HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/1999� I PLANNIN(II COMMISSIOIN AGENDA October 26, 1999' 7:00 P.Me South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Steve Tye Vice Chairman Steve Nelson Commissioner George .duo Commissioner Joe McManus Commissioner Joe Ruzicka Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on filo in the Planning Division of the Dept. of Community & Development Services, 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 efibrt to comply with the requirements of Title // 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 accommodation(s). in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Dept of Community & Development Services at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning' Commission MEETING RULES PUBLIC INPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request to address Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission. As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments willtake place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in. order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.3(a), the Chair may from time to time dispense with public comment on items previously considered by Commission. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on an item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 396-5676 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday: HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 396-5676 Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE General Agendas (909) 396-5676 email: info@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Tuesday, October 26, 1999 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson, George Kuo, Joe McManus and Joe Ruzicka. 1. ROLL CALL: Next Resolution No. 99-24 No= 2. 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 Secret, (Completion of this form is voluntary). gmp — There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. 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: 4.1 MINUTES: OCTOBER 12,1999 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99-10 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two-story. single family residence of approximately 22,752 square feet with balconies, porch and eight -car garage. Additionally, the request includes a tennis court and retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of four feet. October 26, 1999 ,. I,(#) , 31 , a a PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Page 2 2827 and 2859 Water Course Drive (Tract No. 476850, Parcels F/G) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 . Diamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance, CA 90503 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is consistent with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for Tract Map No. 47850. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99-10, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. 8.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99-11, (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020.A(1) and 22.48.030) is a request to construct approximately 12,151 square foot, two-story, single-family residence with balconies, porch, patio, and a four -car garage. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2808 Crystal Ridge Road (Tract No. 47850, Lot 30) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Diamond Bar West, LLC APPLICANT: 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance, CA 90503 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is consistent with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for Tract Map No. 47850. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: 10. . INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Video Presentation On Southern California Association Of Governments (SLAG). 10.2 Public Bearing Dates For Future Projects. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 61kvj-f-- U1411 164 1 11 1 CONJUNCTION 1 DIAMOND COMMERCE: ' Fourth Tuesday of each month through November 1999 7:00 P.M. - 9:00 P.M. AQMD, CC6, g:\\agenda\planning\october261999 October 26, 1999, PC Agenda October 26, 1999 12. • 1 � PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE: ELECTION DAY: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW MEETING: Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Thursday, October 28, 1999 — 7:00 P.M. AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive Sunday, October 31, 1999 — 3:00 P.M. — 10:00 P.M. Heritage Park Community Center 2900 S. Brea Canyon Road Tuesday, November 2, 1999 — Polls open from 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Tuesday, November 2, 1999 — 6:30 P.M. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, November 9, 1999 — 6:00 P.M. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, November 9, 1999 — 7:00 P.M. AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, November 18, 1999 — 7:00 P.M. AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, November 23, 1999 — 6:00 P.M. AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21565 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, November 23, 1999 — 7:00 P.M. AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive g:\\agenda\plwun ng\october261999 October 26, 1999, PC Agenda MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 12,1999 L Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Ruzicka, ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson and Commissioners George Kuo, Joe McManus and Joe Ruzicka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant; Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. MATTERS FROM TBE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1 Minutes of September 28, 1999. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of September 28, 1999, as presented. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Comprehensive Sign Program No. 99-6 (pursuant to Code Section 22.36.060) is a request to install nine wall signs and replace the sign face of an existing legal non:confbrming monument sign. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1195 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Jacob Khakshouri 12424 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650 Los Angeles, CA 90025 October 12, 1999 — PC Page 2 APPLICANT: Ray Bush 3940 Pyrite Street Riverside, CA 92509 DSA/Joe presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Comprehensive Sign Program No. 99-6, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Michelle Hoffman, Coast Sign, Inc., 1345 S. Allee Street, Anaheim, CA 92805, provided completed photographs of a completed Hollywood Video store showing the blue mountain. Per staff's request, the rays and the neon have been eliminated from this project. Therefore, it is hoped that the Planning Commission will compromise with the proposed color of the mountain. Chair/Tye asked Ms. Hoffman if Hollywood Video is satisfied with the rendering that has been presented this evening. The Chino Hills and Corona locations do not feature the blue mountain. Ms. Hoffman responded that she has attempted to show the Commission how the mountain washes out and is lost with the lighter colors. Individual stores are never satisfied with anything other than the blue mountain because those are the organization's colors. C/Mclvlanus asked if the applicant has considered changing the color of the letters in order to obtain a contrast for visibility. Ms. Hoffman indicated that it would not be her position to make such a change because the logo is a patented trademark. It has never been done. C/Ruzicka said he believes a compromise is in order. DCM/DeStefano stated that staff is not recommending the color blue. The graphic showing the muted color was the applicant's representation. Staff is looking'for something that is far less contrasting, but in colors that are more reflective of the palate that is already there. For example, a tan that might provide an appropriate color from the background color but is not overwhelming the street with the blue up against the beige of the building. VC/Nelson said he has no problem with the blue. This is the busiest intersection of Diamond Bar and we want people to shop and spend their money in Diamond Bar. People spend money where there is sizzle. This is a commercial establishment and the City is behind it and changed out a vacant bank to accommodate the facility. Chair/Tye said that he wants to attract attention to the highly visible intersection but he does not want it to look like a carnival. Ms. Hoffman said that with respect to Chair/Tye's comment, she attempted to come to a compromise by eliminating the rays and the neon so that it would not light up. There will be no illumination except for Hollywood and Video. October 12, 1999 — PC Page 3 Chair/Tye again referred Ms. Hoffman to the Chino Hills facility. The sign has used muted tones and kept the rays. The sign looks good. He appreciates her willingness to compromise. C/Ruzicka asked Ms. Hoffman what she thinks about the suggestion of using a darker tan color. DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Tye that staff's position is that there should not be neon, there should not be the painted spotlights and that the mountain should be muted. Every other aspect of the total package is acceptable to staff. Ms. Hoffman indicated to C/Ruzicka that Hollywood Video prefers their blue mountain. If they cannot get the blue mountain they must go with what they can get but it is not their first choice. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. There was no. one present who wished to speak on this item. Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. C/McManus said he believes the applicant needs contrast for their sign and he is not opposed to the spotlights VC/Nelson stated that the City allows inflatables on commercial buildings by permit. This discussion is about colors of a sign at Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. When he asked the applicant if an inflatable was a competitive advantage the applicant responded that. it was. In his opinion, if this is a competitive advantage for Hollywood Video, and he has no problem with those colors, then why is the City making a distinction. C/Ruzicka said he believes staff is attempting to unify the effect of the entire building and the four corners area, which he understands. If that color is a dark color and something more inkeeping with what is on the corner rather than blue, he does not see that Hollywood Video will suffer. VC/Nelson said he would prefer to give the applicant entrepreneurial freedom. The Ralph's Market sign is bright red and stands out. He does not believe the City should restrict the applicant. He likes the idea of no neon signs. Peter Wilson, on behalf of the property owner, stated he is the in-house architect. When the building was designed two years ago we knew that Hollywood Video was going to be the major tenant. From the first day the first line was drawn of how this building would look, we knew that Hollywood Video was going to be in the building. When the building was designed, he knew that Hollywood Video had a neon sign and on that sign the background of the mountain was blue. The colors that he chose for the building took into consideration that the building's major tenant was Hollywood Video. He believes the blue compliments the building and once the trees are there, green will be present, which will cause the building to compliment itself in the total. Chair/Tye said that if Hollywood Video is satisfied to have and to use muted tones he believes the corner would accommodate those tones and be an effective use of the color schemes that are available as evidenced by the locations in Chino Hills and Corona. October 12, 1999 — PC Page 4 Ms. Hoffman reiterated that Hollywood Video is not satisfied with the muted tone. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Nelson seconded, moved approval of Comprehensive Sign Program No. 99-6, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the color of the mountain being a color mutually agreed upon by staff and the applicant. