff
report. She showed a rendering to the Commission illustrating
June 13, 1994 Page 3
the materials proposed for the project. It is recommended
that the Planning Commission approve CUP No. 93-4 and ADR No.
93-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions, as listed within the
resolution.
As'tP/Lungu, in response to C/Schad's inquiries, ,made the
following responses: the proposal can be modified requiring
the uplighting of the trees proposed; signage, which is not
proposed at this time, would most likely be located at the
front and backside of the restaurant; a lighting plan will
need to be submitted; and access from the restaurant to the
hotel is not provided because of the steep grade, and because
the applicant did not receive concurrence from Radisson Hotel.
In response to C/Fong's inquiries, As'tP/Lunge stated that the
balconies have been eliminated because the parking lot cannot
accommodate the needed parking spaces for the additional
seating that could be provided by the balconies. She stated
that the retaining wall will be landscaped.
AP/Searcy, in response to Chair/Meyer, stated that staff will
prepare a mitigation monitoring program, if needed for the
mitigated negative declaration, subsequent to the approval of
the project.
As'tP/Lungu, in response to VC/Plunk, stated that a conceptual
landscape plan will be reviewed by RJM to assure the proposed
landscaping is appropriate for the area.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited those
wishing to speak to come forward.
Syed ' Raza, representing the applicant, expressed his
concurrence to the conditions listed in the staff report, and
the changes suggested by the Planning Commission pertaining to
lighting and landscaping.'
C/Schad suggested that trees larger than 15 gallon be
considered to softened the architectural impact of the wall.
-
Venk suggested that the applicant consider planting vines
orrY: the wall to soften the visual impact.
Chair/Meyer suggested that it may be more appropriate to plant
more moderate to fast growing trees rather than large trees
because their rate of survival are better and are least
costly.
Syed Raza stated that there was discussion with the architect
of painting the wall a darker shade to blend with the
foreground, along with landscaping, making the two story
building on top of it appear to be a floating structure.
June 13, 1994 page 4
VC/Plunk suggested that the balcony be used as a planter
rather than seating.
Syed Raza stated that the balconies, ,which were omitted
because of the lack of parking spaces, are now replaced with
a slope roof that is part of the building. He noted that the
balconies were quite large for just planting, and patrons
could still use them for seating, which may create a problem
for the City.
C/Fong inquired if the landscaped area on the west side could
be used for parking.
Syed Raza explained that, because of the steepness of the
slope and existing sanitary lines, consideration of utilizing
the west side for additional parking is economically
impractical.
In response to C/Fong, Syed Raza stated that the landscaping
on the slopes are. intended to prevent erosion due to runoff.
He also stated that the grade is designed to assure that
runoff is directed to the street and away from the building,
and gutters and drainage patterns are included in the design
of the building as well.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed
the public hearing and returned the matter to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
C/Flamenbaum made the following comments: condition the
project to plant ivy on all the large walls as well as the
retaining walls to hinder graffiti; include an accommodation
for future access to the hotel in their plan so that if, in
future years, an agreement is attained, a location has already
been designated; and modify condition p., on page 6, that
security should be coordinated with the hotel so it is not the
entire burden of the restaurant.
Chair/Meyer made the following comments: the balcony is a
desirable addition to the project, particularly since there is
a significant view corridor, and it seems inappropriate for
vehicles to.dictate the design constraints of a building; and
the parking standards can be modified through the CUP to allow
the balconies, perhaps requiring a trip reduction plan as a
mitigation measure for additional -parking.
AP/Searcy, concern with C/Flamenbaum's direction to provide
accomodations for a future access, noted that, because of the
change in elevation, it will be difficult to provide access
between the two lots.
C/Flamenbaum stated that it would seem prudent to accommodate
an area for a potential pedestrian access between the two lots
June 13, 1994 Page 5
in case circumstances change in the future for whatever
reason.
Syed Raza stated that the two owners of the properties have
not been able to come to any kind of agreement due to
liability concerns. He also stated that because the slope is
on the hotel side and not the restaurant side, it is
inappropriate for the applicant to include plans without their
concurrence.
The Planning Commission concurred that providing for future
access is not feasible. .
Moved by C/Schad, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously
to approve CUP No. 93-4 and ADR No. 93-1, Findings of Fact,
and conditions, as listed in the resolution, with the
following amendments: a mitigation monitoring program to
include the grading, treatment of the walls, and the
landscaping; a condition addressing lighting and the glare;
balconies'can remain at the option of the applicant, with the
submittal of a trip reduction plan to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and Community Development Director; modify the
condition to allow for a two year permit; and change the
security provision to 10:00 p.m.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:07 p.m.
RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:14 p.m.
4. 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 presented the staff report regarding the request
made by the applicant, Jerry Yeh, for approval of a 13 unit
single family subdivision on a 20 acre site located in
Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15, and 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. He then reviewed
the`'recommendations outlined in the Final Report of the
Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee
(SEATAC) that met to discuss the biota report contained within
the Draft EIR. It is recommended that the Planning Commission
open the public hearing and receive comments on. the draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and project entitlement
requests, continue the public hearing and direct staff as
appropriate.
Mr. Smith, the Cityfs environmental consultant from Michael
Brandmen Associates, briefly reviewed the chronology and
process of the EIR documentation for the project, as required
by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as
the responses received to the EIR. He stated that the issues
June 13, 1994 Page 6
addressed in the EIR, which relate to geology and soils,
drainage and water quality, biological impacts, noise,
transportation, circulation, public services, and land use,
including aesthetics,.can be mita.gated to a level less than
significant, with the exception -of the biology -Impacts. He
stated that the EIR recommends mitigation measures for the
loss of the Walnuts on site and other associated impacts to
wildlife, which is summarized in the.MitiRation Monitoring
Program for those impacts. He explained that SEATAC suggested
some on site mitigation measures for some of the impacts of
the Walnuts from development of the project, with the balance
of the impacts to be mitigated either through an in lieu fee
contribution to a conservancy, or through the development of
appropriate habitat within SEA #15 at another location.
Chair/Meyer requested clarification if C/Schad has a conflict
of interest in the deliberation of the project as it pertains
to his conservancy.
ICA/Montgomery asked C/Schad if he would derive a personal
financial benefit from any contribution or mitigation payment
that might" be incurred herein, .which does not include
reimbursed expenses.
C/Schad stated for the record that he has no plans to extract
any funds for personal use from his conservancy, and that any
funds acquired for his conservancy has been utilized strictly
for the conservancy. He stated that he would not be impacted
economically personally in any manner whatsoever if his
conservancy is chosen to help monitor and manage the subject
property.
ICA/Montgomery stated that, unless there is any evidence to
the contrary, C/Schad's declaration qualifies him to continue
participating in the deliberations and to vote on the matter.
AP/Searcy reported that 5 or 6 conservancies were reviewed and
not one of- them has been designated; however, SEATAC felt it
may beappropriate to have a local agency controlling the
money s �'
Chair/Mdy expressed concern that, though legally there is no
conflict of interest, perceptually it seems inappropriate for
a Planning Commissioner to advocate before SEATAC for a
revenue source to be given to his conservancy, and then be in
a position now of reviewing and making recommendations on the
project.
C/Schad stated that it is not important which conservancy
manages and. monitors the subject property, but rather to
preserve as much of the natural resources as possible, in the
most proper,,manner.
June 13, 1994 Page 7
ICA/Montgomery stated that it is appropriate to endorse
programs as long as personal income or personal economic
benefit is not received.
VC/Plunk, noting that the community has expressed concern with
intertwined relationships involving City issues, stated that
there is a perception of a conflict of interest, particularly
since C/Schad is president of the conservancy.
C/Schad pointed out that the officers of his conservancy are
presidents of other conservancy, creating an interlocking
relationship among conservancies. He stated that his interest
in this type of management is trails for children, working
with schools for educational purposes, planning programs for
plant propagation in the.future, etc.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that, in order to resolve an appearance
of impropriety, perhaps it would be appropriate if the Tonner
Canyon conservancy not accept any money from this land owner.
ICA/Montgomery stated that, as long as C/Schad is willing to
confront any political attacks. or criticism regarding the
conservancy, it is not necessary for him to make such a
statement.
Mr. Smith, in response to C/Flamenbaum, showed the location of
the intermittent blue line stream, as represented on the map,
as well as the location of the oak tree, the vacant single
family home, and the Schabaurum trail.
C/Schad suggested that the feasibility of propagating new
plants from nut or seed of the Black Walnut, to be placed on
the blue line area, be investigated. He requested that the
project be conditioned to require'the applicant to submit a
landscaping plan for the relocation and propagation of trees,
to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
VC/Plunk suggested that perhaps the mitigation measures for
agricultural or recent and man made vegetation should be
different than the mitigation measures required for long term,
natural state vegetation.
C/Schad requested that there be an investigation to determine
if the existing oak tree is a hybrid, and if it can be
relocated near •the area of origination by the side of the
intermitted blue line stream.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited those
wishing to speak to come forward.
Lex Williman, Planning Director from Hunsaker & Associates,
representing Jerry Yeh, gave a brief history of the project,
the concept plans considered, and the studies conducted prior
to submittal. He explained that all of "The Country Estates"
June 13, 1994 Page 8
standards have been used for the development, with the intent
to annex into "The Country" with separate CC&Rts,, utilizing
land form grading, undulation, and hillside management. He
reviewed the proposal as submitted, reviewing the relocation
of easements; the blue line stream, the replacement and
relocation of trees, biological impacts and mitigation
measures, and grading techniques. He expressed concurrence
with the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report,
as well as the suggestions made by the Planning Commission.
In response to C/Flamenbaum, Lex Williman explained that the
slope easements were dedicated .to the County with the intent
of allowing for construction of a road. He stated that they
will.definitely annex to "The Country", which requires paying
a fee; however, there will be a separate Homeowners
Association and specific CC&R's, in conformance with "The
Country's" CC&R's, as well as special assessments pertinent to
the 13 lots, such as for the pump station maintained by the
County. He stated that the urban pollution basin will be
fenced off to protect wildlife.
Lex Williman, in response to C/Fong, stated that the intent of
the mitigation in the landscape plan is to mix a variety of
plant species with the natural habitat in the area to get back
some biological significance on the site.
C/Schad inquired how the blue line runoff from the residences
to the canyon will be filtered and circulated back to the
ground. He expressed concern that any runoff into the canyon
will cause irreversible damage.
Lex Williman stated that either the evaporated method could be
used, or pipes with holes could run under the. detention basin
so the affluent will drain through the ground, into the pipes
and down the canyon.
C/Flamenbaum left the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and returned at
9:34 p.m.
VC/Plunk.suggested that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the
affected property owner, be verbally contacted regarding the
easement for the road to Tonner Canyon. She asked for a
definition of "esocormic growth" when the project is brought
back before the Planning Commission. She suggested that, if
a 2:1 replacement ratio standard is desired after five years,
it may be advisable to start with a slightly higher
replacement ratio.
Mr. Smith explained that there are provisions in the five year
monitoring program to manage the mitigation, replacing trees
to assure that the desired ratio is achieved at the end of the
monitoring period as well as monitoring the understory.
June 13, 1994 Page 9
AP/Searcy, in response to VC/Plunk, stated that, in order for
the project to be in conformance with the rest of the "The
Country", there are no street lights included in the proposal.
Lex Williman, in response to Chair/Meyer's inquiries, made the
following responses: they have the authority to do off-site
grading and off-site street improvements for the adjacent
property, which will be shown on the final map as an easement
for access purposes, with slopes, utilities, et al; there will
be an assessment district to pay for the sewer system, which
will be adequately sized for the development and maintained by
the County; 184,000 cubic yards of dirt from grading will be
balanced on site; the fill material adjacent to the site,
intruding on the Blaze Trail easement by no action of Mr. Yeh,
will be removed by the applicant; and a landscape plan will
come back before the Planning Commission.
Chair/Meyer stated that page A-1, of the Response to Comment
document,. should be amended to properly indicate that the
review period of the DEIR was through November 1993 ending
December 1993. He then requested clarification of the
response received from the EPA, which appeared vague.
Mr. Smith stated that the response from EPA, which is
considered a boilerplate letter, indicated that, since there
are no significant impacts in solid waste, no mitigation is
required. He concurred with Chair/Meyer that a more
appropriate additional response to the EPA is to indicate that
the area will be subject to the City's AB939 response program.
In response to Chair/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that the Planning
Commission has the discretion to direct staff to place
additional mitigation measures for traffic .impacts in the
mitigation monitoring program.
In response to Chair/Meyer, CE/Myers stated that the concern
regarding the capacity to treat the sewage emanating from the
project has been adequately answered; however, the concern if
the local sewers are adequate to convey the sewage from the
project to be treat has not yet been answered. He stated that
the project can be conditioned to provide area capacity
studies, prior to final approval of the map, to assure that
all the routes to treatment are adequate.
VC/Plunk stated that the funding for off-site mitigation
should go to the Parks .and Recreation Department as so
indicated.
In response to Chair/Meyer's inquiry regarding the City
Engineer's comment on page C-9, of the Response to Comment
document, CE/Myers expressed his satisfaction that, in the
areas absolutely relevant, the EIR was prepared adequately.
He explained that his comments.were referring to minor errors
June 13, 1994 Page 10
not relevant to the entire EIR document, nor intended to be
included in the Response to Comment document.
John Lipman, the certified engineer and geologist employed
with Triod Geotechnical, stated that the geology.on the site
is favorable, with a possible problem on lot #2 which will be
properly monitored and stabilized as necessary.
In response to C/Flamenbaum, John Lipman stated that there
does not appear to be any slippage potential on site, and the
rock is hard and quite stable. He stated that no evidence has
been found indicating any ancient landslides on the site.
John Lipman, in response to C/Fong's concern that the test
pits were of limited depth of about 10 to 12 feet deep, stated
that the geology indicates a very favorable condition over
all, and nothing implies that a condition could be buried
below those depths requiring major subsurface work. He stated
that the east side, the only side that has a potential
problem, has neutral bedding, which is still considered good;
however, they will be removing more than they will be grading
as far as fill, which will improve the stability of the slope
in general.
Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, made the following
comments: there should be clarification if the road easement
is being reserved for future development in Tonner Canyon;
there should be an attempt to relocate the 167 trees; the
developer should be required to submit a proposal with more
specificity; SEA #15 should be preserved; there needs to be
further investigation regarding potential landslides; the
Planning Commission should support C/Schad's conservancy; and
the first 18" to .24" of top soil should be scraped and
stockpiled to be used in the replanting of the trees.
Lex Williman stated their willingness to preserve the black
earth, as suggested by Mr. Maxwell.
John Lipman, in response to C/Fong's inquiry regarding the
topography west of Gold Rock Lane, stated that a small failure
was found. way on down the .slope, but it is not a major
disturbance to the area or a threat to the slope in the
vicinity.
AP/Searcy stated that the preliminary soils and geological
technical report for the adjacent property, submitted to the
City for review, did not'identify any soils,or geotechnical
problems that may effect this project or the adjacent project.
CE/Myers stated that staff can include conditions requiring
mitigation of adverse geotechnical problems, or dedication of
restricted use areas and building rights to be prohibited to
the City. He stated that it can also be conditioned to assure
that the MOU not only grants the applicant permission to go on
June 13,_ 1994 Page 11
to the adjacent property owner to do grading work for the
road, but also allows them to go further on to the property if
other conditions are uncovered, under City staff supervision,
inspection, and approval.
C/Fong stated that, for this project, the reports and
conditions are satisfactory; however, for future projects, the
City Engineering Department should review the geological maps,
and the soils and geological report, in respect to the
property beyond the property line.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed
the public hearing and returned the matter to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
C/Fong requested a written report from the geological engineer
responding to the condition of potential off-site geological
conditions that could impact this site or the adjacent
property, as well as an expanded geotechnical report that
would include some of the off-site areas that would be subject
to grading.
C/Schad requested that the project be conditioned to
preserving the black earth to be used for replanting.
C/Flamenbaum requested further information regarding the pump
station.
Moved by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong to direct staff to
preparing resolutions recommending conditional approval of the
project, the CUP, and certification of the EIR.
The Motion Carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad, Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk
and Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad and carried
unanimously to direct staff to bring back the resolutions for
the July 11, 1994 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
C/Flamenbaum reported that he will be absent at the June 27, 1994
meeting due to a conflict in vacation schedules.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
June 13, 1994 Page 12
AP/Searcy reported that it is anticipated that GPAC will conclude
their review of the General Plan the end of June 1994. He stated
that the document will be brought before the Planning Commission
for review two meetings a week for joint sessions with the City
Council.
VC/Plunk expressed concern that joint sessions are not productive.
She suggested that the Planning Commission review each Element
before passing it on to the City Council with a recommendation.
C/Flamenbaum expressed objection to conducting two meetings a week,
and only being -allowed one month in the review process, which took
GPAC 6 months.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by C/Schad; seconded by C/Flamenbaum and carried unanimously
to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
David Meyer
Chairman
N
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:
BACKGROUND.
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
2
June 14, 1994
July ll, 1994
Planned Sign Program No.
94-6
A request for approval of
a Planned Sign Program
which includes two (2)
proposed wall- signs for
an office building
1350 Valley Vista Drive
Steeve Kay
1350 Valley Vista Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
The property owner/ applicant, Steeve Kay is requesting approval of
Planned Sign Program No. 94-6. The Planned Sign Program includes
two (2) proposed wall signs for an office building located at 1350
Valley Vista Drive (Parcel Map No. 20358, Lot 6).
The project site is approximately 18,900 square feet and developed
with a 12,800 square foot office building occupied by two tenants.
It is located within the Commercial -Manufacturing -Billboard
Exclusion-Unilateral/Contract (C-M-BE-U/C) Zone with a contemplated
draft General Plan land use designation of Professional Office
1
(OP). Generally, the following zone and use surround the subject
site: to the north is the Orange Freeway; to the south, east, and
west is Commercial -Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion-
Unilaterial/Contract (C-M-BE-U/C) Zone.
ANALYSIS:
The purpose and intent of a Planned Sign Program is to encourage
the use of modest signs which are harmonious with existing signs,
to assure the appropriate level of review in an expeditious manner,
and as much as feasible, bring existing signs into compliance with
the provisions of the Sign Ordinance while giving due regard for
the needs of the business'community.
Pursuant to the City's Sign Ordinance, Section 108, the maximum
sign face area for a wall sign is 1.25 square feet for every lineal
foot of building frontage, not to exceed 125 square feet per use.
Signage shall not exceed 80% of the building frontage. The maximum
number of wall signs permitted is one (1) per outer wall per use.
As a special condition, no permit shall be issued for a wall sign
in a multi -use building or commercial center in which more than one
sign is proposed without Planning Commission review and approval.
The application being presented to the Planning Commission is for
two (2) wall signs within a multi -use building. As such, pursuant
to the City's Sign Ordinance, the applicant is required to obtain
the Planning Commission's review and approval.
The proposed non -illuminated wall signs are ten (10) feet in width
and four (4) in height which equals 40 square feet each in sign.
face area. Both signs will be located on the easterly side of the
building facing Copley Drive (see attached Exhibit "A" site plan).
Copy will consist of "Q T C" and "Bay.Brook".
The Planned Sign Program will utilize individual foam letters
covered with plexiglass. Copy styles will include Times Bold or
Optima. Logos may be incorporated into a sign face area. The
color palette will consist of burgundy, aqua, and black, with
returns painted to match the letter face.
The proposed Plan Sign Program complies with the City's Sign
Ordinance. The applicant is required to obtain approval from
Gateway Corporate Center's architectural review committee. .
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed Planned Sign
Program will not have a significant effect on the environment and
is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301. Class 1 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
A Planned Sign Program review by the Planning Commission does not
require a public hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Planned Sign
Program No. 94-6, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within
the attached resolution.
Prepared by:
An J. Lu , As is alt Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution of Approval
2. Exhibit "A" - Written Criteria, Elevations, and Site Plan
dated July 11, 1994
3. Application
3
� `'
�;ti f:
RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX
A-, -RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANNED.
SIGN PROGRAM NO. 94-6 AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION (SECTION 15301, Class 1), AN
APPLICATION FOR A PLANNED £BION PROGRAM FOR AN
EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITHIN GATEWAY
CORPORATE CENTER LOCATED AT 1950 VALLEY VISTA
DRIVE (PARCEL MAP NO. 2058, LOT 6).
A. Recitals
1. The property owner/ applicant, Steeve Kay has .filed an
application for Planned Sign Program No. 94-6 for an
existing office building within Gateway Corporate Center
located at 1350 Valley Vista Drive, Diamond. Bar, Los
Angeles County, California, as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Planned Sign Program application is referred to
as "Application".
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal organization
of the 'State of California. On said date, pursuant to
the requirements of the California Government Code
Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby
adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances
of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los
Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the
County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to
development applications, including the subject
Application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan.
Accordingly, action was taken on the subject
uplication, as to consistency to the future adopted
Esu
ral Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of an
ce of Planning and Research extension granted
ant to California Government Code Section.65361.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on
July 11, 1994 conducted a meeting on said Application.
5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu-
tion have occurred.
1
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that
the project identified above in this Resolution is
categorically 'exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant
to Section 15301, Title 15 of the California Code of
Regulations.
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, this Commission, hereby finds as follows:
(a) The project relates to a site of approximately
18,900 square feet and developed with a 12,800
square foot office building. 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
designation of Professional. Office (OP). The
project site is located at 1350 Valley Vista
Drive, City of Diamond Bar, California.
(b) Generally, the following zone and use surrounds
the project site: to the north is the. Orange
Freeway; to the south, east, and west is
Commercial -Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion-
Unilateral/Contract (C-M-BE-U/C) Zone.
(c) The project site is adequately served by
Vista Drive and Copley Drive.
(d) The proposed Planned Sign Program complies with
the City's Sign Ordinance No. 5 (1991).
(e) Substantial evidence exists, considering the
record as a whole, to determine that the project,
as proposed and conditioned herein, will not be
detrimental to or interfere with the contemplated
draft General Plan.
(f) The proposed Planned Sign Program will have signs
that are legible to the intended audience under
normal viewing conditions based on the location
and the design of the visual element.
(g) The proposed Planned Sign Program will not have
signs that obscure from view or detract from
existing signs, based on the location, shape,
color, and other similar considerations.
(h) The proposed Planned Sign Program will be in
harmony with adjacent properties and surroundings
based on the size, shape, height, color,
placement, and the proximity of such signs. to
adjacent properties and surroundings.
(i) The proposed Planned Sign Program will be
designed, constructed and located so that they
will not constitute a hazard to the public.
Based upon findings and conclusion set forth above, the.
Planning Commission hereby approves this Application
subject to the following conditions:
(a) .The project shall substantially conform to all
plans dated July 11, 1994, collectively labeled
Exhibit "A" as submitted to and approved by the
Planning Commission.
(b) Before the issuance of any City permits, the
applicant shall obtain approval from Gateway
Corporate Center's architectural review committee.
(c) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose
until the permittee and owner .of the property
involved (if other than the permittee) have filed
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, grant
shall not be effective until the permit a ays
remaining Planning Division processing fees.
(d) The Applicant shall comply with Planning d
Zoning, and Building and Safety Divisions'
requirements.
(e) 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 the
issuance of any building permit or any other
entitlement.
(f) The subject property shall be maintained and
operated in full compliance with the condition of
this grand and any law, stature, ordinance or
other regulations applicable to any development or
activity of the subject property.
The Planning Commission shall:.
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this -Resolution,
by certified mail to, Steeve Kay, 1350 Valley Vista
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 1994, BY
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY:
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 lith day of July,
1994, by the following vote:
AYES: [C.OMMISSIONERS:]
NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSENT: (COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:]
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary
4
CSS
- C
0 0
c -
m E
J �
J`
CC
ww �E
�v o>
F_ZZ am
v
ego v�
L
O
Q
co
o �
y
a0 v
0
O
.a
1
0
r sm"
O
QW Yam:
�
w
Q
<�
v
v
o�
v�
y�.�yy C >•
'r..J
rl;
��
CL
�
�
a,
•
O
U
o L
'c is
U y
as
�
O. Q
�VVS
H
O Y
1
N �
y\^'l
CSS
- C
0 0
c -
m E
J �
J`
ww �E
�v o>
F_ZZ am
v
ego v�
L
O
Q
a0 v
0
O
.a
0
v
O
�
w
<�
v
v
o�
v�
c
r v
�
�
a,
•
O
�
o L
'c is
U y
O. Q
�VVS
H
O Y
N �
CSS
4
I.
I
I
i
1
G
V -Ca
P
00
j
'E
F
C y
J C
C
Q �
z 23
a_
aL_
Q11-
oz
w
C:� W ;
cr p C
� � m
LU w E
o � � � v
O'3V��
0
m v
r
ro o
ro �.
L
�Qb
...�
SNR.
u
cL q 3
v
u,
G
V -Ca
U
j
I RECEIVED 06/15 I9:48 1994 AT
06--k5-1994 12:42PM
909-BGI-3117 PAGE 2 (PRINTED PAGE 2) 1
FROM TO 98613117
`=;1
v
TOTAL P.02
lu
US,
9
5-
fill
N,
j:
j:
q.
i4
\J1
SS o
a
z
P.02
9$
k3
`=;1
v
TOTAL P.02
US,
9
5-
9$
k3
`=;1
v
TOTAL P.02
rpl- '9 4-A 15
CITY OF DIAMOND BA case# ''-' 9 q —6f- S Q- 2 q--t�
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Filed_ 5'
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 Fee!� -589 De ositosit 75 0 o /d—
(714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 Receipt s)Q'i,f
REQUEST FOR PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM REVIEW By
Record Owner(s) Applicant Applicant's Agent
Name Kay, Steeve
.(Last name first
Address 13?0 Valley Vista Dr.�(T�
city_ 14iamond Bar, CA 91765 11,1,14 1WT9
Zip
Phone( 90P 86100400 X164
Certification: X, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjurkihat
the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Location—135o VALtJOI 0L%1A D'Q
(Street qddress or tract and Lot mhber)
Zoning C -NA• XPi HNM
List number, size and type of sign(s) requested.
(Example: 2 - 8' x 9' Freestanding, double faced signs - 6 ft.high
1 - 3' x 24' Wall sign)
Length of lot frontage(s), if freestanding or roof sign(s)
If roof sign, height of building J�
Length of building (space occupied) frontage, if wall sign
CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this
request.
/ 1
Signed
Date 5/17/94
(alt record owners)
V
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
-
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Assistant Planner!
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Approval of Administrative
Development Review No. 94-3 (ADR 94-3)
HEARING DATE: July.11, 1994
DATE: June 20, 1994
BACKGROUND:
On May 24, 1994, a public hearing was held for Administrative
Development Review No. 94-3. This project was presented to the
Community Development Director, by staff, to determine whether or
not .to approve the project. After reviewing the staff report,
visiting the site, and receiving testimony from the applicant,
Shahin Behdin, the Community Development. Director approved
Administrative Development Review No. .94-3 with conditions as
listed in Resolution No. 94-4.
Pursuant to Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990)1 the
decision of the Community Development Director shall be final and
shall become effective ten (10) calendar days after the adoption
of the resolution by the Director; provided, however, that if
within such ten (10) day period, an appeal of the decision is
filed by an aggrieved person within the three hundred foot
noticing radius, the filing of such appeal within such time limit
shall suspend the decision of the Director until the determination
of the appeal by the Planning Commission or its dismissal by the
appellant. Such appeal shall be filets in writing with the
Secretary of the Planning Commission.
On June 3, 1994, the City received a letter from Chalikorn Mimi
Chan, the appellant, accompanied by neighbors' signatures, in
opposition to Administrative Development Review No. 94-3 as
approved. Mrs. Chan resides at 1253 Deerfield Place which is
located adjacent to the southwest property line of the project
site and directly affected by the approved project.
ANALYSIS:
The appellant's main objections are related to the side' yard
setback, privacy, and altering , of existing neighborhood
characteristics. Staff revisited the project site reviewing the
appellant's objections.
A majority of the homes in the neighborhood maintain original side
yard setbacks -which vary from 15 feet to nine (9) feet. One home
has a side yard setback of six ( 6 ) feet eight ( 8 ) inches. The
adjacent neighbor's side yard setback is ten (10) feet. However,
the setbacks relate to an area between the garages of the home.
The side yard setback for each home's habitable space is 15 feet.
Another home has a five (5) foot side yard setback. However, the
side yard setback for .the adjacent neighbor is 20 feet. -- -
The appellant's property maintains a 12 foot side yard setback.
The project site maintains a side yard setback of 16.5 feet.. The
proposed addition for the project site will maintain a five (5)
foot side yard setback. These setbacks relate to the distance
between habitable space of each home. Since the addition reduces
the side yard setbacks, it may also reduce the privacy for
appellant as well as for the homeowner of the project site.
Resolution No. 94-4 requires that staff investigate the
appropriateness of the proposed master bedroom window which is
adjacent to the appellant's property. Staff has completed the
investigation and feels that the proposed master bedroom window
should be eliminated. Although, it is not located directly across
for the appellant's first floor living/dining room window, it
gives the appearance that privacy can be impeded upon.
There is a down slope on the project site adjacent to the property
line shared by the appellant. Staff feels that planting
materials, utilized on the slope, could protect the appellant's
privacy.
As stated in the staff report dated May 13, 1994, Administrative.
Development Review No.94-3 complies with the City's development
standards. However., permitting additions which maintain a five
(5) foot side yard setback will begin to change the ambience of
the neighborhood and diminish the feeling of openness between
single family residences. one purpose of the Development Review
Ordinance No. 5 (1990) is to reasonable ensure and assist
development in being more cognizant of public concern for
aesthetics and not have an adverse aesthetic or architectural
impact on existing adjoining properties.
PUBLIC HEARING:
This item was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on June 16, 1994. Notices were
mailed to 46 property owners within a 300 foot radius of the
project site on June 13, 1994.
RECOMMENDATION•
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission sustain the
Community Development Director's decision, Finding of Fact, and
conditions as listed within the attached resolution.
Attachments:
1. Draft resolution sustaining the Community Development
Director's decision
2. Administrative Development Review Resolution No. -94-4
3. Staff report dated May 13, 1994
4. Exhibit "A" dated June 27, 1994
5. Minutes dated May 24, 1994 for Administrative Development
Review No. 94-3
6. Appeal Correspondence dated June 3, 1994
3
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING .THE APPEAL
FOR ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 94-
3 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SECTION 15301,
CLASS 1, AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION OF 1,291 SQUARE
FEET, ONE (1) BAY GARAGE, AND DECK/PATIO
COVER TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE OF 1,750 SQUARE FEET WITH A TWO CAR
GARAGE, LOCATED AT 1243 S. DEERFIELD PLACE
(LOT 53 OF TRACT MAP NO. 42565).
A. Recitals
1. Chalikorn Mimi Chan has filed an application requesting
an appeal of approval for Administrative Development
Review No. 94-3 to construct a first and second story
addition of 1,291 square feet, one (1) bay garage, and
deck/patio cover to an existing two-story single family
residence of 1,750 square feet with a two (2) car
garage. The project site is located at 1243 S.
Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, Cali-
fornia, as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Administrative Development Review application is refer-
red to as "Application".
2.' On April 18, 1989, the Cit of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organize municipal organization
of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to
the requirements of the California Government Code
Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14 (1989),
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 gran
pursuant to California Government Code, Section 65361.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on
July 11, 1994 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
said Application.
5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has
been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper
and the Inland Valley Bulletin newspaper on June 16,
1994. Forty. -six property owners within a 300 -foot
radius of the project site were notified by mail on June
13, 1994.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the
project identified above in this Resolution is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant
to Section 15303, Class 3 of Article 19 of Division 13
of the California Code of Regulations.
3. The Planning Commission specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a
whole, including the finding set forth below, and
changes and alterations which have bee 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 effects 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, this Planning Commission, hereby finds as
follows•
(a) The project relates to a site of approximate
14,400 square feet with a buildable pad area o
approximately 10,000 square feet. The project
site is developed with a two-story single family
residence with a two (2) car garage located at
1243 S. Deerfield Place, City of Diamond Bar,
California. The project site is zoned RPD -20,000-
2U (Residential Planned Development -Minimum Lot
Size 20,000 Square Feet -2 Units Per Acre) and has .
a contemplated General Plan Land Use Designation
of RL (Low Density Residential).
(b) The project involves the construction of a first
and second two-story addition of 1,291 square feet
a one (1) bay garage, deck/patio cover.
(c) Generally,• the following zones and use surrounds
the project site: to the north, south, and west
is the RPD -20,000-2U Zones; and to the east is
RPD -20,000 Zone and the San Bernardino County
boundary line.
(d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has
been considered. The project site is adequate in
size to accommodate the use.
(e) This project is in compliance with -Development
Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990).
(f) Substantial evidence exists, considering the
record as a whole,• to determine that the proposed•
project will not be detrimental to or interfere
with the contemplated General Plan.
(g) Approval of this project will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to the properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
(h) Approval of the design and layout of the project
will not be materially 'detrimental to the use,
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future
development, and will not create traffic 'or
pedestrian hazards.
(i) The architectural design of this project is
compatible with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious,
orderly and attractive development contemplated by
Chapter 22.72 of Development Review Ordinance No.
5 (1990).
(j) The design of this project willrovi
desirable environment for its occupants
visiting public as well as its neighbors through
good, aesthetic use of materials, texture, and
color that will remain aesthetically appealing and
will retain a reasonably adequate level of
maintenance.
(k) The project site is adequately served by Longview
Drive and Deerfield Place.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above,
the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application
subject to the.following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to site
plan, floor plan, elevations, collectively labeled
as Exhibit "A" dated July 11, 1994 as submitted to
and approved by the Planning Commission.
(b) The subject site shall be maintained in a
condition which is free of debris both during and
after the construction, addition, or
implementation of the entitlement 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 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) As noted within Exhibit "A" dated July 11, 1994,
the face of the exterior walls of the first floor
family.room addition and the second floor bedroom
addition shall maintain a three (3) foot minimum
separation distance to the exterior face of the
adjacent retaining wall. Additionally, a minimum
five (5) foot side yard setback shall be
maintained from the face of the exterior walls, of
the first floor family room addition and the
second floor bedroom addition to the property
line.
(d) The applicant shall delete the master bedroom
window located on the west elevation of the
proposed addition.
4
(e) All new materials and colors utilized to cons
the first and second story addition shall mate'
existing single family residence.
(f) Before the building permit is finaled, applicant
shall replace landscaping which is destroyed due
to construction of this project. In addition,
planting .materials adjacent to the sidewalk at
Longview Drive shall be trimmed in order to
provide a clearer line -of -site for vehicles
turning on to Longview Drive.
(g) The Applicant shall comply with Planning and
Zoning, Building and Safety, and Engineering
requirements. The Applicant shall obtain proper
permits for this project as required by .the City
of Diamond Bar.
(h) This grant is valid for one year and must be
exercised (i.e. construction) within that period
or this grant will expire: A One year extension
may be requested in writing and submitted to the
City 30 days prior to the expiration date of this
grant
(i) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose
until the permittee and owner of the property
involved (if other than the permittee) have filed,
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 City processing fees.
(j) 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 the
issuance of any building permit or any other
entitlement.
The Planking Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution, by certified mail to Behdin Shahin and
Alavia Mandana, 1243 S. Deerfield Place, Diamond
Bar, CA 91765 and Chalikorn Mimi C1253
Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 1994
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY:
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 11th day of July,
1994 by the following vote:
AYES:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
NOES:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSENT:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSTAIN:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
ATTEST:
James DeStefano, Secretary.
6
ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
RESOLUTION NO. 94-4
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 94-3
AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, SECTION 15301,
CLASS 1, AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A FIRST,
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION OF 1,291 SQUARE
FEET, ONE (1) BAY GARAGE, AND DECK/PATIO
COVER TO.AN EXISTING TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE OF 1,750 SQUARE FEET WITH A TWO CAR
GARAGE, LOCATED AT 1243 S. - DEERFIELD PLACE
(LOT 53 OF TRACT MAP NO. 42565).
A. Recitals
1. The property owners and applicants, Behdin Shahin and
Alavia Mandana, have filed an application for
Administrative Development Review No. 94-3 to construct
a first and second story addition of 1,291 square feet,.
one (1) bay garage, and deck/patio cover to an existing.
two-story single family residence of 1,750 square feet
with a two.(2) car garage. The project site is located
at 1243 S. Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles
County, -California, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Administrative Development Review application is refer-
red to as "Application".
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized; municipal organization
of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to
the requirements of the California Government Code
Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14 (1989),
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.
Approval of - this project, through practical
interpretation, is consistent with State law with
respect to General Plan issues. This project is a de
minimis impact ministerial project with no major issues
1
with respect to the General Plan: The Community
Development Director reviewed the issues pertaining to
ministerial projects, specifically, Administrative
Development Reviews with the City Attorney. The City
Attorney has issued an opinion in December 1993 that
further permits the. _approval _of_this type of project.
4. The Community Development Director of the City of
Diamond Bar, on May 24, 1994 conducted a duly noticed
public hearing on said Application.
5. Notification of the public hearing for.this project has
been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspaper on
May 13, 1994 and the Inland Valley Bulletin newspaper on
May 14,1994. Forty-six property owners within a 300 -
foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on
May 12, 1994.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Community Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar as
follows:
1. The Community Development Director hereby specifically
finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Community Development Director hereby determines
that the project identified above in this Resolution is "
categorically exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant
to Section 15303, Class 3 of Article 19 of Division 13
of the California Code of Regulations.
3. The�Community Development Director specifically finds
and determines that, having considered the record as a
whole, including the finding set forth below, and
changes and alterations which have bee incorporated into
and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in
tho- application, there is no evidence before this
Community Development Director 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 Community Development
Director, the Community Development 'Director hereby
rebuts the presumption of adverse effects 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, this Community Development Director, hereby
finds as follows:
(a) The project relates to a site of approximately
14,400 square feet with a buildable pad area of
approximately 10,000 square feet. The project
site is developed with a two-story single family
residence with a two (2) car garage located at
1243 S. Deerfield Place, City of Diamond Bar,
California. The.project site is zoned RPD -20,000-
2U (Residential Planned Development -Minimum Lot
Size 20,000 Square Feet -2 Units Per Acre) and has
a contemplated General Plan Land Use Designation
of RL (Low Density Residential)..
(b) The project involves the construction of a`first
and second two-story addition of 1,291 square feet
a one (1) bay garage, deck/patio cover.
(c) Generally, the following zones and use surrounds
the project site: to the north, south, and west
is the RPD -20,000-2U Zones; and to the east is
RPD -20,000 Zone and the San Bernardino County
boundary line.
(d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has
been considered. The project site is adequate in
size to accommodate the use.
(e) This project is in compliance with Development
Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990).
(f) Substantial evidence exists, considering the
record as a whole, to determine that the proposed
project will not be detrimental to or interfere
with the contemplated General Plan.
(g) .Approval of this project will not be detrimental
to the public health, .safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to the properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
(h) Approval of the design and layout of the project
will not be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future
development, and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards.
(i) The architectural, design of this project is
compatible with the character of the surrounding
3
neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious,
-orderly and attractive development contemplated by
Chapter 22.72 of Development Review Ordinance No.
5 {1990).
(j) The design of this project will, 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.
(k) The project site is adequately served by Longview
Drive and Deerfield Place.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above,
the Community Development Director hereby approves this
Application subject to the following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to site
plan, floor plan, elevations, collectively labeled
as Exhibit "A" dated May 24, 1994 as submitted to
and approved, by the Community Development
Director.
(b) The subject site shall be maintained in a
condition which is free of debris both during and
after the construction, addition, or.
implementation of the entitlement 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 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.
G' As noted within Exhibit "A" dated May 24, 1994,
the face of the exterior walls of the first floor
family room addition and the second floor bedroom
addition shall maintain a three (3) foot minimum
separation distance to the exterior face of the
adjacent retaining wall. Additionally, a minimum
five (5) foot side yard setback shall be
maintained from the face of the exterior walls of
the first floor family room addition and the
second floor bedroom addition to the property
line.
(d) Within 30 days of approval of this grant, the
applicant shall submit a revised elevation
indicating the additional windows proposed on the
southern wall of the addition for review and
approval by the Planning Division and the Building
Official. Additionally, the window for the master
bedroom shall be investigated by a staff field
survey to determine its appropriateness.
(e) Within 30 days of approval of this grant, the
Applicant shall submit a revised floor plan to the
Planning Division for review and approval. The
revised site plan shall indicate the use of the
small room adjacent to the one (1) bay garage.
(f) All new materials and colors utilized to construct
the first- and second story addition shall match
existing single family residence.
(g) Before the building permit is finaled, applicant
shall replace landscaping which is destroyed due
to construction of this project. In addition,
planting materials adjacent to the sidewalk at
Longview Drive shall be trimmed in order to
provide a clearer line -of -site for vehicles
turning on to Longview Drive.
(h) The Applicant shall comply with Planning and.;
Zoning, Building and Safety, and Engineering"
requirements. The Applicant shall obtain proper
permits for this project as required by the City
of Diamond Bar..
(i) This grant is valid for one..year and must be
exercised (i.e. construction) within that period
or this grant will expire. A One year extension
may be requested in writing and submitted to the
City 30 days prior to the expiration date of this
grant..
(j) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose
until the permittee and owner of the property
involved (if other than the permittee) have filed,
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 City processing fees.
(k) 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 the
issuance of any building permit or any other
entitlement.
The Community Development Director shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution, by certified mail to Behdin Shahin and
Alavia Mandana, 1243 S. Deerfield Place, Diamond
Bar, CA 91765.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 1994, BY
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
I James DeStefano, Community Development Director of the City of
Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was
duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting for
Administrative Development Review held on the 24th day of May,
1994: _ n n
BY: I W V v
J e DeStefano, ommianity Development Director
6
City of Diamond Bar
ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/BILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:
BACKGROUND:
1
May 13, 1994
May 24, 1994
Administrative Development Review No.
94-3
A request to construct a first and
second story addition, one (1) bay
garage and a deck/patio cover to an
existing two-story single family
residence.
1243 S. Deerfield Place
Behdin Shahin and Alavia Mandana
1243 S. Deerfield Pl.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
The property owners/ applicants, Behdin Shahin and Alavia Mandana, are
requesting an Administrative Development Review. The purpose of the
Administrative Development Review is to obtain approval for construction
of a first and, second story addition of approximately 1,291 square feet,
one bay garage and deck/patio cover to an existing 1,750 square foot
two-story single family residence. The project site is located at 1243
S. Deerfield Place (Lot 53 of Tract 42565).
The project site is approximately 14,400 square feet. It has an
existing flat -pad area of approximately 10,000 square feet.
The project site is zoned Residential Planned Development -Minimum Lot
Size 20,000 Square Feet -2 Units Per Acre (RPD -20,000-2U). It has a
contemplated General Plan land use designation of Low Density
Residential (RL). Generally, the following zones and uses surround the
project site: to the north, south, and west is the RPD -20,000-2U Zones;
and to the east is the RPD -20,000 Zone and the San Bernardino County
boundary line.
1
The purpose of --Administrative Development review is to ensure that
development projects comply with all applicable local design guidelines,
standards, and ordinances, minimize adverse effects on surrounding
properties and the environment, ensure consistency with the General
Plan, and promote high aesthetic and functional standards that will
compliment and add to the physical, economic, and social character of
Diamond Bar. Pursuant to the requirements of Ordinance No. 5 (1990),
the purposed project is required to obtain approval for construction
through the Administrative Development Review process.
ANALYSIS:
The following is a comparison of required development standards for
Residential Planned Development -20,000 Square Feet Minimum Lot Size -2
Units Per Acre (RPD -20,000-2U) Zone and the. proposed project's
development standards.
City's Development Standards
Project's Development Standard
1.
Setbacks: Front - 201; Side -
1.
Setbacks: Front - 201; Side -
5' & 101; Rear - 151;
5' & 551; Rear - 671;
2.
Height: 35' - 2 stories;
2.
Height 251- 2 stories;
3.
Parking: Minimum - 2 covered;
3.
Parking: 2 car garage -
existing;. 1 car garage -
addition;
4.
Pool/Spa: Minimum - 5' from
4.
Pool/Spa: Existing - permit
any lot line; 6' between
finaled 9/27/89;
structures; enclosure
attached to dwelling unit -
same minimum setbacks as the
dwelling unit;
4.
Pool Equipment/AC Unit:
5.
"Pool Equipment: Existing -
Minimum 2.5' from any lot
permit finaled 9/27/89;
line;
5.
Patio Cover: attached to main
5.
Patio Cover/Balcony: 67' from
dwelling -unit may project
rear property line;
into a raWired rear yard
provided: -that such patio is
not closer than 5' to any lot
line, does not exceed 50% of
the required rear yard shall
be covered by buildings or
other roofed structures, and
shall remain unenclosed on at
least 2 sides;
The proposed project complies with the City's required development
standards for the RPD -20,000-2U Zone. However, complying with the
developmentstandards may not be the only requirement. The proposed
first and reactahu3 story addition which is adjacent to the south property
line leaves. ,e tly a five (5) foot side yard setback. Although that
complies wit -the Code, it is not compatible with existing side yard
setbacks of homes within this housing tract. Nor is it in keeping with
the intent of the Development Review process which is to minimize
adverse effects on surrounding properties and the environment, promote
?`gh aesthetic, and ndd to the physica3 and social character of Diamond
Bar. Side yard setbacks, within this tract of homes, appear to be a
minimum of ten (10) feet. If the applicant is permitted to build as
proposed, the ambience of the neighborhood will be affected. The
"neighbor's privacy at the south ,property line. will be greatly
diminished. In order to protect the neighbor's privacy, staff feels
that a stucco wing wall, approximately six (6) feet eight (8) inches
high should be construct, as a privacy wall, for the balcony adjacent to
the south side property line. In order to maintain the existing
neighborhood side yard setbacks and to protect the neighbors privacy,
the proposed addition adjacent to the south property line should
maintain a ten (10) foot setback.
on page A3 of the submitted plans, a small room - 12 feet by 9.5.feet is
proposed adjacent to the proposed one (1) bay garage. The property
owner is required to indicate the use for this room on the plans.
The architectural style of the existing two-story .single family
structure is Spanish. The proposed addition will comply with the
existing architectural style which is consistent with the exist
residences in the surrounding area. In the elevations submitted to the
City, the proposed columns utilized at the front entry and for the deck
appear to be cylindrically shaped. In order for the columns to be
compatible with the homes in the neighbor, staff feel the columns should
be rectanglarly shaped.
The existing roofing material of the two-story single family structure
is "S" concrete tile in a reddish -brown coldr. Wood trim is dark brown
in color. The stucco is off-white in color. The materials and colors
utilized for .the proposed addition is required to match the existing
colors and materials.
At this time :,the subject site is landscaped. Due to construction, some
of the 1 "' ng will be destroyed. The applicant is required to
replace ths, oyed landscaping. During a site visit, staff noticed
that a dri clear line -of -site in making a turn onto Longview Drive
was impair the existing curve of the road and the planting
materials of' the subject property. It is suggested that the property
owner trim the planting materials in order to improve the clear line -of -
site.
A preliminary review of the proposed project was completed by the
Building official. The property owner is required to comply with all
Building and Safety Codes.
PUBLIC E IM®: --
This item %as --.advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on May 13,
1994 and the Inl4nd Valley Daily Bulletin on May 14, 1994. Notices were
mailed to 46 property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project
site on May 12, 1994.
E--71RONMENTAL ASSESSMENT-.
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is
categorically exempt according to guidelines of California Environmental
Quality Act (CECA), Section 15301, Class 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve
Administrative Development Review No. 94-3, Findings of Fact, and
conditions as listed within the attached resolution.
Prepared by:
J. in ,/Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Resolution
Application
Exhibit "A/0 - site plan,.floor plan, and elevations dated May 24, 1994
Site Photographs
4
" CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Case,# Ayrz q4-0`5
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Recvd
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 Fee $ ff 00.o p5rf
(714)396-5676 Fax (714)860-3117 Receipt 4T*,u 7�
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION By
Record Owner(s) Applicant
At,.o..11 NA%WDPrJAt
Name 51AAkAkO 5"A."ko
(Last new first)
Address 17,4 S• T f1c(D R
City'b1AM04T>
Zip 0100-5 SarS
Applicant's Agent
Phone (qe¢i)
Zt3 8 '7..5"0►(.
(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
�- 4_ Z,-- g�r
SignedDate
�(Atl recorded Dune—
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:-J-•i
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
MAY 24, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
Community Development Director James DeStefano called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. at
21660 E. Copley. Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL
Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano and Assistant Planner
Ann Lungu, and property owner Shahin Behdin.
Absent: None
MINUTES
1. April 5, 1994
CDD/DeStefano approved the minutes of April 5, 1994 as submitted.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
2. Administrative Development Review No. 94-3 A request to construct a first and second
story addition of approximately 1,291 square feet and deck/patio cover to an existing
1,750 square foot two-story residence located at 1243 S. Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765
AP/Lungu reported that the subject property is located in the RPD -20,000 zoning
classification, with a maximum of two units per acre. After reviewing the plans and
visiting the site, she stated that the project appears to meet all development standards
for the zone. She then advised that since the first floor addition would be built adjacent
to the south property line, leaving only a five foot setback, this design would not conform
with other side yard setbacks in the neighborhood, most being at least ten feet.
AP/Lungu reported concern with the existing character of the neighborhood, as well as
privacy considerations for the southerly neighbor.
The staff recommends that the applicant use a wing -type stucco wall on the rear balcony
at the area facing the south property line, and to observe the ten foot side yard setback
prevailing in the neighborhood. She stated that neighbors had complained about the size
of the addition and the possible obstruction by the proposed landscaping of the view from
Deerfield onto Longview, creating a potentially hazardous traffic situation. She suggested
that the applicant trim the landscaping to a point sufficient to alleviate the view issue.
She added that City of Diamond Bar Building Official Dennis Tarango has review the
plans, and concurs with staff recommendation regarding the wing-type stucco wall and
observance of the ten-foot setback. Staff recommendation is for approval of the project
per the resolution and conditions of approval.
CDD/DeStefano the declared open the public hearing.
Shahin Behdin stated that his home is no longer large enough to suit the needs of his
family. Faced with either moving or adding .on, they have chosen the latter. He said the
mortgage lien is greater than the home's current market value, but instead of walking
away from the home, he is seeking to make a positive change for himself and the good
of the community. With that in mind, he sought out the necessary development standards
and designed the proposed addition accordingly. He then submitted for the record
photographs of prevailing setbacks in the subject and adjacent tracts which support his
position that the south property line setback of five feet was, in fact, not static, and
ranged as high as twelve feet. The proposed site plan indicates that the garage area is
ten feet from the property line, and the closest distance between the adjacent homes is
seventeen feet. He claimed that this compared favorably with adjacent properties on
Deerfield and other neighborhood streets. The southerly adjacent property is also set
seven feet higher on its pad than.his property, already providing some degree of privacy.
He closed by ,saying that the staff -recommended setbacks would place his project in
jeopardy.
CDD/DeStefano_ asked for clarification of Mr. Behdin's photos, which Mr. Behdin provided.
Mr. Behdin showed through the photos that his second story roof elevation was nearly
level with that of the southerly neighbor's first story because of the difference in pad
elevations.
CDD/DeStefano inquired as to whether.or not the southerly neighbor had expressed any
privacy concerns about the proposed addition.
AP/Lungu stated that there was no input from the neighbor, and wondered if a language
barrier may have -posed an impediment to full understanding of the subject. However,
other residents in the immediate neighborhood expressed concerns about the resulting
intensity of the addition and the aforementioned traffic considerations.
Mr. Behdin rNO to the lack of first floor windows on the south side of the addition, but
stated that it Nis his intention to add a window on the south and street -facing sides of
the second floor" -which did not yet appear on the plans. He also clarified the intended
purposes of some of the additional rooms.
CDD/DeStefano asked Mr. Behdin if he wished to add any more comments or questions.
Mr. Behdin explained that he submitted to Los Angeles County an easement
encompassing part of his property along Longview Dr.
AP/Lungu said she had a conversation with Bob Rose, Community Services Director, and
discovered that the City was doing some research into this area. She requested from Mr.
Behdin copies'.of his documentation regarding the easements.
In response to AP/Lungu's question, Mr. Behdin indicated that the shape of the project's
columns was cylindrical, not square.
AP/Lungu expressed concern that most of the columns on homes in the area were
square, not cylinndrical.
Mr. Behdin stated that cylindrical columns were the preferred esthetic choice for the
project, but offered to change them if so ordered.
CDD/DeStefano asked Mr. Behdin if the columns were to be of stucco construction, to
which Mr. Behdin answered affirmatively.
CDD/DeStefano explained that upon reviewing the case materials, he had no major
problems with the plans as submitted. Mr. Behdin's revelation about the second floor
window plan has raised the issue of proper window placement. CDD/DeStefano pointed
out that not only were five feet necessary between the new construction and the side wall,
but another three feet between the side wall and the neighboring retaining wall.
Mr. Behdin concurred, and added that he would have the foundation plans drawn up with
the required setbacks from both the structure and retaining wall.
CDD/DeStefano added that Mr. Behdin's home is one of the smaller models in the tract
at around 1,750 sq. ft. Even though the addition would bring total square footage to
around 3,000 sq. ft., the placement and design of the addition would not cause any
serious incompatibilities with the immediate neighborhood. The proposed architectural
style is also not incompatible with the neighborhood, and the columns as designed do not
pose any problem.
He sought clarification about the balcony and privacy wall on the second floor. He did
not see how either of the possible placements of the balcony and wall would impact the
view or privacy concerns of the neighbor. He did voice concerns about the placement
of the window in the proposed master bedroom which would overlook the south
neighbor's home.
Mr. Behdin pointed out that the neighbor has only one first floor window opposite the
planned additional bedroom window, and it is offset laterally by a distance sufficient to
prevent a loss of privacy.
CDD/DeStefano declared closed the public hearing.
CDD/DeStefano approved Administrative Development Review 94-3 per the resolution
and conditions, eliminating condition D' on page 5 relating to the wing wall, and
permission of the window plan in bedroom three as shown on the amended drawing. He
left open the window plan for the master bedroom until staff is given time to review that
proposal in light of the changes suggested by Mr. Behdin, and make a decision
accordingly within thirty days of this specific approval. CDD/DeStefano reiterated his
direction that the construction be separated from the side yard wall by five feet, and the
side wall from the retaining wall by a minimum of three feet.
He also stipulated that the second sentence of condition G, page 5 be removed; if it is
acertained that the landscaping to which the condition refers is actually the responsibility
RECEIVED COMMUNITY
li� JI;I-3 PM 2: 47June 3, 1994
James DeStafano,
Community Development Director
City of Diamond Bar
21660 Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Mr. DeStafano:
1
Ref: Appeal against the
approval for addition
located on 1243 Deerfield
This is.an appeal to Administrative Dwelling review 94-3 located
1243 Deerfield Place which was approved on 5-24-94 for additional
living space.
Neighbors and I did not. attend the Hearing 5-24-94 due to the
one of following facts gathered from the h&*ghbors:
1. They thought that YHearing" meant presentation and decision
making.will be done at later date.
2. They thought that the addition was to build the patio.
3. They have no knowledge about the Hearing.
4. The Hearing Notice is not clearly defined.
5. They thought it was the City Publication to inform the
general news.
6. The disclosure about addition is not clearly defined.
Again, above are the facts that I gathered from the neighbors
when I asked them about "Hearing Notice".
Neighbors and I do not like the plan for the addition. It does
not fit our neighborhood and the nuisances causing by the
construction.
There are some other reasons to appeal which is directly effecting
my.property at 1253 Deerfield which.is adjacent to 1243 Deerfield
Property.
The reasons are as follows:
1. The addition will bing two property too close together.
Normally range is 10 feet apart. This will bring the
property less than 5 feet apart.
2.. This also takes away the open feeling that we normally have.
The reason why we bought the house is because the distances
between our: -,houses are quite far apart.
3. The nuisances which are causing by those constructions.
4. The view will be bloced by the extended and uprising building.
5. The addition is too bing and it does not fit the character of
the whole neighborhood.
We feel that we should never have to appeal if the "Hearing Notice"
has more clarification:and-the•detailed information about addition
is'fully disclose on the flyer.
All of the neighbor are again fully aware about the how the
construction are to be made and all are agreed that the addition
is not suitable in our neighborhood.
Attached please find the Petition sighned by the neighbors within
the radius of 1243 Deerfield, the said construction sight.
If you have any question, please feel free to contact me at
909 861-6866.
Sincerely,
Chalikorn Mimi Chan
1253 Deerfield Place
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
909-861-2973 (home)
909 861-6866 (work)
I o2-6/ S,-Az�erfi,f%( t'/
/-T3 oa.� /-Z
de-Z-�,& , / -
m
(2) Q (D(D
II
of
NI
m
(2) Q (D(D
JAL
MA
O
0;
g
, <
I
000
I
000
\)�
§
�
_
�
}��
` ��
\
)
�
\}\`
§ §�\
���
(\
�
a
!
.
,
.;.
RAI
RIP
IMEMN
V in
Iz
44
RECEIVED COMMUNITY
DEVEl_` RYF,"1T
The Diamond Bar Improvemento iation
!;:7�� _ fig 3: 3t}
Incorporated 1960
Post office Box 4086, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE
June 28, 1994 C�� Mnn
I "�
Ms. Mandy Alaui Behdin
1243 Deerfield Pl.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: Proposed addition to 1243 Deerfield Pl.
Diamond Bar, CA
Dear. Ms. Behdin,
The Architectural Committee has received your request for approval and plans for
proposed addition to 1243 Deerfield PI., Diamond Bar, CA, consisting of fifteen (15)
sheets (sheets Al thru A7 and S1 thru SS) prepared by Zarin & Associates.
The Architectural Committee of those certain covenants recorded December 30, 1981
as Instrument No. 81-1274175 of Official Records of the County of Los Angeles, and any
amendments thereto, has determined that the following information is needed before
your submittal can be deemed sufficient for review:
1. Show Grading:
a. Existing grades along the southerly property line and area between
said line and the existing residence (see sheet A2).
b. Proposed grades for the above area.
C. Finish floor elevation of existing residence and the proposed
addition.
2. Clarification of wall height vs. design H dimension shown on the plans
(see details 14 and 15 on sheet S8).
3. Soils report indicating:
a. Design parameters for proposed retaining wall.
b. Soil condition so that the maximum H of the proposed wall can be
determined.
C. Recommendations to keep existing wall from slipping during the
construction period. If none the soils engineer should so state.
Publishers of "The Windmill"
Page 2
June 28, 1994
Ms. Mandy Alaui Behdin
4. Section at the rear corner of the proposed addition, drawn to scale,
showing the existing wall, the proposed wall, the proposed wall footing
and the footing of the proposed addition.
5. Square footage (approximate) of the homes on Deerfield Place.
The Architectural Committee recommends that a minimum of five (5) feet be maintained
between the face of the proposed wall and the addition.
Do not hesitate to call the undersigned at 909) 861-4344 should you have any questions
concerning the above.
Upon receipt of the above information the Architectural Committee shall deem the
submittal sufficient for purposes of review. If the above information is not received in 21
days of the date of this letter above date the request shall be disapproved.
The plans submitted shall be retained by the Architectural Committee until further action
is taken.
Very truly yours,
onald E. Idry, member
cc: John H. Bennett, Jr., member
Robert P. Zirbes, member
&--,'Jim DeStefano, City of Diamond Bar
DBIA files
DATE: July 6, 1994
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissio rs
FROM: Robert Searcy, Associate Plannei
RE: Parcel Map No. 22102
This application has been advertised for a public hearing on July 11, 1994. The lot split
application is for the subdivision a commercial parcel located in Gateway Corporate Center.
The application has been remanded back to the Planning Commission by the City Council for
review from a 1992 action.
In the intervening period since this project was advertised for public hearing, the General
Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has concluded deliberations on the draft General Plan.
The public hearings before the Planning Commission have been set to begin on July 11,
1994.
In light of the amount of material that must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, the
staff is recommending, and the applicant has concurred, to continue the application to July
25, 1994.
