Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
8/8/1994
AI.L vil LF, kI%T I N ti 1 1 R!i Nam, 7:00 P.M. South. Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California •arr •�- • �r it • r - D, Wd Me Lya Plunk Bruce Hamenbaum Don Schad r r n Copies of staff reports or other. written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community Development Office, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior *to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or dein! in the Auditorium ,he City of Diamond Bar uses reeyded paper and encourages you to do the same. . CITY OF ' R PLANNING COMWSSION AGENDA August 8, 1994 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 Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntarv). _ There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from . the agenda by request of the Commission only 1. Minutes of July 11, 1994 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Adoption of the 1994 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 20 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 hearings 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 August 8, 1994 public hearing is to continue the Planning Commission's review of the Draft 1994 General Plan from August 1, 1994, commencing with the Housing Element, Circulation Element, and concluding with the Land Use Element. 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. PUBLIC HEARING: 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 93-3, Variance No. 93-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1, Negative Declaration No. 93-5. The applicants are requesting a one (1) year extension of time (pursuant to Code Section 22.56.140) to begin construction of the following previously approved (May 24, 1993) project: Variance No. 93-1 approved for construction of a series of retaining walls in excess of 6 feet with a maximum height of 12 feet on Lots 153 and 157. The retaining walls are utilized to create a buildable pad for a proposed tennis court and proposed driveway. Conditional Use Permit No. 93-3 approved pursuant to Hillside Management Ordinance (No. 7, 1992) for proposed grading activities on Lots 153, 154, 156, and 157. Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1 approved for the replacement of oak trees as a result of no grading and an illegal stockpile. Negative Declaration No. 93-5 approved pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project Location: "The Country Estates" within Tract No. 30091: 22909 Lazy Trail Road (Lot 153), 22840 Ridgeline Road (Lot 156), and 22820 Ridgeline Road (Lot 157) which are developed with single family residences; and 22927 Lazy Trail Road (Lot 154) which is undeveloped. 2• Applicants: Jake Williams, 22840 Ridgeline Rd., Diamond Bar, CA (Lot 156); Richard Miller, 22820 Ridgeline Rd., Diamond Bar CA (Lot 157): Scott Harris, 22909 Lazy Trail Rd., Diamond Bar, CA (Lot 153); A.C. Kaushal, 1245 Mahogony Ct., Diamond Bar, CA (Lot 154). PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: ADJOURNMENT: August 15, 1994 3 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 11, 1994 Mi. RA y CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL Present: chairman Meyer; Vice . chairwoman Plunk; Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Rob Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City Attorney- Michael Montgomery; Engineer Consultant Mike Myers; and Administrative Secretary Marilyn Ortiz VC/Plunk arrived at 7:07 p.m. C/Flamenbaum arrived at 7:15 p.m. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of June 13, 1994 CDD/DeStefano requested the minutes reflect his absence from the June 13 meeting. Moved by C/Schad, seconded by C/Fong and carried unanimously to adopt the minutes of June 13, 1994 as amended. NEW BUSINESS 2. Planned Sign Program No. 94-6 Request for approval of a sign program which includes two proposed wall signs on an office building located at 1350 Valley Vista Drive, Diamond Bar. Continued from June 27, 1994 public hearing. AstP/Lungu reported that the project site is located at Gateway Corporat ' e Center which is in the Commercial Manufacturing � Zone with a draft General Plan land use designation of *Professional office. The project site is surrounded by the Orange Freeway and the C -M Zone. Pursuant to the Sign Ordinance the maximum sign face area of a wall sign is 125 square feet for every linear foot of frontage not July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 2 to exceed 125 square feet per use. . A wall sign shall not exceed 80% of the building frontage. The maximum number of wall signs permitted is one per outer wall per use. As a special condition no permits shall be issued for wall sign at a multi=use building 'or commercial - center -in which more ore than one sign is proposed without the Planning Commission approval. The proposed project, is for two wall signs to comply with the sign code. The proposed signs are non -illuminated, approximately 10 feet in width and four feet in height, and each sign equals 40 square feet in sign face area. Both signs will be located on the easterly side of the buldinq facing Copley Drive. One will have a copy of 11QTC1! and the other will have a copy of "Baybrook". The propsoed Plan Sign Program complies with the City's Sign Ordinance. The applicant nees to obtain approval from Gateway Corporate Center. The Planned Sign Program does not require a public hearing. Staff recommends that the Planning commission approve the Planned Sign -Program No. 94-6, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Applicant/Glen from Deadline Signs stated there are multiple corporations within this facility and they wish to be able to identify both corporations. one is a subsidiary of the other. In response to Chair/Meyer, Glen replied there are no existing signs on this building and that he understands the recommended conditions of approval. Moved by C/Shad and seconded by C/Fong to approve Planned Sign Program - No. 94-5 with the Findings of Fact and conditions within the resolution. The motion carried 4-0 as follows: V.1VA_*F NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: PUBLIC HEARING: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, Chair/Meyer None None Flamenbaum VC/Plunk, 3. Appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 94-3 A request to appeal the decision of approval to construct a first and'second story addition of approximately 1,291 square feet, 1 car garage, 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, public hearing. July 11, 1994 Planning,commission Page 3 AstP/Lungu reported that on May 24, 1994 a public hearing was held for this project. After reviewing the staff report, visiting the sight and receiving testimony from the applicant property owner, Mr. and Mrs. Behdin, the Community Development Director approved this project with conditions as listed in Resolution 94-4 which is attached to the staff report. Pursuant to the Development Review Ordinance No. 5(1990), the decision of the Community Development Director shall be final and shall become effective within 10 calendar days after adoption of the resolution by the Director. On June 3, 1994 the City of Diamond Bar received a letter from the appellant, Mimi Chan, accompanied by neighbors' signatures, in opposition to this project. Mrs. Chan resides at 1253 Deerfield Place which is the adjacent property to the subject site and directly effected by this project. The appellant's main objectives are related to the side yard setback, privacy, and the altering of existing neighborhood characteristics. Staff revisited the site reviewing the appellant's objections. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood maintain original side yard setbacks -anywhere from nine (9) to 15 feet. one home has a side yard setback 'of six feet eight (6.8) inches. The adjacent neighbor has a side yard setback of 10 feet. However, the side yard setbacks are relating to the garages of the homes rather than to the habitable space. The habitable space setback is 15 feet. Another home has a five (5) foot side yard setback but their neighbor has a 20 foot sideyard setback. The appellant's property maintains a 12 foot side yard setback. The project site currently maintains a 16 foot side yard setback. The proposed addition for the project will maintain a five (5) foot side yard setback. This means a side yard setback reduction of 10 feet. These setback's relate to the distance between habitable space of each home. Since the addition reduces the side yard setback it'mayalso reduce the privacy of the appellant as well as for the homeowners project site. The original approval for this project requires that staff investigate the appropriateness of a master bedroom windoX4 that is proposed for the room addition. Staff determined that, although the room addition is not directly across from the appellant's window, it does offer the opportunity to look into the appellant's home. There is a down slope on the project site adjacent to the property line which is shared by the appellant. Staff feels that perhaps planting shrubs may be a mitigation measure that can offer more privacy to the appelant. 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 only a five (5) foot side yard setback may begin to change the ambience of the neighborhood and diminish July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 4 the feeling of openness. Staff recommends that the Planning commission sustain the Community Development Director's decision, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. In response,to C/Fongls question AstP/Lungu responded that the relative elevation of the subject sight and the appellant site is approximately five (5) feet. C/Shad asked whether vegetation would block the view of turning the corner. AstP/Lungu stated that The City's Parks Department is investigating whether the City or Los Angeles County is responsible for trimming the vegetation. Staff is still investigating the matter. There are several properties with similar situations. In response to VC/Plunk, AstP/Lungu indicated that the combined setbacks on the all other houses were not 20 feet or greater. The average sideyard setback for each house is 10 feet. Some are more. only one site has a -five (5) foot setback. The adjacent neighbor's sideyard setback.is 20 feet. Chair/Meyer stated that DBIA submitted a letter indicating they had reviewed the plans and determined that additional information was needed for further review. Chair/Meyer requested that the applicant come forward and address the Planning Commission followed by the individuals who are in opposition to the plan. Applicant/Behdin stated the difference in elevation between his property and that of the appellant is 5.8 feet ie: 5.8 feet lower than appellant's lot. The proposed addition will be a two story, matching the height of the two story that exists, and with thetwo story addition, the roof line will be approximately two (2) feet higher then the appellant's first story. The side of the appellant's house toward the applicant property is only one story. The second story starts on the opposite side so that the subject addition will be, only approximately two feet higher at the roof line. With respect to the vegetation along Longview Drive that C/Shad questioned, Applicant/Behdin provided documents showing easements to Los Angeles County for property maintenance. He did 'not bring the document with him because he has submitted same to Planning. The applicant objected to DBIA-Is 21 day time extension. The applicant presented a setback analysis of a 300 foot radius including photographs of homes represented in the analysis. He indicated a setback of 18 feet between structures on the applicant's property and the applicant's property, upon completion of the proposed addition, and compared it with all properties included in the analysis proving his contention that his addition would conform to the area contained in the July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 5 report. In addition, the applicant went outside the 300 foot radius to a 500 foot radius to pro * ve his theory that his property would be conforming with the completion of the addition. Applicant/ Behdin maintained that the existing five (5) foot wall between the two properties would block the view, not his proposed addition. Regarding privacy, the applicant maintains he has met all requirements of City Planning. Appellant/Mimi Chan, 1253 Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, the property next to the proposed structure, states she does not mind theneighborwanting to build an addition but she feels the proposed structures is too large for the lot and does not fit the characteristics of the neighborhood. -She says the applicant should maintain a larger setback from her property. She objected to the applicant cutting into the slope. She submitted photos of the neighborhood to the Planning commission. In response to C/Fong, Mrs. Chan stated that her dining room and formal guest room are next to the block wall between the properties. Mrs. Chan responded to C/Fohg clarifying that cement is on her property in the side yard next to the block wall between the properties. Mariann Hess, 1261 South Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar stated her concern about the stability of the hill and potential damage to her property. She further stated concern that the proposed addition would create a structure too large for the lot size. She expressed her main objective is to avoid a precedence stating that houses can be built so close together. She indicated she is not objecting to the addition, but to the size of the addition. She says she hopes the structure can be completed in a timely manner. RECESSED: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:12 p.m. RECONVENED: Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Dave Arcer6, 1297 Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, stated his opposition to this project saying the completed structure with the addition will overpower the other houses in the neighborhood. Kathy Arcero, 1297 Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, says her main concern is with the size of the structure and that it will be too big for the neighborhood and the neighborhood will lose its airy feeling. In response to Dave and Kathy Arcero, Chair/Meyer indicated that if a building addition does not exceed 500 of the floor July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 6 area of an existing structure there is no need to notify the neighbors. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, stated ted he does not - live in the area of the 'project and has not seen the plans, but is opposed to the project in principal. In response to Chair/Meyer's request for rebuttal testimony, Applicant/Behdin stated that he had presented all of the information to the Planning Commission for decision. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer closed the Public Hearing and returned the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration. VC/Plunk indicated she feels the aesthetics are good and she does not find the house to -be oversized for the neighborhood. She does have concerns about how close the addition will be to Mrs. Chan's property and would like ,to see a side yard setback of eight (8) feet instead of five (5) feet for a total of 20 feet between the two 'structures. She indicated the window should either be removed from the planned addition or not aligned with the neighbors windows. Responding to C/Fong, AstP/Lungu indicated there would be approximately 17 feet separating habitable space between the two structures. She said the majority of the structures in the area have more space between them, and some have less. In response to C/Fong, Chair Meyer indicated that the technical aspects of a retaining wall are outside the scope of the Planning Commission. VC/Plunk requested a recommended language for a condition regarding the retaining wall. AstP/Lunguls responded that the language is in the resolution which states that the applicant shall comply with all Planning and Zoning, Engineering, Building and Safety requirements. C/Shad indicated his concerns with the retaining wall, the footings and the already knitted soil. In addition, he is concerned whether the air conditioning is adequate to handle the addition. If an additional unit is required, where will it be placed and is the electrical capacity of the present service sufficient. He stated he believes the window should be eliminated. Chair/Meyer stated that although he does not agree with the magnitude of the addition, the applicant has complied with all regulations and should be granted approval. In response to VC/Plunk, CA/Montgomery stated that with regard to property rights the Planning Commission may decide this July 11, 1994, Planning commission Page 7 case either way, depending upon their finding of whether or not the proposed addition is in conformity with the existing neighborhood. He cited a case that allowed denial of an application to be upheld. The court found that it was in the Planning Commission's purview to determine whether * or not the harmonious design and aesthetics of the neighborhood require that the application be denied. In this case, it was a neighborhood of single family residences. A second story was proposed* that would have overwhelmed the yards of the surrounding neighbors and given them a view directly down into the pools and rooms of the other houses. He further stated, the finding will not be disturbed in court unless it is arbitrary or capricious. Responding to Chair/Meyer's request for motion, CA/Montgomery indicated that before a vote could be taken by the Planning Commission, it should be noted for the record, that' because Mr. Flamenbaum apparently lives within 300 feet of the application of the opposition, he has not participated in these proceedings in any way and has abstained from making a decision. Moved by VC/Plunk, seconded. by C/Fong and carried unanimously to adopt the Resolution denying the Appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 94-3. AYES:. COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Vice Chairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Shad ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING: 4. Parcel Map No. 22102 Chair/Meyer stated that the Parcel Map No. 22102 is a request to sub-divide.4.39 acres of property on valley Vista and that the applicant and staff are recommending that this item be continued to the July 25, 1994, meeting. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. There being no one wishing to speak, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. Moved by C/Shad and seconded by VC/Plunk, and carried unanimously, to continue the item to the July 25, 1994, meeting. Chair Meyer noted for the record that C/Flamenbaum has again taken his seat on the Planning Commission. July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 8 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum, Fong,. Schad, ViceChairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN -: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PUBLIC HEARING: S. 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. Chair/Meyer stated that the applicant and the staff recommend that this item be continued to the July 25 meeting. Chair/M,eyer declared the Public Hearing open. Lex Williman,Planning Director for Hunsak6r and Associates, 10179 Huennekens, San Diego is requesting a continuance in order to work out the final conditions of the approval for the July 25, 1994, hearing. In response to Chair/Meyer, Lex! Will iman agreed to waiving of rights. There being no additional testimony, Chair/Meyer closed the Public Hearing. Responding 'to C/Flamenbaum, AP/Searcy stated that the application will be ready for the July 25, 1994, hearing, the concurrence as related to the General Plan processing and having adequate time to review the document and its importance. The reason for the requested continuance is so that the Planning Commission may concentrate on the General Plan and the applicant has concurred with the request and submitted a letter to that effect. The Planning Commission voted on the motion made by C/Shad and seconded by VC/Plunk to continue the public hearing to July 25, 1994. The motion carried 4-1 with the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, V/Chairman Plunk and Chairman Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: chair Meyer recessed the meeting at 9:05 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair Meyer reconvened the meeting at 9:18 p.m. July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 9 6. Adoption of the General Plan. Chair/Meyer stated that the General Plan for 1994 has been under consideration by the General Plan Advisory Commission (GPAC). They have made recommendations and presented them to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. Chair/Meyer asked for consensus from the Planning Commission of a schedule of events and suggested meeting on Saturday, July 16, 1994 at 10:00 a.m. at Heritage Park for a !'shirt- sleeve" session. Responding to VC/Plunk's question regarding a joint meeting with City Council, Chair/Meyer replied that the Planning Commission had expressed opposition and further wished to avoid a joint public hearing. VC/ Plunk asked how staff could get . the Traffic and Transportation meeting minutes from Thursday, July 14, 1994 to the members of the Planning Commission for review prior to the Saturday meeting. Chair/Meyer stated that it is his understanding that there has been no direction by City Council that the Traffic and Transportation Commission had to review the General Plan. Following a discussion among the Planning Commission members regarding future meeting dates, Chair/Meyer indicated it was the general consensus of the Commission that the meetings be scheduled for July 16 and July 25, 1994 reiterating that July 25 is ,a regular Planning Commission scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at AQMD. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Chair/Meyer agreed that the General Plan will be the f irst item on the agenda as a continued Public Hearing. In response to Chair/Meyer's request, CDD/DeStefano provided the staff report to consider adoption of the 1994 General Plan. The General Plan is a'statement of our aspirations in the form of goals, policies and implementation programs that guide the long range physical development of the community. In January,. 1994 the City Council created a 38 person GPAC to develop the 1994 General Plan. GPAC utilized, pursuant to the Council's direction, the rescinded 1993 General Plan as its discussion draft. GPAC reviewed each element over a. six months period from January 11 through June 30, 1994, to review the document. GPAC made some significant changes to the previous plan. The General Plan is required by California State law. There are 'seven elements of a general plan. Collectively, they serve to identify Land Use, Circulation, Environmental, Fiscal July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 10 and Social goals and policies for the city or for the planning area incorporating our sphere of influence. It provides a framework for which the Commission and Council can make land use decisions and - from which the citizens can ''not only participate in that decision making process, . but also participate in the framework from which those decisions will ultimately be made. It is specifically designed to inform the citizenry, the developers and the decision makers as to the city's plans for its future and how it envisions,deVelopment within its borders or its sphere of influence. Our element incorporates the seven state mandated elements into six sections: the Land Use Element; the Housing Element; the Resource Management Element, where we have combined the Open Space and Conservation Elements; the Public Health and Safety Element, where we have combined the State mandated Noise and Safety Elements. We also have.a Circulation Element. State law allows us the ability to create optional elements. We have chosen to create a Public Services and Facilities Element. The draft 1994 General Plan is before the Planning Commission for the beginning of this public review process. A Master Environmental Assessment (MEA) was prepared in 1991 and 1992 providing a technical base line and environment data which was used for the preparation of that draft General Plan. The information provides a foundation for the policy plan and for the further environmental analysis. The MEA is a resource tool. It is not intended to be City policy. It is a document that should be regularly updated with,for example, the previously changes in census statistical data. A certified and adopted Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains all of the environmental documentation for the General Plan as required by State law. It includes detailed analysis of the various impacts of ultimately developing Diamond Bar and outlines several alternatives dealing with land -use densities and intensities. It detailed the impacts and created a mitigation plan and monitoring program for the alternatives considered within that document. It also contains all of the technical appendices related to the noise studies, air quality studies, etc. The environmental considerations within the 1994 General Plan were covered within the EIR. Therefore, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines of the State, we will be presenting an addendum for Commission consideration. The highlighted areas within the document are ' GPACIS additions. The strike -outs within the document are GPAC's deletions, and the underlines within the document are changes that were added by our consultant as a result of GPACI's direction. The document that is before the Commission at this time requires corrections and additions. Some changes, hanges, that GPAC motioned approval for have not made it into the document as a July 11, 1904 —_ Planning Commission Page 11 result of the last two meetings that GPAC held because the minutes were not yet available for those meetings. So we plan to bring to the Planning commission and the public and of course all of the members who participated in this process, an errata document that outlines the specific changes that are not yet in the document before the Planning commission. The majority of those are minor but they are necessary in terms of faithfully recording GPAC's activity. In order to advertise the GPAC proces's we advertise through the use of the local newspapers by purchasing classified ads, as well as display ads, to try to solicit public involvement in the process. We also use the Windmill providing monthly inserts to solicit input incorporating citizen interest in the development of this plan. We would recommend that you determine a process for review element by element; issue by issue; and with that we can focus on each of the elements and provide a brief overview for you for each element. State law establishes a, requirement that the General Plan must pass several legal and policy tests in order to be adequate. We have outlined for the Planning Commission what some of those might be in terms of questions for the Planning commission. First of all, is the General Plan 'complete? is it comprehensive in the long-term? Is it internally consistent? Is it informational? Is it easy to read? Is it easy to understand? And can it be implemented? The public hearing notice for this meeting was provided via City On -Line and City newspapers. We have regularly distributed, to approximately 300 persons and organizations, General Plan materials that have been provided to not only the GPAC, but to members of that list, the Planning commission, the City Council, etc. We provided to the Planning Commission, last week, a copy of the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, and Resource Management Elements for review. On Friday, we provided a copy of the final complete document from our consultants. We have also provided additional copies of the Master Environmental Assessment and the Environmental Impact report, and all of the GPAC meeting minutes up to June 23,.1994. We also presented 1 to the Planning Commission all of the information that was presented to the City staff either prior to a GPAC meeting or at a GPAC meeting. We have distributed that to you so that you can see what some of those. issues were in terms of those that were discussed and deliberated upon and those that were not discussed. Within this packet of information we have given you some guidelines presented by the State of California on the Land Use, Housing, and Circulation Elements. We will be providing other guidelines to you in future meetings. CDD/DeStefano addressed VC/Plunk's concern that staff could either provide a document to the public that does not faithfully record all of GPAC's decisions and make that fact July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 12 know or provide the errata sheet's in order to get the information to the Planning Commission. I CDD/DeStefano indicated in response to C/Flamenbaum"s question that GPAC meetings have come to an end unless the Council might require additional meetings of GPAC and further indicated there are no additional meetings scheduled for GPAC at this time. In response to C/Flamenbaumts concern CDD/DeStefano responded that GPAC has not reviewed and approved the final document prior to the distribution of the document to the Planning commission. CDD/DeStefano reported in response to C/Shad's inquiry -that the Planning Commission has received every element of the General Plan. He indicated the errata would be delivered in written form on Thursday, July 14, 1994. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. Former GPAC member, Robert Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow Drive, Diamond Bar stated that in reviewing the document he found the flavor to be very different from what was originally intended. He encouraged the Planning Commission -to take time and give the plan careful consideration. Mr. Huff pointed out that in the beginning of the process he viewed the intent of GPAC as promoting limited growth. Toward the end of the process the intent seemed to shift to more that of no growth. Mr. Huff indicated that he feels the document needs wisdom and legal counsel. Specifically referring to the first sentence of the vision statement on page 1, Mr. Huff recited, "It is a primary goal of the City of Diamond Bar to maintain a rural and country living environment". He further indicated that the City cannot maintain something that it does not have. He suggested that although this first sentence may be inappropriate, the balance of the vision statement reads well. Mr. Huff further stated that in its zeal to save land, GPAC incorporated a lot of restrictive language throughout the document which may defeat the very purpose of what the committee was trying to achieve. In response to C/Flamenbaum, Mr. Huff indicated that he would provide the Commission with suggested language. In addressing the Commission, Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind, Diamond Bar offered, in writing, suggested recommendations and changes to the General Plan. Mr. Smith stated that he felt the General Plan should clearly spell out how the City functions and the relationship between the City of Diamond Bar and the gated community known as "The Country". July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 13 On page 1-20 of the General Plan of the Land Use Element, Mr. Smith suggests adding a strategy to talk about developers, developments and the addition of play areas for children. C/Flamenbaum asked Mr. Smith for clarification of his proposal submitted under Strategy 2.2.1 requesting that Realtors submit changes in ethnological trends to potential buyers and why he picked that term versus race, sex, etc. Mr. Smith responded the subject was racial discrimination and that the Housing Element would be the appropriate place- for this item, reiterating that the statements contained in the document are weak and meaningless and because they make no attempt to identify where racial discrimination exists. Dr. Lawrence Rhodes, P.O. Box 2258, Walnut, -CA 91788 apologized to the committee indicating that he was not prepared to attend the hearing as he had received the General Plan that afternoon and did not have a chance to go through it. He indicated that in doing some research on Sandstone Canyon he could not locate a recording of an EIR in the county and he is concerned that *there needs to be language addressing endangered species in the General Plan. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Drive, Diamond Bar indicated that he had delivered written comments on four of the elements and partial comments on the Land Use Element to the members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Neely urged the Commission to take the time necessary to review the document. He pointed to his 35 page written document as containing. comments which could be studied by the Commission emphasizing the organizational structure of the document and offering, specifically, a reorganization of the document beginning with the introduction. Mr. Neely stated that he felt the organizational structure of the General Plan is incoherent and should be changed to the following order: Introduction; Resource Management Element; Public Services and Facilities Element; Public Health and Safety Element; Housing Element; Circulation Element; Land Use Element; (and finally, ending with) Land Use Map. Mr. Neely indicated that by taking action on each of the individual elements in this order the Planning commission may find that there is a synergistic effect, as each of them build on the other. By the time the Commission gets to the Land Use Element, the understanding of this element ought to be considerably clearer. He cited an example of requirements for low and low to moderate income housing in the Housing Element that would require setting aside some land. That being the case, as indicated by State mandate, Mr. Neely added that this should be discussed before getting to the Land Use Element. In addition, he stated that he believed that the Commission would have to deal with the Circulation Element prior to dealing with the Land Use Element. In addition, he stated the July 11, 1994 Planning Commission Page 14 Commission may find certain strategies listed in the other elements, be it Resource Management or Public Services and Facilities that might limit the opportunities for further development prior to getting to the Land Use Element. In summary, Mr. Neely suggested that each item be considered in the order he has indicated. Manny Nunes, 9731 Royal Palm Boulevard, Garden Grove, planner for property owners who own Tract No. 46485 in the back country of "The Country Estates" stated that in connection with a' letter signed by Mr. Christopher Lee which was delivered to the Planning Committee, he would summarize the concerns of the property owners for the purpose of the Planning Commission gathering information. Mr. Nunes stated the group is concerned that any additional slope classifications would place an additional burden on their project since they have had a map into the City for three and one-half years, during which time they have met all City guidelines and have conformed with evolving City policies. The group maintains that R-1-40,000 zoning standard and existing environmental concerns would very amply protect the community interest. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, Diamond Bar, handed the Planning commission three sections of the Walnut General Plan indicating he believed the language in that plan could be used by the Planning Commission as a blue print for the General Plan. Mr. Maxwell indicated there had been several attempts to get the General Plan on 'the ballot. He asked staff if all maps, tables have been completed. in response to Chair/Meyer, Mr. Maxwell provided a summary list of his comments to the Planning Commission. C/Flamenbaum, responding to Richard L. Callard, 24105 Palomino Drive, Diamond Bar, cited a* motion by Mr. Max Maxwell and seconded by Jan Dabney on March 22, 1994 that objective 1.7 on page 1-18 of the Land Use Element be deleted from the General Plan. Mr. Callard stated that he believes this item should be returned to the General Plan. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, Diamond Bar, thanked the Planning Commission for taking the necessary time to complete deliberations with respect to the General Plan. She stated that, in her estimation, GPAC sought a democratic process and made a genuine effort to listen to the desires of the public and incorporate their wishes. She indicated her willingness to attend -additional meetings of GPAC but felt that they had contributed all they could. July 11, 1994 Planning commission Page 15 Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. CDD/DeStef ano recommended that the public hearing be closed for the evening and continue the item to Saturday, 10:00 a.m. wherein the intent would be to reopen the hearing to the public for further input and deliberation. He further recommended that the meeting be continued to the Heritage Park Community Center.. Attorney/ Montgomery recommended that the. Commission use the term recess in place of close. Following a brief discussion by the. Commission members, CDD/DeStefano summarized the proposed order of agenda topics for review of the General Plan on Saturday, July 16, 1994, meeting as follows: 1) Resource Management; 2) Public Services and Facilities; 3) Public Health and Safety; 4) Housing; .5) Certification; 6) Land Use. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None, INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None Moved by C/Fong, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:42 p.m. to Saturday, July 16, 1994, at 10:00 a.m. at Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 Brea Canyon Road. Respectfully, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: David Meyer chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman and Planning commissioners i James DeStefano, Community Development Director FROM: Marilyn Ortiz, Administrative Secretary SUBJECT: Planning Commission revisions to the Public Health & Safety and Housing Elements of the Draft General Plan DATE: August 2, 1994 Attached please find a complete, corrected set of the Planning Commission revisions to the Public Health & Safety Element. The sheets previously supplied to you still had the words "July 13 Errata" carried over from the GPAC version. Also enclosed are the revisions to the Housing Element from the August 1st meeting. \mco cc: City Council Terrence Belanger Michael Montgomery GPAC members Rob Searcy Ann Lungu 7. Air Quality The entire south coast air basin, within which Diamond Bar is located, suffers from some of the worst air quality in the nation. Pollutants are not only generated locally within the east San Gabriel Valley, but are also transported downwind from the Los Angeles basin. The primary pollutants of concern are ozone (oxidants) and nitrogen dioxide, which are mostly generated by vehicular exhaust. The number of first stage smog alerts has decreased dramatically from the early part of the decade. However, local ozone levels have still exceeded state standards on over 100 days during each of the past three years. Local topography, climate, wind, and air movement patterns tend to concentrate air pollutants along the freeway corridors and especially in the Diamond Bar area. Several local intersections, including Grand Avenue/Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue/Golden Springs Drive, experience significantly elevated levels of air pollutants during peak driving hours. 