HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/2012 PC AgendaPLANNING
COMMISSION
AGENDA
January 10, 2012
7:00 P.M.
FILE Copy
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Government Center Building Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Chairman
Vice Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Jack Shah
Kwang Ho Lee
Jimmy Lin
Steve Nelson
Tony Torng
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on
file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at
21825 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding
an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours.
written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission
meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at
21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 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 Community Development Department at
(909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
All
refrain from smoking, eating or The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
drinking in the Auditorium 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
publicmay 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 the 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 will take. 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 StateLaw(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 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 Development 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) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m., Friday:
HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS
Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030
General Agendas (909)839-7030
email: info(a�ci.diamond-bar.ca.us
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m.
Next Resolution No. 2012-01
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Jack Shah, Vice Chairman
Kwang Ho Lee, Jimmy Lin; Steve Nelson, Tony Torng
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 Secretary (completion of this form is
voluntary) 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 of Regular Meeting: December 13, 2011.
5. OLD BUSINESS: None.
6. NEW BUSINESS: None.
7. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
7.1
Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2011-420 —
Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56,
the applicant, James Qiu, and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Ma, are
requesting Development Review approval to construct a 1,533 square -foot first
and second floor addition to an existing 4,468 square -foot single-family home
and a Minor Conditional Use Permit approval to continue an existing
nonconforming front setback (20' from the front property line where 30' is
JANUARY 10, 2012
10.
PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
required); nonconforming side setback (10' to the north and 11' to the south
where 10' is required on one side and 15' is required on the .other); and
nonconforming rear setback (12' to the rear property line where 25' is required)
on a 56,628 square -foot (1.3 acres) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural
Residential (RR) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural
Residential.
Project Address: 2696 Shady Ridge Ln.
Property Owner: Mr. and Mrs. Peter Ma
1371 Rangeton Dr.
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Applicants: James Qiu
2201 Cathryn PI:,
Rosemead, CA 91770
Environmental Determination: The project has been reviewed for compliance
with the - California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that
assessment, the City has determined the project to be. Categorically Exempt
from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Article 19 under Section 15301(e)(1)
(addition to an existing structure of less than 10,000 square, feet) of the CEQA
Guidelines.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 'PL2011-420,
based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as
listed within the draft resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS`:
STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: - -
9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects:
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION MEETING:
CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
Thursday, January 12, 2012 - 7:00 p.m.
Government Center/SCAQMD
Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 - 6:30 p.m.
Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive. .
JANUARY 10, 2012
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING:
PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION MEETING:
11. ADJOURNMENT:
PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 — 7:00 p.m.
Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive
Thursday, January 26, 2012 - 7:00 p.m.
Government Center/SCAQMD
Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 13, 2011
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Shah called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m, in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, CA 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CDD/Gubman led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Steve Nelson, Tony Torng, Vice
Chairman Kwang Ho Lee, Chairman Jack Shah
Absent: Commissioner Jimmy Lin was excused.
Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director;
Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David
Alvarez, Assistant Planner, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 25, 2011.
C/Torng moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of October 25, 2011, as submitted. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee,
Chair/Shah
None
Lin
C r'. u J
DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1 Review of Possible Sale and Disposal of Surplus City Property
located at the Southeasterly Corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
Brea Canvon Road for conformance with the Citv's General Plan.
CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and recommended that the
Planning Commission adopt a Resolution finding the possible disposal of
the approximately 0.97 -acre vacant parcel located on the southeasterly
corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road to be in
conformance with the City's General Plan.
C/Torng asked if this property sale should be bundled with the school
district's sale of Site D, which would help the City from a traffic .and
transportation standpoint. CDD/Gubman responded that that is the
objective because the school district owns its piece of property and the
City owns its small strip of property so the City has to go through
procedural steps in order to dispose of each respective parcel of land.
When these procedural steps are completed, both properties will be
bundled and sold as one package.