RS: dbm
C ALETTERS\REPORMSTIRRAT.MEM
STIRRAT PROJECT
,11L'.Illl�l2;•i.�'h)L'.11
DATE: July 6, 1994
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
RE: Zone Change Amendment No. 92-2, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
51169, Oak Tree Permit No. 92-3, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-3, and
EIR No. 92-2
The Planning, Commission held a public hearing on this application June 13, 1994. At the
conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and
directed staff to prepare resolutions and conditions of approval. The matter was then
continued to the meeting of July 11, 1994.
In the intervening period the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has concluded .
deliberations on the draft General Plan. The public hearings have been set to begin on July
11, 1994.
In light of the amount of material that must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, staff
is recommending, and the applicant has concurred, with a continuance to the July 25, 1994.
YEH PROJECT
JUL 05 '94 09:26 HUNSAKER SAN DIEGO
P.2
Hunst kir° & Assoc,iates Sun Diego, Inc.
Planning -Engineering -Surveying - GPS
July 5, 1994
Mr. James DeStefano
Community Development Director
City of Diamond Bar
21660 Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
RB: Tract 51169
Dear Jim:
We were recently informed that the City General Plan has been scheduled for Planning
Commission on July 11, 1994, the same night as the Union Wide Tract 51169, While our project
is ready to be heard that evening, we understand the importance of moving the general pian on to
the City Council for final adoption, In order to allow adequate time for public input and
Commission discussion regarding the general plan we respectfully request that Tract 51169.be
continued to the following Planning Commission hearing date of July 25,1994.
If there are any questions regarding this request please do not hesitate to contact us .
Respectfully,
Hunsaker Associates
$an L iego, IN.
Director of Planning
LW:kk mwerd`k:lt i os ARA-
wo 1103.3
1017.9 Huennek'ens Street *San Diego, CA92121- (61.9) -558-4500.1AX: (619) 558.1414
Offices. -San Diego} - Irvine - MvenldelSctn Bernardino
David Hamman• - jack, II111
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 1994 General Plan
DATE: July 7, 1994
July 11, 1994 begins the first of several public hearings to review and
consider adoption of the Diamond Bar General Plan. The General Plan is
a statement of goals, policies and implementing programs to guide the
long range physical development of the City. The Plan is.required by
State Law and determines the size, form and character of the City over
the next twenty years. It is the most significant tool utilized by the
community'to ensure a balanced, comfortable environment in which to live
and work. It represents the community's view of its future and serves as
the "blueprint" to define the long term character of the City.
In January, 1994, the City Council created a General Plan Advisory
Committee (GPAC) to assist in the preparation of the City's General Plan.
Beginning January 11, 1994, GPAC held fifteen public meetings to craft
the 1994 Draft General Plan. .Utilizing the repealed General Plan as the
discussion draft, GPAC reviewed each element making significant changes
and placing greater importance on open space retention, hillside
preservation and improving the overall quality of life. The results have
been forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration and
recommendation to the City Council.
WHAT IS A GENERAL PLAN?
The General Plan, required by California Government Code Section 65300
et. seq., is a comprehensive guide for -the future of the City's
development.. The General Plan is atop the hierarchy of local government
regulations regarding land use. It is often cited as the "constitution"
for all future development within a city. The General Plan contains a
"vision" for the community's future. The General. Plan identifies a
community's hopes and aspirations as a statement of public policy.
The General Plan serves to:
Identify land use, circulation,. environmental, fiscal, and
social goals and policies for the City and its surrounding
planning area as they relate to land use and development.
Provide a framework within which the Planning Commission and
City Council can make 'land use decisions.
Provide citizens the opportunity to participate in the planning
and decision making process affecting the City and its planning
area.
® Inform citizens, developers, decision makers, and other
agencies, as appropriate, of the City's basic rules which will
guide development within the City and provide similar notice as
to how the City envisions development in the surrounding
unincorporated portions of the planning area.
GENERAL PLAN ORGANIZATION
The Diamond Bar General Plan incorporates the seven State mandated
elements within six sections.
I. The LAND USE ELEMENT designates the general distribution and
intensity of uses of the land for housing, business, industry,
open space, education, public buildings and grounds, waste
disposal --facilities, and other categories of public and private
uses.
II. The HOUSING ELEMENT is a comprehensive assessment of current,
and projected housing needs for all segments of the community
and all economic groups. In addition, it embodies policy for
providing adequate housing and includes action programs for
this purpose.
III. The RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ELEMENT is comprised of the State
.mandated open Space Element which details plans and measures
for preserving open space for natural resources, the managed
production of resources, outdoor recreation, public health and
safety, and the identification of agricultural land, and,
Conservation Element which addresses the conservation,
development, and use of natural resources, including water,
forests, soils, rivers, and mineral deposits.
IV. The PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENT combines the State
mandated Noise and Safety Elements and identifies and appraises
noise problems within the community and forms the basis for
land use distribution, and; establishes policies and.programs
to protect the community from risk associated with seismic,
geologic, flood, and fire hazards.
V. The CIRCULATION ELEMENT is correlated with the land use element
and identifies the general location and extent of existing and
proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals,
and other local public utilities and facilities.
Vi. In addition to the elements -required by State Law the City of
Diamond Bar's Draft General Plan includes a PUBLIC SERVICES AND
FACILITIES ELEMENT to establish goals, objectives, and
strategies for ensuring that land development is coordinated
with the provision of public services and facilities so as to
ensure that Diamond Bar residents and businesses continue to
receive high quality municipal services.
Each Element addresses specific issues in the context of local conditions
affecting Diamond Bar in the form of maps and text. The elements, woven
together to form the General Plan, will constitute a comprehensive, long
term, internally consistent plan for the physical development of the
community.
A Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) was prepared in 1992 which
provides comprehensive technical baseline and environmental data used in
the preparation of the General Plan. This information provided a
foundation for formulating the policy plan and further environmental
analyses. The MEA serves as a resource tool and is designed to be
updated periodically. The MEA is not intended to serve as City policy.
The previously certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
contains the appropriate environmental documentation for the General Plan
as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) including
detailed analyses of the various impacts of ultimately developing Diamond
Bar. This document contains technical appendices related to noise, air
quality, etc. In accordance with CEQA State EIR Guidelines and the
adopted EIR's addendum, the EIR will be presented to the Commission for
review responding to textchanges in the General Plan.
Citizen Participation
In December 1993 the City Council initiated the development of the 1994
General Plan. A thirty-six person General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC)
was established to review the previous General Plan and develop General
Plan recommendations for the Planning Commission and City Council.
To accomplish the task of preparing the Draft 1994 General Plan, the City
Staff, Cotton/Beland Associates (our City Consultant),` and the GPAC
worked closely together over a period of six months (January 11, 1994
through June 30, 1994). Fifteen publicly announced open meetings were
held at Heritage Park Community Center. Legal and display advertisements
were placed in the local newspapers soliciting public involvement in the
plan's development. General Plan information was regularly distributed to
a mailing list of 300 persons and organizations.
REVIEW FORMAT AND HEARING SCHEDULE
Staff recommends that the Commission review the Draft General Plan on an
element by element basis, beginning with the Land Use and Resource
Management Elements. We recommend that a schedule of future meetings be
established for review of the remaining elements. Each component will be
presented by the City staff and/or consultants. We will present an
overview of each element, identify the community issues and review major
policy recommendations.
3
State law. establishes the requirement that the General Plan must pass
several legal and policy tests to be adequate. The Commission should
review the Plan with the following questions in mind:
® Is the plan complete?
® Is it comprehensive, long term?
® Is the plan internally consistent?
o Is it informational, readable,- understandable?- ---
® Is it implementable?
As you are aware, the Council has discussed placing the General Plan on
the November, 1994 ballot. In order to place the matter on the November
ballot a final draft of the General Plan must be completed and approved
in early August for ballot consideration. August 2, 1994, is the last
regularly scheduled City Council meeting date the City Council can use to.
call an election for November and request Los. Angeles County
consolidation of the City election with the November, 1994 General
Election. In order to meet the deadlines, a public hearing on the
General Plan is scheduled before the City Council on July 19, 1994, which
is the last regularly scheduled Council meeting in July.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Legal Notice was published within the
State Law. In addition, public notice
City -On -Line and by distribution to
organizations on our mailing list.
RECOMMENDATION
local -newspapers as required by
of this meeting was provided via
approximately 300 persons and
It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the Public Hearing,
receive a presentation from staff, receive public testimony, forward
comments to City staff and continue the Public Hearing.
JDS\mco
Attachments:
GPAC recommended Draft General Plan dated June 30, 1994
1993 General Plan dated July 27, 19931 previously submitted
Master Environmental Assessment}
Environmental Impact Report}
1994 GPAC meeting minutes
Information/Correspondence previously distributed to GPAC members
State of California General Plan Guidelines (as previously
distributed to GPAC members)
i
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 1994
DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN
_ ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
HELD AT 7:00 P.M., IN THE HERITAGE
PARK COMMUNITY CENTER, 2900
BREA CANYON ROAD, DIAMOND BAR
L CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Werner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
It. PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Werner explained that the purpose of the General Plan Advisory
Committee (GPAC) meetings are to make revisions to the General Plan
document so it is acceptable to the community. The GPAC consists of
members of the community assigned by City Council Members,
representatives from three different Commissions, two Council Members
(Mayor Werner and Council Member Ansari), and five representatives of
vacant land owners/perspective developers. He stated that only those
members assigned by the Council Members, the five representatives of
vacant land owners, and 2 representatives each from the Traffic and
Transportation Commission and the Park and Recreation Commission will
have voting powers.
Mayor Werner indicated that he feels the areas of the General Plan
document that need reconciliation are the foundation type policy areas.
These areas of change should be able to be completed in the next few
workshop meetings.
Councilwoman Ansari stressed the importance of listening to, and
respecting each others opinions.
X. INTRODUCTIONS
Director of Community Development DeStefano introduced himself, and
the following staff members present at the meeting: Planning Technician
Ann Lungu; Associate Planner Rob Searcy; and Senior Engineer David
Liu.
The following members of the GPAC introduced themselves: Todd
Chavers, Chairman of the Traffic and Transportation Commission;
Barbara Beach-Courschesne; Martha Bruske; Bob Arceo; Dan Wildish;
Reg Truman; Steve Nice; Joyce Leonard; Wilbur Smith; Don Gravdahl,
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 1
January 11, 1994
Vice Chairman of the Traffic and Transportation Commission; David
Schey, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission; Steve
Johnson, Vice Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission; Art
O'Daly; Max Maxwell; Jack Istik; Sue Sisk; Tom Van Winkle; Sherry
Rogers; Ray Rebeiro; Deborah Noyes; Peter Mitchell; David Meyer,
Chairman of the Planning Commission; Kathleen McCarthy; Chiman
Kotecha; Don Schad; Greg Hummel; Robert Huff; and Bruce
Flamenbaum, member of the Planning Commission.
The following representatives of land owners introduced themselves: [
Dorian Johnson, Vice President of Marlboro; Frank Arciero Jr. of Arciero
and Sons; Jan Dabney, representing RnP; Chris Li; Jerry Yeh, f
representing Union Wide; and Bernie Mazur.
The remaining audience, whose names can be obtained from the Sign In
sheet, also introduced themselves.
IV.. DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS
Director of Community Development (CDD) DeStefano stated that each
GPAC member has received copies of the following documents: a policy
plan used as a foundational document for the creation of the City's new
General Plan; the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 1993 General
Plan; a Master Environmental Assessment (MEA); background
information explaining the components of a General Plan; all meeting
minutes of the 1993 Planning Commission review of the General Plan;
all meeting minutes of the 1993 City Council review of the General Plan;
all meeting minutes of the earlier workshop process for the creation of
the 1993 General Plan; all of the correspondence received throughout the
process of the 1993 General Plan; and disclosure forms that must be
filled, titled Statement of Economic Interest.
V. PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL PLAN, GPAC, DEVELOPMENT AND
ADOPTION PROCESS, AND A DISCUSSION OF THE STATE MANDA TED
COMPONENTS OF A GENERAL PLAN
Mayor Werner explained that the State requires every city to adopt a
General Plan, which is a policy statement for each City. The EIR is a
requirement of the State of California, identifying the environmental
impacts of the General Plan document. The MEA is a reference
document for projects forth coming after the General Plan is adopted.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to Mr. Smith, explained that the MEA is a
resource document. Since the information collected for the MEA quickly
becomes outdated, it is not a document that the City needs to worry
about in terms of the adequacy of the General Plan or a legal challenge
for the General Plan. He stated that GPAC is being requested to develop
a new General Plan for the City. As a result of the discussions that
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 2
January 11, 1994
come about, staff will prepare the EIR, and present both the policy plan
and the amended EIR to the Planning Commission and to the City Council
for consideration.
Mayor Werner suggested that the changes to the General Plan be kept
within the scope of this EIR to avoid the redistribution process of the
document. If this is not possible, the other option is to make note of
that particular area of concern in a supplemental document, thus
indicating that there are amendments that the committee would like to
recommend for consideration as the first amendment through this
process after the adoption of the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to Mr. Smith, stated that GPAC will meet
on a regular basis on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month.
The minutes, which is a summarization and analysis of comments made,
of the 'previous meeting, will be included in each committee packet.
Mayor Werner, in response to Jack Istik, stated that the City is not
obligated in carrying through the SEA.
Jack Istik inquired if the City maintains discretionary approval if a piece
of property has been zoned a certain density.
CDD/DeStefano explained that a project must meet all City standards,
and the City has the absolute decision making authority as to whether
that request is in the best interest of the community.
Jack Istik suggested that the Introduction of the General Plan be
amended to be a very simple goal statement.
Barbara Beach Courschesne stated that it is very difficult to hear what
people are saying and suggested that additional microphones be used in
future meetings.
Mayor Werner, in response to an inquiry, explained that this General Plan
document is a result of a lot of effort in a lengthy process over the last
five years. There is agreement among the City Council that the base
information in this General Plan document is adequate, except for a few
areas that need further discussion and consideration. He stated that the
City Council will be requesting, on January 18, 1994, another extension
to this General Plan so that the City can continue to do business.
However, the State would like the City to complete the process as soon
as possible, as would the City Council; therefore, it is feasible to
consider completing this task in the matter of four to five meetings.
Todd Chavers pointed out that, though the document was presented for
Commission review, the Traffic and Transportation Commission never
acted on any of the General Plan documents in an official capacity. He
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
January 11, 1994
Page 3
noted that part of the problem with the last attempt to revise the General
Plan was a disagreement on the verbiage to go into the document.
Therefore, he suggested that there be concurrence on the structure of
gaining input, how it will be reflected, and how it will be presented back
to the committee for response.
Mayor Werner stated that, if the need arises, a public hearing could be
held with all City Commissioners and City Council Members to give the
benefit of interaction.
Don Gravdahl stated that he was under the impression that there would
need to be major changes made to the General Plan.
Mayor Werner explained that the verbiage of the State requirements for
referended General Plans indicate that a substantially similar General Plan
cannot be approved within a period of 12 months. He stated that there
are no quantified standards. It has been suggested that, while
proceeding through the issues, it be identified whether the deviations
being considered is in fact substantial, and that a record of the
substantial changes be kept for verification at a later date.
David Schey inquired if the City will be able to make substantial changes
in the General Plan, to meet the test of the referendum law, without
exceeding the boundaries established for worse case scenarios in the
EIR.
CDD/DeStefano recommended that the GPAC work forward to develop
the plan believed to best represents a vision for Diamond Bar in the next
20 years, and allow the technical staff, legal staff, and City Council, to
determine what is substantially different.
Tom Van Winkle expressed his confidence that GPAC will be able to
come to consensus with the issues since the committee is composed of
a good representation of Diamond Bar. He stated that there should be
assurance that nothing will get changed during the process, and that the f
Planning Commission and the City Council will recognize that the l
consensus reached is what is desired in the document.
Ray Rebeiro expressed concern regarding some of the conclusions drawn
in the General Plan in relationship with the data presented in the EIR.
Max Maxwell requested an agenda indicating the sequence that the
elements are to be discussed.
Martha Bruske suggested that the statements in the elements be written
more action oriented rather than philosophically.
Don Schad commended the Planning Department on the tremendous job
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 4
January 11, 1994
done putting together all the material.
Todd Chavers suggested that it may be helpful to have discussions
explaining a General Plan and zoning ordinances. He noted that there
will need to be some consideration and direction as to how action type
statements in the General Plan would be achieved.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the General Plan is a blue print that is
implemented through a lot of other documents through out, many years
of development. A lot of the detail is not normally a part of the General
Plan process, nor is it necessary because there are many other vehicles
for getting that detail.
David Meyer, pointing out that the City cannot implementing ordinances
until there is a General Plan in place, stated that the policy document
must be in place before we can have the degree of specificity that some
people have expressed a desire to have.
CDD/DeStefano concurred that the City is in a position, presently,
whereby it cannot develop ordinances needed because the policy
framework is not adopted. State law requires a consistency between
that implementation tool and the master policy plan.
Jan Dabney stated that developers have waited five years for the City to
put a General Plan in place, and implement the necessary ordinances and
standards, so there is a mechanism in place for development.
Jack Istik stressed that GPAC will need to be specific in certain
recommendations to the Planning Commission regarding specific items
that need to be included in the General Plan.
Tom Van Winkle expressed concern that, though the entire committee
will be striving to reach a consensus, vacant landowner representatives
will be reaching consensus on issues that they have competing interests.
Mayor Werner suggested that Mr. Van Winkle's concern be directed to
the City Attorney for clarification. He pointed out that the vacant
landowner representatives would only have one vote each among thirty-
four, all of which do have a vested interest in the community.
Dorian Johnson noted that, even though everyone in the room has a
vested interest in the community, the purpose of the committee and the
vote is to advise.
Mayor Werner concurred that it is important to recognize that the GPAC
is an advisory group, and ultimately, when the document is presented
before the Planning Commission and the City Council, neither body is
bound to adhere to everything submitted.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
January 11, 1994
Page 5
David Schey expressed concern that the attendance of the GPAC
members may dwindle as did with the previous GPAC; which does have
an affect on the decision making process.
Mayor Werner noted that it had been suggested each a
y gg appointee have an
alternate in case someone is unable to attend a meeting, and allowing
that alternate to vote. He stated that this suggestion can be referred
back to the City Council, if agreeable to the committee.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that, in order to -keep the process moving, the
committee's decisions to the Planning Commission and the City Council
should be based upon the majority of the members present in the room;
therefore, if that committee member wants to vote, then he should be
present.
Moved by David Schey and seconded by Todd Chavers that the voting
population be based upon the majority vote of those delegates present,
and that the majority be deemed 50% plus one of those present.
Max Maxwell suggested if there is a question to any close vote on an
issue, it be carried over to the next meeting.
Discussion ensued whether or not proxies or alternates should be
appointed if a committee member cannot attend a meeting, or if a
substitution should only be made if an appointee indicates he can no
u. longer attend any meetings.
42 1
Reg Truman suggested that a minimum number be established as a
quorum in order to conduct business.
Mayor Werner, in response to an inquiry made, stated that there are 34
appointed voter members, five of which are developers. The land owner
representatives will be allowed to have alternates since they are
representing a larger group of developers.
Barbara Beach Courschesne suggested that appointees be given the
same opportunity as the developer, allowing an alternate, in extreme
situations, without relinquishing the appointed position.
David Meyer expressed concern that a situation is being created whereby
the GPAC is adopting a General Plan that cannot be changed through the
public hearing process through the Planning Commission and the City
Council.
The GPAC voted on the Motion made by David Schey and seconded by
Todd Chavers that the voting population is based upon the majority vote
of those delegates present, and that the majority be deemed 50% plus
one of those present.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 6
January 11, 1994
The Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mayor Werner inquired if the GPAC prefers to establish a minimum
quorum to conduct business by either of the following: 2/3 of the voting
delegates; 50% plus one of the voting delegates; or no minimum for
establishing a quorum.
Tom Van Winkle pointed out in the past, the GPAC dwindled down to a
i very small number of those attending the meeting. He suggested that a
quorum be established by 2/3 of the delegates present so there remains
a good representation of the community.
Todd Chavers stated that if a minimum is established, a situation can be
created whereby some small group may decide not to show up merely
to block the committee from action. If someone wants to vote, then
they should be present at each meeting.
Following discussion, the committee voted on the following options, with
the following votes:
o Those in favor of a no quorum requirement: 7
o Those in favor of 50% of the voting delegates plus one: 5
o Those in favor of two thirds of the voting delegates: 17
o Those who abstained or were absent: 5
It was the consensus of the GPAC to establish a quorum by two thirds
of the voting delegates.
VI. BREAK
The meeting was recessed at 8:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened
at 8:45 p.m.
VII. REVIEW OF GOALS, OBJECT/VESAND STRATEGIES OF THELAND USE
AND HOUSING ELEMENTS
Mayor Werner, in response to Jack Istik's suggestion to summarize and
h Introduction suggested that the Introduction be revisited at
clarify the gg
a subsequent date following the review of the substance within the
document. He then explained that the Land Use Element is composed
of the following components: an explanation of the legal basis for a
Land Use Element; existing conditions relative to residential and non-
residential land uses, and outlining the issues that might be encompassed
in the Land Use Element; background statements regarding the City's
l sphere of influence; a commentary on the impacts of regional land uses
to the City; statistical information on the overall distribution of land uses;
existing land use map; a discussion on community development issues;
the text includes strike out origins reflecting changes made at the last
Genera/ Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 7
January 11, 1994
revision process, and highlighting reflecting additions made at the last
revision process; and a discussion of the land use goals, objectives, and
strategies.
Mayor Werner then suggested that the committee begin review of the
Land Use Element by identifying the first issue and the goal. i
Council Member Ansari suggested that the committee review the Land
Use Element point by point so that there are no questions to the issues
later on in the review process. - - -- - -
Max Maxwell suggested that the review process could begin with the
development issues on page 1-7.
Todd Chavers requested staff to summarize the overall strategies of the
meetings and the order of events.
CDD/DeStefano stated that it is anticipated that there will be about 4 to
6 meetings in this review process, and each meeting will be designed to f
discuss a specific topic or topics. It is suggested that the next GPAC
meeting focus on the relevant material for the Land Use Element and the
Housing Element; and that the subsequent meetings focus on the
Circulation Element; followed by the Resource Management Element; the
Safety Element, the Noise Element, and the Public Facilities Element; and
ending with a final meeting to conclude and/or deal with any outstanding
issues. He then stated that, if desired by the committee, staff will create
a memo focusing the GPAC on some of the more important aspects of
all the material received this evening to help prepare for the Land Use
and Housing Elements. At the next meeting, staff will prepare another
memo focusing the GPAC on important aspects of the Circulation
Element, and continuing with the memo throughout the process. He
stated that these memos can be used as a guide for review, with the
understanding that the GPAC's responsibility is to review all material
presented.
In response to Jack Istik, CDD/DeStefano stated that all issues raised by l .
the public through the workshop process, the Commission process, or
the City Council process, have been compiled into one package and
presented to the GPAC this evening. The policy document, presented to l
the GPAC, reflects what the then City Council put into that plan. Not all
issues discussed during the public discussion made it into the final policy
plan. He suggested that GPAC review all of the material, and raise those f
issues of concern that they feel need further discussion.
VIII. DISCUSSION OF NEXT MEET/NG AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Werner suggested that, if desired, some of the members involved
in the last revision process could identify some of the concerns to help
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 8
January 11, 1994
others begin to focus on issues. Otherwise, he noted that it appears to
be the consensus of the GPAC to take home the material presented this
evening, and focus on the Land Use Element and the Housing Element
for the next meeting.
A delegate suggested that if a member of the GPAC does not concur
with a statement made, then that member should express his point of
view in written form in a manner that the committee can understand,
i thus allowing the committee an opportunity to discuss the issue and
develop verbiage that is satisfactory.
A late arriver expressed his disappointment that more of an effort was
not given to involve other segments of the community, such as young
folks, as was given to involve developers.
Barbara Beach Courschesne concurred that it may be beneficial to invite
a block of highschool student to obtain their perspective on the issues.
Max Maxwell suggested that the advertising methods used for these
GPAC meetings can be used to encourage other segments of the
community to attend these meetings, the Planning Commission meetings,
and the City Council meetings.
A delegate suggested that the City Council be requested to appoint one
young person to attend the meetings.
David Schey expressed concern that GPAC can over analyze the
situation to a point of paralysis to assure that every one is properly
represented. He suggested that GPAC move forward with the comfort
zone that GPAC is comprised of a relatively diverse group based upon
the good judgement of the City Council.
Tom Van Winkle concurred with Mr. Schey, but suggested that the City
still work towards encouraging young people to participate in the
process.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the notification process for this meeting
took place very quickly, and was depended upon the Council taking
action in early January. The process will be heavily advertised for the
next meetings.
Todd Chavers inquired if a roster of names and phone numbers of the
GPAC delegates will be provided for intercommunication and questions.
Mayor Werner stated that a roster will be assembled from the Sign In
sheet and made available to the delegates at the next meeting for
resource purposes.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 9
January 11, 7994
CDD/DeStefano reminded GPAC that the meetings are subject to the I
Brown Act, and communicating among one another in terms of decision l
making is improper.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectively,
James DeStef no
Community Development Director
1
f
I
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 10
January 11, 1994
l
i
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 25, 1994
DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
HELD AT 7.00 P.M., IN THE HERITAGE
PARK COMMUNITY CENTER, 2900
BREA CANYON ROAD, DIAMOND BAR
L CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Werner called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
11. PARTICIPANTS
Hosts: Mayor Werner and Council Member Ansari
GPAC Members Present: Nick Anis; Bob Arceo; Frank Arciero Jr.;
Barbara Beach-Couschesne; Martha Bruske;
Todd Chavers; Jan Dabney; Ron Fitzgerald;
Bruce Flamenbaum; Don Gravdahl; Robert
Huff; Greg Hummel; Jack Istik; Dorian
Johnson; Steve Johnson; Chiman Kotecha;
Joyce Leonard; Chris Li; Max Maxwell; Bernie
Mazur; Kathleen McCarthy; David Meyer;
Peter Mitchell; Steve Nice; Deborah Noyes;
Arthur O'Daly; Sherry Rogers; Don Schad; Sue
Sisk; Wilbur Smith; Tom Van Winkle; and Dan
Wildish
GPAC Members Absent: David Schey, Ray Rebiero, and Reg Truman
(arrived later)
City Staff: Director of Community Development
DeStefano; Associate Planner Robert Searcy;
Planning Technician Ann Lungu; Senior
Engineer David Liu; Karen Warner, of
Cotton/Beland/Associates; and Contract
Recording Secretary Liz Myers.
I11. MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 1994
Wilbur Smith suggested that the minutes of January 11, 1994 be
amended on page 1 to properly indicate "five representatives of vacant
land owners/perspective developers". Referring to the last paragraph on
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page I
January 25, 7994
page 2, he then suggested that the City Attorney make a confirmation 1
regarding the legalities associated with the General Plan, and make a
definitive statement of what must be substantially different in the
document. I
Mayor Werner stated that it has been staff's suggestion to utilize special
counsel Richards, Watson, & Gershon (Mike Jenkins), the firm involved
in the last General Plan proceeding, to answer any questions that may
arise.
Hearing no objection from the GPAC members, Mayor Werner requested
staff to refer the matter to the City's special counsel.
It was the consensus of the GPAC to accept the minutes of January 11,
1994, as amended.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Clay Chaput, the Assistant Superintendent of Walnut Unified School
District (WVUSD), stated that WVUSD is in opposition to the rezoning of
their 28 acre property, located near the corner of Brea Canyon Road, that (.
resulted from the last General Plan which changed its designation from
(Residential)R-1 zone to (Public Facility)PF. The property, which is
Z.
publicly owned but is not a public facility, should be redesignated with l
the prior zoning or the zoning of the area around it, so that no
development rights are taken away. He then urged the City to do ( .
whatever is needed to allow grading and the removal of the 400,000 f
cubic yards of dirt as soon as possible to begin construction of the South
Pointe Middle School.
Mayor Werner stated that GPAC will make every attempt to focus
attention on these types of issues and to expedite the General Plan
process.
V. REVIEW OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT & HOUSING ELEMENT
CDD/DeStefano stated that the Land Use Element is one of seven
mandated elements by the State of California, which, cumulatively,
creates the General Plan for a City or a County. The Land Use Element
identifies and locates uses for the property in the foreseeable future. He
then summarized the following primary issues that seem to be facing
Diamond Bar in discussing land uses:
o The determination of the remaining open land within the
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 2
January 25, 1994
community.
o The issue of economics and the City's long term financial game
plan to be self sufficient and continue to provide a high level of
service to the community.
o Determining the City's "Image" and "Vision" for the future.
CDD/DeStefano explained that land uses deemed appropriate in the Land
Use Element must also be supported in the other Elements of the General
Plan. He stated that GPAC should envision Diamond Bar in 20 years,
determining the changes to be made, to remain, and to be added,
embodying those items into the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Mayor Werner inquired how the GPAC would like to proceed in the
review of the Land Use Element.
Max Maxwell suggested that, since pages 1-1 through 1-6 are
informational, they could be reviewed after reviewing the land use
concepts.
It was the consensus of the GPAC to begin review on page 1-7,
reviewing issue by issue, page by page.
D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES
1. Land Use Mix
a. Determination of Deed Restriction
CDD/DeStefano explained that this issue generally deals with map
restrictions imposed by the County of Los Angeles in the 1970's and
1980's, which restricted future uses of land when certain subdivisions
were processed by LA County. The issue of concern in the last few
years has been determining whether or not those map restrictions should
remain, or if each case should be reviewed on an individual basis,
providing an opportunity for the land owner to demonstrate a public
benefit in exchange for development rights. He explained that in
accordance with state law and upon the request of the property owner,
map restrictions can be removed by the City as the legislative and policy
making entity. He further explained that deed restrictions are most
commonly CC&R restrictions, and are generally private rights between
parties.
Dan Wildish inquired if a cumulative information packet was developed
showing the areas with map and deed restrictions.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 3
January 25, 1994
CDD/DeStefano stated that a City-wide analysis was conducted in 1991,
5 by the consultant at that time, of all of the remaining vacant property in t
town. A matrix is included in the EIR of all of those properties, indicating
any map restrictions or building rights restrictions.
Mayor Werner, referring to page 10 of the minutes of May 19, 1993 City
Council meeting, read the opinion offered by special counsel on the issue
of map restrictions and deed restrictions, which indicated that both
restrictions are part of the Subdivision Map, and a subsequent legislative
body has the opportunity to remove that map or deed restriction;
however the Map Act does not specify under what conditions the
restrictions can be removed. Mayor Werner stated that perhaps those
conditions to remove restrictions be based upon community wide benefit.
Jack Istik suggested that the City consider keeping existing restrictions.
He stated that since the Subdivision Map Act already provides a property f
owner an opportunity to petition the City Council to lift the restriction,
then the statement does not need to be in the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano, using the Land Use Map, pointed out those general
areas that have building rights restrictions, such as the property adjacent
to South Point Middle School; the Bramalea property located north of
Grand Ave., east of Diamond Bar Boulevard; and another 65 acre parcel.
He noted that the building restrictions placed on the Subdivision Map for
the South Pointe/Sandstone Canyon project allows 1 unit per lot. He t
then pointed out those areas turned over to homeowners associations
and indicated.that certain parts of the South Pointe/Sandstone Canyon
property may have some restrictions and other parts won't have any
restrictions.
Dan Buffington inquired if there were offers of dedication made on any
of the properties.
CDD/DeStefano stated that, with respect to the Sandstone Canyon area,
there was an offer to dedicate the land as a future park to Los Angeles
County, but it was rejected by the County. It appears the County then
placed a building restriction on the map.
Jan Dabney, representative of RnP and occasionally Arciero, stated that
all these properties with map restrictions within the City of Diamond Bar,
are not an "irrevocable" offer of dedication. He stated that there is a
strong distinction between a park dedication, school dedication, and a
residential restriction when referring to map restrictions. He explained
that offers of dedication would be offered for remittance from the County I
for the property; however, because it is offered for sale, it need not be
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 4
January 25, 1994
bought. The County chose not to accept the offer of dedication in
regards to the park issue. He pointed out several other pieces of
properties adjacent to the Bramalea that are being rezoned for future use
that have the same restricted language as is on the RnP properties. He
explained that the reason some properties became the obligation of the
Homeowners. Association was because the County did not want the
expense of maintaining the open space. It took a 2/3 votes from the
Association to remove that property.
Max Maxwell suggested that map and deed restricted properties be
declared as open space in the General Plan since most people took it to
understand that it was to remain as open space and not be developed.
Mayor Werner, referring to page 10 of the May 19, 1993 City Council
minutes, read Mr. Beland's response to the issue raised of declaring deed
and map restricted properties as open space. Mr. Beland indicated that
the General Plan document cannot be used as a means of eliminating
restrictions on subdivision maps for open space purposes, but can only
state an intent to designate it as open space. It further stated that to
eliminate the restriction, there would have to be a public process,
requiring a formal action of the Council to return the property to the
property owner. Mayor Werner then suggested that the General Plan
include wording that recite the substantive Map Act, indicating that a
legislative hearing is required in order to consider the removal of a map
t or deed restriction. It would also be appropriate to state under what
conditions a map restriction will be lifted, such as a community wide
benefit.
Greg Hummel suggested that the perhaps the idea of "community wide
benefit" should be expanded to indicate an "overriding community wide
interest in the removal of a restriction for community wide benefit" to
ensure that the City is not handcuffed in the future by attempting to
determine a community wide benefit.
Dan Wildish expressed concern that a detailed statement in the General
Plan may take away from a future Council the whole process of being
able to consider a change in a prior decision. He suggested that the
language in the Issue Analysis, which currently reads:
l
ISSUE ANAL YSIS:.There is a need for confirmation of original and
existing deed restrictions which affect vacant
land proposed for development. Past
confusion resulting from Los Angeles County
transmittal of development entitlements must
be resolved.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 5
January 25, 1994
be modified to read:
ISSUEANALYSIS. There is a need for examination of original and
existing deed restrictions which affect vacant
land proposed for development. Past
confusion resulting from Los Angeles County
transmittal of development entitlements must
be resolved.
Todd Chavers concurred that a strong statement of intent indicating the
City's desire to preserve open space should be included in the General
Plan; however, it is also important to recognize the limitation inherited
through the County, and that the General Plan, which is only a policy
document, should not be in conflict with State law.
Dorian Johnson, representative of Bramalea, suggested that the GPAC
look beyond 'the restrictions since they are a matter of public record
subject to the Subdivision Map Act, and begin looking at each individual
parcel for the specific land uses desired. `
Barbara Beach-Courschesne stated that the whole concept of map
restriction in the City of Diamond Bar is a very sensitive issue. There are
many residential property owners who bought land based on a promise
and a commitment that there were building restrictions and the land
:r would be open space. She suggested that the Issue Analysis be
modified as follows:
ISSUE ANAL YSIS. There is a need for confirmation of original and
existing ma and deed 'restrictions which
affect vacant land proposed for development.
Past confusion resulting from Los Angeles
County transmittal of development
entitlements must be resolved.
Nick Anis pointed out that some of the proposed development in the
future would result in having more open space in the City. He concurred
that it is not. appropriate to put language in the General Plan that
conflicts with the Map Act, leaving the City open to law suits.
Don Schad, concurring with Mrs. Beach-Courschesne that residents were
led to believe the land was to remain open space in exchange for a
clustered development, suggested that the GPAC consider omitting the
current Issue Analysis, replacing it with the Issue Analysis currently in
strike out form which reads:
' General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 6
January 25, 1994
ISSUE ANALYSIS: Those open lands vzhieh have been doe-r
mstrkted should be eon d to —be
to a—pubtie—ageney has eeeured. Int e
z bsenee-ejE elear deed fest ietiee the ds
ana4-zed in the Open Land &ffvey should be
Dorian Johnson, in response to Mrs. Beach-Courschesne's request for
clarification of Mr. Anis' statement regarding an increase in open space
resulting from development, explained that Bramalea has approximately
350 acres of total land holdings with various development scenarios still
under consideration; however, one scenario being considered is 'a
clustering development in exchange of open space to the City for public
use. He reiterated his suggestion that the GPAC deal with specific land
uses, letting the matters of record be dealt with in the land development
process by the City.
Max Maxwell suggested that GPAC determine the status of deed
restrictions now, and make a statement in the General Plan which parcels
are to remain dedicated as open space or remain restricted. There needs
to be a statement in the General Plan indicating that the residents desire
to maintain open space, and any desire to change that restriction should
go to ballot.
Sherry Rogers pointed out that the property rights for both the
homeowner and the land owner/developer must be addressed. She
expressed concern that Mr. Maxwell's proposal to keep all restricted
property as open space could put the City in risk of law suits.
Bruce Flamenbaum inquired how the term "open space" is being defined
in the General Plan.
Mayor Werner stated that the intent of the terminology "open space" in
the General Plan is that it should be public open space, as opposed to
private open space which does not carry a public use benefit, such as
some golf courses and homeowners association property.
Wilbur Smith, referring to the Issue Analysis, stated that since the City
already knows where the restrictions apply, the verbiage in the Issue
Analysis should be more definitive, indicating that those properties with
restrictions should be open space, understanding that it will be so
referenced throughout the document consistenty. He stated that the
Issue Analysis needs a stronger statement of intent.
i;
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 7
January 25, 1994
i
Mayor Werner reminded GPAC that the Issue Analysis identifies the
concern, and the policy statement, later in the document, sets the I
direction.
Ron Fitzgerald concurred that the Issue Analysis should be a broad
statement indicating how the City wants the land to be used, and the
goals and policy statements should be more definitive.
Mayor Werner inquired if the GPAC was prepared to vote on the wording l
of the Issue Analysis.
Dan Buffington inquired if it were possible to add, as an alternative to
map and deed restricted, another land use designations such as {
development restricted, thus moving away from the term "open space".
He then suggested that the issue statement "Determination of Deed and
Map Restriction Status" also include the reason behind the placement of
the restriction on the property.
Mayor Werner noted that the intent of the term "Determination" suggests
a full investigation of the status and history of those restrictions.
Greg Hummel suggested that the wording of the Issue Analysis be left 1
as written because it adequately indicates the issues that need to be
resolved.
RECESS. Mayor Werner recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
RECONVENE. Mayor Werner reconvened the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
Mayor Werner reported that the City had requested an Extension of Time
to prepare the General Plan from the State Office of Planning and
Research (OPR). Written response is expeced with 30 days.
Oscar Law, reminding GPAC of the reason behind the referendum, urged
the GPAC members to compromise, and respond to community desires.
Chiman Kotecha stressed the importance of resolving the issues
expeditiously while foreseeing the needs of the community in the future.
Moved by Dan Wildish to modify the Issue Analysis as follows:
ISSUE ANALYSIS: There is a need for examination of original and
existing deed and map restrictions which
affect vacant land proposed for development.
Past confusion resulting from Los Angeles 1
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 8
January 25, 1994
County transmittal of development
entitlements should be resolved.
Dan Wildish explained that the reason he would suggest replacing the
word "confirmation" with "examination" is because the word
presupposes that the City has the authority to confirm or determine the
legal deed or map restrictions to particular pieces of property, when, in .
actuality, it is the the function of the law, the Subdivision Map Act, and
the process of Council deliberation and public .hearing. He stated that
the amended suggested language allows the City to set forth a policy
statement.
Moved by Dan Wildish to modify the Issue Statement as follows:
1. Land Use Mix
a. Examination of Deed and Map Restriction Status
Max Maxwell, concerned that the Issue Statement as written postpones
the determination of deed and map restriction status until after the
completion of the General Plan, suggested that the City make that
determination now.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the Community Development Issues is the
foundation for the discussion within the text of the Goals, Objectives,
and Strategies. He pointed out that page 1-16 includes three strategies
dealing with vacant land, deed restrictions and map restrictions; and
page III -12, strategy 1.3.3, in the Resource Management Element,
discusses verification of restrictions prior to accepting development
proposals. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the GPAC focus on changing
the Goals, Objectives, and Strategies to meet the desires of GPAC.
Todd Chavers suggested that the first sentence of the Issue Analysis,
written in strike out form, which reads:
ISSUE ANALYSIS:
be added, with modifications, to Mr. Wildish's suggested wording of the
Issue Analysis so that it would now read as follows:
ISSUEANALYSIS. Those lands which have been deed and/or
map restricted . should be Pursued as
Permanentpublic open space. There is a need
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 9
January 25, 1994
for examination of original and existing deed
and map restrictions which affect vacant land
proposed for development. Past confusion
resulting from Los Angeles County transmittal
of development entitlements should be
resolved.
Dan Wildish concurred with the modification made.
Kathleen McCarthy, referring to the Issue Statement, noted that not all
open space is deed or map restricted. She suggested that the Issue
Statement include a statement referring to the dispositions of open lands
as well as the determination of deed and map restriction status.
Tom Van Winkle, in concurrence with a modification phrased by Mayor
Werner, suggested that the Issue Statement be modified as follows:
1. Land Use Mix
a. Disposition of remaining open lands, including but not
limited to, a determination of deed and map restricted
status.
Of the 31 voting delegates present at the meeting, 30 voted aye and 1
voted no to modify the Issue Statement on page 1-7, of the Land Use
Element, as follows:
1. Land Use Mix
a. Disposition of remaining open lands, including but not
limited to, a determination of deed and map restricted
status.
Jack Istik, the one dissenting vote, explained that he voted "no" on the
suggested wording only because he feels the General Plan should not
deal with the deed and map restricted status.
Reg Truman arrived at the meeting bring the total voting members to 32.
Having no more discussion, the members decided to vote on the Issue
Analysis on paged -7 of the Land Use Element.
Of the 32 voting delegates present at the meeting, 26 voted aye, 5 voted
no, and 1 abstained to modify the Issue Analysis on page 1-7, of the
Land Use Element, as follows:
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 10
January 25, 1994
ISSUEANALYSIS. Those lands which have been deed and/or
map restricted should be pursued as public
open space. There is a need for examination
of original and existing deed and map
restrictions which affect vacant land proposed
for development. Past confusion resulting
from Los Angeles County transmittal of
development entitlements should be resolved.
The GPAC then began discussing the Issue Statement "Open Space
Definition and Preservation" on page 1-7, of the Land Use Element,
located under the Issue Analysis which currently reads:
Open Space Definition and Preservation
"A" There are different types of open space in the City. These include
natural undisturbed hillsides, ridges, and canyon bottoms. Man-
made open space can range from graded hillsides that appear
"natural", to open space areas which have been or may in the
future be subject to deed or subdivision map restrictions which
preclude development. Other open space areas include improved
properties such as parks, golf courses, recreational facilities and
cemeteries. This General Plan must categorize these different
types of open space areas into distinct and clearly understood
designations..
(For clarification purposes only, the above paragraph is denoted as "A" in the minutes)
Max Maxwell expressed his overall objection that the General Plan is
written in a past tense format. He suggested that the last sentence
replace the word "must" with "does".
The GPAC concurred to modify the last sentence to read as follows:
This General Plan does categorize these different types of open
space areas into distinct and clearly understood designations.
With the accepted modification, paragraph "A" now reads:
"A" There are different types of open space in the City. These include
natural undisturbed hillsides, ridges, and canyon bottoms. Man-
made open space can range from graded hillsides that appear
"natural", to open space areas which have been or may in the
future be subject to deed or subdivision map restrictions which
preclude development. Other open space areas include improved
properties such as parks, golf courses, recreational facilities and
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 11
January 25, 1994
cemeteries. This General Plan does categorize these different
types of open space areas into distinct and clearly understood
designations.
Dorian Johnson expressed concern that the paragraph only refers to
open space deed and map restricted properties and does not address
other open space areas suchas private properties.
Mayor Werner noted that the following paragraph addresses other
properties other than map and/or deed restricted properties. Both
paragraphs should be linked together for full clarification.
'The subject paragraph reads as follows:
"B" Presently undisturbed hillsides, ridgelines and canyon bottoms are
located on privately owned property susceptible of future
development. This General Plan must set forth strategies for land
use development that will preserve significant environmentally
sensitive areas, such as transfer of development rights and
clustering. In addition, some areas designated as open space may
have to be acquired, or alternatively, if acquisition is not
practicable, the designation changed in future amendments to the
Plan.
IFor clarification purposes only, the above paragraph is denoted as "B" in the minutes)
Martha Bruske noted that "susceptible of future development" is
grammatically incorrect and should be amended to read "susceptible to
future development".
Dan Wildish, referring to the second line of paragraph "B", suggested that
the statement "is intended to" is preferable over "must" because it is
less restrictive, and is consistent with the policy statement.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne pointed out the importance of including
statements in the General Plan that have substance.
Max Maxwell stated that the issue statement should specifically state
what the General Plan does, which is to "set forth" strategies for land
sensitive areas. The word "must" should be deleted.
Ciman Kotecha suggested that the second line in paragraph "B" be
modified to read as follows:
Therefore this General Plan sets forth strategies for land use
development that will preserve significant environmentally
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
January 25, 1994
Page 12
1
sensitive areas, such as transfer of development rights and
clustering.
Of the 32 voting delegates present at the meeting, 32 voted aye to
modify the second line in paragraph w so that the paragraph now reads
as follows:
.B. Presently undisturbed hillsides, ridgelines and canyon bottoms are
located on privately owned property susceptible of future
development. Therefore, this General Plan sets forth strategies for
land use development that will preserve significant
environmentally sensitive areas, such as transfer of development
rights and clustering. In addition, some areas designated as open
space may have to be acquired, or alternatively, if acquisition is
notpracticable, the designation changed in future amendments to
the Plan.
Martha Bruske pointed out that there are many areas in the document
that are written in future tense that should be written in present tense.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne, referring to the third line in paragraph ^B
which reads:
- In addition, some areas designated as open space may have to be
acquired, or alternatively,' if acquisition is not practicable, the
designation changed in future amendments to the Plan.
questioned if open space that is not acquired would automatically be
designated as some other land use. The statement would appear to be
inconsistent with the City's policy of . preserving significant
environmentally sensitive areas because if that open space was not
acquired, it would have to be redesignated.
Jan Dabney stated that the issue statement indicates that the City will
protect land owners rights, by law, and entertain any consideration that
is offered. It is clear that the intent of the statement is to preserve as
much open space as possible. He stated that the City has the
opportunity to buy open space if the development does not proceed. If
there is some development rights on the property, the owner should be
paid for those rights. He stated that the GPAC should address the rights,
and preservation of those rights, for everyone equally, both homeowners
and land developers.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that there are designated sites for open
space on the Land Use Map. He explained that if the City Council should
ultimately decide that an individual's house should be designated as open
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 13
January 25, 1994
space, then the City would have to acquire it, or, if acquisition is not
practical, change the land use classification in some future amendment
R to the General Plan.
Barbara Beach-Couschesne stated that the issue at hand is that many
citizens in Diamond Bar have difficulty with that Land Use Map. She
concurred that developers should not be denied their rights; however,
limits need to be established, just as they are established for private
homeowners who are also restricted by what they can and cannot build
on their property. She stated that there needs to be a statement in the
General Plan that indicates that those existing restrictions on open space
are honored.
Mayor Werner inquired why the property adjacent to the Pathfinder
Homeowners Association property is designated as open space, but not
the South Pointe property north of it.
CDD/DeStefano explained that, based upon the definition of open space
within this issue statement, and the strategies later in the document,
specifically strategy 1.5.3, on page 1-16, that land falls into the definition
of open space. He explained that the South Pointe property is not
deeded as open space by the Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions
(CC&R's), nor is the property to the north of the Pathfinder Homeowners
Association. The open space designation was applied to property that
was controlled by a Homeowners Association through CC&R's.
Frank Arciero explained that the County placed restrictions on property
that they knew could be developed in the future so it would go through
a review process. The land that they desired to remain as open space
was designated specifically as open space land.
Tom Van Winkle noted that the paragraphs being discussed are
definitions to the issue statement. It would be preferable if the debate
ensued when reviewing the goals and strategies.
Ron Fitzgerald stated that the last sentence of paragraph "B" is more a
policy statement than an issue statement and should be removed and
relocated as strategy. 1.5.7, on page 1-17. He noted that moving the
sentence does not mean that it has been approved by GPAC.
The GPAC concurred to take a vote to determine if the last sentence in
paragraph -B-, which reads:
In addition, some areas designated as open space may have to be
acquired, or alternatively, if acquisition is not practicable, the
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 14
January 25 7994
designation changed in future amendments to the Plan.
should remain, or be deleted, or be deleted and relocated to strategy
1.5.7, on page 1-17.
Of the 32 voting delegates present at the meeting, 16 voted aye and 12
voted no that the subject sentence should remain where located on page
1-7.
It was noted that not all 32 voting delegates voted. It was suggested
that perhaps not all voted because the motion needed to be better
clarified.
Ron Fitzgerald pointed out that the suggestion made was to delete the
sentence, and relocate it as strategy 1.5.7, on page 1-17, to be discussed
at a later time.
Mayor Werner then clarified that the vote is to determine if the subject
sentence should remain, or be relocated.
Staff verified that there are still 32 voting delegates present at the
meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding the intent of the two paragraphs.
Mayor Werner inquired if the two paragraphs read together suggest that
open space, defined in the General Plan, includes all ranges of open
space.
David Meyer, a Planner by profession, stated that the intent of the
Planning Commission, when reviewing the document, was to identify
vacant land, property used for . private open space, and to identify,
describe and locate all non developed pieces of land. .
Todd Chavers pointed out that it is a matter of law that if cities are
unsuccessful at acquiring property, then the designation must remain as
it was and the city must work out a General Plan amendment. The City
cannot force anyone to sell their property. He reiterated that the
sentence is not needed because it is a matter of law.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the definition of open space is defined in
strategy 1.5.3 on page 1-16. Theparagraphs are referring to properties
that the City has designated as open space, which the City may try to
acquire, or, if unsuccessful, change the designation in a future
amendment to the General Plan.
I �
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 15
January 25, 1994
The GPAC concurred to re -vote on whether the subject sentence should f
remain. I
Of the 32 voting delegates present at the meeting, 17 voted aye and 15
voted no that the subject sentence should remain where located on page
1-7 so that paragraph -a• now reads:
B" Presently undisturbed hillsides, ridgelines and canyon bottoms are
located on privately owned property susceptible to future
development. Therefore, this Genera/Plan sets forth strategies for
land use development that will preserve sign/ficant
environmentally sensitive areas, such as transfer of development
rights and clustering. In addition, some areas designated as open
space may have to be acquired, or alternatively, if acquisition is
not practicable, the designation changed in future amendments to
the Plan.
David Meyer expressed his concern that GPAC may become opposed to
any changes made to the document as a result of public review, Planning
Commission review, and the City Council review.
Mayor Werner stated that the committee is aware that it functions as an
advisory body, recognizing that the City Council is the legislative body
that has the final authority, taking into consideration public opinion.
Max Maxwell stated that it may be beneficial if the delegates
representing the Planning Commission take note of the split votes on
these issues so that they can make a wise decision.
Mayor Werner inquired if there are any suggestions as to the way the
GPAC is to proceed on its review of the document.
Don Schad inquired if there was a process the City could follow to
expedite the construction of the South Pointe Middle School.
Dan Wildish suggested that GPAC could, as an advisory body, ask the
the City Council to consider a procedure that would enable the WVUSD
to proceed.
Mayor Werner stated that the request for an extension of time of the
General Plan could possibly provide the City an opportunity to grant a
grading permit to the WVUSD. He inquired if it would be appropriate if
some of the issues associated with that grading plan was presented to
this body, and a request, in terms of an advisory capacity, was made for
a determination from the City Council on whether or not grading could
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 16
January 25, 7994
proceed.
Arthur O'Daly stated that if the legislators are in a position to do
something to alleviate the obstacles associated with allowing the
WVUSD to obtain grading permits, then it is up to the legislators to act.
The GPAC is only to serve in an advisory capacity regarding the elements
of the General Plan.
Martha Bruske pointed out that the Land Use Element contains the most
critical issues of the General Plan. She stated that it would be improper
to expect the GPAC to concur with allowing the WVUSD to proceed
since the construction of the school is tied in with the South Pointe
Master Plan in Sandstone Canyon.
Max Maxwell stated that he Jeels the matter should be presented to
GPAC at the next meeting for discussion and review of the issues
surrounding the South Pointe Master Plan, Sandstone Canyon, the
removal of the dirt, and the Middle School. The issues are very
important to many members of GPAC, and the facts should be presented
to the committee.
Greg Hummel pointed out that it is not appropriate to ask the GPAC to
address one single issue of the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the GPAC was established by the City
Council to prepare a citizen based General Plan for the Planning
Commission and City Council's review.
Mayor Werner stated that the Council is pursuing the same objectives as
the WVUSD in a time frame they have prescribed. The extension of time
may possibly give the City another avenue to help expedite the matter,
consistent with the scheduling of the school.
VL ADJOURNMENT
I The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 17
January 25, 1994
proceed.
Arthur O'Daly stated that if the legislators are in a position to do
something to alleviate the obstacles associated with allowing the
WVUSD to obtain grading permits, then it is up to the legislators to act.
The GPAC is only to serve in an advisory capacity regarding the elements
of the General Plan.
Martha Bruske pointed out that the Land Use Element contains the most
critical issues of the General Plan. She stated that it would be improper
to expect the GPAC to concur with allowing the WVUSD to proceed
since the construction of the school is tied in with the South Pointe
Master Plan in Sandstone Canyon.
Max Maxwell stated that he feels the matter should be presented to
GPAC at the next meeting for discussion and review of the issues
surrounding the South Pointe Master Plan, Sandstone Canyon, the
removal of the dirt, and the Middle School. The issues are very
important to many members of GPAC, and the facts should be presented
to the committee.
Greg Hummel pointed out that it is not appropriate to ask the GPAC to L
address one single issue of the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the GPAC was established by the City
Council to prepare a citizen based General Plan for the Planning
Commission and City Council's review.
Mayor Werner stated that the Council is pursuing the same objectives as
the WVUSD in a time frame they have prescribed. The extension of time
may possibly give the City another avenue to help expedite the matter,
consistent with the scheduling of the school.
VL ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
Respectively Submitted,
I�kkk I
James DeSte4o
Community Development Director
General Flan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 17
January 25, 1994
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 1994
DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
:
DO P. M., /N THE HERITAGE
HELD AT 7
PARK COMMUNITY CENTER, 2900
BREA CANYON ROAD, DIAMOND BAR
L CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Werner called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
11. PARTICIPANTS
HOSTS: Mayor Werner and Council Member Ansari
GPAC Members
Present: Nick Anis; Frank Arciero Jr.; Barbara Beach-Couschesne;
Martha Bruske; Todd Chavers; Jan Dabney; Bruce Flamenbaum;
Don Gravdahl; Robert Huff; Jack Istik; Dorian Johnson; Chiman
Kotecha; Joyce Leonard; Chris Li; Max Maxwell; Bernie Mazur;
Kathleen McCarthy; Peter Mitchell; Steve Nice; Deborah Noyes;
Albert Perez; Sherry Rogers; Reg Truman; Don Schad; Sue Sisk;
Wilbur Smith; Tom Van Winkle; and Don Wildish
Ron Fitzgerald arrived at 8:00 p.m.
Absent: Haji Dayala; Bob Arceo; Greg Hummel; Steve Johnson; David
Meyer; Arthur O'Daly
Staff: Director of Community Development DeStefano; Associate
Planner Robert Searcy; Planning Technician Ann Lungu; and
Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers
1/1. GPAC COMMENTS
Don Gravahl suggested that, since the Planning Commission and the City Council
will be reviewing the General Plan following the GPAC's review, it may be more
appropriate if GPAC work towards developing a general statement on the concept
of each issue, based upon the consensus of GPAC, rather than focusing on specific
wording.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 1
February 8, 1994
Max Maxwell stated that, though he concurs there should be a general statement
at the end of each section, it is also important to pay attention to detail. He noted
that, because of the modifications made to the detail of the previous General Plan
71. document developed by GPAC, there is a need for this revision process today.
Joyce Leonard suggested that each developer's representative be invited to address
the GPAC on various issues pertaining to land use, thus perhaps assisting the GPAC
to make more expeditious decisions.
Peter Mitchell pointed out that most residents in the City favor conservative growth
or planned growth for the City, not "no growth". Since there is a finite amount of
land in Diamond Bar, it is important to recognize the City's need for a strong tax
base to help pay for City services.
Martha Bruske concurred that a general statement of the issues based on the
consensus of GPAC is important; however, it is also important to deal with the
details, such as the information provided in Table 1-1 on page 1-4 of the Land Use
Element.
Mayor Werner noted that, at this time, the GPAC is discussing the format of the
discussions, not substantive points of the issues.
Wilbur Smith stated that, at some point, GPAC must begin to quantify some of the
issues being discussed, rather than dealing with vague generalities and words. The
handout submitted to each GPAC member relating to Table 1-1 on page 1-4 of the
Land Use Element attempts to quantify the issues by adding an additional column
specifying what the committee feels is not to our minimum value in the various
categories indicated.
Sue Sisk pointed out that it is GPAC's task to.prepare a general plan for the future
of Diamond Bar, focusing on the policies, and leaving the details to staff, the
Planning Commission, and the City Council.
Nick Anis, noting that the formula to determine a majority is 50% plus one of the
voting members, inquired how many votes will be needed if the determination is not
a whole number. He then expressed concern that it seems some of the members
are referencing the referendum if it appears that the discussion is not going in the
direction desired. It must be remembered that every member of the GPAC
represents the entire interest of the community.
Tom Van Winkle stated that the original document prepared by GPAC was
significantly modified, changing the original intent desired by the community
regarding the "growth" of the City. He explained that mention of the referendum,
which was a legal process to reverse a decision regarding the General Plan, should
not be considered a threat, but a reminder that there are 4,200 voters who felt that
the document should reflect less growth, or, a controlled growth.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
February $ 1994
Page 2
Wilbur Smith suggested that each member write down how they feel the City's land
should be used.
Robert Huff stated'that GPAC should focus on the major issues, allowing staff to
fill in the details. He then suggested that staff give each member an abbreviated
copy of Roberts Rules of Order for the next meeting so that GPAC's discussions will
move along in a more orderly fashion.
Don Gravdahl, reiterating his suggestion that GPAC focus their review on the
policies of the Land Use -Element -and allow staff to deal with the details, pointed
out that committee members will have an opportunity after the review of the
policies to review specific portions of the Land Use Element, as well as have an
opportunity to speak before the Planning Commission and the City Council on any
item.
Joyce Leonard reiterated her request to have a brief presentation from the l
developers.
Mayor Werner, in response to Wilbur Smith, stated that, if the GPAC concurs, the
discussion this evening will begin on page 1-10 through 1-23, to include the Land
Use Map on page 1-24.
Wilbur Smith concurred to focus on the policies; however, he stated that the GPAC
should be able to discuss any word, sentence, or paragraph in the document,
irrespective of where it happens to fall.
Mayor Werner suggested that the GPAC vote whether it is appropriate to focus the
discussion on the policy sections of the Land Use Element, with the understanding
that at the conclusion of the review, the GPAC will have an opportunity to go over
any other issues desired, taking into consideration the time available, and whether
or not GPAC feels the development of those issue statements will fit together with
the policies developed by staff.
Council Member Ansari noted that committee members, in the review of policies,
can also express any concerns regarding specific verbiage. f
Of the 27 voting members present at the meeting, 19 voted aye and 8 voted no to
begin review of the policy section starting with Land Use policies on page 1-10
through 1-23.
Mayor Werner noted that it is the consensus of the GPAC to begin review of Land
Use policies following the approval of the minutes of January 25, 1994 and Public
Comments.
IV. MINUTES OF JANUARY 25, 1994
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 3
February 8, 1994
Frank Arciero Jr. requested the minutes of January 25, 1994 be amended on page
4, paragraph four, to indicate that certain parts of the South Pointe/Sandstone
Canyon property may have some restrictions and other parts won't have any
restrictions.
Reg Truman requested the subject minutes be amended to indicate that he was
present at the meeting.
iV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Kim Weingarten, president of Diamond Bar Little League, in regards to the
development of Pantera Park, requested GPAC to consider an active park with
playing fields to meet the needs of the children of Diamond Bar.
Council Member Ansari informed Kim Weingarten that the City is currently in the
process of conducting public workshops to determine the community's desires, and
address any concerns regarding the development of Pantera Park. The next
workshop is scheduled for February 17, 1994.
AI Perez pointed out that an Environmental Impact Report must still be prepared,
and traffic studies must still be conducted before Pantera Park can be developed.