8. Noise The City of Diamond Bar is relatively quiet except for noise corridors created by traffic on major roadways and freeways. Noise is typically measured in decibels on the A -weighted scale db(A) which most closely resembles the range of human hearing. Community noise levels are often measured on the Community Noise rrnmTr �S !A\ !'l�T.iCTTICDT;11 T(1 RR T17R Tt.TD T: QT]l1T Tl G'!lD TTDRATJ__A t�Til Equivalent Level (CNEL) scale., CTiRTiDRATi T AT.TT1 DT ATTMTTi!` AUT1 !`lIT RDA TTRTT TTV \IlRTT.I DT:CTTIT: ATTi AT TTCRC- `kr`olt��pa��z�tia��a���s ttnace .tll�::::tn;=atS>:: .t?Stl:<U::rsx:a11::e;C'i Noise levels have been estimated along major roadways within Diamond Bar based on traffic volumes and the physical configuration of streets. The combined 57/60 freeway corridor generates the most noise, producing a 65 CNEL contour onto adjacent land uses approximately 1,379 feet wide. The 57 Freeway by itself, north of the 60 Freeway, has a much smaller 65 CNEL corridor of only 759 feet.. However, the 60 Freeway alone, both east and west of the 57 Freeway, generates a 65 CNEL noise corridor 1,015 feet wide. These figures mean that daily outdoor noise levels in areas adjacent or proximate to the local freeways reach or exceed acceptable planning noise standards. There are several major local roadways that generate (maximum) 65 CNEL levels beyond the right-of-way. These include Brea Canyon Road (144'), Golden Springs Drive (w/o Brea Canyon Rd.) (125'), Diamond Bar Boulevard (121'), Grand Avenue (107'), Pathfinder Road (89'), Lemon Avenue (78'), Golden Springs Drive (77'), and Sunset Crossing (35'). Other major. sources of local noise are the railroad lines along the western boundary of the City and infrequent urban sources (dogs barking, airplane overflights). C. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES 1. Geology and Seismicity Because of the high seismic and diverse geological conditions, there are moderate to. high geological constraints for development in Diamond Bar, especially in hillside areas. ISSUE ANALYSIS: The City needs policies to protect existing and future residents from local geologic and seismic -related the=ems. hazards. 2. Flooding There are no major identified threats from flooding within the City. However, there is no schedule at present for the remaining improvements needed to complete the local drainage and flood control network. In addition, the existing planned improvements are based on County plans for the area, and may not reflect current projects or timing on the development of open land. Diamond gar enerPlan Public Health and Safety ement August 1, 1994 Planning Commisison Revisions IV -4 1.6.2 Investigate the need and feasibility of locating a major medical facility within the City of Diamond Bar. Objective 1.7maintain Implement efective emergency preparedness and response programs. Strategies: 1.7.1 Coordinate the City's disaster preparedness plans with the State Office of Emergency Management, County, schools, and other neighboring jurisdictions, and participate in the development of a regional system to respond to daily emergencies and major catastrophes. 1.7.2 The City's disaster plan shall integrate community resources into municipal emergency management, including a list of local resources such as personnel, equipment, material, specialized medical and other training, and auxiliary communications. 1.7.3 Provide areawide mutual aid agreements and communication links with adjacent governmental authorities and other participating jurisdictions. 1.7.4 Disseminate public information regarding actions which residents and businesses should take to minimize damage in a natural disaster, as well as actions which would be taken to facilitate recovery from a natural disaster. Objective 1.8 Protect life and property from the potential detrimental effects (short and long term) of the transportation, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous materials, and wastes in the City. Strategies: 1.8.1 Pursue establishment of a-regu A?QiR,'t?i citywide program of household hazardous waste collection according to the provisions of Section 41500 of the Public Resources Code (see also the solid waste section of the Plan for Resource Management for additional policies). 1.8.2 Coordinate emergency response personnel to respond to hazardous materials incidents. 1.8.3 Require development to meet the requirements of the County's urban stormwater discharge permit. Objective 1.9 The City should seek to improve local and regional air quality by encouraging ride -sharing, use of public transit, and other transportation demand management techniques. . Strategies: 1.9.1 Promote the provision of non-polluting transportation alternatives such as a citywide system of bikeways and pedestrian sidewalks. MiamonU Ear CenerM Plan "WNSW MiN an 97ety ement August 1, 1994 Planning Commisison Revisions IV -9 1.9.2 Work with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to establish a program of District review and comment on major proposed development, projects within the City. 1.9.3 Implement the provisions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan; review projects for consistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan. 1.9.4 Include trip reduction requirements consistent with SCAQMD Regulation XV and the requirements of the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan in the development code with the goal of reducing home -to -work trips by facilitating and participating in the following programs: Incorporate design measures into new development and, where feasible, into existing developments proposed for intensification, including preferential parking areas for car and van pools, employee drop off areas, secure bicycle parking areas, bus turnout areas, etc. Disseminate information to Diamond Bar residents regarding the advantages of, and procedures involved in, ride sharing and public transit. 1.9.5 Ensure that site designs facilitate rather than discourage pedestrian movement between nearby uses. 1.9.6 Require grading plans to include appropriate and feasible measures to minimize fugitive dust. 1.9.7 The City will cooperate with the South Coast Air Quality Management District to be a "test facility" or a laboratory for testing new air pollution control programs where such programs can be safely conducted at no expense to the City or its residents. 1.9.8 The City will offer to local governmental agencies, educational institutions, and businesses the opportunity to test new technologies and/or programs designed to reduce air pollution, either directly or indirectly. Objective 1.10 Consider noise issues in land use planning and development permit processing to require that noise generated by one use or facility does not adversely affect adjacent uses or facilities. Strategies: 1.10.1 Within identified 65 dB CNEL noise contours, require that site-specific noise studies be prepared to verify site-specific noise conditions and to ensure that noise considerations are included in project review. 1. 10.2 Within identified 65dB CNEL noise corridors, ensure that necessary reduction measures are applied to meet adopted interior and exterior noise standards. Diamond Ear Mneral Plan Public 1Tenl_Mh_a'_n'dJT5afety Element August 1, 1994 Planning Commisison Revisions IV -10 M . • • • • ■ ■ fY ■ ■ • _ _ amir IN _ /_ _ _ • ! ! • ! 1 •_ 1 I! • If 1 • r • Diamond Ear Mneral Plan Public 1Tenl_Mh_a'_n'dJT5afety Element August 1, 1994 Planning Commisison Revisions IV -10 ... �: r .....:::.;. Natural noise barriers, such as hillsides, shall not be modified or removed without evaluating noise impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods. 1.10.5 .3 Through the CEQA process, analyze new projects which might have a significant impact on noise sensitive uses (projects are defined as actions having the potential to unreasonably increase projected CNEL noise levels). Require ezYtizi tkt izi�trxcal mitigation measures to ensure that adopted noise standards within sensitive land use areas are not exceeded as the result of the proposed project. tgatan 1.10.6 1 0.4 As part of the Development Code, adopt noise -related development standards. 1,10.7 1.18.5 Where possible, encourage reduction of existing noise problems within existing development where adopted noise standards are being reached or exceeded. 1.10.8 1 10 6 As part of future General Plan review, detefffline whether-"` ' "` way and ffeewa tfaffie levels have ineiFeased; - . - ....................I................. 1.10.9 1.10.7 Apply mitigation measures as needed to noise generators and receptors to ensure that adopted noise standards are met and to protect land uses from excessive noise impacts. I 1:1axse standards New development should not exceed the standards outlet ..._ ...--.--.:....... .......... — _ within Table IV -1. I_f new construction doesrow a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insultation features included in design. M on Bar eneral Plan Public Health and Safety Element August 1, 1994 Planning Commisison Revisions IV -11 Table IV -1 Noise Standards Based on a weighted average noise level measured over a 24 hour period. Diamond Bar ener an PubliC Healt5 an.ety ement August 1, 1994 Planning Commisison Revisions )IV-IZ Exterior Maximum I: CNEL Exterior.-' Maximum Land:arse Objective. CNEV Interior CNEL'„ Rural, Single Family, Multiple Family Residential 55 dBA 65 dBA 40 dBA Schools: Classrooms 55 dBA 65 dBA &AB.A, Playgrounds 60 dBA 70 dBA - Libraries -- -- 40 dBA Hospitals/Convalescent Facilities: Living Areas -- -- 45 dB.A Sleeping Areas Recreation: Quiet, Passive Areas 55 dBA 65 dBA 40 dBA Noisy, Active Areas p$A' 70 dBA -- Commercial and Industrial 65 dBA 70 dBA -- Office Areas -- 45 :dBA:;: Commercial and Industrial 65 dBA.: 70-80 dBa .. 45 dBA Office Areas Freeway Adiacent Based on a weighted average noise level measured over a 24 hour period. Diamond Bar ener an PubliC Healt5 an.ety ement August 1, 1994 Planning Commisison Revisions )IV-IZ as communities which received draft RHNA figures from SCAG to review these figures to ensure consistency with growth projections assumptions regarding land which is suitable for development. Local housing elements generally use population and housing data based either on the regular decennial federal census, or on updated figures from SCAG or other regional planning groups'(such as Los Angeles County). The City's 1989 Housing Element was prepared prior to release of most of the 1990 census data for the City. As part of this current {199}1( 994) revision to the Element, 1990 census data has been incorporated where relevant. After adoption of the General Plan by the City Council, a revised Housing Element will be required by (199 4) 1996. The 1996 Housing Element will be able to utilize the entire 1990 census and RHNA data for Diamond Bar, and will be able to monitor progress towards achieving the established five-year goals, policies, and programs to determine how well they have met the housing needs of the community. In addition, A mAjg 1 three separate pieces of reform legislation are currently being proposed which would drastically modify the content and review process of the Housing Element. If any of these bills becomes law, the next Housing Element will need to be substantially. revised to conform to its requirements. The Housing Element is organized to present information according to the following four principal topics, as outlined in the state housing element guidelines: • Housing Needs Assessment ® Inventory of Resources and Constraints • Statement of Goals, Objectives and Policies • Five -Year Housing Plan Elected officials appointed a 30 -person General Plan Advisory Committee to identify housing issues in the City as part of the first General Plan. This committee met on a regular basis for over two and one-half years. All committee meetings were open to the public, and representatives were selected based on their interests or knowledge on particular local issues, including housing. In addition, the Land Use and Housing Elements underwent various workshops and hearings, including presentations on housing data and goals, policies, and objectives for housing within Diamond Bar. As part of the 1994 revision to the General Plan, the Housing Element was reviewed by a new 36 38 member GPAC and underwent additional refinements based on this group's direction. C. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT The Housing Needs Assessment encompasses the following factors: Analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. Such existing and projected needs include the locality's share of the regional housing need. (Section 65583(a)(1) of the Government Code). Damon Bar eneral Plan Housing Element August 1, 1994 Planning Commission Revisions II -2 Table H-1 Diamond Bar Housing Stock 1993 Source: California Department of Finance 1993. Unincorporated area- January 1, 1993. 2,667 single-family attached and 2,324 multi -family units. C. Housing Conditions/Substandard Units The term "condition" refers to the physical quality of the housing stock.. The quality of individual housing units or structures may be defined as either sound, deteriorating or dilapidated. Sound housing is defined as a structure with no major deficiencies, although the structure may require minor maintenance, painting, and general clean-up. A deteriorated structure is one that contains several deficiencies such as patched, loose, or missing roofing material, missing or broken windows, wood trim or siding worn, weathered or broken, paint cracking or peeling, loose or worn wiring, etc. Lastly, dilapidated structures contain one or more major structural deficiencies such as loose protective surface (brick, plaster, wood, siding, etc.), settled porch or roof, weakened structure or inadequate foundation, obvious deviation from plumbing, extensive damage due to fire, etc. The term housing "improvements" refer to the "remedial" actions necessary to correct defects in the housing condition such as demolition, minor repairs, major repairs, and rehabilitation. Diamond Bar's housing stock is considerably younger than most of the County, with all of its housing being built after 1960. By comparison, the Los Angeles County General Plan (Housing Element 1987) indicates that 11.5 percent of units in unincorporated areas were built prior to 1940, and 52.6 percent were built prior to 1960. Both the City's Code Enforcement Officer and the Building Official indicate that Diamond Bar has rte very few units that are considered substandard and all are suitable for rehabilitation. There is no Census data on substandard units and units in need of rehabilitation or replacement. However, the Census documents that of the 763 vacant housing units in the City, only 3, or less than half of one percent, were boarded up. d. Regional Housing Needs State law requires jurisdictions to provide for their share of regional housing needs. Normally, as part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), SCAG determines the five year housing growth needs by income category for cities within its jurisdiction. Future housing needs reflect the number of new units needed in a jurisdiction based on households which are expected to reside within the jurisdiction ( future demand), plus an adequate supply of vacant housing to assure mobility and new units to replace losses. However, because Diamond Bar had not yet incorporated at the last time the estimates were prepared in 1988, the RHNA did not provide the 1989-1994 estimates for the corporate boundaries of Diamond Bar. In addition, due to a suspension in State funding, the current housing element cycle is being extended two years, and SCAG will not be developing the new 199n94 1999 1996-2000 RHNA until sometime in 1994 o 1995. Diamond Bar eneral Plan Housing Flernent August 1, 1994 Planning Commission Revisions II -4 SX: County Percent . City of Count ' y Diamond Bar' City Percent Single Family 218,876 76.2% 12,554 70.5% Multi -Family 57,370 20.0% 4,9911�1 28.0% Mobile Homes 10,968 3.8% 268 1.5% TOTAL 287,214 100.0% 17,813 100 Source: California Department of Finance 1993. Unincorporated area- January 1, 1993. 2,667 single-family attached and 2,324 multi -family units. C. Housing Conditions/Substandard Units The term "condition" refers to the physical quality of the housing stock.. The quality of individual housing units or structures may be defined as either sound, deteriorating or dilapidated. Sound housing is defined as a structure with no major deficiencies, although the structure may require minor maintenance, painting, and general clean-up. A deteriorated structure is one that contains several deficiencies such as patched, loose, or missing roofing material, missing or broken windows, wood trim or siding worn, weathered or broken, paint cracking or peeling, loose or worn wiring, etc. Lastly, dilapidated structures contain one or more major structural deficiencies such as loose protective surface (brick, plaster, wood, siding, etc.), settled porch or roof, weakened structure or inadequate foundation, obvious deviation from plumbing, extensive damage due to fire, etc. The term housing "improvements" refer to the "remedial" actions necessary to correct defects in the housing condition such as demolition, minor repairs, major repairs, and rehabilitation. Diamond Bar's housing stock is considerably younger than most of the County, with all of its housing being built after 1960. By comparison, the Los Angeles County General Plan (Housing Element 1987) indicates that 11.5 percent of units in unincorporated areas were built prior to 1940, and 52.6 percent were built prior to 1960. Both the City's Code Enforcement Officer and the Building Official indicate that Diamond Bar has rte very few units that are considered substandard and all are suitable for rehabilitation. There is no Census data on substandard units and units in need of rehabilitation or replacement. However, the Census documents that of the 763 vacant housing units in the City, only 3, or less than half of one percent, were boarded up. d. Regional Housing Needs State law requires jurisdictions to provide for their share of regional housing needs. Normally, as part of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), SCAG determines the five year housing growth needs by income category for cities within its jurisdiction. Future housing needs reflect the number of new units needed in a jurisdiction based on households which are expected to reside within the jurisdiction ( future demand), plus an adequate supply of vacant housing to assure mobility and new units to replace losses. However, because Diamond Bar had not yet incorporated at the last time the estimates were prepared in 1988, the RHNA did not provide the 1989-1994 estimates for the corporate boundaries of Diamond Bar. In addition, due to a suspension in State funding, the current housing element cycle is being extended two years, and SCAG will not be developing the new 199n94 1999 1996-2000 RHNA until sometime in 1994 o 1995. Diamond Bar eneral Plan Housing Flernent August 1, 1994 Planning Commission Revisions II -4 In the absence of an assignment of future housing needs by SCAG, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has provided the City with advisory figures for its share of regional housing needs. However, the City was not afforded the same review/appeal procedure provided to cities as part of the RHNA process to ensure consistency with local growth projections and to reflect the presence of constraints to development. While the City can demonstrate adequate' sites to fulfill its regional housing needs as defined by the State, the. income distribution reflects that of Los Angeles County, and does not adjust for the City's income profile where less than 20 percent of households are low or very low income (source: CHAS Databook). In addition, the rate of growth has been well below that predicted by the State. Given these shortcomings, the RHNA developed by the State does not realistically reflect Diamond Bar's actual future housing needs. However, given the absence of other regional needs figures from SCAG which can serve for this Housing Element cycle, the City has chosen to adopt the State's figures as its quantified objective for new construction and can demonstrate adequate sites to meet these needs. According to the State, housing to accommodate 781 households would need to be added to the City's June 30, 1989 total households by July 1994 to fulfill the City's share of regional housing needs. (With the extension of the Housing Element Cycle two additional years Diamond Bar will have until July 1996 to fulfill its regional share of housing needs.) Based on the distribution of regional income, the State has further divided these needs among the following four income groups: City of Diamond Bar 1989-1994 Household Needs by Income Group Housing Need in Diamond Bar (by income level) Source: State Department of Housing and Community Developments 1994 HUD Income Limits. 2. Household Characteristics An important factor in determining existing housing need is the affordability of housing. One measure of housing affordability is the percentage of a household's gross income needed to meet monthly mortgage payments. A criterion used by the State, SCAG, and HUD to define affordable housing is that costs should not exceed 30 percent of gross income on housing (either owner -occupied or rental). According to the 1994 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Databook, a total of 1,649 of the City's lower Diamond"Ear Uener lan ousmg Element August 1, 1994 Planning Commission Revisions II -5 Units % Total;: Very Low 50 % G9. ineeme) 117 15% median (up to .$25,200) Low ineeme� 182 23% (50 80% Co. median ($25,260 - 39,900) Moderate ineeme) 144 19% (80 120% Ge. fnedian (39,900 - $60100) Upper 120% Co. ineem_9 338 43% (Over median ($60,500 arui above) TOTAL 1 781 100 Source: State Department of Housing and Community Developments 1994 HUD Income Limits. 2. Household Characteristics An important factor in determining existing housing need is the affordability of housing. One measure of housing affordability is the percentage of a household's gross income needed to meet monthly mortgage payments. A criterion used by the State, SCAG, and HUD to define affordable housing is that costs should not exceed 30 percent of gross income on housing (either owner -occupied or rental). According to the 1994 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Databook, a total of 1,649 of the City's lower Diamond"Ear Uener lan ousmg Element August 1, 1994 Planning Commission Revisions II -5 I • "An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites." • "Identification of adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, emergency shelters, and transitional housing in order to meet the community's housing goals." Table 1I-4 presents an inventory of land suitable for residential development, and Figure H-1 illustrates the location of potential residential sites. The City's Land Use Element provides for a total of 676 additional dwelling units ranging in density from rural residential at UP TO one unit per acre, to high density housing at up to 16 units per acre. The majority of remaining vacant properties in Diamond Bar are characterized by a variety of environmental constraints, including steep slopes, geotechnical hazards, and flood plains, or are not adequately served by infrastructure, and have been designated for lower density development. A total of 460 acres of land remain available for single-family development in Diamond Bar, supporting a total of 460 additional dwelling units. Several properties do remain in the City which are not ridden with development constraints, and are suitable for multi -family development. A total of 14 acres have been designated for Medium and High density residential, supporting a total of 180 multi -family dwelling units. Table H-4 Potential Residential Development (1) Permitted density based on slope, ranging from 1 to 2.75 acres per dwelling unit. An average of 2.5 acres per unit has been assumed for buildout. (2) Represents Specific Plan to be developed for 800 acre Tres Hermanos Parcel iamontar en;;an Housing 171ement August 1, 1994 Planning Commission Revisions 11-14 Units Land Use Category Vacant Land Developed Unit Totals Since 7/89 Acres DUs Rural Residential 340 1361 30 166 (0.0 -1.0 du/ac) Low Density Residential 120 360 50 410 (1.1 - 3.0 du/ac) _ Low -Medium Density Residential 0 0 0 0 (3.1 - 5.0 du/ac) Medium Density Residential 12 144 0 144 (5.1 - 12.0 du/ac) High Density Residential 2 36 60 96 (12.1 - 16.0 du/ac) Specific Plan 8001? (2) 03 0 0 TOTALS �4 676 140 816 1,274 679 (1) Permitted density based on slope, ranging from 1 to 2.75 acres per dwelling unit. An average of 2.5 acres per unit has been assumed for buildout. (2) Represents Specific Plan to be developed for 800 acre Tres Hermanos Parcel iamontar en;;an Housing 171ement August 1, 1994 Planning Commission Revisions 11-14 ortuni remaining in Diamond Bar exists on the g00 acre The most significant residential development me ration of a Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Herman' property. The Land Use Element calls for 1e a eel residential community on this site, an Tres Henn P and densities subject t preparation provides for a mix of housing typesof housing beyond that provided mechanism will allow for flexibility in development standards and clustering e of lower income housing zoning- It is intended that housing developed within s identified shay could be built at densities for through z g providing affordability for the City's higher than 16 units per acre, p re ared a concept plan for a mixed needs. The City of Industry owns the Tres Hermanos property, and has p uest. residential community on the site pursuant to Diamond Bar's req 1 residential development could yield an D WITH THE 140 UNITS ALREADY DEVELOPED DURING THIS PLANNING The land within the current City limits that is available or gene figure of VI- dwellings for the 1989 - 1994 additional � 679 units. COMBINE PERIOD, this potential supply exceeds the projected local need fig time period, based on the State's determination of the City's housing need. a. Residential Land Use Categories ntial types and densities through the The Diamond Bar Land Use Element provides for a range of reside following land use categories. Rural Residential (0.0 = 1.0 du/ac) ential r low density Areas designated for Rural Residential including hillside areas the t with a modest amountf open space. areas. These areas are appropriate for rural residential as ashown below: Dwelling units Per acre are dependent upon topography) Slope Classi_ fi� n Per WAcres Per Dwellin Unit 0-10% 1.25 1 -1.75 10-20% 1.75-2.25 20-30% 2.25-2-75 Greater than 30% Low Density Residential (1.1 - 3.0 du/ac) du/ac . In Diamond Bar, the development Density category limits land uses to single family detach3ed residential. The maximum density within The Low Den y Low Density areas is up to three dwelling units per gross acre rima residential structure is allowed subjectJiht were of second units and attached dwellings behind the primary lenient are permitted, even if provisions of the City s zoning ordinance. In addition, second units and attached dwellings, p prior to the effective date of this e constructed pursuant to valid permits issued p the resulting density of a site would be greater than 3 du/ac. Low -Medium Density Residential (3.1 - 5.0 dulac) t single family detached residential. The, Y limits land use to smaller to g per gross acre (5 du/ac). The Low -Medium Density categoryto dwelling units maximum density within Low-Medium second Density unites and s is alta hededwellings behind the primary residential In Diamond Bar, the development ordinance. In addition, second units and structure is allowed subject to the provisions of the City's zoning prior to the effective date of this Id be attached dwellings, which were constructed pursuant to valid permits greeaater than 5 du/ac. element are permitted, even if the resulting density of a site wou August 1, 1994 Planning Commission KeVtslul" f r - GLOSSARY OF IMPORTANT GRADING TERMS > TOPOGRAPHY: vertical > DRAINAGE: rain water character of a site; that collects and runs "topo" off a site > ACRE (Ac): an area of > SLOPE HEIGHT: the actual 43,560, square feet (SF); true vertical height envision a square 208 difference from the toe feet on a side ... one of a slope to its top square mile equals 640 (not along the slope's acres face) > RIDGE LINE: the line and > SLOPE RATIO: the adjacent slopes relationship of a comprising the top of a slope's horizontal hilly topography length to vertical > VALLEY: the continuous height, with the height bottom of a hilly specified as 1 (e.g. 2:1 topography or 3/4:1) > SURVEY: a process of > PERCENT SLOPE: the * accurate measurements to relationship of a determine site slope's vertical to boundaries and topography horizontal height with • GRADING: the process of the horizontal specified rearranging the existing as 100 (e.g. 30%) topography > Cut: removal of natural • ELEVATIONS: In grad- earth materials from ing, the vertical their original location position of a point on > FILL: deposition of the topography foreign earth materials >. CONTOUR LINE: the line to a new location representing the outside > COMPACTION' reforming edge of a horizontal and consolidation of slice of the site fill to provide > G RADES: 1) spot structural strength ' elevations in any part > BERM: a topographic rise of a grading plan, or 2) designed usually to the average slope of a contain runoff feature on a grading > SWALE: A topographic plan; expressed as 11% depression designed grade", or as a ratio usually to direct and carry runoff. > SOIL TYPES: the range of >, BLUE LINE STREAM: a - -Y "dirt" materials found natural watercourse in grading operations. shown on a USGS map, and Typical characteristics requiring special U.S. range from sandy, dry, Army Corps of Engineers' rocky, to clay, wet. approval to grade in or > BEDDING: 1) soft around - materials usually > BUILDING PAD: a specific applied fresh weekly to location on a site a domestic sleeping designed to accomodate device, or 2) the construction of a characteristic patterns residence or other demonstrated by soil building layers that were > IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: deposited in ancient area on a lot covered by lakes, streams or oceans materials that will not > STABILIZATION: remedial allow incident rainfall grading done to assure to pass into the native safety of cut of fill soil and ground water slopes (e.g. buttresses) system > USGS MAPS: topographic maps available from the U.S. Geologic Survey (15 or 7 1/2 minute series) m `� Oull 18014JOA A, _ L co C J 0 O L T 1� _ � L J e a� 11 J II � d _O t1? _O to 0 CL 0 M L. �.l C RECEIVED 08/84 09:11 1994 AT 999-961-3117 PAGE 2 (PRINTED PAGE 2) 1 4-0�r pick -15 P -A AOW-9-15 AUG- 4-94 FRI 8:28 A ORDINANCE NO. 188 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA HABRA HEIGHTS REGARDING MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND AMENDING THE LA HABRA HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of La Habra Heights does ordain as follows: Section 1. Section, 9206.5 of Chapter 2 of Article IX of the La Habra Heights Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: -119206.6 Zone R -A — Required Area. (a) The minimum net lot area for parcels in Zone R -A shall be determined by the numerical suffix following the R -A designation of a specific parcel. In the case of properties designated R -A-1, the minimum net lot size shall be forty thousand (40,000) square feet. (b) The following slope -density provisions shall be preeminent over the zoning designations for new subdivisions of land: Average Slope of a New Parcel to Be Created by a Proposed Subdivision Less than 30 30 31 32. 33 34 35- 36 37 38 39 40 41 and above Minimum Lot Area in Gross Acres 1.00 (43,560 sq. feet) 1.06 (46,1.74 sq. feet) 1. 13,(49,223 sq. feet) 1.21 (52,708 sq. feet) 1.30 (56,628 sq. feet) 1.44 (62,726 sq. feet) 1.61 (70,132 sq. feet) 1.84 (80,150 sq. feet) 2.14 (93,218 sq. feet). 2.55 (111,078 sq. feet) 3.16 (137,650 sq. feet) 4.00 (174,240 sq. feet) 5.00 (217,800 sq. feet). (c) When a project is located adjacent to predominantly developed areas, the intensity and topography of such development may be used to override 00 modify the slope -density provisions of paragraph (b) of this Section, except that, under no circumstances may a newly created lot be less than 40,000 square feet in net area. I 4 P1/' - I [ RECEIVED 08/04 09:12 1994 AT 909-861-3117 PAGE 3 (PRINTED PAGE 3) 1 AUG- 4-94 FR 18; 29 A L In such cases where the intensity and topography of adjacent development are proposed to override or modify the above slope -density provisions, it must be shown that: 1. (a) The variance from the slope -density formula will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to other improvements in the same vicinity, and (b) The variance from the slope -density .formula is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the applicant such as that possessed by owners of,other property in the same vicinity, and (c) The majority of the surrounding area contains similar topography and is developed at a greater intensity than allowed by the slope -density formula; or 2. 1 There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property Involved, such as shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to other properties in the same vicinity and under identical zoning and general plan classifications. (d) For purposes of this section, the term 'gross acre shall mean 43,560 square feet and'net tot size' shall be determined in light of the definition of 'Area, net' set forth in Section 9120:1 of this Code." Section 2. ' Ordinance No. 188-U is hereby repealed. Section 3. The City Council hereby declares that the intent of this ordinance is to clarify the intent of Section 9206.5 of the La Habra Heights Municipal Code as it existed, both before and after the adoption of Ordinance No. 188-U ano,therefore that this Ordinance is declarative of existing law. Section 4. If any section, subsection, subdivision, .paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance or any part hereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part hereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. L-A k-A-UIF-A 02542- H -r5 pG 3 b cu 10 20 30 40 50 ai 85 c I I 0 80 80 5 Ac. Iwo 6C 60 3 PC, c Z PG PG 4C - 40 0 0 c �. 2C 20 /5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Slope ( Avg.) t1) A. Intent Correlates intensity of development to steepness of terrain as a means to: Minimize grading in sensitize areas - - Protect significant views Limit the removal of vegetation Retain significant amounts of open space Reduce possible environmental and safety impacts that could result; ie, flood, - fire, erosion and access limitations B. Provisions Sets capacity factors which limit the allowable density based- on the percent of natural slope µ - Determine. amount of land in each slope ' category based on slope analysis map - Multiply the buildable land acreage in ail each slope category by its slope capacity factor Use minimum lot size requirements or maximum allowable density of a district to determine maximum density for a site 7 F1 0 E a 5 �NG•� LLL'CA%AV ntG A Sec.�'.7.24.080 M-2 Section 17.24.080 Densi t ` � Slope density regulations which correlate intensity of development to steepness of terrain will be used.to minimize grading, removal of vegetation, land instability, and fire hazards. The total allowable residential dwelling units shall be calculated based on the total (buildable) land area within each slope category multiplied by the capacity factor for each to the slope category. A. Calculation of density. The maximum number of units that may be permitted in a proposed development shall be determined by multiplying that area of land in each "slope category" by the "capacity factor" shown in the following table, taking the products of these calculations converted to square feet, and dividing this figure by the required site area unit in square feet prescribed in the underlying zoning district (except the Hillside Residential District where there is no minimum lot size required)., In the Hillside Residential District, the allowable amount of buildable area resulting from the Capacity Factor calculation will constitute the adjusted net buildable area. B. Land -Ca ability Schedule. Slope Catagory Under 10 percent 10-14.9 percent 15-19.9 percent 20-24.9 percent 25-29.9 percent 30+ percent *Buildable Area in square feet X X X X X X Capacity Factor 1.00 = 0.75 _ 0.50 = 0. 25 = 0.025 = 0.0 = Adusted Net Buildable Area (square feet) Divided Permitted by minimum number of lot size units requi re m ent of� under- lying zoning district ex- cept in Hill- side Residential * Buildable area is a contiguous area of the lot which .is less than 30 percent in natural slope, or in the area determined, through environmental studies and investigation,, as buildable. -217- 91WCH0 dt-k4A u o Aj4 A ' Section 17.24.040 SLOPt - An inclined ground surface, the inclination of which is expressed as a - ratio of the vertical distance (rise), or change in elevation, to the horizontal distance (run). The percent of any given slope is determined by dividing the rise by the run, multiplied by 100: EXAMPLE A ___ ,. BSiD - _840 i 830 820 —850 —840 Vertical change 30 in elevation (rise) —830 —820 I 100 Horizontal distance between contours (run) SLOPE _ RISE RUN x 100 30 = - go 1.00 X OR 30% SLOPE -170- EXAMPLE 8 );;I -n1CNo Cu ca.acoN6� Combining 'B' and 'C' is not a permitted calculation R; . q SLOPE FORMULA- Average Cross Slope - Slope 'A' 5'/100' = .05 =5% - Slope W 30'/20' = 1.50 = 150% - Slope *Co 6'/30' _ .2 = 20% SLOPE, MAN-MADE - A manufactured slope consisting wholly or partially of either cut or filled material. SLOPE TRANSITION - The area where a slope bank meets the natural terrain or a level graded area either vertically or horizontally. Section 17.24.050 Hillside Desgnation to lope The following shall serve as generaliment the overall characterfor the fivebofhtheslandform. s In ensure that development will comp order to permit the extension of a logical design concept, the standards for one zone may be applied to limited portions of the adjacent zone. Slope Zone %Natural Slope Standards 1, 5 or less This is not a hillside condition. Grading with conventional fully padded lots and terracing is acceptable. -171- r Section 17.24.080 Section 17.24.080 Slope density regulations which correlate intensity of development to steepness of terrain will be used to minimize grading, removal of vegetation, land instability, and fire hazards. The total allowable residential dwelling units shall be calculated based on'. the total (buildable) land area .within each slope category multiplied by the capacity factor for each to the slope category. A. Calculation of density. The maximum number of units that may be permitted in a proposed development shall be determined by multiplying that area of land in each "slope category" by the "capacity factor" shown in the following table, taking the products of these calculations converted to square feet, and dividing this figure by the required site area unit in square feet prescribed in the underlying zoning district (except the Hillside Residential District 'where there is no minimum .10 size required). In the Hillside Residential District, the allowable amount 0t buildable area resulting from the Capacity Factor calculation will constitute the adjusted net buildable area. B. Land Capability . Schedule. Slope Category Under 10 percent 10-14.9 percent 15-19.9 percent 20-24.9 percent 25-29.9 percent 30+ percent *Buildable Area Capacity in square feet -Factor X 1.00. X 0.75 X 0.50 X 0.25 X 0.025 X 0.0 Divided by minimum ,lot size requirement of under- lying zoning district ex- cept in Hill- side Residential Adusted Net Buildable Area (square feet) Permitted number of units Buildable area is a contiguous area of the lot which' is less than 30 percent in natural slope, or in the area determined, through environmental studie and investigation, as buildable. S an Formula for determining average slope: S = 100 IL 19 A Where: S = Average percent slope 1 = Contour interval in feet A = Area of the total site in square feet L = Summation of length of contours, in feet (Per appropriate scale), for the total site Aic,4o L/ hfZ J;x0_G 17.33.070 percent may be created except at.the point of vehicular ac- 17.50.070 Criteria for evaluation of grading Ii - cation or geology permit. The director of planning and/or the planning commission shall use but not be limited to the following criteria in assessing sessing an application for grading approval: A. The grading is not excessive beyond that necessary for the permitted primary use of the lot; B. The grading and/or construction does not signifi- cantly adversely affect the visual relationships with, nor the views from, neighboring sites; C. The nature of the grading minimizes disturbance to the natural con -tours; finished contours are reasonably natu- ral; D. Allowable Grading. 