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: We I Z 9 0 1 Z t 11 W1 112 111111 NO .1' la".111110:1 Kuo, McManus, Ruzicka, VC/Nelson, Chair/Tye None None None 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1(1), Variance No. 99-8, Tree Permit No. 99-2 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58, 22.54 and 22.38) is a request to revise approved Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1 to add approximately 34 parking stalls. The Variance request is to allow a reduction in the parking stall dimensions in order to be consistent with the original approval. The Tree Permit is a request to remove and replace four oak trees and replace one California peppertree. The oak trees' removal is due to the request for additional parking stalls. Chair/Tye stated he attends Evangelical, Free Church. He has discussed this matter with the City Manager and staff and has an opinion from the City's attorney that there is no conflict of interest. It is his intent to hear the proposal and to objectively consider the information and render a decision accordingly. AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1(1), Variance No. 99-8, and Tree Permit No. 99-2, with the incorporation of staff alternative proposal, amendment to Negative Declaration No. 95-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Don Troudy, 1329 S. Holly Leaf Way, speaking on behalf of Evangelical Free Church, asked that the Conditional Use Permit be amended to allow for additional parking on the undeveloped part of the property. He stated that the church is thankful that staff is recommending approval of the proposal, and believes that the proposal is good for the community, the neighborhood and for the church. During the past two months, Pastor Mark Hopper has walked through the adjoining neighborhoods on three separate occasions in an attempt to make sure that all of the neighbors were aware in advance that the church would be submitting this request to the Planning Commission. Literature from the church was left at 'every house. In addition, he spoke with a number of neighbors personally. One objection expressed by several neighbors concerned the removal of some of the trees in the undeveloped portion of the church property. The proposal may require the removal of up to four oak trees and the church realizes that these will need .to be replaced` on a 3: 1 ratio according to City Code. We concur with this condition and regret that these trees may need to be removed. The Commission has allowed for the removal or replacement of several hundred trees in other projects throughout the City because it benefitted the community as well as within the established land use. Church officials are aware that some pine trees will need to be removed and have asked a representative of the State's Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention to visit the site and provide recommendations concerning these r' r October 12, 1999 — PC Page 5 _"- trees. A copy of the representative's letter is included in the Commission packets. He indicates that some of these trees are vulnerable to wind factors that could cause them to fall in windy conditions with wet soil saturation. The church has received telephone calls from neighbors expressing concern that trees near them could fall and cause damage to their property, or fall into the drainage channel and cause local flooding. In fact, the top half of a tree broke off in a rainstorm resulting in blockage of the culvert on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Just last winter a large pine tree limb fell during a windstorm that caused damage to the facility's equipment shed. , One neighbor recently told Pastor Hopper that he was concerned that one day one of these trees would end up filling on his home in the middle of the night. We believe that the removal of some of the pine trees is virtually mandated by these safety concerns and we have a plan to restore and enhance the aesthetics after the removal. Another concern expressed by residents was that noise would be a problem in the event that the parking lot was expanded into the undeveloped area. A recognized acoustical expert has been consulted and he indicates that the church parking lot would not contribute to general noise in the area. His comment was that noise was a non -issue in regards to impact on the neighborhood. A church parking lot is used infrequently during the week and is -not like a Costco, Home Depot, or Ralph's Grocery that has activity throughout the day seven days a week. One neighbor expressed concerns about the visual effects if the parking lot was extended into the undeveloped area. The church has hired a Landscape Architect to assist in planting attractive vegetation that will minimize visibility of the parking area from neighboring homes. In fact, the church has planted 50 Italian Cypress trees along the eastern border of its property to enhance the property and the border it shares with its neighbors. The church's desire is to add more on-site parking. To alleviate parking congestion in and around the property, we have reached parking agreements with three local businesses on the westside of the property. These agreements allow the congregation to park off-site on Sundays and reduce traffic in and around the property. We have taken steps to remind our congregation to utilize these facilities and to "Park and Walk" to church. The proposal provides for a 20 -foot buffer between the parking lot and the property line. According to City Code we could request permission to park cars right up to the property line. In an effort to continue good relationships with our neighbors, we have intentionally designed this 20 -foot setback to provide a visual and aesthetically pleasing as well as, an acoustical sound barrier for the neighbors. In fact, there is an even wider buffer along the drainage channel along the back of the property. Staff's alternative proposal reduces the amount of play yard space on the property and this is of great concern. The church operates a state licensed pre-school. As part of its licensing agreement, a minimum of 75 square feet of play yard must be provided for each attending child. The church is licensed for 36 children and the current play yard size meets the mandated state minimum requirements. Staffs alternative proposal does not provide adequate play yard space to meet the state requirement. The church appreciates their suggestion. However, we feel that the original plan submitted to the City is the best design and use of the site. Mr. Troudy responded to C/McManus that staff's proposal is not acceptable. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. Joann Craig, 3196 Cherrydale Drive, said she is concerned about the overflow parking from the church that occurs Monday through Friday during business hours and sometimes on Sundays and Wednesdays as well. She has limited parking space in front of her house. The vehicles parked on Diamond Bar Boulevard do not allow for leaving 100 feet free of cars from the corner of Cherrydale Drive which impedes the vision of motorists attempting to move onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. Church attendees park on Cherrydale Drive in front of homes which takes away the resident's privilege to entertain guests at their homes. Church members park in front of her mailbox which prevents the delivery of mail. She would like to know how many families October 12, 1999 — PC Page 6 are members, what is the average attendance on Wednesdays and Sundays, what is the membership growth rate over the last two years, what is the expected growth rate over the next two years, and was there an alternative plan reviewed by the Commissioners for the church parking? If the trees are removed, how will the lighting and noise impact the residents? If a six-foot retaining wall is erected will it provide a sound barrier? Is there any other type of beautification that would help mitigate the view of the vehicles? If the parking lot only has ingress and egress to Diamond Bar Boulevard how will that impact current congested traffic? What happens after 2000 when the temporary permit for street parking expires? Will they have enough spaces to park or will they come back to park on Cherrydale Drive. She is not opposed to the church in the community. However, she feels that this particular church has outgrown its existing site and any addition or expansion will create a hardship for the residents. Joshua Wes, 3263 Bent Twig Lane, said he has attended the church all of his life. Over the years he has witnessed a real vision for expansion and reaching out to the community. Linda Villanueva, 3141 Cherrydale Drive, said she is concerned about the lighting of the parking lot. Currently, the trees act as a buffer and the area is quiet. She has lived in the area for three years and what attracted them to the street was the view with the trees and wildlife. She said she is concerned about the rapid growth of the church and the ability of the site to handle the continued growth. If the church decides to sell the building and move on to another location, the neighborhood is left with no trees. Church goers park on Cherrydale Drive at this time and she does not believe that the addition of 34 stalls will mitigate the parking on her street. She suggested that the church use the parking lot at the Country Frills Towne Center and bus people to the site. Albert Villanueva, 3141 Cherrydale Drive, said he is concerned about what kind of drainage system the church will have to drain the water from the top of the hill to the retaining wall. Geological surveys of all existing soils on the hillside are needed to determine if the soils will sustain seismic pressure of the homes above after the 2:1 grade slope is completed. He stated that one home has a swimming pool and Jacuzzi almost at its property line. The residents want assurance that homes will not be adversely affected by the project. Jim Grzesek, 3114 Cherrydale Drive, said that residents have several concerns with the parking as an overall issue to the church. No one is opposed to the church and the residents support the organization. However, we feel that some changes need to be made and the issue of parking is the sticky issue in terms of the church being good corporate citizens. He feels that the parking request is too little too late. Before Phase 3 construction began, cars were parked on the lawn and the street was still full of cars. There were more than 35 cars parked on the lawn before construction so it is apparent to him that the 35 parking spaces will not solve the parking issue. He has heard that at 10:00 a.m. the Conditional Use Permit runs out. He is also concerned about safety. Knowing that this issue was scheduled to come before the Planning Commission, he went home at noon and took photographs of the corner, which he shared with the Commissioners. Sometimes cones are placed 50 feet from the corner, sometimes 100 feet from the corner, and sometimes drivers move the cones. He feels that this use permit needs to address the totality of this parking issue. It is a dangerous area and there have been many accidents at that location. Joseph Johnston, 3177 Castle Rock Road, stated that he has lived in his home for 38 years. Recently, a sound wall was erected by CalTrans that has allowed them to enjoy their backyard patio on weekends. If the church has its way, they will remove trees and install parking that -will ruin his view. Foliage does not mitigate noise or eliminate the need for sound walls. Noise from the cars in the parking lot will be like adding a roadway at October 12, 1999 — PC Page 7 the back of his house. The noise will bounce off of the building walls and flow over to the homes which increases the noise level. He said he is not speaking about Sunday services but about the many programs which expand over seven days a week and generate a lot of traffic. His neighbors and he feel that by raising a sound wall to protect the homes and property it will create better relations with the church and perhaps avoid legal action in the future. He said that almost all of neighbors object to the change proposed by the church. He asked Chair/Tye if he would vote for or against approval of a sound wall. George Fisher, 3173 Castle Rock Road, said that in his opinion, 34 parking spaces will not solve the church's parking problems. He does not believe that the trees that are currently standing are subject to falling in the drainage ditch and in his opinion, it is a shame to destroy the trees. Richard Cunico, 22426 Falconburn Way, said that the leadership of the church has repeatedly stated that they have a commitment to be a benefit to the whole community. As a representative of Boy Scout Troop #730, the church has allowed the group to use their facility for the last three years and because of that it is the opinion of the adult leaders of Troop #730 that we have enjoyed such great success in our troop. The troop has doubled in size since it began meeting at the church. The church does not participate in the governing of Troop #730 which is a self -sponsored chartered organization. Ralph Battista, Jr., 3169 Castle Rock Road, stated his belief that 34 parking spaces will not make a difference. He believes that the suggestion to have church goers park in the old Ralph's parking lot and use the money that they were going to use for a parking lot for a shuttle to take people to and from church. He has lived in the area for 27 years and witnessed hawks nesting in the trees. He does not believe that any trees should be cut down. Nora Jean Jung, 3163 Cherrydale Drive, asked staff if she could show the 1995 photographs of the site. She lives directly behind the grassy knoll. Since the church removed two oak trees her air conditioning bill has increased and she hears the school children during the day. She is not opposed to the church. However, she is opposed to the church taking away from the neighbors quality of life for 34 parking spaces which will not alleviate their problems. Taking down the grassy knoll will cause problems, destroy wildlife habitats, increase noise levels for adjacent neighbors and remove 5,000 cubic yards of earth. She was asked by the Chinese people living on the street to inform the Commission that they believe in the oriental Fung Shui. Destroying the hill and causing it to now go on a downslope will cause all of the luck to run out of their homes. She asked that the church move the cones back to the first utility pole so that the residents can see out onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. She suggested that the curbs be painted red. She stated that on Wednesday nights when the children come out on the hill she has had her windows broken, trash thrown in the yard, children attempting to climb the fence, screaming obscenities and smoking marijuana. She feels the neighbors quality of life will be destroyed for these few additional parking spaces. In addition to removal of four oak trees, the church is also removing additional trees, shrubs and bushes. If the Commission passes this project, the residents ask that the church provide a wall. She has foil in her windows because the church lights are turned on 24 hours a day. She is also concerned about the possibility of people using the parking lot to gain access to her property. She stated that she and two other residents were assured by Pastor Hopper that they never intended to use the hill and that wanted to assure the residents that they were never going to take out the hill because he knew that it would devalue property and destroy the neighbors quality of life. Larry Fry, 3155 Cherrydale Drive, said that at no time has his neighborhood been against the church. He spoke about the expansion of Diamond Bar over the years he has been a resident of the community. He October 12, 1999 — PC Page 8 believes that there has to be a balance between cost and benefit. When the knoll is leveled it will be apparent to the residents. There are many churches in Diamond Bar. He suggested that the church hold multiple services on Sunday to mitigate the traffic. Ron Jung, 3163 Chenrydale Drive, lives directly adjacent to the knoll. Thirty of the 36 residents who live in the neighborhood are opposed to the change in their lifestyles and submitted a petition, signedby the residents, against the proposed parking expansion. He is most directly impacted because of the location of his house. He envisions that if 5200 cubic yards of earth are removed from the location that it may adversely affect his property. The church has alternatives such as busing, parking on the opposite side of Diamond Bar Boulevard and parking on Brea Canyon Boulevard. The existing sanctuary is about three times the area that the church is proposing to remove. This is a hollow building. Once the sanctuary is abandoned they intend to make it into another use. He suggested that they level the sanctuary that would provide more than ample parking. The church wants to grow and what will happen when they double their membership and have no more area. A multi-level parking structure makes more sense to him than tearing out an historic landmark to provide a few parking spaces. Phase 1 and 2 should never have been passed by the County. Today that would not have passed. Do the homeowners have to pay for mistakes that were made in the past. Responding to C/McManus, AssocP/Lungu explained that the difference in elevation from the prior speaker's residence to the top of the finished slope is approximately 10 feet. Robert Jacob, 3168 Castle Rock Road, stated that the flood control channel is not a barrier between properties. His property has always enjoyed the view of trees and shrubbery - a mini forest in the middle of the city - from his back yard. His backyard view is further enhanced by the church's land elevations, some two stories higher than his property's elevation, allowing him to be unaware that any buildings exist on his "across -the street (church)" neighbors policy. Current sanctuary construction has begun to diminish the beauty of the greenbelt that acts as a backdrop for his property.