C/Nelson asked if the sale of the property was conditioned on a particular
development of the site that combines both properties and CDD/Gubman
responded yes, that it would be required even if the developer chooses to
not build any homes or do any type of development other than landscape
improvements but build all of the houses on the school district property
and will be obligated to construct the intersection improvements on the
City's piece of land. C/Nelson said he was asking if there was a particular
development plan for the bigger parcel with which the City's property
would be combined and if the sale of the properties was contingent upon
the City approving that particular plan. CDD/Gubman responded that the
City Council is scheduled to approve the Specific Plan that will set forth
criteria for a future developer. When the property is sold, among the
obligations for that developer to submit their actual project plans will be to
complete the intersection improvements. C/Nelson said his question was
as follows` Lewis Companies wanted to put multi -tenant family housing. .
The City wanted to have commercial. How is that intent involved in the
purchase and sales agreements? _CDD/Gubman responded that there
was an .initial effort on the City's part to have a commercial component
developed on the site and through the public hearing process, the City
Council made the decision that there would be no commercial
DECEMBER 13, 2011
PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
development on the property so commercial development has been
eliminated altogether. The official direction of the City Council is that the
Site D Specific Plan be 100 percent residential with other amenities
including a park which has been prescribed: The particulars of how the
project will be designed will be forthcoming but the project will be 100
percent residential.
VC/Lee asked if the City bought this property from Walnut Valley Unified
School District (WVUSD) and CDD/Gubman responded no, the property
was purchased from a private property owner for $950,000. VC/Lee
asked who initiated the plan to sell this property after owning it fora short
period of time and effort and wanted to know why a map of the property
was not included. CDD/Gubman explained that the intent has always
been to sell this property. The City acquired the property to enhance the
development potential for the school district property. One of the
important goals for acquiring this property was to widen the intersection to
make traffic flow better and the other reason was to provide driveway
access into a future shopping center but that is. no longer part of the
project. The main purpose for this pieceof land is to provide the
intersection improvement. The City -owned parcel is about 4.6 percent of
the entire Site D acreage so when all of Site D sells, the City will receive
4.6 percent of the sale price back. So if the property sells for $20 million,
for example, the City would receive a little under $1 million which is about
the same amount the City originally paid for the property. By having this
property to offer along with the sale of the Site D property, it will add value
to the City at large. VC/Lee asked when the property would sell and
CDD/Gubman responded that the school district would like to put the
Site D property up for public bids about mid February 2012.
VC/Lee said he did not understand because the City's money purchased
this property. There is another entity involved and later on when that
entity sells the property, the City will get its money back but the City does
not know for sure when it will be sold. ACA/Wohlenberg explained that
the Site D' Specific Plan anticipates the use of the entirety of Site D, a
portion of which is owned by the City and as "a single project, the
developer would purchase the land as a whole — a portion from the school
district and a portion of the City's property, both' at the same time, take, title
at the same time and develop the entire parcel as a single development.
The City Council voted to acquire the property and voted to spend the
moneyto participate in the development of the site and the nextstep is for
the City Council to approve the sale of this parcel to whomever the
DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
developer might be. What the Planning Commission is doing tonight is
one step in the City Council's approval, and the 'Government Code
requires that the Planning Agency (Planning Commission) make the
finding that the disposal of the property would be in conformance with the
City's General Plan which is what the resolution addresses. The Council
has jurisdiction over the process and tonight's action is part of the required
process for the City Council to move the process forward.
Chair/Shah asked if the City would participate in the negotiations for the
sale of the property, and if the City decided to not sell its portion, would it
have a choice, or would it be legally bound to sell the City's parcel along
with the school district's parcel. CDD/Gubman responded that the school
district received an appraisal for the entire site and when it goes out to bid
the minimum bid price will be set at the appraised amount. Because the
appraised amount is in excess of $20 million, the City will not lose any of
its initial investment so the intent is to sell both pieces as one package and
the City would then draw its proceeds in accordance with the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the City, previously entered
into with the school district.which states that 4.6 percent of the entire
proceeds would come back to the City and be placed in the City's General
Fund.