1. All grading applications shall indicate the average percent slope, as determined by the slope averaging mod formula and guidelines below: Formula for determining average slope: S = 100 IL 19 A Where: S = Average percent slope 1 = Contour interval in feet A = Area of the total site in square feet L = Summation of length of contours, in feet (Per appropriate scale), for the total site 297 (Rancho Palos Verdes 3/86) 2. General Criteria'. a. No finished slopes greater than thirty-five percent may be created except at.the point of vehicular ac- cess, adjacent to driveways (see subsection E of this sec- tion), and under the structure where the maximum slope shall I . be sixty-seven percent. b.Fill shall -not exceed a depth of five feet at any point except where the director or the commission deter- mines that unusual topography, soil conditions, previous grading, or other unusual circumstances indicate that such grading would be reasonable and necessary. C. Retaining Walls. i. One upsiope retaining wall not to exceed eight feet in height may be used. ii. One downslope retaining wall not to exceed three and one-half feet in height may be used. iii. On lots sloping with the street, and other configurations not'discussed above, one retaining wall not to exceed forty-two inches may be used on each side of the 297 (Rancho Palos Verdes 3/86) 49 14.49 50 & over 20.00 * The values in this Table are derived from the equations: (1) Gross Area Per Dwelling Unit in Acres 1 1'.0 - 0.0195 1 1.089 - .0.020765 13.94 19.61 (2) Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit in Acres where S is the average natural ground slope in percent. 1/3-4 TABLE 1 SLOPE DENSITY STANDARDS SD- I (Density Range of 1 acre per dwelling unit to 20 acres per dwelling unit) Slope Gross Area Min.Lot Area Slope Cate- Gross Area Min.Lot Area Category in Percent Per Dwell- ing Unit per Dwelling Unit in gory in per Dwell- per Dwelling in Acres Acres Percent ing Unit Unit in in Acres Acres 1 - 2 1 (2-T- 0 1.00 .92 1 2 1.02 1.04 .94 25 1.90 1.75 3 1.06 .95 .97 26 27 1.98 2.05 1.82 1.89 4 5 1.08 .99 28 2.14 1.97 6 1.10 1.02 29 2.23 2.05 7 1.13 1.04 30 2.33 2.15 8 1.15 1.06 31 2.43 2.24 9 1.18 1.08 32 2.55 2.35 10 1.21 1.23 1.11 1.13 33 2.68 2.48 11 1.26 1.16 34 35 2.82 2.99 2.61 2.75 12 13 1.30 1.33 1.19 36 3.16 2.93 14 1.36 1.22 1.25 37 38 3.37 3.12 15 1.40 1.29 39 3.60 3.86 3.33 3.58 16 17 1.44 1.48 1.32 40 4.17 3.87 18 1.52 1.36 1.40 '41 42 4.52 4.20 19 1.56 1.44 - 43 4.95 5.46 4.61 5.09 20 21 1.61 1.48 44 6.10 5.70 22 .1.67 1.72 1.53 1.58 45 6.90 6.46 23 1.78 1.64 46 47 7.94 9.35 7.46 8.83 24 1.84 1.69 48 1.1.36 10 81 49 14.49 50 & over 20.00 * The values in this Table are derived from the equations: (1) Gross Area Per Dwelling Unit in Acres 1 1'.0 - 0.0195 1 1.089 - .0.020765 13.94 19.61 (2) Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit in Acres where S is the average natural ground slope in percent. 1/3-4 CITY OF DIAMOND BAB ORDINANCE NO. 7 (1992) HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE section 1. Purpose The purpose of this ordinance is: a. To preserve and protect the views to and from hillside areas in. order to maintain the identity, image and environmental quality of the City of Diamond Bar; b. To maintain an environmental equilibrium consistent with the native vegetation, animal life, geology, slopes, and drainage patterns; C. To facilitate hillside. preservation through appropriate development standards and guidelines of hillside areas. The guidelines are not intended to be strict standards, but rather to provide direction and encourage development which is sensitive to the unique characteristics common to hillside properties, which include, but are not limited to slopes, land form, vegetation and scenic quality. Innovation in design is encouraged as long as the and result is one which respects the hillside and is consistent with the purposes expressed in this section and in the goals and objectives of'the General Plan; d. To ensure that development in the hillside areas shall be concentrated in those areas with the least environmental impact.and shall be designed to fit the existing land form; e. To preserve, where possible, significant features of the natural topography, including swales, canyons, knolls, ridgelines, and rock outcrops. Development may necessarily affect natural features by, for example, roads crossing ridgelines. Therefore, a, major design criterion shall be the minimization of such impacts; f. To provide a safe means of ingress and egress for vehicular and pedestrian traffic to and .within hillside, areas, with minimum disturbance to the undeveloped terrain; g. To correlate intensity of development with the steepness of terrain in order to minimize the impact of grading, unnecessary removal of vegetation, land instability, and fire hazards; h. -To provide in hillsides, alternative approaches to conventional flat land development practices by achieving land use patterns and intensities that are consistent with the natural characteristics of hill areas such as slopes, land form, vegetation and scenic quality; and i. To encourage the planning, design and development of sites that 1 Anoprea Im s, IM i. To encourage the planning, design and development of sites that provide maximum safety with respect to fire hazards, exposure to geological and geotechnic hazards, drainage, erosion and siltation, and materials of construction; provide the best use of natural terrain; and to prohibit development that will create or increase fire, flood, slide, or other safety hazards to public health, welfare, and safety. J. It is therefore the_ intent to establish general and specific guidelines will.ensure that development will complement the character and idel nes with this ordinance which P topography of'the land. Specifically the city desires the application of good hillside planning and the use of the concept of "Landform Grading and Reve9etation" in, designing any development proposal. Section 3. Applicability The regulations contained herein shall be applicable to all parcels of land containing grades in excess of ten percent (10%). Section 3. Permitted Use The uses permitted by the tiillsido Management Ordinance shall be those uses permitted within the General Plan Land Use classifications for the property and the base zone designation subject to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval. Section 4. Density The maximum number of residential dwelling units which may be permitted to be constructed on a given parcel of land shall be the calculated development pursuant to the General Plan Land Use classification limit less the number eliminated due to environmental constraints and as determined by this ordinance. 'Section S. gnvironmental Constraints The maximum number of residential "dwelling units', can be affected by the impact of the following development constraints, as determined by environmental assessment, unless such development.constraints can be shown to have been eliminated or mitigated to the satisfaction of the Planning commission or the city council: 1. Land areas subject to inundation during a 100 -year storm 2. Land areas which are above.the hillside view line. 3. Land areas which lie within a federally recognized blue line stream,, or which contain significant riparian stream bed habitats or other established plant formations which constitute a significant natural feature or ecosystem or which contain rare or endangered species. 4. Significant vegetation formations and habitat areas. 2 ADOPM :aL 3, IM 5. Land areas which are within 100 feet of a prominent ridgeline or hiking trail. 6. Land areas containing significant archaeologic or historic sites. Section 6. Rzemption Other provisions of this subsection to the contrary notwithstanding,, lots of record as of the date of adoption of this Ordinance shall be entitled to a minimum of one -dwelling unit. Single dwelling unit development shall be administered in conjunction with the provisions of Chapter 22.72 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code (Ordinance No. 5(1990) -Development Review.) Section 7. Administration This Ordinance shall be administered in conjunction with the provisions of Chapter 22.56 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code. Where a conflict or inconsistency exists,:the more restrictive regulation shall apply. Where the grading ordinance conflicts with the Hillside Management Ordinance, the latter shall prevail. Section a. Hillside uanagement Standards and Guidelines The Hillside Management Standards and Guidelines are intended to ensure the appropriate management, of hillside areas.' The Standards are requirements for the use, development, or alteration of land in Hillside areas. The Guidelines are to be utilized to provide direction to encourage development which is sensitive to the unique characteristics common to the hillside properties. The Guidelines shall be used by the Planning Commission and. the City Council in evaluating those development proposals for which it is proposed to go beyond the minimum standards herein specified. Exceptions to the standards specified herein may be approved, pursuant to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process, when the Planning Commission or. City Council determines that such exceptions are not materially injurious to the intent of the standards and guidelines set forth herein. In granting any such exception, the Planning Commission or City Council shall set forth appropriate findings and facts supporting its determination. The Planning. Commission or City Council may, vary from the standards contained herein and determine that the literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinancpf for parcels which may be too small and of a configuration which would create a hardship provided that a variation from the strict application of the Code be accompanied by reduction in. the maximum permitted density to the extent deemed necessary to maintain the intent of the Ordinance. Variations may include modification of the setback requirements to achieve clustering of development on the parcel, in order to maintain grading, drainage, siting and circulation objectives of the Ordinance; except that residential structures shall be sited and designed in a 3 Anon® JWL 5, IM manner which will, in th and horizontal distance provide a reasonable residential structures. a Judgment of the Director, maintain a vertical from other residential structures which will degree of privacy, light and air between Where development is proposed for a parcel which adjoins one or more vacant, developable parcels, cooperation of the respective property- owners is encouraged in the planning of the road network, utilities plan and open space program for the area as a whole. The'City may consider variations from the strict application of the provisions of this ordinance as may be needed to achieve cooperation among all contiguous property owners of vacant, developable properties, to the extent that such variation may better achieve the objectives of this Ordinance., section !. Definitions The following definitions shall apply to this:Ordinance: CXTY HN®2 - Shall mean the City Engineer .of the City of Diamond Bar. CONTOUR A line drawn on a plan which connects all points of equal elevation. CUT - A portion of land surface or area from which earth has been removed or will be removed'by excavation. The. mechanical removal of earth material. CBT AND FXLL - The excavating of earth material in one place and depositing of it as fill in an adjacent place. DXRBCTOR - Shall mean the Director of Community Development of the City of Diamond Bar-. DRX Y - A private roadway providing access for vehicles to a parking space, garage, dwelling or other structure. EFFEC X R - The effective visual bulk of a structure when seen from a distance or from above'or below. EL TI® - Height or distance above sea level. BROSIOR The process by which the soil and . rock components of the earth's crust are worn away and removed from one place to another by natural forces such as wind and water. FILL - A deposit of earth material placed by artificial means. FXNX8H The final elevation of the ground surface after grading, which is in conformity with the -approved plan.. aRADINO - To bring an existing surface to a designed form by excavating, filling, or smoothing operations. (Ste Figure 1) HXLLRIDW - A parcel of land,,which contains grades in excess of 10$. NATUM SLOFR - A slops which is not man-made. A natural slope may retain natural vegetation during adjacent grading operations or it may be partially or complately,removed and replant PAD - A-level area created by grading to accommodate development. RIDGE - A long, narrow, conspicuous elevation of land. ROADWAY - A means of access over private property to more than one residential unit. SLOFs - An inclined ground surface, the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance (run), to vertical distance (rise), or change, in elevation. The percent of any given s, IM slope is. determined by dividing the rise by the run, multiplied by 100.(See Figure 2) SLOPE, MAN -)LADE - A manufactured slope consisting wholly or partially of either cut or filled material. SLOPE TRANSITIONS The area where.a slope bank meets the natural terrain or a level graded area either vertically or horizontally. PROMINENT RIDGE: A ridge or hill location which is visible from a major arterial, secondary, or collector street, which forms part of the skyline or is seen as a distinct edge against a backdrop of land at least 300 feet horizontally behind it, or is so designated by the Planning Commission or City Council. 1. Conventionally graded slopes are characterized by essentially linear, flat slope surfaces with unvarying gradients and angular slope intersections. Resultant pad configurations are rectangular. 2. ' Slope drainage devices are usually constructed in a rectilinear configuration in exposed positions. 3. Landscaping is applied in random or geometric patterns. 710P OF . SLOW 5 ADOF a JaL s, IM 1. Contour -graded slopes are basically similar to conventionally graded slopes except that in plan the .slopes are curvilinear rather than linear, the gradients are unvarying and are planar, transition zones and slope intersections have profiles some roundinq applied. Resultant pad configurations are mildly curvilinear. 2. Slope drainage devices are usually constructed in a geometric configuration and in an exposed position on the slope face. 3. Landscaping is applied in random or geometric patterns. T oP Of stopF 1. Landform Grading replicates the irregular shapes of natural slopes resulting in aesthetically pleasing elevations ' and profiles. Landform -graded slopes are characterized. by continuous series of concave and.convex forms interspersed with mounds that ,blend into the profiles, non -linearity in plan view and varying slope gradients, and significant transition zones between man-made. and natural slopes. Resultant pad configurations are irregular. 2. Slope down -drain devices either follow "natural" lines of the slopes or are tucked away in special Swale and berm combinations in order to conceal the drains from view. Exposed segments in high visibility areas are.treated with natural rock. 6 ADo"M ta. s. IM 3. Landscaping becomes a "revegetation" process and is, applied in patterns that occur in nature: trees and shrubs are concentrated largely in concave areas, while convex portions are planted mainly with'groundcovers. top 09 SLOB" . ; \� t.MEORx GRMING MW RUNGI PATION aMi MM The intent of the ordinance, is to incorporate the basic principles of the "Landform Grading and Reveqetation" concept in -the design and construction of hillside development projects so that they will be in harmony with the natural topography and reflect plant distribution patterns. The general 'principles of "Landform Grading and Reveqetation: incorporate the followinq.elements: a. The basic land plan "flows" with the natural topography rather than against it. This means, that street patterns and building pad configurations follow the, underlying topographic features rather than cutting across then. b. All manufactured cut and fill slopes exceeding nine (9' ) feet in height which, will be, either exposed to permanent public view or are adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas, will be designed with features characteristic of natural slopes so that their ultimate appearance will resemble a natural slope. This will include slopes along streets and highways, slopes adjacent to parks, schools, open spaces, and other public facilities and other prominent and highly visible .slopes. Sideyard slopes and low (less than 25' in height) rearyard slopes whose view is blocked by future structures need not have landform design applied. C* Slope drainage devices such as down drains and interceptor drains shall be designed so that they are built into the natural slope. features and become hidden from view. This 7 AMP= Jas. S, 1993 ( See, Figures 13, 14 15 .6 16) d. Terracing and the associated concrete drainage devices such as terrace drains, down drains and interceptor drains distract from efforts to give cut and fill slopes a natural appearance. e. Landscaping will not be applied in a'conventional but rather those resembling the natural plant distribution patterns. Trees or shrubs will be clustered in the swaled (concave) components of the slope' along with ground cover. Ground cover, only, will be applied to the protruding (convex) portions. (See Figures 31) Section lo. elope Analysis A Calculating A -fig p� Using the following formula, calculate the average slop® parcel. of the entire H. Slone Categories I - Contour interval in feet L - Summation of length of all contours in feet A - Area in acres of parcel being considered The following are standards for hillside slopes in ;areas that will not be landform graded. These categories ensure that development will complement the character and topography of the''land. The standards for one category may be -applied to limited portions of the property in an adjacent category when,a project is developed 'on property in more than one slope category. Slone Category NaturA1 B10126 Site Stands ds 1 10 to 24.9 Special hillsid' hi 2. e arc .=%.; al and design techniques that minimize grading are required in this Slope Category. 28 to 39.9 Structures shall conform to the natural topography and natural' grade by using techniques such as split level foundations of greater than 18 inches, stem walls, stacking and clustering. conventional grading may be considered -by the city for `limited portions of a project when its plan includes special design features, extensive open space or significant use of green belts. 3. 40 to 49.9 Development within this category shall be 8 ADOPTED Jae. 5, 1993 3. 40 .to 49.9 Development within this category shall be restricted to those sites where it can be shown that safety, environmental and aesthetic impacts can be minimized. Use of large lots, variable setbacks and variable building structural techniques such as stepped foundations are expected. Structures shall be designed to minimize the visual impact of their bulk and height. The shape, materials, and colors of structures shall blend with the natural environment. The visual and physical impact of driveways and roadways shall be minimized by eliminating sidewalks, and reducing their widths to the minimum required for emergency access and following natural contours, using grade separations where necessary and otherwise minimizing grading. 4. 50 'and over This is an excessive slope condition and development may be extremely limited. Figure 2 Slope ratio percent slops and degree of slope are shown for some hillsides of varying steepness ell ZO 11 2- ( 50 25 W1.5:1 (P7 34 45 l�llN Cf1DiNZON77 %t� 9 ADOITBD lay. S, IM The following standards define basic grading techniques which are consistent with the ordinance and avoid unnecessary cut and fill. Limitations on project grading amounts and configurations will be decided on a case-by-case 'basis under the conditional use process landform_ grading--slope-design standards include: When convex shaped natural features, i.e., protruding ridgelines are cut, the residual landform. 'should not be a flat slope face, but rather.should be restored to resemble the original. This will require more than just rounding at the edges but, in effect, reconfiguring it so the final result will give the appearance of a protruding ridgeline. (See Figure 3) B. CANYON FILL®: Fill slopes shall not be placed perpendicular across a canyon. Such straight line cut off fill slopes shall not be made to appear like a dam. The terminus of the fill shall, instead, be concave in shape to restore the canyon appearance. This concave configuration shall be. in combination with the use of substantially flatter slope ratios (4:1, 3.5:11 3:1) at or near the center of this indentation. Symmetrical or unsymmetrical concave configurations shall be.used depending upon the adjoining or underlying topographic characteristics. (See Figure 3) Minimal radius rounding at the, edges of cut and fill slopes is not acceptable., Proper transitioning to natural slopes shall be achieved through the use of radii or irregular curvilinear shapes that will blend into the adjoining topography tangentially and not create abrupt changes. (See Figure 3) 10 ADOFM I&L s, IM FIGURE 3 SLOPE DESIGN ACcEPTAALI CANYON FILL N ONAC'CEPtAe1-E YtiANsi*/oN zoN� o/ / 11 ADOFM Jm s, IM FIGURE 4 SINGLE CO/YVENT/o�1/�G. i 12 ADOPM Je®. S, 1993 FIGURE 5 MULTI FAMILY GRADING CONW.W T/ONAL �I 1' L-ANOFo gM • PG,4N VIXW ' OBL/Q!/E V/EW wrmh..51im Due to the fact that the landform grading. designs require the use of variable slope ratios at greater than 2:1, creates valleys, and concave indentations n bui ldi n era a a , it can result in loss of usable area. In d construction costs may increase. Two methods will be permitted to offset this loss, they are as follows: 1. Pad areas lost due to concave indentations will be counted towards meeting the landscape area requirements of development proposals for a given pad. 2. Segments of a cut or fill slope will be permitted to be designed with variable slope ratios less than 2:1, but. not Tess than 1.5:1 within the following guidelines: a. the geotechnical engineer will certify that ' slopes so designed will meet standard stability requirements. b. overall ratio from toe to toe will be 2:1 or greater. c. ratios greater than 2:1 will also be used in the slope design (.see Figure 6) I 14 AWV= raL 5, M FIGURE 6 ZXAXPLR OF VARIABLs SLOP= RATIOS 15 ADOMM Im S. 1993 1. No finished slopes greater than fifty percent (50% or 2:1) may be created except adjacent to a structure where the maximum created slope is limited to sixty-seven percent (67% or 1h:1) or less. 2. Grading shall be - phased so that prompt revegetation or construction will control erosion. Where possible, .only those areas which will be built on, resurfaced, or land- scaped shall be disturbed. Top soil shall be stockpiled during roughgrading and used on cut and fill slopes. Revegetation of cut and fill slopes shall occur within three (3) months to the satisfaction of the City. 3. Grading operations shall be planned .to avoid the rainy season, October 15, to April. l5. Grading permits shall only be issued when a plan for erosion control and silt retention has been approved by the City Engineer without regard to time of year. 4. No excavation or other earth disturbance shall be permitted on any hillside area prior to the issuance of a grading permit with the exception of drill holes .and exploratory trenches for the collection of geologic and soil data. These trenches are to be properly backfilled and in addition, erosion treatment provided where slopes exceed twenty (20) percent. 5. No point on any structure subject to the provisions of this Section shall be closer to a prominent ridge than one hundred (100) fest measured horizontally on a topographic map or fifty (50) feet measured vertically on a cross section, whichever is more restrictive. And in no case, shall the roof line or any other portion of a structure extend above ..the line of sight between a ridge line and any public right of way, whether said.ridgeline is above or below the right of way. 6. Lot pad grading is limited to the boundaries of the structure's foundation, vehicle parking space and a yard area as shown on the approved grading plan. 7. Retaining walla associated with lot pads are limited to: a. Upslope (from the structure) walls not to exceed four (4) feet in height. Terraced retaining structures may be utilized which are separated by a minimum of three (3) feet and appropriate landscaping. b. Downslope (from the structure) walls not to exceed four (4) feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary due to unusual or extreme conditions, (such as lot configuration, steep slope, or 16 ADOPM 1. 5, 1993 road design) then the use of terraced retaining structures shall be considered on an individual lot basis. Terraced walls shall not exceed three (3) feet in height and shall be separated by a minimum of three (3) feet and appropriate landscaping. Terracing shall not be used as a typical solution within a development. 8. Lot lines shall be placed two feet beyond top of major slope areas within public view corridors to help ensure their maintenance by the downhill owner. F. guidelines 1.. Where possible, graded areas should be designed with manufactured slopes located on the uphill side of structures, thereby, hiding the slope behind the structure. 17 ADOPTBD Jd. S, 1993 Figure 7 UOM9 SNO414P eA2' AaWPjW ID PPOV/DE 'F MO MAMAkhG APAS4MA4j�r SA E Nf IhA,!!, AO_smj/ swap '00 L.00AMP ©N 'tHE UPd//LL 'G/Po A PPE7Fi 4FGf5 1AI& fi4oAf IWO s7f*7: AE7`•MN11V& Iv,4i4d� M+7' 8� GSD 57fiEEt /Vor IWAS srt��t' 2. Retaining walls are limited to 4 feet in height. Terraced retaining structures may be utilized which are separated by a minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping. Retaining walls hidden by structures may be permitted., Figure 8 (also see Figure 17) f NOf ANS 18 AMP= JWL S, 1993 3. one downslope from the structure not to exceed 3 1/2 feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary due to unusual or extreme conditions, (such as lot configuration, steep slope, or road design) then the use of terraced retaining structures shall be considered on an individual lot basis. Terraced walls shall not exceed 3 feet in height and shall be separated by a minimum of 3 feet and appropriate landscaping. Terracing is not to be used as a typical solution within a development. 4. on lots sloping with the street, and other configurations not discussed above, one retaining wall, not to exceed 3 1/2 feet in height may be used in a side yard where necessary (also see roadway). 5. Walls which are an integral part of the structure may exceed 8 feet in height; however, their visual impact shall be mitigated through contour grading and landscape techniques. 6. The following factors shall be taken into consideration in the design of a project: a. When space and proper drainage requirements can be met with approval by the City Engineer, rounding of slope tops and bottoms shall be accomplished. b. When slopes cannot be rounded, vegetations shall be used to alleviate a sharp, angular appearance. c. A rounded and smooth transition shall be made when the planes of man-made and natil'ral slopes intersect. d. When significant landforms are "sliced" for construction, the landforms shall be rounded as much as possible to blend into natural grade. e. Manufactured slope faces shall be varied to avoid excessive "flat -planed" surfaces. 7: No manufactured slope shall exceed 30 feet in height between terraces or benches. 19 AnorrW JUL 5, IM N07` 7VS oMR -&MAW S/Zgp VOAYYGAi - StPlXAYJf� P S�wt* AR& NA L 8. Where cut or fill conditions are created, slopes would be varied rather than left At a constant angle which may be unstable or create an unnatural, rigid, "engineered" appearance. Figure 10 VAOLY/N6 CzeoL Gid Nu- SCOP& cowwes M©gE A/41V AMMAA'AWCE 20 AMP= I m. s, 1993 Where a conflict exists between the provisions of this section and Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, the drainage, soils and geology provisions of this ordinance shall prevail, unless in the opinion of the City Engineer, the provisions of this section do not meet sound engineering standards. A. Standards 1. Debris basins, rip rap, and energy dissipating devices shall be provided where necessary to reduce erosion when grading is undertaken. Except for necessary flood control facilities, significant natural drainage courses shall be protected from grading activity. In instances where crossing is required, a natural crossing and bank protection shall be preferred over steel and concrete systems. . Where brow ditches are required, they shall be naturalized with plant materials and native rocks. 2. Terrace drains where required shall follow landform slope configuration. Down drains shall not be placed in exposed positions. A11 down drains shall be- hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. In this manner they will be built into,the overall landform of the slope. (See Figure 13). Figure 13 14tlyOMA16f 4ZVYEW1VAA - 2 2 ADOFM IM s, 19" 9. The angle of any graded slope should be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain. Figure 11 AO" NA AW4W6, PAMAI4�E' NO7° ts 7 is COMBINE 040ASS 7't� MjORE C+GaWZY N fiAL 6AAM lo. Manufactured slopes adjacent to roadways shall -be consistent with the Landform grading and reveg tation technique to create visually interesting and pleasing streetscapes. Figure 12 -W VA,YRfr /N UVDY4AY7NG 940AW ��s/ /L%/ 57�1/��t SLOPS �bu�-'yam %�o voro r ArWN-4y 4OV49i40 (See also Figure 6). 21 ADOPM Imam. S, 1993 Figure 14 7W/3 Mo -/-CP .oF fflE sLOA= ZWV6CA&NrO ��tJ MVA /rNGYlGA toN V�a77' /N SGo� A IVAIUKA�, A60Ei4RW49 A&SeM01./Nro )VA7VRO- ,OfWtj~ PnVACo AA& 08 5c.vi�v Not- -1-H/s �n�c�uE� sLOP� MQ59V Iwo UAWArr W GhVIVAC-jr {M4Up5s VV�Y VlS/BG Ow 6F MAO# O VI;O 6P AAV6lE%.Ri AIVD (JNEVFN 940/009 UNIMAOL/ 5t.Vft 3. Building and grading permits shall not be issued for construction on any site without. an approved location for disposal of runoff waters, including but not limited to such facilities as a drainage channel, public street or alley, or private drainage easement. 4. The use of cross lot drainage shall be subject to Planning Commission and City Council review and may be approved after demonstration that this method will not adversely affect the proposed lots or adjacent properties, and that it is absolutely required in order io minimize the amount of grading which would result with conventional drainage practices. Where cross lot drainage is utilized, the following shall apply: a. Project Interiors - one lot may drain across one other lot if an easement is provided within either an improved, open V-swale gutter, which has a naturalized appearance,, or within a closed drainage pipe which shall be a minimum twelve (12) inches in diameter. In both cases, an integral wall, shall be constructed. This drainage shall be conveyed to either a public street or to a drainage easement. If drainage is conveyed to a private easement, it shall be maintained by a homeowners association, otherwise the, drainage shall be conveyed to a public easement. The easement width shall be determined on an individual basis and shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies and access requirements. 23 ADOPT® Ju. S. 1993 b. Project Boundaries - Onsite drainage shall be conveyed in an improved open. V-swale, gutter, which has a naturalized appearance, or within an underground pipe in either a private drainage easement, which is to be maintained by a homeowner ' s association, or it shall be determined on an individual basis and shall be dependent on appropriate hydrologic studies and access requirements. Figure 15 His /Vof-i5 NAvvo B. Guidelines, 1. Where possible, drainage channels should- be placed in inconspicuous location, and more importantly, they should receive a naturalizing treatment including native. rock, colored concrete andlandscaping, so that the structure appears as an integral part of the environment. Figure 16 �.�. .. • 1� �w 9 . ` . 0..:./'m J 2. Natural drainage courses should be preserved and enhanced to 24 ADOPM Im 5, 1993 the extent possible. Rather than filling them in, drainage features should be incorporated as an integral part of the project design. Section 13. Access, Trails and Roadways A. Standards. 1. Driveway grades up to a maximum of twenty (20) percent are permitted, and shall be aligned with the natural contours of the land. Proper design considerations shall be employed, including such items as vertical curves and parking landings. In any case, parking landings shall be utilized on all drives .over ten (10) percent grade. 2. Grooves for traction shall be incorporated into the construction of driveways with a slope of twenty (20) percent or greater. 3. Where retaining walls are necessary adjacent to roadways or within street setbacks, they shall be limited to three (3) feet in height in order to avoid obstruction of motorists' and pedestrians' field of view, and "to create an aesthetically pleasing streetscape.. No more than three ,(3), three (3 ) foot high terraced or stepped retaining walls shall be utilized which ars separated by a minimus of three (3) feet and appropriate landscaping. Figure, 17 srooH- ?5aW 4. Driveways shall enter public/private streets maintaining adequate line of sight. 5. Local hillside street standards shall be used to minimize grading and erosion potential while providing adequate access 25 eDOrM JM 5, IM for.vehicles,, including emergency vehicles. 6. Grades of streets in the hillside _areas shall be as. provided in this subsection. Hillside, collector and. arterial streets shall not exceed 12. percent. Hillside residential local streets shall not exceed 15 percent. 7. Cul-de-sacs to a maximum of 1000 feet in length may be permitted with a maximum of .30 dwelling units. S. I All other street improvement standards shall conform to the standard plans and specifications for public streets of the City of Diamond Har. 9. The Planning Commission or City Council may approve modifications to the above standards provided such modifications are in substantial conformance with the objectives stated in this section. H. Guidelines. 1. Roadways and driveways, where feasible, should conform to the natural landform. They should not greatly alter the physical and visual character of a hillside by creating large notches in ridg®lines or by defining wide straight alignments or by building switch -backs on visually prominent hillsides, split sections and parking bays should be utilized in the layout of hillside streets. Figure 18 26 ADOFM 3a. 3, tM Figure 19 NO AWN0 S7/FB/G/Z� ki1/D i'�l�DfsESt D/577�,bUtFO BArNf�S Avss/Bt0 rOW& 9?4Y- SOC,?W t Fo tof4r IgMAP sLZ9Es S/DEIALX = AZ A' -4440116 2. Where road construction is permitted in hillside areas, the extent of vegetation disturbance and visual disruption should be minimized by the combined use'of retaining structures and regrading to approximate the natural slope. The following .techniques should be used where feasible: a. Utilize landforu .revegetation planting in order to create a natural appearance and provide a sense of privacy. b. Reduce the visual and safety impacts by use of terraced retaining walls and landscaping. c. Split roadways increase the amount and appearance of landscaping and the median can be used to handle drainage. 27 ADOFM Jas. S, 1993 AWND 0rjW Wt S1.0po to CoNFo,AW 710 fWAr iSlA't�R�,G. COW7VI/A 49,= AW - - v/5•tA Aawo ©PF-- cut sca\ AF14ow SMIAa Awoas oN AMa wAI* C& fv cri P64RA1 fo 7W NA•IVA44. *#ACV. AoWo er cut scow 99-1t Ak%4,DA1AY SFCH ONS 77l A-Ccd*fAf0® C9 CHAiA/�A�': ti Figure 20 W f-If/S D � � St4a r IAHV HIU,5140,' 1 RQWNAY CX* too S�WP ftAN its -,�v ,c vc, &SOMAUsHS®. A Vee R&'MAINIWO AAA" ACA-PdV,4)' CV& I I \***IN �� AO)WNAn 77\1 OAAWG to ACC OMMODA-tS ONO 6-�VdaL RVRA /Ar. 3. Trails are an integral part of a -hillside area and provide recreation areas for equestrian, hiking and biking uses. They can also function as a.means to, take up grade or to convey drainage. 4. 2n hillside areas, it is not always necessary to provide full improvements for trails. A more natural experience may be achieved, and the amount of grading required can be reduced, by providing minimal improvements in appropriate areas, such as undevelopable, steep slopes. MOCtion 14. Bit® Design 28 ADO"= Ji. S. 1993 A. H. standards. 1. The dimensions of a building parallel to the direction of the slope shall be maximized in order to limit the amount of cutting and filling and to better fit the house to the natural terrain. 7W`S Figure 2,1 NO7' li-H/5' 'f':��,D. G1KM5 DDO AMA. PM9' /NhO 7� 4iAOUNO �4N0 M/A/iM/a&s -7'W& OFP'Oct' ON Hle f//L-GS/Do USE L4W, "VAL 019'0.8 -IW'O S/AB OECiALS. �RR,'tc�N6 f�'DVG�s OVOWAA40 OOR- hVAII ,AUV pB OA A//NAJI!/S ,rZp dP .dP h /D PAorpnt' A CWNOt- ,AKGe.�lVF sUNZlyd#: Guidelines OVEPWAAIiNG Aet;� GUII DPlw o ziWAP, MORtc NA��3NG• AIV PfW/LE +.��. O,%f 4W. 7`7O H/LZS/D,E. ,ga/O/D DEGAS H4VO/N0 119" -#/0 ,G IW- AqW, 5/DE. ,EFfEdflvEMtiG BUL/� MA{VS ,60401NO 'RAA I-AUF.R, MC�,E MONuMEN`tA{, /N ACV/t/OA/.4L- V/SUA i. BU40-: 1. Design of building sites should be sensitive to the natural terrain. Structures should be located in such a way as to minimize necessary grading and to preserve natural features such as prominent knolls or ridgelines. 2. views of significant visual features as seen from both within and outside a hillside development should be preserved. The following provisions shall be taken into consideration: a. Dwellings should be oriented to allow view opportunities, although such views may be limited. Residential privacy, should not be unreasonably sacrificed. b. Any significant public vista or view corridor as seen from a secondary, collector or major arterial should be 29 ADOPTED 1u. S, 1993 3. Projects should incorporate variable, setbacksi multiple orientations and other site planning techniques to preserve open spaces, protect natural feature' and offer views to residents. Figure 22 TilNOT THIS tion 15 ®Architecture A. Standards. 