- He accepts the construction in the name of progress and his neighbor's right to develop their property. However, their latest plan to increase their parking lot size at the back and side of their property will absolutely destroy his property's value, appeal and further marketability. His objections to the proposed plan is that the church will be parking some 40 cars across the channel from the back of his home. Almost all greenbelt trees and shrubs will be eliminated in favor of a blacktop parking lot with an elevation of six to 10 feet above his property's elevation - a parking lot that is not required by their Conditional Use Permit. There are no provisions for a noise barrier wall to help eliminate noise from cars, people, and daytime and evening activities. There are no provisions for car headlights shining into his home from the elevated parking lot or to prevent people from staring into his home from the parking lot. He is not opposed to the church's right to improve their property but he is concerned that the improvements would be detrimental to the enjoyment and value of his property. From his perspective, two things are needed before a permit to develop this parking lot can be granted: 1) a 6- foot wall above the parking lot elevation to help eliminate noise from the facility and to hide the blacktop parking lot 'and 2) at least 25 gallon trees planted along the outside wall to help preserve the integrity of the greenbelt area along the flood control channel. To date the church has offered no acceptable plan that helps meet their responsibility in developing the parking lot. He requested that the Commission deny the church a permit to build this parking lot until they are willing to consider the consequences and ramifications of their plan as it relates to the neighborhood in which they reside. Pastor Mark Hopper, 1125 Grubstake, stated that the church's intent in proceeding with this project is to benefit the neighborhood. He presented a land scope of the proposed site. He stated that parking would be October 12, 1999 — PC Page 9 below the visibility of the adjacent houses. The church intends to landscape to the extent determined by the Commission to render the site attractive. The intent is to bring more vehicles onto the site in order to reduce some of the pressure off-site. C/McManus asked Pastor Hopper if the church has considered stalFs alternate proposal. Pastor Hopper responded that the church does not believe that staff s proposal will adequately address the issues such as mandated preschool space. The church does not want to remove oak trees but they can be replaced. The preference is to go with the original design as proposed. Scott Holbrook, 1290 E. Center Court Drive, Covina, supports the application based upon his participation at the church giving him personal knowledge of the need for additional parking as well as, his vocation as a construction attorney assisting developers and contractors for the past 10 years, In reviewing the initial Conditional Use Permit issued by the County of Los Angeles in 1980 and extension granted by the City of Diamond Bar in 1991 he noticed that the knoll area at the rear of the property originally called for the construction of a two-story structure. He reviewed the staff report for 1980 granting the initial application and the 1991 extension of that application and both of those reports allowed the construction of the two-story structure. In 1995 staff denied construction of the two-story structure that had been approved on those previous two applications. There were no change in facts or circumstances and the denial was without merit. To be a good neighbor at that point in history the church decided not to fight the issue and instead built a larger structure on the front of the property accounting for more classrooms. In order to be a friendly neighbor they have now removed the request for the two-story structure and propose a parking lot that provides for a 20 foot buffer and a downward slope. As previously pointed out by Ross Johnson, most of the current trees are older growth trees and of poor quality. He strongly encouraged the Planning Commission to approve this request based upon the fact that it is consistent with the development standards of the community, consistent with the current use of the land and offers a measurable improvement on the area by reducing the need for off-site parking. Linda Vinte, 3637 Crooked Creek Road, stated that the Evangelical Free Church al' owed her independent study program to use the church facility for three years without charge. Matt Tye, 23850 Chinook Place, age 14, stated he attends the church as often as he can. He believes that an on-site parking lot will offer more convenience than having people walk across Diamond Bar Boulevard. He believes that the 35 parking spaces will reduce the parking on Cherrydale Lane and that it will help mitigate the problem of blocking the view from that street. He believes that the church is trying to make it as convenient as possible. Larry Magee, 639 Maple, Brea, real estate developer, said he believes that the additional 34 parking spaces will serve to mitigate the street parking problems. The landscape architect is very familiar with these types of projects and works for the good of all concerned. The church currently holds multiple services. He does not understand what type of crime element 34 parking spaces would bring. The plan is to plant churches in other communities such as Brea and Walnut and not expand the sanctuary again. The church will do everything possible to alleviate the issue of soils concerns. Troy Reese, 1120 Cleghom Drive, Unit A, said he felt compelled to speak because his vehicle was shown in one of the photographs presented to the Commission. He said he has parked and blocked the view of residents i... October 12, 1999 — PC Page 10 and apologized for his lack of consideration. He explained that the parking shown in the photograph is excessive for the church due to the current construction that eliminates some parking. When the construction is completed, the church will again have access to those parking spaces plus an additional 34 spaces which will eliminate many vehicles from Cherrydale Lane and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Ron Clark, 20940 Ambushers Street, reiterated that the church conducts multiple services and has done so for several years. The church has reciprocal agreements for off-site parking at the Metro Center and Pepper Tree Center. The church feels that the plan to bring cars on-site versus cars remaining on Diamond Bar Boulevard for what is anticipated tote a short time, is a far superior plan Linda McCoven, 1509 High Bluff Drive, Director of Women's Ministry, Evangelical Free Church, said she is partly responsible for the Wednesday morning bible study group that meets at the church. Currently, over 100 women are registered. Between 30 and 50 women attend meetings in the evening. More than half of the women are not regular attendees at Evangelical Free Church. It is a community bible study and members of other denominations are encouraged to attend. The group has had a very positive impact within the community. Mr. Johnston returned to reiterate his belief that plants and shrubbery will not mitigate vehicle noise. Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. AssocP/Lungu responded to CfMcManus that if the project moves forward as planned, the four oak trees and the pepper tree will be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. Any requirement for additional plantings is at the discretion of the Planning Commission. C/McManus stated that when he visited the site he noticed freeway noise from the area of the residences on Castle Rock Road much more than he noticed street and parking lot traffic noise. He would like to see more discussion between the church members and the residents to see what can be worked to mutual satisfaction. He agrees that 34 parking spaces will alleviate the problem. However, he is not certain! that it will completely cure or solve the situation. DCM/DeStefano indicated to VC/Nelson that before any grading activity is allowed to take place, there must be an updated geotechnical report to deal with this specific project. The report would indicate the soil conditions, the type of structure needed to support the parking lot, the types of walls and how they would be developed based upon the soils in the immediate area, and deal with the drainage issues. In addition, a hydrology report would be needed to look at how the water is flowing today, how the water will be flowing as a result of the project, where the water is going and whether there is capacity in the system to absorb all of it to insure that the water remains on the property. With respect to tree replacement, the Commission has a discretionary decision before it. The Commission has the ability to require the minimum 3:1 replacement ratio 24" box trees, or to require more than that amount. The movement of 5200 cubic yards of dirt will not exceed the air quality compliance standards. The City has the ability to paint red curbs to prevent vehicles from parking in specific areas. C/Ruzicka stated he visited the site today. There are several tall pine trees. If it is determined that these trees need to be removed as a result of this project, should there be a replacement plan for those trees. October 12, 1999 — PC Page 11 DCM/DeStefano stated that the City's Ordinance specifically looks at certain varieties of trees that are native to the area. The City does not protect pine trees, eucalyptus trees, palm trees and the like. However, it does not mean that those trees do not have aesthetic quality or environmental value. Again, this is a discretionary matter before the Planning Commission. From time to time, the Commission has determined that when a species -is not a part of the protected realm that upon removal, such species would be compensated or replaced. In response to C/Kuo, DCM/DeStefano stated that the purpose for the Variance is to receive approval to construct some parking spaces smaller than what the City would today require. The recommendation for that portion of the application incorporates staffs belief that gaining as many parking spaces on-site as possible is an appropriate goal. If a reduction in the size of the parking spaces is necessary in order to achieve that goal, staff is recommending that the Commission take that action. The site has a number of constraints such as significant topographical relief, existing physical buildings, and physical layout., Once again, this is a discretionary action before the Planning Commission and they do not have to agree with staff. This is a unique situation and each Variance case is looked at independently. C/Kuo asked the applicant how long the additional parking spaces will provide relief to the church. Pastor Hopper indicated to C/Kuo that the intent of the request was to supplement, to provide more on-site parking spaces. There are no plans to request additional parking spaces in the future. C/Ruzicka stated that Pastor Hopper previously indicated that staff's alternative recommendation was unacceptable to the church.' How much of a stretch has the church made in order to accommodate the church to this kind of alternative and what other alternatives have you considered based upon the resident's objection to the way in which the project has been proposed. Pastor Hopper said the church feels that it is exercising a good neighbor policy by pulling the parking lot away from the property lines and providing buffers on all perimeters. To pull back even farther would further reduce the number of parking spaces and in addition, require extensive retaining mechanisms. This puts in question whether under these circumstances the church would have enough space to meet the state's requirements for the children's program. C/Ruzicka stated he believes that staffs recommendation addressed the needs of the children's program and indicated that there was sufficient space. Pastor Hopper reiterated that.after evaluating staff s alternate proposal, the church felt that their plan was not the best way to approach this matter in terms of the play