Mayor Werner explained that the land was dedicated as a park when the
subdivision was designed, and the EIR for that development approval would have
encompassed the park, the residences, and all of the traffic patterns. The
workshops are being held to address concerns regarding traffic, as well as how the
the satisfaction of the neighborhood. He stated that
park will be developed to
GPAC and the City are aware of the need for parks.
Max Maxwell pointed out that the City is under minimum State standards for park
land. He suggested that open space land be considered separate from park land
and discussed under the Land Use Element.
Larry Reddinger, president of the Walnut Valley Unified School District School
Board, requested the GPAC to work towards supporting the immediate construction
of the South Pointe Middle School. He stated that bond monies and matching State
funds have been secured, that the District has a signed agreement with Arciero &
Sons to relocate the remaining soil off of the site, and that the District is ready to
award the bid for construction of the school. The District now needs the support
and cooperation of the citizens of Diamond Bar, the GPAC, the General Plan
process, and the City Council to build the South Pointe Middle School.
Sue Sisk, pointing out that the School District is its own entity regarding the
approval process for construction of the school, questioned how GPAC could
facilitate that process since the District can proceed ahead as desired.
Page 4
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
February 8, 1994
Larry Reddinger stated that the District could proceed with the project; however,
the District desires to cooperate with the City, and there are some minor issues that
still need to be addressed.
Mayor Werner explained that the issues associated with the South Pointe Middle
School extend beyond the boundaries of the property on which the school is going
to be located. These issues, which are associated with development, need to be
resolved by the City. He then suggested that GPAC can help facilitate the process
by finishing its review of the General Plan expeditiously.
Nick Anis stated that it was his impression that the dirt cannot be moved without
a legal General Plan in place because an EIR is needed.
Mayor Werner explained that the extension received from the State on the
preparation of the General Plan entitles the City to process certain projects, enabling
the issuance of the types of approvals needed for the school. He stated that the
District is being delayed because a grading permit needs to be issued to move dirt
off of the school site, placing it elsewhere in order to construct the school.
Larry Reddinger pointed out that the matching funds from the State will not be
available forever. I
(Ron Fitzgerald arrived at the meeting at 8:00 p.m., changing the number of voting members from 27
to 28.)
Don Schad questioned where the dirt would be relocated if the development
process of the school is accelerated. f
Mayor Werner stated that the location of the dirt, which is not an issue to be dealt l
with by Mr. Reddinger, is still the issue that needs to be resolved. j
Lydia Plunk submitted a handout outlining issues that she would like GPAC to
consider for discussion. The following is a summarization of those issues:
delineate between active vs. passive open space; create a policy protecting both l
the private property rights and the publics desire for overriding consideration for any
development density tied to open space for parcels left in private ownership; and
set a basic policy regarding open space preservation, to include criteria establishing
the relative importance of properties as open space. She read the suggested criteria
for establishing open space as detailed in her handout.
Mayor Werner, in response to Tom Van Winkle's inquiry if it was appropriate to
place a policy in the General Plan indicating that the lifting of map and deed
restrictions can only occur upon an election of the vote of the people, stated that
the City Attorney has indicated that it would be inappropriate for such a policy to
be in the General Plan because it would not have force since the General Plan can
be amended. In order to effectuate the suggested objective, he stated that the
Genera! Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 5
February 8, 1994
issue should be brought to ballot for the vote of the people to decide whether such
a future restriction might only be subject to a vote of the people.
it VL REVIEW OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
CDD/DeStefano explained that each element begins with overall goals, which are
broad based policy statements regarding the issue of land use. Those goals are
implemented by overall objectives, which contain a series of specific strategies to
implement the objectives.
The GPAC began discussion of Land Use Goals, Objectives, And Strategies on page
1-10 of the Land Use Element.
E. LAND USE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES
j "IT IS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THE PLAN FQR THE G^"""" T
9Cl E 0PME rr TO ENSURE THAT THE LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT
DECISIONS OFDIAMOND BAR=1taafSFI ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF
LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS. "
Mayor Werner explained that the reason the text contains both strikeout and redline
format was to identify and record the changes made to the document during the
last review process.
Mayor Werner then stated that it has been suggested by staff to amend the goal,
replacing the word "PLAN" with "LAND USE ELEMENT".
The GPAC concurred to change the goal so it now reads as follows:
"IT IS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THEi'C`E'E1►fi TO ENSURE THAT THE
LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS OF DIAMOND BAR, -M
ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ITS RESIDENTS."
The GPAC continued with their review.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 6
February 8, 1994
Max Maxwell, noting that a natural feature of the community could be a curve in
the road or even a freeway, suggested that the statement "retention of distinctive
natural features of the community" be replaced with the statement "retention of the
natural environment and natural vegetation that exist" so there is no question as to
what is natural. He then suggested that the phrase "quality of life" be specifically
defined.
Chiman Kotecha stated that he feels the "quality of life" is the retention of the
features currently enjoyed in Diamond Bar.
Martha Bruske concurred that the document needs to specifically define what is
considered to be "quality of life" in Diamond Bar. She suggested that the definition
include rolling hills, natural vegetation, canyons, windmills, undisturbed ridgelines,
ample trees, walking paths, low density housing, slopes, intact wildlife corridors,
blue lines, and safety.
Tom Van Winkle suggested that Goal 1 may be best served under an objective
rather than a goal.
Nick Anis pointed out that "quality of life" must also include homes, parks, little
league fields, family recreation centers, meeting places, etc., and not just
environmental factors, thus using the land to maintain and enhance the entire
community's idea of our quality of life.
David Schey noted that the goal is supposed to be a broad brushed vision of
Diamond Bar, and the objectives and strategies are to be more specific, creating a
structure by which the goal can be implemented.
Sherry Rogers stated that it is not appropriate to add picturesque language in the
goal statement, but perhaps it could be placed elsewhere in the document. She
defined "quality of life" to be business opportunity and income, integrity and honor,
and respect for property rights.
Jan Dabney suggested that the GPAC vote to determine how many want the goal
statement amended.
Of the 28 voting members present at the meeting, 27 voted aye and 1 voted no to
keep Goal 1 as currently written so it would read as follows:
GOAL 1 BMai.ntain a mix of land uses which enhance the
duality of life of Diamond Bar residents,
�x�t►Y�Qz�g � �x��l�,��� d+�'�+e3t,cx��tex�'b,�#
�xessr.�ua��.ou�;of��3.g �iaant rpen sga�se a�e�s
l�.s�ina�^us tat'uraT�eat�res o� 1=�ie �o�smBn$.t�►:
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes - page 7
February 8, 1994
The GPAC continued their review.
Objective 1. 1 Establish a land use classification system to guide the public
and private use of land within the City and its sphere of
influence.
Mayor Werner inquired if there were any concerns regarding Objective 1.1
Of the 28 voting members present at the meeting, 21 voted aye (to leave the
i
objective as currently written) and 7 voted no .
Don Schad stated that he would prefer to add the statement "and protect and
preserve its natural resources" to the end of the objective.
Mayor Werner suggested that such wording may be more appropriate as a strategy.
In response to Tom Van Winkle, Mayor Werner suggested that, following the review
of the strategies, there can be discussion to determine if there are any additional
objectives or strategies that the GPAC may want to include.
I
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the Resource Management Element contains
language pertaining to open space and conservation. There is a balance between
the Land Use Element and the Resource Management Element.
Todd Chavers noted that many of the issues regarding preservation are already
addressed in the objectives and strategies found later in the element.
The GPAC continued their review:
Strategies:
1.1.1 Identify residential land use categories to provide an appropriate
range of housing types for residential development within the
City P
and its sphere of influence.
Mayor Werner inquired if there were any concerns regarding strategy 1.1.1.
Of the 28 voting members present at the meeting, 28 voted aye to leave the
strategy as currently written.
The GPAC continued with their review:
Strategies:
1.1.1.a. Designate hillside areas with an average greater than 25
percent as Rural Residential MR) on the Land'Use map.
The maximum gross density of Rural Residential will be
1.0 dwelling unit per gross acre (1 du/ac).
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 8
February 8, 1994
Mayor Werner inquired if there were any concerns regarding strategy 1.1.1.a.
Of the 28 voting members present at the meeting, 20 voted' aye and 8 voted no to
leave the strategy as currently written.
Max Maxwell stated that it is not appropriate to take a vote without first having a
discussion. He stated that he would prefer the land use designation Rural Hillside
(RH), which was deleted from the previous General Plan, be put back in as strategy
1.1.1.a, thus changing the letter designation of the other strategies. He explained
that the RH designation identifies hillside areas with an average slope greater than
15%, allowing a maximum gross density of 1.0 dwelling unit per 2.5 acres (1
du/2.5). He pointed out that Table 1-1, on page 1-4, has an RH designation.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the Land Use Summary on page 1-4, which summarizes
the land uses within the City of Diamond Bar and its sphere of influence, contains
a designation called hillside residential, generally describing "The Country" which
contains about 855 acres and about 640 dwelling units. He also noted that the RR
designation is predominately located in "The Country" as well. There are few acres
left in "The Country" that aren't developed, or aren't already approved for
development, at a density of 1 du/ac or greater. Some of the other areas
surrounding the City that also have a RR category are along the 57 freeway, just
north of Pathfinder at the end of Fallowfield; and on the northside of the Pomona
freeway near Peterson Park.
David Schey suggested that the GPAC first review all the strategies to determine
any modifications that must be made, and then go back and add any strategies
deemed appropriate.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to Joyce Leonard's inquiry regarding the RL
designation, explained that, when the General Plan was adopted in 1993, the City
sent the Housing Element to the State Housing and Community. Development
Department (HCD) for their review. The HCD stated their opinion that the City's
maximum density of 16 du/ac needed to be increased to a maximum density of at
least 25 du/ac in order to provide true affordable housing to low -and moderate -
income families; however, some cities provide affordable housing with low densities
by providing first time home buyer programs through an Economic Development
Agency, or by providing mobile home parks, or by maintaining the lower "level" of
the housing stock. He stated that one of the issues before the GPAC, in terms of
the Land Use Element and the Housing Element, is to determine if the 16 du/ac
maximum should be maintained or be increased, depending upon GPAC's vision of
the future.
Nick Anis questioned what effect an RH designation would have on the City.
Max Maxwell explained that the reason for the RH designation in hillside areas with
an average slope greater than 15% is to, reduce the amount of houses, thus
retaining the open space environment surrounding the homes.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes page 9
February 8, 1994
Nick Anis, noting the cost to the developer, questioned how people would be able
to afford these homes with an RH designation.
Y Mayor Werner suggested that it may be an inappropriate reason to make such a
designation to reduce density, or to reduce it for the sake of increasing the cost of
housing.
Max Maxwell stated that he is in favor of such a concept and would like the RH
designation put back into the document. He then noted that high density
developments are not desired by the community, and the document does not
specify where such high density developments, as suggested by HCD, would be
located. He stated that Table 1-4 should specifically set these parameters so GPAC
can appropriately discuss these issues.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that if the general goal is the preservation of the
remaining hillsides within the community by reducing density beyond what is
indicted in the document, then it should be so stated in the document, developing
objectives and strategies to accomplish that goal. He pointed out that the reduction
of density does not necessarily mean the preservation of the natural beauty of the
remaining hillsides within the community because sometimes, as a result, lots are
cleared to build larger homes and additional amenities.
Don Schad stated that the intent of low density is to preserve the natural hillsides
and retain the City's unique natural geological factors.
t : Jan Dabney pointed out that many of the concerns expressed must be addressed
by City ordinances. If a grading ordinance is not in effect, then large lots are
cleared for large homes and additional amenities such as a pool/jacuzzi, tennis
courts, a hangar for airplanes, etc. He noted that the City cannot develop any
ordinances without a General Plan in place.
Ron Fitzgerald concurred that these designations are a general statement that will
be subject to implementations, ordinances, and other land uses. He expressed
concern that perhaps changing the land use designation to RH may result in
preventing those property owners of one acre parcels in "The Country", with a 15%
1 grade, to build on their parcel.
Mayor Werner explained that, to his understanding, legally established lots would
be permitted to have one single family residence despite any policies or ordinances
that may follow. The designations would really only apply to new subdivisions, and
newly created lots.
Tom Van Winkle pointed out that there are a lot of areas in Diamond Bar that have
unstable slopes and slippage. The low density factor is not only to preserve
hillsides, but also to address the safety issues that need to be taken into
consideration when developing ordinances.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 10
February $ 1994
Jack Istik stated that the issue of controlling the minimum lot size is not as
important as the issue of the retention of some of the existing natural terrain. He
suggested that perhaps developers should be encouraged to develop a Specific
Plan, dedicating open space to the City in exchange for clustering development.
A LOSMD district could be formed for that new subdivision to maintain the open
space so as not to create additional costs to the other residents in the City because
of that development.
Mayor Werner suggested that the developers representatives be asked to respond
to some of the issues raised.
Of the 28 voting members present at the meeting, 26 voted aye and 2 voted no to
allow the developer's representatives to respond to some of the issues raised in
context of the General Plan.
RECESS. Mayor Werner recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
RECONVENED. Mayor Werner reconvened the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Lex Williman, representing Jerry Yeh who has a project located on 20 acres on the
backside of "The Country" with. approximately 1.1 du/1.5 acres and art average
slope of 25% to 30%, pointed out that there are ordinances in place, such as the
Hillside Ordinance, that potentially reduces density based on the physical
characteristics of the property. .He suggested that it is not appropriate for the
General Plan to get into the specifics because it may preclude good projects, in the
future, without consideration to individual properties. He noted that "The Country"
is the kind of development that should be desired by the community because the
large residential development brings money to the City at typically less cost to the
City in terms of services. He also noted that the RR designation refers to the
"maximum" of 1 du/ac.
Manny Nunez, representing three property owners of Tract 46485, 80 acres located
in the backside of "The Country" at the approximate vicinity of. Rocky Trail and
Blaze Trail, stated that their project, which has been in the City's review process
since 1991, is consistent with the neighboring developments, and exceeds all
standards established by the City. He stated that their project, which has an
average slope of about 30%, proposes 1 du/1.5ac, and is sensitive to the trees in
the area, has been delayed because there is no General Plan. in place. He requested
that the RR designation remain for "The Country" with a maximum of 1 du/ac
because it is consistent with existing development.
Max Maxwell stated that it appears Mr. Nunez is representing the type of project
that addresses many of the concerns expressed. He indicated that because there
is a problem of a lack of information in the City, such feasible projects such as
Tract 46485 are going unnoticed.
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
February 8, 7994
Page 77
Sherry Rogers stated that GPAC is trying to establish a General Plan that addresses
all of the property owners pat they ean for standards
develby which to follow. It is not
appropriate to hear individual
Peter Mitchell pointed out that GPAC should not play "cop" to individual projects,
but rather allow the Council Members, who are elected based upon the majority of
people, to act accordingly.
ide land for parks in their development
Al Perez inquired if developers are setting as
proposals.
Mayor Werner noted that the issue of setting aside property for parks is partially a
function of this General Plan. He explained that if the General Plan establishes a
then the
need for a certain number
parks hose areas would be requ red to dedicate a portion
development of the propertyark
of their propeation in that
rty toward thatark-, however, if there is Act d states that the devoeloper,, dedicate land, or
immediate vicinity, the Quimby
('. ld
provide a fee in lieu of a de di Hated parks in the area and purlchase land foation of land. The fee woud be used tor parks
improvements to the other designated
where none exist.
ue has been a
Tom Van Winkle pointed out ,that the RH d
but thrown own out by thenation scouncil Memberstrorothee
community from the outse , clear statement that
appointees. He pointed out that two referendums make a very
density levels are a very important os other easures,There is a desire that the General l
that this lower density level
guarantee, whether by ordinances
of 1 du/2.5ac be achieved.
nment of the GPAC is to
Chiman Kotecha stated thatr e purpose and commendations forthe vision of Diamond Bar, eview not o
the General Plan, and make
address the specifics.
� Mayor Werner stated that the purpose of hearing from the developers was to hear
General Plan issues.
their suggested viewpoints relative. to
d out that it is rare for a
Dorian Johnson, a developer representative, pointe
development to develop at the maximum densities allowed in the General Plan
geotechnical
situations,
because of zoning regulations, hillside grading ordappropriate because it is consistent
etc. The RR designation for "The Country" is appropriate
with the surrounding use. He statedth
umat entsecific land use designations should be
b techncial support documents.
' backed up Y
equately represents the community. He
Nick Anis stated that he feels the GPAC referendums adbe made available at he GPAC meetings
suggested that a copy
of the referenduand Bar felt they
so that GPAC can specifically incorporate what the people of iam
j wanted changed in the Ge ieralndicating desire oor' 1tdul2 Sac a He not d that the result
referendum specifically he doe
ind 9
Page 12
Genera! Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
February 8, 1994
of a RH land use designation will not preserve open space in the City, but rather
make it so that only the very wealthy can afford to buy a home in the City.
Todd Chavers suggested that Objective 1.1 be placed behind Objective 1.7 because
Objectives 1.2 through 1.7 define the parameters, goals, and thought process felt
to be lacking in Objective 1.1. If the issues are brought forward, the land use
designations in Objective 1.1 will make better sense.
Max Maxwell stated that the General Plan should be specific enough so that those
making the ordinances have clear direction. He concurred with the suggestion
made by Todd Chavers.
It was the consensus of the GPAC to vote on Todd Chavers suggestion after
hearing from the remaining developer representatives. f
Frank Arciero Jr. pointed out that the characteristics of the site should dictate the
development because some land uses may not be conducive to develop on 2.5
acres. He stated that if a developer is required to build 1 du/2.5ac, which may
adjoin existing 10,000 square foot lots, the message being given to the developer
is that the land should not be developed because no one will want to buy $1 million
homes adjoining such lots. There needs to be a happy medium.
Bernie Mazur, representing Diamond Bar Associates (DBA), stated that the main
objective in determining density, other than the percentage of slope and geological
constraints, is to be compatible with neighbors. He stated that, though the zoning
on the property on the backside of "The Country" varies from 8,000 to 20,000
square feet per lot, the general result is approximately 1 du/1.5ac when considering
compatibility and other factors. He stated that a designation of 1 du/2.5ac is a
waste of money and land, and the designation of 1 du/ac is more appropriate.
Jan Dabney, representing Mr. Forrister, pointed out that the biggest land holders �.
in the City, outside of DBA, have property with a zoning classification of Planned
Development(PD), which allows for a mixed use of parks, commercial property, and
residential areas to meet the need of the community now and in the future. The
City has no available sites for commercial property except for what is offered within
the properties zoned PD. The General Plan must provide for economic growth
within the community. He then pointed out that the reason "The Country" has an l
actual density of 1 du/1.3ac is because of the natural restrictions associated with
those properties. It would be difficult to ever achieve 1 du/ac if the slope on a
property exceeds 25%. He stated that the intent of the ordinances and the General
Plan is to represent to the community an acceptable aesthetic setting for
development. Development is a market driven business, and developers desire to
develop what is already existing. He suggested that if the General Plan is too
specific, the Council Members capabilities to represent their constituents' desires
are restricted, whether it be for issues regarding economic growth, open space,
parks, etc..
Genera/ Plan Advisory Committee Minutes Page 13
February 8, 1994
The GPAC continued with their review.
Objective 1.2 Preserve and maintain the quality of existing residential
neighborhoods while offering a variety of housing opportunities.
Of the 28 voting members present at the meeting, 28 voted aye to leave the
objective as currently written.
i'
The GPAC continued with their review.
Strategies:
1.2.1 Where feasible and practical within residential developments,
encourage a range of housing types, which will appeal to a
variety of household income groups.
Of the 28 voting members present at the meeting, 15 voted aye and 9 voted no to
leave the strategy as currently written.
I
Todd Chavers stated that he did not vote because he would prefer to hear the
concerns regarding the strategy before making a decision.
The GPAC concurred that it is appropriate to follow Roberts Rule or Order and allow
a discussion, after the motion and second, before voting on the issue.
Max Maxwell stated that the phrase "Where feasible and practical" should be
deleted from strategy 1.2.1 because it has no use other than providing developers
an avenue to do as desired.
Martha Bruske stated that the strategy is poorly worded and allows any kind of
development, even a tent, to be constructed within residential developments.
Mayor Werner stated that the wording can be made more specific to indicate
"encourage a range of housing types where consistent with existing
neighborhoods".
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that strategy 1.2.5 refers to the prevailing character
of a neighborhood; therefore, a tent would not represent the prevailing character
of the neighborhood, unless it is all tents.
Martha Bruske stated that she would still prefer to have the strategy reworded.
Barbara Beach Courschesne pointed out that the definition of the word "practical"
is ambiguous.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to a question if strategy 1.2.1 is included to satisfy
State requirements, stated that one of the State's requirements is that a variety of
_.. General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
February 8. 7994
Page.14
VII.
housing for all segments of the population be provided. These policies will provide
he types of development that is acceptable on vacant
direction to developers for t
hoods,. as well as new developments.
land within existing neighbor
Werner suggested that the phrase, "to a variety of household income
Mayor W 9
groups" be moved to Objective 1.2.
1.2.1 is better located in the Housing Element. -r:
Todd Chavers stated that strategy
CDD/DeStefano indicated that, though strategy 1.2.1 could be moved to the
Housing Element, it only defers this discussion to another meeting.
Nick Anis pointed out that the
pand low income housing twith,tends to make it
the argument that. -i
easier to turn down high den y
such development is impractical because of traffic, etc..
at the meeting, 26 voted aye and 2 voted no to _
Of the 28 members prise he Housing Element. '
relocate strategy I
l
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CDD/DeStefano reported that each member of GPAC was given a copy of a letter I
from Shuhab Ahmed, who represents Edmund Liu of Kingdom Investments,
f
requesting a 1 du/ac density. He reported that each member also received a copy
of the Ahwahnee Principles, which is a series of liveable spaces principles from a
group of architects and designers of pedestrian and transit oriented cities within the
United States. He then stated that each member was provided with a copy of page
1-7, Community Development issues, approved at the last meeting. He stated that
the GPAC must also turn in the disclosure forms by the end of this week. He also
willstated that, if there are no obje March 8 and Marche 22, 1994.
the eadvertising for the
GPAC meetings to be held on
VI/l. DISCUSSION OF NEXT MEETING AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Werner suggested that GPAC become familiar with the rest of the document,
after reading the Land Use Element, since there is a lot of interplay between the
Elements.
Ron Fitzgerald suggested that, at the next meeting, the objectives and strategies
be considered as a whole rather than individually.
se to Max Maxwell, stated that, following the Land Use
Mayor Werner, in respon
egin review of the Housing Element. A presentation on
Element, the GPAC will b
the Housing Element will be provided.
Don Gravdahl stated that a copy of the referendum petition should be provided to
GPAC so that the committee is made aware of the issues.
Page 15
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
February 8, 1994
Max Maxwell explained that the referendum does not have to include all the issues,
so it may not be helpful. _
s important that issues are not brought forw
Nick Anis pointed out that it i
ard under
the guise of being part of the referendum.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:35 p.m., Mayor Werner adjourned the meeting to February 22, 1994 at 7:00
p.m.
`r
Respectively Submitted
IesDeStefan`
i,
community Development Director
Page 76
General Plan Advisory Committee Minutes
February 8, 1994
MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 22, 1994
I. CALL TO ORDER
Council Member Ansari called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
II. PARTICIPANTS
HOSTS: Council Member Ansari and City Consultant Dale
Beland
GPAC Members
Present: Nick Anis; Frank Arciero Jr.; Bob Arceo; Barbara
Beach-Couschesne; Martha Bruske; Todd Chavers;
Jan Dabney; Bruce Flamenbaum; Don Gravdahl; Haji
Dayala; Robert Huff; Greg Hummel; Jack Istik;
Dorian Johnson; Steve Johnson; Chiman Kotecha;
Joyce Leonard; Chris Li; 'Max Maxwell; Bernie
Mazur; Kathleen McCarthy; Peter Mitchell; Steve
Nice; Deborah Noyes; Arthur O'Daly; Albert Perez;
Sherry Rogers; Don Schad; David Schey; Sue Sisk;
Wilbur Smith; Tom Van Winkle; and Don Wildish
Absent: David Meyer; Reg Truman; and Mayor Gary Werner
Staff: Director of Community Development James
DeStefano; and Planning Technician Ann Lungu
III. INTRODUCTIONS
Council Member Ansari introduced Dale Beland, of Cotton/Beland
Associated, who assisted the City as facilitator in the last
revision of the General Plan. The City Council has retained Mr.
Beland to once again assist the City as facilitator in the latest
revision process.
Dale Beland.referred the GPAC to Table I-1 as provided by a GPAC
member, labeled "City -Wide Land Use (1993)11, on page I-4 of the
draft General Plan document. He noted that the statement denoted
with an asterisk, which reads "The objective of the max/min
column is to channel growth of Diamond Bar in the direction of
the Vision Statement of this document", is a very clear, distinct
understandable statement of objectives. He suggested that GPAC
first review the Vision Statement in the July 1993 document,
refining it to the satisfaction of GPAC before continuing on with
the linear review process of each section and page.
IV. REVIEW OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
Moved by Tom Van Winkle, and seconded by Don Schad to accept the
text of the Vision Statement as currently written in the 1993
General Plan.
GPAC - February 22, 1994
Page 2
Jack Istik suggested that bullet one; "Retention of the
rural/country living community character," be amended to read,
"There is a strong, long -held goal among residents to maintain
and protect distinctive, physical attributes of Diamond Bar which
make it a desirable place in which to live."
Tom Van Winkle and Don Schad concurred to amend the motion to
include Jack Istik's suggestion.
Of the 31 voting members of GPAC present at the meeting, 7 voted
aye ad 24 voted no to amend, the Vision Statement as indicated.
The motion Failed.
Nick Anis suggested that bullet one of the vision statement be
amendedto replace the word "employment" with "economic
viability"
Martha Bruske suggested that bullet one be amended to read "...a
desirable place in which to live, to work, and to do business."
Wilbur Smith suggested that GPAC not focus on changing every
phrase but rather concentrate on the concept. He stated that the
Vision Statement as written is acceptable.
Greg Hummel stated that he does not see how retention of
rural/country living will bring about employment, business
activity, etc.
Nick Anis explained that the statement is suggesting that the
City retain rural/country living, balancing it with the need to
have a place to live, shop, and work.
The GPAC voted on the amended motion as suggested. by Martha
Bruske.
Of the 31 GPAC members present at the meeting, the majority voted
against the motion. The motion Failed.
Don Schad stated that the theme of country living in the Vision
Statement is to retain as much of the wilderness and undeveloped
areas remaining in the City; therefore, the first bullet should
remain as written.
Moved by Barbara Beach-Courschesne, seconded by Sherry Roberts to
accept the Vision Statement as written. The Motion Carried.
The GPAC began discussion of Land Use Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies on page I-13 of the Land Use Element.
Dale Beland explained that the Goal statements in the General
Plan are major generic statements of what is to be accomplished;
GPAC - February 22, 1994 Page 3
the Objectives are more an action oriented, limited time focus
attempt to reach the Goal; and the Strategies are an
implementation action step to reach the Objectives in the quest
towards achieving the Goal.
Objective 1.2 Preserve and maintain the quality of existing
residential neighborhoods while offering a
variety of housing opportunities.
Tom Van Winkle inquired what GPAC's final decision was regarding
the RH designation.
CDD/DeStefano explained that .GPAC had appeared to concur with
Todd ChaverIs suggestion to move objective 1.1 and strategy 1.1.1
to the end of the Land Use Element.
Dale Beland suggested that GPAC first identify those strategies
in the Plan needing further work, fleeting through those
strategies that are acceptable, and then going back to refine the
strategies first identified. The strategies identified as
needing further work will be placed in "the box" to ensure that
those strategies are not accidently overlooked.
Max Maxwell stated that he feels strategy 1. 2.2 should be
reworded.
Dale Beland stated that strategy 1.2.2 is placed in "the box"
Wilbur Smith pointed out that there should be a clear reason as
to why the strategy should be amended. If every word is changed
for individual tastes the review of the draft document will never
be completed.
In response to Martha Bruske's request for further clarification
of strategy 1.2.5, CDD/DeStefano explained that the purpose of
the strategy is to ensure that development in in -fill lots are
compatible with. the prevailing character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
Max Maxwell requested strategy 1.2.6 be placed in "the box."
Greg Hummel request strategy 1.2.8 be placed in "the box."
Tom Van Winkle requested strategy 1.2.9 be placed in "the box."
Dale Beland suggested that GPAC now review those strategies that
were identified as needing further work.
Max Maxwell suggested that the word "complementary
neighborhoods", in strategy 1.2.2, be replaced with "contiguous
neighborhoods" to avoid incidents of radically styled
development.
GPAC - February 22, 1994 Page 4
5 Dale Beland pointed out that if the GPAC concurs with Max
Maxwell's suggested modification, the concept of different
neighborhoods would be eliminated, creating unified, nearly
similar neighborhoods after neighborhood after neighborhood.
Max Maxwell, upon receiving clarification to the definition of
"complementary", stated that he is satisfied with the strategy as
written.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne suggested that the strategy be amended
to delete the phrase "where appropriate."
Steve Johnson noted that the phrase "where appropriate" refers to
neighborhood signage.
Of the 31 voting GPAC members present at the meeting, the
majority concurred to reword strategy 1.2.2 as follows:
1.2.2 Maintain a system of identifiable, complementary
neighborhoods, providing neighborhood identify
signage, where appropriate, and ensuring that
such signage is well maintained over time.
Max Maxwell requested strategy 1.2.6 be modified to delete the
phrase "where possible" because it makes the meaning of the
strategy too vague.
Todd Chavers suggested that the phrase "where possible" be
deleted and placed at the end of the statement, and that a period
be placed following the word "types".
Of the 31 voting GPAC members present at the meeting, the
majority concurred to reword strategy 1.2.6 as follows:
1.2.6 Broaden the range of, and encourage innovation
in, housing types. Require developments within
all Residential areas to provide amenities such
as common usable, active open space and
recreational areas, where possible.
Greg Hummel suggested that strategy 1.2.8 be modified to
indicated that the 25% density bonus to housing units should not
be "designed" for senior citizens but rather "aimed" at senior
citizens.
Dale Beland suggested that it may help clarify policy if strategy
1.2.8 was eliminated from the Land Use Element and considered
during review of the Housing Element, thus keeping all housing
policies in one group.
Moved by Max Maxwell and seconded by Don Schad to move strategy
1.2.8 to the Housing Element.
A GPAC member noted that item B. of strategy 1.2.8 seems more
GPAC - February 22, 1994 Page 5
design related rather than housing related.
Todd Chavers suggested that strategy 1.2.8 be reworded to state,
"Provide density bonuses for projects which provide exemplary
design and significant amenities well beyond minimum
- requirements."
David Schey questioned what kind of projects would be so
"exemplary" that they would warrant density bonuses.
CDD/Destefano stated that there was a proposal for a senior
citizens complex incorporating a senior center that would have
qualified as a good example for a density bonus.
Martha Bruske expressed concern of granting density bonuses,
especially if it is incompatible with preservation. She
suggested that if there is no need to mention density bonuses,
any reference to it should be eliminated at this time.
Wilbur Smith suggested that GPAC not attempt to go beyond State
and Federal requirements at this time. He suggested that item b.
be eliminated.
Moved by Todd Chavers and seconded by Don Schad to eliminate item
b. of strategy 1.2.8, and relocate item a. of strategy 1.2.8 to
the Housing Element. The motion Carried.
Tom Van Winkle expressed concern that strategy 1. 2.9 grants
clustering with restrictions, yet allows those restrictions to be
lifted at a later date.
Dale Beland suggested that GPAC may desire to move strategy 1. 2.9
because it is dealing with density transfers.
Moved by Tom Van Winkle and seconded by Sherry Roberts to move
strategy 1.2.9 to page I-16, under Objective 1.5. The motion
Carried.
Objective 2.3 Designate adequate land for retail and service
commercial, professional services, and other
employment -generating uses In sufficient quantity
to meet the City's needs.
Todd Chavers suggested that "employment -generating uses" be
replaced with "revenue -generating uses" because revenue
generating uses are not necessarily traffic -generated uses.
Tom Van Winkle expressed concern that the strategies should also
deal with the redevelopment of existing retail uses.
Moved by Todd Chavers and seconded by Martha Bruske to change
"employment -generating uses" with "revenue -generating uses" in
Objective 1.3. The motion Carried.
GPAC - February 22, 1994 Page 6
Objective 1.3 now reads:
Objective 1.3 Designate adequate land for retail and service
commercial, professional services, and other
revenue -generating uses in sufficient quantity to
meet the city's needs.
Max Maxwell requested strategy 1.3.2 be placed in "the box."
Todd Chavers requested strategy 1.3.3 be placed in "the box."
Martha Bruske requested strategy 1.3.4 be placed in "the box."
Tom Van Winkle requested strategy 1.3.5.c. be placed in "the
box." He expressed concern regarding increased traffic and
congestion.
Dale Beland, in response to Martha Bruske and Max Maxwell, stated
that parking concerns will be considered under the Development
Code, and/or Circulation Element.
In response to Todd Chavers, Dale Beland explained that FAR
(Floor Area Ratio) refers to how much can be developed compared
to the size of the site.
Greg Hummell requested strategy 1.3.7 be placed in "the box."
Max Maxwell suggested that strategy 1.3.2 be amended to
discourage any development that may attract additional traffic
problems on any of the City's off -ramps.
�- Nick Anis pointed out that the location of a business is the
primary focus of its success. He also pointed out that
businesses located off the freeway keep traffic off City streets.
Tom Van Winkle, though concurring somewhat with Nick Anis, stated
that he also prefers to retain some of the open space areas along
the freeway.
Moved by Ron Fitzgerald to retain strategy 1.3.2 as written.
Martha Bruske stated that she would be more comfortable with most
of the strategies if it were geared toward redevelopment, but not
necessarily new development.
Jack Istik suggested that the motion be amended to include
consideration of balancing the need between jobs and the
i! aesthetic appearance of the freeway.
i
David Schey expressed his opinion that the intent of strategy
1.3.2 is not to designate all areas along the freeway as
commercial areas, but rather to take existing commercial areas
along the freeway and encourage appropriate development.
'i
GPAC - February 22, 1534
Page 7
A GPAC member suggested that the motion be amended to retain
strategy 1.3.2, adding the words "where appropriate, and deleting
item a.
Moved by Ron Fitzgerald, seconded, and Carried to delete item a.
in strategy 1.3.2 and rewordstrategy1.3.2 as follows:
1.3.2 Encourage the development of businesses that take
advantage of locations visible from the freeway,
where appropriate.
Dale Beland explained that the modification just made to strategy
1.3.2 focuses on developing businesses in locations visible from
the freeway, focusing on those kinds of businesses that can take
advantage of, and need to have, freeway visibility.
Todd Chavers suggested that strategy 1.3.3 be amended to add
"uses such as" after the word "include".
Jack Istik suggested that strategy 1.3.3.a. be amended to read,
"Typical uses in Commercial Office category such as general
retail,...and real estate offices."
Moved by Todd Chavers, seconded by Jack Istik, and Carried to
modify strategy 1.3.3 as follows:
1.3.3 Encourage neighborhood serving retail and service
commercial uses.
a. Typical uses in the Commercial Office
category such as general retail, specialty
retail, ...and real estate offices.
.RECESS: Dale Beland recessed.the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
RECONVENE: Dale Beland reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Martha Bruske expressed concern that strategy 1.3.4 is too
broadly stated and should specify the kinds of home occupations,
discouraging those uses that would not be acceptable, such as
those that create a lot of traffic, health hazards, etc.
Nick Anis expressed concern that if the strategy is written too
specific, an acceptable home occupation may be inadvertently
prohibited.
David schey suggested that the wording in the General Plan should
give enough definition, to indicate that uses impacting
neighborhoods adversely are not desired, yet.enough flexibility
should be maintained to define those impacts more specifically in
the Zoning ,Code such as traffic, noise, and storage of hazardous
material.
Dale Beland, in response to Tom Van Winkle, stated that concerns
GPAC - February 220 1994
Page 8
about regulations and types of activities are addressed in the
Development Code.
i�
Moved by Greg Hummel, seconded by Sherry Roberts and Carried to
- leave strategy 1.3.4 as written.
Dale Beland, in response to Tom Van Winkle's concern regarding
strategy 1.3.5.c, suggested that it be reworded to directly
indicate that the primary use, Professional Office, is the
preferred, allowable use that will be accommodated, clarifying in
the Development Code the requirements for a conditional use
permit for that secondary use supporting the primary use.
I
Tom Van Winkle explained that he does not see a need with having
retail associated with a professional office designation
particularly if there are already these kinds of supportive uses
surrounding the area. The additional secondary uses create an
increase in traffic congestion.
Nick Anis pointed out that secondary uses within a professional
office use would reduce the need for employees of that use to
drive throughout the City, thus reducing traffic.
Greg Hummel, concurring with Dale Beland's suggestion to split
the strategy into primary and secondary supported services,
suggested that strategy 1.3.5.c be amended to replace the word
ya "appropriate" in the first sentence and replace it with
"primary", delete "service stations", and reword the last
sentence to read, "Allowable secondary uses supporting primary
offices uses include limited convenience commercial, special
retail, hotel/conference facilities, service stations, and
restaurants."
Wilbur Smith, noting that restaurants are listed as both a
primary use and a secondary use, stated that he would prefer it
to be eliminated as a primary use.
Tom Van Winkle stated that he would prefer the strategy to
indicate that an area that does not need some of these support
elements should comprise of just office space.
Dale Beland suggested that GPAC perhaps focus on the desired
designation for current vacant land, such as the Gateway Center,
for professional office use to determine the appropriate language
for this strategy.
Nick Anis pointed out that a restaurant can be a primary use
within a professional office area, such as the Gateway Center.
Martha Bruske pointed out that it would be more appropriate to
indicate professional office as professional/office because the
designation could include the medical profession, as well as
administrative services, business related retail, etc.
GPAC - February 22, 1994 Page 9
Moved by Greg Hummel, seconded by Todd Chavers and Carried to
amend strategy 1.3.5.a as follows:
1.3.5 Within the Professional/Office designation,
primary uses include administrative and
professional offices; business related retail and
service functions, health clubs, financial
institutions, medical and health care facilities,
vocational and trade schools, corporate offices,
brokerage firms, and multi -tenant offices.
.Allowable secondary uses supporting primary
offices uses include limited convenience
commercial, special retail, hotel/conference
facilities, service stations, and restaurants.
Sherry Roberts suggested that "employment -generating" be replaced
with "revenue -generating" in strategy 1.3.5 for consistency.
Greg Hummel suggested that the phrase "economic resource
strategic" be deleted in the first sentence of strategy 1.3.7 and
that the second paragraph in strategy 1.3.7 be deleted.
Sue Sisk suggested that strategy 1.3.7 be reworded to read, "To l
undertake an economic development strategic program to target
revitalization of existing commercial uses. The economic
development strategic plan should include agreed upon objectives
and strategies to achieve an effective revitalization."
There was no second on the suggested amendment to the motion. f
Moved by Greg Hummel, seconded David Schey and Carried to reword
strategy 1.3.7 as follows:
1.3.7 Undertake a program to target revitalization of l
existing commercial uses and selected new retail
uses needed to expand the range of goods and l
services available to local residents and to
generate needed sales tax revenue.
Objective 3.4 Designate adequate land for educational,
cultural, recreational, and public services
activities to meet the needs of Diamond Bar f
residents.
Nick Anis requested strategy 1.4.1 be placed in "the box." The
strategy is not clear if it is referring to passive or active l
use.
Max Maxwell requested strategy 1.4.3 be placed in "the box.1,
Martha Bruske expressed her opinion that plans for a senior
center should be included in this section.
Dale Beland noted that strategy 1.3.8 of the Resource Management
GPAC - February 22, 1994 Page 10
Element addresses the senior center issue.
Steve Johnson pointed out that a center for senior activities is
addressed in strategy 1.4.4 of the Land Use Element with the term
"civic/multi-purpose community center."
Dale Beland suggested that if it is determined that the Public
Services and Facilities Element does not adequately address the
subject of the senior center, then GPAC can come back to the Land
Use Element for further direction.
The GPAC concurred to review the Public Services and Facilities
Element to ensure the issue of facilities for seniors is
addressed.
Nick Anis questioned the meaning and intent of strategy 1.4.1.
Dale Beland pointed out that the strategy and objective deals
with the allocation of land use planning, and not with
acquisition or funding strategies, which are more properly
addressed in the Public Services and Facilities Element.
Jan Dabney expressed concern that the strategy is worded to
indicate that if the public facility has some underlying use not
anticipated it would require. a zone change General Plan
' amendment. The strategy restricts a property owner from
utilizing the site to its fullest value.
Clay Chaput, Assistant Superintendent for Fiscal and Facilities
Management for the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD),
stated that Site D is presently zoned R-1. If a designation of
Public Facility is placed on Site D, then the City is taking
value from the WVUSD unfairly. He suggested that the word
"schools" be deleted from the strategy.
Moved by Nick Anis to strike.the word "school" in strategy 1.4.1
and replace it with language meaning passive usage/open space.
Greg Hummel stated that the City should be able to provide input
on any site that is not going to be used as a school, as
originally intended. It would seem appropriate that such
property should be developed for public use.
David Schey stated that the intent of strategy 1.4.1 is to make
sure land bought by the City is used for public purposes;
however, land owned by the School District or County should be
designated appropriately to work within our General Plan.
Todd Chavers stated that there needs to be protection to maintain
existing school sites as public facilities.
Wilbur Smith pointed out that the function of the School District
is to teach children and to build schools. The Schools, like the
City, is owned by the citizens; therefore, references to schools
GPAC - February 22, 1994 Page 11
should remain in the strategy.
David Schey pointed out that if the School District sells their
property for development, the proposal would still have to come
before the City for review and approval.
Clay Chaput stated that a 2/3 majority vote is required in order
to pass school bonds for construction purposes only. The only
way to generate funds for operating purposes would be to sell off
site property or by product ively'uti1izing sites. He stated that
every School District in the City of Diamond Bar is zoned R-1;
therefore, any development on those sites must meet the R-1 use
as designated by the City. J
CDD/DeStefano suggested the following verbiage, "Ensure that land
owned and used by public agencies for public purposes be
designated on the Land Use Map. Specific uses within the Public
Facilities category, as shown on the Land Use Map include water
facilities, fire stations, schools, parks, libraries, and similar
facilities." This verbiage deals with all of the currently
utilized public property owned by public agencies and used for
public purposes. Site D is eliminated from this statement.
Martha Bruske suggested that the strategy clarify that the land
owned and purchased for public use "be publicly owned for
publicly supported agencies."
Nick Anis stated that if the strategy is left as currently
written, it could result .in a significant financial loss to the
School District. It is not appropriate to establish policy that I
may result in increasing taxes.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne clarified that the majority of revenue
that support the schools come directly from the State not the
city.
Dale Beland called for the question on the motion made by Nick
Anis.
The motion Failed.
Dale Beland noted that GPAC thus concurred to leave strategy
1.4.1 as written.
Todd Chavers suggested that the City bring the School District
into partnership with the City so that if their property is to
become another use, the City can have an active say in that use.
He suggested that strategy 1.4.1 and 1.4.3 be combined in more of
a policy statement that extends an open hand.
David Schey stated that the City will be involved if the
district, or any other public agency, sells the property. He
questioned how the City can ensure that the property will be
offered to other agencies as indicated in strategy 1.4.3.
GPAC - February 22, 1994 Page 12
Todd Chavers suggested that the word "ensure" be replaced with
"encourage."
Moved by Ron Fitzgerald to accept strategy 1.4.3 as written.
Ron Fitzgerald pointed out that School Districts are not included
in the term "public agency" because they have their own set of
requirements for disposal of their sites.
Moved by Ron Fitzgerald, seconded by Wilbur Smith and Carried to
retain strategy 1.4.3 as written.
Max Maxwell suggested that strategy 1.4.7 add the phrase "and
pursue State and Federal funding."
Tom Van Winkle suggested that strategy 1.4.7 be retained as
written, but adding strategy 1.4.8 to address Max Maxwell's
suggestion to pursue State and Federal funding.
CDD/Destefano suggested that this issue may be better served in
the Resource Management Element.
The GPAC concurred to review the Resource Element to ensure the
issue of funding educational, cultural, and recreational plans is
addressed.
Objective 1.5 Maintain a feeling of open space within the
community by identifying and preserving an
adequate amount of open land.
i
Moved by Max Maxwell, and seconded by Don Schad to reinstate the
strikeout version of strategy 1.5.1 back in the plan.
Dale Beland stated that strikeout strategy 1.5.1 is in "the box."
Tom Van Winkle referred GPAC to the letter from Max Maxwell,
dated February 17, 1994, included in the packet, which discusses
strategies 1.5.1 through 1.5.6.
Dale Beland stated that the letter, as well as Table I-1, City -
Wide Land Use, will be agendized for the next meeting.
Ron Fitzgerald requested strategy 1.5.2 be placed in "the box."
Dale Beland noted that strategy 1.2.9 was moved to this section
and is now placed in "the box."
Jack Istik requested strategy 1.5.5 be placed in "the box."
Martha Bruske requested strategy 1.5.6 be placed in "the box."
Dale Beland noted that the open space definition from page I-7
was to be brought forward under strategy 1.5.7. Strategy 1.5.7
GPAC - February 22, 1994 Page 14
therefore, there would be no question about the ultimate plan use
of land through buildout, which may be 20 years in the future. j
Dale Beland stated that GPAC is heading towards the challenging
question as to how land use policy is established, calling for f
.open space, park land, etc., as well as identifying in the
General Plan the means by which this will happen.
In response to Jan Dabney, CDD/DeStefano stated that Table I-1 is
a concept of what the City is today, and who we want to be in the
future, including the sphere of influence properties. He stated
that the City of Industry had presented a concept plan to the
Planning Commission, regarding the Tres Hermanos Ranch property, i
which was filed by the City following the presentation. The
Pomona Unified School District has only indicated plans to
construct a High School on the Tres Hermanos Ranch property.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to Max Maxwell, stated that the
numbers within the City -Wide Land Use Map were intended to
reflect the existing land uses in the community in 1993. He
stated that there are 464 acres within the parks/rec/open space
category, which include the existing parks, the Little League
fields, the 150 acres of privately owned park in "The Country",
hillsides, and so forth; therefore, there is a huge gap of what
appears to be available and what is really available, which is
about 60 developed public park acres.
V. MINUTES
Wilbur Smith requested the minutes of February 8, 1994 be amended
on page 2 to clarify that GPAC should stated what they feel are
the appropriate minimal or maximum value in the columns of Table
The GPAC concurred to accept the minutes of February 8, 1994 as
amended.
VI. COMMENTS FROM GPAC
Max Maxwell expressed concern that the developers representatives l
are given a vote on General Plan issues, particularly since they
are not residents of the City. He suggested that the City
Council be asked to drop the five votes of the developers, as
well as the votes of the two representatives from the Planning
Commission since they will have an opportunity to provide input
at the public hearing.
Greg Hummel pointed out that each GPAC member is a property owner
in the City, regardless if you live here or not. The developers S
may have a monetary interest, but that should not be considered !
any less valuable than our personal quality of life interests.
Nick Anis expressed concern that votes are being asked to be
taken away because some members are disappointed the way votes
GPAC - February 22, 1994 Page is
are going. He recommended that GPAC should continue as it was
first established.
Sherry Roberts pointed out.that the makeup of GPAC has helped to
bridge the gap, which include the developers.
Martha Bruske stated that, though she concurs that the GPAC is
not.property balanced in representation, she does not feel this
is the appropriate time to deny anyone their vote.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne stated that she expressed her concern to
the City Council prior to the appointments made for the GPAC that
there is an imbalance to GPAC. She pointed out that the
developers were not appointed, and that the representatives of
the Commission may unfairly give one Council Member more
representation on his/her opinion than another.
Ron Fitzgerald stated that this issue was discussed and approved
at the first GPAC meeting, and it is not appropriate to readdress
it at this time.
Dale Beland stated that since this issue was discussed by GPAC
and resolved, and with the absence of a specific motion to re -
entertain a discussion, and the lateness of the hour, the
discussion will end this evening.
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
At 10:45 p.m., Council Member Ansari adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully,
Jam_ DeStefan
Im
WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MARCH 8, 1994
MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Werner called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
II. PARTICIPANTS
HOSTS: Mayor Werner; Council Member Ansari: and City
Consultant Dale Beland
GPAC Members
Present: Nick Anis; Frank Arciero Jr.; Bob Arceo; Barbara
Beach-Couschesne; Martha Bruske; Todd Chavers;
Jan Dabney; Ron Fitzgerald; Don Gravdahl; Robert
Huff; Greg Hummel; Jack Istik; Chiman Kotecha;
Joyce Leonard; Chris Li; Max Maxwell; David
Meyer; Bernie Mazur; Kathleen McCarthy; Steve
Nice; Debbie Noyes; Arthur O'Daly; Albert Perez,
Jr.; Sherry Rogers; David Schey; Sue Sisk; Wilbur
Smith; Tom Van Winkle; and Dan Wildish
Absent: Ken Anderson; Haji Dayala; Dorian Johnson; Steve
Johnson; Peter Mitchell; Reg Truman; and Bruce
Flamenbaum
Staff: Director of Community Development DeStefano;
Associate Planner; and Planning Technician Ann
Lungu
CDD/DeStefano reported that each GPAC member received the
following two additional handouts: a document entitled, "General
Plan Diamond Bar Vision Matrix", submitted by Tom Van Winkle; and
a document submitted by Jan Dabney, dated March 6, 1994,
referring to Land Use Tables. He then reported that Don Schad,
who has resigned his position as a voting GPAC member because he
was recently appointed as a Planning Commissioner, has been
replaced by Ken Anderson.
Jan Dabney gave the following briefly explanation regarding the
first five tables referred to in the document submitted to each
GPAC member: Table I indicates the County zoning prior to
incorporation in 1988; Table II references each designated use in
every area of the 1992-93 General Plan; Table III references
Planned Development (PD) designated areas; Table IV is a
breakdown of the City of Industry's proposed Specific Plan (SP)
area; Table V is a break down of acreage of open space, parks,
housing, and commercial within the PD and SP property for
reference in the 1993 General Plan; Table VI takes the maximum
residential units available with the County Plan and compares
March 8, 1994 1Page 2
that with what was proposed in the 1993 General Plan; and Table
VII is the same as Table VI except that the sphere of influence
has been removed from the total number. He explained that all
tables include the sphere of influence, except as otherwise
noted.
In response to Greg Hummel, Jan Dabney explained how the
percentages of acreage in Table VII were calculated.
Wilbur Smith suggested that each GPAC member should denote, in
the second column of Table VII, what is felt to be the
appropriate maximum or minimum percentage for each category of
use for the City.
Nick Anis pointed out that many people only desire 10% of the RR
property to be developed; however, since HUD sets the
requirements regarding density of developments, there would need
to be a balance that would be acceptable to the City.
A GPAC member stated that the overlaying community benefit should
be the most important objective, not the percentages.
I
Gary Neely questioned the accuracy of the amount of acreage
available in Tres Hermanos as indicated in the tables. He also
noted that Chino Hills Parkway is now open, thus changing the
number of freeway and street uses, which does not appear to be
properly indicated in the table.
Jan Dabney explained that the tables refer to all the areas
indicated in the large scale General Plan map 1993, which does
include Chino Hills Parkway.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne inquired if the HUD requirements for
low cost housing have to be met by high density development or if
it can it be met by subsidy or some other method to meet the
requirement of providing housing to all economic levels.
Mayor Werner explained that HUD requirements are not necessarily
j met entirely by high density housing but met across the board by
providing housing in a variety of different economic levels, such
as rentals, single family ownership housing, etc.
Tom Van Winkle, referring to the document he submitted to GPAC,
explained that the matrix is intended to be a tool to be used
while reviewing the General Plan document. He suggested that
there should be language in each objective that refers to the
Vision Statement, and any statement conflicting with the Vision
Statement and the following bullets should either be altered,
modified, or possibly deleted. The Vision Statement should be a
common thread throughout the General Plan document.
Nick Anis pointed out that not all goals expressed in the Vision
Statement can be realized completely. It is not intended to be
a finite commitment.
i
March 8, 1994
Page 3
Wilbur Smith stated that the matrix is merely intended to be used
as a work sheet.
Sherry Roberts expressed concern that it appears that people are
meeting separately in study groups to discuss General Plan
issues. she suggested that all GPAC members be invited to meet
in study groups to discuss ideas and issues so as to eliminate
the appearance of closed door sessions.
Tom Van Winkle stated that the study groups are not intended to
be closed door sessions. He then stated that if the Vision
Statement is adequately written, then there should be nothing
wrong with using it as a measure to assess the document.
Everything in the document should relate to, support, enhance,
coincide, comply with, or at least not be in conflict with, the
Vision Statement.
IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 1994
The GPAC concurred to approve the minutes of February 22, 1994,
as presented.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
V1. REVIEW OF THE LAND USE
Dale Beland noted, at the last meeting, GPAC approved the Vision
Statement as written in the July edition of the General Plan. He
inquired if GPAC would like to use the matrix submitted by Tom
Van Winkle in the review process, or continue to review the
document in a linear fashion.
The majority of the GPAC voted to proceed with the review process
as has been previously followed.
Wilbur Smith suggested that those members desiring to use the
matrix as a tool for review should do so.
Max Maxwell stated that he would prefer that there be discussion
prior to voting so that all the issues can be brought forward.
Dale Beland noted that GPAC is in concurrence that a matrix form,
with all the components listed across the top, will be made
available at the next meeting.
The GPAC began discussion of Land Use Goals, Objectives, and
Strategies on page I-16 of the Land Use Element.
Objective 1.5 Maintain a feeling of open space within the
community by identifying and preserving an
March 8, 1994 Page 4
adequate amount of open land.
Jack Istik suggested that GPAC consider the aesthetics of Diamond
Bar's neighboring cities, i.e. San Gabriel Valley cities along
Highway 10, when discussing objectives and strategies to
determine if those are the types of cities we would desire
Diamond Bar to be like.
Tom Van Winkle requested Objected 1.5 be placed in "the box."
Moved by Wilbur Smith, seconded by Max Maxwell and carried to
accept strategy 1.5.1 (strike out form), as written.
Dale Beland noted that strategy 1.5.1 is pretty much a
duplication of strategy 1.5.1 (strike.out form), and one or the
other should be deleted.
Nick Anis suggested that the last sentence in strategy 1.5.1
(strikeout form), that was just adopted, be modified to read,
"...to identify any deed and map restrictions on the property."
Wilbur Smith stated that the intent of his previous motion
related to strategy 1.5.1, not strategy 1.5.1 (strike out form).
Moved by Wilbur Smith to accept strategy 1.5.1, which reads, "On
all applications for subdivision and development approval,
require the submission of a title report or other acceptable
documentation of deed and map restrictions," as written.
Max Maxwell stated his willingness to second the motion as long
as strategy 1.5.1 (strike out form) is not overlooked.
Tom Van Winkle pointed out that strategy 1.5.1 does not include
a requirement to establish or maintain an inventory of previous
dedications.
Greg Hummel inquired if a title report specifically addresses map
restrictions.
Dale Beland explained that title reports are not absolute. The
issue is not the technical requirement, but rather the purpose
and intent of the policy statement.
Greg Hummel suggested that merely requiring a title report may
omit some restrictions that are place on a property.
Ron Fitzgerald suggested that strategy 1.5.1 be amended to read,
"...title report and/or other acceptable documentation..."
Jack Istik pointed out that strategy 1.5.1 (strike out form) will
direct City staff to determine development restrictions on a
property before it goes before the Planning Commission and the
City Council for consideration, thus helping them in their
deliberation.
March 8, 1994 Page 5
David Schey questioned the appropriateness of putting staff in a
position of maintaining this inventory, particularly since they
may not have the availability of the necessary documentation. He
also pointed out that it is the responsibility of the developer
to research any development restrictions on his property, and to
inform the City, and it should not be -the responsibility -of the
the City to obtain this documentation for the developer.
The GPAC concurred to vote on the motion made by Wilbur Smith to
accept strategy 1.5.1, as written, leaving strategy 1.5.1 (strike
out form) deleted. The motion carried.
Greg Hummel requested strategy 1.5.2 be placed in "the box."
Moved by Tom Van Winkle to eliminate strategy 1.5.3.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Tom Van Winkle, referring to strategy 1.5.3, pointed out that the
issue of "open space" has been adequately covered under page I-7,
Open Space Definition and Preservation.
Dale Beland explained that an issue statement is an effort to lay
out in the text, in narrative form, issues of concern. The
strategies are the statements of policy and intent.
The GPAC concurred to place strategy 1.5.3 in "the box."
Greg Hummel requested strategy 1.5.4 to be place in "the box."
Wilbur Smith expressed concern that it only requires one
individual to place strategies in "the box," when there should be j
some discussion to see if there is a consensus prior to doing so. f
Dale Beland explained that the intent of placing strategies in
"the box" is to be able to go through the document quickly and
identify those statements in the plan that are not a concern so
that more time can be spent discussing those statements that are
a concern. He inquired if GPAC is in concurrence to continue
with this process.
The GPAC concurred to continue with the process outlined by Dale
Beland. 1
Jack Istik requested strategy 1.5.5 be placed in "the box." (
f
The GPAC concurred to place strategy 1.5.6 in "the box."
Eileen Ansari pointed out that strategy 1.2.9, on page I-13, was
moved to page I-17 as strategy 1.5.6.
CDD/Destefano stated that the last sentence of the Open Space
Definition and Preservation on page I-7, which reads, "In !
addition, some areas designated as open space may have to be {
l
March 8, 1994 Page 6
acquired, or alternatively, if acquisition is not practicable,
the designation changed in future amendments to the Plan," was
also held over for policy discussion as strategy 1.5.8.
The GPAC began review of those strategies placed in "the box."
Moved by Greg Hummel, and seconded by Chiman Kotecha that
strategies 1.5.4 and 1.5.6 be combined into strategy 1.5.2 as one
strategy.
Dale Beland, noting that it may be difficult for GPAC to vote on
the motion as presented, suggested that either staff can be asked
to draft appropriate language, or he can verbally express what
the motion would include.
The GPAC concurred to ask staff to draft the appropriate language
for GPAC's consideration.
j Todd Chavers requested clarification to the Definition of
"density transfer" as indicated in strategy 1.5.6.
Dale Beland explained that the intent of a "density transfer" is
to not "develop" the entire property, but to concentrate
development in certain portions. A density transfer allows the
total allowable development for the total parcel to occur on a
portion of the parcel by a greater density, typically by actually
transferring the entitlement for the allowable units, all or in
part, from that parcel to another property site. He explained
that, in order to do this, a policy must first be established
stating this intent, and later in the document there should be an
explicit statement where the density can be transferred, abiding
by city policy, which would require an agreement between the
owner of the property.
Nick Anis pointed out that there are three ways to acquire open
space: purchase the property through bond or taxation; donated
property; or through a density transfer. He stated that the most
realistic way for the City to acquire open space is through a
density transfer since it is not likely that citizens will
support an increase in taxes, nor is it likely that land will be
donated.
Martha Bruske expressed concern that density transfer could allow
for over -development. in one area of the City to maintain the
other part of the City as luxurious.
Dale Beland pointed out that strategy 1.5.6 does not define how
the process will work but rather expresses the intent to use
density transfer as .a process to acquire land for parks and
natural area conservation. The details as to how this density
transfer would occur would have to be more explicitly defined on
the Land Use Policy Map later on in the review process.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne inquired how GPAC can address the issue
March 8, 1994 Page 7
raised by Martha Bruske.
Dale Beland stated that if GPAC desires to consider the use of
density transfer, then GPAC should make sure to add something to
the Plan that defines those areas of concern.
Wilbur Smith expressed concern that the term -"density transfer"
has a connotation of high density housing elements rather than
open space.
Tom Van Winkle, referring to the Vision Statement to determine if
"density transfer" is an appropriate policy, expressed his
opinion that it is not acceptable to transfer development from
one part of town to another part of town.
Max Maxwell concurred that allowing density transfers has the
potential of sacrificing one neighborhood for the benefit of
another. He suggested that strategy 1.5.6 be amended to read,
"Seek land for parks and natural conservation." The process can
be determined later.