1. The building envelope for all structures shall be as follows: .a. -A maximum/height of thirty-five (35) feet as measured from natural or a finished qrade at the front setback, extendinq towards the rear of the lot. The maximum height at the .side setbacks shall be twenty- five (2 5) feet extending UP to the center of the lot at a forty-five. (45) degree angle to a maximum height of, thirty-five (35) feet as measured from natural grade or approved finished qrade. Fiqure 23 PAW HU SWCOW 30 ADOFM Im 3, IM Figure 24 AMS NOf 7Y//S r;k� bWZOAIO MPA Myimllxf , IIA106511- vv-�- SOP&WNO &F 44A<o& VAM44Y, 6ViaAA--CW9 2. The building shall be terraced to follow the slope. 3. Architectural treatment shall be provided to all sides of the. structure visible. 4. Exterior structural supports and undersides of floors and decks not enclosed by walls shall be permitted provided fire safety and aesthetic considerations have been adequately addressed. 5. Exterior flood lighting 'for safety shall be located and shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties. Decorative lighting to highlight a structure is prohibited. B. Guidelines 1. The form, mass and profile of the individual buildings and architectural features should be designed to blend with the natural terrain and preserve the character and profile of the natural slope. Some techniques 'which may be considered include: a. Split pads, stepped footings and grade separations to permit structure to step up the natural slope. b. Detaching parts of a dwelling such as a garage. c. Avoid the use-of.gable ends on downhill elevations. The slope of the roof should be oriented in the same direction as, the natural slope and should not exceed natural slope contour by twenty (20) percent. 31 ADOYM Jan. 5, 1993 2. Avoid excessive cantilevers on downhill elevations. 3. Excavate underground or utilize below grade rooms to reduce effective bulk and to provide energy efficient and environ- mentally desirable spaces. However, the visible area of the building shall be minimized through a combined use of regrading and landscaping -techniques. _ 4. Use roofs on lower levels for the deck open space of upper levels Figure 25 his Atla* A0040 Biaol�S( !� [/sj5 4 A6+7 A41G A4t;51VA4.- M/o W11VMW A44coWWt' '!A, SNf5+U, Gee SMAJ„,, SCA4& AA7Y&AN-9: . . A - vP Af/tssavrP A= epkou4jt, �yVfS Y AOA CLO�L��i 97ON& ftWj9, IIO,vS AMO HAIN6 /v©t t7Yrs MA541ve A&%, A4%,�A is VpA' ✓ISIM 0 /N aW t tO 7 -C it AM44,G Q�. I-AAOAW M-,--A-PO OF cW�' Mli47'�1�4L-. 5. Building materials and color schemes should blend with the natural landscape of earth tones and natural chaparral vegetative growth. 6.. To the extent possible, the width of'a building measured in the direction of .the slope, shall be minimized in order to limit the amount of cutting and filling and to better "fit" the house to the natural terrain. 32 AMP M Jan. 5, 1993 Figure 26 SLvAB'� AND MYIN9�; ©N tH5 A1IU_/pe: M/NVA 6111WIMI ?AOV'Vg/oN3 PE�P�N- D/cvlAk fHEWJ 't;�y� ^ S N N/uS�Dt !CA! 6 l;I'i�R►+Ll�L 1' &H IRE CGWfDuRS- Wf 7M.9 Section 1S. F®nc®s and Landscaping A. Standards ,6UILp/No /S ASA? j1/DlCUGhfi 7'0 tHEr CCWtWVJ 1. Walls and fencing, not exceeding six .(6) feet in height, visible from roadways or public rights-of-way shall be visually open and non-opaque.' 2. Privacy walls and fences, not exceeding six (6) feet in height, are permitted adjacent to structures, in order to provide a private outdoor area. Walls and fences shall be of materials and colors compatible with the structure's facade. 3. Native or naturalized plants or other plant species that blend with the landscape shall be utilized in all areas with required planting. 4. Fire retardant plant materials shall be utilized.' Plants selected as ground cover, shrubs or trees shall be from the list as approved by the City. 5. A permanent landscape and irrigation system, for purposes of establishing and maintaining required planting, shall be installed on all slopes. The emphasis shall be toward using. plant materials that will eventually need minimal irrigation. Water and energy conservation techniques shall be utilized including but not limited to such items as drip irrigation and use of "reclaimed water" and xeriscape. 33 AMPM Im 3, IM 7-1116 No &FFgC*YVF BULB Ir - Figure 27 r AVOW SCPIEW PGi AN -11V Arr S'EVOIZAL P VP -j V. -'' Na P�Mt/N6 pass is c� to Me OF A97,,41N/NG w,4a. Cwc at- j V P.L=fAlvpv& MlGES AN'D 7A6 YQ}'a5 7t CeNceA-L_ !NMY P!-J¢YIVCv, AVP 7'FW4:j5;. 6. Landscaping shall be used to screen views of downslope building elevations. When the structure height exceeds twenty (20).feet from finished grade on a downslope, additional landscaping Is required and a landscaping plan. shall be submitted for review with the submittal package. 7. Slopes with required planting shall be planted with informal clusters of trees and shrubs to . soften and vary the slope plane. Where required by the city, jute netting shall be used to help stabilize planting and minimize soil erosion. 8. Native vegetation shall be retained and supplemented within undeveloped canyons and along. natural drainage courses as allowed by state and federal resources agencies (State Department of Fish & Game, U. S. Fish and Wildlife, U. s. Army Corp of Engineers). Figure 28 MIS RIAO ` A10 Nr49* A4UY \ #�Gdoi4F5 7gfLz AV BLOP� �N6f �. /VA7VRAI. OVAOMMOItt. P-0QUTANP 7A4VS1-H-ON Aim Ho" M-43 HMOM-jr AVisfetr .%D WA ;646 14- r 4~ WNIN6 ,B&t N C.QV P f,,N AMP POVAUfrD W/t// No t;C�jVsft/a+V. 34 AMP= Im S, 1993 B. Guidelines 1. Natural landform planting should be used to soften manufactured slopes,. reduce impact of development on steep slopes or ridgelines, and provide erosion control.. 2. Maintain.a "vegetative backdrop" by replanting with approved trees. The vegetation should reduce the impact of the structures to the extent possibleat maturity* and preserve the appearance of the natural hillside. Figure 29 �Zf1lr / n rri r.41, eviu�iv� c�v� vivro 9. Use Landform Grading to replicate the irregular -shapes of natural slopes resulting in aesthetically pleasing elevations and profiles. Landform -graded slopes are characterized by continuous series of concave and convex forms interspersed with mounds that blend into the profiles, non -linearity in plan view and varying slope gradients, and significant transition zones between man-made and natural slopes. Resultant pad configuration are irregular. 10. Slope down -drain devices shall be designed to either follow "natural" lines of the slopes or are tucked away in special swale and berm combinations in order to conceal the drains from view. Exposed segments in high visibility areas are treated with natural rock. 11. Landscaping becomes.a "revegetation" process and is applied in patterns that occur in natures trees and shrubs are concentrated largely in concave areas, while convex portions are planted mainly with groundcovers. �,Or-o 1 A4VWCO IA?WP ' V!SlJ,¢L Pl,�yv� W c aoS�.-` .� J ., . ('Figure 30 K P~A40 - ro CA-;V�- Pls A //V Z i 9 w 0 35 ADOPM Im 5, iM Figure 31 SL oP�' L,�WD5�4P/�lG .top 0 foF GAND�op�1 REvE6,�^tA•t/o�l. raA0 PCovAr#- covLY POR. CO//V,9>( AO -,As. rP-09E5 MP SHAVES cUAnoAED /N CONOAYE AREAS. 1,M&Rk SprclXS A?f e*f- M. 4nr COHMN711-ONA4 LAND SCAP/IYC7. -LAWS AVV GHA144S SPADED =oA uN1r_0AV44 cov&AA151J=_. Not Yt /16 1 toe 860tion 17, Polio safety standards. A. Fire Protection Standards 1. All development shall be constructed in such a manner so as to reduce the potential for spread of brushfire through consideration of.the following:- a.. In the case of a conflict where more restrictive provisions are contained in the Uniform Building Code or in the Fire Code, the more restrictive provisions shall prevail. b. Roofs shall be covered -with noncombustible materials as defined in the Building Code. Open save ends shall be stopped in. order to prevent bird nests or other combustible material lodging within the roof and to preclude entry of flames. c. Exterior walls shall be surfaced with noncombustible or fire resistant materials. d. Balconies, patio roofs, eaves and other. similar overhangs shall be of noncombustible construction.or shall be protected by fire-resistant material pursuant to the Building Code. 36 AWFM Ian. S, fM 4 2. All development shall be constructed with adequate water supply and pressure for all proposed development in accordance with standards established by the Fire Marshal.. 3. A permanent fuel modification area shall be required around development projects or portions thereof that are adjacent or exposed 'to hazardous •fire areas for the purpose of fire protection. The required width of the fuel modification area shall be based on applicable building and fire codes and a Fire Hazard Analysis Study developed by the Fire Marshal. 4. Fuel modification areas shall incorporate soil erosion and sediment control measures to alleviate permanent scarring and accelerated erosion. 5. If the Fire Marshal determines in any specific case that difficult terrain, danger of erosion or other unusual circumstances make strict compliance with the clearance of vegetation undesirable or. impractical, she/he may suspend enforcement thereof and require reasonable alternative measures designed to advance the purposes of this ordinance. 6. In the event the abatement ia not performed as required in subsection C of this section,.the City Council may instruct the Fire Marshal to give notice to the owner of the property upon which said conditionexists to correct such.prohibited condition and, if the owner fails to correct such condition, the City Council may cause the same to be done and make the .expense of such correction a lien on the property upon which such conditions exist. 7. Require special construction features in the design of structures where site investigations confirm .potential geologic hazards. Section is. Application Filing Rfmir eats Proposed development within hillside areas shall require the submittal of a Conditional Use Permit application. Additional submittal requirements may include applications for Development Review, Oak Tree Permits, Subdivision and Environmental Review. All applications shall incorporate the following filing. requirements and shall include process fees as established by the City Fee Resolution. A. A natural features map, which shall identify all existing slope banks, ridgelines, canyons, natural drainage courses, federally recognized blue line streams, rock outcroppings, and existing vegetation. Also depicted shall be landslides and other existing geologic hazards. B. A conceptual grading plan, which shall include the following items in addition to those required by the Municipal Code or as part of the Submittal Requirement Checklist: 1.. A legend with appropriate symbols which should include, but not be limited to, the following items: top of wall, top of curb, high point, low point, elevation of significant trees, spot elevations, pad and finished floor elevations, and 37 AD0ffW ran. s, IM change in direction of drainage. 2. A separate map with proposed fill areas colored in green and - cut areas colored in red, with areas where cut and fill exceed depths -established in the hillside development guidelines and standards clearly shown. Additionally, the areas of cut and fill, calculated as a percentage of the total site area, shall be included on the plan. 3. Contours shall be shown for existing and natural land conditions and proposed work. Existing contours shall be depicted with a.dashed line with every fifth contour darker, and proposed contours shall be depicted as above except with a solid line. Countours shall be shown according to the following schedule: Nat•ura1 SMaxi MM InterYal Feet Above 20% 5 C. A conceptual drainage and flood control facilities map describing planned drainage improvements. D. A Slope Analysis map for the purpose of determining the amount and location'of land as it exists in its natural state falling into each slope category as.specified below. For the slope map, the applicant shall use a base topographical map of the subject site, prepared and signed by a registered civil engineer 'or licenses land surveyor, which shall have a scale of not less than 1 inch to 100 feet and a contour interval of not more than 2 feet provided that the contour interval may be 5 feet when the slope is more than 20 percent. This base topographical map shall include all adjoining properties within 150 feet of the site boundaries. Delineate slope bands in the range of to 10 percent, 10 up to 15 percent, 15 up to 20 percent, 20 up to 25 percent, 25 up to 30 percent, 30% to 35% and 35 percent or greater. Also included shall be a tabulation of the land/area in each slope..category specified in acres. E. Provide a sufficient number of slope profiles as required by the City Engineer to clearly illustrate the extent of the proposed grading. The slope profiles shall: 1. Be drawn at the same scale and indexed, or keyed, to the grading plan, and project site map. .2. Show existing and proposed topography, structures, and infrastructures. Proposed topography, structures, and infrastructures shall be drawn with a solid, heavy line. .Existing topography and features shall be drawn with a.thin or dashed line. 3. The slope profile shall extend far enough from the project site boundary to clearly show impact on adjacent property, at least 150 feet. 38. ADOMW JoL 5. 1993 4. The profiles shall be drawn along those locations of the project site where: (a) The greatest alteration of existing topography is proposed; and, (b) The most intense or bulky development is proposed; and, (c) The site is most visible from surround land uses; and, (d) At all site boundaries illustrating maximum and minimum conditions. 5. At least two of the slope profiles shall be roughly parallel to each other and roughly perpendicular to existing contour lines. At least one other slope.profile shall be roughly at a 45 degree angle to the other slope profiles and existing contour lines. F. The slope profiles shall be stamped and signed by either a registered landscape architect, civil engineer, or land surveyor indicating the datum, source, and scale of topographic data used in the slope profiles, and. attesting to the fact that the slope. profiles have been accurately calculated and identified. G. The exact method for computing the percent slope and area of each slope category should be sufficiently described and presented so that a review can be readily made. Also, a heavy, solid line indicating the grade differential shall be clearly marked on the plan, and an additional copy of the map shall be submitted with the slope percentage categories depicted in contrasting colors. H. A geologic and soils report, prepared by an approved soils engineering firm and in sufficient detail to substantiate and support the design concepts presented in the application as submitted. Additional environmental studies and investigations, such as, but not limited to, hydrologic, seismic, access/ circulation, and biota research may also be required in order to help in the determination of the buildable area of a site. ' I. A statement of conditions for ultimate ownership and maintenance of all parts of the development including streets, structures and open spaces. J. In the event that no grading is proposed, i.e., custom lot subdivision, a statement to that effect shall be filed with a plan which shows possible future house plotting, lot grading, driveway design, and location for each parcel proposed, to be prepared on a topographic map -drawn at the same scale as the conceptual grading plan. K. When unit development is - proposed, illustrative building elevations, that show all sides of the proposed structure(s) and which accurately depict the building envelope for each lot, shall be provided. L. The following items may be required if determined necessary to aid in the analysis of the proposed project to illustrate existing or proposed conditions or both: 39 ADOffMJmL s, IM .1. A Computerized or topographic model; 2. A line of.sight or view analysis; 3. Photographic renderings; 4. Any other illustrative technique determined necessary to aid in review of a project. M. Exceptions to the filing requirements shall be determined by the Director and City Engineer. .f CAWP511WORKULAMYNARLSM BE ADOFM U& s, M STATE: OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.. DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT t ism THIRD STREET, Room 430 C" 16-Cp tD T zzs P.O BOX 952053 J.�. _Lz rn SACRAMENTO, CA 94252-2053 (916) 323-3176 FAX (916) 323-6625 _-.1 C") _; rn rn M.M. July 28, 1994 o-jaj& Mt. Terrence L. Belanger City manager City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765-3117 Dear Mr. Belanger: RE: Review of Diamond Bar's Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting Diamond Bar's revised draft housing element amendment, received July 12, 1994:for our review. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to,the locality pursuant to Government Code Section 65585 (b) The draft amendment has not been substantially changed and 'do * es not adequately address the statutory requirements outlined in our December 3, 1993 review letter of the City's adopted housing element. Given the need, we are particularly disappointed that the City did not respond spond at all to the requirement to identify adequate sites. These concerns were reviewed in a telephone conversation on July 22, 1994 with Mr. -Rob Fearcy the City's Associate Planner. As a result, revisions, are still needed ' for the element to comply with State law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code). The City should refer to our December 3, 1993 review letter for a description of the revisions needed to bring the element into compliance with the law. if you have any questions concerning the above, or would like assistance in revising the element, please 'contact Gary Collord, of our staff, at (916) 327-2644. In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Records Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter'to the persons and organizations listed below." Sincerely,. Thomas B. Cook Deputy Director 4 PLO. MEMORANDUM to the Diamond Bar Planning Commission SUBJECT: Bramalea Property "in Diamond Bar FROM: Mr. Gary L Neely DATE: July 27, 1994 Commissioners, I suggest we add the following paragraphs to the Housing Element in the 1994 Draft General Plan: "The overwhelming majority of undeveloped property in the northeast quadrant of the City (not including Tres Hermanos Ranch or the vacant property just south of SR -60) is owned by one property owner/development company and has development restrictions placed upon it as a result of previous development agreements. The exception is one irregularly shaped 50 acre parcel that generally runs along what would be an extension of Highcrest Road east to Diamond Bar Boulevard. Under thepolicies articulated within this General Plan, that 50 acre parcel would normally have a land -use designation of Rural Residential (RR). The property owner/developer recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City) however, which details an agreement to change this 50 acre parcel's land use designation to Low Density Residential (RL - 3 Units per acre). I In exchange for this concession on the City's part, the MOU provides that the Iandowner/developer has agreed (1) to transfer ownership of all their remaining developed -restricted acreage in the City of Diamond Bar to the City (for dedication as Open Space), (2) grade a level ten acre pad on the corner of Gold Rush Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard for the City's ownership and use, and (3) pay for certain traffic mitigation measures (Traffic signalization - installation, left-hand turn lanes construction, street restriping, etc.) that will be required for the new intersection at Highcrest Drive/Tin Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard. It is the intent of this General Plan to honor the agreement detailed in that MOU. The estimated new housing figures shown in this Housing Element, and the land use designations shown on the Land Use Map (within the Land Use Element) reflect these facts." F111P t I I Government Code Section 65302(b): [The General Plan shall in Circulation Element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the Land Use Element of the plan. Government Code Section 65303: [The General Plan may] .. address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the legislative body,relate to the physical development of the county or city. The Circulation Element, required by state law since 1955, is not simply a transportation plan. It is actually an infrastructure plan that concerns itself with the circulation of people, goods, energy, water, sewage, storm drainage and communications. Its provisions support the goals, objectives policies and proposals of the Land Use Element. In turn, ' the Land Use Element is a reflection of a community's circulation system and the planning proposals for that system. Long before any other.General Plan elements were mandated, state law required the Circulation Element to be correlated with the Land Use Element. This correlation requirement was a forerunner of the in consistency provision of Government Code Section 65300.5. The Circulation Element also has direct relationships with the Housing, Resource Management, Public Health and Safety, and Public Services and Facilities elements. The provisions of. a Circulation Element affect a community's physical, social and economic environment as follows: Physical: The circulation system is one of the chief generators of physical settlement patterns, and its location, design and constituent modes have major impacts on air quality, plant and animal habitats, environmental noise; energy use, community appearance and other environmental components. Social: The circulation system is a primary determinant of the pattern of human settlement. It has a major impact on the areas and activities which it serves, on community cohesion, and on the quality of human life. The circulation system should be accessible to all segments of the population, including the disadvantaged, the young, the poor, the elderly, and the handicapped. Economic: Economic activities normally require circulation for materials, products, ideas or employees, and thus, the viability of the community's economy is directly affected by the. circulation element. The efficiency of a community's circulation system can either contribute to or .adversely affect that community's economy. 11 No city or county is an is ' land in its regional settling. It is therefore necessary for a local planning agency to coordinate its Circulation Element provisions with applicable p state and regional transportation plans (Government Code Section 65103(f) and 65080 et seq.). Likewise the statemust coordinate its plans with local governments (Government Code Section 65080(a) and the federal government is under a similar obligation (Section 1347 Title 23 of the U.S. Code). Caltrans is particularly interested in the transportation planning roles of local General Plans - particularly the circulation elements. The state transportation agency believes the following areas should be emphasized in the development of local General Plans: The Coordination of planning efforts between local agencies and Caltrans districts. The preservation of transportation corridors for future system improvements. The development of coordinated Transportation System -Management plans that achieve the maximum use of present and proposed infrastructure. . These areas of emphasis are addressed through Caltrans' Advance Transportation System Development Program. One of the program's major purposes is to resolve transportation problems early enough in the local land use development process to avoid costly delays to development. The coordination of State and local transportation planning is a key to the success of any Circulation Element. This is the first Circulation Element prepared for the City of Diamond Bar. Although it is a new city, it is not a newly developing city, but rather one that is largely built out. Many strategic decisions related to transportation facilities (e.g., locations of roadways, railroad lines and aviation terminals, etc.) were made at the County level prior to the City's incorporation. This Circulation Element provides the first opportunity to evaluate how best to utilize and/or improve these facilities from the perspective of the City of Diamond Bar, its residents, businesses, and other,users of City services. For the purposes of this document, the circulation system within and adjacent to the City can be divided into the following components: Automobile Transportation Transit and Paratransit Services Truck Routes Railroad Lines Bicycle Routes Equestrian Trails Aviation Each component of the circulation system is addressed in the Circulation Element, although the emphasis is on the component relating to Automobile Transportation. f Five basic steps were involved in developing the Circulation Element. The first step consisted of documenting existing conditions and assembling a factual data base. The second step involved the development and validation of a transportation model used to forecast future travel demand and travel patterns within the City and the surrounding area. Step three entailed identification of problems, opportunities and issues. The fourth step was the evaluation of alternative improvement scenarios. - The fifth and final step comprised the definition and refinement of the Circulation Element. . The resulting document is organized into the following sections with each of the above components of the circulation system being discussed, where appropriate, therein. Existing Conditions Future Conditions Major Circulation Issues Goals, Objectives and Strategies Technical Appendices to the Master Environmental Assessment document support this section and contain additional details and analysis of existing and future conditions; travel forecast model documentation, and the Congestion Management Plan. 3 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Automobile Transportation: This section documents the roadway system and its operating conditions within the City of Diamond Bar as of late 1990/early 1991. It also provides an evaluation of the adequacy of the system to accommodate existing travel demand. a. Roadway Classification, Definition of Terms: Under the Circulation Element of the County of Los Angeles, roadways within Diamond Bar were categorized into four functional classifications. General descriptions of these functional classifications follows: Freeways Arterial Streets (Major and Minor) Collector Streets (Business & Residential) Local Residential Streets Freeways generally provide inter -regional access. Their primary function, is to move vehicles through the City. Thus,- there is not access to adjacent land and limited access to arterial streets. Freeways contain anywhere from 4 to 1.2 lanes with recommended design volumes from 65,000 to 205,000 depending on geometric designs which permit high travel speeds. Arterial Streets are generally the commercial arteries. They carry the majority of traffic entering or traveling through the City. Arterial streets also serve adjacent commercial land uses. Driveways and other curb cuts along arterial streets are generally limited to minimize disruption to traffic flow. A major arterial would contain either four or six lanes of through traffic plus left -turn lanes. Minor arterial streets serve the same function as major arterial streets, but have four lanes of through traffic and may, or may not, have separate left -turn lanes. Recommended d ' esign volumes on arterial streets range from 33,800 to 50,600 depending on number of lanes, left -turn movements, and anticipated Levels of Service (LOS). . Collector Streets are intended to carry traffic between the arterial street network and local -residential streets, or directly from the access drives of higher intensity land uses. Collector streets are not intended to carry significant amounts of through traffic. Higher density residential land uses or side yards of single family homes may be located adjacent to collector streets. Higher traffic volumes may be acceptable on certain collector streets such as those with fronting commercial development or extra wide cross sections. 'The category of collector streets is further subdivided into Business Collector Streets and Residential Collector Streets. 0 2 Business Collector Streets serve business or higher density attached residential land uses. They are generally two and four lane roadways which serve a mixt ' ure of residential and more intense land uses andmaycarry traffic from Residential Collector Streets to the arterial street network as well. Business Collector Streets are generally designed for an average daily volume of less than 22,500 vehicles per day (LOS D). Residential Collector Streets generally carry traffic between residential neighborhoods and the arterial street network. They are. generally two-lane roadways which have residential or a mixture of residential and commercial land uses along them. Residential Collector Streets are generally designed for an average daily volume of less than 11,300 vehicles per day (LOS D). Local Residential Streets are designed to serve adjacent residential land uses only and are intended to retain a residential character. This allows access to residential driveways and often provide parking for the neighborhood. They are not intended to serve through traffic traveling from one street to another, but solely local traffic. Traffic volumes on a residential street should not exceed about 2,500 vehicles 'per day (LOS C) and 200-3 )00 vehicles per hour. The maximum residential traffic volume which is acceptable to persons living along a street may vary from one street to another depending upon roadway width, type of dwelling units (i.e., high density apartments versus single-family homes), presence of schools and other factors. It is not uncommon to define the previously mentioned roadway classifications by defining the average daily capacity of the roads in question. Average daily capacity is the theoretical maximum numberofvehicles that can pass over a segment of roadway in 24 hours.. The capacity of a roadway is affected by a number of factors including roadway type, street and lane widths, the number of travel lanes, the number of crossing roadways, signal cycle length, the absence or ID presence of on -street parking, the number of driveways, pavement conditions and roadway design. Table V-1 (Table H --T-1 in M.E.A. Document) shows the maximum average daily capacity of various roadway classifications for different Levels of Service. Table V-2 (Table H --T-3 in M.E.A. Document) further defines Levels Of Service and equates Levels of Service nomenclature to Volume -to -Capacity Ratios. . Roadway traffic operation is generally evaluated in the traffic management industry by Volume -to -Capacity Ratios. This is a ratio of Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes to the average daily capacity and is generally I C� 11.3 considered the most practical measure of how well the mobility needs of the City are being met. 5 I t Table V-1 Daily Roadway Capacity Values mAiMrn:Ane Dal yVolunes by6Level of Service -"'- Functional -Typeof Roadway ciassiricationD: 6 Lanes Divided Major Arterial 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 4 Lands Divided Minor Arterial 22,500 30,000 33,800. 37,500 4 Lanes (Undivided) Collector 15,000 1.7,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 2 Lanes (Undivided) Collector/Residential Collector 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,3(}0 12,500 2 Lanes (Undivided) Local Road 1,875 Will 2,190 ORION 1 1 2,500 2,810 3,125 To, 6 J_F V- z (Table 11-T-3) Level of Service Interpretation Vokxm4o LOS Description capacity Ratio A Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection 0-.60 appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. Very good operation. Many drive I rs begin to feel .61 - 70 somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues start to form. C Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wad .71 -80 more than 60 seconds, and back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more .81 -90 than 60 seconds during short peaks. There are no long- standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods. E Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues .91 . -100 develop on critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several minutes. F Forced flow. Represents lammed conditions. Backups Over 1.00 from - locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or - prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and to We traffic flow. So=@: Based on f4ar4c$d . Acode"W of 5cwcc4m H4hway capacity manual, 1 965 and 1986. DIES ,ssoclates MAJOR AATERIAL MWQR ARTERIAL 1�5mj Fac v--1 I Figure U•T-i f1®® ■AAl/R r% .r7 b. Roadway Classifications in the City of Diamond Bar: Figure V-1 (Figure II -T-1 in M.E.A. Document) shows the City's existing freeways and arterial streets. (Redo the map to combine Arterial Streets and include Collector Streets) Although a more complete listing and discussion of the existing roadway characteristics (including number of lanes, posted speed, parking restrictions, presence of sidewalks and bikeways, etc.) for all freeways, arterial streets and collector streets within the City is contained in the Master Environmental Assessment. Document, Table V-3 (Table II -T-11 in the M.E.A. Document) lists all of the City's. arterial streets and summarizes where the City's street classifications differ with Los Angeles County's street classifications. Table V-4 .(and Table II -T-2 in the M.E.A. document) lists the Average Daily Capacity, Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes and the Volume -to -Capacity Ratios for the arterial streets in Diamond -Bar. 'Figure II -T-2 (contained in the Master Environmental Assessment document) depicts the Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes graphically. Most values shown. are based either upon single day counts or an average of multiple daily counts for typical days, generally accepted to be Tuesday through Thursday, with traffic unaffected by holidays, inclement weather, or other impediments to normal traffic conditions. Average Daily Traffic Volumes obtained prior to •1990 have been modified by an annual growth factor of 2%. Summarizing Table V-4: Although there are additional roadway segments nearing this mark, this report indicates there are currently six arterial roadway segments where Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes actually exceed acceptable volumes for LOS D.. They are: Diamond Bar Boulevard south of Grand Avenue (1.03) Diamond Bar Boulevard north of Golden Springs Drive (1.09) Diamond Bar Boulevard south of Sunset Crossing Road (1.04) Brea Canyon Road north of Pathfinder Road (1.01) . Brea Canyon Road north of the Pomona (60) Freeway (1.09) Brea Canyon Cutoff Road south of Pathfinder Road (1.05) C. Intersection Operating Conditions in the City of Diamond Bar: Operating conditions have been analyzed at 33 key signalized intersections and three un -signalized intersections. Traffic volumes for each intersection were collected on a typical weekday during AM and PM peak traffic periods. Morning peak hour counts were taken between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, and evening peak hour counts were taken between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. .The measured volume was then compared to the State (Caltrans) standard to determine the Volume -to -Capacity Ratio, each intersection being hence described by a Level of Service (LOS). n6 -TA,iLc v -3 City of Diamond Bar Roadway Classification ' ' GU 1cv, 2� i (e t4 Los Angeles •� ,� Roadway County Diamond Bar Width Dedication Improvement Classification Classification (ft.) Stds. (ft.) Stds: (ft.) Roadway Diamond Bar Blvd. Major Major 100 100 100 Golden Springs Dr. Major Major 100 100 100 (w/o Brea Canyon Rd.) , Golden Springs Dr. Minor Secondary 80 80 80 (c/o Brea Canyon Rd.) Grand Ave. Major Major 100 100 100 Pathfinder Rd. (c/o Brea Canyon Rd, -west Major Ma j Major 100 100 100 leg) Pathfinder Rd. (w/o Brea Canyon Rd. -west Minor Secondary 80 80 80 leg) Brea Canyon Rd. (s/o Minor Secondary 80 80 80 Golden Springs Dr. Brea Canyon Rd. (n/o Major Major 1 100 100 100 Golden Springs Dr.) 64 Lemon Ave. Major Residential- 60 64 (s. of Golden Springs Dr.) Collector C Lemon Ave. Major . Secondary 80 80 80 (n. of Golden Springs Dr.) Sunset Crossing Rd. Minor Residential - 60 80 64 East of SR57 Collector West of SR57 Minor Residential (Cul de sac) 80 Washington St. Y Minor Cul-de-aac 80 80 64 Beaverhead Dr. Minor Cul-de-sac 64 80 64 Lycoming St. Minor Cul-de-aac 64 80 64 Brea Canyon Cut -Off Rd. Ltd Secondary Secondary' 64-80 64 80 64-80 100 100 100 Chino Hills Pkwy. Major Major 'Los Angeles County Highway Pian Roadway Classification Right -of -Way Widths Maj100 -120 feet or.. :............... ...... 60 -100 feet Secondary .... 60 - 80 feet Collector . (Refer to City of Diamond Bar standards for more spedfic information on roadway sections) Diamond Bar General Plan 9 Line 30. 