yard, in terms of the retaining wall and in terms of the best geographical layout following the contour of the land. C/Ruzicka stated that there are concerns, about the loss of the trees. The tree stand has been in place for a Tong time and the neighborhood is enhanced by it. With this alternative, a good portion of that tree stand would remain. If you would not sign off on staffs alternative, what other alternative is there for trying to retain as many of those old growth trees as is possible and would you consider building walls that would hide the parking lot from as many people as possible. October 12, 1999 — PC Page 1.2 Pastor Hopper responded that the church does not have a desire to scrape the land. With the church's plan, some trees will remain. Some are in poor health as the forestry report indicates. It may be that some of the oaks can be saved. We wanted to be prepared for the worst case and hope that perhaps we would be able to save some of trees. The church will do everything possible to minimize any visual impact on the neighbors that he believes has been indicated in the drawings provided by the applicant. Chair/Tye said he believes this is a classic case of NIMBY. Regarding a resident's concern about cars being gone from the area by noon, the report clearly states that the church is allowed to park on southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard between 100 feet south of Crooked Creek and the northerly drive approach of the church facility. -Additionally, street parking is allowed on Sundays from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. He stated that it is his judgement that the issue is not parking, it is parking in that area as indicated by Mr. Jung's suggestion that the church tear down the existing facility once the new sanctuary is open and create a parking lot there. So the issue really isn't "parking" on that site, it's where the parking will take place. He explained that when he first came to Diamond Bar in 1978 Diamond Bar Boulevard was a two lane road. Where the Lucky Market is located there was a beautiful stand of eucalyptus trees which are now gone and Diamond Bar Boulevard is now a four lane road. He said he believes that as a result of the Transamerica development, the City now has to do the best it can do with what it has available. There were blue jays, squirrels and other wildlife where there are now homes on streets such as Cherrydale Drive and Crooked Creek Road. In the case of increased air conditioning billings as a result of loss of shade trees from adjacent properties, he does not believe it is an adjacent property owner's responsibility to provide anyone with shade. Movement of earth is a part of living in southern California and he does not believe that this project will cause earthquakes nor will not going forward with this project prevent earthquakes. VC/Nelson stated that he was contacted by,Mr. Johnston and Mr. Jung. He spoke with Mrs. Jung about the project. In both cases, the questions were relevant to what the project consisted of and they wanted to make sure that he understood that there was opposition to the project which he acknowledged. None of the parties lobbied him one way or the other. He further stated that he met with Pastor Hopper and two of the church's elders so that he could understand the project with plans in hand. There was no attempt on their part to lobby him one way or the other. He indicated to all parties that he would remain open-minded and objective and weigh this case on its own merits. He said he believes that as a Commission, the group needs to set aside the fact that it is a church. The growth of a church is a good thing because it makes this community and country a better place to be. He recommended that the Commission look upon this project as a retail center with a daycare center. He commended AssocP/Lungu for her tremendously creative thinking in coming up with an alternative to this project. She gained two parking spaces. What he does not agree with in the staff alternative is the fact that it takes an already very limited playground area for children and makes it smaller. And he cannot endorse trading the welfare of children for trees. With respect to trees, they have aesthetic value. These trees do not have habitat value. The remaining issues involve the affects on the neighbors as a result of lights and noise. A 5:1 ratio for occupants per vehicle translates to accommodating 170 plus people which is a significant improvement over the current situation. The more vehicles the City can get off of Diamond Bar Boulevard the better. If it does not completely alleviate the problem, it is still an improvement and he is for that. In order to alleviate 5 decibels of noise you need 100 meters of heavily wooded forest. The noise issue related to the vegetation on this site is non-existent. With respect to lighting, the source is reduced 3 to 4 times by the time it hits the edge of the parking lot. He said he will assume that with a properly landscaped buffer that the lighting will be able to be mitigated. He encouraged the applicant to come up with a landscape plan that includes evergreen trees as opposed to deciduous. In terms of noise, the consultants in his office stated that a six-foot high wall, five foot space and a drop down of 10 feet to a parking lot is the October 12, 1999 — PC Ml 0 Page 13 maximum attenuation available for noise for a parking lot. He cannot speak to the loss of aesthetics to the area. Diamond Bar has become more progressive in recent years and it is no longer a small community. Therefore, we have to behave in a manner befitting the community that we are. People complain about economic development and how the City can be self-sustaining. These types of projects are ways in which we become self-sustaining. He said he believes that the project, as proposed, with the addition of an adequate landscaping plan is about the best the City can do and he is for it. C/Ruzicka stated that if possible, he feels that the City should attempt to fulfill some of the needs and desires of the neighbors. Chair/Tye commented on a speaker who said that there would be no trees. Pastor Hopper made the point that this location will not be stripped of trees. Secondly, the oak trees and the pepper tree will be replaced on-site at a minimum_ of 3:1 ratio. This translates to 4 trees gone, and a minimum of 15 trees will replace those 4 trees. VC/Nelson moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1(1), Variance No. 99-8, and Tree Permit No. 99-2, as proposed by the applicant, with the Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the resolution, subject to the applicant submitting a landscape plan subject to review and approval by the City's staff that would provide adequate screening for the adjacent neighbors for light that would include species of multi -tiered trees and shrubs that are evergreen similar to those that are currently on- site. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS: Kuo, McManus, Ruzicka, VC/Nelson None Chair/Tye None None 1. Video Presentation on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Continued to a future meeting. 2. Public Hearing dated for future projects: DCM/DeStefano stated that there is a project tentatively scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of November 23. It is likely that there will also be a City Council meeting that night using this auditorium. If the Planning Commission meeting holds: for that night it will be held in the Hearing Board Room. Two upcoming programs for Planning Comnsgssioners regarding planning issues as well as, traffic issues are scheduled. Interested Commissioners may contact staff for reservations. October 12, 1999 — PC Page 14 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE E EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: C/Ruzicka moved, Chair/Tye seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Tye adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Steve Tye Chairman City of Diamond Bar PLANNING ING CO ISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.1 REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROJECT LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT: BACKGROUND: October 15, 1999 October 26, 1999 Development Review No. 99- 10 To construct a two-story single family residence of approximately 22,752 square - feet with balconies, porch, eight - car garage, tennis court and retaining walls. 2827 and 2859 Water Course Drive (Parcels F/G, Tract No. 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite # 300, Torrance, CA 90503 The property owner, Diamond Bar West, LLC is requesting approval of Development Review No. 99-10 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) in order to construct a two-story single-family residence of approximately 22,752 square feet. The total square footage includes habitable space, balconies, porch and an eight - car garage. Additionally, the request includes a tennis court and retaining walls with a'maximum exposed height of four feet. 1 The project site is part of a 50 -lot subdivision approved by the City Council on June 6, 1995. It is located at 2827 and 2859 Water Course Drive (Parcels F/G, Tract No. 47850) adjacent to a gated community identified as "The Country Estates". The project site, two vacant lots, has a combined lot area of approx- imately 72,680 square feet (1.67 acres) and will have a pad area of approximately 49,550 square feet (1.14 acres.) It contains easement's only for access/public utility and service and sanitary sewer within the front portion of the lots. The slope between the lots contain landscaping, however this landscaping is not part of the mitigation monitoring vegetation. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR) Maximum 1 DU/AC and zoning designation of Rural Residential (RR). Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north is the RR Zone; to the south is the Agriculture (AG) Zone; to the east is the RR Zone; and to the west is the Low Medium Residential (RLM) Zone. ANALYSIS: Development Review The City's Development Code establishes a Development Review process. The purpose of this process is to establish consistency with the General Plan through the promotion of.high aesthetic and functional standards to complement and add to the economic, physical, and social character of the City. The process will also ensure that new development and intensification of existing development yields a pleasant living, working, or shopping environment and attracts the interest of residents, workers, shoppers and visitors as the result of consistent exemplary design. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.48.020, an application for Development Review is required for residential projects, which involve construction on a vacant parcel and new structures, additions to structures, and reconstruction projects which are equal to 50 percent or greater of the floor area of existing structures on site, or have a minimum 10,000 square feet of combined gross floor area. The proposed residential project is on a vacant lot with a gross floor area of 22,752 square feet. As such, this project requires Development -Review and the Planning Commission is the review authority. In addition to complying with the City's Development Review process, the proposed project must comply with the conditions of approval for Tract Map No. 47850. A condition of approval for the tract map requires that residential dwelling units be submitted for the City's review pursuant to the requirements of F, the Development Review Ordinance. The Development Review Ordinance is incorporated into the City's Development Code. Development Standards The following is a comparison of the development standards set forth by the City through the map approval process and the project's proposed development standards. CITY/NAP DEVELOPKM STANDARDS PROPOSED PROJECT'S DEVELOPHENT STANDARDS Parcels F/G Parcels F/G Setbacks: Minimum Setbacks: • Front yard - 25 ft. from property • Front yard - 31.25 ft. from property line; line; • Side yard - 10 & 15 ft. from pad's • Side yard20& 23 ft. from pad's edge with 40 ft. between dwelling edge/property line with 78 ft. units; between dwelling units; • Rear yard - 25 ft. from pad's edge; • Rear yard - 60 ft. from pad's edge/property line; Building Height: Building Height: • Two stories - maximum 35 ft.; • Two stories - 34.5 ft.; Parking: Parking: • Two car garage - minimum; • Eight car garage; Architectural Features and Colors The proposed residence's architectural style is Mediterranean. This style is compatible with previously approve residences within Tract No. 47850 and "The Country Estates" due to the eclectic architectural style that is existing in this area. A materials/colors board has been submitted which delineates the following: • Exterior stucco walls Merlex P-589, Dutch Cream, cream; • Roof tile Eagle, Charcoal 5503, gray/blue; • Stone accent Colorado, Country Castle Oatmeal, beige; 3 Columns/ballusters/ quoins/window trim a Facia/trims e Wrought iron rails Dunn Edwards, Swiss coffee, white; Dunn Edwards, Bone White SP 427, off white; Dunn Edwards, Ninja Gray SP 132, dark gray; The proposed materials/colors board was compared to boards pre- viously approved for homes on Water Course Drive (Lots 6, 8, 12, 45 and 47). The comparison indicates that each lot's color scheme is closely related. Staff is recommending the applicant revise the colors, for the Planning Division's'review and approval, in order to provide a more varied color separation from previously approved projects. Floor Plan A floor plan is included as part of Exhibit "A". The proposed single-family structure's first floor contains an entry, living room, dining room, kitchen with an adjacent dirty kitchen, pantry, three storage rooms, breakfast nook, mechanical room, shoe room, powder room with lounge, family room, two wet bars, video storage room, theatre, library, powder room, party room, prayer room, three bedrooms each with a bathroom, and service/laundry room. The second floor contains three master bedroom suites each with a bathroom, wardrobe or closet, three bedrooms each with a bathroom and closet, two storage areas, linen closet, a workout area that includes a gym, sauna, bathroom and linen closet, a mechanical room and six exterior balconies some of which create covered patios at the first floor level. The garage area contains eight parking stalls, a pool bath and lounge room. Lot Merger The project site consists of two lots. In over a lot line, a lot merger is necessary. of any construction permits, the applicant and obtain approval for a lotmerger. Grading In order to combine the buildable pad area approximately 3,440 cubic yards of cut and fill will occur. The fill work will mostly the cut work will mostiv occur on Parcel G. order to construct Before the issuance is required to process of the two parcels 3,100 cubic yards of occur on Parcel F and The small slope that divides the two parcels will be remove. It is planted with non- native vegetation and is not part of the Tract No. 47850's mitigation monitoring. Retaining Walls/Tennis Court/Tennis Court Lighting and Fencing A retaining wall is proposed along a portion of the south and west property lines. This retaining wall is proposed at a 4 maximum exposed height of four feet. It will hold the fill for the pad. Another retaining wall is proposed at the toe of the slope approximately 18 feet from the north property line. This wall continues around a portion of the proposed tennis court. Its maximum exposed height will be four feet. This wall's purpose is to hold a cut and provide a pad for the tennis court and garage. Tennis court fencing is proposed at a height of 10 feet. It will surround the court and also be placed upon.the proposed retaining wall. Eight pole light fixtures are also proposed at a height of approximately 17 feet. Pursuant to Code, these fixtures are located not closer than 10 feet to the adjacent property line and not located more than 18 feet from the court surface.