Nick Anis pointed out that strategy 1.5.6 only indicates that the
City will seek to acquire land for parks and open space, using
density transfer as one of the possible strategies. There is
already language in the General Plan that specifically states
that high rises, high density development, etc. cannot be built
in residential neighborhoods with 1 DU/.5 ac. He pointed out
that accepting density transfers gives the City an opportunity to
acquire more open space without raising taxes, or through a bond
issue.
Ron Fitzgerald suggested that strategy 1.5.6 be reworded to read,
"...through a process such as density transfer, and entitlement
review."
Todd Chavers suggested that strategy 1.5.6 be modified to read,
"Seek to acquire land for parks and natural area 'conservation
through a process of density transfer among land uses of similar
designation."
CDD/DeStefano stated that strategies 1.5.2, 1.5.4, and 1.5.6 can
be combined, to possibly meet the intent of the motion made by
Greg Hummel, to read as follows: j
"Develop an open space program which will identify and
acquire/ preserve open space land consistent with community needs,
objectives and financial capability and include.a full range of
feasible acquisition and management techniques such as:
a. Acquisition of land for parks and natural area of
conservation through a process of density transfer among
land uses of like designation and entitlements review.
March 8, 1994 Page 8
b. Investigation of a bond issue for purchase of open space
areas not already protected by open space restrictions.
C. Establishment of lighting and landscape districts for open
space improvements and maintenance."
CDD/DeStefano, in response to Greg Hummel, explained that the
r example (i.e.) indicated in his .suggested wording was taken from
strategy 1.5.2c. which identifies a specific target.
Greg Hummel, generally in favor of the suggested wording, stated
that the example should be omitted because it indicates that that
kind of property is of primary interest.
Max Maxwell suggested that it is not necessary to specify the
details of land transfer and taxes since the specifics of the
open space program will be developed at a later time.
Nick Anis suggested that the word "including" be used to replace
Greg Hummel accepted the amendment to his motion.
David Schey stated that it is important for the City to identify
density transfer in the Land Use Element, specifically
identifying those areas on the Land Use map that can accept
additional densities in return for a reduction of density in
other areas, to assure that the City is legally increasing
�I
density on properties designated as lower density.
Jack Istik suggested that the strategy be modified to indicate a
desire to preserve "slopes and existing natural terrain." He
then concurred that strategy 1.5.6 as written could potentially
create open space in one part of the City and high density in
other areas of the City. He suggested that strategy 1.5.6 be
deleted, and that the term "clustering" replace the term "density
transfer" so open space is uniformly spread along tracts
throughout the City as they are developed.
The GPAC voted upon the motion made by Greg Hummel, and seconded
by Chiman Kotecha that strategies 1.5.4 and 1.5.6 be combined
into strategy 1.5.2 as one strategy to read as follows:
"Develop an open space program which will identify and
acquire/ preserve open space land consistent with community needs,
objectives and financial capability and include a full range of
feasible acquisition and management techniques such as:
�I
a. Acquisition of land for parks and natural area of
conservation through a process of density transfer among
land uses of like designation and entitlements review.
b. Investigation of a bond issue for purchase of open space
areas not already protected by open space restrictions.
March 8, 1994 Page 9
C. Establishment of lighting and landscape districts for open
space improvements and maintenance."
The Motion Carried.
RECESS: Dale Beland recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
RECONVENE: Dale Beland reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Dale Beland explained that the General Plan is intended to be a
general policy statement outlining the foundation upon which all
other decisions are based. The implementation tools, such as the
Development Code, will specifically define and set up standards
which are applicable to all development review to achieve the
purpose of the Plan. He noted that the Development Code, which
requires the same level of public scrutiny, drafts, submittal of
documentation, environmental review, decisions of the Planning
Commission, recommendations to the Council, etc., is a very key
part of translating the vision that is established by policy in
the General Plan into the physical reality.
In response to Max Maxwell, Dale Beland stated that any decisions
regarding entitlements with all new developments, once the
General Plan is adopted, must be found consistent with the
or General Plan, irrespective of what the current condition of the
code, inherited by the County, indicates.
Greg Hummel, concerned with the potential of abuse with density
transfers, inquired if there is language that can be included in
the General Plan that would prevent this abuse.
Dale Beland noted that the process of density transfer has not
been defined, but rather that there is a possibility of using
density transfer as a technique, or a tool that is consistent
with the objective of acquiring open space.. f
Jack Istik suggested that strategy 1.5.3 be modified to define
"open space" as a public type of open space rather than just
vacant property; however, he noted that the modification is not
intended to preempt private open space.
Moved by Jack Istik to modify strategy 1.5.3 to read, "Define 1
"open space" land as currently vacant or publicly owned vacant
property deeded as open space by covenant, restriction or
dedication..."
The motion died for lack of a second. l
Max Maxwell inquired how such privately owned open space, such as 1:
the area south of Pathfinder, adjacent to the water tanks, and
west of the 57 freeway, is acquired, and how it would be
protected from being developed. 1
CDD/DeStefano explained that the indicated area is open space
March S, 1994 Page 10
land that is owned by the Homeowners Association. The
acquisition of such property would either come from an
entitlement process, through purchasing, dedication, or through
some act of development on the part of private land owners.
Dale Beland stated that the City cannot preempt development
rights by General Plan policy to preserve open space. There
would have to be recognition and avoidance of taking without
compensation. He explained that- strategy 1.5.3 is simply
defining the term of "open space", and the actual acquisition of
open space is subject to strategy 1.5.2 recently accepted by
GPAC.
Wilbur Smith pointed out that privately owned land with some kind
of restriction can be defined as open space, as indicated in
strategy 1.5.3.
David Schey stated that, though he concurs that typically a lot
of open space should be.publicly owned, there are circumstances
where open space by covenant or deed restriction is appropriate.
He suggested that the word "deeded" be replaced with "restricted"
or "mandated."
Jan Dabney pointed out that if it is the City's intent to take
all private open space, such as property owned by the Homeowner's
Association, and make it public, the City would have to address
maintenance and other issues that go along with ownership. He
also noted that the residents of that Homeowner's Association
would have to contend with allowing public use of that land,
which may not have been the intent of the Homeowner's Association
to have the public in their backyard.
Moved by Ron Fitzgerald, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courschesne
and carried to accept strategy 1.5.3, substituting the word
"deeded" with the word "restricted".
Jack Istik inquired if it is difficult for the City to remove
property dedicated to the City in fee.
Dale Beland explained that the sale of public property has
different kinds of mechanical requirements, though still requires
public hearings.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne pointed out that strategy 1.5.3
indicates that such open land is to be retained; therefore, the
City could not just lift that restriction without following the
intent of the strategy.
Ron Fitzgerald suggested that the seconded sentence in strategy
1.5.3 be -further modified to indicate "map and/or deed
restrictions."
Nick Anis pointed out that a property owner, under the State Map
Act, has a right to submit a new map for approval if the property
March 8, 1994 Page 11
is restricted; however, this does not apply if it is deeded.
Ron Fitzgerald amended his motion, as seconded by Barbara Beach- t
Courschesne, to modify the first sentence in strategy 1.5.3 to
read, /°Define "open space" land as vacant property restricted as
- open space -by covenant, deed or map - restrictions, or
dedications... 11 The motion carried.
Moved by Greg Hummel and seconded by Barbara Beach-Courschesne to 1
reword strategy 1.5.5 to add "for the intent of preservation" to
the end of the existing sentence.
Todd Chavers suggested that strategy 1.5.5 be relocated to the
Resource Management Element, on page III -7, because it refers to
resources.
Greg Hummel modified his motion, and Barbara Beach-Courschesne
seconded, to amend strategy 1.5.5 to add "for the intent of
preservation" to the end of the existing sentence, and relocate
the strategy, as modified, to the Resource Management Element.
David Schey,.concerned with expressly indicating the desire to
preserve, pointed out that the City may be setting itself up for
a significant law suit, given the fact that the land is under
private ownership.
Greg Hummel noted that indicating an "intent" does not signify
that the City must preserve it.
Max Maxwell pointed out that indicating the City's intent in the
Plan informs neighboring cities of our desire to preserve SEA 15.
Todd Chavers suggested that GPAC consider moving strategy 1.5.5
as written to one of the strategies under Objective 1.2, on page
III -10, and discussing the issue at that time.
Greg Hummel concurred with the amendment to his motion.,
Barbara Beach-Courschesne rescinded her second indicating her
desire to keep strategy 1.5.5 as amended.
Moved by Greg Hummel, seconded by David Schey and Carried to (•
move strategy 1.5.5 as written to one of the strategies under
Objective 1.2, on page III -10.
Dale Beland then referred GPAC to new strategy 1.5.7, a carry
over strategy 1.2.9 from page I-13, which reads, "Density
calculations for development proposals that offer significant
community amenities may include land previously designated as 4t
open space if clustering and/or the transfer of development
rights are utilized to protect those open space resources
determined to be significant by the City. This process would
allow a property owner to "transfer" all or part of the
development potential of an entire site (either units or
March 8, 1994 Page 12
buildings) to a smaller portion of the site or another site, thus
preserving the remaining land."
Moved by Todd Chavers to adopt strategy 1.2.9, on page I-14, as
strategy 1.5.7, on page I-17, with the deletion of the words "or
another site," because it is covered under density transfer
previously discussed.
David Schey, upon clarification that Todd Chaver's intent is to
have the strategy address clustering as opposed to density
transfer, suggested that the words "transfer of development
rights" also be deleted.
Todd Chavers clarified his motion that strategy 1.5.7 would read,
"Density calculations for development proposals that offer
significant community amenities may include land previously
designated as open space if a clustering concept is utilized to
protect those open space resources determined to be significant
by the City. This process would allow a property owner to
"transfer" all or part of the development potential of an entire
site (either units or buildings) to a smaller portion of the
site, thus preserving the remaining land."
In response to Jack Istik's inquiry if the density of a 100 acre
open space next to a 100 acre development was calculated based
upon the total 200 acres, and if the second developer could use
that 100 acres again to calculate density, reflecting his concern
that the strategy, as written, allowed "double dipping" and
allowed for an increase in density, Dale Beland stated that
strategy 1.5.7 is written to allow density transfer in, an area
previously dedicated as open space through a density transfer, as
j long as the result protects open space resources determined to be
significant by the City.
Martha Bruske stated that her idea of a significant community
advantage in Diamond Bar is open space.
Al Perez stated that it appears the strategy 1.5.7 is already
addressed in strategy 1.5.2.
David Schey concurred that, under most circumstances, using land
previously designated as open space,. under the accepted
definition, would not be acceptable; however, there may be
circumstances where it may be appropriate to trade off designated
open space for properties not now designated as open space.
i
Tom Van Winkle stated that it is not appropriate to reconsider
for further development those properties designated as open space
in exchange for a clustered development. The strategy should be
reworded making such "double dipping" difficult.
Todd Chavers stated that he had not interpreted the strategy as
pointed out by Tom Van Winkle, and concurred that. land previously
designated as open space should remain so. He amended his motion
j
March 6, 1994 Page 13
to modify strategy 1.5.7 to read, "Density calculations for
development proposals that offer significant community amenities
may include land desired by the community as open space if
clustering concepts are utilized to protect those open space
resources determined to be significant by the City."
Al Perez seconded the motion, noting that the second sentence has
been deleted.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne expressed concern that the statements
in the General Plan are written in such a manner making it
difficult to understand, and should be written to be easily read
by the average citizen, as is done by other communities in their
General Plan.
Dale Beland pointed out that General Plans are drafted to fit the L
needs of the community, thus the reason for the different levels
of General Plans and different levels of specificity. He noted
that Diamond Bar's General Plan is detailed in this particular
element because there is so much concern regarding prior history
on restrictions and how open space will be calculated. He also
noted that deleting strategy 1.5.7 will obviously simplify the
Plan; however, this does not seem to be the intent of GPAC.
rd Ron Fitzgerald pointed out that the strategy gives the City the
opportunity to weigh both the developer and the community's
needs.
Nick Anis noted that the reason the General Plan has not been l
simplified is because there have been two referendums requesting
additional statements placed in the General Plan to meet the
intent of the community.
Tom Van Winkle expressed his support for the strategy as amended
by Todd Chavers because it discourages "double dipping."
Wilbur Smith expressed his support of the motion as long as a
statement is included indicating that the result of this action `
shall never result in a reduction of open space acreage.
Greg Hummel suggested the following modified language to strategy
1.5.7: "To preserve significant environmental resources within
proposed developments, allow clustering or a property owner to
transfer all or part of the development potential of the entire
site to a smaller portion of the site, thus preserving the
resources as open space."
Todd Chavers withdrew his motion, and Al Perez withdrew his
second.
Moved by Greg Hummel, seconded by Max Maxwell to modify strategy
1.5.7 to read, "To preserve significant environmental resources
within proposed developments, allow clustering or a property
owner to transfer all or part of the development potential of the
March 8, 1994 Page 14
entire site to a smaller portion of the site, thus preserving the
resources as open space."
Gary Neely pointed out, unless the property is transferred to the
local government, the developer can come back in ten years, say
he owns the land, request a change in the deed or map
restriction, and indicate that the City can't preclude
development.
Tom Van Winkle inquired if it is possible to specify the intent
to have the land dedicated to the City in fee.
Dale Beland stated that strategy 1.5.7 does not preclude such an
option.
Ron Fitzgerald pointed out that the original wording of strategy
1.2.9 answers the issues brought forth by GPAC.
Max Maxwell suggested that Greg Hummel's motion be amended to
indicate that the property designated as open space in exchange
for clustering be deeded in fee to the City for conservancy.
Greg Hummel, incorporating Max Maxwell's suggested language,
stated that strategy 1.5.7 would now read, "To preserve
significant environmental resources within proposed developments,
allow clustering or a property owner to transfer all or part of
the development potential of the entire site to a smaller portion
of the site, and transfer property rights . to the City in fee,
thus preserving the resources as open space."
Tom Van Winkle, in response to some of the concerns raised,
stated.that there are tools, such as LOSMD zoning, to make the
development, rather than the City, responsible for the upkeep of
the open area. The intent of the wording is to prevent
developers from "double-dipping" in the future and developing on
property that was designated as open space in exchange for
clustering.
Todd Chavers pointed out that the original statement is merely a
mechanism that could be used by the City and the developer to
potentially get dedicated open space for City use regardless of
ownership.
David Schey suggested the following modified language for
strategy 1.5.7: "To preserve significant environmental resources
within proposed developments, allow clustering or a property
owner to transfer all or part of the development potential of the
entire site to a smaller portion of the site, thus preserving the
resources as open space, and mandating the dedication of those
resources to the City for a conservancy."
Moved by Greg Hummel, seconded by a GPAC member, and Carried to
reword strategy 1.5.7 to read, "To preserve significant
environmental resources within proposed developments, allow
!i
March 8, 1994 Page 15
clustering or a property owner to transfer all or part of the
development potential of the entire site to a smaller portion of
the site, thus preserving the resources as open space, and l
mandating the dedication of those resources to the City for a
conservancy."
Dale Beland referred GPAC to the last sentence in the issue
statement, Open Space Definition and Preservation, on page 1-7,
which reads, "In addition, some areas designated as open space
may have to be acquired, or alternatively, if acquisition is not
practicable, the designation changed in future amendments to the
Plan," which was brought forward as strategy 1.5.8.
Moved by Max Maxwell and seconded by Barbara Beach- Courschesne to
strike the sentence, "In addition, some areas designated as open
space may have to be acquired, or alternatively, if acquisition
is not practicable, the designation changed in future amendments
to the Plan," from page I-7.
Nick Anis suggested that the sentence remain if only to inform
the community of the law.
The GPAC voted upon the motion made by Max Maxwell and seconded
by Barbara Beach-Courschesne to strike the sentence, "In
addition, some areas designated as open space may have to be
acquired, or alternatively, if acquisition is not practicable,
the designation changed in future amendments to the Plan," from
page I77. The motion Carried.
Dale Beland suggested that the review of the Land Use Element �.
conclude for the evening.
V.T.T. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Council Member Ansari stated that if any GPAC member with any
concerns or suggested wording should contact staff for
assistance. She then announced that there will be a fund raiser,
on March 20, 1994, to help support the Library, or people can
donate $25 to the Library.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m..
- R spe�tfu lrcy, 1,
��( .
James Destefa o
MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MARCH 22, 1994
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Werner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
I.T. PARTICIPANTS
HOSTS: Mayor Werner; Council Member Ansari: and City
Consultant Dale Beland
GPAC Members
Present: Ken Anderson; Nick Anis; Frank Arciero Jr.; Bob
Arceo; Barbara Beach-Couschesne; Martha Bruske;
Todd Chavers; Jan Dabney; Haji Dayala; Ron
Fitzgerald; Bruce Flamenbaum; Robert Huff; Jack
Istik; Dorian Johnson; Chiman Kotecha; Chris Li;
Max Maxwell; David Meyer; Bernie Mazur; Steve
Nice; Debbie Noyes; Arthur O'Daly; Albert Perez,
Jr.; Sherry Rogers; Sue Sisk; Wilbur Smith; Tom
Van Winkle; and Dan Wildish
Absent: Don Gravdahl; Steve Johnson; Kathleen McCarthy;
Peter Mitchell; David Schey; Reg Truman; Greg
Hummel; Joyce Leonard.
Staff: Director of Community Development DeStefano; City
Consultant Dale Beland; Associate Planner Rob
Searcy; and Planning Technician Ann Lungu .
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
CDD/DeStefano reported that, as a result of the reorganization of
each of the City's Commissions, the following individuals are now
representing their respective Commissions on the GPAC: the
Planning Commission - Chairman Dave Meyer and Commissioner Don
Schad; the Traffic and Transportation Commission - Commissioner
Todd Chavers and Commissioner Jack Istik; and the Parks and
Recreation Commission will have their reorganization next month.
He then stated that Ken Anderson has replaced Don Schad on the
GPAC, and George Barret will replace Jack Istik.
IV. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF March 8, 1994
Jack Istik requested the minutes of March 8, 1994 be amended on
page 4 to specifically indicate that the City should not be
modeled after typical San Gabriel Valley cities along the 10
freeway.
Jack Istik requested the minutes be amended on page 12 to reflect
the discussion that occurred regarding new strategy 1.5.7, a
carry over strategy 1.2.9 from page I-13, indicating that Dale
Beland responded affirmative to Jack Istik's inquiry if the
March 22, 1994 Page 2
density of a 100 acre open space next to a 100 acre development
was calculated based upon the total 200 acres, and if the second
developer could use that 100 acres again to calculate density.
He stated that the discussion in the minutes should reflect the
concern that the strategy, as written, allowed "double dipping"
and allowed for an increase in density.
The GPAC concurred to approve the minutes of March 8, 1994, as
amended.
Tom Van Winkle questioned if newly modified strategy 1.5.8, on
page I-17, which reads ":..be dedicated to the City for a
conservancy," should read "...be dedicated to the City or a
conservancy."
The GPAC concurred that the text should be modified to change
strategy 1.5.8 to indicate, "...be dedicated to the City or a
conservancy."
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
V1. .REVIEW OF THE LAND USE
Dale Beland stated that the GPAC review will begin on page I-17,
the Land Use Element, Objective 1.6. He suggested that there be
more emphasis on the significance of the Objective, followed by
a discussion and consideration of the strategies, precisely
stating the intent and function of each of the strategies, and a
determination if it is consistent with the Vision Statement.
Arthur O'Daly suggested that an individual requesting a strategy
to be placed in "the box" should give a brief, concise reason for
doing so, so there is a better understanding as to what needs to
i
be discussed.
The GPAC then began discussion with Objective 1.6.
Objective 1.6. Provide flexibility in the planning of new
development as a means of encouraging superior
design.
Dale Beland explained that the Objective, and its strategies, is
working towards a better design for development, encouraging a
Planned Development, a Specific Plan, and the preservation of
open space. He reviewed each strategy, and suggested that GPAC
determine if the strategies are important to meet Objective 1.6.
Tom van Winkle suggested that Objective 1.6 be amended to read,
l "In compliance with our Vision Statement, provide flexibility in
the planning of new development as a means of encouraging
superior design," to keep the strategies consistent with the
intent of the Vision Statement.
Max Maxwell expressed concern with the intent of the meaning of
March 22, 1994 Page 3
the term "encouraging superior design."
Dale Beland stated that State Planning Law specifically describes
what is required for a Specific Plan; but the policies in the
General Plan are critical_ in describing the substance and meat of
the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan must be consistent with the
General Plan. }
Nick Anis pointed out that the term "superior design" indicates 1,
that Diamond Bar desires the best, and will not accept anything
"inferior." r
Wilbur Smith, concerned that the term "flexibility", pointed out
that a "shoddy plan" may be presented though the development is
flexible. He suggested that the objective be modified to be more
specific and indicate "Develop a plan...," in each of the areas.
Todd Chavers noted that the term "design" may have a different
interpretation to each individual.
Dale Beland suggested the following wording: "Consistent with
the Vision Statement, provide flexibility of planning of new
development as a means of encouraging superior land use by means
such as open space and public amenities."
Sherry Roberts pointed out that the General Plan is supposed to
allow for flexibility in the planning of development.
Nick Anis expressed concern that a school cannot be developed and (.
meet the intent of these strategies which require the
preservation of open space, the reduction of traffic, and the `
preservation of native habitat. f
Dale Beland stated that there has been strong endorsement from
the GPAC for the Vision Statement as written. He noted that
there are no absolute statements in the General Plan, and, though
there are diversion of opinions to the extent of some of these
policies and directions, perhaps some definition of objectives
that accommodates the building of schools can be added later l
while dealings with other desires.
Sue Sisk pointed out that it is the State's responsibility to
build schools, not the City's.
Moved by Sherry Roberts and seconded by Todd Chavers to accept
the revised wording for Objective 1.6 which reads, "Consistent l
with the Vision Statement, provide flexibility of planning of new
development as a means of encouraging superior land use by means
such as open space and public amenities."
Max Maxwell suggested that the language in the Objective address
specifically those areas that are remaining in Diamond Bar for
development.
March 22, 1994 Page 4
The GPAC voted on the motion made by sherry Roberts as seconded
by Todd Chavers to revise Objective 1.6 as follows: "Consistent
with the Vision Statement, provide flexibility of planning of new
development as a means of encouraging superior land use by means
such as open space and public amenities." The Motion Carried.
Tom Van Winkle suggested that strategy 1.6.1 replace the phrase
"employment -generating" with "revenue -generating" to remain
consistent.
Moved by Nick Anis and seconded by Sherry Roberts to accept
strategy 1.6.1, changing "employment -generating" to "revenue -
generating".
Barbara Beach-Courschesne expressed concern that strategy 1.6.1
allows a developer to develop anything, as long as he convinces
someone that the land use is appropriate.
i
Dale Beland explained that the strategy allows a developer, with
a Planned Development, to be able to bring forward some mixture
of residential land uses that is deemed appropriate.
Todd Chavers suggested that the word "limited" be deleted in
front of "revenue -generated". He then pointed out that only
those residential land uses already deemed appropriate would be
permitted in a Planned Development area, along with support uses
relative to that residential area.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that the GPAC also consider designating
those properties with a single family designation or a commercial
designation as Planned Development, thus narrowing the
appropriate land use and encouraging superior land use
characteristics.
Dave Meyer noted that the Planning Commission desired Planned
Development for commercial development, large scale commercial,
large scale industrial, whole residential, and residential and
open space land uses so that those properties are looked at in a
more comprehensive fashion.when considered for development.
Martha Bruske inquired what provisions are in the Development
Code to keep commercial development from being backed up to
residential property, which creates problems such as noise, and
increased traffic.
Nick Anis pointed out that there is language already in the
General Plan indicating that the development should be consistent
with the neighborhood.
Dale Beland suggested that GPAC place strategy 1.6.1 in "the box"
to allow staff to made some textural changes for GPAC's
consideration. He then suggested that strategy 1.6.1 be modified
to read, "Within the Planned Development classification, all
residential land uses as defined herein, as well as support uses
'I
March 22, 1994 Page 5
(e.g. open space and recreation, public facilities, commercial, i
revenue -generating uses) may be appropriate, as determined in the l
development process."
Sherry Roberts, who seconded the motion, stated that she would
.prefer to address strategy 1.6.1 now without placing it in "the
box." `
A GPAC representative noted that strategy 1.6.1 is redundant to f
strategy 1.1.7, on page I-12.
Nick Anis amended his motion to accept strategy 1.6.1 as modified
to read, "Within the Planned Development classification, all
residential land uses as defined herein, as well as support uses
(e.g. open space and recreation, public facilities, commercial,
revenue -generating uses) may be appropriate, as determined in the
development process." Sherry Roberts seconded the amended
motion. The Motion Carried.
Dale Beland suggested that GPAC continue with the process of
placing items of concern in "the box", or to offer a modified
motion.
>.; Moved by a GPAC member, and seconded by Nick Anis to accept
f strategy 1.6.2, revising the term "superior design" to "superior
land use."
Tom Van Winkle expressed concern regarding the development of a
residential area by a commercial area, as noted by Martha Bruske. l
Dale Beland noted that one of the typical objectives in a Planned
Development is to organize the use of a piece of property by a
planned development approach which usually results in a more
cohesive end product.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the concept of a Planned Development
is to try to assure that vehicular circulation and pedestrian
patterns are blended together in development so as to avoid the
type of developments such as the centers existing on Golden
Springs and Diamond Bar Boulevard where it is impossible to walk
from center to center.
The GPAC voted on the motion made by a GPAC member, and seconded
by Nick Anis to accept strategy 1.6.2, revising the term
"superior design" to !'superior land use." The Motion Carried.
Dale Beland stated that strategy 1.6.3 is intending to provide
some guidelines and policy direction indicating that the City of
Diamond Bar would like to see a Specific Plan prepared at such
time as the property is annexed, and a development is proposed.
He stated that the actual direction as to what should be included
in the plan would refer back to the Land Use Policy map. {
Martha Bruske suggested that strategy 1.6.4 should only indicate
March 22, 1994 Page 6
the City's desire for a Specific Plan without including all the
specifics regarding potential uses.
Max Maxwell suggested that strategy 1.6.3 should specifically
state the City's intent to preserve open space in Tonner Canyon.
I
Dale Beland suggested that strategy 1.6.3 and 1.6.4 be placed in
"the box."
Nick Anis suggested that strategy 1.6.3 be modified to replace
the word "encourage" with "require the formation of a specific
plan" for preservation. He noted that there is probably a lot of
need for discussion of strategy 1.6.4.
The GPAC concurred to place strategies 1.6.3 and 1.6.4 in "the
box."
Tom Van Winkle suggested that strategy 1.6.5 be moved to the
Resource Management Element.
Martha Bruske. expressed concern that strategy 1.6.5 has the
potential of encouraging spacious homes in one part of town in
sacrifice of allowing high density in the other end of town.
Dale Beland pointed out that "transfer of development rights"
refers to two situations: taking units from one site to allow
more density on another site; and clustering within a parcel
under one ownership.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that strategy 1.6.5 can be deleted since
strategy 1.5.4 and 1.5.8 already address the issue.
Todd Chavers pointed out that strategy 1.5.8 refers to the same
site, and strategy 1.6.5 refers to density transfers between
sites.
Wilbur Smith suggested that the term "transfer of development
rights" be more clearly defined.
Nick Anis questioned why the City would not want to encourage a
developer, who has a right to build, to build homes in a more
suitable location that is better for the community.
ISI__
Dale Beland explained that a developer has a right to build units
on a piece of property, subject to the entitlements allowed by
General Plan policy; however, the issue before GPAC is if a
developer should have more rights by transferring more density to
another property.
Jan Dabney pointed out that density transfers provide the City
('l with other uses as a trade off to a developer.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne inquired what limits are in place to
prevent developers from continuously transferring density on the
March 22, 1994 Page 7
same piece of property every so many years.
Dale Beland noted that the strategy states, "Establish a
process, 11 which indicates that there would have to be a
definition 'of that process, thus addressing Ms. Beach-
Courschesne's concern.
Moved by Todd Chavers and seconded by a GPAC representative to
delete strategy 1.6.5 since it has been previously addressed.
The Motion Carried.
RECESS: Dale Beland recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
RECONVENE: Dale Beland reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Moved by Max Maxwell and seconded by Steve Nice to delete
strategy 1.6.6.
Nick Anis expressed his support of encouraging clustering if
hillside development is to occur.
Sherry Roberts inquired why Mr. Maxwell desires to delete
strategy 1.6.6.
Max Maxwell stated that he feels that hillside development should
not be encouraged in any way.
Jack Istik suggested that the Motion be amended to accept
strategy 1.6.6, modifying the term "common open space" to "public f
open space", and modifying the term "carefully review offers" in
subsection a. to "Encourage offers."
The GPAC voted upon Max Maxwell's motion to delete strategy
1.6.6. The Motion Failed.
Moved by Jack Istik and seconded by Todd Chavers to accept
strategy 1.6.6 modifying the term "common open space" to "public
open space"; changing the term "Carefully review offers" in
subsection a. to "Encourage offers," and striking the second f
sentence; add the word "proposed" before the word "development"
in subsection b.; and rewrite the last part of subsection b. to f
read, 11 ... with undisturbed open space are dedicated to the City." Il
Ron Fitzgerald, in support of leaving strategy 1.6.6 as written,
pointed out that there is already language in the document
encouraging the dedication of open space. The language in this I
strategy gives the City the option of not accepting dedicated
open space if it is determined not to be feasible to accept it or
to maintain it. He stated that deleting "maintained privately"
from subsection b. changes the intent of the paragraph.
Tom Van Winkle, concurring with Mr. Maxwell, stated that the
wording "Encourage hillside development to be clustered" could be
better written to indicate "Encouraging open space through
March 22, 1994 Page 8
clustering," so the intent of the strategy is not quite so
misleading.
Dale Beland suggested that the strategy be amended to read,
"Encourage clustering within the most developable portions of
project hillside sites to preserve open space and/or other
natural resources. Such development should be located to
coordinate with long-term plans for active parks, passive (open
space) parks, and preserve natural open space areas.
a. Encourage offers to dedicate additional open space land to
the City."
Dale Beland stated that Subsection b. is to be deleted in its
entirety.
Jack Istik stated that he would prefer that the word "public open
space" to indicate that the dedicated open space should benefit
the City.
Todd Chavers inquired if there are mechanisms in place assuring
that the open space is guaranteed in perpetuity, whether public
or private, and not developed ten years down the road.
Dale Beland stated that he is not familiar with any mechanism
allowing the City to permanently restrict development potential
on a piece of property without acquisition of the property, or
dedication of the property. He stated that there are ways to
express the intent, thus restricting development entitlement, but
that intent is not a guarantee. He reminded the GPAC that the
General Plan, once adopted, is always subject to review,
revision, and amendment. The General Plan is legally required to
provide opportunities for amendment.
Todd Chavers withdrew his second to Jack Istik's motion as
amended by Dale Beland.
Moved by Jack Istik and seconded by Max Maxwell to amend strategy
1.6.6 to read, "Encourage clustering within the most developable
portions of project hillside sites to preserve public open space
and/or other natural resources. Such development should be
located to coordinate with long-term plans for active parks,
passive (open space) parks, -and preserve natural open space
areas.
a. Encourage offers to dedicate additional open space land to
the City."
Subsection b. is to be deleted in its entirety.
Ron Fitzgerald pointed out that if the land is dedicated to the
City, then the City is responsible for maintenance.
Dale Beland pointed out that the strategy does not require the
March 22, 1994 Page 9
City to accept any offer of dedication.
Tom Van Winkle suggested that the motion be amended to modify the
wording in subsection a. to add "or conservancy", so as to send
a message or direction that if clustering is to be used then the
area should be preserved in some form.
Bernie Mazur pointed out that open space, which is often times
residual land, is valuable and can be used for many things, such
as recreation. That open space is generally maintained in
perpetuity by residents by requiring the developer, to set up
CC&R's.
Nick Anis expressed concern that the language encourages the City
to accept land dedicated by the developers that may have problems
such as landslides.
Dale Beland reiterated that the language .does not mandate that
land be dedicated, nor that the City accept any land.
The GPAC voted on Tom Van Winkle's amendment to Jack Istik's
motion, modifying subsection a. to lead "Encourage offers to
dedicate additional open space land to the City, or conservancy."
The Motion Carried.
The GPAC voted on Jack Istik's motion as seconded by Max Maxwell
to amend strategy 1. 6.6 to read, "Encourage clustering within the
most developable portions of project hillside sites to preserve
public open space and/or other natural resources. Such
development should be located to coordinate with long-term plans
for active parks, passive (open space) parks, and preserve
natural open space areas."; Subsection a. reads, "Encourage
offers to dedicate additional open space land to the City, or
conservancy."; Subsection b. is deleted in its entirety. The
Motion Carried.
Dale Beland stated that there has been a suggestion made to amend
strategy 1.6.4, to eliminate the language after the first
sentence so it would read, "Encourage formulation of a specific
plan pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450
for the 800 acres in the northeast segment of the City known as
Tres Hermanos."
Moved by Ron Fitzgerald and seconded by a GPAC representative to
adopt strategy 1.6.4 as written.
Dale Beland, in response to Jack Istik, explained that the
strategy indicates that the City desires a specific plan
submitted for the Tres Hermanos project, illustrating the kinds
of uses that should be considered in preparation of that specific
plan.
Tom Van Winkle pointed out that the use of the word "should"
instead of the word "may", as indicated in the fourth sentence,
March 22, 1994 Page 10
indicates that the uses are not optional, but mandatory. He
stated that he could accept including the suggested uses, using
the word "may", as long as there was a statement indicating that
such uses need to address problems associated with
infrastructures, street alignments, traffic problems, etc.
Todd Chavers expressed his opinion that only the first sentence
and the last sentence of strategy 1.6.4 should remain.
Sue Sisk stated that there should be some language giving
guidance to the developer as to what should be included in the
specific plan.
Nick Anis questioned the meaning of the word "compatible."
Dale Beland explained that the meaning of "compatibility"
ultimately transforms to "comfort," or what is acceptable to the
citizens at the time of development.
Nick Anis stated that the majority of the residents in that area
desire a development that has as little density as possible.
Moved by Nick Anis to amend the motion made to approve strategy
1.6.4 as written, by deleting the second sentence in strategy
1.6.4, which reads, "This area represents a unique opportunity to
provide facilities of a type and in a manner which take advantage
of this site." The Motion Carried.
Tom Van Winkle reiterated his concern that the language in
strategy 1.6.4 restricts the City's options as well as the
developer's options.
Moved by Ron Fitzgerald, and seconded by Nick Anis, to amend his
original motion to accept strategy 1.6.4 as written, by accepting
strategy 1.6.4, deleting the second sentence and changing the
word "should" to "may" as indicated in the fourth sentence. The
Motion Carried.
Dale Beland then referred GPAC to strategy 1.6.3and the Land Use
Map following page I-23. He explained that the definition of
land within the sphere of influence is land not within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Diamond Bar, which is
also within the County of Los Angeles; however, he noted that its
boundaries does abut other counties. He stated that strategy
1.6.3 encourages, not mandates, the formulation of a specific
plan and protection of the unique biological and open space
resources.
Max Maxwell stated that the sphere of influence is a cougar
corridor that should be preserved and protected.
Moved by Wilbur Smith and seconded by Martha Bruske to accept
strategy 1.6.3 as written, deleting the .phrase, "create fiscal
benefits for the City and enhance its infrastructure."
March 22, 1994 Page 11
Max Maxwell suggested that strategy 1.6.3 read "Preserve the
sphere of influence."
Moved by Nick Anis to amend Wilbur Smith's motion by modifying
strategy 1.6.3 to replace the word "encourage" to "require" as
indicated in the first sentence.
Dale Beland stated that Nick Anis's amendment to the motion is
counter to the intent of Wilbur Smith's motion and should be
presented only if Wilbur Smith's motion fails.
Debbie Noyes requested an explanation as to why it is being
suggested that the phrase, "create fiscal benefits for the City
and enhance its infrastructure," should be deleted.
Wilbur Smith explained that the phrase indicates a desire to make
money from the sphere of influence.
Ron Fitzgerald pointed out that the strategy is written similar
to strategy 1.6.4 whereas it states that if there is a desire to
develop the property, a specific plan should be formulated.
Arthur O'Daly expressed concern that the City does not have
control over its sphere of influence and may be taken by other
the other cities or counties, or granted development rights by
the County.
Dale Beland stated that, in his opinion, it is highly improbable
that another city would request from LAFCO a modification taking
the sphere of influence out of Diamond Bar and into their city.
He then noted that it is possible for the owner of the land in
that area to request development entitlements from the County of
Los Angeles; however, the existing designation of the County,
which is SEA 15, is very limited. He pointed out that the
limited development would most probably occur by annexation to
Diamond Bar through an application to the City; therefore, it is
important to assure that the General Plan is written
appropriately to guide the use in that area.
Todd Chavers questioned why it is felt that the property owner
would not go to the County for development opportunity,
particularly if the City's General Plan specifically states that
the land should be preserved.
Dale Beland pointed out that all the services, such as water and
sewer, and its access, is probably dependent upon the City of
Diamond Bar.
Max Maxwell stated that it is important that the General Plan
indicate the City's intent to preserve the sphere of influence,
particularly since it was the issue addressed in the referendums.
Frank Arciero stated that the property owners have the ability to
develop the property because they can get water from the Walnut
March 22, 1994 Page 12
Valley Water, not Diamond Bar, and they can develop their own on-
site sewer system. He stated that it is important to put
language in the General Plan giving the owners an opportunity to
make a presentation or else they will most likely go elsewhere.
Tom Van Winkle stated that the intent of the suggested
modification to strategy 1.6.3, deleting the phrase, "create
fiscal benefits for the City and enhance its infrastructure," is
consistent with the objective of the Vision Statement. He stated
that if a development is desired, the City can and will deal with
the proposal at that time.
Nick Anis stated that the language in strategy 1.6.3 merely
indicates that if a development is proposed, it should preserve
the natural resources of that area. He pointed out that any
proposal in our sphere of influence should also include fiscal
benefit to the City, otherwise it should not be accepted.
Jack Istik expressed his opinion that fiscal benefits to the City
is not consistent to preserving SEA 15, nor is encouraging the
enhancement of infrastructure.
Dale Beland referred the GPAC to page III -10, Objective 1.2, in
the Resource Element which specifically talks about preserving
SEA 15. He reminded GPAC that each Element in the General Plan
is as important as any other Element, and that the statements
must be consistent; therefore, it is important to remember that
the GPAC need not feel that one statement in the General Plan
must include all concerns and ideas because there is a lot of
support by other statements throughout the document.
The GPAC voted upon the motion made by Wilbur Smith to accept
strategy 1.6.3, deleting the phrase, "create fiscal benefits for
the City and enhance its infrastructure." The Motion Carried.
The GPAC began discussion on objective 1.7.
Objective 1.7 Stimulate opportunities for a population which is
diverse in terms of age, occupation, income,
race, interests, and religion to interact,
exchange ideas, and establish and realize common
goals.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne, questioning if Objective 1.7 is
relevant to the Land Use Element, suggested that perhaps it
should be deleted.
Tom Van Winkle concurred that the Objective should be deleted, or
moved to the Housing Element, or to the economic section of the
document.
Moved by Max Maxwell and seconded by Jan Dabney to delete
Objective 1.7 and all the related strategies 1.7.1 through 1.7.4.
March 22, 1994 Page 13
Tom Van Winkle suggested that the Objective and its strategies be
placed in a more appropriate area rather than deleted.
Dale Beland, in response to Ron Fitzgerald, stated that the
Objective and the strategies are addressed elsewhere in the
document in one form or another.
Ron Fitzgerald requested that the GPAC be reminded that these
items are addressed as they are discussed elsewhere in the
document.
Todd Chavers requested staff to suggest where each of the
strategies are best located.
The GPAC voted upon Max Maxwell's motion to delete Objective 1.7
and all the related strategies 1.7.1 through 1.7.4. The Motion
Carried.
The GPAC began discussion of Objective 1.1, on page I-10, which
was moved to follow Objective 1.7.
Objective 1.1 Establish a land use classification system to
guide the public and private use of land within
the City and its sphere of influence.
Motion made by Tom Van Winkle to add Rural Hillside (RH) density
as subsection a. to strategy 1.1.1, defined as 1.0 dwelling unit
per gross 2.5 acres (1 du/2.5 ac).
Wilbur Smith suggested that discussion on the definition of the
classification of terms be held over to the next meeting, given
the late hour.
Ron Fitzgerald inquired when the next GPAC meeting is scheduled.
Moved by Ron Fitzgerald and seconded by Barbara Beach-Courschesne
to meet March 29, 1994. The Motion Carried 15-13.
It was noted that 8 GPAC members are absent at this meeting who
may or may not be able to attend the March 29, 1994.
Ron Fitzgerald, not able to attend the March 29, 1994 meeting,
requested that discussion of Objective 1.1 be held over to the
meeting of April 12, 1994 in consideration of the controversial
nature of the item. He pointed out that GPAC was to meet the
second and fourth Tuesday of each month, and this unexpected
meeting date has created a conflict in schedule.
Dale Beland noted that if every one of the 15 who voted to meet
March 29, 1994 arrived,' there would still not be a quorum of
GPAC, unless every one of those 8 members who are absent arrived
to. the meeting. He suggested that GPAC reconsider and meet on
April 12, 1994 instead, thus providing staff with a better
opportunity to draft some of the requested language regarding an
March 22, 1994 Page 14
RH designation.
Todd Chavers suggested that perhaps a study group should be
formed to help expedite the process.
Dale Beland, advising against working groups, suggested that GPAC
look next at some of the more concise, less difficult Elements
before addressing complicating issues such as those within the
Circulation Element.
Nick Anis suggested that the voting members be permitted to give
their proxy to another member.
Dale Beland stated that such an action would violate GPAC's basic
ground rules.
Moved by Martha Bruske and seconded by Tom Van winkle that GPAC
not meet on March 29, 1994, but instead meet on the regularly
scheduled meeting date of April 12, 1994. The Motion Carried.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS
CDD/DeStefano invited GPAC to contact staff if anyone is in need
of assistance in reviewing the material.
VIII.ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m..
Re pectful y,
James DeStefan
Secretary
MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APRIL 121 1994
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Werner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PARTICIPANTS
HOSTS: Mayor Werner and Council Member Ansari
GPAC Members
Present: Ken Anderson; Bob Arceo; Frank Arciero Jr.;
Barbara Beach-Couschesne; Martha Bruske; Jan
Dabney; Haji Dayala; Ron Fitzgerald; Jack Healy;
Robert Huff; Jack Istik; Chiman Kotecha; Joyce
Leonard; Chris Li; Max Maxwell; Bernie Mazur;
Kathleen McCarthy; Kishor Naik; Steve Nice;
Arthur O'Daly; Albert Perez, Jr.; Sherry Rogers;
Don Schad; David Schey; Eric Stone; Wilbur Smith,
Steve Tye, Tom Van Winkle; and Dan Wildish
Absent: Todd Chavers;'Greg Hummel; Dorian Johnson; Steve
Tye; Peter Mitchell; Deborah Noyes; and David
Meyer
Staff: Director of Community Development DeStefano; City
Consultant Dale Beland; Associate Planner Rob
Searcy; and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
CDD/DeStefano reported that the following individuals are now
members of the GPAC: Eric Stone has replaced Nick Anis; Steve
Tye has replaced Steve Johnson; Kishor Naik has replaced Reg
Truman; and Jack Healy has replaced George Barrett.'
Dan Wildish expressed concern that the GPAC process has been
changed midstream, eliminating the representatives of the
developers from having voting powers on issues. He stated that
it is inappropriate for the City Council to attempt to manipulate
GPAC, and thus the General Plan document.
Ron Fitzgerald pointed out that GPAC comprises of individuals
that represent the majority of the community, which does include
land owners. He concurred that the City Council should not have
changed the make-up of GPAC without consulting GPAC first.
Max Maxwell expressed his opinion that developers have undue
influence over the issues voted upon by GPAC.
April 12, 1994 Page 2
Chiman Kotecha concurred that any changes to GPAC should be
discussed at GPAC meetings, not at City Council meetings.
Sue Sisk stated that the GPAC was designed to resolve issues
involving the General Plan, not to be manipulated by the City
Council. The GPAC members have been committed to donating their
time and effort to the City, but the City Council does not seem
to be committed to GPAC. She stated that concerns regarding the
make-up of GPAC should have been put on the agenda for discussion
and vote.
Ken Anderson pointed out that GPAC is an advisory body, not a
decision making body. He stated that the developers are well
represented. He noted that GPAC members are to be impartial.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne stated that she had expressed concern
to the City Council before GPAC was formed that developers not
residing in the City should not be on GPAC, except in an advisory
capacity. She stated that the General Plan is for citizens of
Diamond Bar, not developers residing outside City boundaries, and
five votes to developers is an imbalance of representation.
Sherry Roberts expressed disappointment in the method the City
Council chose to make a decision without first.consulting GPAC.
She suggested a motion to disband GPAC.
Ron Fitzgerald suggested a motion that GPAC vote on rejecting the
City Councilts determination of the last meeting and requesting
a reconsideration before considering an end to the process. He
stated that he will not put his name on a document that has been
manipulated midway through the review process.
Jack. Istik suggested GPAC should continue to move forward,
recognizing that it was formed as an advisory body to the
Planning Commission, which in turns advises the City Council. He
stated that he is not in support of disbanding the group.
A GPAC representative pointed out that GPAC is more than just an
advisory body but rather a body assigned to. make appropriate and
perhaps major changes to a document that will be reviewed and
perhaps modified by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
He stated that it is evident GPAC is more than advisory by the
fact that a small group of GPAC members, dissatisfied with how
the issues were being voted upon, were able to make a change to
the make-up of GPAC midstream through the review process, and not
told by the City Council that their concerns will be considered
while reviewing the document.
Wilbur Smith stated that the real issue is that the developers
should not have been given voting powers on issues from the
beginning.
Chiman Kotecha explained that the issue is that changes were made
without the approval of the committee.
v
April 12, 1994 Page 3
Mayor Werner stated that thy: issue regarding voting rights was
not discussed at the GPAC level because voting rights of the
developers were granted by the City Council, not GPAC. He stated
that, though he does not concur that the developers have
influence over how issues have been voted upon, he does concur
that there could be a strong perception that developers had a lot
to do with what was done in GPAC meetings. As mayor, he stated
that he has the responsibility of preserving the integrity of the
efforts put in by GPAC in reviewing the General Plan. He +
concurred that the decisions regarding the future of Diamond Bar
should be made by the citizens.
Dan Wildish expressed his opinion that the explanation stated by
Mayor Werner lacks any real merit or rational behind the decision
to change the rules in the middle of the game. He stated that l
GPAC discussed, at its first meeting, the make-up of the body, f
its representation of the community, the voting powers, as well
as the precise number that would constitute a majority. He
stated that taking out any particular block from the group
changes the entire make-up and continuity of the group, and
compromises the entire process. There needs to be a
determination if the body will proceed under the new rules or
not.
Wilbur Smith stated that GPAC members are intelligent enough to
be able to present their arguments and ideas without walking out
from the process.
Sherry Roberts noted that there are two differing opinions
regarding the future development of Diamond Bar, which is growth
versus no growth/ controlled growth. She stated that it seems
inappropriate for a small group of individuals to insist the
make-up of GPAC be altered because they do not like the way issue
have been voted upon.
Joyce Leonard pointed out that the developers were not a powerful
voting block within the committee. She stated that developers
have an interest in the community because they own property in
the City.
Tom Van Winkle stated that one of the issues of the referendum
was that the General Plan was being voted upon by people. not
residents of the City. This concern was voiced at the Council
meeting.
Wilbur Smith stated that the GPAC should be able to rise above
this issue and move forward.
A GPAC member expressed his willingness to move forward with the
process, based upon the rules agreed as a body, not the rules
changed without GPAC consideration.
Jack Istik stated that, in light of all the effort put into the
process up to this point, the group should move forward with the
April 12, 1994 Page 4
project, despite the decision of the City Council.
Moved by Dan Wildish, and seconded, to proceed based upon the
rules and voting procedures GPAC has operated under and adopted
from the beginning of the process.
Wilbur Smith requested proof or some record showing that GPAC
made a conscious decision as a body to allow the developer to
vote.
CDD/DeStefano stated that there was much discussion at the
January 11, 1994 meeting in which two or three votes were taken
with respect to the number of members required for voting and
comprising a quorum. He stated that the voting issue was raised
once again at the meeting of February 22, 1994, and GPAC
concluded that no changes would be made in terms of composition
of GPAC with respect, specifically, to voting rights.
Ken Anderson suggested that if there is a concern that changing
the composition of GPAC affects the general decision relating to
voting and a quorum, then the City Council can each appoint one
additional person as a solution.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne stated that the minutes of January 11,
1994 does not reflect any motion regarding voting rights.
A GPAC member pointed out that voting rights are ratified by the
City Council, not by GPAC.
Joyce Leonard stated that any concern regarding developers rights
to vote, or any such issue, should have been discussed at the
first meeting of GPAC, and not this far down the road at a City
Council Meeting.
Dan Wildish pointed out that by implication, procedures and other
actions, GPAC has proceeded by allowing the developers to vote,
regardless if there was a specific vote of GPAC making that
determination. He then stated that the City Council does not
have to accept the motion made by GPAC to continue with the
review process as it began.
Wilbur Smith stated that a more appropriate motion would be to
specifically request the City Council to change its mind, or
reconsider its decision.
Tom Van Winkle stated that it is inappropriate for the GPAC to
conduct business contrary to a City Council decision. If there
is a concern regarding a City Council decision, then the
appropriate steps should be taken to place that matter on the
agenda. He suggested that GPAC continue with the process.
j Wilbur Smith reiterated that the motion should clearly indicate
that there is opposition to the decision made by the City Council
to rescind the votes of the developers, and recommend that the
April 12, 1994 Page 5
City Council rescind their action.
Dan Wildish stated that the intent of his motion is not to allow
the Council Members attempt to change GPAC's procedures, but
rather to maintain the status quo and move forward with the
procedures adopted in the beginning of the process.
The GPAC voted on Dan Wildish's motion. The motion Failed 8
13.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne suggested that GPAC move forward with
the review process.
RECESS Mayor Werner recessed the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
RECONVENE Mayor Werner reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Mayor Werner stated that•he will report back to the City Council
to inform them what transpired in the GPAC discussions, and to
see if the City Council would like to pursue any compromises
regarding this issue. He suggested that GPAC move forward.
Dan Wildish, concerned that it appears there was confusion on
voting on the last motion, requested the minutes to reflect that
there is a serious question about the validity of the motion. He
stated that the developers perceived they did not have the
authority to vote on that motion, which is illogical given the
very nature of that particular motion. He noted that often times
a motion may not have the majority support in its general
perception; but if there is slightly different wording on the
secondary motion, a split is created which is enough to defeat
both motions. He stated that the motion first made by Ron
Fitzgerald was to at least have this matter back before the City
Council for reconsideration, in light of the ramifications of the
potential taint of this process.
Mayor Werner clarified that he had suggested that he would report
back to the City /council, not to request reconsideration on the
matter, but rather to see if the City Council would like to
pursue a compromise to the issue.
Moved by Ron Fitzgerald to request the City Council to reconsider
the voting rights of developers, and to adjourn the meeting until
after City Council has had an opportunity to reconsider the
issue.
A GPAC member inquired what prompted the City Council to
reconsider the voting rights of the developer.
Mayor Werner explained that Max Maxwell requested the issue to be
on the agenda, for discussion by the City Council, regarding a
concern, on a procedural basis, that developers were instrumental
in the GPAC document. He stated that he will report back to the
City Council regarding this discussion.
April 12, 1994 Page 6
Martha Bruske seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting. The
motion Carried.
IV. ADJOUPNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m..
Respectful ,
i
i4mias DeStefano
Secretary
NOTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MAY 100 1994
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Werner called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. PARTICIPANTS
HOSTS:
Mayor Werner; and Council Member Ansari
GPAC Members
Present:
Ken Anderson; Bob Arceo; Martha Bruske; Todd
Chavers; Ron Fitzgerald; Jack Healy; Robert Huff;
Chiman Kotecha; Max Maxwell; Kathleen McCarthy;
Steve Nice; Deborah Noyes; Arthur O'Daly; Sherry
Rogers; David Schey; Wilbur Smith; Eric Stone;
Tom Van Winkle; and Dan Wildish
The following non -voters were present: Don l
Schad; Jan Dabney; Dorian Johnson; and Chris Li
Absent:
Barbara Beach-Couschesne; Robert Huff; Greg
Hummel; Jack Istik; Joyce Leonard; Peter
Mitchell; Kishor Naik; Albert Perez, Jr.; and �.
Steve Tye.
The following non -voters were absent: David
Meyer; and Frank Arciero, Jr.
Staff:
Director of Community Development DeStefano; City
Consultant Dale Beland; Associate Planner Rob
Searcy; and Planning Technician Ann Lungu
III. DISCUSSION REGARDING REVIEW PROCESS
M/Werner stated that there is not a quorum of the GPAC this
evening and any
issue discussed cannot be voted upon.
Dan Wildish stated that GPAC was formed, under the direction of
the City Council, to prepare an advisory document for the City
Council's review and consideration, exercising independent
judgements free of outside influences. He expressed his concern
that the City Council had voted to alter the voting makeup of the
GPAC membership by cancelling the voting rights of the developers
representatives, without giving specific notification in the I
agenda of the issue at hand. He stated that his objections to
the changes in the makeup of GPAC half way through the
proceedings are founded on fundamental principles of democratic
government, fairness, and integrity. He questioned how GPAC can
maintain its independence if the appointing body is in a position
to influence the outcome of the document being prepared for their
review and modification. He expressed concern that some members
May 10, 1994 Page 2
on the GPAC seek to utilize the General Plan to restrict any
future development of open spaces in the City regardless of the
fiscal and community benefit to the City. He also expressed
concern that GPAC is being unduly influenced by the threat of yet
another referendum to reject any General Plan which does not meet
the desires of the drafters of the prior referendum which
represented a specific public mandate to restrict growth and
development at all costs. He then announced his resignation from
GPAC effective May 11, 1994 for the reasons stated in his letter
submitted to GPAC and staff for the record.
Council Member Ansari explained that the City Council felt it was
important that the community did not have the perception that
developers were being given more representation than residents.
She stated that the intent is to have GPAC finish their review of
the General Plan, with as much input from the developers as
desired, and placing the document on the ballot in November for
the vote of the people.
Wilbur Smith recalled that GPAC had concurred that any person
missing three meetings would no longer be on the committee.
C/Ansari requested staff to specifically delineate those areas
that GPAC should target during each meeting to expedite the
review of the General Plan.
Tom Van Winkle suggested that GPAC meet weekly or twice a week in
order to expedite the review process to meet the time frame
needed to place the document on the ballot in November 1994.
M/Werner pointed out that if the intent is to place the document
on the November ballot, GPAC's review should be completed by June
1994 to allow time for the Planning Commission review and the
City Council review. He suggested that GPAC could either meet
more frequently to get through the review process, or perhaps
send the document to the City Council as is, to be dealt with at
the Planning Commission and the City Council level in their
public hearing review.
Ron Fitzgerald suggested that each GPAC member review a
designated section of the document prior to the meeting,
specifying those particular areas felt to need further
discussion, so GPAC can focus on just those areas.
Wilbur Smith stated that, without a quorum at this meeting, it is
pointless to discuss any issues. He requested a clear cut
definitive statement determining the number of people on the
committee and the number of members that need to be present to
constitute a quorum.
M/Werner pointed out that the GPAC imposes its own rules and
requirements upon itself.
Martha Bruske expressed support of conducting more GPAC meetings
May 10, 1994 Page 3
to expedite the review process. She stated that the Council
Members must replace those committee members who have resigned so
that GPAC isn't in a position lacking a quorum. She then
inquired how the Brown Act applies to GPAC in this particular
situation.
M/Werner stated that, to his understanding, it is a violation of
the Brown Act for a quorum of GPAC to meet outside of the date
and location as notified. He stated that, since there is not a
quorum of GPAC, this meeting can be considered a study session
discussing the General Plan.
Max Maxwell, in support to meeting once or twice a week,
suggested that GPAC now decide on scheduling dates for future
meetings.
Deborah Noyes pointed out that meeting two or three times weekly
is difficult for many people, and changes the rules established
by GPAC. She suggested that perhaps for future meetings, those l
members unable to attend a meeting should contact staff so staff
can make a determination beforehand if there is a quorum to hold
a meeting.
Discussion then ensued regarding the need for Council Members to
contact their appointees to determine who is still a member, and
to discuss the need to meet more often. I
Many members left the meeting because there was a lack of a
quorum.
Max Maxwell suggested that perhaps any excused absence from
meetings should apply towards a quorum.
Sherry Roberts, concurring with Deborah Noyes that it is
difficult for many people to meet more often, expressed her
opinion that it would seems unfair to remove those individuals
who are unable to attend three meetings.
M/Werner stated that it has been suggested that only those areas
of concern in the Land Use and Circulation Element be discussed
in following GPAC meetings, leaving any remaining items to be
discussed at the Planning Commission and City Council level.
Tom Van Winkle stated that it is nonproductive to discuss these
issues when there is not a quorum present.
Ron Fitzgerald concurred that without a quorum, nothing will be
accomplished this evening. He then concurred that it would be
more appropriate, in future GPAC meetings, to discuss specific
issues of concern rather than item by item.
Wilbur Smith suggested that, to expedite the review process, only
those comments from GPAC members who took the time to write it
down should be discussed.
May 10, 1994 Page 4
M/Werner suggested that each table be assigned a selected issue
of concern and asked to develop appropriate recommendations.
Wilbur Smith and Max Maxwell felt such a suggestion would be
unproductive.
CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will provide needed information
on specific areas remaining in the document desired by any member
of GPAC to help focus the study session this evening or future
meetings. He suggested that the issues of concerns be identified
to help staff facilitate and focus future discussions. He
pointed out that if GPAC does not conclude reviewing the entire
document, any GPAC member can speak before the Planning
Commission or the City Council with respect to personal needs and
other issues.
Wilbur Smith reiterated that each GPAC member should come to
meetings prepared with suggested changes already thought out and
written down for GPAC's consideration.
David Schey pointed out that professional planners have
difficulty developing the appropriate verbiage and it would be
unreasonable to assume each member to be able to do so. He
stated that one of the reasons the process has been slow and
difficult is because every single point is discussed instead of
focusing on the concept.
M/Werner, in response to Tom Van Winkle, stated that the next
meeting is scheduled in two weeks on May 24, 1994.
CDD/DeStefano stated that any information received prior to May
19, 1994 will be copied and provided to all GPAC members and
everyone on the mailing list.
Wilbur Smith expressed his opinion that any items of concern or
issues raised should be voted upon by GPAC at the May 24, 1994
meeting and not just merely discussed.
I+ i
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
I
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MAY 24, 1994
I. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Werner called the meeting to order at 7:00_ p.,m_,__:_, __.__,
II. PARTICIPANTS
HOSTS: Council Member Ansari
GPAC Members
Present: Ken Anderson; Nick Anis; Frank Arciero Jr.; Bob
Arceo; Barbara Beach-Couschesne; Martha Bruske;
Todd Chavers; Jan Dabney; Haji, Dayala; Ron f
Fitzgerald; Bruce Flamenbaum; Robert Huff; Jack f
Istik; Dorian Johnson; Chiman Kotecha; Chris Li;
Max Maxwell;. David Meyer; Bernie Mazur; Steve
Nice; Debbie Noyes; Arthur O'Daly; Albert Perez,
Jr.; Sherry Rogers; Sue Sisk; Wilbur Smith; Tom
Van Winkle; and Dan Wildish
Absent: Mayor Werner; Don Gravdahl; Steve Johnson;
Kathleen McCarthy; Peter Mitchell; David Schey;
Reg Truman; Greg Hummel; Joyce Leonard.