1994 GPAC Recommendations 10 Signalized Intersections: The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology was used to determine operating Levels of Service at signalized'intersections. Levels of Service (LOS) values were assumed as shown in Table V-2 (Table H -T-3 in M.E.A. Document). Within urban areas, LOS D is typically assumed to be the maximum acceptable LOS during peak hour traffic. At LOS E, congestion begins to occur in quantities and for durations beyond acceptable limits. Although it is theoretically impossible to observe LOS F, it serves to indicate that the travel demand *for the intersection exceeds the capacity. Intersections with LOS E and LOS F will experience significant congestion during the peak hours. The duration of this congestion is dependent upon many operational considerations which can be evaluated during the actual operation of the intersection. Hourly lane capacities of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour were assumed with 0.10 additional increment for yellow or loss time. This is consistent with the most recent recommendations included in the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan. Table II -T-4 and Figure II -T-3, (contained in - the Master Environmental Assessment document), show the entire results of the Level of Service analysis for the 33 signalized intersections, in addition to AM and PM peak LOS for those intersection with deficient Levels of Service. Summarizing Table II -T-4: During the AM peak period, three signalized intersections in the City operate at Levels of Service E or F. These intersections experience very poor operating conditions and significant delay. These intersections are: Diamond Bar Boulevard & Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar Boulevard & Mountain Laurel Way Pathfinder Road & the southbound 57 Freeway on/off ramps The remaining 30 signalized intersections are currently operating at Levels of Service A through D during the AM peak periods which indicate acceptable operating conditions. During the PM peak period, six signalized intersections experience Levels of Service E or F. Those intersections are: Diamond Bar Boulevard & Pathfinder Road Diamond Bar Boulevard & Mountain Laurel Way Diamond Bar Boulevard & Grand Avenue Diamond Bar Boulevard &- Temple Avenue Golden Springs Road & Grand Avenue Brea Canyon Road & the westbound 60 Freeway on/off ramps . Acceptable Levels of Service exist at the remaining 27 signalized. intersections during PM peak periods 11 Un -signalized Intersections: Three un -signalized intersections were also chosen for analysis. A discussion of this study's methodology and the complete results of the analysis is contained in the Master Environmental Assessment document. (See M.E.A. Table II -T-5 and II -T-3) Figure Fi9 1 The three un -signalized intersections studied all showed . AM and/or PM peak hour Levels of Service E or F. Those intersections are: Sunset Crossing Road & the southbound 57 Freeway on/off ramps Diamond Bar Blvd./Brea Canyon Cut-off Road & the southbound 57 Freeway on/off ramps Diamond Bar, Blvd./Brea Canyon Cut-off Road & the northbound 57 Freeway on/off ramps d. Intrusion of Through Traffic in the City of Diamond. Bar: Traffic on the streets of Diamond Bar consists Of motorists who live, work and shop in the City of Diamond Bar plus motorists who are passing through the City but do not stop for any reason. The alignment of the City's three most significant arterial 'streets, Diamond Bar Boulevard, Golden Springs Road and Grand Avenue results in large volumes of through traffic. Currently, during peak commute periods, c'ongestion''is heavy along the 57 and 60 Freeways, particularly through the one -mile long section of freeway within Diamond Bar where the 57 Freeway corresponds with the 60 Freeway, and in'the segment of the 60 Freeway immediately east of the 57 Freeway where the capacity of the .60 Freeway is reduced to three travel lanes in each direction. Congestion is particularly heavy during, AM and PM peak traffic hours: Diamond Bar Boulevard is an attractive alternative route, primarily due to interchanges with the freeway at both the southern and northern sections of the 'City. -Diamond Bar Boulevard intersects with the 57 Freeway 'south .of the merge, and at the northern divergence, of the 57 Freeway and the 60 Freeway. In addition, it serves as a shortcut to traffic traveling to or from San Bernardino County via Grand Avenue. These factors result in a large intrusion of commuter traffic using, Diamond Bar Boulevard to travel between areas to the south of the City and jurisdictions north and east of Diamond Bar. Golden Springs Drive is also utilized as an alternative route for avoiding. the congested segment of combined freeway. During AM peak traffic, the route is utilized by traffic traveling west from the 60 Freeway and southbound on the 57 Freeway towards the westbound 60 Freeway corridor west of the City. The Diamond Bar Boulevard exit is used to access Golden Springs Drive, with traffic continuing west on Golden Springs Drive/Colima Road eventually reentering the westbound 60 Freeway beyond the point of congestion. The same route is also used during PM Peak traffic with traffic exiting the 'eastbound 60 Freeway at either the 12 Azusa Avenue, Fullerton Road, Nogales Street exits in Rowland Heights or the Brea 1. Canyon Road exit in Diamond Bar, and re-entering eithe*r the eastbound 60 Freeway or the northbound 57 Freeway at Diamond Bar Boulevard. Grand Avenue is currently the only east -west route which directly serves the developing central Chino Hills area. Although the 60 Freeway is accessible to the north, heavy congestion along this freeway makes Grand Avenue an attractive route for vehicular traffic traveling between the Chino Hills area of San Bernardino County arid areas west of Diamond Bar along, the 60 Freeway corridor towards Los`Angelesas well as south of the City along the 57 Freeway corridor towards northern Orange County. I In February of 1994, The City of Chino Hills documented that 50% of the working adults in their city of 48,000 residents (16,286 households) commute to work in Los Angeles County, 30% commute to work in Orange County and only. 20% commute to work in San Bernardino or Riverside Counties. The City of Chino Hills General Plan currently allows for an additional 10,529 households (a 65% increase to total nearly 80,000 residents in 26,815 households) upon that city's build- out. To quantify the magnitude of through traffic in. the City, a license plate survey was conducted. A discussion of this study's methodology and the complete results of the analysis is contained in the Master Environmental Assessment document. (See M.E.A. Table II -T-6 through II -T-8 and Figure II -T-4). The* results from this analysis confirmed the three principal arterial routes within the City to have significant percentages of their total traffic volumes comprised of vehicles making through trips. Most of the through trips during the PM peak flow period occurred on Diamond Bar Boulevard, Golden Springs Road and Grand Avenue and were observed exiting the C ' City into San Bernardino County along Grand Avenue. In fact, Grand Avenue east of Diamond Bar Boulevard is the V arterial segment experiencing the largest volumes Of through trip traffic within the. City. Besides heavy commuter and significant through traffic volumes along arterial streets within the .City, problems of commuter traffic intrusion have been identified by residents on other streets in the City. Due to the extremely poor operating conditions and significant delays experienced at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue during PM peak periods (V/C 1.26, LOS F), local and collector streets within residential areas adjacent to this intersection are often utilized by commuter traffic to bypass the heavily congested intersection. 1 0 W Residents report intrusion of cut -through traffic on INIontefino Avenue, Quail Summit Drive, Rolling Knoll Road, Mountain Laurel Way, Silver Rain Drive, Meadow .Glen Drive, Carpio Drive, Armitos Place, Leyland Drive, Suminitridr I Drive, Longview Drive, Gold Rush Drive and Palomino Drive. Intrusion of through traffic into residential neighborhoods has caused 'several problems, including speeding, particularly 'in the vicinity of schools. 2. Transit and Paratransit Services: Both fixed route transit and paratransit service operate within the City of Diamond Bar. Fixed route transit services are typically bus lines which operate on regular schedules along a set route, stopping at predefined bus stops. Fixed route transit service can be either local (intracity) or regional (intercity). Patatransit services, more commonly referred to as Dial -a -Ride, are demand responsive services which provide rides to passengers, upon an individual request basis. although they operate within a defined service area, they do not operate on fixed routes or schedules. Paratransit service typically service transit dependent persons such as the elderly and handicapped. They often serve major destinations such as hospitals and medical facilities but may also take passengers to . local destinations such as neighborhood shopping centers. a. Transit Services: Public bus transit service is provided to the City of Diamond Bar by the Southenz Califonda Rapid Transit District and Foothill Transit. Three fixed route transit lines serve the City of Diamond Bar: RTD Route 482, RTD Route 490 and Foothill Transit Route 495. All three of these transit routes are intercity routes. RTD Routes 482 and 490 originate and terminate outside of the Diamond Bar city limits. Foothill Transit Route 495 originates in the morning and terminates at night at the Park -and -Ride facility north of the Diamond Bar Boulevard/60 Freeway interchange. Fares currently range from $1.35 to $2.30, depending on origin rigin and destination. The following paragraphs describe the service provided by each line. RTD ROUTE 482 is an east/west intercity transit line which connects the Los Angeles Central Business District with Pomona. The route originates in Pomona and travels along Holt Avenue, Valley Boulevard. and Temple Avenue before turning south onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. It th' en services the City of Diamond Bar along Diamond Bar Boulevard to Golden Springs Drive where it continues west exiting the City along Colima Road. The line goes through Rowland Heights, the City of Industry, Hacienda Heights, and the cities of South El Monte and El Monte prior to entering the. busway along the San Bernardino '(10) Freeway where it continues into downtown Los Angeles. In addition 'to the Park -and -Ride 10 facility north of the Diamond Bar Boulevard/60 Freeway interchange, the route serves an additional Park -and -Ride lot at the Lante*rman State Hospital near Highland Valley Road. Service hours within the City of Diamond Bar are between approximately 5:45 -AM and 11:30 PM on weekdays and Saturdays, and between approximately 5:45 AM and 8:30 PM on Sundays and holidays. During the week, the linehasapproximately 15 to 30 minute headways during Alli* and PM -peak hours, and one-hour headways during the day and evening. There are approximately one-hour headways during the weekends and holidays. . RTD ROUTE 490 is also an intercity route which connects the cities of Fullerton and Brea, through Diamond Bar, with the cities of Walnut, Covina, West Covina, Baldwin Park, El Monte and the Los Angeles Central Business District. The line originates near Cal -State Fullerton and continues north where it, also services the Brea Mall. It then travels along the Orange (57) Freeway north into the City of Diamond Bar, exiting the freeway at the southern Diamond Bar. 1.) y Boulevard exit. The route operates within the City along the entire length of Diamond Bar Boulevard. It exits the City in the north turning west along Temple ry Avenue where is services Cal -Poly Pomona University and the Eastland Shopping Center in West Covina before entering the westbound San Bernardino (10) Freeway at Azusa Avenue. Route 490 also services the two Park -and -Ride lots north of the Diamond Bar Boulevard/60 Freeway interchange and Park -and -Ride facility at Lanterman State Hospital. Access is provided to disabled persons on nearly all buses serving this route. Service hours within the City of Diamond Bar are between approximately 5:10 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays; 6:50 AM and 8-00 PM on Saturdays; and 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on Sundays and holidays. Within the City of Diamond Bar, the line approximately crates with one-hour headways both during the week and on the weekends. FOOTHILL TRANSIT ROUTE 495 is an express route to downtown Los Angeles. Service * is limited to weekday commute with AM peak hour departures from the Park-and=Ride lot at approximately 10 -:minute intervals between 5:10 AM and 7:50 AM. P ' M peak hour departures from downtown Los Angeles, also at approximately 10 minute intervals, are scheduled between 3 ):20 PM and 6:26 Pm. b. ' Paratransit Services: Demand responsive transit service is provided to the City of Diamond Bar by the jointly sponsored Los A17geles County and City of Diamond Bar Paratrallsit Service. This Dial -a -Ride service provides transportation to handicapped persons and senior citizens -within not only the City of Diamond Bar but portions of the surrounding area. Transportation is limited to Los Angeles County, and generally operates south of Valley Boulevard and.east of 7th Avenue, with service to medical facilities within the cities of Pomona, Walnut, Industry and West Covina. It operates Monday through Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 pm at a cost of 50 cents per ride. 15 7 DIAMOND BAR DEMEr TRLICK ROUTES N III1l ltltittts` 'Ii�t 1 V ■ It11111®I!! 17 R `e W Z w N 2 rzz C C C C 'o 0 0 O c p �© Z0 U V W -C0° oWCo D cooQ U� U xV5"c U 6 O oU �Ec ' 0 > I W z o U 0 z z u W c� a 0 zw z z o. N 0 0 Z W 0 N C 00 W — U 0 C a g l7 Z (D �, W W� j w a a.' -M 17Q acc _ z = �QJ } !— U N III1l ltltittts` 'Ii�t 1 V ■ It11111®I!! 17 R 3. Truck Routes: The City has established a designated truck route plan which is shown on Figure V-2 (Figure II -T-8 M.E.A. Document). nt). Truck routes direct heavy truck traffic, onto Major Arterial and a limited number of Minor Arterial -streets. This plan helps - control noise and air pollution in residential areas of the City and protects local streets from significant surface damage that might result from m heavy truck traffic. North of the combined section of the 60/57'Freeway, it is necessary for freeway traffic to exit onto Diamond Bar Boulevard (via the Sunset Crossing off -ramp) when traveling southbound on the 57 Freeway en route to the eastbound 60 Freeway ramps. Correspondingly, it is necessary for westbound 60 Freeway traffic to exit onto Diamond Bar Boulevard in order to reach the northbound 57 Freeway. Therefore; those sections of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Sunset Crossing Road between the 60 Freeway ramps, and the 57 Freeway ramps to the north are. designated truck routes. To enable access to the heavy industrial areas of the City of Industry and in western portion of the City of Diamond Bar, Brea Canyon Road and Lemon Avenue north of Golden Springs Road, as well as Walnut Drive west of Lemon Avenue are designated truck routes. Delivery of goods for resale in the commercial areas and strip centers -within the City occurs primarily through the .use of trucks. These truck deliveries are limited to I the most direct route from and back to the freeways. Signs on all entrances into the City notify drivers of a five -ton weight restriction for trucks within the City (except for designated truck routes) as well as parking, restrictions which limit commercial vehicles over five tons to 'DO minutes. 4. Railroad Lines: There are currently no long-distance passenger rail facilities in operation within the City of Diamond Bar. The nearest Amtrak facilities are located in Pomona and Fullerton. The Pomona Amtrak station, which serves the Southwest Chief line, is located at 2701 Garey Avenue and is approximately nine miles north of Diamond Bar. The Fullerton Amtrak station, which serves the San Diegan line, is located at the corner. of Santa Fe and Harbor Boulevard and is approximately 13 miles to the south. The Union Pacific Railroad is the only freight rail line which serves the City I of Diamond Bar. The line lies alongo the .City's northwestern boundary with the City of Industry, and serves theindustrial areas north of Walnut Drive and Lvoming Street. A Metrolink commuter rail station has recently opened along the Union Pacific Railroad at Brea Canyon Road, just north of SR -60 Freeway in the City of Industry. 18 5. Bicycle Routes: There are three different classes of bikeways which are commonly recognized.. A definition of each bikeway class is presented below: ' right-of-way' for theA completely separated Class I Bikeway (Bike Path):C exclusive use of bicycles (and sometimes pedestrians). Cross-flow is minimized by limiting access to designated points. I Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): Routes designated by separately striped lanes and signs along streets or highways. They provide restricted one-way travel for bicycles, although motor vehicles are sometimes permitted to use the bike land to make turns I and to 'park. Class III Bikeway (bike Route): Roadways in which the travel lanes are shared by motor vehicles and bicycles whose route is designated. This type of bikeway does not provide cyclists with increased privileges, but rather, informs motorists of the cycling route. I Figure V-3 (Figure II -T-6 in M.E.A. Document) shows the existing designated bikeways within the City o * f Diamond Bar. Although the City has two marked bikeways along both sides of the entire lengths of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Drive, 'there are currently no Class I bikeways within the City of Diamond Bar. All of Diamond Bar Boulevard and` Golden Springs Drive between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road each contain Class 11 Bikeways. The width of the bike lanes vary from 12 feet throughout most of the bikeway, to three feet at a few locations with narrower curb -to -curb street widths. * Most 'signalized intersection bikeway approaches are striped to permit right turns by motor vehicles. Parking is not permitted within the bikeways except on Golden Springs Drive near Brea Canyon Road and in the northbound bikeway on Diamond Bar Boulevard between Montefino Avenue- and Grand Avenue. Golden Springs Drive, north of Diamond Bar Boulevard, is designated a Class III Bikeway on both sides of the roadway. 6. Equestrian Trails: Although a series of trails are proposed by the County of Los Angeles, there 0 are currently no official equestrian trails available to the public within the city limits of the City of Diamond Bar. Once completed, (see: Figure V-3 )) these trails will be owned .and maintained by the County. 19 i 7. Aviation: � There are no aviation facilities located within the City of Diamond Bar. The closest passenger air carrier and aircargo facilities are located at Ontario International Airport located 15 miles to the east. The closest general aviation airports are Brackett I Field in La Verne, approximately nine miles to the north; and Chino Airport in the City of Chino,-.-approximately-1-1 miles to the east: _ _ _. 1. Automobile Transportation: The purpose of this section is to address the future, year 2010, circulation system requirements of the City of Diamond Bar. To assess future traffic volume forecasts for 2010 within and surrounding the City, data has been obtained from SCAG and the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Utilizing this basic data, a travel forecast model has been developed as a way to further validate future travel demand and circulation system requirements within and surrounding Diamond Bar. a. Projected Growth in Regionial Traffic: Projections of future land use and opportunities for development within the City of Diamond Bar are. contained in the Land Use Element. Future growth and development within the City of Diamond Bar will result in corresponding increases in traffic within the City. Increases in traffic attributable to growth and development within the City, however, are dwarfed by the magnitude of impacts which will occur due to regional traffic growth. Substantial projected growth in the region will result in significant increases in cut -through traffic within the City. Chino Hills 'is located adjacent to and east of Diamond Bar. Chino Hills is a planned community which, at buildout, will include approximately 80,000 residents, community and neighborhood commercial facilities, and other support residential 01 services. It will also include office and business park development. As of late 1990, Chino Hills was approximately 25% to 30% developed, including approximately 20,000 residents. As of early 1994, Chino Hills included 48,000 residents. Of these, 50% of the working adults in their city commute to work in Los Angeles County, 30% commute to work in Orange County and only 20% commute to work in San Bernardino or Riverside Counties. The 1994 Draft Chino Hills General Plan currently allows for an additional 10,529 households (a 65% increase to a total of 26,815) upon buildout. In comparison, Diamond Bar currently has 17,813 total households. Chino is located northeast of Diamond Bar. Grand Avenue provides an arterial link between the City of Diamond Bar and the City of Chino. Chino is transitioning from 'a semi -rural community to a more suburban community. This is characterized by agricultural land uses, located predominantly in the southwestern portion of the City, being replaced by non-residential, employment generating uses, especially industrial and warehousing. Based on its General Plan, the City of Chino projects an increase of approximately 6,056 residential units, 4.1 million square feet of commercial uses, 3.2 million square feet of office/business park uses and 29.3 million square feet of industrial/warehousing. These figures do not include projected land use of the unincorporated area adjacent to the City of Chino commonly known as the Agricultural Reserve. Development projections for that area, if it is allowed to be developed, have not yet been determined. 21 Pomona abuts Diamond Bar on the north. With an estimated population of 132,000 in an approximately, 2' ) square mile area, much of Pomona is currently developed. However, some development opportunities .do exist adjacent to Diamond Bar along SR -.60. The most notable of these is buildout of single-family residential within' Phillips Ranch and thelanned development of a re�crg center at theional. shopping C7 convergence of SR -60 and SR -71. Industry. Approximately 1,100 acres of undeveloped land lie adjacent to the City of Diamond Bar ,within the City of Industry. The City of Industry is considering potential opportunities to develop this land in industrial uses to take advantage of existing rail lines within the area as well as location proximate to regional 'highway fa'cilities (i.e., SR -60 & SR -57). Regardless ' of what land use this property ends up supporting, (albeit some uses would produce more traffic than others), it is anticipated that the resultant increased traffic generated by the development of this property will have an impact on SR -60 and SR -57 and, therefore, circulation in Diamond Bar. - b. . Los Angeles County Highway Plan: The roadway network depicted in the Los Angeles County Highway Plan (November 1980) was compared to 2010 traffic volumes to evaluate future traffic conditions in the City of Diamond Bar. Current and future buildout of the roadway network represented on the Los Angeles County Highway Plan for arterials within the City of Diamond Bar corresponds to the most recent master plans of the surrounding communities including the cities of Industry, Pomona and Chino Hills. The planned future network for the City assumes only minor modifications to existing roadway classifications. Table V-3 (Table H -T-11 in the MEA. Document) lists all of the City's arterial streets and summarizes where the City's street classifications differ with Los Angeles County's street classifications. Of particular note is that the Los Angeles County Highway Plan shows Sunset Crossing Road as a secondary arterial extending from its present terminus through the City of Industry to Brea Canyon Road in the vicinity of Washington Street. The City's plan shows Sunset Crossing as being a cul-de-sac at the western City limits. C. Cul-de-sacing of Sunset Crossing Road. . tn' t� Sunset Crossing is presently 'a four -lane roadway providing access to/from a residential area of northwest Diamond Bar. Sunset Crossing, -, West of Route 57, has an interchange with southbound Route 57, extends westerly and terminates at the western City limits adjacent to a park and Little League field. The County of Los Angeles Highway Plan assumes Sunset Crossing is to be extended southwesterly, through the City of Industry to a connection with Washington & Beaverhead Streets, or in that vicinity. The area through which Sunset Crossing is to extend is presently substantially undeveloped. However, the City of Industry is considering development of the area with industrial uses and a waste -to -rail materials recovery facility to take maximum advantage of its proximity 22 to freight rail lines. The extension of Sunset Crossing and the proposed development if -industrial uses adjacent to this arterial would significantly increase the volume of traffic alonc, r Sunset Crossing and introduce a significant number 'D trucks into this residential area. An evaluation of the potential impacts of the development of industria. uses adjacent to the City of Diamond Bar and the potential extension of Sunset Crossing to serve these uses is summarized as follows: The area within the City of Industry proposed for industrial development encompasses approximately 1,100 acres. (2) Assuming thatthis area is developed in an approximately equal mix of heavy industrial uses and light industrial uses, this area is estimated to generate approximately 37,000 daily trips with approximately 4,580 trips during the morning .peak hour and approximately 4,610 trips during the evening peak hour. (A waste -to -rail materials recovery facility would produce considerably more traffic than that estimated above.) G 3characteristicst ) The trip distribution of trips travelling to/from 1 the proposed industrial area (without a waste -to -rail materials recover . y facility included) were estimated as follows: 15% to/from the north via Grand Avenue 10% to/from the east via Grand Avenue 35% to/from the north/east via SR -57 25% to/from the west via SR -60 15% to/from the south via SR -57 (4) With the buildout of the industrial area and the extension of Sunset Crossing, the following intersections are piojected to operate at LOS E or worse during one or both peak hours. Brea Canyon Road at Washington Street Brea Canyon Road at WB SR -60 Ramps Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Road Grand Avenue at NB SR -60 Ramps Grand Avenue at SB SR -60 Ramps Grand Avenue at Golden Springs Road Sunset Crossing at SB SR -57 Ramps (5) Traffic volumes along Sunset Crossing Road which presently serves only to access a single-family residential neighborhood, the YMCA facilities and the Little League field would increase to approximately 21,000 vehicles per day with a significant percentage of truck traffic if the proposed extension was permitted. 23 With significant development planned for Chino Hills, arterials in Diamond Bar, especially Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue, are expected to carry even larger traffic volumes. It has been long been suggested by regional 0 0 co agencies that an alternative route, connecting SR -57 (south of Diamond Bar), to SR -60 -(at Phillips Ranch Road) and bypassing the City to the east, would help relieve future congestion along arterials within the City of Diamond Bar. In January 1991, a feasibility study was completed for *the counties . of Orange and San Bernardino by PBQ&D regarding possible extensions of Soquel Canyon Road and/or Tonner Canyon Road with various alignments for each proposed arterial considered. In the PBQ&D report, 'the Soquel Canyon Road eve congestion along Canyon Road ex -tension was proposed to relieve g 0 C (SR-142) and the Riverside Freeway (SR -91), both -east -west routes connecting sections of Orange and San Bernardino counties. This Soquel Canyon Road extension is included in the North Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, and has been identified in the City of Chino Hills General Plan as a critical length. The construction of this roadway alone, however, would. result in negligible reductions to future traffic volumes within Diamond Bar. The PBQ&D report proposed Tonner Canyon Road as a limited access expressway between Orange County and Chino Hills. All the various potential alignments studied. by PBQ&D showed this road beginning in the northeast portion of the City of Diamond Bar at the intersection of Phillips Ranch Road/Chino Hills Parkway and SR -60. From there they assumed this road would extend south through the length of Tres Hermanos Ranch and re-enter Los Angeles County south of Diamond Bar's city limits in the City's Sphere of Influence area. At this point, the PBQ&D report studied three possible alignments for the road to extend west to SR -57: Along the north slope of Tonner Canyon, down the middle of Tonner Canyon, and south of Tonner Canyon.' The Chino Hills General Plan currently shows the alignment of this in San Bernardino County as extending down the middle of Tres Hermanos Ranch and entering the City of Diamond's Sphere of Influence in such a way that it. would extend west down the middle of Tonne'r Canyon. In order to validate the regional assertion regarding the necessity of the bypass roadway, the traffic model was utilized to study the specific effects of constructing this potential road. Table V-4 (Table II -T-12 in the M.E.A. Document) compares Existing and.Estimated Future Average Daily Traffic figures (without the construction of Tonner Canyon Road). It is significant to note that, without the construction of Tonner Canyon Road, the number of road segments in the City where volumes exceed capacity is expected to. grow from the current five to twenty-eight. I 24 Regarding the potential alignment of a Tonner Canyon Road: Recently approved development along the northern face of Tonner. Canyon within Diamond Bar precludes the possible alignment of this bypass road along the nor , thern slopes 'of Tonner Canyon. The proposed construction of a untreated potable water lake in Upper Tonner Canyon/Tres Hermanos Ranch precludes the. possible alignment of this road down the middle of Tonner Canyon, as suggested by .the 1994 Draft City of Chino Hills General Plan.. The citizens of Diamond Bar have also made it clear that they do not wish this proposed road to be aligned down the middle 'of Tonner Canyon; and that, if constructed, this potential new addition to the existing infrastructure must be done so in the most environmentally sensitive manner possible; and, must also include minimal growth - inducing incentives. The City of Diamond Bar is not aware of any such constraints for a Soquel Canyon alignment. Future traffic volumes for selected arterials in Diamond Bar were studied for both a no -build scenario with neither of these proposed roadways, and with a buildout alternative scenario consisting of both roadways. For analysis purposes, the alternative buildout scenario considered both the Tonner Canyon alignment and the Soquel Canyon alignment to be six -lane roadways, with improved direct ramp connections betweenthe existing alignment of Tonner Canyon Road and SR -57. This alternative would also provide for construction of a new roadway connecting Soquel Canyon Road to Tonner Canyon Scenic Highway east of SR -57, northwest of Carbon Canyon Road and within Orange County. 4-7 As shown in Table V-4 (Table II -T-12 in the M.E.A. Document), in the absence 'of these proposed roadways, both Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue would experience significantly higher traffic volumes which greatly exceed their planned capacity. Diamond Bar. Boulevard ADT volumes south of Grand Avenue are projected to be as high as 60,000, with ADT volumes north of Grand Avenue about 32,000 vehicles per day. ADT volumes along Grand Avenue would approach 55,000. With neither an alternative route bypass nor the upgrading of the arterials from existing classifications or lane numbers, both arterials would experience 'volumes double their current capacities of 30,000 vehicles per day. - Table V-5 (Table II -T-13 in the MEA Document) shows the number of arterials with failing levels of service are drastically reduced with the addition of a: Tonner Canyon And Soquel Canyon Roads to the existing circulation network. The addition of a Tonner Canyon Road to the regional circulation network would relieve congestion gestion along SR -60 ' and SR -57 through Diamond Bar in -addition to helping reduce future volumes along the City's arterials, especially Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue. The availability of these future alternative routes would result in ADT volumes along Diamond Bar Boulevard between 20,000 and 24,000 vehicles, both well below Level of Service (LOS) C capacity. Even with the resultant drastic reduction of projected traffic on Grand Avenue, however, volumes along Grand Avenue of between 35,000 and 39,000 vehicles per day would still be as high as 30% above acceptable levels. 25 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DRAFT MASTER ENviRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .A" 8.1992 1I.T -r% 1 Exisg Future Location Ustkv Capacity (a) Vokxne V/C votume v/c Diamona Bar &x4evard: e/o Brew Canyon Road 30.000 17,400 0.58 48,000 1.60 s/o Fountain Springs Road .30.000 20,700 0.69 48,600 1.62 s/o Pathfinder Road 30,000 27,000 0.90 52.300 1.74 No Pcfhfinder Rood 30,000 28.200 0.94 54,200 1.81 s/o Grcnd Avenue 30,000 31,000 1.03 '60,000 2.00 No Grcnd Avenue 30,000 24,400 0.81 36.500 1.22 No Steep Canyon Road 30,000 25,000 0.83 38,000 1.27 s/o Golden Springs Drive 30,000 29.300 0.98 44,000 1.47 No Goiden.Springs Drive 30,000 _ 32,800 1.09 49,900 1.66 s/o Sunset Crossing Road 30,000 31.300 1..04 47,000 1.57 No Highland Valley Road 30,000 18,600 0.62 28,300 0.94 s!o Temple Avenue 30,000 16,700 '0.56 25.800 0.86 . Catima Road: w/o Ccibourne Drive 30,000 17,700 0.59 26.900 0.90 w/o Lemon Avenue 30,000 19.800 0.66 30,000 1.00 e/o Lemon Avenue 30,000 19,900 0.66 30,300 1.01 w/o Pomona Freeway 30,000 22.100 0.74 33,600 1.12 w/o Brea Canyon Road Golden SPtXP Rood: 30,000 29,200 0.97 44,400 1.48 e/o Brea Canyon Road 30,000 19,300 0.64 29,300 0.98 w/o Copley Drive 30,000 18,000 0.60 27,400 0.91 w/o Grand Avenue 30,000 19,700 0.66 29,300 0.98 e/o Grand Avenue 30,000 20,700 0.69 31,400 1.05 w/o Prospectors Road 20,000 16.500 0.83 25,100 1.26 w/o Dlcmond Bar Boulevard 20,000 16,600 0.83 25,200 1.26 e/o Diamond Bar Boulevard 20,000 16,400 0.82 24,900 1.25 26 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DRAFT MASTER ENviRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .A" 8.1992 1I.T -r% 1 Table Il-T-12 City of Diamona Bar Freeways Arterials Ez�fng and Estimated Future Average DCUY Traffic (without Tanner Ccnyon Road) Existing Future Location Jo Temple Avenue Grand Avenue: CCPacity (a) 20,000 volume 10,600 V/C 0.53 volume 16,100 V/C 0.81 w/o Golden Springs Drive e/c Golden Springs Drive e/o Dicmond Scr Boulevard Pathfinder Rood: 30.000 30,000 30,000 27,400 24,700 19,700 0.91 0.82 O.bb 49,100 42,000+ v G5.000 1.64 T .40 1.83 w/o Peaceful Hills Road w/o Orange Freeway (SB) e/o Orange Freeway (NB) W/o Diamond Bar Boulevard Brea Canyon Road: 30,000 25,000 30,000 30,000 4,300 14,600 20.200 13,000 - 0.14 0.58 0.67 0.43 6,600 22.200 30,700 19,800 0.22 0.89 1.02 0.66 s/o Silver Bullet Drive No Diamond Bar Boulevard :/o Pathfinder Road 30,000 30,000 30,000 8,000 4,400 7,600 0.27 0.15 0.25 12,200 6,700 11,600 0.4] 0.22 0.39 • No Pathfinder Road 30,000 10,100 0.34 15,400 0.51 Vo Colima Road . 30,000 15,500 0.52 23,600 0.79 No Colima Road 30,000 28,300 0.94 42.200 1.41 No Pomona Freeway 30,000 32.700 1.09 48,700 1.62 No WasttUVon Street 30,000 20,500 0.68 30,600 1.02 &eo Cryty W Cu#-Otf Road: :lo Pathfinder Road 10,000 10,500 1.05 16,000 1.60 Lemon Avenue: No Colima Road 30,000 12,100 0.40 18,400 0.61 Watnut Drive: w/o lemon Avenue 20,000 5,200 0.26 7,900 0.40 Chino HiRs Ptltic vcr. No Chino Avenue 30,000 8,100 0.27 35,000 1.17 27 7 CITY OF -DIAMOND BAR GRAFT MASTER ENVIRONMFNTAL Qseceeutur 28 CITY nR r)I®unun D . - r%---- -- Table 11-T-12 E City of Diamond Bar Fr eeways Arterials ? g and Esfirmated Future Average Daily Traffic (1Wdtxsut Tonner Canyon Road) Ustk)g Futtue Location Existi Capacity (a) Vow V/C Vdtume Chlno Avenue: V/C e/o Chino Hills Parkway 10,000 4,500 0.45 Pomona Freeway (SR.6q: 17,200 1.72 w/o Brea Canyon Road w/o Grand Avenue 173.000 255.000 233.000 e/o Diamond Bar Boulevard 361,000 w/o Philips Ranch Road 147,000 201,000 Orange Freeway (SR -57): 147.000 179,000 No Diamond Bar Boulevard 182,000 08,000 No Pcfhf'►ndei Road 184,000 280,000 No Sunset Crossing Road 135,000 187,000 28 CITY nR r)I®unun D . - r%---- -- (intentionally left blank) 29 C. Grand Avenue Grand Avenue. essentially functions like a "smart City of Diamond Bar, carrying regionallyI rt street" within the oriented traffic to/from SR -57/60. With the completion of the extension of Grand Avenue in the City -of Industry? Grand Avenue provides an even more significant role as a reaional'arterial. Suggested mitirration measures to improve traffic conditions on Grand Avenue within Diamond C: Bar have included: (1) Limit access, side street as well as property frontage. (2) Grade separate intersections with other key arterials. primarily Diamond Bar Boulevard. (3) Optimize signal coordination. Z� (4) . Reconstruction to improve interchange at SR -57/60. (5) Providing bus turnouts, 0 . Out of travel lanes, where beneficial (6) Providing acceleration and deceleration lanes at Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. (7) Widening to provide three lanes in each direction with a raised median. Of the suggested mitigation measures, it was determined that limiting access to Grand.Avenue would increase traffic carrying capacity but also result in the undesirous effect of encouraging traffic intrusion onto the surrounding local street system and producing significant negative impact on land use along Grand Avenue. Constructing grade separations with other key arterials, primarilyo Bar Boulevard was deemed an engineering Diamond --neering and financially imprudent suggestion. Increasing Grand Avenue's capacity by widening this road to provide three lanes in each direction with a raised medianw' uld facilitate commuter access (local residents as well as commuters traveling throourrh Diamond Bar to/from adjacent jurisdictions) to the freeway system and to surrounding communities. Table V-5 compares expected volume -to -capacity ratios for portions of Grand Avenue with and without increased capacity along Grand Avenue resulting"from an increase to six lanes. Future capacities shown are for future conditions both with and without the potential Tonner Canyon and Soquel Canyon roads. all TABLE V-5 Future Volume -to -Capacity Ratios for Grand Avenue With and Without Six Lanes (w &, w/o.Tonner Canyon Scenic HlQhwav'&, Soquel Canyon Road) Ratio V/C Ratio Vc GRAND AVENUE (betiveen) 'CAPACITY VOLUME 4 LANES 6 LVNES Golden Springs Dr./Diamond Bar Blvd. Nv/ Bypass pass Road %k -/'o Bypass Road Diamond Bar Blvd./San Bernardino Co. 30,000 109.000 130 n/a 45,000 39.000 n/a 0.87 no 3 .000 42,000 1.40 n/a 45,000 42,000 n/a 0.93 w/ Bypass Roads 30,000 35,000 1.17 n/a 45,000 35,000 n/a 0.78 3 w/o Bypass Roads .30,000 55,000 1.83 n/a 45,000 55,000 n/a 1.22 f. Tres Hermanos Ranch Infrastructure The proposed and planned developments described elsewhere in this General Plan and within that portion of Tres Hermanos Ranch in Diamond Bar require that decisions be made regarding access and circulation opportunities for that property. These decisions should enhance the probability for successful completion of those projects. In late 1991, the City of Diamond Bar and the landowner (The City of industry's Urban Development Agency) jointly retained Kotin, Reagan & Mouchly, Inc. (KRM) in association with James Goodell of Goodell, & Associates, Peier kamnitzer, Envicom and P&D Technologies to develop a set of alternative concept plans for the undeveloped Tres Hermanos Ranch property in the City of Diamond Bar. Tres Hermanos is a large undeveloped parcel of land at the eastern end of Diamond Bar which repr6sents a total landholding of over 2,600 acres, with approximately 800 acres within the City of Diamond Bar and the focus of the conceptual planning study. The broad objective of the conceptual planning study was to synthesize the potential of the property and the requirements of the affected constituencies and participants into land use, concepts based upon an imaginative vision .of the 31 respective -uses of the property. The focus of the land use concept planning was explicitly quite* specific in response to the objectives of both cities.. (1) Generate a significant development project for the Citv of Industry; and,. (2) Improve both the net 'revenues and the quality of life for' the City of 6iamond Bar. The conceptual planning process was not limited by any preconceived plans or concepts as to land uses with the following exceptions: (1) The Pomona Unified School District had identified Tres Hermanos as the site for a future high school; and, (2) The City of Industry is interested in and is conducting a preliminary assessment of developing a reservoir on the property for reclaimed water storage. It is important to recognize that the conceptual planning process did not involve detailed or schematic planning, and certainly was not meant to be a Specific Plan of the site. It was intended that the results- of the conceptual planning study would become part of the public process available for a general plan adoption process, and as such, provide information that could be utilized as a planning tool. Since this report was produced, the Pomona Unified School District has better defined the true boundaries of the projected' high school site and completed initial studies regarding their required- infrastructure alignments. C Concurrent with the school's construction, an access road to the school's eastern parking, lot from Chino Hills Parkway will be built by the District. There are State limits on student populations of public high schools 0 that do not provide more than one access road to the school. There also is a need to improve Diamond Bar residents' access to the school from the west. The Circulation Element 'supports the access needs of the new high school by requiring two western access roads to that facility: One, a direct access road from Golden Springs Drive and the other connecting the hicrh school's. western parking lotto Deep Springs Drive. Deep Springs Drive, however- is currently a local residential street that is not designed to accommodate the type and volume of traffic generated by a high school. For this reason, it is imperative that the .alternative western access route to the high school from Golden Springs Drive be developed and the access point to the high school at. Deep Springs Drive be restricted to local traffic only. Direct, through access to Chino .Hills Park-wav from either of these new western . roads should be limited to emergency vehicles only. No general public cut -through traffic from Chino Hills Parkway. to Diamond Bar's current infrastructure is desired. 