(see Detail A of*,Exhibit "All). The light poles are proposed with a five-foot extension arm, which complies with Code. The fixtures will be shielded in a manner that completely cuts off light source when viewed from any point five feet or more beyond the property.line. The incident light level at a property line is required to not exceed one -footcandle measured from grade at a 12 -foot height. The incident light level upon any habitable building on an adjacent property shall not exceed .05 footcandle. The applicant will be required to demonstrate the incident light levels and the one -footcandle measurement. In the event that the illuminated court surface is visible from another parcel, it will be required that the applicant treats the court surface with a low reflecting, dark -colored coating. Additionally, it is required that court lighting not be operated between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. Landscaping/Irrigation A landscape/irrigation plan was not submitted with this project's application. The,applicarit is required to submit a landscape/ irrigation plan within 60 days of the project's final inspection. or Certificate of Occupancy issuance for the City's review and approval. This plan is required to reflect the landscape guidelines set forth by Tract No. 47850, plant species, size, quantity and location. Buyers' Awareness Package A condition of approval for Tract No..,47850 requires the preparation of a 'Buyerst Awareness Package". This includes.but is not limited to: Information pertaining to geologic issues regarding the properties; Wildlife corridors; Oak and Walnut tree preservation; 5 ® 'The existence and constraints pertaining to Significant Ecological Area No. 15 and Tonner Canyon; ® Explanatory information pertaining to restrictions on use of the properties as necessary; ® And, similar related matters. A program was instituted to include delivery of a copy of the "Buyers' Awareness Package" to each prospective buyer. This program incorporates a signed receipt by the prospective buyer verifying receipt of the package and that the buyer read the information presented within the package. It is also required that a copy of the receipt be forwarded to the City. To ensure the effectiveness of this program, it will be a condition of approval that the applicant submit a copy of the signed receipt to the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or final inspection. In the event the property has not been purchased, the receipt is to be forwarded before approval of future improvements (i.e. hardscape, landscaping, pool/spa, retaining walls, etc.). Additional Review The City's Public Works and Building and Safety Divisions reviewed this project. Their recommendations are within the attached draft resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is consistent with the previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for Tract Map Nos. 47850, 47851 and 48287 according to the Cali.fornia,Environmental Quality Act (-CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15162(a) of Article 11 of the California Code of Regulations. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valle Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on October 15, 1999. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 14 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site on October 13, 1999. Furthermore, the project site was posted with a. display board.on October 15, 1999 and the public notice was posted in three public places on October 14, 1999. 2 RECONMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99-10, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval,as listed within the attached resolution. REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS: 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, development standards of the applicable district, and architectural criteria for special areas, (e.g. theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments);. 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment'of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 of the City's Development Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing; 5. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g. negative affect on property values ore resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). IrA Prepared by: r. Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner Attachments: 1. Draft resolution; 2. Exhibit "A!7 - site plan, floor plan, elevations, sections, tennis court plan, drainage plan and colors/materials board dated October 26, 1999; and 3. Application. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 99 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY. OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99-10, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 22,752 SQUARE FEET WITH BALCONIES, PORCH, EIGHT -CAR GARAGE, TENNIS COURT AND RETAINING FALLS. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2827 AND 2859 WATER COURSE DRIVE (PARCELS F/G, TRACT NO. 47850), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A.RECITALS. 1 The property owner/ applicant, Diamond Bar West, LLC, has filed an application for Development Review No. 99-10 for a property located at 2827 and 2859 Water Course Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this. Resolution, the subject Development Review -shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. The Planning Commission' of the City of Diamond Bar on October 26, 1999 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 3. Notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valle Daily Bulletin newspapers on October 15, 1999. Public heating notices were mailed to approximately 14 property owners of record within a 500 -foot radius of the project on October 15, 1999. Furthermore, the project site was posted with the required display board on October 15, 1999 and the public notice was posted in three public places on October 14, 1999. B.Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this Resolution is consistent with the 1 previously certified Environmental Impact Repo 91-2 for Tract Nos. 47850, 47851 and 48487 accordlo)f lin the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) o f nd f04 1 14W � guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section JAW -1 (a) of Article 11 of the California Code of Regulati OrAr. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a 50 -lot subdivision approved by the City Council on June 6, 1995. The project site is located at 2827 and 2859 Water Course Drive (Parcels F/G, Tract No. 47850) adjacent to a gated community identified as "The Country Estates". The project site, two vacant rectangular shaped lots, has a combined lot area of approximately 72,680 square feet (1.67 acres) and will have a pad area of approximately 49,550 square feet (1.14 acres.) It contains easements within the front portion of the lots for access/public utility and service and sanitary sewer (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR) Maximum 1 DU/AC. (c) The project site is within the Rural Residential (RR) Zone. (d) Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north is the RR Zone; to the south is the Agriculture (AG) Zone; to the east is the RR Zone; and to the west is the Low Medium Residential (RIM) Zone. (e) The Application request is to construct a two-story single-family residence of approximately 22,752 square feet. The total square footage includes habitable space, balconies, porch and an eight -car garage. Additionally, the request includes a tennis court with lighting and fencing and retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of four feet. Furthermore, the request K requires that the of a Lot Merger. applicant process and obta roval The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments). Originally, Tract Map No. 47850 was submitted as a vesting tentative tract map. At that time, the City was operating under a draft General Plan. The General Plan was adopted on July 25, 1995. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 was approved on June 5, 1995. However, this vesting map was designed at 25 percent below the maximum allowable density and has an overall average density of 1.49 dwelling units per acre which complies with the General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (Maximum 1 DU/AC) . Additionally, the proposed project complies with the General Plan objectives and strategies and the City's Design Guidelines related to maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and open space. Furthermore, the proposed project is compatible with the eclectic architectural style, colors and material of other homes within Tract No. 47850 and the adjacent "Country Estates". (g) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. Tract Map No. 47850's Environmental Impaft Report No. 91-2, certified by the City, addresses the design and layout of the neighborhood as well as the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Water Course Drive and Steeplechase Lane and other secondary access roads to the tract adequately serve the project site. These streets are designed to handle minimum traffic created by this planned residential development. Therefore, the use of a single-family residence will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. - (h) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 3 22.48.20. Development Review Standards, Pap etvf, sign C* 4 Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any oq specific plan. The proposed project's architectural style is Mediterranean. The architectural features of a portico with columns, balusters, balconies, tile roof, stucco exterior walls with stone accents and color scheme as amended herein are consistent and compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes in this tract, neighboring Tract No. 47851 and the adjacent 'Country Estates". Therefore, the proposed project is consistent withand will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, and City Design Guideline. Additionally, there is not a specific plan for this area. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. As referenced in the above findings - and the colors/materials board as amended herein, the proposed project will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color that will remain aesthetically appealing while offering variety in color and texture related to stucco, stone accent and quoins and a low level of maintenance (j) The proposed development will not be dditrimental to public health, safetyor welfare or materially injurious (e..g. negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies' through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or ' welfare * or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4 i (k). The proposed project has been reviewed 'go mpliance -with the. provisions of the -California E apmental Quality Act (CEQA); 0140041 The environmental evaluation shows that the pro 4sed project is consistent with the, previously certified Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for Tract Map Nos. 47850, 47851 and 48287 according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15162(a) of Article 11 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following.conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, grading plan, floor plan, elevations, sections, final landscapetirrigation plan, and colors/materials board collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated October 26, 1999, as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission, and as amended herein. (b) The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, .construction, and industrial areas within the City. It "shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) Sixty days prior to final inspection or issuance of a 'Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall submit a landscape/ irrigation plan for the City's review and approval. Said plan shall reflect the landscape guidelines set forth by Tract No. 47850 and delineate plant species, size, quantity and location. Landscaping/ irrigation shall be installed within six months of occupancy. (d) Prior to construction, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing pursuant to the