Staff: Director of Community Development DeStefano; l
Associate Planner Rob Searcy; Assistant Planner r
Ann Lungu; City Consultant Dale Beland; and Karen 1
Werner
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
CDD/DeStefano reminded the GPAC that it is necessary that the
review process come to a closure by June 15, 1994 in order to
meet the schedule established by the City Council to place the
document on the November ballot. He suggested that GPAC begin to
focus on the major issues contained in the different Elements,
eliminating the current line by line review of the General Plan
document, and discuss the policy points that need further review
so as to provide a greater volume of material for the Planning
Commission to consider at their public hearing. He suggested
that GPAC finish review of the Land Use Element, and then begin
review of the Housing Element so a draft Housing Element,
containing GPAC's comments, can be sent to the State of
California for its review, as required prior to any closure of
the Housing Element. He stated that the State's comments will
then be incorporated into the Planning Commission review and/or
the City Council review. He suggested that GPAC may want to
consider meeting more frequently in order to be able to review as
much of the document before it is given to the Planning
Commission for their review and consideration.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
May 24, 1994 Page 2
V. REVIEW OF THE LAND USE
Dale Beland pointed out that the unanimous adoption, of the Vision
Statement by GPAC basically defines a recommended General Plan
because the six components of the Vision Statement are well
defined, outlining a basis for the drafting of the document. He
concurred that GPAC should now focus on reviewing major issues
and suggest changes to policy rather than reviewing the document
word by word.
Dale Beland stated that the GPAC should begin this evenings
review of the Land Use Element, with Strategy 1.1.1, on page I-
10. He then referred the committee to the handout submitted by
Wilbur Smith to CDD/DeStefano, recommending changes to existing
Goals, objectives, and Strategies, as well as recommending new
items for GPAC'•s consideration. Dale Beland stated that Mr.
Smith is suggesting that density be defined as a function of
slope classification, as specifically defined in his handout, and
that the definition replace the existing definition of Rural
Residential in Strategy 1.1.1.a.
Tom Van Winkle. expressed concurrence with Mr. Smith's amended
language.
:. Moved by Tom Van Winkle and seconded by Wilbur Smith to amend
Strategy 1.1.1.a to revise the definition of rural residential
density to be dependent upon topography as shown in Table I-3 on
page 1 of Mr. Smith's handout.
Max Maxwell questioned if amending 1.1.1.a would effect the other
land use classifications under Strategy 1.1.1 on page I-11.
Tom Van Winkle explained that the intent is not to create a new
land use classification but rather redefining the rural
residential classification to communicate GPAC's desire for
rural/country living, low density, preservation of open space and
existing topography.
Max Maxwell suggested that 2.5 du/ac be permitted on 20% to 30%
slope classification.
David Schey inquired how the slope classifications would be
calculated given that a site typically has more than one slope,
each with a different percentage.
Dale Beland explained that there are standard procedures for
calculating slope percentage by taking the average slope;
however, the difficulty is the realty of a 20% slope versus a 30%
slope and how it translates to the vacant parcels around the
City. He suggested that if GPAC is interested in pursuing a
slope density formula for density definition, staff should be
asked to provide the committee an analysis of the slopes on
vacant land in the City before making a determination.
May 24, 1994 Page 3
Wilbur Smith stated that his intent was to be very explicit in
that the dwelling units allowed per acre is based upon the
maximum percentage of a lot before grading.
.Dale Beland clarified that the concern being raised is
determining how a one acre parcel with 900 of its topography
having a 20% slope, but 10% of the parcel having a slope of 50%,
would be calculated. He explained that the average slope density
formula is used for this reason.
Wilbur Smith expressed concurrence with using the average slope
density formula prior to grading.
Jack Istik suggested that the City of La Habra Heights, which is
rural in appearance, is a good example of how a City looks
utilizing the average slope density formula.
Todd Chavers inquired if General Plans typically contain a
formula in the document or just contain.a policy statement that
the City will pursue, making it a Ordinance level discussion for
the City Council.
Dale Beland stated that most cities define policy in the General
Plan that density will be a function of the slope, without
defining the actual numbers per se so it can be determined when
developing an ordinance; however, Diamond Bar will most likely
not accept that approach, desiring instead that there is a
definition of a slope density ratio in the Land Use Element of
the General Plan.
Moved by Oscar Law to amend the motion to amend Table I-3,
outlined in Mr. Smith's handout, be amended to allow 2 du/ac in
the 10% - 20% slope classification, 2.5 du/ac in the 20% - 30 %
slope classification, and 3 du/ac in the greater than 30% slope
classification.
The Motion Died for lack of a second.
Todd Chavers suggested that GPAC make a statement recommending an
interest in a slope density policy, indicating the suggested
percentages discussed by GPAC for Planning Commission
consideration.
Tom Van Winkle suggested that the issue be voted upon with Mr.
Smith's suggested classifications, with the understanding that
the numbers can be adjusted during the public review process at
the Planning Commission and the City Council level.
Dan Buffington inquired if these classifications being discussed
would pertain to the Tres Hermanos area as well.
David Schey pointed out that Mr. .Smith's proposal pertains only
to rural residential classifications.
May 24, 1994 Page 4
Wilbur Smith amended his motion, and it was seconded, to amend
.Table I-3 to have a range of 1 du/1.25 - 1.75/ac for 10% to 20%
slope classifications, 1 du/1.75 - 2.25 ac for 20% to 30% slope
classifications, and 1 du/2.25 - 2.75 ac for slope
classifications greater than 30%, keeping 1 to 10% slope
classification at 1 du/ac.
Jan Dabney suggested staff be asked to address the average slope
density for vacant rural residential uses throughout the
community.
CDD/DeStefano referred to a 1980 aerial photo of Diamond Bar
showing the remaining major pieces of vacant land and its average
slope density. He stated that the 800 acre Tres Hermanos
property, which is not classified as rural residential, has an
average slope of about 25%; the property owned by Mr. Liu in the
backside of The Country has an average slope of 30%; the JCC
Development in the backside of The Country has an average slope
of 35% to 40%; the Arciero property in the South Pointe Master
Plan has an average slope of 30%; the RnP property on the South
Pointe Master Plan has an average slope of 30%; the Patel
property in the South Pointe Master Plan also as an average slope
of about 30%; and the RnP property off of Grand Avenue, next to
The Country, has a 29% average slope.
Dale Beland, in response to Max Maxwell's concern, stated that
the discussion at this time is determining the definition of the
classification, and not the use of the classification on the map.
He stated that the next step will be to discuss which properties
will be recommended to be classified according to the definition.
Max Maxwell suggested that GPAC recommend that the Hillside
Management Ordinance have a slope density regardless of its
location.
I
Dale Beland suggested that the discussion at this time continue
on whether to modify the language of strategy 1.1.1.a to reflect
slope density.
Oscar Law suggested that Mr. Smith's Table I-3 be accepted as is,
allowing the Planning Commission to discuss the ranges deemed
appropriate.
Dale Beland asked GPAC to vote upon Mr. Smith's amended motion to
amend Table I-3 to have a range of 1 du/1.25 - 1.75 ac for 10% to
20% slope classifications, 1 du/1.75 - 2.25 ac for 20% to 30%
slope classifications, and 1 du/2.25 - 2.75 ac for slope
classifications greater than 30%, keeping 1 to lot slope
classification at 1 du/ac.
I
The Motion Carried 11-8.
Dale Beland suggested that GPAC review the remaining
classifications of land use on page I-11.
May 24, 1994 Page 5
Max Maxwell stated that it is difficult to designate the
remaining land use classifications without first discussing the
Land Use Map.
Dale Beland concurred that it is difficult separating the
definition of land use classification from the application of the
classification on the Land Use Map; howver, he suggested that
GPAC first agree on the land use classification language, and f
then see how it fits on the Land Use Classification, l
understanding that the language can always be modified if it is
concluded that the use of the designations is inadequate.
Moved by Wilbur Smith and seconded by Tom Van Winkle to modify
Strategy 1.1.5. on page I-12 be amended to his suggested
language, as indicated in his handout, regarding the definition
of conservation open space.
Wilbur Smith explained that the intent of his definition is that
the any open space designation, including deed and/or map
restricted areas that are restricted open space, should not
contain any residences; furthermore, map restricted areas should
be maintained to protect wildlife by restricting fencing and
providing fresh water.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the Resource Management Element on
page III -11 already contains a strategy that discusses, in depth,
maintaining and protecting biologically significant features.
Wilbur Smith pointed out that, though the intent to preserve
wildlife is the same, Strategy 1.1.5 attempts to place some
limitation in terms of the amount of fencing that is appropriate.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne, in concurrence with the intent of the l
suggested wording, stated that the language should be more
specific to restrict not just housing but other buildings as
well.
Wilbur Smith suggested that his motion be voted upon and then
another motion be made to include language that would restrict
what ever else is desired.
Dale Beland suggested that the third line explaining the reason
for changing the strategy can be modified to replace "residences"
with "occupied structures".
Wilbur Smith, noting that problems can arise with the definition
of "occupied structures", stated that he would prefer leaving the
language as is.
Dale Beland, in response to a comment made, stated that it
appears most of the GPAC members define open space as open
undeveloped land absent structures.
Max Maxwell suggested that existing Strategy 1.1.5 on page.I-12
May 24, 1994 Page 6
may be adequate if the last sentence, "This designation carries
with it... properties by the County," was deleted:
Dale Beland explained that the reason Strategy 1.1.5 now contains
a combination of one dwelling unit in open space is to eliminate
any threat of adverse possession, or taking of property rights.
He stated that if GPAC chooses to recommend the definition of
open space that does not allow residential use, there is a
probability there will be a claim of taking, thereby forcing the
City to acquire the property rights of any land so designated.
In response to Jack Istik, Dale Beland clarified that there is no
problem if the City has acquired, by voluntary dedication, land
which is designated open space; however, if the city applies a
designation of open space/ conservation to private property and
does not allow one dwelling unit, there will be some concern by
the owner of the property and some potential demand that there be
at least some "useful use", irrespective of the size of the
property.
Max Maxwell stated that he feels allowing one dwelling unit
creates a loop hole.
Wilbur Smith called for his motion.
Dale Beland requested clarification if the intent of the motion
is to include the last sentence which reads, "Map restrictions
shall be written which implement the following statements in
RURAL RESIDENTIAL zones. a) Fencing on lots ... which ever is
greater. b) Systems shall be installed ... by the city, 11 in
Strategy 1.1.5 or to move it to Strategy 1.1.1.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that most of the map restrictions are
not rural residential property. He stated that if the last
sentence is stricken, any property that has a deed or map
restriction would become open space according to the suggested
definition of Strategy 1.1.5.
GPAC voted on the Motion made by Wilbur Smith and seconded by Tom
Van Winkle to modify Strategy 1.1.5. on page I-12 be amended to
his suggested language, as indicated in his handout, regarding
the definition of conservation open space. The Motion Failed.
Moved by Tom Van Winkle and seconded to accept the modification
of Strategy 1.1.5 as suggested by Mr. Smith in his handout,
amending the last sentence to replace the term "RURAL
RESIDENTIAL" with "conservation/ open space". The Motion Carried.
Moved by Bob Arceo and seconded by Todd Chavers that whatever is
accomplished by the end of this meeting be sent to the Planning
Commission for review, with the caveat that anything not covered
j in the agenda already, be covered with the Vision Statement.
Bob Arceo pointed out that many GPAC members are unable to
i
May 24, 1994 Page 7
rearrange their schedules to meet once a week.
Max Maxwell expressed concern that by doing so, GPAC would be
unable to provide the necessary input needed to make any
substantial changes. i
Wilbur Smith expressed support for meeting once a week until June 1
15, 1994.
Martha Bruske expressed support with spending as much time as
possible to review as much of the document as possible.
Sherry Roberts and Tom Van Winkle concurred with Martha Bruske.
Todd Chavers stated that GPAC should continue with their review
until June 15, 1994. He suggested that GPAC should formally
determine which issues need to be addressed and the amount of
time that should be allocated to discuss them.
Wilbur Smith suggested that the GPAC finish discussing the land
use classifications.
Sherry Roberts expressed concern that there are legal
ramifications to the definition of conservation open space.
Tom Van Winkle stated that any legal ramification to wording
suggested by GPAC will be appropriately amended at the Planning
Commission or City Council level.
The GPAC voted upon the motion made by Bob Arceo and seconded by
Todd Chavers to move forward the recommendation of GPAC, based on
work accomplished and consensus reached as of this meeting, to
the Planning Commission. The Motion Failed.
Moved by David Schey and seconded by Tom Van Winkle to approve
items l.l.l.b, c, d, & e including appropriate typo corrections. !
The Motion Carried.
Recess: The meeting was recessed at 8:35 p.m. I
Reconvened: The meeting was reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
Dale Beland inquired if the GPAC prefers to assign a specific
amount of time for the remainder of the issues to be discussed
this evening. He then noted that GPAC is one person short for
the minimum requirement for a quorum. He suggested a motion can
be made to continue the meeting as an ad hoc committee.
Moved by Jack Istik to redefine a quorum of GPAC to be a majority
of those present this evening.
Dale Beland stated that it is his and staff's opinion that there (
needs to be a quorum of GPAC present, which would be 19 members,
in order to redefine GPAC's operating rules.
May 24, 1994 Page 8
Moved by Todd Chavers and seconded by Wilbur Smith that the GPAC
continue their discussion as an ad hoc committee and that
recommendations made from this point forward to the end of the
evening is advisory ad hoc only.
Jack Istik expressed his opinion that there is a majority of the
GPAC members in the room and a vote of the simple majority of the
members here would constitute a vote of the GPAC.
Martha Bruske suggested that any recommendations made by GPAC as
a working body should not be amended at the next meeting by those
not present this evening. She stated that there needs to be a
redefinition of GPAC's operating rules if one person can leave
the meeting during recess and disrupt the entire group.
Ken Anderson stated that there needs to be an updated list of
active members of GPAC.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that GPAC focus their review on the
issues of the General Plan and the vision for the City of Diamond
Bar.
Oscar Law pointed out that each vote taken this evening carried
by a substantial margin, indicating that regardless of a .quorum
at this time, which is short by only one member, the majority of
the members present appear to be in agreement.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne stated that since GPAC concurred on a
quorum, that decision should be respected. She stated it would
be inappropriate to deny any GPAC member not present this evening
an opportunity to' vote at the next meeting on issues discussed
from this point forward. She suggested that GPAC change the
definition of a quorum at the next meeting.
Dale Beland suggested that the GPAC may wish to have Karen Werner
give her presentation on the Housing Element, regardless of the
outcome of the motion.
Tom Van Winkle concurred that GPAC should follow their own
procedures established, and that the first item discussed at the
next meeting should be to vote on changing those procedures, and
to meet on a weekly basis if possible.
Gary Neely pointed out that there is not a quorum of the GPAC to
vote on the motion made by Todd Chavers. He also pointed out
that discussion of changing GPAC procedures may be a violation of
the Brown Act because it is not on the agenda.
Dale Beland reported that Karen Werner will give a brief
description of Housing Law, what it means to the City of Diamond
Bar, and where the City stands in terms of compliance.
Karen Werner stated that the Housing Element requires the review
by the State Department of Housing Community Development (HCD),
Mag► 24, 1994 page 9
which prepares a written finding indicating if, in their opinion,
the Element complies with State law. She stated that the HCD
made one outstanding comment to the Housing Element submitted for
the last General Plan, that the City was unable to address and
satisfy, regarding the identification of adequate sites for high
density housing. She explained that the City attempted to
address the requirement in the Housing Element by identifying the
potential via the Specific Plan in the Tres Hermanos project, and
by identifying, in the Land Use Element, a mix of residential
density in the Tres Hermanos area; however, the number of multi-
family high density units is not specifically defined, which is
required by the State. She stated that the following three
options are available in relationship to the Housing Element:
leave it as is in relation to the multi -family site, adding any
level of detail in the Tres Hermanos Specific Plan and
identifying topographic and hillside constraints; identify other
sites for high density housing at 25 du/ac; or specifically
identify a minimum number of high density units to be constructed
on the Tres Hermanos property.
Max Maxwell pointed out that if the HCD criteria is not met, the
City will not be eligible to receive State funds.
Karen Werner stated that the only tie with State funds, at this
time, would be if the City was pursuing State housing money.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the City has made a conscious
choice in the past few years not to have 25 du/ac densities in
the City. He expressed his opinion that it is not necessarily
the sites in Diamond Bar that is needed for HCD approval, but
that the City needs to increase densities in order to create
products that could become affordable for low and moderate income
families.
Wilbur Smith expressed his opinion that the City should not be
concerned with meeting HCD requirements.
Karen Werner stated that the City also has the option to adopt an
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance whereby requiring that a certain
percentage of all projects set aside a certain percentage of
units for affordable housing.
Barbara Beach-Courschesne inquired if the State criteria for
affordable housing is based on a percentage of the population.
She asked what other alternatives are available, such as
subsidizing, to meet the criteria.
Karen Werner stated that the Housing Element process is currently
undergoing significant reform to address many questions regarding
the criteria; however, as it stands, cities only receive credit
for newly constructed units. She stated that Diamond Bar's
regional housing requirement is for a total of 781 units, of
which 117 should be for very low income households, and 182 for
low income, both of which need to have a density range of 25
May 24, 1994 Page 10
du/ac or above. She explained that the State determined the
amount of housing needed based upon previous household growth,
estimating future household growth over the five year period of
the Housing Element, and then subtracting a factor for vacancies
and for demolition.
I
Tom Van Winkle suggested that the language in the Housing Element
be modified rewording Goal I to read, 'The City should provide
opportunity for development of housing suitable to meet the needs
of the residents," because the City should not be concerned with
State requirements at this time..
Karen Werner, in response to Gary Neely; stated that the Housing
Element can probably still refer to the Tres Hermanos Specific
Plan, but a commitment must be included indicating a time frame
for construction of those low and moderate income housing.
David Schey questioned if the strategy in the Housing Element
should be to provide affordable housing or to provide a given
level of density.
Karen Werner explained that there is a requirement for the City
to provide the site to meet these regional figures, and a
requirement to make a good faith effort to pursue other means of
assuring affordability for those units. She stated that there is
a series of affordable housing programs in the Element, but not
the site.
Tom Van Winkle expressed concern that meeting State requirements
for low income housing would change the ambience of the
community.
i
i
Karen Werner stated that one must take into consideration that
the definition of a low income household in Los Angeles County
earns about $42,000 a year. She pointed out that affordable
housing projects can be designed very attractively.
V.T. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m..
R ectfull
Ja s DeStefano
Secretary
'i
MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 9, 1994
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.
II. PARTICIPANTS
GPAC Members
Present: Ken Anderson; Bob Arceo; Barbara Beach-
Couschesne; Terry Birrell; Martha Bruske; Todd
Chavers; Ron Fitzgerald; Edda Gahm; Mike
Goldenberg; Jack Istik; Oscar Law; Max Maxwell;
Steve Nice; Debbie Noyes; Arthur OfDaly; Jim
Paul; Rey Reyes; Don Schad; David Schey; Wilbur
Smith; and Tom Van Winkle;
Absent: Jack Healy; Robert Huff; Chiman Kotecha; Kishor
Naik; Albert Perez, Jr.; Sherry Rogers; Eric
Stone; Joyce Leonard; Frank Arciero Jr.; Jan
Dabney; Dorian Johnson; Chris Li; Bernie Mazur;
and David Meyer.
4 Staff: Director of Community Development DeStefano,
Chairman; Associate Planner Rob Searcy; Assistant
Planner Ann Lungu; City Consultant Karen Warner
III. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Moved by Tom Van Winkle, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courschesne
and Carried that the quorum be mandated as the members present at
any given meeting, and .approval of vote be a simple majority.
CDD/DeStefano reported that the City Council has indicated that
GPAC needs to conclude its efforts by the end of the month. He
stated that each members packet includes a schedule outlining a
series meeting dates and suggested topics that should be
discussed. He then introduced the following new members who have
replaced those that have resigned: Terry Birrell; Eda Gamm; Ray
Reyes; Mike Goldenberg; and Jim Paul.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that GPAC, to conclude and expedite its
review process, should indicate those items that they feel are
major issues that need discussion rather than continuing with a
line by line review. He suggested that GPAC first begin with a
review of the issues paper, as submitted by Karen Warner, the
consultant, regarding the Housing Element.
Todd Chavers suggested that future agendas not only include the
topic to be discussed for that evening, but also additional
topics in case GPAC finishes its review in a timely manner and
would prefer to continue with new topics.
June 9, 1994 Page 2
Max Maxwell, questioning staff's suggested schedule of topics to
be discussed, indicated that he would like to begin focusing on
the Land Use Map designations.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the schedule was prepared taken into
consideration staff availability, and time constraints. He
stated that since GPAC had begun review of the Housing Element,
it seemed appropriate to continue its review, particularly since
many sections of the Housing Element play into the Land Use
Element.
Todd Chavers suggested that the Circulation Element be discussed
prior to the Resource Management Element since it is a natural
issue that follows land use. He also noted that he may not be
i present at the current date scheduled to discuss the Circulation
Element, and he would like the opportunity to provide comment.
CDD/DeStefano stated that the Circulation Element will now be
discussed at the June 23, 1994 meeting, and the Resource
Management will be discussed on June 28, 1994. He stated that
the Resources Management can also be discussed if review on the
Public Health and Safety Element or Land Use concludes in a
timely manner.
The GPAC concurred.
IV. MINUTES
Wilbur Smith stated that the first paragraph and the second to
last paragraph, on page 4 of the Minutes of May 24, 1994, should
be amended to indicate "1 du/1.25 to 1.75 acres."
Todd Chavers stated that the minutes of May 24, 1994 should be
amended on page 6 to indicate that the motion was made by Bob
Huff and not Bob Arceo.
Moved by Ron Fitzgerald, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courschesne
and Carried to approve the minutes as amended.
V. puBLIC COMMENTS - None
( VI. REVIEW OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT
Wilbur Smith requested that his suggestions, as outlined in his
handout dated May 19, 1994 and distributed at the May 24, 1994
GPAC meeting, be discussed this evening as well.
Terry Birrell requested discussion regarding the relationship of
the housing opportunities with the Land Use Element.
Karen Warner reported that the Housing Element will be submitted
to the State for review following GPAC's review and
recommendation. She stated that the State has indicated that
they will expedite their review to meet the scheduling
June 9, 1994 Page 3
requirements of the City.
Max Maxwell requested discussion regarding the specific location
of the housing and the changes to density that must be made
following the decision of the density designations to meet State
requirements.
Martha Bruske requested the Housing Element to reflect the City's
desire to maintain a single-family residential community.
Karen Warner explained that the Housing Element is the only
Element that has very detailed legal requirements and must be
reviewed by the State agency. She stated that GPAC needs to
provide a decision to the City if there is a desire to meet the
requirements of the State, or to craft an Element that reflects
the characteristics of the community, explaining the City's
constraints to subsidize low-income housing. She then provided
an overview of the requirements of the Housing Element.
Tom Van Winkle inquired how the City can meet the requirements of
the State regarding low and very low income housing and maintain
the aesthetics of the community.
Karen Warner stated that' the City can adopt an inclusionary
housing ordinance to deed restrict those units with a maximum
rent cap, and maximum income for occupancy. f
Wilbur Smith, upon confirmation from Karen Warner that the City
needs to designate an area in the community as 25 du/ac for very
low income, and another area as 18 du/ac for low income to
satisfy the City's obligation, noted that the City would only be
required to designate 5 acres for very low income, 10 acres for
low income, and 18 acres for moderate income.
In response to Barbara Beach-Courschesne, Karen Warner explained j
that, though the City is not required to build the number of
units indicated in the Regional Housing Needs, as projected by
the State Department of Finance, the City must have the site
designated for that many units to occur. {
Max Maxwell inquired if the City can increase the density on
developed property.
Karen Warner stated that the City does has a legal right to zone
a property, as long as the City is not taking away the economic
value. She noted that the State discourages cities from meeting
their entire housing requirements in one small area. She
explained that the City is required to submit a land. use
designation map, as well as a set of programs that support the
development housing but rehabilitation and conservation of
affordable housing.
Tom Van Winkle noted that the intent of the Tres Hermanos
Specific Plan was to accomplish the City's housing requirements.
June 9, 1994 Page 4
Karen Warner stated that the State should not have a problem with
the City using Tres Hermanos as a mechanism to meet State housing
requirements because it is such a large area.
In response to Tom Van Winkle's inquiry regarding deed
restrictions, Karen Warner explained that the City has the
ability to place restrictions in the deed to condition a project
to provide housing as deemed appropriate to meet community needs.
Todd Chavers suggested that GPAC broad brush potential areas to
be designated low and very low income housing, and document those
areas to meet State requirements, rather than specifically
choosing one area.
Karen Warner clarified that HCD now requires cities to rezone the
sites in the Land Use Map, and include a program to rezone,
within a given time frame, the sites identified. She pointed out
that the reason the State did not accept the City's reference to
Tres Hermanos Specific Plan to meet the requirements was because
the location was not specifically identified.
Moved by Wilbur Smith and seconded by Jack Istik to adopt option
#2, within Cotton Beland's issue paper, which indicates that the
City has identified the site necessary to meet the designated
number for very low and low income housing.
Max Maxwell inquired if accepting Tres Hermanos as the site to
meet the criteria, as indicated in option #2, includes the Tres
Hermanos Specific Plan.
Karen Warner stated that the option refers to a mechanism of
having a legally binding Specific Plan that implements the
General Plan to avoid having to designate those 15 acres on the
800 acre property. She stated that if the City does not indicate
that a Specific Plan will be developed, then the City will have
to designate the specific locations within the 800 acres;
however, the City does not have land use categories in the
General Plan currently that would permit those densities.
Mike Goldenberg expressed his opinion that low and very low
income housing should be distributed throughout the City so that
one segment of the community is not segregated.
Karen Warner, in response to an inquiry as to when the City will
have to specifically develop a Specific Plan, stated that the
City will have to revisit the Housing Element in 1996 as mandated
by the State.
Martha Bruske inquired if the State can be petitioned to allow
the City to do a good faith effort now to come into compliance of
the housing requirements and during redevelopment, noting that
Diamond Bar is at build out and was incompliance prior to City -
hood.
June 9, 1994 Page 5
Karen Warner stated that option #1 indicates that the City will
show good faith effort without designating additional sites.
Debbie Noyes pointed out that the low income families could be
our children that live in our community, and not necessarily the
"bad" people being portrayed at this time.
Karen Warner, in response to a concern expressed by Ron
Fitzgerald, suggested that a policy may be added to the Housing
Element, regardless of where the site is to be designated, to
express the desire to provide for housing for existing residents
and employees in the community. fl
Todd Chavers pointed out that option #1, referencing a commitment
to exploring the opportunity in Tres Hermanos, provides some
flexibility without stating that a Specific Plan will be done in l
Tres Hermanos.
CDD/DeStefano, in response to an inquiry, stated that the City
does not get credit for existing development, only what is
created during the time frame of the Housing Element.
Wilbur Smith amended his motion to adopt option #2, with a two
year time period, to indicate that the City has identified the
site necessary to meet the designated number for very low and low
income housing. l
The Motion Failed.
Moved by Barbara Beach-Courschesne and seconded to adopt option
#1 as outlined in Cotton Beland's issue paper.
The Motion Carried.
Jim Paul noted that the last line in the second paragraph on page
II -21 of the Housing Element should be amended to indicate )
"greater than 5 du/ac."
RECESS: The meeting was recessed at 9:00 p.m.
RECONVENED: The meeting was reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
Karen Warner stated that additional justifications will be
included in the Housing Element to build the City's case for
option #1, such as not having an opportunity to challenge the
Regional Housing Needs provided by the State. She requesting !
additional input explaining why the City is constrained from
building higher density housing preventing the City from meeting I
State mandates. !
Martha Bruske pointed out that the City has major land slippage t
and other geotechnical problems on developed land and remaining `
vacant land, which prevents development.
l
June 9, 1994 Page 6
Todd Chavers stated that the City has limited financial resources
that limits development.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that one of the constraints is that much
of the open space land is deed restricted.
Wilbur Smith noted the environmental constraints of further
development.
Dan Buffington noted that much of the privately held property
should not be included in the formula for high density
I
development because of CC&R restrictions.
Tom van Winkle suggested that areas designated 16 du/ac can be
increased to 18 du/ac to meet State criteria for future
development.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that Max Maxwell indicated his
preference that the land use designation be consistent with the
realty of what is existing.
CDD/DeStefano pointed out that higher density housing would
impact the City's circulation system and will increase traffic
problems in intersections already highly impacted above City
standards. He also noted that the City needs to further its
financial base and stability, and the development of housing
generally constrains the financial resources for the long term.
Karen Warner pointed out that the City would be working towards
building commercial instead of housing in order to substantiate
the financial constraint. She suggested that a statement be
included discussing level of service and economics to indicate
why the City is not looking at commercial areas for multi -family.
Terry Birrell noted that development of the last four open space
properties will drive up the price of housing.
CDD/DeStefano stated that Karen Warner will include these
justifications in the Housing Element. He then suggested that
Wilbur Smith review his remaining issues that need further
discussion.
Wilbur Smith suggested that strategy 1.1.10, on page II=29, be
reworded to indicated that, "Each housing unit shall have a
minimum of one off street parking place or 3/4 off street parking
place for each bedroom with fractions rounded down to the nearest
whole number."
j Karen Smith strongly recommended that GPAC not include. parking
standards in the General Plan because if those standards are ever
revised, then the City would have to go through a General Plan
amendment. she noted that the strategy is referring to senior
housing projects, which usually requires less parking.
Jia
June 9, 1994 Page 7
CDD/DeStefano suggested that any level of detail pertaining to
parking for a specific use is best addressed in the Zoning
Ordinance.
Todd Chavers suggested that the City Council be asked to look at
a parking criteria that is part of the Development Code instead
of being specific in the General Plan.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that strategy 1.1.10 be removed from the
Housing Element and placed in the Circulation Element to be
discussed at that time of review.
Moved by a GPAC member, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courschesne and
Carried to relocate strategy 1.1.10 in the Housing Element, on
page II -29, to Goal 4 of the Circulation Element for further
discussion.
Wilbur Smith suggested that strategy 3.1.3 in the Housing Element
be amended to read, "Ensure the single family character of the
neighborhood is protected, and that road, water and sewer systems
are capable of supporting such development. Require some minimum
standards on home construction, residence and lot square footage
to insure quality home," to also include the examples indicated
in his handout distributed at the May 24, 1994 meeting.
CDD/DeStefano stated that, on the meeting of February 22, 1994 on
the Land Use Element, GPAC approved a strategy that basically
indicated, "Maintain the residential areas providing for
ownership of single family housing, and require that new
development be compatible with the prevailing character of the
surrounding neighborhoods." He suggested that it may be more
appropriate to ask the City Council to visit the Zoning Code to
meet the standards suggested by Wilbur Smith.
Karen Warner stated that it is advisable for a city to adopt a
second unit ordinance; otherwise, it would fall under State 4
regulations and the City will not be able to have the same level
of control on those second units. She stated that strategy
3.1.3, as written, is adequate. it
Martha Bruske expressed concern that GPAC is advised not to be
specific on these issues of concern; however, without specific
parameters, there is no guarantee that these issues will be
accurately included in an ordinance.
Karen Warner stated that GPAC can provide direction that the
County standards for parking, or any other issue of concern, are
not providing the character desired in the community, and the
city's zoning ordinance needs to provide for these goals.
Todd Chavers explained that there is a review process, at the
next level of specificity, for the development and adoption of
these ordinances.
June 9, 1994 Page 6
Max Maxwell stated that he desires the General Plan to
specifically indicate whether or not County standards and/or
current City standards are acceptable.
CDD/DeStefano stated that if the GPAC seems to favor specific
standards as presented, then a motion should be made to accept
that proposal.
Moved by Wilbur Smith, and seconded, to accept his recommendation
as outlined for strategy 3.1.3, with further discussion regarding
specific criteria.
Barbara Beach- Courschesne suggested that strategy 3.1.3 indicate
that second units will not be permitted on single-family parcels.
i
( Todd Chavers whether the intent of Wilbur Smith's recommendation
was not to exclude second units but rather to address the quality
of all construction development.
i
Wilbur Smith confirmed that his intent was to address quality;
however, if there is a desire to exclude second units, then a
statement should be .added to indicate as such.
Ron Fitzgerald expressed concern that placing the types of
requirements suggested by Wilbur Smith into the General Plan is
too restrictive, and that GPAC is not qualified to make such
determination. He suggested that wording be included to indicate
GPAC's desire to exceed County standards, rather than
specifically stating the standards.
Wilbur Smith's Motion Failed.
Moved by Max Maxwell, seconded by Martha Bruske to strike
strategy 3.1.3 in the Housing Element, eliminating second units.
Todd Chavers suggested that the strategy be replaced with
language indicating that the current development standards under
the County are inadequate and don't meet the stringent
requirements and quality desired by the community, and the City
should pursue a strategy to develop high quality standards
jj consistent with existing single-family residential neighborhoods.
CDD/DeStefano suggested that Max Maxwell's motion be voted upon
first, followed by discussion on Todd Chavers suggested wording,
with consideration of placing such a strategy in the Land Use
Element rather than the Housing Element.
Mike Goldenberg suggested that, if the State can mandate the City
to allow second units on a property, then it would be appropriate
to include language indicating the minimum standards allowed.
Karen Warner indicated that, without a City ordinance prohibiting
second units, State standards would be followed.
June 9, 1994
Page 9
The Motion made by Max Maxwell Carried.
Moved by Tom Van Winkle, seconded by Martha Bruske. and Carried to
direct staff to prepare a strategy reflecting Todd Chavers'
suggested language, to be placed in the Land Use Element.
Moved by Martha Bruske and seconded by Tom Van Winkle to amend
Goal 1 in the Housing Element, on page II -28, to read, "The City
should provide opportunities for development of housing suitable
to meet the needs of residents."; to amend Goal 2, on page II -30,
to read, "Encourage adequate and nonprejudicial housing
opportunities for all segments of the community."; and amend Goal
3, on page II -34, to read, "Reserve, preserve and conserve
existing- housing stock and maintenance of property values and
residents' quality of life."
Ron Fitzgerald expressed concern with eliminating reference to
economic considerations in regards to housing developments,
indicated in Goal 2, which should meet the needs of the
community.
Tom Van Winkle stated that the General Plan includes adequate
language regarding -economic stability. He stated that housing
should meet the needs of the community, as is indicated in the
.`. motion.
Martha Bruske's Motion Carried.
Moved by Terry Birrell and seconded by Todd Chavers to integrate
the housing opportunity areas on page II -19 to reflect the
determination achieved in the Land Use Element that map and deed
restrictions will be preserved; therefore, such restricted areas
would be designated as open space areas.
Todd Chavers seconded the motion with the amendment that page II -
21, item (a) referring to the character and range of residential
types of densities, also be integrated in the Land Use Element.
Karen Warner stated that the Housing Element can include a
minimum density range without going into a paragraph description.
She explained that the Housing Element is based upon the Land Use
Element.
Jack Istik stated that, due to the lateness of the hour, it is
difficult to comprehend the suggested amendment to the motion and
perhaps the issue should be discussed at the next meeting.
Terry Birrell's Motion as amended by Todd Chavers Failed.
Moved by Barbara Beach-Courschesne, seconded by Tom Van Winkle
and Carried to accept Terry Birrell's original motion to
integrate the housing opportunity areas on page II -20 to reflect
the determination achieved in the Land Use Element that map and
deed restrictions will be preserved; therefore, such restricted
June 9, 1994 Page 10
areas would be designated as open space areas.
VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectf ,
a es DeStefano
Secretary
l
MINUTES OF THE GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE l
WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 14, 1994
l
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m.
II. PARTICIPANTS
GPAC Members
Present: Ken Anderson, Bob Arceo, Barbara Beach-
Courchesne, Terry Birrell, Martha Bruske,
Todd Chavers, Ron Fitzgerald, Edda Gahm, Mike
Goldenberg, Jack Healy, Jack Istik, Chiman
Kotecha, Oscar Law, Max Maxwell, Steve Nice,
Jim Paul, Rey Reyes and Don Schad.
Absent: Frank Arciero, Jr., Jan Dabney, Robert Huff,
Dorian Johnson, Joyce Leonard, Chris Li,
Bernie Mazur, David Meyer, Kishor M. Naik,
Deborah Noyes, Arthur O'Daly, Albert Perez,
Jr., Sherry Rogers, David Schey, Wilbur
Smith, Eric Stone and Tom Van Winkle.
Staff: Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Assistant
Planner Ann Lungu, and City Consultant
Patrick Mann, Cotton/Beland/Associates, j
III. ACTIONS
Motion by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, seconded by Max Maxwell, f'
to draft language into the appropriate elements, housing,
land use, or both, to make difficult the addition of second
units on lots capable of supporting them. Passed.
Max Maxwell moved, seconded by Martha Bruske, to change
exterior CNEL in residential areas from 65 dBA to 55 dBA. (,
Motion fails.
Oscar Law moves, Barbara Beach-Courchesne seconds, that new
development may not cause exterior CNEL in surrounding areas f
to exceed 55 dBA, or, failing that, the developer must
implement tested and proven mitigation measures to bring the �1
affected areas back into 55 dBA compliance or better. Later
withdrawn in favor of next motion.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved that new construction,
excluding additions and remodels, not be permitted to cause
1
the exterior CNEL level of surrounding residential
neighborhoods to exceed those limits stated in table 4-1, or
to impact adversely the existing CNEL of those
neighborhoods. Motion passes.
Jim Paul moved that a new column be added to table 4-1,
giving 60 dBA exterior CNEL objective for school
playgrounds, 55 dBA for residential, schools and classrooms,
and parks; 65 dBA for noisy, active areas and office areas;
and 55 dBA for passive recreation areas. Interior CNEL areas
would be 45 dBA for hospital living areas, 40 dBA for
residential, schools and classrooms, libraries, and a 35 dBA
for hospital sleeping areas. Motion passes.
Terry Birrell moved, Barbara Beach-Courchesne seconded, for
a new strategy 1.10.3, within 65 dBa noise contour areas,
protecting natural noise barriers. Motion passes.
Motion made by Todd Chavers, seconded by Max Maxwell, on
1.10.6 to mandate an update of noise contour map, and for
1.10.4 reference to include new map as well.
Amendment requested by Martha Bruske, asking for review of
noise contour map at every General Plan revision, not to
exceed once a year.
Todd Chavers withdrew, then restated his motion, seconded by
Max Maxwell, to mandate an update to the noise contour map
at every five year general plan revision, and at every two
and a half year midpoint interval. Motion passes.
Patrick Mann moved to replace text beginning after "(CNEL)
scale," in section 8, page IV -4, with "the threshold of
potential adverse noise impact upon residential land uses is
55 dBA CNEL. Residential land use is considered.normally
unacceptable in areas exposed to greater than 65 dBA CNEL."
Normal text would resume at "Noise levels have been . . ."
After unidentified second, motion passed.
Moved by Max Maxwell, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne,
to remove "appropriate" from line 1 of strategy 1.10.3 on
page IV -11, and replace with "demonstrated empirical".
Todd Chavers requested an amendment, attaching the following
text to 1.10.3, "Mitigation measures shall be verified by
field measurements after construction. If the required
level of mitigation is not achieved, further corrective
action will be required." Motion as amended carried.
Martha Bruske moved that the first two words be removed from
the last sentence in the second paragraph of item 8, page
IV -4. After multiple and unidentifiable seconds, the motion
2
passed.
Steven Nice moved, seconded by Oscar Law, that the following
be added to Strategy 1.5.1 on page I-16 of the Land Use
Element: "These deed and map restrictions can only be lifted
by a vote of the public."
_Terry Birrell_ suggested --the--following-amendment:- "Deed and
map restrictions with respect to the properties subject to
the subdivision application can only be lifted by a vote of
the public." Motion as amended passed.
IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
3
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
JUNE 16, 1994 !
G
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
II. PARTICIPANTS
GPAC Members
Present:
Ken Anderson, Barbara Beach-Courchesne, Terry
Birrell, Martha Bruske, Todd Chavers, Mike
Goldenberg, Jack Healy, Robert Huff, Jack
Istik, Chiman Kotecha, Oscar Law, Steve Nice,
Deborah Noyes, Jim Paul, Rey Reyes, Don
Schad, Wilbur Smith, Eric Stone, and Tom Van
Winkle.
Absent:
Bob Arceo, Frank Arciero, Jr., Jan Dabney,
Ron Fitzgerald, Edda Gahm, Dorian Johnson,
Joyce Leonard, Chris Li, Max Maxwell, Bernie
Mazur, David Meyer, Kishor M. Naik, Arthur
O'Daly, Albert Perez, Jr., Sherry Rogers, and
David Schey.
Staff:
Associate Planner Robert Searcy and Assistant
Planner Ann Lungu.
III. ACTIONS
Tom Van Winkle moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne,
to direct staff to ensure that all language in the Land Use
Element relating to map and deed restrictions reflect the
decisions of the committee. Motion carried.
After a motion by Oscar Law, and second by Wilbur Smith,
sought to create language in the Land use Element
specifically protecting the Tonner Canyon/Sphere of
Influence, upon further discussion it was withdrawn.
Jim Paul moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to add
the following language to Objective 1.5 on page I-16: "and
preserve the natural environment and existing habitat in our
Sphere of Influence known as Tonner Canyon." For a new
Strategy 1.5.1, he suggested: "Honor and respect Significant
Ecological Area 15 as dedicated by Los Angeles County in
1976." Motion was defeated.
Tom Van Winkle moved, seconded by a GPAC member, that
discussion be moved on to the agendized items. Motion
carried.
Wilbur Smith moved, seconded by Martha Bruske, to prioritize
by preference of the committee the three revenue -generating
strategies discussed on page I-8. Motion was defeated.
0
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Robert Huff, to
add language to the Issue Analysis on page I-8 encouraging
the City to pursue further development and investment in the
Gateway Corporate Center and to pursue the development of a
"restaurant row" complex in the Center. Motion was
defeated.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Oscar Law, to
create a new Strategy 1.1.2.a, and thus renumber successive
Strategies, on page I-11 of the Land Use Element: "Encourage
active pursuit of commercial development in Gateway
Corporate Center as a means of increasing City revenues."
Motion was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne,
to change the following Land Use designations on the map
after Page I-23:
a. Lots 49 and 53 of the R -N -P property in the South
Pointe Master Plan area, as well as the SASAK property
in the same area, shall be changed from PD to OS.
b. The Arciero property in the South Pointe Master Plan
area shall be changed to RL from PD.
C. The City -owned property in the South Pointe Master Plan
area along Brea Canyon Rd., as well as the former
Walnut Valley Water District property in the same area,
shall be changed to OS from PD.
d. Lots 1 and 61 of Tract 24031, located south of the
southerly terminus of Longview and Rimford Pl., shall
be changed to OS from RR.
e. The ±200 -acre map- or deed -restricted Bramalea property
located east of Diamond Bar Blvd. and north of Grand
Ave. shall be changed to OS from PD.
Motion was carried.
Jim Paul moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
create a new Strategy 1.2.6 on Page I-13 of the Land Use
Element, and thus renumber successive Strategies, which
reads: "Enact Development Code provisions for the
development of second units on single-family parcels.
Ensure that the single-family character and integrity of the
neighborhood be protected, and that road, water, and sewer
systems are capable of supporting such development." Motion
was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne,
to remove the phrase "or deed-" from the paragraph above
which details the change of the Land Use desigantion on the
Bramalea property. As corrected, the sentence would read as
follows: "The ±200 -acre map -restricted Bramalea property..."
Motion was carried.
2
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Terry Birrell,
to change the Land Use designation on a small remnant of 1
property owned by and adjacent to the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter -Day Saints, located at the corner of Diamond Bar
Blvd. and Clear Creek Canyon. The property, located at the k ,°
rear of the church, is currently designated C .(General
Commercial), and the owners seek a change to the RIM
designation to allow for a possible senior housing
development. Motion was defeated.
Tom Van Winkle moved, seconded by a GPAC member, to table
indefinitely the decision on the church lot designation
until staff could return with a detailed report on the
subject. Motion was carried.
Tom Van Winkle moved, seconded by Martha Bruske, to delete
the words "a regular" from the first sentence of Strategy
1.8.1 of the Public Health and Safety Element on Page IV -9,
and replace it with "at least a quarterly". Motion was
carried.
Tom Van Winkle moved, seconded by Martha Bruske, to create
language which would provide for the regular inspection of
solid waste transport vehicles which operate in the City or
travel City streets. Motion was defeated.
Jim Paul moved, seconded by a GPAC member, to amend the Fire
Protection Services Issue Analysis on Page IV -5 of the
Public Health and Safety Element to read: "The City needs
policies emphasizing the importance of fire prevention,
protection and public safety in the Diamond Bar area."
Motion was carried.
IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None.
V. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
R]
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
JUNE 2301994
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
II. PARTICIPANTS
GPAC Menbers
Present: Ken Anderson, Barbara Beach-Courchesne, Terry
Birrell, Martha Bruske, Todd Chavers, Edda
Gahm, Mike Goldenberg, Jack Healy, Robert
Huff, Jack Istik, Max Maxwell, Steve Nice,
Deborah Noyes, Jim Paul, Don Schad, Wilbur f
Smith and Tom Van Winkle.
.Absent: Bob Arceo, Frank Arciero, Jr., Jan Dabney,
Ron Fitzgerald, Dorian Johnson, Chiman
Kotecha, Oscar Law, Joyce Leonard, Chris Li,
Bernie Mazur, David Meyer, Kishor M. Naik,
Arthur O'Daly, Albert Perez, Jr., Rey Reyes,
Sherry.Rogers, David Schey and Eric Stone.
Staff: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Assistant Planner Ann Lungu, Interim City �-
Engineer George Wentz and Staff Engineer
Michael Myers. -
III. ACTIONS i
l.!
Todd Chavers moved, seconded by a GPAC member, to approve
the minutes of the June 9, 1994 meeting, with noted
amendments. Motion was carried.
A motion from the floor, with second, was made to require
any new GPAC member to have their City Council sponsor
contact the GPAC Chairman (e.g., CDD/DeStefano) to notify
him prior to the next meeting at which the new member wishes
to participate and vote. Motion was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to further
amend the June 9 minutes and add the words "because of CC&R
restrictions." to the statement attributed to Dan Buffington
on Page 6. Motion was carried.
Wilbur Smith moved, seconded by Martha Bruske, to strike the
first part of the third paragraph on Page V-5, and to have
the sentence begin with "The corridor should be for ...11,
etc. Motion was defeated.
Jack Istik moved, seconded by Wilbur Smith, to poll the GPAC
members on taking a position either for or against a traffic
corridor through Tonner Canyon/SEA 15. After amendment, the j
1
i�
.r
motion became a vote on support or disapproval of the
traffic corridor itself. The motion failed, that is, GPAC
does not support a traffic corridor through Tonner
Canyon/SEA 15.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Tom Van Winkle,
to amend the third sentence of the second -to -last paragraph
on Page V-3 as follows: "Local residential streets are
designed to sustain about 2,500 vehicles per day and 200-300
vehicles per hour."; and also to add to the last sentence of
the paragraph the following: ", and sensitivity to the
neighborhood and its impact needs to be carefully
considered." Motion was carried.
Todd Chavers moved, seconded by Tom.Van Winkle, to have the
truck route map reintroduced into the Circulation Element
and for that reintroduction to be included in the upcoming
public hearing process. CDD/DeStefano stated that the map
would be reintroduced and staff would create the appropriate
language where needed in the Circulation Element. The
motion was thus tabled.
Wilbur Smith moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to delete the
reference to the sphere of influence from the Issue Analysis
on the bottom of Page V-10 of the Circulation Element, and
amend the first sentence to read as follows: "There is a
need to consider an alternative travel corridor around the
City of Diamond Bar." The rest of the paragraph -would
remain as stated. Motion was carried.
Max Maxwell moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
accept all the changes to the Circulation Element presented
by ICE/Wentz, with noted amendments. Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by a GPAC member,
to direct staff to develop General Plan policy language
which protects and enhances the residential quality of our
streets by redirecting truck traffic away from residential.
areas. Motion was -carried.
Jim Paul moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
insert the word "strong" between the words "implement" and
"measures" in the Issue Analysis on Page V-12 of the
Circulation Element. Motion was carried.
Wilbur Smith moved, seconded by Martha Bruske, to amend
Strategy 1.1.4 on Page V-13 of the Circulation Element to
read: "Proactively work with adjacent jurisdictions to
determine an acceptable alternate traffic corridor around
the City of Diamond Bar." The motioner agreed to an
amendment which would read "...the City of Diamond Bar and
( its Sphere of Influence." Motion was carried.
Todd Chavers moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to further
amend Strategy 1.1.4 by adding the following: "Such
considerations will recognize and prioritize environmental
sensitivity and avoid the disruption of SEA 15." Motion was
carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, `\to -
amend Strategy 1.1.5(e) on page V-14 of the Circulation
Element to read: "Pursue additional Park -and Ride facilitiesr
east of the City limits.0, Motion was carried.
Tom Van Winkle moved, seconded by a GPAC member, to adopt
ICE/Wentz's suggested new Strategy 1.1.9 on Page V-14 of the
Circulaion Element, which would read: "Encourage
improvements on regional routes and arterial streets to be
sensitive to the environmental, aesthetic, and noise
concerns, and provide adequate -buffers -to adjacent land
uses." Motion was carried.
Wilbur Smith moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to amend
Strategy 1.3.2 to read: "Implement neighborhood traffic
control programs outlined in Strategy 1.2.1 to reduce and
divert through traffic." Motion was carried.
Ken Anderson moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to amend
Strategy 2.1.8 on Page V-15 of the Circulation Element to
read as follows: "Maintain, expand and upgrade the system of
bicycle routes connecting residential areas to major
community attractions." Motion was carried.
Todd Chavers moved, seconded by Tom Van Winkle, to further l
amend Strategy 2.1.8 on page V-15 of the Circulation Element
by adding the following: "Upgrading of the current system
will include investigating means to improve marking and
signage of bike lanes." Motion was carried.
Jack Istik moved, seconded by a GPAC member, to create a new
Objective 2.3 to read "Within new development, encourage a
rural atmosphere through modification of some roadway system
standards." and subsequent Strategies to read as follows:
2.3.1 "Create standards for narrower residential and
collector streets within new developments."; 2.3.2
"Implement the usage of rolled asphalt swales rather than
curb -and -gutter designs within new developments."; 2.3.3 1
"Establish policies which set a preference for narrower
driveway widths in new developments."; 2.3.4 "Establish new
traffic signal maintenance district requirements in new
developments." Motion was defeated.
Todd Chavers moved, seconded by Ken Anderson, to insert a
description of level of service definitions for signalized j
intersections in Table V-1, as called for in Strategy 3.1.1
on Page V-16 of the Circulation Element. Motion was
carried.
Jim Paul moved, seconded by a GPAC member, to amend Strategy
3.1.7 on Page V-16 of the Circulation Element to read as
follows: "Synchronize signals on all major roads throughout
the City of Diamond Bar (see Table V-1) and adjacent
communities." Motion was carried.
Todd Chavers requested that the word "Develop" at the
beginning of Strategy 3.1.4 on Page V-16 of the Circulation (
Element be replaced with "maintain". CDD/DeStefano asked I
l
whether any GPAC member had an objection to the change, and,
none appearing, the change was adopted.
Wilbur Smith made a motion suggesting strengthened off-
street parking requirements, but later withdrew it.
Todd Chavers moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to direct staff
to formulate strengthened off-street parking requirements in
new residential developments. Motion was carried.
IV. .ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
4
C�
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF JUNE 28 & JUNE 30
TO FOLLOW
r
(
(
(
(I�I
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: 1994 General Plan - Transmittal of Errata Sheets,
GPAC Minutes of June 28, 1994 and June 30,1994 and
Correspondence received
DATE: July 14, 1994
Attached for your use and information, please find "errata" sheets
containing changes in the Draft 1994 General Plan text and maps.
Each errata page is referenced by the notation "July 13, 1994
Errata" for ease in use. The changes identify text and map
amendments necessary to accurately reflect the specific actions and
direction of GPAC. Staff and consultant modifications are clearly
identified and represent minor corrections to the maps and text
necessary for further clarification.
In addition, we have attached the draft minutes of the GPAC
meetings of June 28, 1994 and June 30, 1994 and correspondence
received since your last meeting.
If you have any questions or need further information in
preparation for the Planning Commission meeting this Saturday, 10
a.m., at the Heritage Park Community Center,please contact me.
JDS\mco
attachments
cc: City Council
GPAC Members
City Manager
C
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND.BAR
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
JUNE 28, 1994
I . CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
II. PARTICIPANTS
GPAC Members
Present: Ken Anderson, Barbara Beach-Courchesne, Terry
Birrell, Martha Bruske, Mike Goldenberg, Jack
Healy, Jack Istik, Chiman Kotecha, Max
Maxwell, Steve Nice, Debbi Noyes, Jim Paul,
Don Schad, David Schey, Wilbur Smith and Tom
Van Winkle.
Absent: Bob Arceo, Frank Arciero, Jr., Todd Chavers,
Jan Dabney, Ron Fitzgerald, Edda Gahm, Robert
Huff, Dorian Johnson, Oscar Law, Joyce
Leonard, Chris Li, Bernie Mazur, David Meyer,
Kishor M. Naik, Arthur O'Daly, Albert Perez,
Jr., Rey Reyes, Sherry Rogers and Eric Stone.
Staff: Community Development Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy
and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu.
III. ACTIONS
David Schey moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
add a new second sentence in the first paragraph of the
Parks and Recreation description in Existing Conditions on
Page III -2 of the Resource Management Element to read : "By
any measure, the City is inadequately served by both active
and passive recreational facilities."; and to amend the
first sentence of the Parks and Recreation Issue Analysis on
Page.III-8 of the Resource Management element to read: "The
City is inadequately served by parks and recreation
facilities, and there is a need to plan . . .", etc. Also
suggested were corrections to Table III -1 on Pages III -4 and
III -5 to bring the data up to date. Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by a GPAC member,
to add a second sentence to Objective 1.3 on Page III -11 of
the Resource Management Element to read: "There is a need to
consider and plan for recreational settings for senior
citizens." Motion was defeated.
C
C
Martha Bruske moved, seconded by Max Maxwell,.to remove the
reference to and data for Larkstone Park from Table III -1 on
Page III -5 of the Resource. Management Element. Motion was
defeated.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Wilbur Smith, to
delete the last sentence from the third paragraph in the
Agriculture Existing Conditions description on Page III -7 of
the Resource Management Element. The motioner agreed to an
amendment to delete the entire paragraph. Motion was
carried.
Tom Van Winkle moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to amend
certain Objective and Strategy.sections , to be later
determined, with appropriate language from relevant
California Code Sections as presented in the evening's
handout. Motion was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to strike the
words "activeand" from the last sentence of the first
paragraph of the open Space and Visual Resources description
under Resource Management Issues on Page III -7 of the
Resource Management Element; and to amend the Issue Analysis
to read "There is a need to preserve open space resources
within the City and Sphere of Influence." Motion.was
carried.
Jim Paul moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
amend the'Issue Analysis for Water on Page III -8 of the
Resource Management Element to read as: "The City should
work with local water purveyors to establish a water quality
standard to protect the community, and encourage water
conservation and use of reclaimed water." The motioner
accepted a suggested amendment to substitute.the word "must"
for "should". Motion was carried:
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Jim Paul, to
delete the last sentence from the Resource Management Issues
section on Agriculture, on the top of Page III -9 of the
Resource Management Element, which reads as: -"The lands that
presently support grazing are already planned for various
types of development." Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach:Courchesne moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to
amend the Issue Analysis for Agriculture at the top of Page
III -9 of the Resource Management Element to read: "The City
needs to develop policy dealing with the preservation of
grazing agricultural lands to the greatest possible extent."
Motion was carried.
Chiman Kotecha moved, seconded by Barbara,Beach-Courchesne,
to amend the second sentence of the Resource Management
Issues section on Agriculture on Page III -9 of the.Resource
Management Element to read: "Cattle grazing is the only
agricultural activity that remains as a reminder of this
heritage, and should be left as such." Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved,.seconded by Martha Bruske,
to delete from Strategy 1.1.4 on Page III -9 of the Resource
Management Element the following words: "development" and
"not designated for construction." Motion was carried.
Max Maxwell moved, seconded by a GPAC member, to amend
Strategy 1.1.1 on Page III -9 of the Resource Management
Element by adding the words "and environmental" between
"visual" and "impacts". Motion was carried.
Jim Paul moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
amend the Issue Analysis for Mineral Resources at the top of
Page III -9 of the Resource Management Element by adding the
words "at this time." Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to
create a new Strategy 1.1.6 on Page III -10 of the Resource
Management Element, thus renumbering subsequent strategies,
which would read: "Pursue the preservation of areas in
Diamond Bar of outstanding scenic, historic and cultural
value." Seconder proposed an amendment, accepted by
motioner, to add "and its Sphere of Influence" after "areas
of Diamond Bar". Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Martha Bruske,
to amend the new Strategy 1.1.7 (1.1.6 in the working
document) by replacing the words "Where possible and
practical" with "To the greatest possible extent". Motion
was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to amend new
Strategy 1.1.11 (1.1.10 in the working document) by adding
the word "Expeditiously" at the beginning of the sentence,
and the words "and a natural vegetation preservation
ordinance" after "indigenous tree preservation ordinance".
After amendments were suggested and accepted, the motioner
restated her motion for the first sentence of the revised
strategy to read: "Expeditiously develop an indigenous tree
(e.g., Oak, Black Walnut, Pepper, Arroyo Willow and
Sycamore) preservation ordinance and a natural vegetation
preservation ordinance within six months of the adoption of
this General Plan." Motion was carried.
Max Maxwell moved, seconded by Tom Van Winkle, to create a
new Strategy 1.1.12 on Page III -10 of the Resource
Management Element which would require that no final
development approval be granted until such time as the tree
C
preservation and natural vegetation preservation ordinances
are in place. Request was -made of.staff to bring back
( definitive language for the strategy at the June 30 meeting.
Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to
amend Objective 1.2 -on Page III -10 of the Resource
Management Element by striking the words "Where ecologically
and financially feasible" and having the passage begin with
"Maintain, protect, and preserve . . ." Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by a GPAC member,
to move Strategy 1.5.5 on Page I-16 of the Land Use Element
to a new Strategy 1.2.1 on Page III -10 of the Resource
Management Element, with the addition at the end of the
sentence of: "with the purpose and intent of the
preservation .of this area." Motion was carried.
Steven Nice moved, seconded by Martha Bruske, to amend new
Strategy 1.2.4 on Page III -11 of the.Resource Management
Element to read: "Take an active role in pursuing the
preservation of canyon areas in their natural state."
Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Jim Paul, to add
another substrategy on new Strategy 1.2.2 (1.2.1 in the
working document) to read: "Prevent street runoff water from
flowing into natural streams." After suggested amendments
accepted by motioner, the sentence was presented to read:
"To the greatest possible extent, prevent street runoff
water from flowing into natural or blue -line streams."
Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by a GPAC member,
to add a new Strategy 1.2.5 on Page III -11 which would read:
"To the greatest possible extent, provide for the
preservation of plant and animal life." Motion was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne,
to amend Strategy 1.3.2 on Page III -12 of the Resource
Management Element to read: !'Require that open space areas
which are set aside as part of a development project have
suitable use restrictions." Motion was tabled.
Jim Paul moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
amend Strategy 1.3.5 on Page III -12 of the Resource
Management Element to read: "Pursue development of a system
of greenbelts within the community." Motion was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to amend
Strategy 1.3.6 on Page III -12 of the Resource Management
Element to read: "Strive to provide neighborhood, open
4
C
space, and community park facilities, such that a rate of
5.0 acres per 1,000 residents is ultimately achieved."
Motion was carried.
Jim Paul moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to amend Objective
2.1 on page III -13 of the Resource Management Element to
read: "Establish a standard for human consumption. Minimize
the consumption . . .", etc. Motion was defeated.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by a GPAC member,
to add an additional substrategy to Strategy 2.1.2 on Page
III -13 of the Resource Management Element which would read:
"The use of convection water circulation systems is
recommended." Motion was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Wilbur Smith, to remove the
words "open space" from the amended Strategy 1.3.6 on Page
III -12 of the Resource Management Element. Motion was
carried.
IV. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:50.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
5
C
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING
JUNE 30, 1994
I. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.
II. PARTICIPANTS
GPAC Members
g� e
Present: Ken Anderson, Nick Anis, Bob Arceo, Barbara
Beach-Courchesne, Terry Birrell, Martha
Bruske,'Edda Gahm, Mike Goldenberg, Jack
Healy, Robert Huff, Jack Istik, Chiman
Kotecha, Oscar Law, Max Maxwell, Steve Nice,
Deborah Noyes, Jim Paul, Rey Reyes, Don
Schad, Wilbur Smith and Tom Van Winkle.