32 2.. Transit and Paratransit Services: a. Transit Services: There are currently no future plans to change Transit Services within or near the City of Diamond Bar. b. Paratransit Services: There are currently no future plans to change Paratransit Services provided to residents of the City of Diamond Bar. 3. Truck Routes: - No proposed roadway discussed in this document will change the truck route discussion contained in the Existing Condition section of this Element. Specifically, once completed, it is intended that neither -the proposed Tonner Canyon Scenic Highway nor. the proposed access roads to the new high school be subsequently designated truck routes. 4. Railroad Lines: There are no future plans to change the existing or locate new railway lines or facilities within or near the City of Diamond Bar. 5. Bicycle Routes: A new Class Il Bikeway has been proposed for Brea Canyon Road between Pathfinder Road and Golden Springs Road. Surrounding cities have also planned bicycle .route's to connect into Diamond z Bar from the north along Mission Boulevard and Phillips Ranch Road (City of Pomona), from the west along Grand .Avenue and Brea Canyon Road (Cities of Walnut and Industry). and also from the west along Colima/Golden Springs Road (Rowland Heights). The Chino Hills General Plan Trails System map shows Class I Bikeway routes entering Diamond Bar from the east at Chino Avenue, Chino Hills Parkway and Grand Avenue. 33 I The principal equestrian trail planned for the Diamond Bar area is the Skyline Trails Extension. Unofficially called the Schabarum Trail. This Los Angeles County proposed trail is .16 miles in len-th and generally parallels.the City's current southern and 11.7 eastern boundaries. Figure V-3 (Figzlre proposed equestrian trail. T-7 in the ALE -4. Document) *shows this The trail as proposed originates at Schabarum Park to, the 'west, where it interconnects with a vast systemof equestrian, questrian, trails to the north and west, spreading throuc�hout most of Los Ancreles County. 1:� To the east of Schabarum Park. the proposed trail traverses Rowland Heights, then exits under Brea Canyon Road and the 57 Freeway,,where it approaches the southerncity limits of Diamond Bar. The trail then travels near the edge of the Firestone Boy Scout Reservation near the northern slopes of Tonner Canyon. As the proposed trail turns northeast, it generally parallels the city boundary just inside the City's limits. It then enters the City of Chino Hills in San Bernardino County, traveling just east of the County line. The trail terminates at Grand Avenue, where the Summit Ridge Park Connector Trail will allow access to Summit Ridrre Park to the north of - Grand Avenue -within Diamond Bar. . There are also a series of three spur trails which the Countyy-has planned to connect with the Skyline Trails Extension Trail. These three trails, collectively known and the Skyline Trails Connections, all lie outside of the City of Diamond Bar. The Chino Hills General Plan Trails System map shows.three equestrian trails entering Diamond Bar from the east, all through Tres Hermanos Ranch. 'The planned southernmost trail generally aligns with where c7 . . I Los Angeles County's Schabarum Trail is planned to enter San Bernardino County. The next northernmost trail generally aligns with the Los Angeles County planned Summit Ridge Park Connector Trail. Their northernmost planned trail enters Diamond Bar just south of Chino Avenue and east of Chino Hills Parkway. 7. Aviation: There are no future plans to change the existing or locate new aviation facilities %viihin or near the City of Dia -mond Bar. 34 D. I IA,JOR CIRCULATION ISSUES 1. Automobile Transportation: a. The 57 & 60 Freeways. The awkwardly engineered interchange between SR -57 and SR -60 is a primary reason for the traffic congestion in Diamond Bar. ISSUE ANALYSIS: The City should work with Caltrans to improve conditions on SR -57 and SR -60. These improvements would include: Upgrade the SR 57/60 interchange to eliminate undue at -grade conflicts and weaving manettvels. Provide HOV lanes on both SR -57 and SR -60. Provide truck climbing lanes where appropriate. Construct auxiliary lanes between key interchanges. b. Grand Avenue. With the recent completion of the extension of Grand Avenue through the City of Industry, Grand Avenue provides an even more significant role as -a regional arterial, carrying traffic to/from Routes 57/60. It is clear that mitigation measures, in addition to a regional bypass road, must be taken if Grand Avenue- is expected to experience levels of traffic which conform to community standards. ISSUE ANALYSIS: Measures to enhance. Grand Avenue within Diamond Bar should include: Optimize signal Coodination Reconstruction to improve interchangeat SR 57/60 Provide buts tunnouts, out of travel lanes, where beneficial Provide acceleration and deceleration lanes at Grand/Diamond Bar Blvd. As a last resort, increase to six (6). the number of lanes on Grand Avenue in Diamond Bar. c. Long-term Regional Plans that Improve Diamond Bar's Traffic. (Tonner Canyon Scenic Highway, Route 30, Soquel Canyon Road & SR 71.). (1) With significant development planned for the Chino Hills area, Diamond Bar's surface streets are expected to carry even larger cut -through traffic volumes from SR 57/60 than at present. Professionally generated 35 traffic studies hive shown that an alternative bypass road (travel corridor), extending from the Phillips Ranch Road. (Chino Hills Parkwav)/SR-60 interchange in the north, through the Tres Hermanos Ranch and the Citv's Sphere of Influence area, to the Tonner Canyon Road/SR-57 interchange ting and future congestion within the City in the south, would help, relieve exis of Diamond Bar. The eventual alignment of this proposed bypass road (travel corridor) must be planned in such a. way as to compliment the other proposed land uses contained in this General Plan. (i.e., Proposed untreated potable water lake, proposed reclaimed water lake, etc) Therefore, it is assumed in this document that this road will align east of the untreated potable water lake proposed for Upper Tonner Canyon/Tres Hermanos Ranch, enter the City's Sphere of Influence area along the mesa southeast of Tonner Canyon, and extend west to the existing Tonner Canyon Road/SR-57 connector as shown on this General Plan's Land zr Use Map. In order to emphasize the environmentally sensitive nature of this project, this proposed realigned Tonner Canyon Road should henceforth be referred to as Tonner Canyon Scenic Higlitivay. The citizens of Diamond Bar have made their desires clear that the construction of this potential, new addition to the .existing infrastructure must be constructed in the most environmentally sensitive manner possible and must include minimal growth -inducing incentives. (The -citizens of Diamond Bar believe these same standards should be applied to the construction of Soquel Canyon Road as well.) Therefore, they have chosen to define "environmentally sensitive" as follows: An environmentally sensitive transportation corridor is a transportation facility defined by characteristics that cause the facility to have minimal impact to the environment and adjacent ecosystem. It also meets the general prerequisites of being able to allow for movements of people and goods in a safe and'efficient manner. These characteristics should include by not be limited -to the following: Topograplzic -- The corridor should blend with the natural terrain as much aspossible to reduce grading and movement of earth. Curves and contours of the natural terrain should be reflected in design of the corridor. This goal must necessarily be balanced with providing safe corridor geometry for modes of travel that will use it. C f-Iydrologqy -- Positive drainage control will be developed as part of the corridor design to provide for capture and transmission of runoff from the facility to an appropriate storm drainage facility. This goal is to control foreign and potentially incompatible fluids and particles from entering the adjacent ecosystem. 36 .4ir Quality Street sweepinalcleanin(T shall be programmed into maintenance operations to prevent buildup of dirt and dust on the corridor travel surface. This goal will serve to reduce the amount of airborne particulates which could otherwise enter the adjacent ecosystem. Alternative fuel vehicles and small vehicles should be encouracred rather than trucks to further improve air quality along the corridor.. Noise To the extent possible, modes of travel should be encouraged which have reduced sound characteristics. In addition, natural barriers'to sound created by the corridor should be developed and implemented to reduce sound intrusion into the adjacent ecosystem. Consider controlled sped limits to reduce noise impacts. Biological Habitat -_ Replant and maintain natural plant species to the extent possible along the corridor, especially where grading has altered the natural landscape. Similarly, provide frequent game crossings to permit natural migratory paths to be maintained. Consider day use only or time limits. Aesthetic Views from the corridor should reinforce the feelina in the -traveler that they are in an environmentally sensitive area. Similarly, views of the corridor from adjacent properties should reinforce the feeling. that the corridor is a natural part of the landscape. Corridor structures, as necessary, should be a natural part of the terrain. General A corridor should be defined as a route that encourages movement of people in a manner that encourages clean multimodal uses such h as fixed rail, trolleys and shuttles; and encourages multiple occupant vehicle trips. Movement of goods within this corridor should be evaluated in terms of not detracting from the basic goal of maximizing movements of PEOPLE in hi . cyh occupancy vehicles. Restriction on vehicle type and weight should be considered as part of the corridor. Creative traffic management techniques should be encouraged (such as reversible lane operation) to take best advantage of roadway cross-section and minimize impacts to the corridor area. By nature of location of the bypass corridor in and around SEA 15, the corridor should be for regional through traffic and should not encourage access for adjacent development except as required by safety and emergency access requirements. Construction activity should be limited to the right-of-way envelope. End points of the corridor would incorporate, g value criteria. 37 `I Planning efforts would look to the future, anticipate and incorporate transportation technologies that will emerge and contribute to development of a corridor that meets the growing travel demands of the region and maintains precious natural resources. ISSUE ANALYSIS: With the constraints and conditions described above the City should wok with properly, ovners, Federal, State, and other jurisdictions and agencies to plain and locate the regional bypass roadways known as Tonner Canyon Scenic Highway and Soquel Canyon Road(aligned as generally depicted on the Land Use Reap contained in the Land Use Element). These efforts tivill recognize environmental sensitivin' and nununnze disruption of SFA 15 and Chino Hills State Park. (2) It is recognized that various other roadway and street improvements are proposed or ,presently under construction in neighboring communities or by other agencies which may have a positive impact on the City of Diamond Bar's transportation plans. ISSUE ANALYSIS: The City shocdd encourage the -efforts of these other jurisdictions and agencies to conplete the .work on these projects. These other projects yvould include. Completion of Route 36. Upgrade of SR -71 to freeway standards. The constnictiorn of Soquel Canyon Road extension to SR -57. d. Long-term Regional Traffic Plans that DO NOT benefit Diamond Bar. (Sunset Crossing, Beaverhead, Washington). Sunset Crossing is presently a four -lane roadway providing access to/from a residential area of northwest Diamond Bar. Sunset Crossing, west of Route 57, has an interchange with southbound Route 57, extends westerly and terminates at the western City limits adjacent to a,park and Little League field. The County oft os Angeles Highway Plan assumes Sunset Crossing is to be extended southwesterly, through the City of Industry to a connection with Washington & Beaverhead Streets, or in that vicinity. The area through which Sunset Crossing is to extend is presently substantially undeveloped. However, the City of Industry is considering development of the area with industrial uses and a waste -to -rail materials recovery facility to take maximum advantage of its proximity to freight rail lines. The extension 38 of Sunset Crossing and the proposed development if industrial uses adjacent to this arterial would sianificantly increase the volume of traffic alona Sunset Crossing and introduce a sianificant number of trucks into this residential area. ISSUE ANALYSIS: The City should implement strong ineasitres to Maintain the integrity of residential neighborhoods. These measures should include: Cid-de-sacing Sunset Crossing Road at the City's westenz city limits. Retaining the.cUl-de-sac.ing of Washing -ton and.Beaverhead Streets. e. New road alignments associated with planned developments on Tres 1-1 ermanos Ranch in Diamond Bar. (Diamond Ranch High School, Lakes, University). The proposed and planned developments described elsewhere in this General Plan and within that portion of Tres Hermanos Ranch in Dia ' mond Bar require that decisions be made regarding access and circulation opportunities for that property. These decisions should enhance the probability for successful completion of those projects. There is a proposal to lotate a new, limited enrollment (7000 students) University of California campus on this property. There is also a proposal. to provide mixed-use development in this area in order to meet Diamond Bar's additional low- and low -moderate income housing requirements. This new housing could take the form of faculty and student housing. There is a proposal to locate a new reclaimed water lake on this property.. . The most pressing proposal, however, is to locate a new high school, on this property. There are State limits on student populations Of public high schools'that do not provide more than one access road, to the school. There also is a need to improve Diamond Bar residents' access to t ' he school from the west. The Circulation Element supports the -access needs of the new high school by requiring two western access roads -to that facility: One, a direct access road from Golden Springs Drive and the other connecting ' onnectinthe high. school's western parking lot. to Deep Springs Drive. Deep Springs Drive, however, is currently a local residential street that is not designed to accommodate the type and volume of traffic generated by a high school. For this reason, it is imperative that the alternative western access route to the high school from Golden Springs Drive be developed and the access point to the high school at Deep Springs Drive be restricted to local traffic only. Direct, through access to Chino Hills Parkway from either 39 of these new western roads should be limited to emerg ency vehicles only. No general public cut-throu�,0.h traffic from Chino Hills Park.-Nvav to Diamond Bar's current infrastructure is desired. - ISSUE AVALYSIS. IVitil tile -constraints and conditions described above the City should work with the landowner and other effected State and local agencies to construct the infrastructure Olt Ties Hermanos Ranch in Diamond Bar. The Land Use Map in tine Laird, Use Element and the Circulation Element's Goals, Objectives and Strategies rnuust accoininodate new infrasinucture that would support: (1) A new high school site. (2) The proposed reclaimed water lake. (3) A quantified amount of kl'Ered-Use acreage situated around the proposed reclaimed water lake (in order to meet the houusing requirements in the Housing Element and the Land Use 'Element of this General Plan); and, (4) A new, limited enrollment (7000 students)• University of California carnpuus located within the remaining Tres Herrnanos Ranch area in Diamond Bar (as discussed in the Public Sen�ices and Facilities Element and Land Use Element of this General Plan). 2. Transit and Paratransit Services: No major circulation issues pertain to Transit or Paratransit Services. 3. Truck Routes: No major circulation issues pertain to Truck Routes. 4. Railroad Lines: No major circulation issues pertain to Railroad Lines. 11 S. Bicycle Routes: Bicycle routes do not correspond as well as they should with planned bicycle routes depicted on the General Plans of the cities and unincorporated areas surrounding( Diamond Bar. ISSUE AMALYSIS: 1Vuln the construction of the lakes proposed for Upper Toinner CanyonlTres Hennanos, tine proposed development of the Tres Hermanos Ranch area in Diamond Bar, the coinstniction of the proposed bypass road discussed earlier, and the completion of 'tine City of Brea's study oil their Sphere of Influence area and the City of Chino Hills General Plan, a complete review of Diamond Bar's Bicv-cle Routes should be instituted as soon as possible. 6'. Equestrian Trails: Equestrian Trails do not correspond as well as they should with planned equestrian trails depicted on the General Plans of the cities and unincorporated areas surrounding Diamond Bar. ISSUE ANALYSIS: 1Vit1n tine constnictioin of the lakes proposed for Upper Tonner CanyainlTres Hennanos, the proposed development of the Ties Hennanos Ranch area in Diamond Bar, the constniction of tine proposed bypass road discussed earlier, and tine completion of tine City of Brea's study oil their Sphere of I�ifluence area and tine City of Chino Hills General Plain, a complete review of Diamond Bar's EgUesttzain Trails should be instituted as soon as possible. 7. Aviation: No major circulation issues pertain to Aviation. 41 S t ra c e gy '1. 1. 1, currently reads: "Pro-.activelv work with ad around the Citv jacent jurisdictions to determine acceptable alternate travel corridors . of Diamond Bar and Sphere of Influence. Such considerations will recognize environmental sensitivity and avoid disruption of SEA 15". CHANGE TO READ: "With the constraints and conditions 'described herein, the Citv should work- with property owners, Federal, State, and other jurisdictions and agencies to plan and locate . the regional bypass roadways known as Tonner Can%on Scenic Highway and Soquel Canyon Road (aligned as generally depicted on the Land Use .%,fap contained in the Land Use Element). These efforts will recognize anize environmental sensitivity and minim.ize. disruption Of SEA 15 and Chino Hills State Park." Strate,_,v 1.1.6 currently reads: "Encourage Orange and San Bernardino Counties to fund and construct environmentally sensitive transportation corridor roadway through Soquel Canyon and/or Carbon Canyon." CH-ANGE TO READ: "The City should encourage the efforts Of other jurisdictions and a other circulation projects outside of Diamond Bar that will Positively effect agencies to complete the work on Diamond B These projects include: Bar's traffic conditions. (a) Completion of SR -30. (b) Upgrade of SR -71 to freeway standards. (c) The construction of Soquel Canyon Road extension to SR -57." ADD Strategy 1.2.4 as follows: "Measures to improve traffic flow on Grand Avenue within Diamond Bar should include: (a) Optimize signal coordination (b) Recon8truction to improve interchange at SR 57/60 (c) Provide bus turnouts, out of travel lanes, where beneficial (d) Provide acceleration and deceleration lanes at Grand/Diamond Bar Blvd. ' (e) As a last resort, increase to six (6) the number o . f lanes on Grand Avenue in Diamond Bar." *****x**** 42 ADD Stratc,-'N• 1.3.5 as follows: "The Citv should implement strong measures to maintain the integrity of the Sunset Crossing Road residential area at the western city limits by cut-de-sacing Sunset Crossing Road and retaining the cut-de- sacin, of Washington and Beaverhead Streets." Strate,�- '.12 currently reads: "Through the roadway system, ensure that new development within the Tres Hermanos Ranch property in integrated into the community of Diamond Bar." CHN-',�GE TQ READ: "With the constraints and conditions described herein, the City should work with the landowner and other effected- State and local jurisdictions and agencies to construct the new infrastructure on Tres Hermanos Ranch in Diamond Bar in.such a manner as to support: (1) A new high school site. (2) The proposed reclaimed. water lake. i . (3) A quantified amount of Mixed -Use acreage situated around the proposed reclaimed water lake (in order to meet the housing requirements in the Housing Element and the Land Use Element of this General Plan); and, j (4) A new, limited enrollment (7000 students) University of California campus located within the remaining Tres Hermanos Ranch area in Diamond Bar (as discussed in. the Public Services and Facilities Element and Land Use Element of this General Plan)." 43 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRA . NSPORTATXON COMMISSION JULY 18, 1994. CALL TO ORDER 44, Chairman Ortiz called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Conference Room 3 & 5 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL Commissioners: Chavers, Gravdahl, Vice Chairman Istik, and chairman Ortiz. Commissioner Esposito arrived at 7:35 p.m. Staff: senior Engineer, David Liu; Engineer, Mike Myers; Administrative Assistant, Tseday Aberra; and Engineering Secretary, Linda Smith. I. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS .Chair/Ortiz referred to and read excerpts from the City of Diamond Bar's, Traffic and Transportation Commission* Handbook, revised March 12, 1992. Page 4, last paragraph, that the Chairperson is responsible for the maintenance of order and decoruma ' t all times. No person should be allowed to speak who has not f irsit been recognized by the Chair. All questions and remarks should be addressed to the Chair. Page 8, item #5,' (The purpose of the Commission will be)- to hear complaints and' receive comments from citizens pertaining ertaining to traffic issues throughout the community and to make recommendations thereon to the City council. Page .10, paragraph 5, Commission Members shall accord the utmost courtesy to each other, to City employees, and to the public appearing before the Commission. A Review/discussion Of Circulation Element (Continued from July '14, 1994) SE/Liu stated that for tonight's meeting, Mr. Gary Neely has prepared an alternative Circulation Element for the Commission's review/discussion. Gary L. Neely,. 344 Canobcove Drive, reported that the document being presented tonight is a completed version of a suggested alternative to the GPAC recommended Circulation Element. This alternative Circulation Element is a combination of documents taken from the Master Environmental Assessment document, the existing Circulation Element, the State of California Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines document, and the Plan for Physical Mobility report by DKS. He read a carried motion from the draft June 30, 1994 Minutes of GPAC, . "To issue a statement to the city Council and the July 18, 1994 Page 2 T&T Commission Planning commission that, although the GPAC did not have time to fully review and ' comment on 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 the Planning Commission will hold on the. review and eventual adoption of the General Plan." Mr. Neely further explained that the GPAC did not see the entire document as being presented to the Traffic and Transportation commission. GPAC 'was presented with only the Introduction and the Existing Conditions sections, and an outline for the remaining sections of the draft Circulation Element. ,Mt. Neely stated that this rewrite makes the circulation Element more coherent. There are some suggested changes to Goals, Objectives and Strategies section which have been put in to correspond to the issue analysis discussions that are in the body of - the work. Referring to a topo map, Mr. Neely commented that the Planning commission has approved the concept of a lake and bought out in the Resource Management Element, as well as a reclaimed lake 'that is higher up. If a reclaimed lake is constructed ' in the Upper Tonner Canyon/Tres Hermanos Ranch then that precludes the possibility of running a road down the middle of the Tonner Canyon. In the Chino Hills Specific Plan (for the Circulation System) the road starts at the mouth of the Canyon and dead ends at Tres Hermanos in Diamond Bar. The committee that discussed the alternatives before, said there were three alternatives: 1) northern alignment, 2) an alignment down the middle of the Tonner Canyon and 3) alignment east of the Canyon. The Committee did not want a road d6wn the middle of the Canyon. The 'northern alternative was eliminated when the DBA Project was approved, leaving only alternative 3. He further stated that in the alternative Circulation Element there* is a discussion of a potential extension of Soquel Canyon Road intersecting with Tonner Canyon Road. The alignment of .a Tonner Canyon Road in this alternative Circulation Element is upon the mesa where the road cannot be seen from the bottom of the canyon nor can the bottom of the canyon be seen from the road. This is the same alignment that was a derivative* from the committee chaired by Mr. Werner. He commented that the Chino Hills General Plan discusses Carbon Canyon Road and. in essence preserves the historic value of Sleepy Hollow. The Chino Hills General Plan does not allow us to use this as a solution to our traffic problem. However, the City of Chino Hills is working with Sat Bernardino County and Orange County to make Soquel canyon. Road a reality even though the city* of Brea opposes it. Further, without the construction of Tonner Canyon Road, the number of road segments in the City where volumes exceed capacity are expected to grow from the current five (5) to twenty-eight (28). With Tonner Canyon Road, the number drops to three (3) July 18, 1994 Page 3 T&T Commission by the year 2010. However, two of the road segments on Grand Avenue,will still be impacted. If the road isn't built the condition will be worse. As a last result with the widening of Grand Avenue to six lanes and the building of Tonner 'Canyon Road, the number of road segments will reduce to one (on Chino Hills Parkway) by the year 2010. To solve this problem the north end -of the connection through Tonner Canyon Road to Chino Hills Parkway needs tobere-engineered.—We will then have zero (0) road segment where volume exceeds capacity by the year 2010. This is -the only professionally generated solution to the traffic problem in Diamond Bar. Mr.'Neely asked that the Traffic and Transportation Commission hold a public hearing so that the public could comment on this alternative Circulation Element, and if the Traffic and Transportation Commission finds the report acceptable to send a note to the Planning Commission stating the merits. Or, transmit the document with the Commission's comments and changes to the Planning Commission. This document, in his opinion, is a solution to the traffic problem in Diamond Bar. Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Lane, requested clarification of Proposed Tonner Canyon Road in the Chino-Hills.General Plan. Mr. Neely responded that the Chino Hills General Plan shows the alignment of this road as extending down the middle of Tres Hermanos Ranch and entering the City of Diamond Bar's Sphere of influence in such a way that it would extend west down the middle of Tonner Canyon. The City. should define a road in the Circulation Element the way it would help the City of Diamond Bar. Mr. Maxwell commented that Chino �Hills has Highway 71 and Chino Hills Parkway, and there will be H6V lanes on the SR -60 and inquired if Chino Hills residents are using Chino Hills' Parkway or Diamond Bar Blvd. to get to the freeway. Mr. Neely commented that 50% of the work force that lives in Chino Hills' works in Los Angeles County. 30.? -o of the work force that lives in Chino Hills works in -Orange County. VC/Istik noted that the white area is described by Mr. Neely as a mesa above 1100,feet and there are canyons in the area. The mesa should be defined as the top of the hill through the southeast portion of the County where it is defined as Significant Ecological Area (SEA) 15.. It is important to acknowledge the significance of Sleepy Hollow, but so too is SEA 15. C/Gravdahl asked if the topo map reflects a road that was used in the 1930's between Brea and Pomona. VC/Istik commented that there is a dashed line which follows approximately the ridge. He further commented that if the July 18, 1994 Page. 4 TAT Commission road were on the south side of the ridge line then it would - very nearly go around SEA 15. As reflected on page 42, Strategy 1.1.4. reads, "Pro -actively work with adjacent jurisdictions to determine acceptable alternate travel corridors around the City of Diamond Bar and Sphere of Influence. Such consideration will recognize environmental sensitivity and avoid disruption of SEA 15.11 Mr. Neely is suggesting a change in the wording yet it appears that is not needed. Mr. Neely commented. that the Diamond Bar's Sphere of Influence ends at the corner of both County lines and would therefore have the road go right through Sleepy Hollow. This alternative Circulation Element has verbiage to limit the number of accesses to this road from side roads -to discourage development.. C/Chavers, stated' that this was in the original Objectives and Strategies and is maintained in . the rewrite. vC/Istik commented that the report was very good. C/Gravdahl commented that this 'report is a 100% improvement over what it was two weeks ago. it is better because of the charts and the fact that it has an idea of where it is going and a background of where, it came from. He, would.like to see two areas added. one, bus routes, for busing Chino Hills residents from the east side of the City instead of passenger cars, and the bus routes that are currently in existence. Two, add in a goal for a ride -share program for the Diamond ' Bar citizens. He asked SE/Liu for the traffic count on Grand Avenue east of Diamond Bar Blvd near the shopping center. SE/Liu responded that the count was close to 30,000, but he would need to check the records for accuracy. The count was made in April of this year. C/Gravdahl commented that based on this information Diamond Bar's four -lane divided highways are c -it their maximum capacity. He asked about the daily capacities as reflected in the report. C/Chavers responded that the figures were from manuals, but were specifically tailored to Diamond Bar's level of service. C/Gravdahl commented that gridlock is apparent *and his suggested measures could help. C/Chavers commented that he had put in about six hours of time on this document to make it a professionally appearing document as well as to try and reflect the sentiments of the GPAC over the last six months. He. further stated that some may take exception to the way the document is written when read, but he is more satisfied with this type of document in July 18, 1994 Page 5 which it states here we are today, here is where we will be tomorrow, And here is what we Are going to need to do tomorrow to handle the demands we will -have tomorrow.--Th-is document lays it out and substantiates the kinds of solutions that are presented. He further stated his support of pursuing additional Park -n -Ride facilities east of the City as reflected 'in the GPAC recommended Circulation Element Strategy 1.1.5, part (e) . With bus routes to service these' facilities fewer vehicles would be going through the City. C/Chavers suggested that perhaps the item might be modified to include bus routes.- C/Gravdahl concurred. C/Chavers commented regarding a technical point substantiated by the DKS modelling. The different alternatives of Tonner Canyon, Soquel. Canyon, Carbon Canyon Roads and the mix of these roads and their effect on Diamond Bar. If only Soquel Canyon Road was built,there will be no traffic relief to Grand Avenue in Diamond Bar. It skirts too far south of Diamond Bar. Diamond Bar needs a road that intercepts the traffic enroute to Chino Hills before -it gets to Diamond Bar. The bottom line is that a southerly road needs to be built to help ourselves in meeting our needs. Council Member/Ansari reported that she is a membe*r of the Four Corners Committee), consisting of representatives from Riverside, Orange, Los Angeles, and San Bernardino counties. Chino Hills is. pushing for a Tonner Canyon roadway and is asking to bring it to the August 11, 1994 meeting. * C/Chavers commented that it is his understanding that the City of Chino Hills models. indicate the Tonner Canyon Road is a viable 'solution because they have too much traffic funneling onto Grand Avenue. Council Member/Ansari commented that the Chino Hills General Plan reflects that area as one house per five acres. She inquired where the City is going to get the transportation funds to build that roadway. C/Chavers commented that he would expect the City of Chino Hills to make it a City-wide Assessment District because the entire City would benefit. VC/Intik stated that it is important to go around SEA 15. He does not agree to the proposed change on page 42 that would eliminate that verbiage. He stated he did not want to minimize disruption to SEA 15 as proposed. He is in favor of the verbiage to go around SEA 15. C/Gravdahl asked if a sketch of the roadway to accompany the document would be advisable. July 18, 1994 Page 6 T&T Commission .Chair/Ortiz whether to information Commission. requested clarification from the commissioners hold another public meeting or to transmit the gathered at tonight's meeting to the Planning C/Chavers stated he would prefer to -pass this item to the Planning commission and City Council with the comments of the Commission and those present tonight. VC/Ist'ik asked if the GPAC committee . Members were specifically invited to tonight's meeting. SE/Liu responded that they were not. specifically invited to this meeting. vc/Istik commented that . taking this alternative Circulation Element to the Planning commission without their input, could give the appearance that this was done with out the knowledge of the GPAC. Therefore, he asked to have staff give copies of the report and the minutes to -every GPAC committee Member as well. Tom Van Winkle, 21103 Gerndal Street, asked -if -this document is to be considered as an alternate document to the GPAC's recommended Circulation Element. Chair/Ortiz responded that the document is to be.used as an alternative, or in addition to.the GPAC Circulation Element. Mr. Van Winkle concurred with Mr. Istik that GPAC Members should have this information. A poll was taken by the Traffic and Transportation commission which indicated that all members were in favor of building a road around SEA 15. VC/Istik moved, seconded by C/Chavers, to send this Alternative Circulation Element to the Planning commission along with a copy of the minutes and to have staff send this material to all members of the GPAC. The Motion passed unanimously with the following ROLL CALL vote: AYES: Esposito, Chavers, Gravdahl, VC/Istik., Chair/Ortiz NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None C/Chavers asked the minutes to reflect that during the meeting of - July 14, 19 9 4,, Mr. Van Winkle had made some suggestions to the Commission. He acted negatively and would therefore like After conferring with the City Engineer and reviewing the conditions of approval, it appears that the applicant will . be ready to obtain a grading permit in the near future. Although the Code permits a one (1) year extension of time, staff believes that a six (6) month extension of time is adequate. Notice of Public Hearing: This 'item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valle y Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Tribune on July 28, 1994. Notices were mailed to approximately 48 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site on July 26, 1994. Environmental Assessment: The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed extension of time. is -categorically exempt according to guidelines of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15061 (b) (3). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a six (6) month extension of time. Attachments: Draft resolution for the extension of time Correspondence dated May 23, 1994 Resolution No. 93-13 Memo dated May 19, 1993 Complete Planning Commission packet for the May . 10, 1993 A � e• $ —. Q iii a I ca F f i its ISO znz 3 i;ei;= °: ! PS+�3. O Jia ►•V e: gel ��t:tti: Iw"7 i Q ri i3 Sat -IV ►�a; c + 9 .3s- Y•i a �•a1 c� .0[ .t :31YOS 0 RESOLUTION NO. 94 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VARIANCE NO. 93-1, AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A SERIES OF RETAINING WALLS IN EXCESS OF 6 FEET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-3, AN APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED GRADING, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 93-1,- AN APPLICATION FOR THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF OAK TREES AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION (SECTION 15061, CLASS (B) (3)) FOR 22909 LAZY TRAIL ROAD, .22927 LAZY TRAIL ROAD, 22840 RIDGELINE ROAD, AND 22820 RIDGELINE ROAD (LOTS 153, 154, I56, AND 157 OF TRACT 30091) LOCATED WITHIN A GATED COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED AS "THE COUNTRY ESTATES". A. Recitals Jake Williams, Richard Miller, Scott Harris, and A. C. Kaushal (collectively referred to -herein as "Applicant") have filed an application for Variance No. 93-1 for Lots 153, 156, and 157, Conditional use Permit No. 93-3 for Lot 153, 154, 156, and 157, and Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1 for Lots 153, 154, 156, and 157 of Tract 30091, Diamond Bar, Los- Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance, Conditional Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit applications are collectively referred to as the�"Appli.cationll. 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 B. 4�p application, as to consistency to the future ad General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisionsptf the Office of Planning and Research extension granted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65361. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on August s, 1994 conducted a duly noticed public meeting on said Application-. 