building and Safety Division's requirements along the project perimeter. (e) Prior to the issuance of , any City permits, the applicant shall demonstrate in a plan that the 5 luminosity from the tennis court light fixt ?AS is shielded in a manner that completely cuts off th73-ght 1ZF source when viewed from any point five feet o) !.dcwe v' beyond the subject site's property line; that inci light level at the subject site's property line i� Ites not exceed one -footcandle; and that the incident light level upon any habitable building on an adjacent property will not exceed .05 footcandle. Tennis court lighting shall not be operated between the 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. weekdays 'and between 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. (g) Prior to final inspection or the issuance of a Certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall submit to the City Planning Division written evidence indicating the buyer's receipt of the "Buyers' Awareness Package". In the event no one has purchased the property, then the receipt shall be submitted before approval of future improvements (i.e. hardscape, landscaping, pool/spa, retaining walls, etc.). (h) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a revised color board for the City's review and approval. The revised color board shall delineate a more varied color separation from previously approved boards within Tract No. 47850. (i) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a complete grading plan in accordance with the City's grading requirements for the City's review and approval. The grading plan shall delineate the existing and proposed topography and all finish surface and finished grade elevation and flow lines. The grading plan shall be signed/stamped by a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer andgeologist as required. (j) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a soils report for the City's review and approval that incorporates the scope of the .proposed development including all retaining walls. The soils report shall provide appropriate recommendations for the project's construction. W Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a proper drainage plan indicating details and sections for the City's review and approval. (1) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit retaining wall calculations for the City's review and approval. 1.1 (m) Before the issuanceof any City -permits, licant shall submit an erosion control plan for *ty's review and approval. The erosion control plaishall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). Additionally, the applicant shall obtain the necessary NPPES permits.,, The applicant shall be responsible for sewer connection and shall ensure connection with Los Angeles County Department of Public.Works and the Sanitation District. (o) There appears to be some off-site grading proposed as part of the plan on the north west corner of the project site. The applicant shall notify the property owner of Lot 35 and a letter of authorization to grade on Lot 35 shall be submitted to the City. (p) The applicant shall obtain approval of a Lot Merger prior to the issuance of construction permits. (q) The proposed residence shall comply with the State Energy Conservation Standards. (r) Surface water shall drain away from the proposed residence at a two -percent minimum slope. (p) The proposed single-family residence is located within "Fire Zone 4" and shall meet all requirements of said zone. (1) All roof covering shall be 'F ' ire Retardant". Tile roof shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire. (2) All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior walls. (3) All openings into the attic, floor and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion - resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch nor more than 1/2 inch in dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door. (4) Chimneys shall have spark arrests of maximum 1/2 inch screen. (t) Plans shall conform. to State and Local Building Code (i.e. 1997 Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and the 1996 National Electrical Code) requirements. . 7 (u) Construction plans shall be engineered to wind loads of 80 M.P.H. with a 'C" exposure. (v) Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, the applicant shall submit construction plans to the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review and approval. (w) This grant is valid fort two years and shall be exercised (i.e. construction started) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one-year extension of time may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code. (x) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services 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, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. (y) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. x-, Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. The Planning Commission shall: (a) *Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Diamond Bar West, LLC, 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite #300, Torrance, CA, 90503. 0 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH OF OCTOBER 1999, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Steve Tye, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of October 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary 4 C11Y Uk .UlAMUNI) BAK _ COMIVIUM1` i' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .�p�, 9," q FPL # Zt- _- _ 21660 E. Cop' 3rive Suite 190 Deposit $ (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 Receipt# JfTVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW/ By Date Rec'd Record Owner Applicant Applicant's Agent Name Diamond Bar West, LLC Richard Gould (Last name fust) (Last name first) (Last name first) Address 14$O Tnrranra R1 _ Ste. 300 came ac rfwncr City Tnrranra Zip 90503 Phone( ) 310-540-3990 Phone( ) 910-540-3990 Phone( ) M NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. (Attach a separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) Consent. I certify that I Signed the herein described property and permit the applicant to , file this request. Date GREG DELGADO, President Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name RICHARD GOULD pplicant or Ag t) it Signed Date (App cant or Agent) 9R97 -- Location 2859 WATER COURSE DRIVE (Street address or tract and lot number) i., 07IM11011M Previous Cases none Present Use of Site Va ar.r T,nr Use applied for New Si ng1 P Fami l •r Raci Aanra U.. - ?� .r..•� mil .1; J� .T" B .« " . ��8 �R03ht33 Legal description (all ownerst ' ; comprising the proposed lot(s)/parcel(s)) Tract No. 47850 Lot No.F&G in the Citv of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles ate oi caiitornia, oeirg a suoaivi.sion or rarceis 1, L and J ana a portion oz- Parcel *Parcel 5 of Parcel Map No. 1528, filed in Book 26, Pages 19 to 30, inclusive, or Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Area devoted to structures _ 12.9 8 2 s . f . Landscaping/Open space 5 9.6 9 8 s . f . Project Size 20,217 s . f . Lot Coverage 17.86% Proposed density (Units/Acres) Style of Architecture Mediterranean Number of Floors Proposed 2 Slope of Roof 5:12 Grading If yes, Quantity Cut Fill Import If yes, Quantity _ Export If yes, Quantity M 4;4 cr, L41 CD - C) EEC. CP C.) c Uj Lf 04, CL C', 4;4 'ay aN w uu • aavea L uu9RE i w ao[auM a�uvwo, x.[ aurae avnr..m,an 'VJ 'NtlB ONOr1Y10 3AIb0 IIS3 3 N31YVLSA83 1] 3 1 1 N 0 tl Y 0 N I N N Y 9 J X 0 1 5 3 0 II 35YHd 531Y153 3001tl 'IYtSAN� ONn3H� NVA B nn ONIH� ONIW - (� V'25IOtllI'S AHlOWIl 'ONI "OOSSV v O f ovu :210d 3:)N3OIS3N_ 13SOdO'dd Many I 2 gg ggyy g a, 1 1 H 5� �N��� �MS��B �� �•. �8 � 4m' � 4« z G O a e � c `� € o , c z �� am 1< � , �'��SB'` ❑SNS E � G 8 t¢• F. 0... A i �5 �� W�b oloS6 N ~rx EpEz \O1~ 3 I •' dp�# 54 Many I 2 gg ggyy g a, 1 1 H 5� �N��� �MS��B �� �•. �8 � 4m' � 4« �$ a•��_�N m�gFa% �_ �� am 1< � , �'��SB'` ❑SNS «o �� \. Many I 2 gg ggyy g a, 1 1 H 5� �N��� �MS��B �� �•. �8 � 4m' � 4« r w N �a vo owY va 2n�ct oc nas anw nnmf wrt 1 7 7 1 i N 7!! ac oC uo ®t va •nota rs Suw ww aRmt wrc N I N N 1 7 i M! I! 7 0 �! S31Z)W sm .fl W 'BSBCY 17VYL '! 1SIBVd Y7 RM OOfVIQ 3niNl 3xW tCl1VN 6582 331V133 I18171 T/LLttO 9Nn3H3 It NtlA 3Swid 9 tlIl �NIH3 NIH IW3 3: N V l d 1 0 1 d E 35 ��ERs r d tl9 Qm� tl P Y ZSIDYN'S AH10NII'ONI Y DOSSY OU109'd w N eac•s.s m�cr losoe Yi••JYnnW; wcciK Iw.cr cane ra •u,.e.a. C Jt.b 'TA DMee01 OeK C ]t.6 'CSA DMwp. 44K a M I N M l d N a i i 3 a •rrraurv•43wnzu J •�NI'•OOSSV p a�nos•a 571D.n 501 A—'Mftl 131M 7 T J UJtlrd rJ •na onnrm •na JSnnfIJ nJi.nr 6483 snnsJ main ins+na Nndl{aai1 7 O'evmNVA'mommwmF ' �a d nod33eaim aasodond i A tRf-Irf IOIt) 80406 YJ ')Jw0+Or W[ ItM' b DwmJl WK 'I'1'Y'2i10tV'C 1X10111 WSS-fK I�f1 fOfW Y]'IJhna0r t Lt6 'W7 )YlYtltltl WK O M I M N � l d MOIL 3 0 'ONI t'aoSSY v a 1t1oo-u 57170i+r 501 30 '00 'OSB(t OVa 0 9 J 17JNt'd r] •cryo —.110 "d0 n-3 .3— Me A slit'151 700. ll1SI 0 � F'ppi sewaOWlAvmemmom G tion 33WCIIM a3S0d01ld S i 4 g wa-oc mm ruon .h S313ONV SOI $0 0 'OSBLP nrul v 13N.' m LL oo[ arirs av vrrua[ mr[ na[ 3rrrs av nmrnt aar[ 'V3 'tl[S oNomv1t3 wuo asll d3t•N SSSS - o l i 3 1 1 H 3 N 11 O N I N N 1 9 d • N O I S 3 0 11 3SVM S31Y153 3S01tl 'IY15Aif] SNN3H0 NVA 9 nii 1..:, :801 30N30IS3tl 0350dOtld S N 0 I 1 V A 3 l 3 �Ll h a Qga 'V•I•V'ZSIOVu•S ANIONIL'ONI'*OOSSV v O1f1O9•u 1—" 1-1 = . —. a 3 L I N 3 9 v I -- m !— " W. 10 4 1 4 N I 'I d I I . . . sraqtty Sol jo 03 .0sair IDVU I •i 133UVd 13 dvo 040.110 3AIW 3sunos HIJI. 0500 11 35VH 90, 1 ' S3111S3 3901. 1,15 83 9Nn3H3 NVA 2 ni I ONIHO DNIW :80J 30N30IS38 03SOclOtid S N 0 1 1 V A 3 1 3 '8 -v- I -v'ZSIOVH'S AHiOKII *3N I' 'DOSSY ainovu L 0 3 1 1 " 3 u v 0 N I N K V I d I N 0 1 S 3 0 SiMily Sol A 03 GUIV 111VOI "I V3 9Nn9H3 :UOJ JIN31 ,WI4 V 'I 'V -ZS I OU"S AHiONI.L I- -1 "ONII'DOSSY a-inoo - u -avi J OOH MN 3 aIaG+%4W aaln'nMt loLmlalllYYota�t rLrrrry mwbe0 ominiav�t mubRa•THwotaS rrrrrrir • rrirrr 5mv"$0740.00.0spOl3v1LL'd'D "d YO VVU 070MVW 3NU03SU(IW VUV106{SI :a li3VOHd 631V 200"'s"13 �JNt13HJ NVA ftp �NIFq JNIW tl'I •tl •zslaru•s AHIANII 'SNI "0055tl r O'ifl09'd W 10 31.1 H 3 N 0 N I N N V *1 d • N 0 I S 3 a V'I*VIZSIOVH"S AH1.0hill'ONI—oossy s ainoo,u "I -, 'MO7 A 1313UN7 SOI JO 0" 0"1'1 111114 I vi 'UVU Wlu.11V 11AWO 35003 031YN 6551 4S31YIS3 3901tJ IVISAU3 91,ln31-13 NvA s ni-i ONIHO SNIW I I r �. _.� ttt 7s ,�. , 3 �I ill City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.2 REPORT DATE: October 20, 1999 MEETING DATE: October 26, 1999 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. 99-11 APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to construct a two-story single-family residence with balconies, porch, patio, and four -car garage of approximately 12,151 square feet. PROPERTY LOCATION: 2808 Crystal Ridge Road (Lot 30, Tract 47850) PROPERTY OWNER:, Diamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard, #300 Torrance, CA' 90503 APPLICANT: Richard Gould 3480 Torrance Boulevard, #300 Torrance, CA 90503 BACKGROUND: The property owner, Diamond Bar West, LLC, and Applicant, Richard Gould, request a Development Review approval (pursuant to Code. Sections 22.48.020.A(1) and 22.48.030) in order to construct a two-story, single- family residence with balconies, porch, patio, and four -car garage of approximately 12,151 square feet. The project's situs address is the vacant Lot 30 of Tract 47850, and part of a 50 -lot subdivision, with graded buildable pads adjacent to "The Country Estates." The City Council approved the subdivision on June 6, 1995. The flat pad encompasses 62% of the rectangular -shaped lot. The northwest lot line is 24 feet from the buildable pad and is 12 feet higher (up-slope). . The property has only the front utility and street easements per recorded Tract Map 47850. The lot is .64 gross acres and .39 net acres. The property does not contain protected/preserved trees. 1 The project site is zoned Rural Residential (RR). Its General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), maximum 1 DU/AC. Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north and east is Rural Residential (RR); to the south is Heavy Agricultural -Minimum Lot Size 2 Acres (A-2-2) ; and to the west is Rural Residential (RR) , Low Density Residential (RL), and Low Medium Residential (RLM). ANALYSIS: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Pursuant to Development Code, Chapter 22.48, any proposed residential development that involves building permit issuance and proposes up to three dwelling units with more than 10,000 square feet is subject to Development Review. The proposed project is residential construction of one unit and is more than 10,000 square feet; therefore, is subject to Development Review. Additionally, per Planning Resolution 91-20, Conditional Use Permit'No. 89-852 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850, Condition No. 16, all proposed residential dwelling units will be submitted for City review pursuant to the requirements of the Development Review Ordinance, the current Development Code. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following is a comparison of the City's approved development standards and the project's proposed development standards: The above analysis indicates that the proposed residence complies with Tract Map No. 47850's development standards. . There are two items to note: 1) the distance to the buildable pad's edge on the northwest side, and 2) the amount of off-street parking for the seven -bedroom home. K City's Development Standards Project's Development Standards 1. Setbacks: 1. Setbacks: • Front yard -251 from property e Front yard- 251 from property line line • Side yards -10' & 151 minimum 0 Side yards- 8.51 and 201 from from edge of buildable pad, buildable pad, and 401 between 401 between dwelling units dwelling units • Rear yard -251 from buildable e Rear yard- 31.251 from pad's edge; buildable pad's edge; 2. Building Height: 2. Building Height: 0 Two stories -maximum 351; 0 two stories -3219"; 3. Parking: 3. Parking: Minimum two -car garage for a Four -car garage for the seven single-family residence. bedroom single-family residence. The above analysis indicates that the proposed residence complies with Tract Map No. 47850's development standards. . There are two items to note: 1) the distance to the buildable pad's edge on the northwest side, and 2) the amount of off-street parking for the seven -bedroom home. K Distance to the Buildable Pad's Edae To allow for the driveway, the buildable pad will be enlarged via a cut into the slope and a retaining wall three feet high. The actual setback of the house to the edge of the buildable pad is 8.5 feet. With the proposed retaining wall, the buildable pad will be enlarged and the setback is 10 feet. Previous applications requesting the extension of the buildable pad have been approved on a case-by-case basis. The Development Services Department reviews such items as: the type of easements on the lot, the wall's impact to surrounding properties, and the structural design of the retaining wall including the height and whether it is holding a cut or a fill. This extension is not in a Slope Drainage Maintenance Easement, the maximum three feet height is compatible with development standards, the wall holds a cut, and the wall is visible to the project site's property owner. The decorative aspects of this retaining wall will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division and is a condition of approval. It is anticipated that the wall will be stucco to match the dwelling or slump stone. The distance from the structure to the northwest property line is 32.5 feet and with the additional 20 feet setback for Lot 29, the encroachment of four feet into the slope will be negligible. There is no structure, on Lot 31 at this time, but when submitted a 201 side setback will be maintained allowing for the 401 between main structures. Additionally, it is noted that the building setback from any slopes (toe or top) meets Section 18 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The northwest side equates to 1 foot (H/2=2.5'/2), so the 101 setback complies. Off -Street Parking Development Review is a discretionary approval. and additional parking spaces may be required/approved through discretionary entitlement approval per Section 22.30.040, and the Director often requires additional parking in hillside areas. 'Review of this seven -bedroom house with a four -car garage indicates more off-street parking is needed. The garage is 371 x 211 and the Development Code requires minimum width for four car stalls at 40 feet. Note that direct access to the garage is not available due to the location, and parking in front of the garage prohibits the turning movement into the garage. As a conditional of approval, Staff is recommending that the project be redesigned to allow for at least five -covered parking spaces as required per the Development Code Section 22,30.070, Table 3-11, garage interior dimensions: length 20 feet, and width -10 feet (see Condition 5(g). One option might be to turn bedroom #7 into a one -car garage and extend this wing to the rear of the pad, resulting in additional square footage for garage and bedroom reconfiguration. Using the example of redesigning by adding a 201,x 211 extension, then the additional square 3 footage would be approximately 450 square feet. The lot can accommodate this increase since the setback to this wing is currently 57 feet and the minimum required is 25 feet. "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association requires one less covered parking space than the amount of bedrooms. Though Tract 47850 is not annexed to 'The Country Estates" and therefore not subject to their homeowners' association review, this is an example of parking requirements for the larger single-family residences. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND COLORS The proposed project's architectural style is Mediterranean. The portico with columns, pre -cast concrete balusters and wrought iron around the balconies, the roof,, a ' nd stucco exterior with stone and stucco quoin accents, are consistent with many homes in Tract 47850 and compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes in neighboring Tract 47851 and "The Country Estates". The following materials ® Exterior walls -stucco ® Fascia & Trim ® Window trim, Columns, Balusters, Quoins ® Wrought iron ® Stone ® Roof the and colors will be utilized: - Merlex P-174, Desert, beige; - Dunn -Edwards SP 51, Birchwood, beige; - Dunn Edwards SP 2750, Phoenix Villa, off-white; - Dunn Edwards SP 511, oyster, dark beige; - Colorado Rubble Sandstone, beige; - Eagle, Arroyo Tan 4570, light tan. The proposed materials/ colors board was. compared with previously approved colors (Lots 21, 34, 35, 47 and 50) in the vicinity and is compatible allowing only for slight variations in colors and textures. The above lots have the same beige color range and do not indicate a color separation. Itis noted that future submittals will be required to illustrate color chips with a varied contrasting color schemes detailing color separation from these approved projects. FLOOR PLAN The proposed single-family structure's first floor contains the two- story entry, powder room, family room with wet bar, breakfast room, kitchen, dirty kitchen, dining room, living room, two bedrooms with bath and Walk -in -wardrobe, three- stairways, and the four -car garage. The second -story contains a master bedroom room suite with sitting room and. balcony,'bath and a walk -in -wardrobe; library with conference room and balcony; service room; and four bedrooms, three with walk-in closets and all with adjoining bath. 4 LANDSCAPE A landscape/ irrigation plan was not submitted with this project's application. The applicant is required to submit landscape/irrigation plans at a later date, reflecting thelandscaping guidelines and restrictions set forth by Tract Map No. 47850 for the City's review and approval. In recently approved projects for this tract, the applicant was required to submit a landscape/irrigation plan delineating the type of planting materials color,,size, quantity and location, for review and approval by the City within 60 days of the project's final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy's issuance. A condition of approval for Tract No. 47850 requires the preparation of a "Buyers' Awareness Package". This includes, but is not limited to: 1. Information pertaining to geologic properties; 2. Wildlife corridors; 3. Oak and walnut preservation issues; 4. The existence and constrains pertaining Area No. 15 and Tonnet Canyon; issues regarding the to Significant Ecological 5. Explanatory information pertaining to restrictions on use of the properties as necessary; 6. And, similar related matters. A program was instituted to include delivery of a copy of the 'Buyers' Awareness Package" to each prospective purchaser. This program incorporated a signed receipt by the prospective purchaser verifying receipt of the Package and that the prospective purchaser read the information within the Package. This program also required that a copy of this receipt be forwarded to the City. To ensure the effectiveness of this program, it will be a condition of approval that the applicant submits to the City a copy of this receipt signed by the prospective buyer before the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. In -the event no buyer has purchased the property, then receipt is to be forwarded before approval of future improvements (i.e. hardscapes, pool/spa, retaining walls, additional landscaping.) ADDITIONAL REVIEM The Public Works this project. resolution. Division and the Building and Safety Division reviewed Their recommendations are a component of the draft R NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily. -Bulletin newspapers on October 15, 1999. Twenty- seven property owners within A 50,0 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on October 13, 1999. A notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site on October 15, 1999 and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the application. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is consistent with the previously certified Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for Tract Map Nos. 47850, 47851 and 48487 according to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15162(a) of Article 11 of the California code of Regulation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the attached resolution. REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS: 1. The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural.criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments); 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards#, 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public; as well as, its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing; 0 5. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale (s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 7, Prepared by: Linda Kay /Smxtlf-- Development Services Assistant ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval; 2. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor board, grading plan, Tract Map 1999; 3. Application; 4. Tree Statement. plan, elevations and materials/colors 47850 for Lot 30, dated October 26, D:WORD-LINDA\PLANCOMM\PROJECTS\DR99-11\REPORT DR99-11 2808 102699 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO..9.9_-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 99- 11f A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH BALCONIES, PORCH, PATIO, AND FOUR -CAR GARAGE OF APPROXIMATELY 12,151 SQUARE FEET. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2808 CRYSTAL RIDGE ROAD (LOT 30, TRACT 47850), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. Recitals 1. The property owner, Diamond Bar West, LLC, and applicant, Richard Gould, have filed an application for Development Review No. 99-11, for a property located at 2808 Crystal Ridge Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on October 26, 1999, conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 3'. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel'Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on October 15, 1999. Twenty-seven property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on October 13, 1999. A notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site on October 15, 1999 and displayed at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the application. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is consistent with the previously certified Master Environmental Impact 1 lir Report No. 91-2 for Tract Nos. 47850, 47851 and 48487 according to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15162(a) if Article 11 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows: (a) The project's situs is a vacant Lot 30 of Tract 47850, and part of a 50 -lot subdivision, with graded buildable pads adjacent to "The Country Estates." The City Council approved the subdivision on June 6, 1995. The flat pad encompasses 62% of the rectangular -shaped lot. The northwest lot line is 24 feet from the pad and is 12 feet higher. The property has only the front utility and street easements per recorded Tract Map 47850. The lot is .64 gross acres and .39 net acres. The property does not contain protected/preserved trees. (b) The project site is zoned Rural Residential (RR) . Its General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR); Maximum 1 DU/AC. (c) Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north and east is Rural Residential (RR) ; to the south is Heavy Agricultural -Minimum Lot Size 2 Acres .(A-2-2); and to the west is Rural Residential (RR), Low Density Residential (RL), and Low Medium Residential (RIM). (d) The application is a request to construct a two- story, single-family- residence with balconies, 2 porch, patio and four -car . garage of approximately --12,151 square -feet. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (e) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments. Originally, Tract Map No. 47850 was submitted as a vesting tentative tract map. At that time, the City was operating under a draft General Plan. The General Plan was adopted on July 25, 1995. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 was approved on June 5, 1995. However,Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 was designed at 25 percent below the maximum allowable density and has an overall average density of 1.49 dwelling units per acre unit which complies with the land use designation of Rural Residential (Maximum 1 DU/AC) identified in the adopted General Plan. Additionally, the proposed project complies * with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies related to maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and open space. . Furthermore, the proposed project is compatible with the eclectic architectural style and design, materials, and colors of existing homes within the surrounding area. (f) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. Tract Map No. 47850's Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2, certified by the City, addresses the design and layout of the neighborhood as well as the flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Crystal Ridge Road and the secondary access roads in the vicinity, Steeplechase Lane and Water Course Drive, adequately serve the project site. These streets are designed to handle minimum traffic created by residential development. Therefore, the use of a single-family residence will not interfere 3 with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood And will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any Applicable.specific plan. The proposed project's architectural style is Mediterranean. The architectural features of portico with columns, pre -cast concrete balusters and wrought iron around the balconies, tile roof, and stucco exterior with stone and stucco quoin accents, are consistent with many homes in Tract 47850 and . compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes in neighboring Tract 47851 and "The Country Estates." There is no applicable specific plan for this area, Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.481 the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. A I project colors /materials board is provided as Exhibit "N. The colors, materials, and textures proposed are complimentary to the existing homes within the area while offering variety and texture related to the use of stucco, stone accent and the quoins together with low levels of maintenance. (i) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or. materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 0 City permits and inspections are required for 'construction and will ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (j) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is consistent with the previously certified Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for Tract Nos. 4*7850. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, floor plans, elevations and materials/colors board collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated October 12, 1999, as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission, as amended herein. (b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition that is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City, to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. , It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) Before construction begins, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing pursuant to the Building and Safety Division's requirements along the project site's perimeter. The fence shall remain at the rear of the buildable pad to ensure no construction equipment or debris of any kind is placed within the vegetated area until 5 released by the Planning Division and the balance shall remain until the Building Official approves its removal. Before Certificate of Occupancy issuance, the applicant shall submit to the City Planning Division written evidence indicating the Buyer's receipt of the "'Buyers' Awareness Package". In the event no buyer has purchased the property, then receipt is to be forwarded before approval of future. improvements (i.e. hardscapes, pool/spa, retaining walls, additional landscaping.) (e) A grading plan review and approval is required for cut/fill quantities greater than 50 cubic yards, otherwise a fine grade/drainage plan shall be filed with the City's Engineering Division. On a grading plan the following shall be delineated: (1) Cut and fill quantities and earthwork calculations; (2) All flow lines, finished surfaces, and finished grades; (3) Proper drainage with detailed sketches; (4) Proposed and existing grades; (5) Sign/stamped by a civil engineer, geotechnicdl engineer and geologist; (6) Clearly delineate all easements; (7) Erosion Control plans shall be submitted and measures be in place for grading started after September 15, through April 15; (8) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil or other loose materials are to be covered and should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between top of the load and the top of the trailer); (9) Streets are to remain free of debris and cleaned daily as necessary; (10) A grading bond may be required; (11) Export site shall be approved by the Public Works Division; (12) Indicate retaining wall locations on grading plan and delineate: (a) Top of wall; (b) Top of footing; (c) Finish Surface; (d) Structural calculations including type of wall, details and cross sections; and 0 (13) Retaining wall shall not exceed a height of six feet nor exceed 42" in the required front setback. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval the materials for the retaining wall at the driveway. (g) The project shall be redesigned to create at least five -covered parking spaces as required per the Development Code, Section 22.30.070, Table 3-11. Any additional square footage required due to the reconfiguration and design as a result of this revision shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. (h) A fine grade certification shall be required before building final. (i) Building setback from any slopes (toe or top) shall meet Section 18 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. (j)" Drainage pattern shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division; surface water shall drain away from the building at a 2% minimum slope. (k) The single-family structure shall meet the 1997 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and 1996 National Electric Code requirements. (1) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and "C" exposure. -(m) The single-family structure is�located in "Fire Zone 41' and shall meet the following requirements of that fire zone: (1) All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant, Class A"; the roofs shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire; (2) All enclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior walls; (3) All openings into the attic, floor, and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than U4 inch nor more than I -i inch in any dimension 7 DRA. r except where such openings are equipped with sash or door; (4) Chimneys shall have spark arresters of maximum 1-� inch screen. (n) The application shall be approved by the Fire Department. (o) This single-family structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards. (p) Applicant shall make application to the Walnut Valley Water District as necessary, and submit their approval to the Planning. Division prior to the issuance of building permits. (q) Maximum Height of the proposed structure shall not exceed 351 from finish grade. (r) The applicant shall be required to submit a landscape/ irrigation plan delineating the type of planting materials color, size, quantity and location, for review and approval by the City within 60 days of the project's final inspection or Certificate of occupancy's issuance. (s) Applicant shall comply with Planning and Zoning; Building and Safety Division; Public Works Division; and Fire Department requirements. (t) This grant is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e. construction) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one (1) year extension may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will c6f7sider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code. (u) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant 8 shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (v) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a , deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. The Planning Commission shall: (a)' Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Property Owner, Diamond Bar West, LLC, and applicant, Richard Gould, at 3480 Torrance Boulevard, #300, Torrance, CA 90503. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1999, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: Steve Tye, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 26th day of October, 1999, by'the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary � t�1 _ J Almaox ox rz 1010.0a 10-15.0 - I� • 11 ��'� : y' � �!- .a a ^+ • , . • LEGEND: — INDICATES IKE BOUNDARY H N • Of THE LAND BEING u 1 1 INDICAES RECRD ATA PER UNLESSIOTHERWISE INOICAI EOP.M. 1529 f1 •p gq-11 EASEMENT NOTES: _ TJ M1 7 7EASEMENT FOR ACCESS PURPOSES 10 BE �, RESERVED IN DOCUMENTSM •a` ju.{ PRIVRTE ANFUTURE O FUTth7E EA EASEMENT FOR t O STREEI.PURPOSES - .. EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC UTILITY AND PUSL IC SERVICES, PIRiPOSES, a. EASEMENT FOR SLOPE AND DRIINAGE MAINTENANCE PURPOSES TO BE RESERVED IN DOCUMENTS PESTRICTED USE AREA 4 EASEMENT FOR OPEN SPACE USE PURPOSES • / �./• O CENTERLINE OF EASEMENT FOR UTILITY IY, _•• •+.-•'• •` ••�•++-•• I't '•Ar ^i �l Y'' + i � H OPEN SPACE USC. AHD EOUE SiH1 AN AND ,, •T "'�� "• ~���• 31�..d:-+J HIKING TRAIL PURPDSES 8 EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER PURPOSES % c'Y. %LIAiO EFSEs1• �/R14 EA4�F�'/ i�EN�C[E •I ACCESS. Ts: 50 TRAC47650 T N0 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES SAN DIEGO, INC. JOHN W. HILL., JR. L.S. 5669 DATE OF SURVEY: OCTOBER, 1995-13'22 N 13'2 N 05' 37' 19_ W R=4O0' RAD. N 11' 47' 1 N °2-2,'1 47' 54'4'29'W R-70 "RAD 1L2.31 `SEE DETAI'RAD.L��� -400N052720W R N 65' 16' 13 `W R-71' RAD.;',� .906 pe c�� �Lk• �P / / •.. A' 60' WIDE PORTION OF HAWKWOOD ROAD 3g' P , DEDICATED HEREON. C 85 \20.p1 ��129 $ / o z •o N 86'00'47'K 2p p,'50 0 / oo -.- 6 D 64.82' I 6p E no w ry » 55,00' f n f g° �� p9 i �S 30 26'33• �I 30.0°' 0 ® N6ep�:rL woh i�—f' 1-65.92' .D — ^ g0 ..p9 jom ate—% e.g•36'32' N ROAQ .3 g�0 -K d R-400' t-67.06':, M i FOR �r\6 °cp �ww,z oo HAWKWOODNio �� � "' 55.00' �I •� 1 N 10'0° p0•w �Zz oo n ROAD a !ntn w • o Imo' < IL C L C9' CC 0 1_ $9.98 2Cl 3 �' N m ' 1 to ¢ .� w O CLQ .. ai / W Q to Q .IEN acv Z m 1 oIn i'I BAR .T. m n�LLq\I"AI I60 v. 33,821 S.F. rn0 v N 1.0 IIn N m ID O \ _.. Q Fol ©O\ 9 •/ti i cov 28 71: Z) p\ 0 \\ �' 0 `rLlT� "V 0 Go o s� 30,573 S.F. zlZ 3 0 Pao 1 \ y\ ` g23 8S i10 27,175 moo\ 27,175 S.F. "DETAIL" 00 i1 \ �; o•\ NO SCALE oo• oo � io o 3g O 1 N27 y->,.,T�m \0`, y yLJIPN• It; im 39,056 S.F. $ �\ 0 00 m�\ N 6� p-'• 4� y� i y m o Z 6 �'. 31 111*1 In T? 9�` mss. 5 3 \ ®Lvy 28,540 S.F. E ►C o s N .00' it •La\ ,• 25 �N\s q� 0tp Zoo 4`� In\ O;J oo 00' 0°+ \oo o % P70 \ 63 v o Io 2 %. S.F. 30,140 r,'... CITY OF DLAMOND BAR 14 COMMONTr DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 21660 E. Cop _ Drive Suite 190 (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 DEVELOPMENT REVIE / / • i /SItt l� .'J Lt,�7 FPL# Deposit $ Receipt# By 'A Date Rev'd. t`�^ I es 1 2 - Record Owner Applicant Applicant's Agent Name Diamond Bar West, LLC Richard Gould (Last name first) (Last name first) Address 3480 TorranrP Ri _ Ste. 300 cAMP ac City TnrranrP Zip 90503 Phone( ) 310-540-3990 Phone( ) 310-540-3990 (Last name first) Phone( ) NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. (Attach a separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) Consent: I certify that the owner t in described property and permit the applicant to file this request. Signed Date 2 O (All owners GR DELGADO, President Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name RICHARD GOULD (Applicant r A ent) Signed Date Z t. (A p cant or Agent) Location 2808 CRYSTAL RIDGE ROAD - Lot 30 7 5/ ?,r,;o _ (Street address or tract and lot number) Zoning R-1-20, 000 HNM_. 4 ai.�-- Previous Cases sione Present Use of Site Vacant- Lot Use applied for New S; ngl_Q Fp-i1- RPci dP-,rP Legal description (all ownersb:-omprising the proposed lots)/parcel(s)) Tract No. 47850 Lot No. 30 in the City of Diamond Bar, County n.f Le- Angeles, State of California, being a suo i.vi,sion or Varceis i, Z an and a portion or Parcel 5 of Parcel Map No. 15289 filed in Book 26, Pages 19 to 309 inclusive, or Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County. Area devoted to structures 6,257 s . f . ,Landscaping/Open space 21,572 s . f . Project Size 10,014 Lot Coverage 22.4% Proposed density, (Units/Acres) Style of Architecture Mediterranean Number of Floors Proposed 2 Slope of Roof 5:12 Grading If yes, Quantity Cut Fill Import If yes, Quantity _ Export If yes, Quantity KI The subject property contains no oak trees. [ l The subject property contains one or more oak trees, however the applicant antLcipates that no activity (grading andlor cons mmon) will take place witbjn five (S) feet of the outer dripline of any oak tree. [ a The subject property contains one or more oak trees and the applicant states that activity (grading and/or construction) will take place within live (5) feet of the outer dripline of any oats tree. an Oak Tree Fer% nit has been or will be applied for prior to any activity taking place on the property. ZLl�' lel U4ppli vinr ti@aaturai Mate) — - ..-. ....---• - . --•-• - . cea uau •aa aamat � .� oaa urro •a9 moamt as YJ bY8 019WtPI8 'BYON 308I11 T'18AW 8033 aem�ews P M I R p Y 1 d • R tl i 0 0 on n v 'tY19Atl0 803 BONNiSig QS0 0 0 1 0 0 V I d . gel Boa 0=140=82V I OWMOIA N V I d MOOIA H3MO1 :Tn IOM M 'dO:i 3DN30153t1 (JASr)dO'dd onto Vid 921854 We"Umv I GILUSON MVO ONOWVIG 1104 90N30I53b C19SC)dObd 7n NVId 80011 ?13ddn dY MIN ;Yl :pmosil w iI1tA '0411 3.11y'.01 aaYc MC 311. Y. (JNCIHVIG 'OVOU 390111 IVISAW 0OB2 0 N I N N V I d I H 0 1 5 a a S31VIS3 39018 IVISA83 S N 0 1 1 V A 3 1 1 'a ' IS3M UVG ONOWVIG 'W'I*V'ZglOVM'g AKLOAII *3NI"30SSV v clin6s u UOJ 3DN3alS3t103GOdOOd L41- EOG M MCI "m OK RIGS 31115 31-01 ODIC I N N V I d N 0 1 5 3 0 'Z 'V*VYSJ3VV'S AHWN111 '3NI"Possv winos -u D39NY 501 ju *03 '05811, Jovul GE 101 I 3 'UaunC) 9 vq wo *Uvou 3alu IVISAm a ga I S3 1 VIG3 loolu IVISAUJ 111131 ISM HVG ONOHVIG 9 N 0 1 1 V A 3 1 3 HO:1 IMMMU 03S0cj()fjd E r» t> a a a a 'ate: x a w U A W O M W A �r C7 O O � F A tn to N O Nom+ N N N N 00 �3 � U 4n i -r U �-•i U N 00 N A 00 O 00 N N e!• V'te)1 �O � d NU ON cn t � 04 A A Ud UA U U W O U V► d pq ani pCi � � '� Nco `n `/� a W� a U A A A valid E rn � y LT. rn Ua' N 8 C'. y G O o W c w o O i�r t!� VI •N � Z y ,�y F c1� 00� � 'r' d O b � o �� 0 F 0 00 a a a w U A W A �r C7 C7 F cQ.) tn to N O Nom+ N N N N 4n _ o'All ON 01 rn � y LT. rn Ua' N 8 C'. y G O o W c w o O i�r t!� VI •N � Z y ,�y F c1� 00� � 'r' d O b � o �� 0 F 0 00 2 a 'A CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING r 1 t , it , t t AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELE9 `11`) CITY OF DIAMOND The Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular meeting at the South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, at 7:00 P.M. on October 26, 1999. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, John Ilasin, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar, Community and Development Services Department. On October 22, 1999, I posted copies of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on October 26, 1999, at the following locations: City Hall South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21660 E. Copley Drive 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 22, 1999, at Diamond Bar, California. o asin Community and Development Services Dept. g:\\affidavitposting.doc Pile re bar-_ Z end is reedy for File Levi we y..j_ on destruand is ready or cion by City Clerk