Absent: Frank Arciero, Jr., Todd Chavers, Jan Dabney,
Ron Fitzgerald, Robert Huff, Dorian Johnson,
Joyce Leonard, Chris Li, Bernie Mazur, David
Meyer, Kishor M. Naik, Arthur O'Daly, Albert
Perez, Jr., Sherry Rogers, David Schey and
Eric Stone.
i
Staff: Community Development Director James
DeStefano and Associate Planner Robert
Searcy.
III. ACTIONS
Max Maxwell moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
make a request to staff that the meeting minutes and changes
made by GPAC to the General Plan be presented to the GPAC
members for review and comment before the Planning
Commission commences public hearings regarding the revisions
on July 11. Motion was carried.
Oscar Law moved, seconded by a GPAC member, that the GPAC's
discussion begin with the Public Services and Facilities
Element and then move to topics in other elements. Motion
was carried.
Wilbur Smith moved, seconded by Jack Istik, to amend
Objective 1.1 on Page VI -4 of the Public Services and
Facilities Element by adding the words "and sewage" after
"wastewater" in the first line; to amend Strategy 1.1.5 on
Page VI -4 of the Public Services and Facilities Element by
adding the word "sewage" after "wastewater" in the second
1
line; and to create a new Strategy 1.1.6 to read: "Require
all new housing development in Diamond Bar to be connected
to public sewer systems". Motion was carried.
Wilbur Smith moved, seconded by Oscar Law, to amend
Substrategy a. of Strategy 1.1.5 on Page VI -4 of the Public
Services and Facilities Element to read: "Support plans by.
the Metropolitan Water District to locate a fresh water
reservoir.in Upper Tonner Canyon."; and to amend Substrategy
b. of Strategy 1.1.5 on Page VI -4 of the Public Services and
Facilities Element to read: "Investigate plans by the City
of Industry to locate a reclaimed water reservoir in the
Tres Hermanos area". Motion was defeated.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne, seconded by Oscar Law, to delete
Substrategy a. of Strategy 1.1.5 on Page VI -4 of the Public
Services and Facilities Element, and renumber subsequent
passages as needed. Motion was defeated.
Tom Van Winkle moved, seconded by a GPAC member, to amend
Substrategy a. of Strategy 1.1.5 on Page VI -4 of the Public
Services and Facilities Element to read: "Investigate plans
by the Metropolitan Water District to locate an untreated
potable water reservoir in upper Tonner Canyon." Motion was
carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Nick Anis, to
amend Substrategy b. of Strategy 1.1.5 on Page VI -4 of the
Public Services and Facilities Element by substituting the
words "untreated potable" for the word "reclaimed".. Motion
was defeated.
Chiman.Kotecha moved, seconded by Wilbur Smith, to recall
the question on the previous motion in light of discussion
among the members. Motion was defeated.
Max Maxwell moved, seconded by Wilbur Smith, to delete
Substrategy b. of Strategy 1.1.5 on Page VI -4 of the Public
Services and Facilities Element, and renumber subsequent
passages as needed. Motion was carried.
Wilbur Smith moved, seconded by Martha Bruske, to amend
Substrategy c. of Strategy 1.1.5 on Page VI -4 of the Public
Services and Facilities Element to read: "Oppose
applications for proposed waste disposal facilities in the
City and surrounding communities." Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by a GPAC member,
to amend Strategy 1.2.2 on Page VI -5 of the Public Services
and Facilities Element to read: "Investigate the possible
establishment of a redevelopment agency in the City for the
purpose of capital improvements, to facilitate the provision
C
C
of desired community facilities, and to take advantage of
the tax benefits which would accrue to the City." Motion
was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne,
to delete Strategy 2.1.1 on Page VI -6 of the Public Services
and Facilities Element. Motion was carried.
Max Maxwell moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
delete Strategy 2.3.1 on Page VI -6 of the Public Services
and Faciilities Element. Motion was defeated.
Jack Istik moved, seconded by Wilbur Smith, to add a new
paragraph at the beginning of the Vision Statement on Page 1
of the Introduction to read: "It is the primary goal of the
City of Diamond Bar to maintain a rural and country living
environment". Motion was carried.
Martha Bruske moved, seconded by Jim Paul, to amend the
first sentence of the last paragraph on Page III -3 of the
Resource Management Element to read: "Within the City, the
57 Freeway is designated as a proposed State Scenic Highway.
It extends from the southwest to the northeast City limits,
and includes views of trees, rolling hills, grazing cattle
and snow-capped mountains". Motion was carried.
Barbara Beach-Courchesne moved, seconded by Martha Bruske,
to add a new Strategy 1.5.9 on Page I-17 of the Land Use
Element to read: "Transfers of land entitlements, density,
or development rights are not presently part of City policy.
Such transfers need to be approved by a vote of the people
in a general election". Motion was carried.
Martha Bruske moved, seconded by a GPAC member, to amend
Objective 1.1 on Page V-13 of the Circulation Element by
adding the following after the last sentence: "Because
Diamond Bar is under flight paths for both Ontario and Los
Angeles International Airports, and proximity to major
freeways tends to increase the number of helicopter
overflghts, the City should remain vigilant to air traffic
increases, seek regulation to control minimum flight path
requirements, and relieve noise and air pollution." Motion
was carried.
Max Maxwell moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
add a new Strategy 3.2.10 on Page I-21 of the Land Use
Element to read: "New development on property with a slope
density of 200 or more shall be classified as a Hillside
Management Area and shall conform to the Los Angeles County
standards for more stringent criteria". Motion was carried.
Jack Istik moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne, to
C
create a new Strategy 3.2.11 on Page I-21 of the Land Use
Element to read: "In new development, encourage narrower
pavement.widths than those required by the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Works, and encourage wider
parkways on these roads". Motion was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Barbara Beach-Courchesne,
to add a new Strategy 1.10.9 on Page IV=11 of the Public
Health and Safety Element to read:."Establish citywide noise
standards based on energy -equivalent noise levels-(LEQ).
Such standards would be equivalent to or more stringent than
the•CNEL levels amended and adopted in Table Iv -1." Motion
was carried.
Wilbur.Smith moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to add a new
'Strategy 3.1.5 to Page II -34 of .the Housing Element to read:
"Future residential developments shall have: a. Underground
utility systems; b. 10 -foot minimum side yard setbacks; c.
25 -foot minimum front yard setbacks from sidewalks; d. 8,000
square foot minimum lot size for sipgle-family homes; 2,100
square foot minimum building size for single-family homes;
e. 1,000 square foot minimum unit size for a one -bedroom
.condominium;.f. 1,300 square foot minimum unit size for a
two-bedroom condominium." The motioner agreed to -a request
by the Secretary that the amendment be added to the Land Use
Element as Strategy 3.2.12 on Page I-21, not to the Housing
Element as moved. Motion was carried.
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by Jack Healy, to add a new
Strategy 1.1.13 on Page III -10 of the Resource Management
Element to read: "Develop a plan to provide a mechanism for
and to pursue the preservation of designated open space."
Motion was carried.
Tom van Winkle moved, seconded by Max'Maxwell, to issue a
statement to the City Council.and Planning Commission that,
although the GPAC did not have time to fully review and
comment upon his document, the proposed changes to the
Circulation Element submitted earlier by Gary Neely should .
be presented -and discussed during the public hearings that
both the City Council and Planning Commission will hold on
the review and eventual adoption of the General Plan.
Motion was carried.
Tom Van Winkle moved, seconded by Martha Bruske, to create a
new Strategy 1.1.2 on Page I-11 of the Land Use Element
(thus renumbering subsequent strategies as.needed) to read:
"Ensure that the'land use classification system provides
adequate separation and buffering of less active residential
uses from more intense land uses, major streets and
highways." Motion was carried.
C
C
Tom Van Winkle moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to create a
new Strategy 1.10.10 on Page IV -11 of the Public Health and.
Safety Element to read: "Refer to Strategy 1.1.2 on Page I-
11 of the Land Use Element to ensure proper and effective
buffering between residential and nonresidential land uses."
Motion was carried. .
Jack Istik moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to create a new
Strategy 3.2.10 on Page I-21 of the Land Use Element to
read: "Encourage in new hillside residential areas the
formation of a City streetlighting maintenance district
which would provide less intense lighting than -that which
prevails currently." Motion was defeated.
Steve Nice moved, seconded by Max Maxwell, to add a sentence
to Strategy 1.5.1 on Page I-16 of the Land Use Element to
read: "In order to lift any map or deed restriction for the
purpose of viewshed or open space, the public must approve
such action in a regular election or a special election
whose cost will be borne by the applicant." Motion was
carried..
Terry Birrell moved, seconded by a GPAC member, to
redesignate the.unrestricted Bramalea Co. land located north
of Grand Avenue and east of Diamond Bar Boulevard from its
current designation of PD to RR. Motion was carried.
Tv. . ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
C
C
ROBERTS.
1641 Fire Hollow
Diamond Bar, CA 916765
909-861-2927
July 12, 1994
Planning Commission, City of Diamond Bar
David Meyer, Chairman
21660'East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Re: 1994 Draft General Plan
Dear Chair. Meyer and Commissioners:
While testifying at the July 11, 1994 Commission meeting, I said I was concerned that there
were so many instances of restrictive language woven into the Draft General Plan that when
viewed as a whole, the General Plan ended up basically a "no growth" document. I was
concerned that in our zeal to save certain areas, such as the Sphere of Influence, our
restrictive language could inadvertently keep the landowners in the County, as we might be
viewed as a punitive, unreasonable, unrealistic City. A fear I expressed was we could then
witness the development of that which we wished to save, with no ability for us to help shape
said development. The language used in the General Plan has to be reasonable.
Commissioner Flamenbaum asked for specifics, to which I now reply.
INTRODUCTION
A. VISION STATEMENT
I propose we change the wording of the first sentence, if needed at all, to read:
It is the primary goal of the City of Diamond Bar to reflect our rural and country living
heritage.
LAND USE ELEMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
C
Planning Commission
7/12/94
page three
endangered. Although the willow is pretty, it is more of a weed than a tree. My family
has owned eight acres of Eastern San Diego County property for forty-nine years,
which has a year-round stream, with live oaks and riparian willows. The willow grows
rapidly, preferring the wet stream -bed prone to flooding. When flash -floods knock the
shallow -rooted willows down, they don't die; new growth branches out of the trunk or
branches.. What follows is an obstruction that forces the stream into areas where
oaks grow. Oaks prefer to be near streams, but unlike willows, will die if directly in the
water. By writing restrictive language protective of the willows, we allow the slow-
growing oaks to die. This doesn't make sense.
Objective 1.2 1 would leave the first phrase, Where ecologicallyand financially feasible;. If
this remains writ, this will probably result in higher taxes to accomplish this mandate.
PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY ELEMENT
1.10.8 Something was lost here.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
1.1.4 This wording does not allow a roadway through Tonner Canyon, even through there
are, as I understand, State and County plans to locate one there. The committee was
unanimous in agreeing that Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave. Are too congested
during the rush hours. A tastefully planned roadway will help the city and the region.
To keep this wording, we really run the danger of righteously standing on the
sidelines with great intentions and plans, while someone else paves the canyon.
I propose we leave the original language.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
1.1.5.b. I believe we are required to have a composting program. This wording seems to
preclude this. Others are better suited than me to address the correct wording.
Some of these concerns may be addressed in different elements, as there is necessarily,
overlap in the elements. Your consideration of my ideas is appreciated.
Rob rt S. Huff
1994 GPAC Member
C
U40 P01 JUL 13 '94 12:00
July 12, 1994
Diamond Har Planning Commission, ........... ... _,. 'r
i r�ti!Zn.i;S
PLEASE REINSTATE Objective 1.7 Intl Strategies 1.7.1 through 1:7,4
i'
Of the LAND USE ELEMENT I-18 and I.19.
Diamond Bar is a multicultural community with a great deal of
diversity, The Objective and Strategies were daslgned to bring together
our citizens and I find the removal of It to be divisive and
Ronprdddct ve to cooperation.
i
As a member of the Mulicultural and Human Resources Committee
and President of Diamond Bar Sister City, Inc., I personally feel
r
that this removal was done by persons who are not aware of the needs
to brlttg together the various. peoples lu Diamond Bar to fora a
homogeneous community.
s
Thank you, /
Richard Callard
Praeident, Dlaaond Bar Sister City
t
e yoni�ndie readyfor
in=.
File re iew d by -
on and is ready for
destruction by City Clerk
J�iy ZSR i99Y
P c
A
� s
e, �' ��
.h ��
{V
�r
Y
..
o. -... ,.
�'.
� �
.....,4
�.
'a
Lit A ii,)JA"-WNi) BAR - Case„”
D);r AR T +TENT OF PLANNING Recvd �
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 Fee $
(714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 Recei
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION By ---
+( TRACT li 51169
rd Owner(s) Applicant
301N.WIDE,
Applicant's Agent
Name INC. UNION WIDE, INC.
H
UNSAKER & ASSOC.
(Last name first)
Address 671 BREA CANYON,STE.3 671 BREA CANYON,
STE.3 10179 HUENNEKENS ST.
City WAT.NUT_ rA
—WALN t A
SAN DIEGO, CA
zip 91789 91789
92121
Phone(714)598-2661 (714) 548-2661
x_(619) 558-4500
(Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names,
ofmembers of partnerships, joint
addresses, and signatures
ventures, and
directors of corporations)
CONSENT: I c sent to th su a application accompanying this request
Signed -------_
. (All recorded owners)
Date k: T
Certification: 2, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that
the information herein provided is
correct to the best of my knowledge.
Printed Name: C(*Lel 7 (fA7ER-
(Ap scant or Agent
Signed_
Applicant or Agent)
Date.
Location SOUTHERN TERMINUS OF BLAZE TRAIL ROAD
(street address or tract and lot nunber)
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 CU5TOM.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 Sar,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 Call ownership comprising the proposed lots)/parcel(s)
PARCEL .14 OF PM 1528 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 26 PAGES 19 THROUGH 30
IN TH1; CITY OF DIAMOND.BAR, COUNTY OF T.00 anrr_FTFc emnmc .r .rT _.
Area devoted to structures Landscaping/Open
space
Residential Projects_ 20.0 ACRES and 13 CUSTOM RESIDENTIAL
(gross area) (No. of lots)
Proposed density_ FSntilAt
(Units/Acres)
Parking Required Provided
Standard
Compact
Handicapped
Total N/A N/A
Project Applicant (Owner):
UNION WIDE,. INC.
NAME
671 BREA CANYON, SUITE 3
ADDRESS
WALNUT CA 91789
714598- _2.661
PHONE #
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Representative:
PIERMARINI ENTERPRISES
2100 S. RESERVOIRASTREET
ADDRESS
POMONA, CA 91766
714/590-4809
PHONE #
Staff Use
Project No.
1. Action requested and project description:REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A 13
SINGLE FAMILY LOT.VZ-:.1tJwr. T�_�i'•I&L
2. Street location of proje_t:SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF BLAZE TRAIL ROAD
3a. Present use of sites VACANT /UNDEVELOPED
3b. Previous use of si.te or structuress NONE
4. 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 rnRF PFRMTT 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 (1) N
If yes, do purveyors have
capacity to meet demand of
project and all other approved
projects? (Y) N 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 t y? 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 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 shifts
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
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?
YES NO
If yes, explain
B. ENVIRONMEM'AL INFORMATION
1. Environmental Setting --Project Site
a. Existing use/structures THE EXISTING SITE IS VA ANT ANP Ag Nn
STRUCTURES ON IT.
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 USGS DESIGNATED BLUFTTNF STREAMRFD OF NTFR TTTPNT
._FLOW
DOES RUN FROM THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF --
OFFSITE. U HWARD
f. Cultural/historical resources THERE ARE NO KNOWN CULTURAL/HISTORICAL
RESOURCES ONSITE.
g. Other -----
2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area
a. Existing uses structures (types, densities)3. NORTH• STN, F FAMTTy RES-
TDFNTTAT.• SOI7TH• TONNFR CANVON PACT. SINlTF FAhTT�T
TTAT
WEST: VACANT LAND. R g D H
b. Topography/slopes THE STRROTNDTN, nPF V Rv A INCLUDE ROLLIN TO
STEEP HTT.T.S. TONNE R CANYON TR i0 ATFD TO THF SOUTH OF THF STTF,_
'c. Vegetation nTgTTTRRFn GRARgTANDC ORNAMFNTAT TAitm C(APTN( ANT]
CHAPPARAL.
"d. Animals SAME AS D. ABOVE.
'e. Watercourses THERE ARE USGS BLUELINE STREAMBEDS OF INTERMITTENT
FLOW IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
f. Cultural/historical resources NONE KNOWN TO EXIST.
g. Other ------
Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural,
undeveloped land.
3. •- Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees?
CIEs ) 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, explain:A 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 Ce
5. Grading:
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 landslides or other major geologic hazards on
the property (including uncompacted fill)?
YES ( NO )
If yes, explain: No ee soil ------
7.
e ort
7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with
moderately dense vegetation)?
(YES ) NO
Distance to nearest fire stations APPROX. 4 MILES
B. Noises
Existing noise sources at sites NONE
Noise to be generated by proiect: NO SIGNIFICANT SOURCES
Fumes:.
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 TITT F 94 RFOiiTRFMz*TTG
CERTIFICATIONS 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 gnature
For: A'.5,14w- # *J2'(
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I.' Background
1. Name of Applicant: UNION WIDE INC.
2. A d d r e s s a n d P h o n e N u m b e r o f P r o p o n e n t
671 BREA CANYON SUITE 3
T.TA?ATTTT I♦ n.I—
_.
714/598-2661 CONTACT: JERRY YEH
3. Name, Address and Phone of Proe ct
PIERMARINI ENTERPRISES HUNSAKER AND ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO,a INC.
2100 S. RESERVOIR STREET 10179 HUENNEKENS STREET
POMONA, CA 91766 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
714/590-4809 CONTACT FRANK 619/558-4500 CONTACT: LEX WILLIMAN
4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal
5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal:
6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist):
7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision)t
_TEA_C_T #51169 FOR UNION WIDE INC
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: g
(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.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction .or
overcovering of the soil?
X
C.
Change in topography or ground surface relief
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?
X -
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?
X
g.
Exposure of people orert ro
p p y to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
2.
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, moisture, 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
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
run-off?
X
C.
Alterations of the course or flow of flood
waters?
X
d.
Changes in the amount of surface water in
any body of water?
X
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality including
but not limited to dissolved oxygen and
turbidity?
X
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
.X.
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through . direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
X
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of 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?
_
C.
Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat
areas or plant communities which are
recognized as sensitive?
d.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
X
e.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
YES NO POSSIBLY
4. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
X
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)?
X
b.
Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare
or endangered species of animals?
X
C.
Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
migration or movement of resident species?
_X
d.
Peduction in,size or deterioration in 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'.
_
a.
Significant new light and glare or contribute
significantly to existing levels of light
and glare? .
8. Land
Use. Will the proposal result in:
Xa.
A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use in an area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
X a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
X a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition?
YES NO POSSIBLY
X b. Probable interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal:
X a. Alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of
an area?
12. Housing. Wil'1 the proposal affect:
X a. 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 parking facilities or
demand for new parking?
-ii_ C. Substantial impact onexisting transportation
systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and goods.
_ X 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:
X 1. Fire Protection?
X 2. Police Protection?
X 3. Schools?
YES NO POSSIBLY
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. Useof substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
energy sources or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in:
a. A need for new systems, or Substantial
alterations to public utilities?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal- result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will'the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to the public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in:
a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration of or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
YES NO' POSSIBLY
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or .object?
_ X _ C. A physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance?
X a. Does the proposed project have the potential
to degrade the quality bf the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
orwildlife 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?
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 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?
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
Hoard and/or Commission, the following facts:
A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not:
1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or
welfare of persons residing or working. in the
surrounding area, or
2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or
valuation of property of other persons located in
the vicinity of the site, or
3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a
menace to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 13 CUSTOM.BUILT LOTS _OF APPROXIMATELY 20.0 ACRES WILL
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
RL _H
B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading
facilities, landscaping and other development features
prescribed in this Title 22, o% as is otherwise required
in order to integrate said use with the uses in the
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 A VAtETY: OF CUSTOM STYLE HOMES AND ACCOMODATIONS FOR DIVERSE YARD,
IANDSCAPING FENCING AND WALLS PARKING. FACILITIES AND ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT
FEATURES DESCRIBED IN TITLE 22.
C. That the propose 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
SEWER_ AND WATER UTILITIES WILL 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 thi s day of 19
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
We
foregoing is true and correct.
(Where the owner and applicant are not the same, both must sign)
Type.or Print
Applicant Name UNION WIDE, INC.
Address 671 BREA CANYON STE. 3
City, State WALNUT. CA 91789
Signature
Owner Name UNION WIDE INC.
Address 671 BRA ANYON STE 3
City, State_Wn,uiir� rn ai7aa
Signature
This signature must be acknowledged by a notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgements.
CITY OF DI SIOND BAR Case11—
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING1.�'7
- 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 W P*F7
(714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 Receipt
ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION By
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TRACT # 51169
Record Owner(s) Applicant Applicant's Agent
Name UNION WIDE, INC. UNION WIDE, INC. HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES, SD INC.
(Last name first)
Address 671 BREA CANYON,ll3 671 BREA CANYON,I)3 10179 HUENNEKENS ST.
city__HALNUT, CA WALNUT, CA.. SAN DIEGO, CA.
Zip g17R9 91789 92121
Phone(714) 598-2661 (714) 598-2661 1619) 558-4500
(Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatur6s
of members of, partnerships, joint venture's, and directors of corporations.)
CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this
request..
Signed ��� _ Date
(AL( recorded owners)
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 d 5.D• Tr.r
(Applicant or Ag ' ,, ff
Signed,—
"�`�\ Date�I B
�—° Appticant or Agent)—
Location_ LOCATED AT THE S(1tiTHFRN TFRMTNiTc nr BT A9F TR IL n
OAD
(Street address or tract and lot nunber)
between PROPOSED ROCKY TRAIL RD. and INDIAN CREEK RD.
(Street) (Street)
Zoning A2-2 HNH 102 H 341
Project Size (gross acres) 20.0 AC. Project Density .65 DU/AC
Previous Cases N/A
Present Use of Sits VACANT/UNDEVELOPED
Use applied for ESTATE RESIDENTIAL R-1-40,000. EXISTING COMMUNITY GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE IS NON URBAN (1 DU/AC or LESS).
Domestic Water Source WALNUT VALLEY WATER Company/District WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRIC'
Method of Sewage Disposal SANITARY SEWER Sanitation District COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES I X NO Amount 150,000 CY
(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 THROUGH 30 IN THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
Zones 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 complete and 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 DU/AC 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 ACCESS WITH
THIS SITE HAVE R-1-20,000 RESIDENTIAL ZONE CLASSIFICATIONS. THE
CURRENT A2-2 ZONE IS A HOLD OVER FROM PAST ARGRICULTURAL USES SUCH AS
CATTLE GRAZING. THIS A2-2 ZONE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH OR COMPATIBLE
WITH THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE LOTS, THE RE2.ONE WILL PROV DE
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 COMPATTRLE
DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL ESTATE HOMES IN AN AREA PRESENTLY DEVELOPED
AS SUCH.
Use additional sheets as necessary
Staff Use
Project*No.
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: .
UNION WIDE INC. HUNSAKER'AND ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC.
NAME NAME
671 BREA CANYON, STE 3 10.179 HUENNEKENS STREET
ADDRESS ADDRESS
WALNUT CREEK, CA 91789 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
(714) 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 SOUTH OF 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 prujects
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 S GAME, 404 ARMY CORP.
6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y ON
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
10. Water and sewer service%
Does service exist at -site?
If-rts, do purveyors have
capacity to meet demand of
project and all other approved
projects?
Domestic Public
Water Sewers
( Y) N (Y) N
( 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: N/A - THIS IS A REZONE REQUEST FOR A 13 LOT
SUBDIVISION FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1651169.
12. Schools:
What school district(s) serves the property?WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needsT
( 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/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
B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
1. Environmental Setting --Project Site
a. Existing use/structures THE EXISTING SITE IS VACANT AND Has Nn
STRUCTURES LOCATED ON IT.
b. Topography/slopes THE MAJORITY OF THE STTE HAS i.OPTNO TFRRATN AND
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 AN MAT.R T14AT HAVE NOT BEEN DIRECTLY OBSERVED BUT MAY POTFNTIALL7
EXIST ONST F. OR WT HTN THE AREA INCLUDE BTT ARE NOT T.TMTTF.D TO OOTTONTAII
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. M itural/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/ slopes THE SURROUNDING SLOPES VARY AND INCLUDE ROLLING
TO STEEP HILLS TONNER CANYON IS LOCATED TO THE SOUTH nF THE SITF_
"c. Vegetation nTSTTIRRFn rg ARq T ANn. ngnmENTAT. T ANnSrADtN(,� C}iA VPARRet
'd. Animals 9AMF AS n ARnLF
'e. Watercourses THERE ARE SEVERAL USGS DESIGNATED BLUELINE STREAMBEDS
INTERMITTENT FLOW IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
f. Chltural/historical resources NO KNOWN CULTURAL/HISTORICAL RESO _
EXIST IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
g. Other ---
Answers are not required if the area does not contain narurA:
undeveloped land.
3., ._Are there any major trees on the site. Including oak trees?
OYES ) NO
If yes, type and number: SEVERAL SCRUB OAK TREES AND WALNUT TREES HAVE
BEEN IDENTIFIED ONSITE.
4. Will any natural watercourses, surface [low patterns, etc., be changed
through project development?e
(fES ) 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 SI_ AND CONTINUES OFFSITE INTO TONNER C.
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? (TES) 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, explains _No. see soil re ort.
7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with
moderately dense vegetation)?
(YES ) NO
Distance to nearest .fire stations APPROXI: 4 MILES
8. Noises
Existing noise sources at sites NONE
Noise to be generated by projects NO SIGNIFICANT SOURCES
Fumese
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 uFnatruFMFmmc
CERTIFICATIONt I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and to
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.
toB 19a
D le i n ture
Fort
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 /r%/�� day of c/J 12— 19�2—
Signature
Environmental Information Fors for Residential Projects
(To be completed.by applicant)
General Informations
Date Fileds
Pertinent Permits/Applicattons s A CUP , SUBDIVISION, AND AN OAK TREE PERMIT
Project Informations
1. Name, Address and Phone Number of Project Sponsors
UNION WIDE, INC.
671 BREA CANYON. #3 PHONE # (714) 598-2661
WALNUT, CA 91789 CONTACT: .iERPY YFi4
2.,.,.,, Name. Address and Phone Number of. Key Contact Person(s):
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 intormation)s
LOT 14 OF PARCEL MAP 157A
6-A. Does the project require any of the following actions by the Citys
YES
Variance: x
Conditional Use Permit: x
Zone Change: x
General Plan Amendments X
0
6-8. 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 ARMY rC H nal,
PERMIT .WILL BE RE UIRED.
7. Land Use Designations,
Adopted General Plan Designation, N/A
REVIEWED nv sm
Community Plan
B• Proposed Specific Use of Site,
13 LOT SUBDIVISION ZONF.n R-1-/,.
Project Description
9-A. Site Dimensions and Gross Area,
GROSS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 20,00 ACRES. FOR SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS
SEE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP.
9-D. 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'L05 ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
I@. Project Detail (SEE ATTACHED SHEET)
Attach a separate page of descriptive data for each housing type included in this
project:
a. Numbetr 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).
I. 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. STn
STREETS AND VARIOUS PUBLIC UTILITIES SUCH AS GAS ELECTRIC --TELEPHONE. DRAINAGE
AND OTHERS. SEE TITLE REPORT FOR DETAILS
PES
12. Associated Projects: (Projects or potential projects which are directly
related to this project, ie: potential developments. which require completion of
this project)t THIS REQUEST IS FOR A ggznNING OF THE STTF FROM A7-9 To R 1 4n AAO
TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMANCE WITH ADJACENT USES. A CUP, OAK TREE PERMIT,
AND A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP A A SOGIAT D WITH THIS REZONE REOUEST,
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.
a
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 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 (ies north,
south, east. west) from the site.
10. Project Detail
a. n/a
P . n/a
c. n/a
d. n/a
e. n/a
f. The landscape treatment for this project has two primary
goals.
I. 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 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 items applicable to the proposed project or Its effectsl
(Discuss below all items which apply to this projects attach additional sheets
as necessary)
15. Gradings
Maximum depth of excavations 35' Maximum depth of fills 40'
Quantity of soil moved, 150,000 cubic yards.
Will there be anon site balance of cut and flll?s YES
16. Viewsheds 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 AESTHETTC VALUE OF THE SITE AS LANDSCAPING
MEASURES WILL BE IMPLANTED WITH THE PROJECT.
17. Describe how the proposed project will fit into its surroundings (les will
the proposed project blend into and existing neighborhood? flow will it relate
to the size, scale, style, and character of the existing surrounding
development?)
A_CENT USES. ESTATE LOTS OF k ACRE OR MORE CURRENTLY EXIST ABUT.TIN
—1-40.000 PROPOSFn F.STATF n1:UF1nPMrM1r r.,T,. no T,.. .,.,,.r.,.,.......— ..__._
a==� o��nwpuiiva.axGA. btuAuJE ve THE HOUSING TYPE PROPOSED, THE PROJECT WILL 1
- wean rnurwau uc.vr.Lvrr1Yd71 WILL DEMONSTRATE CREA'
AND IMAGINATIVE DESIGN RESULTING IN A VISUAL QUALITY THAT WILL COMPLIMENT THE
OM" scr eA�dn Ralteration of the existingdrainage 8 patterns. or potential
for changes in surface or ground water quality or quantity. (les will the flow
of any permanent or intermittent surface/subsurface water change as a result of
this project? How?s 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 WTT.T. NnT CA11R7 nRA4TTr riaeurcc Tn1
QUANTTTY.
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
BY THE ADDITIONAL• STREETS R oUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED RFSTDFNCE9 THE POTENTIAL
NOISE AND OR VIBRATION SHOULD BE ONLY SLIGHTLY GREATER THAN THAT .ruTrH minor .r
EXISTS DUE TO THE LOW DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
20. Describe any residential construction proposed on filled land (lei 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, a 11.
21. Do any significant trees exist on the project site now? Describe the
effect this project will have on them. (fel Oak and Walnut trees are considered
significant. Describe whether the proposed project will disturb or cause removal
of any of these trees).
22. Is h
designated area oof projectsitelocated regional or
torical.nvlironmentaln a nor� other e�significancelocally.
describe. (ie, is the site an area designated as a hillside management areaIf,
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 Setting,
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 COMPRI5ED OF 2 RIDGES AND 2 SMALL VALLEYS WHICH FALL GENTLY IN A
SOUTHERLY DIRF.P..TTnu rvnm a.,.,.. —.-.
.a, --a "u A rtw 5t:RUB OAK TREES LOCATED ONSITE: THE SITE OVERLOOKSVTONNERn
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, SKUNK,
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
JLUr1N 1, LLKKAlN LS 1T.r1URL UC 111t AKLA ANL Ltir, VhUtrArIVE AND ANIMAL POPULATIONS
ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE FOUND 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.
Datet (0 Signature, Z4 --R _
For
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 Declaration may be granted, whether a Mitigated
Negative Declaration maybe granted, or whether Environmental Impact Report shall
be required.
CITY OF DEAMC D BAR
DEPARIMFNT OF PLANNING
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190
(714)860-3195 Fax (714)860-7427
OAK TREE PERMIT APPLICATICN
TRACT # 51169
Record Ownet(s) Applicant
Name UNION WIDE, INC. UNION WIDE, INC.
(Last nate first)
Address 671 BREA CANYON, STE 3 671 BREA CANYON STE.3
City WALNUT, CA WALNUT, CA
Zip_g1789 9178.9
Phone(7141 598-2661 014) 598-2661
OWNER'S AUITIORIZA.TION
Caseg r7q2- 3
Filed
Pecei p4_
Applicant's Agent
_HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
10179 HUENNEKENS ST.
SAN SEGO, CA
_ 21
(619)9)
558-4500
F certify that he owner of erein described property and permit the
applicant t ile t t
Signed recordedDate _ . pct
(ill o►aers)
Certification: 1, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that
the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Printed Name ��02C %� LftTEIQ
(Applicaot of Altai)
Signed / / Date w �I
(Applieint ai'Ateol)
Location (i.e. address or general description`of location) and legal description
of property in question: .(use additional sheets as necessary)
TION: SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF BLAZE.TRAIL ROAD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL 14 OF PARCEL MAP 1528.AS PER NAP RECORDED IN BOOK
26, PAGES 19-30
How many oak trees will be cut, removed, relocated or damaged? one
How many oaktrees willremain 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 pian) and schedule
for planting. 36" box size oak tree, location to be determined in the field,
plant --Ing ant.ing n ncrur nftpr rnnctrurrinn and Attring landecaping nnaratinna
Are trees to be relocated? nn If yes, identify who will
move them and his qualifications for doing this.
OAK TRIS STATIWNr
( I The subject property contains no oak trees. tt
( ] 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.
( 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.
(Applicant's Signature) (Dili)
REQUIRE111ENIS, FOR OAK TREE PERMIT
Two (2) oak tree reports certified by the applicant to be true 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 and 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.
>C! • -NOR
Submit additional sheets describing how the following findings will be satisfied.
A. That the proposed construction or proposed use widl be accoatpldsh11 ed without
endangering the health of the remaining trees subject to this Par 16, if
any, on the subject property, and
B. That the removal or relocation of the oak tree(s) proposed will not result
in sail 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 bm
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 interf-r=
with utility services or streets and highways either within or
outside of the subject property and no reasonable alternative to sued
interfere exists other than removal of the tree(s), or
3. That the condition of the oak tree(s), proposed for removal rit
reference to seriously debilitating disease or danger of falling
such that it cannot be remedied through reasonable preserva.ti n
procedures and practices.
Date: 2---- Applicant's Signature
Environmental Information For■ for Residential Projects
(To be completed by applicant)
General Information:
Date Filed,
Pertinent Perini ls/ApplicatIons, CUP FOR TRACT 51169
Project Informations
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 PIERMARI
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)s BK 8713-24-0
5. Other Identlfj �pp�1..��other recorded/map location information)t LOT 14
OF PARCEL MAP 1528 NUAr, R 51169
6-A. Does the project require any of the following actions by the City:.
YES NO
Variance:
Conditional Use Permit:
Zone Changes
General Plan Amendments
9
6-8. List and describe any other related standards, permits and other public
approvalt 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,
Adopted Zoning, A2-2 REZONE REQUEST TO CHANGE ZONE ID 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 Sitet
LT
Project Description
000
9-A. Site Dimensions and Gross Areat
GROSS AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 20.00 ACRES. FOR SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS
CFTI TGAIT AT TT)1S tiAn __..
9-8. Legal Description of the Project, (attach copy to this form if necessarn•)
PARCEL 14 OF PARCEL MAP 1528 AS PER MAP, RECORDED IN"BOOK 26 PAGES 19
THROUGH 30 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY. OFLO -ANGELES, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA.
I@. Project -Detail 5Et 5HaV.7
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,
12. Associated Projects (Projects or potential projects which are directly
related to this project, les potential developments which require completion of
this projec t s 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 projects (Number of Units & Time
Frame)
N/A
14. Attach one copy of each of the followings
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 (les north, south, est,
west) vantage points and photographs showing vistas (ics 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 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 items applicable to the proposed project or its effacts?
(Discuss below all items which apply to this projects attach additional sheets
as necessary)
15. Gradings
Maximum depth of excavation] 35' Maximum depth of fill, 40'
Quantity of soil moveds 150,000 cubic yards.
Will there be anon site balance of cut and fill?s 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 BL
IS NOT HIGHLY VISIBLE FROM ADJOING DEVELOPED AREAS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL
RESULT IN AN ENHANCEMENT OF THE ESTHETTC VArttF nv Tura
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?)
IN A
ABUTTING
ENHAN(
CREATI
La. uescrruoF—sny" alteration of the existing drainage patterns, or potential
for changes in surface or ground water quality or quantity. (lei will the flow
of any permanent or intermittent surface/ subsurface water change as a result of
this protect? How?, will there be any injection wells, septic systems, or other
facilities which may affect surface or subsurface water quality?)
ALTHnUru rtaanTUe LITT7 ?AVL• —Ann
IN THE EXISTING
AINAGE COURSES
U
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 CONST RUC ION OF THE RAC TRAFFIC NTM—CA=
BY THE ADDITIONAL RTREETS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED RFSTTIFh(Fc THE NOISE AND OR VIBRATION HO L.D BE vnmc rm
ONLY SLIGHTLY GREATER T:+.,, ... THE ..
AM
EXISTS DUE TO THE LOW DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. CURRENTLY
20. Describe any residential construction proposed on filled, land (let 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 significant trees exist on the project site now?
effect this protect will have on them. Describe the
(let Oak and Walnut trees are considered
significant. Describe whether the proposed project will disturb or cause removal
of any of these trees). .
vre e.,e...,...- --
AN
22. Is hproject site
regional or
designated areaof historical. nvironmentalnor� otherstate,significance. locally
describe. (let is the site an area designated as a hillside management If
areasignificant ecological area, significant mineral resource area, etc.)
THE ITE FAL WITHIN TH TOWNER CANYON SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AREA N0. 15,
BUT IS NOT LOC TED IN AN AREA OF KNOWN HISTORICAL OR CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. THE
AREA IS DESIGNATED AS A HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT AREA.
Environmental Setting,
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 DISTURRFn RV vAem
SQUIRRELS WOOD 4 y anis LUULD INCLUDE
RATS AND VARIOUS MICE SPECIES.
APPA'
COTTONTAIL RABBITS, COYOTE,uSKUNi'.
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-fanily, density,
commercial, professional, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-
back, etc.) in the adjacent surrounding area.
THESURROUNDINGPROPERTIES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY R-1-10,000 RESIDENTIAL TO THE
ARE S
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 co plet
Dates �- (�-`i2� Signature: n /
For '1✓u�5'd .k p�Sat�llT�s
Completion of this form 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 Declaration may be granted, whether a Mitigated
Negative Declaration may be granted, or whether Environmental Impact. Report shall
be required.
STAFF USE ()NLy
i Mandatory Findings of Significance? '
` a• Does the proposed
to degrade the Protect have the potential
quality'of .the' environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
orwild I If specifish
es, cause a Fish or wildlife
Population to drop below self
levels, threaten sustaining
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 maior
Periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the proposed
to achieve to have the potential
short-term, to the disadvantage
Of long-term, environmental goads?
C. Does the proposed prosect pose impacts which
are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable?
d• Does the protect pose environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
Indirectly? or
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
(Attach Narrative)
DETERMINATION,
On the basis of this initial evaluation,
I find that the proposed proJect COULD NOT
significant effect on the environment, have a
DECLARATION will be prepared. and a NEGATIVE
-- 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.
find that the proposed proJect MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required.
Date, Signature:
.December 13, 1993
Page 11
amending line four of the title of the Planning
s
Commission Resolution to read "An application to
install a temporary franchise for an unmanned
gellular."; delete Finding of Fact (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.
RECONVENE:
Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 9:26 p.m.
r ZCA No. 92-2;
CDD/DeStefano 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 period 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
I
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
r for.90 days, without prejudice to any time limits
Lthat 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 bodv.
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 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 be some legal
rights associated with the vesting tentative map.
Mr. Don Schad pointed out that originally GPAC
recommended 1DU/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, hemay
want to consider that any testimony presented may
foreclose him from voting on the application when
it 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 OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman.Meyer; Vice Chairman Plunk;
Commissionrs: 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
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/Flamenbaum 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 a zone 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 mito
the Country.
L
L
T -
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 motion 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 a 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.
REVISED
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 51169
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-3
ZONE CHANGE NO. 92-2
OAK TREE PERNUT NO. 92-3
SCH NO. 92121069
Applicant:
Union Wide, Inc.
651 Brea Canyon, Suite 3
Walnut, California 91789
Contact: Jerry Yeh
Prepared for:
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177
Contact: Rob Searcy, Associate Planner
Prepared by:
Michael Brandman Associates
17310 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250
Irvine, California 91714
Contact: Thomas E. Smith, Jr., AICP
June 1994
r
June 28, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
A INTRODUCTION .............................:........ A-1
B LIST OF RESPONDENTS ........................ I....... B-1
C LETTERS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO
WRITTEN COMMENTS ................................. C-1
D RESPONSES TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY D-1
SEATAC November 19, 1993 ............................. I . D-1
SEATAC April 15, 1994 ............................... D-6
SEATAC May 9, 1994 .................................. D-10
Planning Commission June 13, 1994 .......................... D-1 l
Appendices
A Comment. Letters
B SEATAC Report
C Minutes from SEATAC Meetings
D Minutes from Planning Commission Public Hearing
E Geology Letter Report
LA/09030014.RTC i Table of Contents
June 28, 1994
SECTION A
INTRODUCTION
Vesting Tract Map (VTM) No. 51169 proposes a 14 -lot subdivision consisting of 13 single-family
residential lots and one common lot in the City of Diamond Bar. The project site is a 20 -acre parcel
at the southern terminus of Blaze Trail Road, between the proposed Rocky Trail Road and Indian
Creek Road, in "The Country" area of Diamond Bar. The site consists of two ridges and two small
valleys that descend gently in a southerly direction from Blaze Trail Road toward Tonner Canyon.
Tonner Canyon has been established as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) by the County of Los
Angeles and the City of Diamond Bar.
A draft environmental impact report (DEIR) was released for public review in November 1993. The
45 -day public comment period of the November 1993 DEIR ended on December 17, 1993. This
document includes the response to comments received during the public review period. The comments
received on the DEIR and the responses to these comments are also included herein, as well as a list
of organizations, public agencies, and private individuals commenting on the DEIR.
The City of Diamond Bar's Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC)
held public hearings in November 1993, April 1994, and May 1994 to review the DEIR and to discuss
the proposed project. The comments and questions raised by SEATAC members and the public at
these hearings are addressed in this document. The final SEATAC report to the City Council
regarding VTM No. 51169 is attached as Appendix B. The minutes of the SEATAC public hearing
are included in Appendix C.
The comment letters received by the City of Diamond Bar are contained in Appendix A and responses
to all comments are contained in Section C of this document. These responses provide additional
clarification of the information in the DEIR. Minor corrections or additions to the information
contained in the DEIR are also included in Section C.
The City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 13, 1994, to review
the proposed project and to take public testimony on the DEIR. This document has. been revised to
incorporate the commission's comments. The minutes of the Planning Commission public hearing are
included in Appendix D.
LA/09030014.RTC A-1 Introduction
June 28, 1994
SECTION B
LIST OF RESPONDENTS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Date of Correspondence
No letters received
N/A
STATE AGENCIES
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
December 17, 1993
State Clearinghouse
Michael Chiriatti, Jr., Chief
California Environmental Protection Agency
November 5, 1993
Environmental Review Section
John Loane, Associate Waste Management Specialist
Department of Transportation
November.8, 1993
Advanced Planning Branch
Wilford Melton, Senior Transportation Planner
REGIONAL AGENCIES
Southern California Association of Governments
November 3, 1993
Intergovernmental Review
Eric H. Roth, Manager
LOS ANGELES COUNTY AGENCIES
Fire Department, Prevention Bureau
November 8, 1993
Forestry Division
December 7, 1993
Paul H. Rippens, Chief
Fire Department
November 8, 1993
Fire Prevention, Engineering Section
Sanitation Districts
November 16, 1993
Financial Planning and Property Management Section
Marie L. Pagenkopp, Engineering Technician
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENCIES
Charles Abbott Associates, Inc.
December 9, 1993
City of Diamond Bar Consulting Engineers
Michael Myers
LA/09030014.RTC B-1 List of Respondents
CITY OF CHINO BILLS AGENCIES
Community Development Department
Eric Norris, AICP, Associate Planner
CITY OF BREA AGENCIES
Community Development Department
Konradt Bartlam, City Planner
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS
No letters received
June 28, 1994
Date of Correspondence
November 10, 1993
November 23, 1993
N/A
LM09030014.RTC B-2 List of Respondents
June 28, 1994
SECTION C
LETTERS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENCIES
Governor's Office of. Planning and Research
Michael Chiriatti, Jr., Chief State Clearinghouse
December 17, 1993
OPR 1: The letter acknowledges that the City of Diamond Bar has complied with the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to CEQA.
Additionally, the letter indicates that the DEIR was sent to the following agencies for review by the
State Clearinghouse:
1. Department of Fish and Game
2. Caltrans District 7
3. State Regional Water Quality Control Board
4. State Lands Commission
Response 1: Comments noted.
California Environmental Protection Agency
California Integrated Waste Management Board
John Loane, Associate Waste Management Specialist
November 5, 1993
Cal -EPA l: Identify final disposal site(s) for all proposed project's anticipated waste generation, both
during construction phases and after project implementation, including alternative methods for
disposal. Identify the anticipated types and estimated quantities of solid waste to be disposed of during.
construction and at project completion, including additional sludge from the wastewater treatment plant
servicing the project, and mitigation for any waste generated by the project that is determined to be
hazardous.
Response 1: The Notice of Preparation and Initial Study (NOP/IS) checklist prepared for the project
and circulated in December 1992 identified impacts on solid waste and disposal as not significant.
The NOP/IS was circulated to public agencies to solicit comments on the scope and content of the
EIR. No comments were received from agencies to indicate that impacts on solid waste could be
LA/09030014.RTC C-1 Getters Received and Response
to Written Comments
June 28, 1994
significant; therefore, no discussion is included in the DEIR and no discussion is warranted in this
FEIR.
Cal -EPA 2: Identify past or present areas of permitted or unpermitted landfilling and/or dumping at
the proposed project site location and how these areas will be remediated/mitigated.
Response 2: There are no known areas of permitted or unpermitted landfill at the project site.
Additionally, no man-made fill exists onsite; however, there is a large pile of recently placed
uncertified fill soil on the adjacent lot to the north.
Cal -EPA 3: The commentor recommends five measures to be incorporated into the project by the
applicant to help achieve the mandates of the California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939)
of 1989.
Response 3: Because the project has been determined to have no significant impacts on solid waste
and disposal, no mitigation is required. However, it is anticipated that the future homeowners will
comply with the CC&Rs of The Country, including those pertaining to waste management. The City
of Diamond Bar has developed and adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling element and a
Household Hazardous Waste element in response to Assembly Bill 939, the California Integrated
Waste Management Act of 1989. The proposed project will be required to comply with the
components of these elements, including current and future recycling, source reduction, composting
programs, and other waste management programs.
A number of new recycling programs will be implemented and existing programs expanded within the
City, including at -source separation, multifamily collection, and curbside collection. Some examples
of source reduction activities in the City include repair of appliances, furniture, and household items
donation, the use of diaper services, and backyard composting. The City has targeted yard waste for
ongoing composting programs. Special wastes (tires, construction debris, white goods, and sofas and
mattresses) will be diverted from landfills via a used tire program, diversion of construction/
demolition waste, and a white goods recovery plan.
Department of Transportation, Advanced Planning Branch
Wilford Melton, Senior Transportation Planner
November 8, 1993
DOT 1: The project by itself will have only a minimal impact on the state transportation facilities.
However, the cumulative impact of this project and all other projects in the vicinity will significantly
t.A/09030014.RTC C-2 - Letters Received and Response
to Written Comments
June 28, 1994
affect state facilities. The City should ensure that assessment fees for mitigation are enough to cover
not only local impacts but also freeway mainline deficiencies that occur as a result of the additional
traffic generated by each project.
Response 1: Page 5-55 and Table 5.6-5 of the DEIR indicate that the proposed project's contribution
to cumulative impacts is not significant. The additional traffic from the proposed project will not alter
the V/C ratios or LOS at the four study intersections. Nonetheless, the DEIR recognizes that the
project will contribute somewhat to cumulative impacts (160 trips per day) but this contribution would
not be significant. The City will require the applicant to pay a fair share of mitigation measures for
impacts within the City limits. Please note, it is not within the City's jurisdiction to collect mitigation
fees for state freeways.
DOT 2: Any transport of heavy construction equipment that requires the use of oversize transport
vehicles on State Highways will require a Caltrans transportation permit. Truck trips should be
limited to off-peak commute periods.
Response 2: A mitigation measure will be added to the project's conditions of approvals to require
that oversize transport vehicles using State Highways apply for a Caltrans transportation permit and
that these truck trips shall be limited to off-peak commute periods.
LA/09030014.RTe C-3 Letters Received. and Response
to Written Comments
June 28, 1994
REGIONAL AGENCIES
Southern California Association or Governments
Eric H. Roth, Manager, Intergovernmental Review
November 3, 1992
SCAG 1: The project is not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria; therefore, the
project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time.
Response 1: No response is necessary.
LA/09030014.RTC C-4 Letters Received and Response
to Written Comments
June 28, 1994
LOS ANGELES COUNTY AGENCIES
Fire Department, Forestry Division, Prevention Bureau
Paul H. Rippens, Chief
November 8, 1993
LAFD 1: The Forestry Division has no comment at this time.
Response 1: No response is necessary.
Fire Department, Forestry Division, Prevention Bureau
Paul H. Rippens, Chief
December 7, 1993
LAID 1: The areas germane to the statutory responsibilities of the Forestry Division have been
addressed. The project should comply with all local tree, landscape, and vegetation ordinances.
Response 1: As discussed in Section 5.4 (Biological Resources) of the DEIR and Section D of this
document, the project shall comply with all local tree, landscape, and vegetation ordinances.
Fire Department, Fire Prevention, Engineering Section
November 8, 1993
LAFD 1: The measures listed on the two pages should be made conditions of approvals for the
proposed project.
Response 1: Comment noted. Fire prevention measures shall be incorporated into the conditions of
approvals for the proposed project.
Sanitation Districts, Financial Planning and Property Management Section
Marie L. Pagenkopp, Engineering Technician
November 16, 1993
San Dist 1: All information in the DEIR concerning the district's facilities and sewerage service is
currently complete and accurate.
Response 1: Comment noted.
LAr09030014.RTC C-5 Getters Received and Response
to Written Comments
June 28, 1994
CITY AGENCIES
Chino Hills, Community Development Department
Eric Norris, Associate Planner
November 10, 1993
Chino 1: No Comment.
Response 1: No response is necessary.
City of Brea
Konradt Bartlam, City Planner
.November 23, 1993
Brea 1: No comment.
Response 1: No response is necessary.
City of Diamond Bar, City Consulting Engineers
Michael Myers, Charles Abbott Associates, Inc.
December 9, 1993
Abbott 1: Additional research and discussion regarding sanitary sewers should be included. No
conclusive research or analysis is included regarding the conveyance capacity of existing lines and any
pump stations. The Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) - Waterworks and
Sewer Maintenance Division and County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County responses to the
NOP are now nearly a year old. LACDPW's letter addresses sewer maintenance and operations only,
and recommends that the City Engineer be contacted directly for information related to sewer capacity.
Neither the EIR nor the City's file contains any information regarding research or analysis of local
sewer capacity.
Response 1: Please see the comment letter received from the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts, Financial Planning and Property Management Section (November 16, 1993). According to
this letter, all information in the DEIR concerning the district's facilities and sewerage service is
currently complete and accurate. However, a condition of approval will be added to ensure that a
flow and capacity study will be conducted prior to project approval.
LA/09030014.RTC C-6 Letters Received and Response
to Written Comments
June 28, 1994
Abbott 2: The Sanitation Districts states that additional treatment capacity is expected to be available
in early 1993. Is that capacity now available, as the then -present stated capacity appeared to be at its
limit? It also specifically states that it does not guarantee wastewater treatment service. Will the
Sanitation Districts accept wastewater from this project for treatment?
Response 2: The Sanitation Districts .will not provide a will -serve letter until the environmental
documentation has been certified and the project approved. According to the comment letter received
from the Sanitation Districts, the information presented in the DEIR is accurate; therefore, treatment
capacity is available to serve the project.
Abbott 3: If sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment capacity are not available or cannot be
provided with implementation of the project, private sewage treatment and disposal would not seem
a feasible alternative.
Response 3: As discussed in the responses to Abbott 1 and Abbott 2, it is anticipated that sanitary
sewer conveyance and treatment capacity will be available to serve the project. It is not necessary to
seek alternative disposal methods.
Abbott 4: Discussion regarding grading in the area of the "blue -line" stream should be expanded and
should more accurately correspond with the details and extent of grading in this proposed area. On
page 5-8, the discussion that the stream will be "raised and recreated" would appear to be misleading
upon examination of the proposed grading shown on the VTM. The portion of the stream onsite is
being completely filled to create building pads. Benching and terracing of graded slopes are proposed
and drainage from this area is being routed and discharged back into the stream, but this does not
seem to constitute "recreation" of the stream.
Response 4: The proposed grading will affect approximately 1,400 square feet of a U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS)-designated blueline drainage. However, there are no wetland species identified on
the site, and runoff in this area is seasonally intermittent. The drainage basin only contains water
during a storm, and runoff ceases at its conclusion. A variable amount of fill would be placed on
portions of the blueline drainage and ranges from 0 to approximately 50 feet in depth. As.a part of
the proposed landform grading and landscape plan, a wetland area of equal size will be provided in
the form of an urban pollution basin. The landform grading will also provide opportunities through
the inclusion of naturalized "recreated" drainage areas to introduce wetland species where none now
exists. it will be necessary to obtain the appropriate permits from both the California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for filling activity.
t.Af0%30014.RTc C-7 Letters Received and Response
to Written Comments
June 28, 1994
Abbott 5: Leighton and Associates made a through review of the Preliminary Geotechnical Report
prepared for the project. Leighton approved the report with the single condition that the geotechnical
consultantssubmita-grading plan -review -report and approve.the-grading plan at -the -grading plan
check state. This condition of preliminary report approval should be included as a mitigation measure
in the EIR. Other discussions on this subject in the EIR relates accurately to the reports.
Response 5: The condition that the geotechnical consultants submit a grading plan review report and
approve the grading plan at the grading plan check state is hereby considered to be a mitigation
measure of the proposed project.
Abbott 6: DKS Associates reviewed the traffic study prepared by Weston Pringle Associates. DKS
approved the report and concluded that the project traffic would not be a significant impact by itself.
The EIR identifies that any incremental increase in the cumulative impacts of traffic, as a result of the
project, will be mitigated by the payment of a fair -share fee. As the City has not established a traffic
impact fee program, this fair -share fee will have to be determined and included as a condition of VTM
approval.
Response 6: Traffic impact fees are hereafter considered to be a condition of VTM approval.
Abbott 7: The proposed vacation of existing easements and irrevocable offers of dedication requires
discussion. While these easements and offers may reflect desired circulation of a former era and may
not be needed it conformance with the City's and region's current circulation patterns and goals, no
discussion of this issue appears in the EIR. The applicant is proposing vacation/abandonment of these
easements and it appears that access to other properties can be achieved without any additional access
provisions.
Response 7: The proposed vacation of approximately 970 feet of an irrevocable offer of dedication
for street purposes and appurtenant easements is consistent with the policies of The Country and past
actions taken by the City of Diamond Bar in the approvals of Tract Nos_ 47851 and 48487. The
irrevocable offer was made with recordation of Parcel Map No. 1528 on June 19, 1970, in the County
of Los Angeles. However, this offer was never accepted by the County. The proposed vacation does
not preclude access to the adjoining property, which is currently owned by the Boy Scouts of America.
Primary access to the Boy Scout property is currently provided by Tonner Canyon Road to the west.
The future extension of Tonner Canyon Road east to Grand Avenue 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. In addition, access provided by the extension of Blaze Trail will be
LM09030014.RTC C-8 Letters Received and Response
to Written Comments
June 28, 1994
maintained to the Boy Scout property line from the project. In summary, the vacation of one
irrevocable street offer to the Boy Scout property would not adversely affect site access to the adjacent
site.
Abbott 8: The project (as well as Tentative Tract No. 46485) proposes a 1,700 -foot extension of a
present cul-de-sac that is currently 1,700 feet long. This resulting 3,400 -foot cul-de-sac requires
discussion regarding suitability as a roadway -design standard and acceptability as asingle-access route
for emergency services.
Response 8: The proposed extension of Blaze Trail was anticipated as early as 1970, when Parcel
Map No. 1528. was recorded with the County of Los Angeles. The proposed project has been
reviewed by the County Fire Marshall, who did not raise concerns about fire access to the site. The
street width proposed is consistent with the existing streets in The Country and those of the recently
approved Tract Nos. 47851 and 48487. The Walnut Valley Water District has indicated that adequate
fire flows also will be available onsite. Alternative secondary access is currently restricted by
topography, environmental constraints, and The Country's policies regarding access to the gated
community. If Tonner Canyon Road were to be extended through the Boy Scout property at some
point in the future, secondary access possibly could be extended to that road. Presently, there are no.
plans for this extension and no possibility for secondary access.
Abbott 9: Minor errors showing the preparer's lack of precise understanding of the City's grading
ordinance and processes exist in the Summary Table, particularly under the mitigation measures for
Topography/Grading. The mitigation measures summarized as item 2 under water resources, surface
drainage patterns, should include designs as mandated by laws/ordinances of all levels of government,
not just the County.
Response 9: , Because areas of deficiencies are not specifically defined by the commentor, it is
difficult to develop a specific response to this comment. The mitigation measures presented under
topography/grading state that the project should be designed to meet the requirements of the City's
grading ordinance. The mitigation measures presented in the summary table respond to Federal
Requirements (Clean Water Act - NPDES), State approvals (NO[), and City approvals (drainage and
grading plans).
LA/09030014.RTC C-9 Letters Received.and Response
to Written Comments
June 28, 1994
SECTION D
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY
RESPONSE TO CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SEATACI
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE - NOVEMBER 19, 1993
SEATAC Members Private Individuals
Charles Hewitt, Chairman Don Schad
David Berry, Vice -Chair Max Maxwell
S. Gregory Nelson
WALNUT TREES
Comment 1: Replacement walnut trees and related understory vegetation placed in the open space
areas may be affected by fuel modification requirements and human intrusion.
Response 1: The exact mitigation ratio for .the loss of walnut trees will be determined through
consultation between the City and CDFG (typically 1:1 or 2:1). Onsite areas are preferred for
planting replacement trees, if the trees can be placed in an area that will be conducive for wildlife use
and in an area with biological value. The objective is to have no net loss of walnut trees and no net
loss of the ecological value of these trees in their current condition (as habitat for wildlife or as a
woodland providing soil stability, cover for understory plants, etc.). , If the area available for
replacement planting onsite is isolated or too small, or if there is simply not enough room available
onsite, appropriate areas offsite, either in the immediate vicinity or in the surrounding region, should
be located (in coordination with the CDFG). A suitable candidate area for offsite plantings would be
appropriate open space areas within Tonner Canyon. Alternatively, an in -lieu fee contribution to a
habitat conservancy could be considered.
Establishing walnut woodland habitat within the project open space would result in limited habitat
value because of:
•- Fuel modification maintenance measures (permanent irrigation, pruning and
trimming, removal of leaf litter, etc.).
• . Human intrusion (people, domestic pets, trash and refuse, night lights, noise, etc.).
LA/09030014.RTC D-1 Response to Public Testimony
June 28, 1994
To provide adequate mitigation for the loss of 167 walnuts, walnut woodland habitat
creation/revegetation should be established in an area where human intrusion can be limited and the
implementation of fuel modification measures is not necessary. Replacing the loss of 167 walnut trees
at a 1:1 or 2:1 ratio would necessitate planting 167, or 334 walnut trees, respectively. Approximately
5.5 or 11 acres of suitable area is needed to accommodate 167 or 334 walnuts at the existing walnut
woodland density of approximately 30 trees per acre. There is not enough acreage available onsite
to accommodate 334 replacement trees.
Revegetation could take. place within appropriate areas in Tonner Canyon, as many portions of walnut
woodland within Tonner Canyon have been degraded by long-term cattle grazing. Understory species
and walnut seedlings have been eradicated by overgrazing, soils have become heavily compacted, and
non-native grasses have become established throughout large portions of the existing walnut
woodlands. Revegetation could include establishing appropriate native understory species, planting
walnut seedlings, and alleviating soil compaction through ripping and auguring.