5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on July 28, 1994. Forty-eight property owners with in a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on July 26, 1994. 6. All legalprerequisitesto the adoption Of this Resolu- tion have occurred. 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 extension of time 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 15061, Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. The environmental consequences of Variance No. 93-1, conditional Use Permit No. 93-3, and Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1 were identified in Negative Declaration No. 93-5 and adopted by the Planning Commission on May 24, 1993 in Resolution No. 93-13. 3. The Planning Commission, hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, there- is no evidence before this Planning 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 this Planning Commission, the Planning 2 commission hereby rebuts the presumption of a effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of h California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the Applicant shall pay all fees required for the filing of a Notice of Determination and any other fees, imposed by the California Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4 Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to the following sites: (1) Lot 153 - 22009 Lazy Trail developed with a single owner - Scott Harris; (2) Lot 154 - 22927 Lazy Trail - vacant lot, owner - A. C. (3) Lot 156 - 22840 Ridgeline developed with a single owner - Jake Williams; (4) Lot 157 - 22820 Ridgeline developed with a single owner - Richard Miller. Road - 1.12 acres family residence, Road - 1.19 acres Kaushal; Road - 1.42 acres family residence, Road - 1.19 acres family residence, All properties are within the R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential -Minimum lot size 40,000 square feet) zone with. draft General Plan land use designation of RR (Rural Residential-lDU/AC), City of Diamond Bar, California. (b) Generally, the proposed project is surrounded by. R-1-40,000 zone. 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 General Plan adopted or under consideration by the. City. (d) The. nature, condition, and size of the sites has been considered., The sites are adequate in size to accommodate the proposed development.. variance: (e) Approval of the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or to the use, enjoyment or general welfare, or I located in valuation of property of other persons 3 the vicinity based upon mitigation measures 1112g have been conditioned into the proposed project. (f) Because of the extreme grade elevations ktliL constraints of the project site, the strict application of the code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity , and ... under - -identical zoning class ification. As a result, Lots 153, 156, and 157 will require retaining walls in excess of the permitted height. (9) Approval of this Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the properties -are situated. * (h) Strict application of zoning regulations as' they apply to the subject properties will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of such regulations and standards. conditional Use Permit: The subject properties require a Conditional Use Permit for slope of 25% or more in an urban hillside management area. As such, a. -Conditional Use Permit is required pursuant to Chapter 22.56, Section 215 of the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code. (j) The proposed project is located and designed so as to protect the safety of current and future community residents, and will not create significant threats to life and/or property due to the presence of geologic, seismic, slope instability, fire, flood, mudflow, or erosion hazard because ,of mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the project. (k) The proposed project, as conditioned, is compatible with the natural, biotic, cultural, scenic, and open space resources of the area. (1) The proposed project can be provided with essential public services without imposing undue costs on the total community and, ' pursuant to Ordinance No. 4 (1992), is consistent with the objectives and polices of the General Plan adopted or under consideration by the City. 4 Oak Tree Permit: 1040P (m) The proposed project requires an Oak Tree Per for the removal of oak trees pursuant to Chapte 22.56, Section 2060 of the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code. (n) Five oak trees have been removed and destroyed by illegal grading activity and stockpiling on the project site. (o) The removal -of the five oak trees is necessary, as continued existence at present locations frustrates the planned improvement or proposed used of the subject property to such an extent that alternative development plans cannot achieve the same permitted. density or that' the cost of such alternative would be prohibitive. (p), The removal of. the oak trees will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters because of the mitigation measures which have been 'incorporated into the project. 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 the site plan, grading plan, and landscape plan, collective marked as Exhibit "All dated August 8, 1994 as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. b) The extension of time is granted and shall modify condition (X). of Resolution No.. 93-13. This extension of time shall expire if not . exercised within six ' (6) months (i.e. substantial construction including but not limited to grading, footings, foundations, etc.). No additional .extension of time shall be allowed as part of this application. (c) All conditions of approval for Variance No. 93-1, Conditidnal use Permit No. 93-3, and Oak Tree Permit No. '93-1 shall remain in full force and effect unless expressly stated herein. (d) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, 5 at the City of Diamond Bar Community Developmnl Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions o5� this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until il the permittee pays remaining city processing fees. (f) The subject property- shall be maintained and. operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to any development or activity of the subject properties. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to: Jake Williams 22840 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Richard Miller 22820 Ridgelline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Scott Harris 22909 Lazy Trail Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 A. C. Kaushal 1245 S. Mahogony Court Walnut, -CA 91789 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE STH DAY OF AUGUST, 1994, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY: David Meyer, Chairman M I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning commissione City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foreg 4 ju Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a , a meeting of the Planning commission held on the 8th day of August, t 1994, by the following vote*-. AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: .[COMMISSIONERS:] ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:] ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary 7 C.T.K., INC. CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SO?MMUNITY MO BENSON AVEENUE, SUITE %,- 1L0PM;7m-' . MONTCLAIR,CA- 91763 (909) 949-1791 FAX (909) 94§436 A i 8. 56 May 23, 1994 Mr. James De Stefano Community Development Director 21660 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765 Reference: Jake Williams Grading Plan 22840 Ridge Line Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear Mr. De Stefano, We . are writing on behalf of our client, Mr. Jake Williams, asking for an extension of the Planning Commissions approval of the above .referenced Grading Plan. The other parties joining in the combined Grading Plan are Scott Harris, Richard Miller, A.C. Kaushal and Victor Erickson. We have had a great deal of problems regarding ng the slope and drainage easements required by the Commission between all parties involved in the grading plan. The proper legal terminology was a subject of concern but that was resolve d to the satisfaction of all concerned including the City of Diamond Bar. I finally have arranged for Mr and Mrs. I victor Erickson, the last parties to sign the easements, to meet with me and the Notary Public when they return from theirA.European vacation on June 1994. When they sign the easements that will complete all of the conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission and we can pull our permit. We appreciate your consideration in this matter and look forward to an affirmative reply to our request. Very truly ��clf I yours C.T.K. Inc. Carl T..Kobbins J CTK:ClS INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Planning Technician SUBJECT: Variance No. 11-- 93-1, Conditional Use Permit No. 93- 3, and Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1 DATE: MAY 19, 1993 The above mentioned' project was continued from May 10, 1993 to May 24, 1993 Planning C ' OmMission meeting. In the draft resolution, condition (r)(10) on page 9 has been re- vised. . The following statement has been added to the condition: "A bond shall be posted to insure the submittal and the uti- lizat . ion of the approved erosion control plans." Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve this project with Findings of Fact, and conditions listed within the attached resolution. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/PILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT'S AGENT: PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANTS: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report K May 3, 1993 May 10, 1993 Variance No. 93-1, Conditional Use Permit NO. 93-3, and Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1 Variance No. 93-1 is a request to construct a series of retaining walls in excess Of six feet with a maximum height Of 18 feet; Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 is required for proposed grading pursuantto the Hillside Management ordinance No. 7. (1992) ; Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1 is required for the replacement of oak trees. 22840 Ridgeline Road - Lot 156; 22820 Ridgeline Road - Lot 157; 22909 Lazy Trail Road -Lot 153; 22927 Lazy Trail Road - Lot 154; Carl,'Kobbins, Engineer 9640 Center Avenue, Ste- 100 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Jake Williams. 22840 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Richard Miller 22820 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 scott Harris 22909 Lazy Trail Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 A. C. Kaushal 1245 S. Mahogony Court Walnut, CA 91789 Agenda Item May AO,. 1993 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The applicants, Jake Williams, Richard Miller, SCO ser Harris, and A. Kaushal are requesting a Variance to C. wall in excess of six construct a series of retaining x feet with a maximum height of 18 feet on Lots 153 156, and 157; a Conditional Use Permit for Proposed grading pursuant to the Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992); and an Oak Permit as a result of non -permitted grading activity and an illegalTree stockpile. The project site location is as . follows: Lot 156 - 22840 Ridgeline Road, Lot 157 - 22820 Ridgeline Road; Lot 153 - 22909 Lazy Trail Road; and Lot 154 - 22927 Lazy Trail Road. Lot 153 is 1.12 acres developed with a single family residence. Lot 154, a vacant lot, is 1.19 acres. Lot 156 is 1.42 acres developed with a single family residence. Lot 157 is 1.19 acres developed with a single 'family residence. The project site is zoned R-1-40,000 (Single Family Resident ial-Minimum square feet) and is surrounded by s lot size 40,000 ingle family residences. The project site has a draft General Plan land use designation Residential-lDU/AC). Of RR (Rural An interoffice memorandum of a chronology of events indicates that Mr. William from October, 1990 until recently has graded and stockpiled earth on the project site without benefit of a Permit. At this time illegal grading activity and stockpiling has ceased and code enforcement action with the District Attorney is on hold as a result of the application before the Commission. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: VARIANCE: In April, 1989, the City adopted the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code. Pursuant to Code (Chapter 22.48, section 160 D.), "Retaining Walls. Retaining walls not to exceed.six feet in height are permitted in all yards". On Lot 153, a series Of four retaining walls are proposed to create a pad for a future tennis court within the rear portionof the lot* The retaining walls will range in height from seven feet to 10 feet. Between the walls, planter areas with shrubs and vines will be utilized to mitigate the height and massiveness of the walls. Also, adjacent to the rear and west side property line, a retain wall ranging in height from three feet'to 11 feet and 65 feet in length is proposed to hold a fill. Shrubs and vines are proposed to mitigate the height and massiveness of the wall. All retaining walls will be constructed from precision block in a brown color. On Lot 157, within a building rights restricted area, a retaining wall is proposed adjacent to the south side property line, The purpose of Agenda Item May 10, 1993 Page 3 this retaining wall Is to hold a fill. The height of the retaining wall varies from two feet to 18 feet and is approximately 110 feet in length. Also, in the rear portion of the lot adjacent to the existing deck, fill material will be utilized to create a larger recreational area. Within the'rear portion of the lot, a bench is proposed for drainage which will be constructed and landscaped in compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance. Retaining walls will be constructed from precision block in a brown color. Shrubs and vines will be required to mitigate the height of the wall. On Lot 156, a retaining wall is, proposed to hold a fill in order to construct a driveway that will lead to. the existing single family residence. The retaining wall for this purpose will vary in height from six feet to 12 feet. The proposed retaining wall will be constructed from precision block in a brown color. Shrubs and vines will be required to mitigate the height of the wall. The variation from the maximum allowable height for a retaining is necessary due to the excessive grade elevations and the constraints of the sites. In order to lower the height of proposed retaining walls on Lots 153 and 157, grading on neighboring properties which --are not a part of this application must take place. i On Lot 154, grading is Proposed for the purpose of creating a pad for the future construction of a single family residence., . . OAK TREE PERM -TT: Pursuant to the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code, oak trees are recognized as significant historic&l, aesthetic and valuable ecological resource. As such, an oak trees permit process has been established forthe preservation and propagation of .,this unique. threatened plant heritage. As per Chapter 22.56, section 2060, A., B., and C. prohibits the damaging or removing of oak trees without the benefit of,.a permit. A site investigation an April 22, 1992 revealed that the illegal grading activity and stockpiling -has destroyed several oak trees. The exact about can not be determined. Staff believes a minimum of five oak trees have been destroyed. The County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code requires that for each oak tree destroyed be replaced with a minimum of two 15 gallon oak trees. Planning commission policy has been a replacement ratio of 3:1. Agenda Item May 10, 1993 Page 4 The applicant is proposing to plant four 24 inch box oak trees in the Proposed driveway area of Lot 156 and .divided... among all - of- - the - proj ect -lots 1 "2 - - g -all -of --the- - ifteen - gallon oak trees The applicant's proposal meets the past Planning Commission policy of 3:1 replacement. Staff has consulted with a certified arborist utilized previously by the City. The arborist has advised that an automatic drip system be installed and utilized for three years to irrigated the Young trees. Once the trees are established they can begin to Supplied by nature. survive on .water The applicants will be responsible for care and replacement oak trees for a period i maintenance of of three years. If mortality occurs among replacement oak trees, the appi dead oak trees. . i . cants are required to replace the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The illegal stockpile is located on all lots involved with this application. Before the illegal grading activity and stockpiling, the majority of the project site had slopes of 2.5% or more the applicants will be - As a result required to Ply with the Hillside Managemen� Ordinance No. 7 (1992) and obtain accaroanditional Use Permit. An uncertified fill was deposit on the site during the process of stockpiling. The uncertified fill must be removed and replaced with properly compacted fill which should be keyed and benched. thi's process, all deleteriousPrior to trash, vegetation, and grass should be removed and hauled off site. Also, excavated on-site soil free of debris, organic material, and rock can be reused as*compacted fill. Approximately 48,950 cubic yards of earth Will be< -utilized as fill for the project site. Some of the earth is stockpiled on the project site. The remainder will be imported to the site. The proposed grading encroaches on three lots adjacent to Lot 156 (153 154, and 157). A large portion of this area presently exists as two natural drainages. These drainages contain alluvium and colluvium, materials that are generally considered compressible. . Considerable fill, as well as a retaining wall are. proposed here. practice to evaluate the removal and recompaction of compr It is common essible toils by doing exploratory excavations, sampling and lab testing. No exploration has taken place in these areas. It is also unknown whether there is ground water in the drainage swales. Agenda Item May lo, 1993 Page'S All slopes will be planted with ground cover and deep-rooted native type shrubs or trees. Shallow -rooted ground cover provides protection against surface erosion. Deep-rooted shrubs and trees provide protection against surficial slumping. Proper slope landscaping and maintenance is important to long term slope stability. Hydroseeding will be utilized to control erosion and restore the project site to a more natural state, , then exists. The hydroseed mix will consist of Festuca ovina (Sheep Fescue) and Festuca O. Duriuscula (Hard Fescue). The applicants will be required to submit to the City A schedule of the proposed activities with their completion dates. It is required that the schedule be submitted prior to the issuance of a grading permit. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: This . item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Vallev Tribune and the 16, 1993. Notices were mailed to on April 'Inland Va' Daily Tribune approximately 45 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site on April 14, 993. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Although. the proposed project could have a environment, there will not be a significant mitigation measures were incorporated into Mitigated Negative Declaration has been provisions of the California Environmental RECOMMENDATIONS: significant effect on the effect in this case because the proposed project and a prepared pursuant to the Quality Act (CEQA). 93-1, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No Use P . ermit No. 93-3, and Oak Tres Permit No. 93-1, Findings Conditional Us resolution. of Fact, and conditions listed within the attached r Prepared by: lann- A J. lanning Technician Attachments: Draft Resolution Application Initial Study Environmental Checklist Negative Declaration Exhibit "A" - Site Plan (chronology of events) Engineering Memo dated October 29, 1991 Aerial Photo of oak trees destroyed A. _Recitals 1. Jake W . illiams, Richard Miller, Scott Harris, and A. C. Kaushal( 0c llectively referred. to herein as "Applicant") have filed.an application for Variance No. 93-1 for Lots 153, 156, and 157, Conditional- -Use Permit 1 No. 93-3 for Lot 153, i54,56, and 157, and Oak Tree Permit NO. 93-1 for Lots 15.3, 154, 156, and 157 of Tract 30091, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter Resolution, the subject Variance, Conditional in this Re cations are Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit applications collectively referred to as the . "Application". 2. on April 18, 1989, the - City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization State of California. On said date, pursuanto of the Sta of the California Government code the requirements 2 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 'City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and.22 of the Los of the Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the to County Of Los Angeles now. currently appl. icable development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond B . ar lacks . an operaive General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken the subject application,, as to consistency with the General Plan, RESOLUTION NO. 93-13 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF A THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING VARIANCE 93-1, AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A NO. SERIES OF RETAINING WALLS IN EXCESS OF 6 AN FEET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-31f* GRADING, OAK. TREE APPLICATION FOR PROPOSED AN APPLICATION FOR THE PERMIT NO. 93-1, AND REPLACEMENT OF OAK TREES AND REMOVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 93-5 FOR 22909 LAZY TRAIL ROAD, 22927 LAZY TRAIL ROAD, 22820 RIDGELINE 22840 RIDGELINE ROAD, AND 154, 156,, AND 157 OF TRACT ROAD (LOTS 153, 30091) LOCATED .WITHIN A GATED COMMUNITY IDENTIFIED AS "THE COUNTRY ESTATES". A. _Recitals 1. Jake W . illiams, Richard Miller, Scott Harris, and A. C. Kaushal( 0c llectively referred. to herein as "Applicant") have filed.an application for Variance No. 93-1 for Lots 153, 156, and 157, Conditional- -Use Permit 1 No. 93-3 for Lot 153, i54,56, and 157, and Oak Tree Permit NO. 93-1 for Lots 15.3, 154, 156, and 157 of Tract 30091, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter Resolution, the subject Variance, Conditional in this Re cations are Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit applications collectively referred to as the . "Application". 2. on April 18, 1989, the - City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization State of California. On said date, pursuanto of the Sta of the California Government code the requirements 2 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 'City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and.22 of the Los of the Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the to County Of Los Angeles now. currently appl. icable development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond B . ar lacks . an operaive General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken the subject application,, as to consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No.4 (1992) of the City -of Diamond Bar. 4. --The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on" May 10, 1993 -continued a. -.duly noticed public meeting on said Applicatiok U-Atil May 24, 1993. 5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on April 16, 1993. Forty-five property owners with in a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on April 14, 1993. 6. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- .tion have.occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the' Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 93-5 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated. thereunder, and further, this Planning*- commission has reviewed and considered the. information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based thereon, further specifically finds and,,determines that, based upon its independent judgement, the findings set forth below, -and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 3. The P ' lanning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, there. -is no "evidence before this Planning 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 this Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the 2 California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the Applicant shall pay the filing of a Notice Of all fees required for Determination and any other fees 'imposed by the California Department of Fish 'and Game prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions. set forth herein, this Planning commission, in conformance with ordinance No. 4 . (1992) of the City ity of Diamond Bar hereby finds as follows: (a) The p . roject relates to the following sites: (1) 1 Lot 153 - 22909 Lazy Trail Road - 1.12 acres developed with a single family residence, owner - Scott Harris; 1.19 acres (2) Lot 154 - 22.927 Lazy Trail Road - vacant lot, owner - A. C. Kaushal;. (3) Lot 156.- 22840 Ridgeline Road - 1.42 'acres developed with a single 'family residence, owner - Jake 1,7illiams; (4) Lot 157 - 22820 Ridgeline Road - 1.19 acres developed with a single family residence, owner - Richard Miller. All p . roperties are within the R-1-40,000 (Single are Family Residential -Minimum lot *size 40,000 square feet) zone with draft General Plan land designation of RR (Rural Residential-1DU/AC), Cite Y of Diamond Bar, California. (b) Generally, the proposed project is surrounded by R-1-40,000 zone. (c) Substantial evidence exists considering the the project, to determine that record as a whole, ill not be ' as proposed and conditioned herein, w ,detrimental to or interfere with the General Plan adopted or under consideration by the City. (d) The nature, condition, and size Of the sites has been considered. The sites are adequate in size to accommodate the proposed oposed development. variance: (e) Approval of the proposed project will not be or detrimental to the public health, safety general welfare, or to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity based upon mitigation measures which 3 have been conditioned into the proposed project.. (f) Because of the extreme grade elevations -and constraints of the project site, the strict. application of the code deprives. such property' 6f privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical ---zoning classification. As a result, Lots 153, 156, and 157 will require retaining walls in excess of the permitted height. (g) Approval of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone.in which the properties are situated. (h) Strict application of zoning regulations as they apply to the subject properties will result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of such regulations and standards. conditional Use Permit: (i) The- subject properties require a conditional Use Permit for slope of ,250 or more in an urban hillside management area. As such, a Conditional Use Permit is required pursuant to Chapter 22.56, Section 215 of the.County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code. (j) The proposed project is located and designed so as to protect the safety of -current and future community residents, and will not create significant threats to life and/or property due to the presence of geologic, Seismic, slope instability, fire, flood, mud. flow, or erosion hazard because of mitigation measures which -have been incorporated into the.proJect. (k) The proposed project, a . s conditioned, is compatible with the natural, biotic, cultural., scenic, and open space resources of the area. (1) The proposed project can 'be provided with essential public services without imposing undue costs on the total community and, pursuant to ordinance No. 4 (1992), is consistent with the objectives and polices of the General Plan adopted or under consideration by the City. Oak Tree Permit: ( The proposed project requires an Oak Tree Permit m) * trees to Chapter ,;. for the removal of oak pursuant the County of Los Angeles 22.56, Section 2060 of Zoning Code. Planning and by ave b (n) Five oak trees hit randy stockpiling pd onhe y illegal grading actio project site. is as (o) The removal of the five oak trees sent. locations continued existence -i rovement or proposed the -improvement frustrates planned the subject property -to such an extent used of ns deelOPm that alternativemittedvdensity ent o lathatathe costeOf the same pe. be prohibitive. such alternative would (p) The removal of toak ot result in diversionees will n or increased soil erosion through then because the atthe en incorporatedm inOf f low of surfaceto which haver measures project. orth in the findings and conclusion the Planning ,5. Based upon 1, 'above, 2, 3, and 4, this application subject to paragraphs Commission, hereby approves the following conditions•- _ shall substantially conform to the a The project and landscape plan, ( ) site plan, grading plan, Exhibit "A" dated May 10, collective marked as submitted to and approved by the Planning. 1993 as Commission.' (b) The subject site shall be •maintained in a d of debris an condition which is free construction, addition, after the ranted herein. the entitlements implementation of ebris, and refuse, The removal of all trash, ll rapplicantaor property owner construction whether during or subsequent be done only by who has been by duly permitted waste contractor, to collection, authorized by the City provide disposal of solid waste f transportation, and and construction, residential, commercial, e the Cit y. *It shall bwaste industrial areas igithin ation to insure that the ob g the applicant's ed p ermits from has obtained contractor utilized services. Diamond Bar to provide City of 5 (c) Applicant shall replace oak trees 'on the'*subject lots at a 4:1 ratio with the following assortment: 4 24 . inch boxed oak trees; 20 -,15 15 gallon oak r*_1 trees. Applicant shall install a drip system and shall irrigate the replacement oak 'trees for a three year period. .-The -replacement oak trees shall be properly cared for and continuously maintained in a healthy -and thriving condition ior a Period of three years. If mortality of the replaced oak trees Occurs within the three year period, the Applicant s ' hall replace them. Additionally, the Applicant shall deposit $10 000 in cash with the City to insure the completion of this condition. (e) In accordance with the Hillside Management ordinance No: 7 (1992), Applicant shall provide and implement a landscape plan for slopes which shall incorporate ground cover and deep-rooted native type shrubs to protect against surface erosion and surficial slumping. The. landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.- Additionally, the Applicant shall continuously maintain all slope planting in a healthy and thriving condition for a period of three years. (f) Applicant shall maintain weed free planter areas which are located on Lot 153. (g). Applicant shall obtain and record an easement to perform grading on Lot 158 of Tract No. 30091 not to exceed 40 feet of encroachment. Said easement shall be reviewed and approved by the. City Engineer and the Planning Department prior to the .issuance of a grading permit. (h) Retaining wall design and calculations shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Public Works, prior to "grading permit issuance. Foundation and/or wall excavations shall he inspected and approved in writing by the Soil Engineer. prior to placing steel or concrete. (i) The future and final subdrain system shall be submitted to the City's Public Works Department for review, prior to grading permit issuance. (j) A 'final soils report on the upper driveway and backfill to retaining walls for 22840 Ridgeline' 6 he report ude Road shall f field density test hl results and is ..an as mapap,, laboratory test results. laboratory ;..,, y (k)' A grading security bond based on actual cubic Lots 153, 154, J ' yards of dirt being handled for Tract No. 30091 shall be filed 156, and 157 of with the City prior to issuance of the grading Section 7008). The permit (UBC 1991: Chapter 70, the required bond shall be paid by Mr. cost of Jake Williams and shall remain in 'effect until of completion of the project to the satisfaction the City Engineer. 1 The Applicant shall provide'a phasing schedule of ( ) to the activities- with completion dates prior Should the work'not issuance of a grading permit. d in accordance with said phasin be complete schedule, the city may rescind the grading perm. (m) All drainage easements ubmittedalto bthee � ty dprior nd tto recorded copies of a grading permit. issuance �(n) Applicant shall pay all processing, consultant, costs to the City in --. and related inspection this project. Prior to the connection with of a grading permit, Mr. Jake Williams issuance shall post an initial deposit of $2, 000.00. for No. 30091. Lots 153, 154, 156, .and 157 of Tract (o) All documented fill. outside of the proposed to the original grading limits shall be removed ground. This includes the fill wedge natural southeast of the house .(east of cross-section D- that shows the DI). Lacking a reasonable, -analysis not use fill southwest of the house. will removal Of the design,to instability to. proposed is requirece can bewarea also that fill afrestricted useit and left in-place, be stable on Lot 156 shall be required. (p) An on-site, pre -job meeting with the Applicant, the engineer, the City's the contractor, grading soingineer the City'radinl erelated project inspector, and to all g g shall occur, prior operations. undertaken at the site without the (q)Operations shall result in presence of the soils engineer affected areas from the final exclusions of compaction report for the project. 7 No subsurface work was performed on Lot 154 to evaluate the existing fill placed there -by the water company. The City's soils engineer shall be required to inspect and approve all of these removal areas prior to the, issuance of a grading permit., (s) Soils engineering testing and inspections shall be conducted continuously during grading operations by the soils engineer/ engineering geologist and periodically by the City's soils consultant. All excavations shall be mapped by the soils engineer/ engineering geologist. All geotechnical inspections specifically required in the reports shall be implemented. (t) Further geological investigation shall be conducted and approved by the City's soils consultant in restricted use area of Lot 157 during grading and prior to construction of the fill slopes to confirm conclusion in Sampson's & Associates, Consulting Civil Engineers response dated May 18, 1992. (u) The soils and geology reports and responses prepared dated 4-1-92, 4-13-92, 5-18-921 7-7-92 and 8-5-92 contain -the following recommendations and responses which shall be strictly adhered to: (1) Approved Protective measures and temporary drainage provisions shall be provided. to protect adjoining properties from deposition of material or diverted flows both during and after all,phases of c9nstructi6n. (2) All import soils shall be 'suitable for fill slope, free of organic and rocks larger than 6 inches in diameter and shall be approved by a soils engineer prior*to import. (3) Prior to grading, all deleterious trash, vegetation and grass shall be removed and hauled off-site. All existing uncertified (AFU-See Geologic Map) fill and disturbed loose colluvial and alluvial soils shall be removed to competent bedrock or compacted certified fill, per the requirement of the City's. Grading Ordinance. Fills shall be keyed and benched into bedrock or compacted certified fill. Prior to placing any fill, the ground shall be keyed and benched. All 7z keys and benches shall be inspected and approved by the City's soils engineer. (4) No fill shall be placed until preparation of ground is approved by the . soils* engineer of record and the City's soils consultant. Existing ground shall. be cleared of all vegetation and scarified to a depth of at least 8 inches, and the top 6 inches shall be compacted to city standards prior to placement of fill material. (5) All fill soils shall be placed in layers. not exceeding 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness and compacted to at least go per cent of the maximum dry unit weight as determined by ASTM Designation D1557-78 Compaction Method. (6) Contact between existing certified fill and bedrock shall be observed during grading to confirm benching, by the City's soils engineer. Proposed fill shall be benched. into original certified fill or competent bedrock subsequent * to observation of foundation condition by the soils engineer and/or geologist. 7) Key construction shall contain lime -treated soil (3% lime mixed). See grading plan for locations and elevations. The outer 12 feet of the slope face shall be composed of import clayey soils material containing significant amount of plastic fines (more than 50% by weight silt and Clay) Additional testing (sieve, liquid limit, expansion index, maximum dry density, and. direct shear) shall be conducted periodically as fill is imported during site grading and if import material characteristics .. st* changes or after every 5000 cubic yards is imported. (8) Excavations for stability keys and removal of unsuitable * soils shall be inspected and approved in writing, engineering geologist, and City's soils engineer, prior to placing (9) Rough grading certificate shall be signed and wet -stamped by a soils and civil Engineer and approved by the City Public Works Inspector prior to issuance of building permits. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist 9 shall document rough grading by final report 'City. prior .-to approval by the The final. report shall include an as-graded' .geotechnical map. (10) All grading• related activities shall be completed-, by -October 1, 1993. Otherwise, the Applicant shall submit erosion control plans to the City by September 1, 19931 for plan- check review. On approval of these plans, the approved erosion control shall be installed by October 1, 1993. A bond shall ,be posted to insure the submittal and the utilization of the approved erosion control plans. (11) upon completion of grading, a final as-graded report summarizing grading operation, geologic conditions, field' and laboratory tests shall be submitted to the City. (v) This grant shall. not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining city processing fees. (w) The subject property. shall be - -maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and , any law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to any development or activity of the subject pr6perties. (x) This grant shall be valid for one year and must be exercised (i. e.• substantial construction including but not limited to grading, footings, foundations etc.) 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. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this -Resolution; and 10 APPROVED D ADOPTED THIS THt 24TH DAY OF MAY, 1993, BY THE PLANNING COMMISASNION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman tef . ano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the James DeS that the foregoing City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify Resolution was duly introduced, passed,. and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning commission held on the 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote:* AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] Meyer, Li, Plunk Grothe Flamenbaum None , Secretary Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolut . ion, (b) by certified mail to: Jake Williams 22840 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Richard Miller 22820 Ridgelline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Scott Harris 22909 Lazy Trail Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 A. C. Kdushal 1245 S. Mahogony Court Walnut, CA 91789 APPROVED D ADOPTED THIS THt 24TH DAY OF MAY, 1993, BY THE PLANNING COMMISASNION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman tef . ano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the James DeS that the foregoing City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify Resolution was duly introduced, passed,. and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning commission held on the 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote:* AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] Meyer, Li, Plunk Grothe Flamenbaum None , Secretary I. Background: Project consists of 4 lots within a gated community identified as "The Country Estates". The proposed project incorporates the following: (1). Retaining walls in excess of 6 feet with a maximum height of 18 feet; (2). Construction of pad for a tennis court; (3). Replacement of oak trees as a result of non -permitted grading and an illegal stockpile; (4). Proposed grading pursuant to Hillside Management Ordinance (No.7 1992). 1. Name of Applicant: A Jake Williams B Richard Miller. C Scott Harris— D. DAC Kaushal 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: A 22840 RidQeline Rd Diamond Bar. CA 91765 594-2884 B 22820 Ridaeline Rd Diamond Bar. CA 91765 (909) 861-1C. 647 22909 Lazy Trail Rd Diamond Bar. CA 91765 (909) 860-9688 D 1245 S Mohogony Ct., Walnut CA 91789 (9091 59 1335 3. Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact: Cart Kobbins Jr 9640 Center Ave Ste 100 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 (909) 941-1903 4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal: janua } 15. 1993 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: April 15_2 6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist): City of Diamond Bar 7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision): PPrm;t Na_ 93-1 �! p 1`To 93 1 Conditional Use Permit No 9-3 Oak Tr _ 8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): Non YES NO Variance: X Conditional Use Permit: X X Zone Change: General Plan Amendment: X YES NO POSSIBLY X X X. X X X X X X X X 9. change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer.by cuts.or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of --water--otherwise available for pu supplies? blic water i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of -plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare of endangered species of plants? C.. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or' plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? d• Introduction.of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? e. Reduction in acreage of any. agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result ins a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare or endangered`,species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident species? d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Boise. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result ins a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? YES NO POSSIBLY 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? 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., Will 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? X C. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? X d. Alterationsto. present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. X S. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X 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? X 4. Parke or other recreational facilities? X Maintenance of public facilities, .5. including roads? X 6. Other governmental services? YES No POSSIBLY 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: --X a. Use of energy? substantial amounts of fuel or X b• _Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development -of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in: — -- a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: X 18. 19. X 20. x' X X 21. X a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b• Exposure of people to potential health hazards? - Aesthetics. will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction ofany 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? Recreation. Will the proposal result in: a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. will the proposal result int a. The alteratioq of or the destruction of a Prehistoric br historic archaeological site? b• Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? C. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. Mandatory Findings of Significance? a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a.rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? YES NO POSSIBLY x_ X 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? d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION op ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: (Attach Narrative) IV. DETERMINATION:,' On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. _x I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there* will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed Project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on. the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: ARril 15, 1993 Signature: Title: an Jec 'c an For the City of Diamond Bar, California MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 93-5 April 15, 1993 Case Number: Variance No. 93-1, Conditional Use Permit No. 93- 3, Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1 Applicant: City.of Diamond Bar 21*660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91767 Proposal: Variance No. 93-1 is a request to construct a series of retaining walls in excess of 6 feet with a maximum height of 18 feet on Lots i53, 156, and 157 of Tract No. 30091. The r ' etaining walls are utilized to create a buildable for a proposed tennis court and a proposed driveway. Conditional-- Use Permit No. 93-1 is required pursuant to the Hillside Management Ordinance (No. 7. 1992) for proposed grading activities on Lots 153, 154, 156, and 157., Oak Tree Permit No.* 93-1 is required for the replacement of oak trees as a result of non - permitted grading and an illegal. stockpile. Location: 22909 Lazy Trail Rd., Lot 153 22927 Lazy Trail Rd., Lot 154 22840 Ridgeline Rd., Lot 156 22820 Ridgeline Rd., Lot 157 Diamond Bar, CA 91965 Environmental Findings: The proposed project, as determined in the City of Diamond Bar, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described- on- herein have been incorporated into the proposed project- and. a Mitigated-Negative'Declaration has been prepared. Il. Discussion of Envirdnmental Evaluation: 'Mitigated Negative Declaration tvv=all Am "Possible" answers giver Environmental Impacts: I. Earthwill the proposal result in: b. Disruption, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? es. c. Changes in topography or ground surface relief features? Yes- Z=Anation: The sites.as they exist have'approximately a 1:1 slope ratio. After the.proposed grading the approximate slope ratio will be 2:1. In order to achieve the 2:1 slope ratio, 4,896 cubic yards of earth Will be distributed among the four lots. The 4,,890 cubic yards of earth includes the illegal stockpile. The compaction and uncertified fill as. a result of the illegal stockpile Will need to be executed properly. As a result, the topography and ground surface relief change. * features will Mitigation: Mitigation measures shall be based on soil's report and actual soil conditions. Compaction and fill Will need to be certified. Benches and• shear keys will be provided to insure earth stability; The proosed grading Will adhere to the Hillside Management Ordinpance (110.7, 1992). All previously mentioned mitigation measure Will be subject to thq review and approval of the City Engineer. These mitigation measures will significantly y reduced the impacts' to a level of insignificance. I . 3., Water. Will the proposal result in: Changes in absorption rates, ates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface -run-off? Yes. planation: Due to the amount.of earth to be imported to the project sites,, the change in the slope ratio and the eradication of plant life because of the proposed grading, the absorption rates, drainage patterns, and the rate and amount of surface run-off will be effected. mitigatio A drainage system will be required and constructed to the specifications and satisfaction of the City Engineer. A hydroseed mix of Festuca Ovina (Sheep Fescue) and Festuca O. Duriuscula (Hard Fescue) will be utilized to protect slopes from effects of surface run- off. Hydroseeding will assisted in slowing down the absorption rate. 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatice plants? es. Explanation: Before non -permitted grading and illegal stockpiling took place, it is believed that there were oak trees on the subject sites. Exactly how many is not know. Mitigation: To mitigated the possibility Of oak trees having been destroyed, the applicant will be required to provide a minimum of ten oak trees between the subject sites. .Oak trees will vary is size from 15 gallons to 24 inch box. �F N O F-' rt a �- � � �•'b w��r•�iN�i op,4rtWNN- n� w aw n O�i��O Erl $1 AD O rt H. a to "o (D O I w oovrovo O r• (D 0 N- N - rt �• neo rt t9rt0 �% O �00M rt,� (D 1 N ri"ro rocs O h+• ~s ti (D rp �. (D A w a w .-.xvvxH o�roaN•m • Nw�r++ �N n o 04 ' p.oa� w 0 w rt w 0 O N w n H- La awhdQ.n co �' ts• ~s � mN-40 (D ri r• H. rt : n 0 N omom ¢- o X ct Ea w rt N ct O �< M (D � o (D r Im w x awwrovn CDOOOr•�- w rra o cra o (DmI.- rrtmH*�w N to N n M rt (D. N 0 X tt H po H 0 P P w � 1 °o H 1-3 ►p H 0 �r Lily H O m0x rdH0 y �M� 0z W May. 5N' y M 7°d W 0ON . ro w y 0 m wx� Pro ° o rt to � zO k m1-3 W a 0 1 t.. td td M H H C M O W • M Q W p � w 0 Gs H 19 W Pd W 1C ctm C N tD N �c F mo r r• n r-1 CA rid m�oN• am w� a m `'- =� + w D a m Itz �' � oa__ mem soft uri.m (D O U) x N c0'p rr w (D ►'I N Z � vm w m rt, N (D �, tr tr m r• m i n r• N ft ft rt r• r• ro r•Zr•�tmn ft 0 LQ rta0 O• ct N f1.W 0 O H� � W ft 11 PCO 0 1 � i w W N n rt ch ft (D fD (D Mro 0 trctMtij0 �P. 0 Li•f1 K trJfZF1'rJ m'� 0N•Or• LQ ct, 4) ro�r r• 00(D•(D �� awn a��o`1-•L< 0 a. H- rt (D 1_ z H. ft (D n 0 " N 0: H �K (mD N f� rtm (t N 0 o (D(Dn 0 act w0 0 x N cot O. m►r.•+• � N rt m 1. H 19 W Pd W 1C ctm C N tD N ct w At cr O ty m w m t'1 m (A H 0 W 17rf'zJ rrH n �'d `� �O w N N H. � Mctm rt xm �m Iy M 0 w K m Or0'� K w (D Mr•m En mmr+rr�C H mnm cn a0 H- (D arzr0 a (Drrra o r sr a (D -- aN 0 r,w K n ". K n C � w m w O Q 0) o o�C 51 @ a oo ¢'0((DD craw: r•r•arrn H a0 � o:3 m `4 Mo • P' w O w :s m d rt 51 N ''C w r• K. Q'Ntt os✓�sr o EKKKr• r. o$ri3E0 w(D0 O0rOro� robr•M rt oV00 �nmmO Ror•rt onr� N n 1 �X Vmnn�•++ OKft (D m En :31 (D m r 1 rt ws✓mwm tEn �•j O O�:3'(D k a Ul Nm A- (D t3 t o m 0 (D• n m (D 10 Wrn• 0) 0� 0 rt, N~�m� 0 KM(D Nn Mm Nw rt :1 rt ~ r � m P H O K mrrA1 C OmKm•0(�D �OU7 r•�ro� w x m �N w ((n V N w K m m ao rt P- m m O �(DD 'C (t a mF� s�wro rt SD 0n • H. m m ft rr H. w r• ro r•pwKmK r•K m K m Z 0 0 KKt7 a N rtN ct o4 maul 0 crw mr• atsO wm mss bO m K Oz r-wn Lao Omoirtt((DD (Drr� 0 `0� A+ rt rA Na`4n (p0�po rt � n(Dwa0 otj 0 1 K MV 1 m z � n I 1 w p, �cl z rt v ro vro vro r. N . � w O �r-t-j +�KmCw C wct r -Z ''C rr 7�rr' ro m N Ul. 0 m :3m H. w M ft m 1- w o low m � a m K N Mro r' ~' Mro a n arm NZ trD a::1 En 0 .rt (D((D ((DD n n ' m n 0' �v � a a ct w At cr O ty m w m t'1 m (A H 0 W CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Case# \/A -P— q:5 —1 DEPARTME',NT OF PLANNENG Filed i -s/93. 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 Fee $ 2,cxoy (714)396-5676 . Fax (714)861-3117 Recelft VARIANCE APPLICATION By Record owner(B) Applicant Applicant's Agent A- ?_ 1 Name SEE ATTACHED P,I 1, --- (lastnamefirst) yko Address City .9 zip Phone( (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnershipsi joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this request. Signed SEE ATTACHED Date (All recorded owners) 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 CARL TIL.-KOBBINS JR.. (Appti nt or ge Date Signed tAnot cant or Ag t Location LOTS �153 154 156 &10/ IKAW 11kJ. Juuj. tqrrpe .. t address or trac' and tot number) between RIDGE LINE RD. and LAZY TRAIL RD. (Street) (Street) 40000 — Hm— 105 H 341- Zoning i, CH project Density Project size (gross acres) VERY LIGHT Previous cases NONE Presentusecif Site RESIDENTIAL Use applied for VARIANCE FOR WALL HEIGHTS AA ;o�1111 Domestic water source WALNUT VALLEY WATER company/District. trict LOS ANGELES COUNTY Method of Sewage Disposal SANITARY SEWER sanitation Dis CI'T'Y OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax(714)861-3117 V.A. /a P Ito N C@ . epi•' p F.1- I C A. T I© IQ Record Owners Name. JAKE WILLIAMS Address 22840 RIDGELINE RD City DIAMOND BAR Zip CA_ 91765 Applicant Case Y Filed Fee $ Receipt` By Applicant's Aqent Phone(714) 594-2884 ( ) Name RICHARD MILLER 5-? Address 22820 RIDGELINE RD City DIAMOND BAR Zip CA 91765 Phone(714) 861-1647 ( ) Name SCOTT HARRISt53 ,Address 22909 LAZY TRAIL RD City DIAMOND BAR Zip CA 91765 Phone(714)__860-96e8 ( ) Name A.C. KAUSHAL Address 1245 S. MAH OGONY CT. ' City WALNUT Zip CA 91789 Phone(714) 595-1335 ( ) ( ) OWNERS' AUTHORIZATION We certify that' we are the owners of the herein described property and permit the applicant to f, 1.� 4-u _ Signed -,^ - C - Sig Sig Sig ate— ! 9 9j te- to Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES X NO Amount (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (All ownership comprising the proposed lots/project). If petitioning for zone change, attach legal description of exterior boundaries of area subject to the change.) LOTS 153, 154 156 & 157 TRACT N0. 30091 Project Site: 412 ACRES 4 Gross Area No. of Lots Area devoted to : structures Open Space Residential project — and Gross Area No. of floors Proposed Density ONE . RESIDENCE EXISTS ON THREE LOTS EACH units/Acres Number and types of Units Residential Parking: Type Required Provided Total Required Total Provided LO I TS,156 153 AND 153 HAVE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH GARAGE ATTACHED. LOT 154 WILL HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SIDENCE SOME TIME IN THE FUTRUE. to C. VARIANCE CASE -BURDEN Or, PROOF In addition to * - the information required in the a'apic shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Zonis pplication, theg Board and/or Commplission, following facts. the A. ,That the requested use at the location will not: Adversely affect the health, residing or peace, comfort or welfare or working in the surrounding area, or Persons 2. Be Materially detrimental to the usep oymnt or . valuation of property Of I other Persons located n theenjviciniety of the site. or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or Other wise constitute a menace to the Public health, safety or general welfare. TUR DrnrT"__ __-- LUIUATION WILL THE HEALTH, PEACE,'"''" .... ........ . . ........... - I - I W I I � . . .... .. ...... . ........ . ADVERSELY �AM� E COMFORT OR*WELFARE OR PERSONS RESIDING OR A LL NOT. B11*RAT WORKING IN THE SURROUNDING REA OR' 2 WI ERTALLY, To THE USE EUTOYMENT OR VALUATION n D, T.nrATPn -riky - ____ 0 R V IMENTAL That the proposed site is ade Yards, walls, fencesgate in size and shape to a - ccOmmodate the , Parking and loading facilitiesI andscaping and other development features prescribed in this ncep, required in order to integrate said use withOrditheanusesOr as in theis suotherwise rrounding. area. J'o ADEQUATE .I�NSIZE SIZE THE PROPOSED SITE IS,,.IN SIZE AND SHAPE TO ACCOMODATE THE OTHER �DEVFI�npmrm,' AND PR CE �A �R �AS PRESCRIBED IN DEVELOPMENT FEATURES PRESCRIBED THIS ORDINANCE, OR AS T IN THE SURROUNDIN AREA. That the proposed site is adequately served: 1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use Would and generate. 2. By 0 . ther Public or private service facilities as are required. THE PROPOSED SITE IS O -F, ;;T;y,-_--__-__-_-_-_- ADEQUATELY SERVED ir 0 SUFFICIENT WIDTH ANF""_�� ........ .... BY HIGHWAVIQ OR STREF.T.q AND IMPROVED ke ;;--- tal"i LXANTITY OF TRAFFIC SUCH . NECESSARY TO CARRY. ADEQOATELY CH USE WOULD GENERATE AND (2 SERVEDBY OTHER ------- RA S VIC" As 'D PRIVATE ER F D. That there are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to other properties in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classification. E. That such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right .of the applicant such as that possessed by owners of other property in the same vicinity and zone. A 14.A F. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. Project Applicant (Owner): JAKE WILLIAMS et. all NAME 22840 RTT)r-P. LINE Dn ADDRESS* DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 (714) 594 2884 PHONE # INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Representative: CARL T. KOBBINS, JR. NAME 9640 CENTER AVE. STE. 100 ADDRESS* RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 (714) 941-1903 PHONE Staff Use Project NO 1. Action requested and Project description: APPROVE WALL HEIGHTS 2. Street location of project: 22840 & 22820 RIDGELINE RD F AA . - 3a. Present use of site; RESIDENTIAL Previous use of site or structures: 4. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this project: NONt 5. Other related permit/approvals required. Specify type and granting agency. OAK TREE PERMIT. 6. Are YOU planning future phases of this project? Y If yes. explain: 7. Project Area: Covered by structures, paving: 3 EXISTING HOUSES & I FUTURE Landscaping, open space: HOUSE Total Area: ---4f -ACRES 8. Number of floors: 9. Present zoning; R-1 40000 10. Water and sewer service: Does service exist at site? If yes, do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved projects? Domestic Water 0 N Public oy Sers 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 12. Schools: What school district(s) serves the property? WALNUT VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT Are ex' ting school facilities adequate to meet project needs? YES NO If not. what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? Non -Residential projects: 13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) 14. Number and floor area of buildings: 15. Number of employees and (shifts: 16. Maximum employees per shift: 17. Operating hours:- 18. Identify any: End products Waste products Means of disposal .y •�ti .•'il} �ti i 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as Oil, pest"ici , chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES r rp If yes, explain 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES S If yes, explain 21. Iden.tify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on- site. NONE 22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES NU N/A If yes, explain B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION Environmental Setting --Project Site a. Existing use/structures RESIDENTIAL b. Topography/slopes HILLSIDE *c. Vegetation *d. 'Animals *e. Waterccurses f. Oiltural/historical resources NONE g. Ot he r 2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area a. Existing uses structures (types, densities): R.R: b. Topography/slopes HILLSIDE *c. Vegetation *d. Animals *e. Watercourses f. Wltural/historical resources NONE 9. Ot her * Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural, undeveloped land. 3• Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees? YES ONO I f yes, type and number: 4. Will any natural watercourses through project development?, surface flow patterns etc., be changed YES O If yes, explain: 5. Grading: Will the project require grading?(YES NO If yes, how many cubic yards? 48950 Will it be balanced on site? YES NO If not balanced, where VARIOUS SOURCES will dirt be obtained or deposited? 6• Are there an ' y identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on the property (including uncompacted fill)? YES ONO if yes, explain: ?• Is the property located within a high fir' a moderately dense vegetation)? hazard area . (hillsides with YES O NO Distance to nearest fire station: 2 MILES 8• Noise: Existing noise sources at site: NONE Noise to be generated by project: Fumes: Odors generated by project: NONE Could toxic fumes be generated? 10. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used? NA CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of ledge and bel' ate Signature For: cl-r-y OF DD—NIOND BAR DEPARTrvi[ENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 - � Fax (714)861.:3117 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Record Owner(s) Name SEE ATTACHED (Last name first) Address city Applicant Case# Recvd Fee $ Receipt 9541— By Applicant's Agent phone ---------- (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 Date Signed SEE: ATTACHED (All recorded owners) Certification: It the Undersigned, hereby certify under penalty Of Perjury that correct to the best Of my knowledge. the information herein provided is Printed Name; CARL T* KOBBINS., JR. (Applicant or e t) -3 Date Signed (Applicant or AS Tract No 3,0091 J.. ,f;. 156, 157 Tract No LOTS 153, 154, nd 157, Location (street address or tract and lot nuiber) H'105H 341 R-1 40000 N.. Zoning. SEE PERMIT APPLICATIONS Cases. REFER To VARIANCE AND OAK Present Use of Site RESIDENTIAL Use ESID—T-r'AT- use appl led for GRADING ---------- 4 LOTS APPROX Project density VERY LIGHT project size (gross acres) 1-12 ACRES EACH Company /District Domestic, Water SourceWALMM VALLEY WATER LOS,ANGELES .COUNTI , SANITARY SEEWER Sanitation District ----------- Method of Sewage dispos.— Yes x Grading of Lots by Applicant? (show necessary grading design an site plan or tent map) APPROPRIATE BURDENS or PROOF MUST ACCOMPANY REQUEST CITY OF DL-01OND BAR DEPARn, EENT OF PLANIN-LNG 21660 E. Copley Drive S I uite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 CONDITIONAL-' USE PERMIT APPLICATION Record Owner(s) Recvd---�L� Fee $ Receipt—J-6-4z-- BY -------------- Applicant Applicant's Agent Name SEE ATTACHED (Last name first) --------------- Address City Zip Phone( ----------- ---------- (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations)signatures CONSENT: I consent: to the submission of the application accompanying. this request Signed SEE ATTACHED (All recorded owners) ------ Date ----------- Certification: X, the undersigned, the information herein provided is hereby ' Certify under penalty 0-f perjury that correct to the best Of my knowledge. Printed Name: CARL T. KOBBINS. JR. pp' i cant or e t) Signed(Applicant or (Applicant or A9 Date4V;j Location LOTS 153, 154,. 156, d 1577 Tract No 30091 (Street address or tract and Lot r Zoning, R-1 40000 M 105H 341 Previous Cases - REFER TO VARIANCE AND OAK 1mvp Dan5u" 'APPLICATIONS Present Use of Site RESIDENTIAL Use applied for GRADING Project Size (gross acres4 LOTS ) 1.12 A Project density VERY LIGHT Domestic Water source WALNUT vALLEy WATER Company/District Method of Sewage disposal SANITARY SEEWER Sanitation District LOS ANGELES COUNTY GradingC - Lots by Applicant? (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent map) Yes x No APPROPRIATE BURDENS Op PROOF MUST ACCOMPANY REQUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION (all ownership comprising the proposed lots)/parcel(s) TATS 153 154 156 and 157 Tract No 30091 COUNTY OF TAS ANGELES Area devoted to structures Landscaping/Open space Residential Project: 41 ACRES and 4 (gross area) (No. of lots) Proposed density ONE RESIDENCE EXISTS ON THREE OF THE LATS/ONE LOT IS VACANT LAND (Units/Acres) Parking Required Provided Standard Compact Handicapped Total LOTS 156, 157, and 155 have existing single family residences with attached garages. LOT 154 will have a single family residence some time in the future. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE -BURDEN OF PROOF In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant -shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board and/or Commission, the following facts: A That the requested use at the location proposed will not: 1• Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or 2• Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. The requested use at this location will not the (1) adversely affect health, peace, comfort or welfare of 'persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or (2) wi.1 notbe materially etremental to the use, eniovment mr .,>>,.-__ -- --- siv a—t.Y o= me site, or 3 will no J—L-IM&LA.LZe. entianger or o erwIse cons z u e a menace o e P is ea sa e y or genera we are B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards. walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other developmentfeatures prescribed in this Title 22. or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with' the uses in the surrounding area. The pro_tiosed: site is adequate in size and the yards, shape to accommodate walls,. fences narking and loading facilities landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Title 22, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. C. That the proposed site is adequately served: i BY highways- or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and The Proposed site is adequately served by highways or streets Of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate and by other public or private service facilities as are required, CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax(714)861-3117 OAK TREE PERMIT APPLICATION Record Owners Name JAKE WILLIAMS Address 22840 RIDGELIKE RD City DIAMOND BAR Zip CA 91765 Phone(714) 594-2884 Name RICHARD MILLER Address 22820 RIDGELINE RD City DIAMOND BAR Zip_ CA 91765 Phone(714) 861-1647 Name SCOTT HARRIS Address 22909 LAZY TRAIL RD City DIAMOND BAR Zip CA 91765 Phone(714) 860-96,88 Name A.C. KAUSHAL Address 1245 S. MAHOGONY CT. City WALNUT Zip CA .91789 Phone(714) 595-1335 OWNERS' AUTHORIZATION Applicant Case Filed Fee $ 375.00 DEPOSIT Receipt By Applica.nt's Agent We certify that we are 'the owners of the herein described property and permit the applicant to - file this request. Signed Date Signed Date Signe dADate /� e0 Signe Date BURDEN OF PROOF Submit additional sheets ' describing how the following findings will be satisfied A. That the proposed construction or proposed use will be accomplished 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 soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated, and C. That in addition to the above facts at least one of the following findings apply: 1. That the removal or relocation of the oak tree(s) proposed is necessary - as continued existence at present location(s) frustrates the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject property to such an extent that: a. Alternative development plans cannot achieve the same permitted density or that the cost of such alternative would be 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 interfere with utility services or streets and highways either within or outside 'of the subject property and no reasonable alternative to such interfere exists other than removal of the tree(s), or 3. That the condition of the oak tree(s) proposed for removal with reference to seriously debilitating disease or danger of falling is such that it cannot be remedied through reasonable preservation procedures and practices. Date• 9 9 z__- Applicant's Signature Gk.Q� C1I'. OF DL��iv=,v b kR Filed llEPART�ffitiT OF PLANNING Fee S S375.CNJ DEPOSIT - z1660 E. Cogley Drive Suite 190 Rece t elf 'Z (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 By OAK TREE pERWr APPLICATION A licant Applicant's Agent Record owner(B) PP Name SEE ATTACHED (Last name first) Address city Zip Phone( ) OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION thisthis rte— Signed SEE ATTACHED Date (All recorded owners) en LGt(iwri. • �• herein provided is correct to the best of my knnwIedge. Printed Name CARL T, KOBBINS, JR, {Applic nt or ge ) t Date Signed (Applicant or ent) location) Location (i.e. address or genral description: of of property in question: easnecessary)legal description LOTS 153 1541 1561 & 157 TRACT NO. 30091 How many ouk trees will be cut, removed, relocated or damaged? THREE How many oak trees will remain NONE Will trees to be removed be replaced? YES If yes, indicate the proposed size, type, location (indicated on site plan) and schedule for planting. ry rrrvx1 MVW TPRRS PLANTED AS INDICATED ON SITE PLAN. THE TREES ARE OAKS AND WILL BE PLANTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER GRADING IS COMPLETED. 24' INCH BOXED 140 if yes, identify who will move them Are trees to be relocated? and his qualifications for doing this. OAK TRF..E sTATEMENr [] The su1}ject._property contains no oak trees. [ ] The subject property contains one or more oak trees, however the applicat anticipates that no activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within five (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oak tree. [ ] The subject property contains one or more oak trees and the applicant states t hat 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. !T (Applicant's Signature) ru Cy q -z-, (Date) BURDEN OF PROOF A THE TREE . S THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED ARE ALL THAT WILL BE REMOVED. THERE ARE NO OTHER OAK TREES TO ENDANGER. B. THE REMOVAL'OF THE OAK TREES HAS BEEN MITIGATED . IN THE. GRADING PLAN. C.I. THE REMOVAL OF THE OAK TREES WAS NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT TO PROCEED AND IT IS AGREED TO REPLACE THE TREES. WITH TEN NEW TREES. 2. NOT APPLICABLE. 3. NOT APPLICABLE. -Al 6-8. List and describe any ocher related standards, approvals relevant ,,rmit s and oche_ this project, including those required by citv state and federal agencies: ... VARIANCE FRONT t-.�AL! 7 - M-Tr-wrc �/ regional,, 7. Land Use Designations:. Adopted General Plan Designation: RR Adopted Zoning: Community Plan Designation: ----------- ------ 8. RESIDENTIAL WITH ACCESSARY site: ---------- TENNIS COURT ................ ------------- Project Description 9-A. Site Dimensions and Gross Area: -LOT 153=(160 x 308±)=i.i,)Ar 9-B. Le al Des LOT V 154. the Pro ect: (attach co to this form if necessary) TRA( P10. 30091 rTTy F DIAMOND BAR ' io. project Detail N,;A attach a separate page of descriptive data for each housing tYP9 included I in project: a Number of Housing Units by type• b. Floor Area by type (minimum, maximum, and average square footage) C. Number Of floors (stories) for each type. market targeted (demographic profile)- d. Housing marsales -price or estimated market rents. , caping, e. Estimated market ple, lands all amenities proposed (for exam f. Describe on use recreation equipment, comm facilities, trials, etc.). g. Minimum lot Size. (Net lot area, not including Right -of -Way). (Net lot area, not including Right -of -Way). h. Maximum lot size including Right -of -Way). i. Average lot size: (Net lot area, not i j. Number of lots which do not meet City Standards. private utility easements, utility lines, structures 11. Describe public or p surface of the on the surface or below the or other facilities which exist project site. 12. Associated Projects: (Projects or potential projects which are directly related to this project, ie: potential developments which require completion of this project): 13. Describe any anticipated Phasing ing for this project: (Number of Units & Time Frame) 14. Attach one copy 02 each of the following: a. . preliminary Soils Report b. preliminary Geologic investigation. C. Drainage study. ting any existing slopes ofmore. d. Topographic Map highlighting plot Plan clearly showing each area of cut e. Tract Map, Parcel Map, 0 pads (if known), and and each area of fill: all residential unit any areas with slopes 25% or more. Iffrent 1e; northr south, eat, showing th f. Photographs site f1:om d•vistas (ie: north, west) vantage pints and photographseshowing south, east, west) from the site. THIS DATA SUBMITTED WITH GRADING PLANS, Are the following items applicable to the proposed (Discuss below all items which apply to this project: or as necessary) P ject. its effects? a�tach additional sheet=_ i5. Grading. Maximum depth o�VJJjykJXJXJ�COMpACTI N quantity of soil moved: q ft Maximum depth of fill: Oto 35 'ft Will there be an on sitebalance of cut cubic yards. and -fill?: NO -IMPORT REQUIRED 16. Viewshed: Describe an the project osed, yMchange in the appearance of the site resulting from L�S5,p sed. AND DOWN DRAINS 17•. Describe how the proposed project will fit into its surroundings the proposed project blend into and existin to the size, scale g neighborhood? g (ie: will development?), style, and character of the existingsurroundingundine THE GRADING WILL ENHANCE THE SURROUNDINGS AND GIVE A MORE PLEA A A A 18. Describe any alteration of the existing drainage ial for changes in surface or ground water qualityg patterns p any permanent or 'intermittent surf aceJeubsufac quantity_ change as a result tof this project? How?: (ie: will the flow of will there be any inection wells, septic systems facilities which may affect surface or -subs urface water quality?) °r other 19. Describe any long-term noise and/or vibration which may of this project: (after construction will this project directlyor i cause the y occur as a result generation of noise and or vibration greater than any that exists now?) N N indirectly residential construction proposed on filled lane (_Je: the lot number 20. Describe any . each structure proposed to be built of filled land). of T " T 'F "71"! is1) F T ----------- site now? Describe the 21. Do . any 11 significant trees exist on the project are considered effect this project will.have on them. (is: Oak and Walnut trees removal. significant. Describe whether the proposed project will disturb -or cause of any of these trees). Is the project Bite located in a national, state, regional or locally 22. environmental or other significance. If So designated area of historical, describe. (le: Is the site an area designated as a hillsidarea,e manaetcgement area, significant ecological area, significant mineral resource .) Environmental Setting: of the project site. This 23. Describe the environmental setting (synopsis)slopes, drainage, stability, narrative shall include a description of the so , and any scenic quality, plants, and animals which may exist on the Bite now existin structures and the existing land use of the project site. BtrUCt T THE SOILS WILL ALL PPF.qRM�M THREE LOTS HAVE EXIST ffy �4• Describe the surrounding pro e - include a description of the soil sPabilet (synopsis). This narrative sial, Y Indicate the type of land use (residential,,, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (single_famil commercial, professional, etc. y, multi -family, density, back, etc.) in the adjacent surrounding areaof development (height, fronts e THE PROPERTY SURRAOUset- NDING THE AREA IS RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOTS. WALNUT VALLEY TH NORTH SIDE, certification: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information requiredOf for initial environmental evaluation and ability to determine factual, true, correct and c plate. l/ g , belief Date:Signature-' ignature / �r-11 , L-4 For Completion of this form is required to begin review of a project. within this form and the required attached materials will assist the city on determining whether a Negative Declaration may be p snfority in Negative Declaration may be granted, or whether Environmental Impact Report shall Y granted, whether a Mitigated be required. &iaur-azory r.La-LacJs c: a. Does the proposed project have the - the \0 potential to degrade the qualitY O� environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to 'drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? NO 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 NO which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? NO d. Does the project ject pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL . EVALUATIONI (Attach Narrative) DETERMINATION: on the basis Of this initial evaluation: t the proposed project COULD NOT have a find that effect on the. environment, and a significant NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. find that although the,propos6d project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will ...not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described an 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 AEPORT,'is required. Date: Signature: Title: For the City of Diamond Bar, California F 0 CITY or DIAMOND BAR I N T E R 0 F F I C E M E M 0 R A N D U M DATE: October 29, 1991 TO: Andrew Z... Arczynski, City Attorney FROM: Sid J. Mousavi, City Engineer/I,- �Tr�o Works SUBJECT: ILLEGAL FILL, GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL AT 22840 RIDGELIKE ROAD IN THE'COUNTRY Pursuant to the telephone conversation of October 28, 1991, we have, updated and compiled the following chronology of events for the subject Property in the Country: 3-30-89 to See attached chronology of events dated 3-1-90. 3-1-90 6-28-90 Retaining wall permit issued (for upper driveway retaining walls only) . Engineering permit No-.- GP024 7-18-90 Retaining wall permit issued for walls A, B and C. Engineering permit No. GP026 10-1-90 Received letter from Carl Robbins the Civil Engineer of Record for Mr. Jake Williams saying he is no longer acting as a Civil Engineer of . Record on 21840 Ridgeline. 10-5-90 Received letter from Triad Foundation Engineering stating that grading operations for the driveway were performed under their inspection, but that current grading was not being inspected by them per request of Mr. Williams. 10-9-90 Jack Istik (Deputy City Engineer) wrote to Mr. Williams revoking his grading permit No. GP -008 as a result of the. Civil Engineer of Record and the Soils Engineer stating that they were no longer working on the project. 11--!9-90 Dennis Tarango (Building official) wrote to Mr. Williams explaining that the Building. Department had to hold his plans in abeyance because the grading (an integral component of the project) performed on his property was not certified by a geologist. 9-27-91 Joe Pilgram, owner of the adjacent property contacted the City requesting if the City had taken any legal actions to remove the illegal grading.. 10-3-y1 to 10-14-91 city -.staff visited the site. City staff searched the files at the City and storage to gather the necessary information. 10-15-91 City,Engineer, Sid J. Mousavi, wrote to RKA requesting any information they may have on this project. 10-21-91 Received-Aetter from RYA with d ted 3opies f 1190 and copy of etter to Jake Williams dated 11-9-90, RKA letter to Jake Williams dated 1-5-90. ew 10-28-91 Prepared memo of city 840 Attorney. Additionalvpicturese file reiew for Ataken dr Z. Arczynski, Y to verify existing conditions. 10-29-91 Contacted Mr. Joe pilgram, owner of adjacent property (22927 Lazy Trail). He requested that the illegal encroachment of dirt on his property to be removed as soon as possible. Also requested that the City provide a time line schedule as to when this matter will be resolved To date, the unsupervised deposited dirt/fill still remained on the site and has not been removed. If you need additional information, please let me know. sJM:AG:ra cc: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager 7-7 3 "T� >I / w- J ' C ' r�i• off ) 4.'i'Y r4�{ � •. `�-� ���.' � ''!y` c-*r.,L-fir .�,,...�• _ _ +• r�' X _ La; y s ,•: c �F Agenda Item I — VTM 151169 2: �11 - -. Plans found in project file. readY for on :Scanning Filer fewe by on and is ready for clestruction by City Clerk