Comment 2: The placement of the walnut trees relative to the proposed pads should be considered.
The height and structure of mature walnuts may not be compatible with desired views from homes.
Improper placement may result in the homeowners removing the trees. Consider placing walnuts
around the perimeter of the site and more desirable species in the interior.
Response 2: The landscaping plan can be broken into subareas with distinct plant palettes. It is
recommended that (1) most native species be located in buffer areas adjacent to preserved natural
habitat within the project open space areas and (2) plant species more compatible with residential
landscaping be used in the more formal landscaped areas in the interior of the project. These species
should include non-invasive non-native species and appropriate specimen/ornamental native species.
Drought tolerant species should be used as much as possible in the landscape palette.
Comment 3: Incorporation of the hairy fringepod plant into the understory revegetation for the
walnuts should be considered.
Response 3: The hairy fringepod plant can be incorporated into, the walnut woodland understory if
it is possible to obtain and propagate it prior to revegetation implementation. .
Comment 4: The health/age/regeneration of the existing walnuts on the project site should be
identified.
LAJ09030014.RTC D-2 Response to Public Testimony
June 28, 1994
Response 4: Almost all of the walnut trees onsite appeared healthy. Exocormic growth, insect gall,
and mistletoe were seen on a small percentage of the trees. Basal sprouting was seen on some of the
trees. All of the walnut trees on the eastern ridge appeared to be the same age (all trees were
approximately 25 feet high and had heavy, cracked barks). No seedlings/regeneration was seen; the
site had been recently disced.
Walnut trees on the western ridge varied in age and size (from 6 to 25 feet tall). There were many
more young trees and seedlings (6 to 10 feet tall), although no very young seedlings were seen (0 to
4 feet tall). The western ridge also had been disced recently. Minimal amounts of non-native grasses
were seen throughout the walnut woodland sites on the eastern and western ridges. The trees within
the site drainages appeared older; seedlings were observed within the drainages. The trees within the
drainages had a coastal sage scrub and non-native grass understory.
TONNER CANYON/SEA NO. 15
Comment 5: What percentage of the walnut woodland in Tonner Canyon is contained on the project
site?
Response 5: The exact total acreage of walnut woodland within the SEA is not known. The walnut
woodlands within Tonner Canyon intergrade with oak -dominated woodland. The ratio of oaks to
walnuts varies from nearly pure stands of oaks to nearly pure stands of walnuts.
A rough estimate of the number of acres of walnut -dominated woodland within the SEA may be
estimated, however, based on the known acreage of walnut woodland within the Boy Scout's 505 -acre
Firestone property.
By extrapolation, approximately 1,558 acres of walnut woodland are estimated to be within the SEA
(the actual number may be much different as a result of topography, soil conditions, and water
availability).
Currently, the VTM No. 51 169 project site contains 10:8 acres of walnut woodland, which represents
0.69 percent of the total estimated walnut woodland in Tonner Canyon. Development of the proposed
project will result in the loss of approximately 9.5 acres of walnut woodland. This represents 0.61
percent of the total 1,558 acres estimated to be within Tonner Canyon.
LA/09030014.RTC D-3 Response to Public Testimony
June 28, 1994
Comment 6: The cumulative impacts on Tonner Canyon should be discussed.
Response 6: In 1976, the size of the SEA was estimated at approximately 4,100 acres. Although a
portion of the SEA now lies within the City of Diamond Bar's sphere of influence, and portions along
the western and eastern edges have undergone some development, the size has not changed
significantly from 1976. While the walnut woodland within the SEA is considered valuable as wildlife
habitat and as a sensitive plant community, it has been heavily affected by grazing activities. As a
result, the regeneration of the walnuts has been significantly reduced.
A number of proposed development projects may result in the loss of biological resources within the
SEA. Development of the Firestone property (owned by the Boy Scouts of America) would affect
approximately 186 acres of the northeastern section of the SEA (the rest of the property is outside of
the SEA boundaries).
Shell Oil has proposed to parcelize part of its holdings in the northern section of the SEA on both
sides of State Route 57 (SR -57) into three separate parcels (MBA 1990). Currently, Shell Oil is
attempting to receive entitlement and potentially sell its land on the east side of SR -57. Likewise,
Union Oil plans to entitle its land on the east side of SR -57 within the SEA.
LJM Associates has proposed to develop approximately 300 acres between the Boy Scouts Firestone
property and SR -57. The fate of other smaller holdings within the SEA is not clear at this time.
A few developments are proposed for the Chino Hills, along the eastern edge of the SEA, in San
Bernardino County. Additionally, the City of Diamond Bar has expanded its sphere of influence into
the northwestern section of the SEA, east of SR -57. The City of Diamond. Bar is reviewing several
proposed projects adjacent to the SEA, including Vesting.Tract Nos. 47850, 47851, and 48487,
Tentative Tract Nos. 46485 and 50314, and Tentative Parcel No. 23382.
Shell Oil is in the process of developing a habitat conservation plan for 1,200 acres of open space
southeast of the SEA in Orange County. These 1,200 acres are composed of high-quality oak/walnut
woodland, and will significantly increase the size and value of Tonner Canyon.
WATER SOURCE
Comment 7: Consider adding a wildlife "guzzler" to provide a permanent onsite water source to
benefit wildlife.
LAr09030014.RTc D-4 Response to Public Testimony
June 28, 1994
Response 7: As a result of the steep onsite topography, water draining onto the site runs off into
drainages and does riot pond. No permanent water sources currently occur on the site. However, the
lack of a water source ori the site was not identified in the DEIR as a constraint on the onsite wildlife
population. Because no water sources will be lost as a result of project implementation, no significant
impacts on wildlife water sources will occur. Water sources do occur in the vicinity of the project
site, primarily within Tonner Canyon. The addition of a wildlife guzzler, while not necessary to
mitigate projected impacts, would provide a perennial water source for local wildlife species such as
California quail and several other bird species, amphibians and reptiles, and small mammals. The
guzzler should be placed in a somewhat open area, but relatively close to dense vegetation to attract
wildlife and provide adequate cover. The presence of such a water source would likely increase the
diversity and number of wildlife species in the area.
LAl09030014.RTC D-5 Response to Public Testimony
June 28, 1994
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY COIVIl irME - APRIL 1S, 1994
SEATAC Members Private Individuals
Charles Hewitt, Chairman Don Schad
David Berry, Vice -Chair Max Maxwell
S. Gregory Nelson
Comment 1: The project design addresses impacts associated with hydrology (etc.). It is very well
designed because it responds to the environment. The mitigation measures in the project design are
affirmating and, as a result, this project sets a precedent for designing an environmentally superior,
but economical, project.
Response 1: Comment noted.
Comment 2: Because the SEA is self-contained, it is not necessary to provide a buffer area to
protect the integrity of the SEA. Additionally, it is more important to preserve the SEA than replace
walnut woodlands on the project site. By implementing the conservancy.plan, further protection can
be afforded to the SEA, the habitat value of the SEA can be increased, and the integrity of the SEA
can be maintained.
Consider implementing a combination of onsite mitigation and fee for conservancy. Request that the
City's environmental consultant and City staff initiate calls to conservancies to explore the feasibility
of onsite mitigation, conservancy funding, or a combination of the two.
Response 2: The objective of mitigating the loss of onsite walnut trees is to ensure no net loss of
walnut trees in the SEA and no net loss of associated ecological values. The existing walnut trees on
the project site have little habitat value because the site is disced regularly. As a result, there is
almost no understory for the onsite walnuts. Non-native grasses occur throughout the walnut
woodland areas on the eastern and western ridges. The trees within the drainages have a coastal sage
scrub and non-native grass understory.
Onsite areas are preferred for planting replacement trees, if the trees can be placed in an area that will
be conducive for wildlife use and in an area with biological value. If the area available for
replacement planting onsite is isolated or too small, appropriate areas offsite, either in the immediate
vicinity or in the surrounding region, should be located. As discussed in the SEATAC meeting of
April 15, 1994, open space areas within Tonner Canyon represent candidate area for offsite plantings.
Alternatively, an in -lieu fee contribution to a habitat conservancy could be considered.
LA/09030014.RTC . D-6 Response to Public Testimony
June 28, 1994
Five alternative methods for the preservation of walnut woodlands through financial contributions were
examined. These are discussed below.
A. Nature Conservancy
Scenario: The applicant for VTM No. 51169 would donate funds to the Nature Conservancy with the
condition that the money would be used to purchase land for preservation within Tonner Canyon.
The Nature Conservancy can accept monetary donations that could be used for preservation of walnut
woodlands in Tonner Canyon; however, the likelihood of establishing a preserve in this area depends
on the availability of suitable adjacent open space for purchase. According to the Nature
Conservancy, the relative priority of such a scenario in the Nature Conservancy's work program is
contingent on the likelihood of eventually establishing a large preserve. Management of preserves
would eventually be transferred to the State Parks Department.
Trish Smith, a restoration ecologist with the Nature Conservancy in Orange County, estimates that
the cost of restoring walnut woodlands is approximately $10,000 per acre. This cost includes
equipment, plants, supervisorial staff, and materials, and assumes volunteer help. Because the
proposed project would remove 9.5 acres of walnuts, a donation of $95,000 to I the Nature
Conservancy would mitigate this loss.
Implementation of this scenario would result in no net loss of walnut trees in the SEA; the 9.5 acres
of walnut woodlands removed by the project would be restored in an adjacent area. Additionally,
restoration within Tonner Canyon would provide added benefits to wildlife than would replacement
onsite, on the ridge overlooking Tanner Canyon.
B. Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy
Scenario: The applicant for VTM No. 51169 would make a financial contribution to the Tonner
Canyon Wilderness Conservancy for its use in buying or restoring suitable walnut woodlands in the
SEA.
This scenario assumes that the Wilderness Conservancy is legally empowered to own land; which will
be confirmed by the City Attorney. Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy is registered as a
Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation with the State of California and is exempt from State and
Federal taxes under the provisions of Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This
LA/09030014.RTc D-1 Response to Public Testimony
June 28, 1994
alternative would ensure no net loss of walnut trees in the SEA; the 9.5 acres of walnut woodlands
removed by the project would be restored in an adjacent area.
C. Long -Term Lease/Open Space Easement
Scenario: The applicant negotiates a long-term lease or open'space easement with a landowner in the
Toner Canyon SEA (Boy Scouts, Shell Oil, UM Associates, etc.) to arrange for the restoration of
10 acres of existing walnut woodland.
The feasibility of this scenario is unknown and is dependent on the willingness of an individual
landowner to commit the necessary acreage to long-term open space/habitat use (in return for financial
considerations). The applicant would donate fees for the restoration of those 10 acres of walnut
woodland to the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy. Money also would be donated to ensure
5 years of monitoring. Even if the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy is not equipped to
purchase or own lands, it is possible for the conservancy to organize the restoration, planting, and
monitoring of the walnuts.
D. Funding to a Local Conservancy for Public Benefit
Scenario: If it is infeasible to establish a preserve within the Tonner Canyon SEA area, the equivalent
cost of restoring 9.5 acres of walnut woodlands would be donated to a local conservancy, such as the
Tonner Canyor Wilderness Conservancy, Friends of Whittier Hills, etc.
These funds could be used for community benefit programs, including environmental education
programs in local schools, nature hikes, community -wide educational programs, and, possibly, future
land management programs.
E. Donation of Funds to a Neighboring Jurisdiction with Existing Walnut Preserve
Scenario: The applicant donates the equivalent cost of restoring 9.5 acres of walnut woodlands to a
neighboring city for its use in preserving/restoring similar habitat.
As part of the development of the Malboro tract in the City of Walnut, land containing walnut
woodlands was dedicated to the City's Park and Recreation Department. The City is managing this
land as a walnut woodland preserve. According to John Davidson at the City of Walnut, methods are
available for the applicant to dedicate funds to the Parks and Recreation Department for managing the
preserve.
LA/09030014.RTC D-8 Response to Public Testimony
June 28, 1994
Comment 3: A new homeowners' package should be distributed to inform of individual responsibility
and interjurisdictional responsibility regarding (a) Fuel Modification and (b) Habitat Encroachment.
SEATAC has made recommendations for fencing, small animals, and feeding of wildlife. Similar
language should be incorporated into the FEIR and a homeowners' awareness package will be made
available.
Response 3: The proposed project will comply with the fuel modification requirements of Division V
of the Uniform Building Code. Prior to the approval of building permits, the applicant shall submit
a homeowner's package to the City for approval.
LAl09030014.RTC D-9 Response to Public Testimony
June 29, 1994
SIGINMCANT ECOLOGICAL ADVISORY CONYNIITTEE - MAY 9, 1994
SEATAC Members Private Individuals
Charles Hewitt, Chairman Don Schad
David Berry, Vice -Chair
Comment 1: The SEATAC identified an in -lieu fee contribution to a local conservancy as the
preferred method of mitigating impacts on onsite walnut woodland habitat. Fees donated to a local
conservancy could be used to buy or restore suitable walnut woodlands in the SEA through land
purchase or dedication. If it is infeasible to establish a preserve within the Tonner Canyon SEA, the
equivalent cost of restoring 9.5 acres of walnut woodlands, minus the amount of acreage available
onsite for restoration, could be donated. These funds could be used for community benefit programs,
including environmental education programs in local schools, nature hikes, community -wide
educational programs, and, possibly, future land management programs.
Response 1: Comment noted. Please see the SEATAC Report attached as Appendix B.
LA/09030014.RTC D-10. Response to Public Testimony
June 29, 1994
PLANNING COMNUSSION - JUNE 13, 1994
Comment 1: Clarify the location of the intermittent blueline stream, the Schabaurum Trail, and
the oak tree on site as well as the vacant single family home offsite.
Response 1: Please see Exhibit 3-4 of the DEIR which shows the location of the existing
equestrian (Schabaurm) trail through the project site. Exhibit 5.2-2 of the DEIR shows the location
of the blueline stream. The existing oak tree is located within the area of Lot 11.
Comment 2: The feasibility of propagating new plants from the onsite Walnut trees should be
investigated. The applicant should be conditioned to submit a landscaping plan for the relocation and
propagation of the trees to the Planning Commission for review.
Response 2: It is the applicant's intent to harvest seed from the onsite walnuts for use in
replanting. A condition of approval shall be added requiring the applicant to submit a landscaping
plan to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
Comment 3: Mitigation measures for agricultural or recent and manmade vegetation should be
different than the mitigation measures required for long-term, natural state vegetation.
Response 3: The landscaping plan for the project proposes to create habitat area along the
periphery of the project to provide a buffer area to the SEA. The interior of the project site will
include non-invasive, ornamental species.
Comment 4: Please determine if the existing oak tree onsite is a hybrid and if it can be relocated near
its current location.
Response 4: The onsite oak tree has been identified as a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia).
During development of the landscaping plan, the feasibility of relocating to oak tree will be explored.
As stated in Response 2 above, the landscaping plan will be submitted to the Planning Commission
for review.
Comment 5: Please clarify the easements delineated on the tract map.
Response 5: The slope easements were dedicated to Los Angeles County with the intent of
allowing for the future construction of a road into Tonner Canyon. This roadway is not proposed as
LA/09030014.RTc D-1 l . Response to Public Testimony
June 29, 1994
part of the project; however, the easement is provided should the Los County Public Works
Department determine the need. for such a road in the future.
Comment 6: Clarify the project's intent to annex into The Country.
Response 6: The proposed project proposes to annex to The Country. The project will submit
the appropriate payments to The Country for annexation. Additionally, there will be a separate HOA
and specific CC&Rs for the proposed project, as well as a special assessment pertinent to the 13 lots
for maintenance of the sewer pump station. The pump station will be maintained by Los Angeles
County.
Comment 7: Will wildlife have access to the urban pollution basin?
Response 7: The urban pollution basin will be fenced off to protect wildlife.
Comment 8: How will the SEA be buffered from development?
Response 8: The intent of the landscape plan is to create habitat area through the use of a variety
of local plant species.
Comment 9: How will flows from the residences in the blueline stream be filtered and circulated
back to the ground?
Response 9: Although the final design has not been completed, flows from the residences would
be conveyed to the urban pollution basin and then dispersed by either an evaporation pond or directed
to perforated pipes placed under the detention basin. Stormflows would drain through the ground,
and be released into the canyon at a nonerosive rate.
Comment 10: The Boy Scouts of America, the affected property owner, should be verbally
contacted regarding the easement for the road into Tonner Canyon.
Response 10: The Boy Scouts have been contacted regarding the proposed project.
Comment 11: Please provide a definition of exocormic growth.
LA/09030014.RTC D-12 Response to Public Testimony
June 29, 1994
Response 11: Exocormic growth is a sign of stress in trees. Simply stated, it is when small stems
sprout from the base of the tree.
Comment 12: If a 2:1 replacement ratio of walnut trees is desired after five years, it may be
advisable to start with a slightly higher replacement ratio_
Response 12: There are provisions in the five year monitoring program to manage the mitigation
trees. Additionally, replacing trees to assure that the desired ratio is achieved at the end of the
monitoring period will ensure the compliance with. the 2:1 replacement ratio.
Comment 13: Neither the tract map or the DEIR mentions street lighting.
Response 13: In order for the project to comply with the lighting standards of The Country, which
employs rural road standards, no street lights are included in the proposal.
Comment 14: Does the applicant have authority to conduct offsite grading to construct Gullrock
Road?
Response 14: The applicant has the authority to do off-site grading and off-site street improvements
for the adjacent property, which will be shown on the final map as an easement for access purposes,
with slopes, utilities, etc. A memorandum of understanding exists between the property. owners and
the applicant will receive authorization to encroach onto adjacent properties prior to grading.
Comment 15: What is the capacity of the proposed sewer pump? Who will maintain the sewer
pump?
Response 15: The proposed sewer pump will be sized to handle flows for the proposed project as
well as potential, future adjacent development. The sewer facilities on the project site will be
maintained by the County. There will be an assessment district to pay for the maintenance of the
sewer system.
Comment 16: What volume of grading is anticipated?
Response 16: A total of 184,000 cubic yards of grading will be balanced on site. The fill material
adjacent to the site, on the Blaze Trail easement, will be removed during project grading and will not
be used onsite for fill.
LAr09030014.RTC D-13 Response to Public Testimony
June 29, 1994
Comment 17: Do the local sewers have adequate capacity to handle the increased flows associated
with the proposed project? The project should be conditioned to provide area capacity studies to
assure that capacity is available.
Response 17: Because the project includes 13 residences, it is not expected to impact local sewer
lines, However, a mitigation measure has been added to ensure that flow and capacity studies. are
conducted prior to project approval.
Comment 18: Funding for offsite mitigation should go to the Parks and Recreation Department,
Response 18: Comment noted.
Comment 19:. Have any landslides or instabilities, onsite and downslope of the project site been
identified?
Response 19: The geology on the project site is considered favorable and there does not appear to
be any slippage potential onsite. The rock underlying the site is hard and, because it dips into the
slope, it is considered stable. There is no evidence of ancient landslides on the site. Please see
Section 5.2, Earth Resources, and Appendix B, Geology and Soils Report, of the DEIR for additional
information. Also, please see Appendix E of this report for additional information from the project
geologist.
Comment 20: Deep test pits should have been conducted during the geotechnical investigations to
confirm the stability of the site.
Response 20: The test pits were of Iimited depth (10-12 feet deep) because the geology of the site
is in a favorable condition. No evidence was found to imply that a buried condition exists below the
depth explored, thereby requiring major subsurface work. The east side of the project maintains
neutral bedding which is considered good for development. For additional information, please see
Appendix E of this report.
Comment 21: Clarification if the road easement is being reserved for future development in Tonner
Canyon.
Response 21: The road easement is dedicated to the County of Los Angeles. There is a potential
that the County could determine, at a future date, that a secondary access into Tonner Canyon is
needed. A roadway is not currently proposed.
LM09030014.RTC D-14 Response to Public
June 29, 1994
Comment 22: There should be an attempt to relocate the. 167 walnut trees being removed by the
project?
Response 22: Walnuts do not respond well to transplanting. The mitigation for the proposed
project includes a combination of replanting onsite walnuts and contributing funds to a conservancy.
Comment 23: The applicant should be required to submit a proposal with more specificity.
Response 23: Comment noted.
Comment 24: The SEA should be preserved.
Response 24: Comment noted.
Comment 25: There needs to be further investigation regarding potential landslides
Response 25: Please see responses numbers 19 and 20 above.
Comment 26: The first 18 to 24 inches of the onsite topsoil should be scraped and stockpiled to
be used in the replanting of the trees.
Response 26: The applicant's engineer has indicated his willingness to preserve the "black earth"
topsoil onsite. This has been added as a condition of approval for the proposed project.
Comment 27: Will the project include grading of Gull Rock Lane. If so, has this area been
investigated for potential failures? Will grading on the adjacent property affect the project site?
Response 27: A small failure was discovered downslope of the proposed Gullrock Lane. However,
this is not a major disturbance to the area or a threat to slope stability at the project site. A
preliminary soils and geotechnical report for the adjacent property did not identify any soils or
geological problems that could affect the proposed project site. Please see Appendix E of this report
for additional information.
Comment 28: The geological engineer needs to submit a written report responding to the potential
of offsite geological conditions to affect the project site or the adjacent property.
LAlo9030014.RTC - D-15 Response to Public Testimony
June 29, 1994
Response 28: Please see Appendix E of this report which includes a letter report from the project
geologist.
Comment 29: The project should be conditioned to preserve the "black earth" topsoil to be used
for replanting.
Response 29: This condition has been added to the mitigation monitoring program.
LA/09030014.RTC D-16 Response to Public Testimony
June 28, 1994
APPENDIX A
COMMENT LETTERS
LA/09030014.RTC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON. Governor
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 s'
v
v
w n
�_ om
n ! n
tJ C
December 17, 1993
to '�D r�
ROB SEARCY
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR -� Z
21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE CD
SUITE 190 N
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 -
Subject: VESTING TRACT 151169 SCH 1: 92121069
Dear ROB SEARCY:
The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is now closed
and the comments from the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed
Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the
agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that
your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please
notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's
eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. OPR-1
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code required
that:
"a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive
comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within
an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out
or approved by the agency."
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with
specific documentation.
These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. should you
need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting
agency(ies).
i
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review
requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Mark Goss at (916) 445-0613 if you have
any questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely,
Michael Chiriatti, Jr:
Chief, State Clearinghouse
Enclosures '
cc: Resources Agency
ureen�
SC41 421211169 .W
f
HoITC9 OF COMPIETION
OO 14ientrt Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 916/449.0615
nail to: State Clearingnouse,
....... Till.: Tr I cen.... DerSa
Y: [none: n:
seAgen<
rf.. A.dfOSt: ZIP: xi lfi 5 -,IRT COunty:+L,td tTcA
C:tY:
rro>.ct Lputtm CIt .... t COcwnity:
I
T..Arcs nO
m.ntr:_ r R
r
f S'rees l 11 . nsecyi
T•O: a.npe: ese:
{'Dtrcel xa, `<:
r xf
u1[nin S nllef: Sia Lf x•Y I:,�y}' . a wilt:
IrDOrts: Retl+a ys:
Seiwvlf: a
RO k flees 0 Oi sxcne
ppct�nt TyD
suDvlemntfSuese0uent
xEw _, R0l 0tner: _
Jnlnt OOciment
Fln.l aOLVnent
ROD
- EA;ly Cwt _ EER tPrlar SCN np.l
fA 1
— Ora rt Ek5
Loc.l ACS tan Typf Plan
Sveclflc
— Ieiwe t .L '-
_ Msftivn
j� Aed<re lavmcnt
_ 6!n<MI Dlln VOd.t! _
Plln Nnfmm�t M.silr Pl.n
— Pre tont .t
PeT—
_ OenlMl _
Gtnenl Pfln Ef teen. _ Pf annex Unit Oevf tays[nt
— tan! 0�1• (5 uea\Ir is tOn
� 0tnrr ^• `^ CtT
_
Cantalnity Pt.n _ 51t. Plan
_ Pfreel ha irsct 145, e«.j
+ r urll• r
f0s
_
y
0<rel—t Type
Vf ler Fr01111.t: TV'—
�0
_ nt1.1: Ynf ts�ll� ser[s_j�
_Trintpprtstlan: Ty --
E�fa
_ Olticl3: Sq.}1.,�_ Atrl3�� Yets�
E:nv layt[3_
� Mlnlnp: Xl nfr.i
_ Catnerclsi: Sd.it._� •
IMus trill: Sa.ft.� •e a _� flm lvYe[f_
�' Dw<r: TYDI��
—� Yl... Trelwn[: TYP!
_
_ Eeucatlonll
xstlrevus V.t te: Typ!
Prvy.c, issue Ots_ asffd Ina— stew is/Un lrery t...t V.— pu.11ty
of b c/V,!W, FI -1 Rlfin/Ft0ad mp se0tlG sys [Yat _ V.t<rs—lY/
_ .qrl cultur.l L.nd Fprfst LandlF ire Gr.dinp
K-1— -� SMr Csv.<,tY Growwfler
III O..l it Gfot091c/Se+ts,c Wll anq/Atvsri an
li Y Soil E raflpn(Cal9.c [IOn/1
Iap...............
callXiftOr,c.l mf.lt SOild W111*
1........
_ CO.fcl1 Zone — 0i 4• TOSI<IMsl.rdwf _ G-0 III—IN
_ OrSl nape/sesOrotlOn _p ..I. tl on/x0us,nq e.l mc< —
T,1-0-1111arw s LlnOu+<
_ [ea^anl<SIJOes _ PUOII< services/f s<11, t1<s = V<q<tatlw -sem Cuwiltt rf ..... f
Fisch _ lecre.ti On/Pans 0-1
t L.nd U3r/Zw lnpl Gcner.l Plan use rf1 0.<si cent 1.1 (AR) •nice sllwt s w ow pros de wy Of 1.0 0•.111-9 P!r
7 . II -w<y111. .is,i t< l: of •imcRn•el0 as Au a1Aw.ZZ IDr.rY Ag
rll.<t to tf Of,,
prosscTneb,uu 4egnt ri ca
1[unl utf S1.
tnf atY q1 o,.,r,nf A•r, i
rmY<s Wscrrytlw i n 1s a rmtly un0 ...laved see LrpNy 1n . n•tunl suis. 1^ •eal ua0t
,. d 0 fe. <OrOf.e[<vtll c rai<c�1 tlingle•r rni ly re3leen ti.i lots mtt<leute0 my ene t0-Rcre uu. h0 I —
mere +111 !< one cm,ran tot for 0 .yen nt ar a ff•fr vu+,v sl.tlan,
CLZAAIKGHOVZZ ODMtARI "p.o0a5-061]
(9161
S:A:Z RZv1L'[V aZGARI
DZPT RZv TO AGZHCY:
AGZNCY RN TO 3c71 1
scH COHPLZAJYCZ�-
- _ �.re,r, lb Afi ws SrY/p Rwa
^L"1'R Ll'TM�Tf D21�4E.L
21 i Calr rano B �"
Ar]HO(AP CDf,- ER..au rc..t
I..d / •+��..8•n tav SCMA
State of California California Environmental Protection Agericy
Memorandum
To Mark Goss Date: November 5, 1993
cJ
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
Rob Searcy
City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 CS
From : _ " _
J n Loane .'kssociata Waste Management Specialist
Environmental Review Section
Permitting and Enforcement Division
California Integrated Waste Management Board
Subject: SCH R 92121069 - Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for Vesting
Tract 51169 in "The Country", L.A. County.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff have reviewed the
DEIR for the proposed project cited above. In consideration of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15205(c) CIWivLB staff will focus the
following comments on specific issues involving waste generation and disposal.
In order to help decision -makers 1) identify potential impacts from
construction/demolition projects, 2) determine whether any such impacts are
significant, and 3) ascertain whether significant impacts can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance, CIWMB staff request that the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) include the following information:
A.) Identification of the final disposal site(s) for the proposed project's .
anticipated waste generation, both during construction phases and
after project implementation, including, potential alternative methods
for disposal (i.e. shredding of wood for hog fuel, composting of wood
waste for beneficial reuse, agricultural amendment of sludge to land,
etc.).
B.) Identification of the anticipated types of solid waste (i.e. wood waste,
concrete, metal, municipal solid waste, etc.) and estimated quantities
of solid wastes to be disposed; both during construction phases and at
Cal-EPAI
Mr. Searcy
Page 2
11/05/93
project completion, including additional sludge from the wastewater
treatment plant servicing the project, and mitigation(s) in the event
that some of the waste generated by the project are determined to be
hazardous.
C.) Identification of the potential impacts of these quantities on the
permitted average and peak daily tonnages of the intended disposal
site (s). Including the calculated impact upon the landfill's remaining
capacity and associated site -life if quantities are determined to be
significant.
D.) Identify any past or present areas of permitted or unpermitted
landfilling and/or dumping at the proposed project's site location and
how these areas will be remediated/mitigated.
Development of new residential units will increase the amount of waste being sent to
landfills. To minimize the amount of solid waste going into landfills, recycling and
reduction efforts should be incorporated into the City's and/or County's Solid/Integrated
Waste Management Plans. This will help to preserve the finite landfill space within the
waste management jurisdiction, as well as to help achieve the mandates of the California
Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) of 1989. CIWMB staff suggest that the
following measures be incorporated into the project by the project proponent to help to
achieve these mandates:
A.) Implementation of a recycling program at the proposed construction site and
development complex.
B.) Provide information to incoming residents about the recycling services in the
project area (i.e. curbside recycling, neighborhood composting, etc.). Identify
buy-back/recycling centers and possible markets for recyclables in the area.
Inform construction workers and future tenants of the need to recycle
aluminum, glass, metal, paper, cardboard, plastic, tin cans, and other
materials to the maximum extent feasible.
C.) Utilize products (i.e. insulation) made from recycled materials for in
construction of project structures.
Cal-EPAI
.(continued)
Cal-EPA2
Cal-EPA3
Mr. Searcy Page 3 11/05/93
D.) Include a recycle storage area(s) into the design of the project structures (i.e.
storage receptacles for recyclable materials).
Cal-EPA3
E.) Develop a neighborhood composting area/program at the site to recycle grass (continued)
clippings and greenwaste from the development's landscapes to be used as
soil amendments and mulches, for neighborhood landscape maintenance and
water conservation.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. CIWMB staff ask
that you keep the Board apprised of solid waste generation, disposal, and source
rcduction/recycling issues associated with the planned development.
For assistance with local planning issues concerning compliance with AB 939 requirements,
please contact Judith Friedman at (916) 255-2302 of the CIWM.B's Office of Local
Assistance; or if you have any questions regarding these comments or would like additional
assistance from CIWMB staff, please contact me at (916) 255-2654.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
PETE WILSON. C-.'
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
IGR/CEQA/DEIR
DISTRICT 7. 120 SO. SPRING ST.
City of Diamond Bar
LOS ANGELES. CA 90012-3606
Vesting Tentative Tract
TDO (2131 620.0550
Map No. 51169 (Unionwide
November 8,
1993
IGR/CEQA/DEIR
City of Diamond Bar
Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 51169 (Unionwide
Development Project)
Vic. LA -57--R2.5
LA -60-R23.37
Robert Searcy
SCH No. 92121069
Community Development Department
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Dr. Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Mr. Searcy:.
Caltrans has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report
for a proposed 13 -unit residential subdivision project. The 20
acre site is generally located South of Grand Avenue and East of
Diamond Bar Boulevard in Diamond Bar.
We reiterate our position that although this project by DST 1
itself will have only a minimal impact on the state
transportation facilities, the cumulative impact of this and all
other projects in the vicinity will, when completed,
significantly affect state facilities. The City should consider
that assessment fees for mitigation should be of such.proportion
as to not only cover local impacts but should be extended to
cover freeway mainline deficiencies that occur as result of the
additional traffic generated by each project.
Any transport of heavy construction equipment which require DOT 2
the use of oversize transport vehicles on State Highways will
require a Caltrans transportation permit. We recommend that
truck trips be limited to off-peak commute periods.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment. If you have
any questions regarding this letter, please call me at (213)
897-1338.
Sincerely,
WILFORD ELTON
Senior ransportation Planner
IGR/CEQA Coordinator
Advance Planning Branch
Robert Searcy
page two
November 8, 1993
cc: State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth St., Sacramento, CA 95814
gg/11014
f-�
818 West Seventh Street,12th Floor ® Los Angeles, California 90017-3435
November 3, 1993
Mr. Robert Searcy
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Dr. #100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
I0"CALIFORMAWOCIatlo
C (213) 236-1800 o FAX (213) 236.1825
YO B"1
RE: SCAG Clearinghouse #: I9300537.
Project Title: Unionwide Development Project/Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169,
Dear Mr. Searcy:
We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined that it is not regionally
significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria. Therefore, the project does not warrant
Clearinghouse comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the project, we
would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time:
A description of the project will be published in the November 15, 1993 Intergovernmental
Review Report for public review and comment.
The project title and SCAG number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning
this project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator.
If you have any questions, please contact Ricardo Pedroza at (213) 236-1886.
Sincerely,
11" � . ,
ERIC H. ROTH
Manager, Intergovernmental Review
SCAG 1
Gaddi Vasquez Orange Counry-Presiden, Slella Mi ndoa City of Brawley-F-ou Vice President Ed Edelman Los Angelea Caunry-Second Vice President- John Longyille City of Rialm-Put
President 0 Richard Alarmn Ciryof Las Angeles. Richard Alalorre Ciryof Las Angeles, Robert Bartlett Ciry of Moivona George Bass Coy of Bdi. Ronald Bates Cnv of Lars Alanutas.
George Battey. Jr. City of Burbank. Had Benson Ciryof Las Angcics. W alter Bowman City of Cypress. Marvin Bnude City of Las Angeles, Suran Brooks Gty of Rancho Palos vcrdes.
Art Brown Coy of Buena Park. Yvonne Hnlhwaile•Bucke Lns Angeles Caunry. Jim Busby. Jr. Gry of Vionaville. Bob Buster Riverside County. Laun Chick City of Los Angeles, John
Cox Ciry of Newport Beach. Crnthfa Crothers Ciry a(Mortno Valley. Elmer Dignw Ciry of lan0 Linda Richard Dixon City of Lake Forest. UouRlu Unmmqnd Gly tat Lang Beacn. Jerry
Eares San Bemardino Caunry. John Fernro City of las Angeles, John Flynn Ventura County. Terry Frizeel City of Riverside. Ruth Galanler Csty of Los Angeles. Sandn Gents City of
Coss Mesa. Jackie Goldberg Cuy of las Angcics; Candace Haggard City of San Clemente. Garland Hardemvn Gty of Inglewood, Robert Hargrave City of Lomita. Mike Hernandez City
of Las Angcics. Nate Holden City of Lns Angeles. Robert Jamison Cityof Artesia. Jeff Kellogg Cityof Lang Beach, Jim Kelly City of South EI Monte, Richard Kefiv City of Palm Desert.
Bob Kuhn Gry of Glendora. Abbe Land City of West Hollywood. Darlene McBane City of All— Hills. John Mellon City of Santa Paula Barbara Melina City of Afhamb- Jody %liktls
Ciryof Sims Valley, David Myers Cttyof Palmdale, Kathryn Nack Ciryof Pasadena. Bev Perry Ciryof Brea, Gwenn Norton-PerryCuyofChino Hills. Ronald Parks Coyof Temecula Iry
Pickle, City of Anaheim, Michael Plisky Cny of Oxnard. Bestdev Pew City of Pico Riven. Larry Rhmehart City of Momclair. Dick Riordan City of Lns Angeles. Mark RiBiey-Thomas
City of Los Angeles, Albert Robles City of South Gate. Sam Sharp impensi Counry. Rud, Svminich City of las Angeles. Bob Stone City of Bellflower, Thumu SykesCiry of Walnuu lair
Thvmu City of Tusdn. Laury Tull, -Payne Ciryof Highland. Joel W vchs Gsy of Los Angels. Rita Wailers City of Los Angeles. E+elyn Wells City of LvnwoaJ. Judy W right Cuy of
Claremont. Zea Yaroslaysky Gty of Los Angeles 0
James DeStefano, Community Development Director
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
21660 East Conley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Dear Mr. DeStefano:
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -- CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
(SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN) -- EIR #92/1993
we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for LAFD 1
the South Pointe Master Plan located in the City of Diamond
Bar.
The Forestry Division has no comment at this time.
If you have any additional questions, please contact this
office at the phone number shown above.
Very. truly yours,
PAUL H. RIPPENS, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION
PREVENTION BUREAU
PHR:lc
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF
AGOURA HILLS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DIAMOND BAR
elae
LOMITA
PICO RIVERA
PALOS VERDES
-zr
�
FIRE DEPARTMENT,_ ,
I
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE
7 '(
DUAME
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90063-3294
C-
F°4RT0E�'
(213). 881-2481
AZUSA
CARSON
GLENDORA
pp�pp__��l_
--J V f4�
P. MICHAEL FREEMAN
ROLLING HI LLS ESTATES
TEMPLE CITY
FIRE CHIEF
CERRITOS
W 1�
FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN
NORWALK
ROSEMEAD
November 8, 1993
FELL
CLAREMONT
James DeStefano, Community Development Director
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
21660 East Conley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Dear Mr. DeStefano:
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -- CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
(SOUTH POINTE MASTER PLAN) -- EIR #92/1993
we have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for LAFD 1
the South Pointe Master Plan located in the City of Diamond
Bar.
The Forestry Division has no comment at this time.
If you have any additional questions, please contact this
office at the phone number shown above.
Very. truly yours,
PAUL H. RIPPENS, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION
PREVENTION BUREAU
PHR:lc
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF
AGOURA HILLS
BRADBURY
DIAMOND BAR
IRWINDALE
LOMITA
PICO RIVERA
PALOS VERDES
SIGNAL HILL
SOUTH EL MONT-
ARTESIA
CALABASAS
DUAME
LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE
MALIBU
RANCHO
ROLLING HILLB
SOUTH GA *E'
AZUSA
CARSON
GLENDORA
LAKEWOOD
MAYWOOD
ROLLING HI LLS ESTATES
TEMPLE CITY
SALOWINPARK
CERRITOS
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
LA MIRADA
NORWALK
ROSEMEAD
WALNUT
FELL
CLAREMONT
HIDDEN HILLS
LANCASTER
PALMDALE
PALOS VERDES ESTAT"c5
SAN DIMAS
WEST HOLLYWOOO
BELLFLOWER
COMMERCE
HUNTINGTON PARK
LA PU'c NTE
PARAMOUNT
SANTA CLARITA
WVILLAGE
SELL GARDENS
CUDAHY
INDUSTRY
LAWN GALE
WHITTTIER
ER
� IF I-$ �
��� Ih`s FIRE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
r ®:FIRE
DEPARTivtENT
LOMITA
PICO RIVERA
y •
i�
1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE -
c.clFCAhI� ` ,�
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90063-3294_
LA CANADA FLINTRICGE
(213) 881-2481
P. MICHAEL FREEMAN
- --'_-
FIRE CHIEF
CARSON
FORESTER 8 FIRE WARDEN
LAKEWOOD
December 7, 1993
ROLLING HILLS
Mr. Robert Searcy, Associate Planner
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Mr. Searcy:
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DIAMOND BAR) FOR
THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #51169
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the vesting Tentative Tract Map
1151169 located between Rocky Trail Road and Indian Creek Road in the City of Diamond Bar.
The areas germane to the statutory responsibilities of the Forestry Division have been addressed. LAFD 1
The project should comply with all local tree, landscape and vegetation ordinances.
If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (213) 881-2481.
Very truly yours,
PAUL H. RIPPENS, CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION
PREVENTION BUREAU
PHR:jz
SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF
-GOURA MILLS
BRADSURV
DIAMOND BAR
IRWINDALE
LOMITA
PICO RIVERA
SIGNAL HILL
.RTESIA
GALABASAS
DUARTE
LA CANADA FLINTRICGE
MALIBU
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
SOUTH EL MONTE
AZUSA
CARSON
GLENDORA
LAKEWOOD
MAYWOOD
ROLLING HILLS
SOUTH GATE
3ALOWINPARK
CERRITOS
HAWAIIAN GARDENS
LA MIRADA
NORWALK
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
TEMPLE CITY
?ELL
CLAREMONT
HIDDEN HILLS
LANCASTER
PALMDALE
ROSEMEAD
WALNUT. -
'_ LFLOWERCOMMERCE
HUNTINGTON PARK
LA PUENTE
PALOS VERDES ESTATES
SAN DIMAS
WEST HOLLYWOOD
SELL GARDENS
CUDAHY
INDUSTRY
LAWNOALE
PARAMOUNT
SANTA CLARITA
-
WESTLAKE VILLAGE
WH171ER
12/aQ V COOt:T.f OF LOS ANGELES F2:= DEPARTHE:^
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SOBDIVISIO14S
y- C{ INCORPORATED CI^•IES
TRACT MAP NO.
TENTATIVE MAP DATE
PARCEL MAP NO_
CITY
This property is located within the areas described ty the Forester and Fire Warden as Fire Zane < and
future eorSrry %iaa ant eoiply with &Wicable Code requirements. -
Provide water oohs, fire hydrants, and fire flews as required by County Forster and Fire Warden for all
lard shown on tine nap to be recorded. .
C I The final concept cap which has bees suhai tted to this D"mae wt for review has fulfilled the caditiuns
of approval reccm%. riled by this Depmrment for access only.
Provide Fire Deparment and City approved street signs, building address na.abers prior to ottzapancy.
Fire Department access shatt be'eittatkd to within 150 feet distance of any portion of strueare to be
built. -
T 3 The Canty Forester and Fire Warden is not setting requirsrnts for water tains, fire hydrants and fire
flows as a eaztition of approval for this division lard as presently zoned and safsotted_
—J, .Aceess-shatl co¢ply with Section 10 07 of the Fire Code which requires all wdh &=ess. All weather
access nay require paving.
�*-I. Where driveways exterd fu-ttwer than 300 feet and are of single access design, vurna crds suitable for
fire protection egri paaont use shall be provided and shuns an the final nap.. Turrarousis shalt be
designed, constructed rd amirxained-to insure their integrity for Fire oeputa--t use. here.
topography dictates, tsrnactu ds stall be provided for driveways which extend over 150 ,feet.
The private driveways =halt be indicated on the final aep as -FIRE LkgE• and shall be +aintained in
accortlarce With the los Mgels County Fire Code. �_C) (—'c 11 £ s
I i There are no additional fire hydrants or fire flag required for this division of laza. Requirments for
fire Protection water and access Will be deterained at the tim of building perwit ice+ -
All required fire h), r tz shat( be installed, tested ani accepted prior to cautruction. VehicuLar
access asst be provided and sainrained serviceable throng rout construction.
L I Additional fire protection system stall be irstalled in lien of suitable access ardor fire protection
mater.
1 {
Comments : t�2
SF 2� nom; LOT if re S`- E DEE S -+JA L -L FJ0I
BY is
.�i :.
t /� DATE:
LAFD I
FORM 26,
63/13'
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS - INCORPORATED AREAS
CITY OF T_�)2
_ 1
SUBJECT:
LOCATION
FIRE FLOW
( ) Hydrants and fire flow are adequate to meet current Fire
Department requirements.
�-� The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this
location is J000 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration
of _Q_— hours, over and above maximum daily, domestic demand.
[ ] The required on-site fire flow for private on-site hydrants is
gallons per minute at 20 psi. Each private on-site
hydrant must be capable of flowingallons
er
at 20 psi with any two hydrants flows g multaneously.minute
Fire Hydra t requirements as follows:
install � Public Fire Hydrant(s). Install
on-site F re Hydrant(s). Upgrade Private
Public Fire Hydrant(s),
All hydrants shall measure 61, x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze,
conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal.
All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25' from a
structure or protected by a (2) two hour fire wall.
Location: As per map on file with this office.
[ ) Other location:
All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and
accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be
Provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction.
[ ) Additional on-site hydrants may be required during the building
permit process.
[ ) Upgrade not necessary, if existing hydrant meets fire flow
requirements.
[ ] Comments:
All hydrants shall be installed in conformance with Title 20,
L.A. County Government Code or appropriate city regulations.
This shall include minimum six-inch diameter mains.
Arrangements to meet these requirements must be made with the
crater purveyor serving the area.
ZONE �--
j MAP .
BY / / ! NOV CI V Q �4 7 .
FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING SECTION - (213) 890-4125
LAFD 1
(continued)
w3f1l WA
EECLAM�IIOn '
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS.
SOLiO W !TC ..........
OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
1955 Workman Mill Road. Whililer, CA 9 0601-1 400
Mailing Address: P.O. Boz 4998, Whinier, CA 90607-4998 CHARLES IN. CARRY
Telephone: (310) 699-7411. FAX: (310) 695-6139 Chief Engineer and General monaaer
November 16, 1993
File No: 21.00.04-00
6�4tS +V
Mr. Robert Searcy _
Associate Planner
dry of Diamond Bar -
Community Development Department
21660 E. Copley Dr., Suite 190 `
Diamond Sar, CA 91765
J
Dear Mr. Searcy:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51169
The County Sanitation Districts received a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project
on November 2, 1993. We offer the following comment regarding sewerage service:
• All information concerning Districts' facilities and sewerage service contained in the document is Sall Dist 1
currently complete and accurate.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (310) 699-7411, extension 2717.
Very truly yours,
Charles W. Carry
Marie L. Pagenkoppl
Engineering Technician
Financial Planning &
Property Management Section
MLP:rc
NLENVASSESIE.NVASSZ, 51169.LTR
INCORPORATEO 1091
2001 Grand Avenue ./
Chino Hills, CA 91709
(909) 590.1511 • Fax (909) 590-5646
November 10, 1993
Mr. Robert Searcy
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: DRAFT E.I.R., VESTING TT 51169
Dear Mr. Copley:
Thank you for submitting the above referenced document to the City of Chino Hills for
review.
At this time, we have no comments on the Draft E.I.R. We would, however,
appreciate receiving notice of the time and place of any public hearings on this
project.
Sincerely,
Eric Norris, AICP
Associate Planner
In Ronald N. Short, AICP, Director of Community Development
Council Members
Ed Graham Gary G. Larson Gwenn Norton -Perry Jim Thalman Mike Wickman
E ri o 1
N,8 k
aye■
u� ■o
woos
i
CA IIFOFN IA
City of Brea
November 23, 1993
Mr. Robert Searcy
Associate Planner
City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
UMONWIDE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Dear Mr. Searcy:
We have reviewed the subject document and have no comments to offer at this time. Brea 1
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the environmental review process for
this project.
5 erely,
a Bartlam
City Planner
KB:ab/db--d.ci,
City Council Burnie Dunlap Glenn G. Parker Carrny Nelson Bev Perry Kathy Wiser.
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilman Councilwoman Councilwoman
Civic & Cultural Center • Number One Civic Center Circle • Brea, California 92621-5758.714/990-7600 • FAX 7141990-2258
_ J
SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
UMONWIDE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Dear Mr. Searcy:
We have reviewed the subject document and have no comments to offer at this time. Brea 1
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the environmental review process for
this project.
5 erely,
a Bartlam
City Planner
KB:ab/db--d.ci,
City Council Burnie Dunlap Glenn G. Parker Carrny Nelson Bev Perry Kathy Wiser.
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilman Councilwoman Councilwoman
Civic & Cultural Center • Number One Civic Center Circle • Brea, California 92621-5758.714/990-7600 • FAX 7141990-2258
cnaries racor Aszocla;es..rC -�,..._..�o-
---
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jim DeStefano
FROM:
Mike Myers
VIA:
George Wentz
DATE:
12/9/93
SUBJECT: Comments Re: Draft EIR; VTTM No. 51 169
The following comments are made in review of Draft EIR, dated November
1, 1993, prepared by Michael Brandman Associates for the subject project.
Additional research and discussion regarding sanitary sewers should be
included before this issue is concluded to have no potentially significant
effect. No conclusive research nor analysis is included. regarding
conveyance capacity of existing lines and any pump stations. The Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works Waterworks and Sewer
Maintenance Division and County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles Abbott 1
County responses to the NOP are now nearly a year old.
LACDPW's letter addresses sewer maintenance and operation only and
recommends that the City Engineer be contacted directly for information
related to sewer capacity(local collection and conveyance). Neither the
EIR nor the City's file contains any information regarding research or
analysis of local sewer capacity.
The Sanitation Districts states that additional treatment .capacity is
expected to be available in early 1993. Is that capacity now available, as
the then present stated capacity appeared to be at its limit.. It also Abbott 2
specitically states that it does not guarantee wastewater treatment
service. Will the Sanitation Districts accept wastewater from this
project for treatment?
If sanitary sewer conveyance and treatment capacity are not available or
cannot be provided with implementation of the project, private sewage Abbott 3.
treatment and disposal would not seem an alternative without potential
significant environmental effects.
:>•_.,.0 '. iS.It OS rSI-Pa^e2ci ;:
Charles AStwn Assoaales,Inc.-(9G5173c-i512_Geated_---ay. C__n__c—__________ ,
Discussion regarding grading in the area of the 'blue -line' stream should
be expanded the should more accurately correspond with the details and
extent of the grading proposed in this area. The present discussion is
minimal. On page 5-8, in the 4th paragraph, the discussion that the stream
will be "raised and recreated" would appear to be misleading upon Abbott 4
examination of the proposed grading shown ori the V1TTM. The portion 6 f
the stream on-site is being completely filled to create building pads.
Benching and terracing of the graded slopes is proposed and drainage from
this area is being routed and discharged back into the stream, but this
does notseem to constitute 'recreation" of the 'stream' .
Leighton Associates, Inc. made a thorough review of the Preliminary
Geotechnical Report prepared for the project by Triad Geotechnical.
Leighton approved the report with the single condition that the
geotechnical consultants submit a Grading Plan Review Report and approve Abbott 5
the Grading Plan at the Grading Plan check stage. This condition of
Preliminary Report approval should be included in the EIR under the
Topography and Grading, Mitigation Measures. Other discussion on this
subject in the EIR relates accurately to the reports.
DKS Associates reviewed the Traffic Study prepared for the project by
WPA, Traffic Engineering, Inc. DKS approved the report and concurs that
project traffic would not be a significant impact itself. The EIR Abbott 6
identifies that any incremental increase by the project to the cumulative
impacts of traffic will be mitigated by payment of a fairshare fee. As the
City has not established Traffic Impact fees, this fairshare will have to
be determined and included as a condition of VfTM approval.
The proposed vacation of existing, easements and irrevocable offers of
dedication(shown crossing the site north -south) requires discussion.
While these easements and offers may reflect desired circulation of a
former era and may not be needed in conformance with the City's and Abbott 7
region's current circulation patterns and goals no discussion of this issue
appears in the EIR. The applicant is proposing vacation/abandonment of
these easements and it appears that access to other properties is affected
without any substitution of access or analysis of the affect of the loss of
this potential access on adjacent properties.
This project(as well as TTM 46485) proposes a 1,700 loot extension of a (Abbott 8
present cul-de-sac that is
de -sac requires discussion
standard and acceptability
services.
1,700 feet long. This proposed 3,400 foot cul - Abbott 8
regarding suitability as a roadway design (continued)
as a single access route for emergency
Minor typographical and other detail errors, which show the preparer's
lack of a precise understanding of the City's grading ordinance and
processes, exist in the Summary Table, particularly under the Mitigation
Measures regarding Topography/Grading. The Mitigation Measures
summarized as Item 2 under WATER RESOURCES, Surface Drainage
Patterns should include designs as mandated by laws/ordinances of all
levels of government, not just the county.
Abbott 9
June 28, 1994
APPENDIX B
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SEATAC) REPORT
LAM9030014ATC
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SEATAC) REPORT
May 18, 1994
Chuck Hewitt, Chairman
S. Gregory Nelson (Absent)
VESTING TRACT MAP NO. 51169
Introduction•
David Berry, Vice -Chair
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for VTM No. 51169 addressees the
environmental concerns raised by SEATAC (i.e., hydrology, geology, etc.) on prior EIR reviews. .
Except for a few clarifications and recommendations, the applicant has addressed the
environmental impacts associated with not only the SEA, but all other environmental issues.
During the SEATAC hearings, the committee and concerned citizens requested that the
cumulative impact of currently proposed and potential future developments be considered. The
City and the applicant has expressed a willingness to adhere to the criteria established within these
previous SEATAC reports. Adherence by the applicant and other developers in the SEA to the
SEATAC recommendations should protect the SEA from further deterioration within the City
limits. Public and private developers outside the City of Diamond Bar could play a large role in
the preservation or elimination of the SEA. This problem could possibly be addressed by the
establishment of a consortium bringing together all key players to establish workable solutions to
SEA protection and preservation.
. Recommendations:
The City should address the need to establish a consortium of interested and affected agencies and
land owners associated with the SEA. A function of this group would be to develop a plan to
educate and inform the public, as well as to provide expertise relative to the delicate ecological
balance of Tanner Canyon and the surrounding areas. A source (fee) could be established to fund
this consortium, and defray the cost of maintaining plant and animal communities within the SEA.
The City's environmental consultant has recommended a 2:1 replacement ratio for California
Walnut and Oak Trees impacted by the proposed project. On-site areas are preferred for planting
replacement trees, if the trees can be placed in an area that will be conducive for wildlife use and
in an area with biological value. If areas aJailable for replacement planting onsite are isolated or
too small, then appropriate offsite, in the adjacent area, should be located. The DEIR states that
9.5 acres of walnut woodland will be impacted by the project. The applicant should work with the
City to determine the amount of area available onsite for restoration. Those walnuts, based upon
the 2:1 ratio (or asrecommended by the City), not replanted on-site due to insufficient available
acreage, would need to be replanted in the appropriate off-site areas.
The consortium concept could be applied to VTM No. 51169 for mitigating impacts to onsite
Walnut Woodland habitat. The applicant could donate fees to a local conservancy, such as the
Tanner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy, for its use in buying or restoring suitable walnut
woodlands in the SEA through land purchase or dedication. If it is in -feasible to establish a
preserve within the Tanner Canyon SEA, the equivalent cost of restoring 9.5 acres of walnut
woodlands, minus the amount of acreage available onsite for restoration, could be donated'.
These funds could be used for community benefit programs, including environmental education
programs in local schools, nature hikes, community -wide educational programs, and possibly future
land management programs. Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy currently draws upon a
group of knowledgeable professionals, including [Don Schad had named some academians and
professionals], as well as concerned local citizens.
Any of the methods discussed above, would mitigate adverse biological impacts associated with
development. However, it is the SEATAC's opinion that these measures should be pursued in
the following order of priority:
• Restore walnuts onsite, preferably along the edge of the property to provide a
buffer area for the SEA;
• Contribute funds to a local conservancy equivalent to the cost of restoring an
equal amount of Walnut Woodland impacted by the project less the amount of
acreage restored onsite;
• Use the contributions to restore suitable walnut woodlands in the SEA or to fund
community benefit programs.
Supporting Statements:
• The types and numbers of trees currently on-site are not compatible with the proposed
development and will most need to be mitigated in large part, through replanting in
off-site areas within the SEA.
• The production scheme used to produce native species is typically not consistent with
proper root production and tree growth.
• Too many tree species may be planted within a given area and are likely to alter the
natural growth within a given plant and animal community.
• Other plant species within the plant and animal community should be considered in
a 2:1 replacement ratio, or as recommended by the City, in order to maintain a natural
setting within a given area (California Toyon, Hairy Fringe Pod, Sumac, Chamise,
California Bay Laurel, etc.).
• The City Attorney will confirm that the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy has
the authority to accept donations and own land. The Tonner Canyon Wilderness
Conservancy is registered as a Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation with the State of
California and is exempt from State and Federal taxes under the provisions of Section
501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Trish Smith, a restoration ecologist with the Nature Conservancy in Orange County,
estimates that the cost of restoring walnut woodlands is approximately $10,M) per
acre. This cost includes equipment, plants, supervisorial staff, materials, and assumes
volunteer help.
June 28, 1994
APPENDIX C
MINUTES FROM SEATAC MEETINGS
LA/09030014.RTC
AFT
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 19, 1993
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. at the South Coast
Air Quality Management District Room CC -7 (Riverside Room),
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL:
Committee Members: David Berry, Chuck Hewitt, and S. Gregory
Nelson
Also present were Community Development Director James .
DeStefano; Lex Williman, of Hunsaker & Associates; Jerry Yeh of
Unionwide Co.; and Suzanne Zechiel and Anthony Locacciato of
Michael Brandman Associates
PURPOSE OF
CDD/DeStefano explained that the overall purpose of SEATAC, as
SEATAC:
outlined in the County codes adopted by the City upon
incorporation, is to specifically review the biological aspects of an
area within a significant ecological area (SEA) that is being
considered for development, and to attempt to guide the overall
development proposed for the site. The meetings of SEATAC are
conducted on an "as needed" basis as projects arise.
CDD/DeStefano explained that SEATAC is a public body that is
subject to the Brown Act. It is an advisory committee that does
not make any decisions as to whether a project should or should
not be approved, but serves as one of the many advisors to the
Planning Commission and to the City Council, as well as assisting
staff to make a professional recommendation to the Planning
Commission,, and ultimately to the City Council.
DESIGNATION OF
CDD/DeStefano requested nominations for Chairman.
CHAIRMAN AND
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Committee Member Berry nominated Committee Member Hewitt
for Chairman. Committee Member Nelson seconded the
nomination.
Hearing no further nominations, CDD/DeStefano closed the
nomination for Chairman.
Committee Member Hewitt was unanimously selected as Chairman
of the SEATAC,
Chairman Hewitt requested nominations for Vice Chairman.
Committee Member Nelson nominated Committee Member Berry
for Vice Chairman. Chairman Hewitt seconded the nomination.
November 19, 1993 Page 2
Committee Member Berry was unanimously selected as Vice
Chairman of the SEATAC.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:- --- - There were none.
INTRODUCTION OF
CDD/DeStefano reported that Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
VESTING TENTATIVE
51169 is a request for approval to construct a 13 unit, 20 acre
TRACT MAP 51169,
subdivision, proposed within "The Country" at the end of Blaze
UNIONWIDE CO.
Trail, which is located within SEA #15 at the northern end of
Diamond Bar's portion of Tonner Canyon. A draft Environmental
Presentation
Impact Report (DEIR) has been concluded, distributed, and
by Staff
published for public review and comment. The project has been
reviewed by the City's Planning and Engineering staff, and other
Development Services staff, and it appears, at this point, to meet
the requirements of the City's regulations. The project is
scheduled for a public hearing at the Planning Commission
meeting on December 13, 1993. It is tentatively scheduled to go
before the City Council at the end of January, or the first part of
February, depending upon the review process of the Planning
Commission, as well as the current state of the City's ordinances
and policies to deal with the hillside development project.
CDD/DeStefano then introduced Lex Williman, with Hunsaker and
Associates, who will be providing an overview of the specific
project. Mr. Williman is the consultant for Jerry Yen of Unionwide
Development Company. Following the presentation by Lex
Williman, Tony Locacciato of Michael Brandman Associates, the
consulting firm for the City, will provide a presentation on the
DEIR.
Presentation Lex Williman reported that the proposed project consists of 13
by Unionwide Co. single family residential pads, averaging 17,000 square feet, for
custom homes, with lots ranging from a minimum of 1 acre to
almost 2 1/2 acres. There is also a separate lot for any sewer
pump station that may be required for these few homes. A
biostudy, an Oak tree study, and a Walnut study was conducted,
as well as an archeological overview of the site, to get an idea of
the types of constraints existing that may need consideration. Mr.
Williman stated that the topography of the site, as compared to
the- rest of "The Country", and what remains of property along
Tonner Canyon, is relatively mild with slopes ranging from 0%-
15%, and some at 30% and 50%. There is one oak tree on.site
located at an existing road right-of-way that will be removed but
mitigated by replanting oak trees along the undulating slopes.
There are also a number of Walnut trees on site that will also be
removed, but mitigated by replanting, using seeds collected on
the site. Mr. Williman further stated that, upon completing the
area studies, a grading concept and design was developed that
November 19, 1993 Page 3
encompasses not only the City's ordinances, which calls out for
landform grading and undulating slopes, but takes into
consideration the various topographic and environmental features
of the site. He stated that an extensive geotechnical study was
conducted which indicated that there are no identifying slides on
site, that the bedding planes are in a good position, and, from a
geotechnical standpoint, the site is stable. The City's
geotechnical consultant has approved the preliminary soils and
geotechnical report. Mr. Williman stated that every attempt has
been made to come up with a design that is sensitive to the
environment, the public perception of the property, the California
Environmental Act (CEQA), and the City's Planning Commission
and City Council.
Presentation Tony Locacciato, Manager for the Los Angeles Regional Office of
by Michael Michael Brandman Associates, the consulting firm for the City in
Brandman Associates the preparation of the DEIR, reported that the DEIR has been
scoped to include a review of geologic and topographic changes
associated with the project, the hydrology, the biological
resources, the conformity with land use policies of the City,
transportation, some review of noise, and public services. During
the initial study process, and any consultation with other
agencies, it was determined that the following issues potentially
would not have significant impacts, and thus were not studied in
detail in the EIR: air quality; a cultural resource study; and
population or housing analysis. Mr. Locacciato stated that the
DEIR does include the study of four alternatives, as required by
CEQA, and the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was sent out on
December 1992. The following agencies responded to the NOP:
SCAGGS; AQMD; County of Sanitation District; County' of
Orange; County of LA Public Works; the City of Pomona; Walnut
Valley Unified School District; Walnut Valley Water; CalTrans; and
the Gas Company. He reported that none of the responses
received raised any issues to be addressed in the DEIR. Mr.
Locacciato then reported that, in January of 1993, Brandman
Associates conducted a general botanical and wildlife survey of
the property, identifying the onsite plant communities, collecting
plant specimens on site for identification in the future, and
observing on site general wildlife. Following the general botanical
survey, a survey was also conducted in May to catch the spring
flowering seed and the special status of the plants on the site.
Chairman Hewitt recessed the meeting at 10:50 a.m. because the
smoke alarm was activated.
Chairman Hewitt reconvened the meeting at 11:05 a.m.
November 19, 1993 Page 4
Mr. Locacciato then reviewed the impacts as indicated in the EIR.
He reported that the non native grass is not a significant impact,
nor is the mixed chaparral areas. However, 9 of the approximate
11 acres of Walnut Woodland on site are impacted, and 167 of
the 324 Walnut trees on site are directly affected by the grading.
The loss of habitat has not been identified as a project direct
impact since there is an abundance of Walnut Woodlands through
Tonner Canyon. Mr. Locacciato stated that the mitigation
measures proposed for the Walnut Woodlands is a 2:1
replacement ratio to be placed on or in off site areas. The
mitigation measure program is to be monitored for a period of five
years to assure that there is not more than 60 Walnuts per acre,
to match the existing habitat.
Lex Williman, to further address hydrology, stated that a detention
basin has been proposed, to address the issue of runoff, that
would serve as an urban pollution basin to catch runoff from the
development, and serve to detain water so the postdevelopment
flow will be the same as the. predevelopment flow. There will not
be any adverse impacts down stream, from an hydrolic standpoint.
Lex Williman then offered to make available a tour of the site if so
desired by anyone on SEATAC.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned
at 11:25 a.m. to December 3, 1993 at 12:00 noon at the AQMD
Building Room CC -7.
Sincerely,
James DeStefano
Secretary
-- -
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR �`
MINUTES OF THE
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
APRIL 15, 1994
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a,m. at the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Room CC -3 (Riverside Room), 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Chuck Hewitt, and Vice Chairman David Berry,
Committee Member Steve Nelson arrived at 10:30 a.m.
Also Present: Associate Planner Rob Searcy; and Intern Kriss Reed.
Absent: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Hewitt opened the meeting and invited those wishing to speak to do so,
Max Maxwell expressed concerns that the removal of the existing trees on the west
bank of the canyon will significantly disturb the SEA. He stated that many people will
express opposition to the project because of the environmental and traffic issues. He
suggested that the public be made aware of the environmental impacts to the canyon
resulting from recently approved projects, as well as this project, thus assisting the
public in evaluating the merits of the proposed project, and express educated concerns
early in the deliberations that will allow the developers to adequately address and
mitigate those concerns.
Don Schad commended the development team on the draft response to the
environmental concerns regarding the draft EIR that were expressed at the last
SEATAC meeting.
Susanne Zechiel, the environmental consultant, stated that those responses will be
rewritten into the final EIR for the City Council's consideration in their deliberation of
the project.
Don Schad stated that the canyon is a delicately balanced wilderness area that
provides dependability of one specie `s upon another by the existing conditions found
on the property. He expressed concern that any impact upon the environment will
break the chain of events that keeps the area maintaining itself; therefore, every effort
should be made to keep the impacts of the proposed project at a minimum.
April 15, 1994 Page 2
Susanne Zechiel pointed out that the walnut trees existing on the 20 acre site of VTM
No. 51169 appear healthy; however, the understory species and walnut seedlings
have been eradicated from the overgrazing of cattle, soils have become heavily
compacted, and non-native grasses have become established throughout large
portions of the existing walnut woodlands.
Max Maxwell expressed concern that the plantings in buffer zones required around a
development is not compatible with the surrounding area, and, when poorly
maintained, can adversely affect wildlife.
Susanne Zechiel explained that, per State law, the Fire Department requires the peeled
modification area between the housing and the buffer zone; however, not everyone
complies with that specific requirement. She stated that the proposed plan does
include the development of a landscaping plan making the HOA responsible for
maintaining the peeled modification area and buffer area.
Steve Nelson stated that the proposed plan requires compatible plantings within the
buffer zone to blend with existing vegetation, which will help with the encroachment
between the two different types of landscapes.
Max Maxwell suggested that the homeowners packet clearly delineate this
requirement because it is often times overlooked.
Chairman Hewitt inquired if there is an organized effort between the cities, agencies,
and counties coordinating the encroachment of the SEA.
AP/Searcy reported that there is no remarkable inter -jurisdictional coordination
however, any project requiring a public hearing or discretionary approval, is required
by law to contact the jurisdiction with the sphere of influence, which, in this case, is
the City of Diamond gar. The City, in turn, is required to contact the County of Los
Angeles when there is a project that encroaches in an area they are in control of.
DISCUSSION
Chairman Hewitt suggested that SEATAC begin discussion of the development team's
draft response handout to SEATAC comments on the Draft EIR for VTM No. 51169,
Susanne Zechiel summarized the response to the concern regarding the affects to the
replacement walnut trees and related understory vegetation by fuel modification
requirements and human intrusion, as outlined in the handout.
Chairman Hewitt suggested that a source for reproduction of walnut trees be
developed since native trees tend to be sensitive and difficult to reproduce. He then
offered his assistance in this process.
April 15, 1994 Page 3
In response to Max Maxwell, Chairman Hewitt explained that young native trees in
small containers are more desirable in terms of longevity than larger trees because the
.roots of larger trees tend to circle in the containers becoming root bound.
Susanne Zechiel pointed out that the mitigation for the replanting also includes five
years of monitoring to assure its survival. She stated that another option is to allow
the developers to donate the money that would have been spent to replace the trees
on site to the habitat conservancy in the form of a grant.
Don Schad concurred that native trees do better if they are started as seedlings in the
specified area because they adapt to their environment quickly.
Committee Member Steve Nelson, concerned with the future overall aesthetics of the
canyon, suggested that the idea of a conservancy be further explored because, though
the intent of the replacement of walnut trees is to preserve the integrity of the walnut
woodlands, it does not preserve the integrity of the SEA.
Chairman Hewitt concurred that the site is not large enough to accommodate all the
required replacement trees, and that it would be inappropriate to place the extra
walnut trees off-site in the open space areas of the SEA. He suggested that SEATAC
draft appropriate language recommending to the City Council a different replacement
ratio, or consideration of a balance of species, particularly for off-site planting. He
pointed out that a specific replacement ratio does not always work in the best interest
of the growing environment and can create more problems than first anticipated.
Susanne Zechiel, referring to the handout, stated that it has been suggested that the
landscaping plan be broken into subareas with distinct plant palettes, which addresse's
the concern regarding the inappropriate placement of plantings on site. She stated
that it has also been suggested that consideration be given to incorporating the hairy
fringepod plant into the understory revegetation for the walnuts, as was suggested at
the last SEATAC meeting. In response to a comment made regarding the identification
of health/age/regeneration of the existing walnuts, she stated that the walnuts on the
site appear to be healthy; however, there is no habitat value because the understory
has been disced.
In response to comments regarding the percentage of walnut woodland contained in
Tonner Canyon and on the project site, Susanne Zechiel stated that the exact total
acreage of walnut woodland within the SEA is not known; however, it is estimated
that approximately 1,558 acres of walnut woodlands is within the SEA, and that the
development of the proposed project will result in the loss of approximately 9.5 acres
of walnut woodland, or 0.61 percent of the total acres estimated to be within Tonner
Canyon. She indicated that the impacts resulting from the proposed development will
be insignificant to the overall canyon.
April 15, 1994 Page 4
Chairman Hewitt stated that SEATAC's concerns about runoff into Tonner Canyon
from the development have been addressed; however, it must be noted that
SEATAC's concerns did not include potential future developments.
Committee Member Steve Nelson pointed out that mitigating adverse impacts, with
this project and future projects, can cross the line into being affirmative features of
the overall program. He stated that a contribution to a conservancy, or off-site in-kind
mitigation, or off-site like -kind mitigation, would benefit the City and the overall SEA.
He concurred that, with only a 0.61 percent removal of the walnut woodlands, along
with the protection of the balance of the SEA through the proper measures, there is
not a significant impact to the canyon.
Max Maxwell expressed concern that, though the impacts from the project appears
to be insignificant at this time, this project, along with future projects, may adversely
impact the canyon in the future. He suggested Diamond Bar must proceed cautiously
because the City will set a precedent with this project.
Committee Member Steve Nelson stated that his intentions are to see the. SEA
protected in perpetuity. He pointed out that if the applicant is able to demonstrate
their ability to improve the existing area, in an economically feasible manner, then so
can future applicants.
Lex Williman, representing the applicant, stated that, though a conservancy is a good
idea, the applicant should not be responsible for its formation. Off-site mitigation is
difficult and expensive. He suggested that it may be more appropriate to require the
applicant to provide in -lieu fee contribution to a conservancy, in addition with some
on-site mitigation.
Max Maxwell stated that a conservancy is still a consideration and should not be
overlooked as an option.
Don Schad inquired if any consideration has been given to the cougar migrating
through the site.
Susanne Zechiel stated that the biologist has indicated that there are no cougar on the
site. She stated that the draft EIR indicates that the proposed project does not provide
a link between open space areas, nor does it function as a wildlife movement corridor.
Max Maxwell stated that some consideration must be given to the fact that the
corridor is very close to the proposed site, and the cougar may venture near the
development, endangering the homeowners.
Chairman Hewitt stated that SEATAC made recommendations for fencing to protect
the homeowners, without restricting the movement of the cougar. He stated that the
project does not seem to affect the natural movement of the corridors.
April 15, 1994 Page 5
AP/Searcy noted that a recommendation was made requiring the homeowners to be
provided with a homeowner's awareness packet, in addition to the CC&R's, that
discusses these concerns regarding migration of wild animals.
Chairman Hewitt suggested there be further investigation on how the SEA manages
the balancing of the animals in the SEA.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
AP/Searcy suggested that the next meeting be a final meeting, with comments
forwarded to staff prior to the meeting, drafting recommendations. to the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
Committee Member Steve Nelson pointed out that the issue of a conservancy still
needs to be explored, as well as a determination on who will be responsible for its
formation.
AP/Searcy noted that SEATAC can make a recommendation to condition the project
to participate with a conservancy to produce the desired effect.
Lex Williman reiterated his concern that it is not the applicant's responsibility to
investigate or create a conservancy. He stated that it would be more appropriate to
ask the applicant to either donate money to the conservancy, or provide on-site
mitigation, or some combination of the two.
Max Maxwell explained that the public desires developers and their experts, who are
aware of the issues, to help the City and make suggestions that will help mitigate
concerns.
Lex Williman suggested that SEATAC could make the recommendation that the
environmental consultants make initial inquiries as to the appropriate direction to take
to form a conservancy, and to determine its feasibility.
Chairman Hewitt stated that if SEATAC is given some basic information for a
recommendation to the City Council, then the City Council can make a determination
on the feasibility of forming a conservancy.
The SEATAC concurred to meet May 9, 1994 at 9:00 a.m. at the same location.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m. to
Monday, May 9, 1994, at 9:00 a.m. at the same location.
April 15, 1994 Page 6
Respectfully,
Rob Searcy
Secretary
Uhl-7�—'94 TI -U 1:1:"G ,D:=:T', F=L=i^I_hL ch= --
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE
SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MAY 911994
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 9:15 a.m. at the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Room CC -3 and CC -5, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairman Chuck Hewitt and Vice Chairman David Berry
Also Present: Associate Planner Robert Searcy
Absent (E=xcused): Committee Member S. Gregory Nelson
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of the November 19, 1993 SEATAC Meeting
2. Minutes of the April 15, 1994 SEATAC Meeting
Motion made by Vice. Chairman Berry, and seconded by Chairman Hewitt and
carried unanimously to approve the minutes of November 19, 1993 and April
15, 1994, as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Hewitt opened the meeting and Invited those wishing to speak to do so.
Don Schad, a resident, expressed his desire to preserve Sandstone Canyon and the
the wildlife and vegetation existing In the canyon.
DISCUSSION
1. Discussion and Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 51169 Known as the Unionwide Development Project
Susanne Zechlel, the environmental consultant, stated that the following
methods have been identified as ways to donate In -lieu fees to conservancles:
1) require the applicant to donate In-11eu fees to the Nature Conservancy
equivalent to the amount of acreage of Walnut trees to be removed multiplied
by the amount of money it would cost to restore It; 2) the fees could be
donated to the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy to purchase land and
restore the Walnut trees on that land; 3) ask experienced agencies to coordinate
with an existing land holder In Tonner Canyon to dedicate land equivalent to the
Y TUN -GJ? -'=4 TNIJ __ tD:_iTY OF DiANOND SAP. TEL C. Ld-861117
Xay 9, 19594 t+age a
amount of land removed on site, and ask the applicant to donate fees to the
Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy to restore the land; 4) if it Is not
possible to find land to restore, then require the applicant to donate fees for
public benefit type programs and education; and 51 assist inter -jurisdictional
programs, such as the one In the City of Walnut, to maintain a preserve to help
restore Walnut trees,
Chairman Hewitt suggested that SEATAC recommend to keep the Idea of a
conservancy open so It does not deal with Just one species but with the entire
scope of the SEA, as well as to encourage the establishment of public benefit
programs and education.
Lex Williman, representing the applicant, stated that though the applicant Is not
opposed to donating money to a conservancy, It is felt that the preferred
solution would be to mitigate on site if there is an opportunity to do so. He
noted that a number of Walnuts on site that are being Impacted do not have
understory; therefore, the biologleal understory Is not being impacted. He
stated that they would prefer to determine the true Impacts on site and
determine what can and should be mitigated, unless the' City prefers to
establish a policy of requesting donations to some conservancy.
Susanne Zechiel pointed out the Importance of balancing the on-site restoration
to protect the SEA coupled with the in -lieu fees so developers don't feel all they
need to do Is write out a check.
Lax Williman stated that they would also prefer that the fees required, have a
reasonable connection to the actual Impact and the cost of restoration rather
than a set amount based upon acreage, which could be grossly Inflated.
Susanne Zechlel stated that fees Indicated In the staff report 1s a very good
Indicator for Orange County.
Chairman Hewitt suggested that the replacement requirement for Walnuts
should not specifically delineate a 2:1 ratio because there are other factors
involved that should be considered such as the existing conditions of the trees
and the area.
AP/Searcy suggested, and SEATAC concurred, that the conditions could be
worded to indicate a 2:1 replacement ratio or as approved by the City per the
recommendation of a technical staff regarding restoration.
Lex Williman, concerned with additional time constraints that could be
associated with the mitigation requirements regarding the conservancy, stated
that, since they desire to proceed with the project in the near future, upon
approval, they would desire that the conservancy or programs already be In
place.
8 . —D; -F J i 4"Ch cF F 8L:-
xay 9f 1994 page 9
AP/Searcy asked Susanne Zechlei the kind of criteria used to determine which.
conservancy would be reviewed.
Susanne Zschiel stated that they looked at conservancies that maintained
Walnuts and considered their locations, and they called a number of local
conservancies and nature conservancies to determine which would meet the
criteria established.
AP/Searcy, noting that Don Schad's conservancy met the criteria, Inquired If his.
conservancy, upon receiving donated money, would be able to Implement a
program that could carry out SEATAC's desires.
Don Schad stated that two of the officers In his conservancy are highly
qualified to carry out such a program, one of whom is also an officer for the
Glendora Foothill Conservancy, another conservancy that deserves
consideration. He stated that his conservancy is State listed as an educational
conservancy; and is tax-exempt and non-profit.
Chairman Hewitt stated that SEATAC's recommendation would be to suggest
to the City that local conservancies are desired so as to keep the benefit of the
dollars, and the mitigation coming from that money, In the community where
the Impact Is derived.
Chairman Hewitt stated that option #2, Indicated In the staff report, Is the
preferred recommendation, to Include the use of funds to be used for public
benefit programs. He then submitted a draft Final Report Indicating that
SEATAC feels the applicant has addressed all concerns to SEATAC's
satisfaction, realizing the few remaining clarifications, and outllning SEATAC's
recommendation'regarding the 2:1 ratio, the need for a consortium, and the
need to consider other plant species as well.
Don Schad suggested that there also be mentioned of coordinating a program
to restore brush that is removed.
Committee Member Berry concurred with -the Importance of emphasizing that
a 2;1 replacement ratio requirement must take into consideration many other
factors, as discussed.
Chairman Hewitt directed staff to amend the Final Report based upon
SEATAC's comments and recommendations and to make It available for review
and a part of the record.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at 9,50 a.m.
1
JI H-02— ''94 THU � 7: 7;3 1 D: C I Te OF DIC4MCHD E; ",P 7E— '10: 7-'
Xay 90 1994 Page 4
Respectfully;
Rob Searcy
Secretary
June 28, 1994
APPENDIX D
MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
LA/09030014. RTC
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 13, 1994
CALL TO ORDER d
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. in the AQMD
Board Hearing Room, 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;
Commissioners: Flamenbaum, and Schad.
Commissioner Fong arrived at 7:13 p.m.
Also Present: Community Development Director James
DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy;
Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City
Attorney Michael. Montgomery; Engineer Mike
Myers; Senior Engineer David Liu; and Contract
Recording Secretary Liz Myers -
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of May 23, 1994
VC/Plunk requested that the minutes of May 23, 1994 be amended
to indicate the proper spelling of Terry Birrell.
Moved by C/Schad, seconded by C/Fong and carried unanimously
to approve the minutes of May 23, 1994, as amended.
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
vC/Plunk suggested, and the Planning Commission concurred,
that the intersection of Quail Summit and Diamond Bar
Boulevard be added to the list of warrant studies for traffic
signals.
Chair/Meyer opened the meeting and invited those wishing to
speak to come forward..
There being no one wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed the
meeting and returned the. matter to the Planning Commission for
consideration.
June 13, 1994, Page 2
Chair/Meyer requested clarification how the Planning
commission can find the CIP to be in conformity with the
General Plan without an adopted General Plan.
ICA/Montgomery, noting item B.3(c) of the Resolution requires
the proposed projects to comply with all other applicable
requirements of State.law and local ordinances, regulations
and standards, stated that the letter of extension from the
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for the General Plan
allows for such a finding.
C/Schad suggested that the Community Services staff
investigate ways to prevent vandalism of the lighting at Maple
Hill Park.
Chair/Meyer questioned the appropriateness of so many traffic
signals on Diamond Bar Boulevard in consideration of the
existing traffic congestion problem.
SE/Liu explained that the intent of the list pertains strictly
to warrant studies to make a determination regarding the needs
of the listed locations. He stated that staff will make a
recommendation to the City Council to consider three traffic
signals for this coming fiscal year.
In response to C/Schad, SE/Liu stated that staff is currently
working with the City of Pomona and the County regarding the
synchronization of traffic signals on Diamond Bar Boulevard.
VC/Plunk suggested, and the Planning Commission concurred,
that the CIP list include the beautification of the City Entry
Signs with appropriate landscaping.
Moved by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously
to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the CIP list,
as amended.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
3. Conditional Use Permit No. 9374 and Development Review No.
93-1
As'tP/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the request
made by the applicant, Dr. Akbar Omar, for approval of
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) NO. 93-4 to allow grading within
a hillside management area, to allow live entertainment, and
to allow the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic
beverages in the C -M; and approval of Administrative
Development Review (ADR) No. 93-1 to allow the construction of
a restaurant at the property location of 21671 E. Gateway
Drive, Diamond Bar. She then reviewed the revisions made to
the project proposed at the January 24, 1994 Planning
Commission continued public hearing, as outlined in the staff
report. She showed a rendering to the Commission illustrating
June 13, 1994 Page 3
4� r
the materials proposed for the project. It is recommended
that the Planning Commission approve CUP No. 93-4 and ADR No.
93-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions, as listed within the
resolution.
As'tP/Lungu, in response to C/Schad's inquiries, made the
following responses: the proposal can be modified requiring
the uplighting of the trees proposed; signage, which is not
proposed at this time, would most -likely be located at the
front and backside of the restaurant; a lighting plan will
need to be submitted; and access from the restaurant to the
hotel is not provided because of the steep grade, and because
the applicant did not receive concurrence from Radisson Hotel.
In response to C/Fong's inquiries, As'tP/Lungu stated that the
balconies have been eliminated because the parking lot cannot
accommodate the needed parking spaces for the additional
seating that could be provided by the balconies. She stated
that the retaining wall will be.landscaped.
AP/Searcy, in response to Chair/Meyer, stated that staff will'
prepare a mitigation monitoring program, if needed for the
mitigated negative declaration, subsequent to the approval of
the project.
As'tP/Lungu, in response to VC/Plunk, stated that a conceptual
landscape plan will be reviewed by RJM to assure the proposed
landscaping is appropriate for the area.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited those
wishing to speak to come forward.
Syed Raza, representing the applicant, expressed his
concurrence to the conditions listed in the staff report, and
the changes suggested by the Planning Commission pertaining to
lighting and landscaping.
C/Schad suggested that trees larger than 15 gallon be
considered to softened the architectural impact of the wall.
VC/Plunk suggested that the applicant consider planting vines
on the wall to soften the visual impact.
Chair/Meyer suggested that it may be more appropriate to plant
more moderate to fast growing trees rather than large trees
because their rate of survival are better and are least
costly.
Syed Raza stated that there was discussion with the architect
of painting the wall a darker shade to blend with the
foreground, along with landscaping, making the two story
building on top of it appear to be a floating structure.
June 13, 1994- Page 4
VC/Plunk suggested that the balcony be used as a planter
rather than seating. _
Syed Raza stated that the balconies, which were omitted
because of the lack of parking spaces, are now replaced with
a slope roof that is part of the building. He noted that the
balconies were quite large for just planting, and patrons
could still use them for seating, which may create a problem
for the City.
C/Fong inquired if the landscaped area on the west side could
be used for parking.
Syed Raza explained that, because of the steepness of the
slope and existing sanitary lines, consideration of utilizing
the west side for additional parking is economically
impractical.
In response to C/Fong, Syed Raza stated that the landscaping
on the slopes are intended to prevent erosion due to runoff.
He also stated that the grade is designed to assure that
runoff is directed to the street and away from the building,
and gutters and drainage patterns are included in the design
of the building as well.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed
the public hearing and returned the matter to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
C/Flamenbaum made the following comments: condition the
project to plant ivy on all the large.walls as well as the
retaining walls to hinder graffiti; include .an accommodation
for future access to the hotel in their plan so.that if, in
future years, an agreement is attained, a location has already
been designated; and modify condition p., on page 6, that
security should be coordinated with the hotel so it is not the
entire burden of the restaurant.
Chair/Meyer made- the following comments: the balcony is a
desirable addition to the project, particularly since there is
a significant view corridor, and it seems inappropriate for
vehicles to dictate the design constraints of a building; and
the parking standards can be modified through the CUP to allow
the balconies, perhaps requiring a trip reduction plan as a
mitigation measure for additional parking.
AP/Searcy, concern with C/Flamenbaum's direction to provide
accomodations for a future access, noted that, because of the
change in elevation, it will be difficult to provide access
between the two lots.
C/Flamenbaum stated that it would seem prudent to accommodate
an area for a potential pedestrian access between the two lots
June 13, 1994 Page 5
in case circumstances change in the future for whatever
reason.
Syed Raza stated that the two owners of the properties have
not been able to come to any kind of agreement due, to
liability concerns. He also stated that because the slope is
on the hotel side and not the restaurant side, it is
inappropriate for the applicant to include plans without their
concurrence..
The Planning Commission concurred that providing for future
access is not feasible.
Moved by C/Schad, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously
to approve CUP No. 93-4 and ADR No. 93-1, Findings of Fact,
and conditions, as listed in the. resolution, with the
following amendments: a mitigation monitoring program to
include the grading, treatment of the walls, and the
landscaping; a condition addressing lighting and the glare;
balconies can remain at the option of the applicant, with the
submittal of a trip reduction plan to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and Community Development Director; modify the
condition to allow for a two year permit; and change the
security provision to 10:00 p.m.
RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:07 p.m.
RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:14 p.m.
4. 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 presented the staff report regarding the request
made by the applicant, Jerry Yeh, for approval of a 13 unit
single family subdivision on a 20 acre site located in
Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15, and 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. He then reviewed
the recommendations outlined in the Final Report of the
Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee
(SEATAC) that met to discuss the biota report contained within
the Draft EIR: It is recommended that the Planning Commission
.open the public hearing and receive comments on the draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and project entitlement
requests, continue the public hearing and direct staff as
appropriate.
Mr. Smith, the City's environmental consultant from Michael
Brandmen Associates, briefly reviewed the chronology and
process of the EIR documentation for the project, as required
by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as
the responses received to the EIR. He stated that the issues
June 13, 1999. Page 6
addressed in the EIR, which relate to geology and soils,
drainage and water quality, biological impacts, noise,
transportation, circulation, public services, and land use,
including aesthetics, can be mitigated to a level less than
significant, with the exception of the biology impacts. He
stated that the EIR recommends mitigation measures for the
loss of the Walnuts on site and other associated impacts to
wildlife, which is summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program for those impacts. He explained that SEATAC suggested
some on site mitigation measures for some of the impacts of
the Walnuts from development of the project, with the balance
of the impacts to be mitigated either through an in lieu fee
contribution to a conservancy, or through the development of
appropriate habitat within SEA #15 at another location.
Chair/Meyer requested clarification if C/Schad has a conflict
of interest in the deliberation of the project as it pertains
to his conservancy.
ICA/Montgomery asked C/Schad if he would derive a personal
financial benefit from any contribution or mitigation payment
that might be incurred herein, which does not include
reimbursed expenses.
C/Schad stated for the record that he has no plans to extract
any funds for personal use from his conservancy, and that any
funds acquired for his conservancy has been utilized strictly
for the conservancy. He stated that he would not be impacted
economically personally .in any manner whatsoever if his
conservancy is chosen to help monitor and manage the subject
property.
ICA/Montgomery stated that, unless there is any evidence to
the contrary, C/Schad's declaration qualifies him to continue
participating in the deliberations and to vote on the matter.
AP/Searcy reported that 5 or 6 conservancies were reviewed and
not one of them has been designated; however, SEATAC felt it
may be appropriate to have a local agency controlling the
money.
Chair/Meyer expressed concern that, though legally there is no
conflict of interest, perceptually it seems inappropriate for
a Planning Commissioner to advocate before SEATAC for a
revenue source to be given to his conservancy, and then be in
a position now of reviewing and making recommendations on the
project.
C/Schad stated that it is not important which conservancy
manages and monitors the subject property, but rather to
preserve as much of the natural resources as possible, in the
most proper manner.
June 13, 1994 Page 7
ICA/Montgomery stated that it is appropriate to endorse
programs as long as personal income or personal economic
benefit is not received.
VC/Plunk, noting that the community has expressed concern. with
intertwined relationships involving City issues, stated that
there is a perception of a conflict of interest, particularly
since C/Schad is president of the conservancy.
C/Schad pointed out that the officers of his conservancy are
presidents of other conservancy, creating an interlocking
relationship among conservancies. He stated that his interest
in this type of management is trails for children, working
with schools for educational purposes, planning programs for
plant propagation in the future, etc.
C/Flamenbaum suggested. that, in order to resolve an appearance
of impropriety, perhaps it would be appropriate if the Tonner
Canyon conservancy not accept any money from this land owner.
ICA/Montgomery stated that, as long as C/Schad is willing to
confront any political attacks or criticism regarding the
conservancy, it is not necessary for him to make such a
statement.
Mr. Smith, in response to C/Flamenbaum, showed the location of
the intermittent blue line stream, as represented on the map,
as well as the location of the oak tree, the vacant single
family home, and the Schabaurum trail.
C/Schad suggested that the feasibility of propagating new
plants from nut or seed of the Black Walnut, to be placed on
the blue line area, be investigated. He requested that the
project be conditioned to require the applicant to submit a
landscaping plan for the relocation and propagation of trees,
to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
VC/Plunk suggested that perhaps the mitigation measures for
agricultural or recent and man made vegetation should be
different than the mitigation measures required for long term,
natural state vegetation.
C/Schad requested that there be an investigation to determine
if the existing oak tree is a hybrid, and if it can be
relocated near the area of origination by the side of the
intermitted blue line stream.
Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open and invited those
wishing to speak to come forward.
Lex Williman, Planning Director from Hunsaker & Associates,
representing Jerry Yeh, gave a brief history of the project,
the concept plans considered, and the studies conducted prior
to submittal. He explained that all of "The Country Estates"
June 13, 1994 Page 8
standards have been used for the development, with the intent
to annex into "The Country" with separate -CC&R'-s, utilizing
land form Trading, undulation, and hillside management. He
reviewed the proposal as submitted, reviewing the relocation
of easements, the blue line stream, the replacement and
relocation of trees, biological impacts and mitigation
measures, and grading techniques. He expressed concurrence
with the conditions of approval as listed in the staff report,
as well as the suggestions made by the Planning Commission.
In response to C/Flamenbaum, Lex Williman explained that the
slope easements were dedicated to the County with the intent
of allowing for construction of a road. He stated that they
will definitely annex to "The Country", which requires paying
a fee; however, there will be a separate Homeowners
Association and specific CC&R's, in conformance with "The
Country's" CC&R's, as well as special assessments pertinent to
the 13 lots, such as for the pump station maintained by the
County. He stated that the urban pollution basin will be
fenced off to protect wildlife.
Lex Williman, in response to C/Fong, stated that the intent of
the mitigation in the landscape plan is to mix a variety of
plant species with the natural habitat in the area to get back
some biological significance on the site.
C/Schad inquired how the blue line runoff from the residences
to the canyon will be filtered and circulated back to the
ground. He expressed concern that any runoff into the canyon
will cause irreversible damage.
Lex Williman stated that either the evaporated method could be
used, or pipes with holes could run under the detention basin
so the affluent will drain through the ground, into the pipes
and down the canyon.
C/Flamenbaum left the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and returned at
9:34 p.m.
VC/Plunk suggested that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), the
affected property owner, be verbally contacted regarding the
easement for the road to Tonner Canyon. She asked for a
.definition of "esocormic growth" when the project is brought
back before the Planning Commission. She suggested that, if
a 2:1 replacement ratio standard is desired after five years,
it may be advisable to start with a slightly higher
replacement ratio.
Mr. Smith explained that there are provisions in the five year
monitoring program to manage the mitigation, replacing trees
to assure that the desired ratio is achieved at the end of the
monitoring period as well as monitoring the understory.
June 13,.1994 Page 9 `f
AP/Searcy, in response to VC/Plunk, stated that, in order for
the project to be in conformance with the rest of the "The
Country", there are no street lights included in the proposal.
Lex williman, in response to Chair/Meyer's inquiries, made the
following responses: they have the authority to do off-site
grading and off-site street improvements for the adjacent
property, which will be shown on the final map as an easement
for access purposes, with slopes, utilities, et al; there will
be an assessment district to pay for the sewer system, which
will be adequately sized for the development and maintained by
the County; 184,000 cubic yards of dirt from grading will be
balanced on site; the fill material adjacent to the site,
intruding on the Blaze Trail easement by no action of Mr. Yeh,
will be removed by the applicant; and a landscape plan will
come back before the Planning commission.
Chair/Meyer stated that page A-1, of the Response to Comment
document, should be amended to properly indicate that the
review period of the DEIR was through November 1993 ending
December 1993. He then requested clarification of the
response received from the EPA, which appeared vague.
Mr. Smith stated that the response from EPA, which is
considered a boilerplate letter, indicated that, since there
are no significant impacts in solid waste, no mitigation is
required. He concurred with Chair/Meyer that a more
appropriate additional response to the EPA is to indicate that
the area will be subject to the City's AB939 response program.
In response to Chair/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that the Planning
Commission has the discretion to direct staff to place
additional mitigation measures for traffic impacts in the
mitigation monitoring program.
In response to Chair/Meyer, CE/Myers stated that the concern
regarding the capacity to treat the sewage emanating from the
project has been adequately answered; however, the concern if
the local sewers are adequate to convey the sewage from the
project to be treat has not yet been answered. He stated that
the project cane be conditioned to provide area capacity
studies, prior to final approval of the map, to assure that
all the routes to treatment are adequate.
VC/Plunk stated that the funding for off-site mitigation
should go to the Parks and Recreation Department as so
indicated.
In response to Chair/Meyer's inquiry regarding the City
Engineer's comment on page C-9, of the Response to Comment
document, CE/Myers expressed his satisfaction that, in -the
areas absolutely relevant, the EIR was prepared adequately.
He explained that his comments were referring to minor errors
June 13, 1994- Page 10
not relevant to the entire EIR document, nor intended to be
included in the_Response_to-Comment document.
John Lipman, the certified engineer and geologist employed
with Triod Geotechnical, stated that the geology on the site
is favorable, with a possible problem on lot #2 which will be
properly monitored and stabilized as necessary.
In response to C/Flamenbaum, John Lipman stated that there
does not appear to be any slippage potential on site, and the
rock is hard and quite stable. He stated that no evidence has
been found indicating any ancient landslides on the site.
John Lipman, in response to C/Fong's concern that the test
pits were of limited depth of about 10 to 12 feet deep, stated
that the geology indicates a very favorable condition over
all, and nothing implies that a condition could be buried
below those depths requiring major subsurface work. He stated
that the east side, the only side that has a potential
problem, has neutral bedding, which is still considered good;
however, they will be removing more than they will be grading
as far as fill, which will improve the stability of the slope
in general.
Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, made the following
comments: there should be clarification if the road easement
is being reserved for future development in Tonner Canyon;
`there should be an attempt to relocate the 167 trees; the
developer should be required to submit a proposal with more
specificit_; SEA #15 should be preserved; there needs to be
further investigation regarding potential landslides; the
Planning Commission should support C/Schad's conservancy; and
the first 18" to 24" of top soil should be scraped and
stockpiled to be used in the replanting of the trees.
Lex Williman stated their willingness to preserve the black
earth, as suggested by Mr. Maxwell.
John Lipman, in response to C/Fong's inquiry regarding the
topography west of Gold Rock Lane, stated that a small failure
was found way on down the slope, but it is not a major
disturbance to the area or a threat to the slope in the
vicinity.
AP/Searcy stated that the preliminary soils and geological
technical report for the adjacent property, submitted to the
City for review, did not identify any soils or geotechnical
problems that may effect this project or the adjacent project.
CE/Myers stated that staff can include conditions requiring
mitigation of adverse geotechnical problems, or dedication of
restricted use areas and building rights to be prohibited to
the City. He stated that it can also be conditioned to assure
that the MOU not only grants the applicant permission to go on
June 13,.1994 Page 11
to the adjacent property owner to do grading work for the
road, but also allows.them to go further on to the property if
other conditions are uncovered, under City staff supervision,
inspection, and approval.
C/Fong stated that, for this project, the reports and
conditions are satisfactory; however, for future projects, the
City Engineering Department should review the geological maps,
and the soils and geological report, in respect to the
property beyond the property line.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed
the public hearing and returned the matter to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
C/Fong requested a written report from the geological engineer
responding to the condition of potential off-site geological
conditions that could impact this site or the adjacent
property, as well as an expanded geotechnical report that
would include some of the off-site areas that would be subject
to grading.
C/Schad requested that the project be conditioned to
preserving the black earth to be used for replanting.
C/Flamenbaum requested further information regarding the pump
station.
Moved by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong to direct staff to
preparing resolutions recommending conditional approval of the
project, the CUP, and certification of the EIR.
The Motion Carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad, Flamenbaum, VC/Plunk
and Chair/Meyer
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by c/Schad and carried
unanimously to direct staff to bring back the resolutions for
the July 11, 1994 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
C/Flamenbaum reported that he will be absent at the June 27, 1994
meeting due to a conflict in vacation schedules.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
June 13, 1994 Page 12
AP/Searcy reported that it is anticipated that GPAC will conclude
theirreview oftheGeneral Plan -the -end of June -1994. He stated
that the document will be brought before the Planning Commission
for review two meetings a week for joint sessions with the City
Council.
VC/Plunk expressed concern that joint sessions are not productive.
She suggested that the Planning Commission review each Element
before passing it on to the City Council with a recommendation.
C/Flamenbaum expressed objection to conducting two meetings a week,
and only being allowed one month in the review process, which took
GPAC 6 months.
ADJOURNMENT
Moved by C/Schad, seconded by C/Flamenbaum and carried unanimously
to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully,
James DeStefano
Secretary
Attest:
David Meyer
Chairman
June 28, 1994
APPENDIX E
GEOLOGY LETTER REPORT
LA/09030014.RTC
TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS INC..
Soils Engineering • Engineering Geology • EnvironmcnW Engineering
17231 EAST RAILROAD STREET, SUITE 100, CITY OF INDUSTRY, CA 91748
TELEPHONE (818) 9642313
FAX (818) 810-0915
June 20, 1994
Job No. 92-001--
Mr.
2-001 -
Mr. Jerry Yeh
Union Wide Incorporated
2130 Rockridge Court
Fullerton, .CA 92631
Subject: Addendum Report
Vesting Tract 5116
Diamond Bar, CA
Reference: 1. Preliminary Soils & Geologic Investigation by
Triad Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., dated
January 28, 1992
2. Geotechnical Review Sheet by Leighton and
Associates, Inc., dated July 7, 1992
3. Response to Geotechnical Review by Triad
Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., dated July 23,
1992
4. Geotechnical Investigation, Tentative Tract No.
46485, by Petra, dated March 8, 1993
Dear Mr. Yeh:
Pursuant to the request of the Planning Commission for the City
of Diamond Bar, we have conducted a review of the subject
adjacent slope to the west of Gullrock Lane. The purpose of this
review was to analyze the deep seated gross stability of the
bedrock underlying Gullrock Lane.
A copy of the referenced report by Petra was received by our
office on June 15, 1994 and it indicates the presence of a
landslide on the middle and lower portions of the subject slope
near the north end of Gullrock Lane. A review of the Test Pit
and Boring Logs, in the report by Petra, indicate that below the
upper approximately 2 to 3 feet of weathering, the bedrock
between the landslide and the crest of the ridge (Gullrock Lane)
is in a hard or very dense condition and a very thick colluvial
deposit has developed on the top of the slide mass.
As a result of the review, three statements can be made.
1. The landslide has occurred as a rotational or possibly a
block slide within a localized fold structure as a result of
the loss of support from downward erosion within the
adjacent canyon bottom.
2. The thick colluvial development encountered in the Borings
indicate that a considerable amount of time has passed since
the slide occurred, probably in excess of 30,000 _years
before the present, following the Iowan glacial advance.
3. The logs of test pits, excavated in the head scarp area
above the slide mass, show that the bedrock has only normal
fracturing and weathering development with no indication of
continued instability of the bedrock in the head scarp area.
2
It can also be surmised that the ridge has experienced one or
more wet (pluvial) periods, at the end of the Pleistocene Epoch,
which were considerably wetter than has been experienced in
historic times or is expected to be experienced in the near
geologic future.
conclusions
It is our opinion that, based on the information obtained from
the referenced reports, the bedrock underlying Gullrock Lane has
a favorable gross stability. It is also our opinion that the
proposed grading for Gullrock Lane will also greatly increase the
existing overall gross stability of the bedrock mass above the
landslide by effectively reducing a significant amount of the
existing load from the bedrock in the head scarp area.
The bedding structure in the ravine on the north side of Gullrock
Lane is favorable and the placement of fill in the ravine should
have no detrimental effect on the gross stability of the subject
ridge.
It is understood that the stabilization of the landslide mass is
to occur during proposed future grading on the adjacent tract
which was addressed in the referenced report by Petra. The
temporary stability of the bedrock underlying Gullrock Lane and
the adjacent lots to the east should not be affected by the off-
site grading.
3
The opportunity to be of service to you on this project is
appreciated. If you have any questions, please call us at your
convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
TRIAD GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
John L. Kniffen
C.E.G. 1209
JLK/mis
Distribution: Addressee (1)
Hunsaker & Associates (3)
10179 Huennekens Street
San Diego, CA 92121
Attention: Lex Williman
4
e
\
.
2� §§zk
/
7
)
•
/
//\
`E2
WE
)
7
110,
a
\ƒ\
\
)k\%
CL.
}\2
§kms/j�§/
2.\
2 =zu;9u
Gn
u
g 62§
§ }\
)
.
°m
° t� C a m o e d c o20 s o v m N o G v c
a= o a 8 ? m .E j a a o 0 .SC
U p o y u ri o U W y, y
cq e G 3$V
E
oa.
° �E m � ca �' °� �� Si'��a•a a�
��q m `�°... v•n o ua� ? ai�a �E >,'$ ami
V m 9 v E am u
U r o b w c v qmw 3'Src'a3 3 � �a 79
o
a o a m qo 13
m y y o v v p 3 60 °� E a a E °� o
5 3 w o d w o f m ro o y° 5
F
a
a
m
C
p.
O
w
3
3
3
3
a
°m
° t� C a m o e d c o20 s o v m N o G v c
a= o a 8 ? m .E j a a o 0 .SC
U p o y u ri o U W y, y
cq e G 3$V
E
oa.
° �E m � ca �' °� �� Si'��a•a a�
��q m `�°... v•n o ua� ? ai�a �E >,'$ ami
V m 9 v E am u
U r o b w c v qmw 3'Src'a3 3 � �a 79
o
a o a m qo 13
m y y o v v p 3 60 °� E a a E °� o
5 3 w o d w o f m ro o y° 5
F
a
r
0
8
3
3
9
N
r T 19^ r'i
0
n
Cb
n o
^
c
b
� e
m m
E
�C
O
O
9 �
C
� s
0
G
R
V1
C y
y
O O
M
O c,
C
A
A
a °. ko a •o
o w w o
a° E 9'o
o� � J� •$
o as
m !a
.n 3 a��
o
r
'� a
•> 'K
c •3 gC
�
y .0 $°
N
o❑
a o m°
a g
N 3-1 0 o
bio : ON o
E 7 v
9 •�
w U
o b u
�
m
N a a .n
m•°o'��
m
c
'$
a
3
c° u E o
a
10
g � v
� •"� .:
[ U 0�0
ao
a
.9
8 c
v °
A 1
A W tJ
5'� �ncy�a Of�zo ay E o o a � °-n� nm m Oo caS y o• n o -nw
cr
m "+ �, m 5 c'
g o a F O' = 9,z S o c o
c' S o d o co o' E C C " p S oc
T
Er.
56 F;
E y
o a o o c°o E 5' m a t a o 3 0 S rs 4 c ° wm c
�" m m 5 S m0. c "a n c m c a $ 5 0 0 m^ 9
a o .. m a- o 'b E a
m E, F g w m 9 °° n °1nr $ 5• n C] a °A
a m E00 m m F o m m. n E 2 a° m°" A Fo °0 5: a
m 5• _ a.
a � X`b ^ Z •
0 0
G
C
O' O
o a
n
Iy
w
b
q a
Kcr
a �
�
-• m
n �
�m
o c
C
+n �
m
m 5• _ a.
a � X`b ^ Z •
0 0
G
C
O' O
o a
Ln
�
a
c 3 0��
•$
�a
��
s a.S
�y
� 3 .� a .� $
g � �
ao � •� o � � a �
c
.n � a.o
3
0
o '7
c o0 •g
0
R .°�' � ^ �
g
� o .. .a ra � � 3 'G "
„°,
� .5 � o
�
ra
" .0
•ti
c# E
a �
w"
ii
R E
a
3
c 2 2
3
U
v 0
C
0.3��
a•a °Q on .n o 50
'� �p,�� o� �� c �
a�� 3�
•� �
a��
m
g
oA C
C it C m C U m
°O
a> a a
L C
In O
a 4
a
�
O �
N
G dil
Ln
c 3 0��
•$
��
s a.S
�y
� 3 .� a .� $
g � �
ao � •� o � � a �
c
.n � a.o
3
0
o '7
c o0 •g
0
R .°�' � ^ �
g
� o .. .a ra � � 3 'G "
„°,
� .5 � o
�
ra
" .0
R E
a
c 2 2
°o °e
�
n
v 0
C
0.3��
a•a °Q on .n o 50
'� �p,�� o� �� c �
a�� 3�
•� �
a��
m
g
oA C
C it C m C U m
°O
a> a a
L C
In O
a 4
Ln
W
N
c�
"C
tr7
N
o E T�, a
N" C
m b
A
O
o 'Z 'v c
n q' O 'tr7
m$
" E
2 tri 4b
E
:° c b b
A
'
w
^rI
�
pw
�'O^qo
m'
a
�p '•n �. -
�^
c ten'
••• �'.
�
�.o
FE' o
"
.��. s-
�v5�m
.
o�sO�
Q�
C]
v
�003�
�� F �° p o o
^o^ w w
w
EP
w •
w
d
d
°4
ryap
ongo P
O a
U0
RO
C m
Q.
� CO aro C "V
CL
'V 'D
c�
m m
ar
�o
'
w
^rI
�
m'
a
a R�t7 o a a� kn c�
v O N O N^ O v O v y v 7 v
>' �
10,
Gov yM g
c o°' v o m" m rj E v ,o a T c °+n a. y > a c T
m Eo� .°.
C
3 •2 c .n v�$� In 5 .3 m 3 X 3 3 � �� n E o m• � c 3 •� °
_ ov�vpvoc a� o
w
om°A vc w
w
O
K
�b
°
o
a
Q
Q
sv cZI
a R�t7 o a a� kn c�
v O N O N^ O v O v y v 7 v
>' �
10,
Gov yM g
c o°' v o m" m rj E v ,o a T c °+n a. y > a c T
m Eo� .°.
C
3 •2 c .n v�$� In 5 .3 m 3 X 3 3 � �� n E o m• � c 3 •� °
_ ov�vpvoc a� o
w
om°A vc w
w
O
K
Q
Q
Q
a R�t7 o a a� kn c�
v O N O N^ O v O v y v 7 v
>' �
10,
Gov yM g
c o°' v o m" m rj E v ,o a T c °+n a. y > a c T
m Eo� .°.
C
3 •2 c .n v�$� In 5 .3 m 3 X 3 3 � �� n E o m• � c 3 •� °
_ ov�vpvoc a� o
w
om°A vc w
w
O
001
G
i+ca� p to
'w � m Q � fV � --
A e a ti o w
�Qa�
m m o
m�mrropoawb`o�°o.�`
E n C»
�L
a w m g m o
ar" 0
G' oO`� � i i Oy O p p '..i. C
v
s
W pyo-
C• C: R
Q �o m
q v S
m m (eT _ O• �''C
Q A A v m R
p 0
y g
'o
a• "�
G d 3 7
co C• bb S' m
b A "m�'3i "
ado o E. o£
m
e
�. EL aq
v
ao S
O
'a° 5r
,o..,
w c
7 ry
00 fi m C m �p m Com• R
a ro c q m m
ry � S vi �' � �• G. <
C• w h
N VO
p o m n m. � C F
o
�
sQQ
m
'ti
'ti
b
w
w
m
d
p
m
T
fOG�t y
D.
fwi 7 •<•
'o
ar `m•
w w
0
e
e
°u o,
a�
C
O
y
a
z
0
E
d
o �
F F
C�7
w c cS v c
ayp w E d' w' y❑ ° v y °
G y�'j � � •Q .� � C O � � y � •°L' .5 %� U O (v T y G � d' V � y � .G y
jo
gs
ej
g b .yo E ' � c � � � o v '� � �p oCo •° `� � n S C � "° �. � .'oma C o
p
°pkv p"v o°n.o aa °.a o : � a ��: �� m��� ?V,OIb �•�S � °o�' ° o
C •S_ b m a G N C m p, 0 N y y oo E v v?
u a
'Pv. ° m G v? c o y .�
V •O
Wba�� ¢yb0ob�,4s Se��•Skn::R Uv v..a31
6 0
m
O
m
o cwi 0c, co 5
�ac�°5 5�>wE55'aapy �i� .n A w
'O w wT .°: a' ° g b °< c .°. o' °G �• 5 0
El
vn a° m w o m q o m w 5°° o °7.
° w o m rv° w 5 n� a E .n ° m ad o
�. S c o 5 m o, o cam. EP
a- a A
a.
��? 5• m $ rn o b per'
cm°LSL n
qq am �• °g mxE.
R N fo d0• w e c .� °' G
' Fs° w o o d 0° a 7 g TQ
f m o m e a n w SM o' S
c rn g
� •° � .y y w � � � � E 5 �°, �E v � .g a c � ° o >, C � � o. rte.
En°�m c aaen��m'Wy �c m c �c�
a 'a
`°° 3 � E v e ' wj � c °° � � g y 3 °3� '� ,S •c � N � o'.v v '" o �•
5 c 5 v W o a o c 5 s
g v y w u U a 33 ❑ a' C 93 a o V E v a 7 t3
c.5v EA Z.co °� Q ° � eF� a8 �� �?.�•�.9 H a.5 •a � v� o
93.
N
w
G
o -
o
�+ U R
?
C m
C
FT. �p 7 X70' a-
R
�• Q.
Q.
° �'.
.O•
�. �' cr1,7
"
Q' ^ •�"• �• C
o'
air'
G CJ1.
e
3
w
o
c
'
oCL
w m.
°
a °
b
7
E
5'
a
o'
a
�
m a
N
w
G
s
V
a
7
U.
J2
M
U
0
s
V
a
7
U.
J2
M
�1
gm
w
o d w �' m o o e
m '� �+ w m w. cr
M
v
Er o' Q n a w ()
Ei.' 3
m c •o F'
n 't
z�igg�
w
�o
C
m
cry
X m
E• w
O
w'o
'°
o��ec.°�"
CD a
�o
5 m
Ogmg
o
O
n OG (f
s.
R. cD
M''C°• O n
M g n
0
R!_
go-
RL
m
zQ.a�
rn
g
CA
c
S, ° o 0 0$
a• 6
m
0
I
CL
to p tqn
�' S
w w
C o'
c c'a-
~
s
g
s
g M'
o
OR s
s
a
VQ
B.
m
M
�
b
3
q
3
m
.o•
�
c
c:
:9
w
�1
ID
\
ƒ
}
)\£
)
}\
a
.
a
.,u
�
`•
•@]\]% .
.
�
)
\i§!
q
lu
2m\\;|/
&
VTTM 51169
July 21, 1994
ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS:
1. Applicant shall submit a title report/guarantee and a
subdivision guarantee showing all fee owners and
interest holders when a final map is submitted for map
check. The account with the title company shall remain
open until the final map is filed with the County
Recorder. An updated title report/guarantee and
subdivision guarantee must be submitted ten (10)
working days prior to final map approval.
2. All easements existing prior to final map approval must
be identified and shown on the final map. If an
easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a
statement to that effect must be shown on the final map
in lieu of its location.
3. Portions of the existing easement for open space,
utilities, riding and hiking trails shall be relocated
and/or grading.performed, as necessary, to provide, for
the portion within the Subdivision, practical access
for the intended use.
4. Applicant shall submit recorded document(s) indicating
the project will have proper/adequate right -entry to
the subject site from "The, Country".
5. The tract shall be annexed to Landscape Maintenance
District 38.
1
I
6. All boundary monuments not found at the time of making
the survey for the final map shall be set in accordance
with the State Subdivision Map Act and the City
Subdivision Code, and shall be subject to approval by
the City Engineer. Street centerline monuments shall
be set to mark the intersections of streets,
intersections of streets with the tract boundary and to
mark either the beginning and end of curves or the
Points of intersection of tangents thereof, or other
intermediate points to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Centerline monument ties shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for approval in accordance with
City Standards, prior to issuance of building permits.
7. If any required public improvements have not been
completed by Subdivider and accepted by the City prior
to the approval of the final map, Subdivider shall
enter into a subdivision agreement with the. City and
shall post the appropriate security. Applicant shall
submit to the City Engineer for approval the total cost
estimate for bonding purposes of all public
improvements, prior to approval of the final map.
8. All site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street,
sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval.
9. Street names shall be submitted for City review and
2
approval prior to approval of the final map. Street
names shall not duplicate existing streets within the
City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip code areas.
10. House numbering plans shall be approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of building permits.
11. The detail drawings and construction notes shown on the
submitted tentative map and plans are conceptual only
and the approval of this map does not constitute
approval of said drawings and notes.
12. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance
with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Ordinance
14 (1990) and acceptable grading practices. The
precise grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the grading plan.approved as a
material part of the tentative map. The maximum grade
of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15%.
13. All landslide debris shall be completely removed prior
to fill placement as required by the final approved
geotechnical report.
14. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan
for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer
and/or geologist licensed by the State of California.
The report shall address, but not be limited to, the
following:
3
(a)_ Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a
1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane;
,projection plane shall have a minimum safety
_ factor of -1,5.
(b) All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e.,
landslides, shear key locations, etc.) shall be
delineated in detail with respect to proposed
building envelopes. Restricted use areas and
structural setbacks shall be considered and
delineated prior to recordation of the final map.
(c) Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a
"worst case" geologic interpretation subject to
verification in the field during grading.
(d) The extent of any remedial grading into natural
areas shall be clearly defined on the grading
plans.
(e) Areas of potential for debris flow shall be
defined and proper remedial measures implemented
as approved by the City Engineer.
(f) Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be
analyzed as part of geotechnical report, including
remedial fill that replaces natural slope.
(g) Stability of all proposed slopes shall be
confirmed by analysis as approved by the City
Engineer.
(h) All geologic data including landslides and
4
exploratory excavations must be shown on a
consolidated geotechnical map using the 40-scale
final grading plan as a base.
15. Grading plans shall be prepared in a 241IX36" format and
designed in compliance with the recommendations of the
final detailed soils and engineering geology reports.
All remedial earthwork specified in the final report
shall be incorporated into the plans.
16. Grading plans must be signed and stamped by a
California registered Civil Engineer, Geotechnical
Engineer and Engineering Geologist.
17. All identified flood and geologic hazard areas within
the tract boundaries which cannot be eliminated as
approved by the City Engineer shall be indicated on the
final map as "Restricted Use Area." The subdivider
shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the
erection of buildings or other structures within such
restricted use areas on the final map.
18. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed
guaranteeing completion of all drainage facilities
necessary for dewatering all parcels to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final map
approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits.
19. Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over
adjacent parcels shall be delineated and shown on the
final map as approved by the City Engineer.
5
20. All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and
protecting the subdivided properties shall be installed
prior to issuance of building permits for construction
upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows
entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which
a building permit is requested.
21. All slope banks in excess of five (5) feet in vertical
height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted
with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion
control upon completion of grading or some other
alternative method of erosion control shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
a permanent irrigation system shall be installed.
22. Street improvement plans in a 24" X 36" sheet format,
prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. The
design and construction of street improvements for the
full width of Gullrock Lane shall be required as shown
on the tentative map. No street shall exceed a maximum
slope of 12%.
23. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-
way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall
be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition
to any other permits required.
24. The Subdivider shall make an irrevocable offer to
dedicate to the City an easement for future street
6
purposes 30 feet wide (for half of a future 60 -foot
wide roadway) along the centerline extension of
Gullrock Lane from the southerly terminus of the
private street to the southerly tract boundary.
25. Aggregate base and AC pavement shall be constructed on,
all streets, and access road to pump station and urban
pollutant basin, in accordance with City approved soils
report and as approved by the City Engineer. Vehicular
access must be provided to all urban pollutant basins
and the pump station with a minimum width easement of
201, with 12' of pavement at a maximum slope no greater
than 200.
26. A final drainage study and final drainage/storm.drain
plans in a 24" X 36" sheet format shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map
approval. All drainage facilities shall be designed
and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in
accordance with County of Los Angeles Standards.
Private .(and future) easements for storm drain purposes
shall be offered and shown on the final map for
dedication to the City. The private storm drain
facilities shall be maintained by the homeowners
association and this shall be assured through the
CC&R's.
27. No underground utilities shall be constructed within
the drip line of any mature tree except as approved by
V/
a registered arborist.
28. Prior to finalization of any development phase (if
any), sufficient street and drainage improvements shall
b.e_.completed beyondthephase boundaries to assure
secondary access and drainage protection to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries
shall correspond to lot lines shown on the final map.
29. Prior to the issuance of any permit to grade and
placement of any dredged or fill material into any
U.S.G.S. "blue line" stream bed, a 404 permit shall be
obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and an
agreement with the California Department of Fish and
Game shall be obtained and submitted to the City
Engineer.
30. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer
lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The
sanitary sewer serving the tract shall be connected to
the City sewer system. Said system shall be of the
size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer,
County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County
Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final
map.
31. The applicant shall obtain connection permits from the
City and County Sanitation District. The subdivision
shall be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer
Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all
8
sewer main and trunk lines and pump station must be
offered for dedication prior to approval of the final
map.
32. The Subdivider, at Subdivider's sole cost and expense,
shall construct the sewer system and pump station in
accordance with the City,.Los Angeles County Public
Works Department and County Sanitation District
Standards.
33. Traffic improvement plans, as necessary, shall be
prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer in a 24" X
36" sheet format and shall be submitted to and approved
by the City Engineer. Traffic control, signing and
striping plans shall be prepared in accordance with
requirements of the State of California Traffic Manual
prior to approval of final map.
34. Intersection line of sight designs shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for approval.
35. The Subdivider shall contribute,$6,500 toward the
installation of a traffic signal at intersection of
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Shadow Canyon Drive prior to
approval of the final map.
3.6. The Subdivider shall contribute $2,000 toward the
construction of sidewalks along the east side of
Diamond Bar Boulevard, southerly of Shadow Canyon,
across from the Country Hills Shopping Center prior to
approval of the final map.
4
37. Subdivider shall provide separate underground utility
services to each lot, including water, gas, electric
power, telephone, and cable TV, in accordance with the
respective utility company standards. Easements shall
be provided as required by utility companies and
approved by the City Engineer.
38. Applicant shall relocate existing utilities as
necessary. Facilities within that easement owned by
General. Telephone shall be relocated as necessary to
allow telephone company to relinquish its easement.
Subdivider shall, at it's own expense, cause telephone
company to relinquish this easement.
39. Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer and the
utility companies, for public utility and public
services purposes shall be offered and shown on the
final map for dedication to the City.
40. Prior to submittal of the final map, written
certifications shall be submitted to the City Engineers
from Walnut Valley Water District, GTE, SCE, SCG and
Jones Intercable stating that adequate facilities are
or will be, prior to issuance of building permits,
available to serve the proposed project and they have
no objection to recording of the map.
41. Subdivider shall install main and service lines capable
of delivering reclaimed water to all portions of the
tract. The system shall be designed to permit "switch
10
over" of nondomestic services on each lot at time of
availability of reclaimed water, all to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
42. After the final map records, the Subdivider shall
submit to the Engineering Department, at no cost to the
City, a full size reproduciBVq cb3y-o6. khe recorded
map. Final approval of the public imprdleme&l will
not be given until the copy of the recorded map is
---received by the Engineering Department.
X1;9?hl ytr::\ ..-.....-.._._...•.-._all
C.\WP60\LINOAKAY\RESO-94\VTTM51169.722
11
edl jot
and is
OP.
- �011g
File reJ- we bland
l gi:�— 'eal for
nd is
cjw cletw
dbv
a
I