C/Nelson asked how the 4.6 percent relates to the amount for which the
City purchased the parcel. CDD/Gubman reiterated that it does not relate
to what the City paid for the parcel. The City paid $950,000 and expects.
to recoup at least that much through the sale of the property. C/Nelson
stated that the City expects zero profit. CDD/Gubman said he does not
know whether the City will profit. CDD/Gubman said the property was
purchased at the height of the market and if the property is disposed of at
this time. and the City breaks even, it will regain its initial investment.
C/Nelson further stated that it was not a wise investment. CDD/Gubman
stated that the purchase was based on the fact that the development
would be a mixed-use project which did not happen.
VC/Lee said he heard the estimated purchase price was $30 million and
asked if the $20 million was a threshold, guarantee or a guideline.
CDD/Gubman reiterated that the minimum bid price is the appraised
value. If no bids are received that are at least the minimum bid amount,
the City and school district would not be compelled to sell the property.
ACA/Wohlenberg explained to VC/Lee that when the City sells property or
disposes of property that it owns, the rule it is concerned about is that the
DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
sale or transfer not be considered a "gift" of public funds. A gift of public
funds occurs where there is a transfer of some value where the City does
not receive back some sort of benefit whether it be a public benefit or
financial benefit and there has to be some proportional benefit to what the
City receives back in _order to have it not be considered an illegal gift of
public funds. The "gift funds restriction' is part of the California
Constitution to keep government agencies from handingout money to
friends and benefactors. When determining what the price might be on a
parcel, when selling or acquiring property, the City has the property
appraised so that the City knows what the market price of the property is
and if it is within a reasonable range of what the market price is, the
transaction would not be considered a gift of public funds at point of sale
or purchase. When this sale moves forward, it will be based on the
appraisal of the property and the school district will seek bids and
determine what developers might want to purchase and whether they will
construct the property according to the approved plans. Someone could
purchase the property and obtain a different set of approvals processed
but there is value to having entitlements in place. In short, the City is
concerned about the "gift of public funds and uses an appraisal to help
establish what the market price is to avoid the gift of public funds. If the
bids are significantly under the appraised price, there is no obligation on
the school district or City's part to accept that bid because in addition to
perhaps being an unwise decision, it may also implicate the public funds
ban. Whenever the bids go out, the minimum bid the school district, and
City are seeking would be the appraised value. Someone might pay more
but the school district and City are not bound to accept less. So the City
may end up not disposing of this property if the bids come, in significantly
low. If the bids come in equal to or higher than the appraised value it will
likely be sold but that is ultimately the City Council's decision and the City
Council could also decide, within the scope of the MOU with the school
district, carry out the sale at a different time.
C/Nelson asked when the appraisal was done and CDD/Gubman
responded that it was done within the last month.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.`
C/Nelson asked what depreciation there has been in the value of the
property since the City purchased it and CDD/Gubman responded about a
30 percent decrease in value so the recovery of the initial investment is
thankfully tied' to the overall value of 4.6 percent of the overall site.
DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Nelson asked the downside of not selling the property at this time and
instead waiting five or 10 years. How critical are the revenues from the
sale of this property to the City's operations? CDD/Gubman responded
that is more a matter of the property being tied to the Specific Plan project
boundary so the sale of that property has been through the Specific Plan
and environmental documents as well as, the MOU between the City and
the school district which contains language that expressly states the
property would be sold as a single unit. CDD/Gubman responded to
C/Nelson that as he recalls, it does not contain language that the sale
must occur "by a certain date." C/Nelson asked if the City really needed to
short -sell the property and CDD/Gubman stated that if the school district
wishes to sell the property, the City's piece is part of that proposed sale
and in order to withhold sale of the property there would need to be a
change in the Memorandum of Understanding to divorce the City's parcel
from the remainder of the property. C/Nelson asked how important the
City's piece was to the overall project and CDD/Gubman responded that
the City's property has limited development potential and if it becomes
part of the overall Site D development site, it can at least be enhanced
with parkway improvements and traffic. improvements. C/Nelson asked if
the Cityowned parcel was critical to the overall development and. ,
CDD/Gubman said he would "not say that the school district could not
develop its parcel without the City's parcel, but as a standalone piece of
property it has very limited development potential because there is no
ability to make left turns in and out of the property so without the possibility
of combining the City's parcel with the larger school district property for
development potential, the usefulness of the school district's property is
reduced to landscaping and intersection improvements.
VC/Lee said he does not mind if the City pursues public development but
this property is selling to the private sector and he does not understand
why the City offered this formula. If the City wants a benefit, it seems to
him that the City should sell its parcel to the school district or directly to an
investor or leave this parcel alone, let the school district develop its parcel
and the City can sell its parcel for a higher price. As he said before, there
are different formulas but why would the City make this kind of offer to the
school district and get a percentage when the City would be helping the
school district and the developers. The City should pursue its benefits too
and it seems to him that the benefit of this sale goes to the school district
and developer and the project will create a lot of traffic:. Is there any other
option the City can pursue for its benefit? CDD/Gubman said the City
could choose to hold the property and try to sell it, and the City has. looked -
DECEMBER 13, 2011
PAGE 7
0DRA
PLANNING COMMISSION
at marketing the property as a standalone piece of property. The City
looked at the feasibility of developing a gas station on the property which
would generate not only the sale price but ongoing sales tax revenue as
well. Unfortunately, the property is too shallow (too narrow) to enable that
goal. VC/Lee asked CDD/Gubman to describe the physical condition of
the property and CDD/Gubman responded that he can only tell the
Planning Commission with sincerity that staff has looked at the site and it
would not support a gas station. VC/Lee asked if the City could pursue
any other options and CDD/Gubman responded that the City Council
could decide to negotiate a change to the MOU or to dissolve the MOU in
an attempt to market the property individually. VC/Lee asked if the
Planning. Commission was being asked to decide whether or not to sell the
property and ACA/Wohlenberg responded that the MOU that the City
Council entered into with the school district was that the two parcels would
be combined to create a larger and more easily developed parcel; process
the approvals for the larger portion and sell the larger portion and divide
the revenues proportionate to how much each party invested. It is not that
the City is selling its property to the school district for cheap and they are
profiting from it, it is that the City and the school district worked out a deal
as to how these contiguous properties would be developed as one parcel
with the proceeds split accordingly. All aspects of the MOU are in place
and the City is past the point of considering other options since during the
process the City entered into an agreement with the school district to carry
out the simultaneous development and sale and the 4.6 percent is the
portion of the City's contribution to the project. Most of the contribution
has come from the school district side so the school district would
obviously get a significantly larger share. Tonight, all the Planning
Commission is being asked to decide is if the City proceeds with the sale
as anticipated by the MOU, is the use compliant with the City's General
Plan. That is the issue before the Planning Commission this evening.
C/Nelson said that if the Planning Commission approves this item the City
has to take 1/3 of the value the City paid for the parcel. it is not right, but
what would be right. CDD/Gubman again explained that the property is
going to sell for an amount that is at least the amount of the appraised
value and the City will receive at least 4.6 percent of that price.
C/Torng said he believed the intent was to have a parcel that would
benefit the City. Perhaps the. amount the City will receive will benefit the
DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 8
7
PLANNING COMMISSION
City in the long run rather than trying to reap a financial benefit from the
sale. He believes it is important that the project is developed under the
proposed Specific Plan in order to benefit the City.
Chair/Shah stated that the MOU stipulates that the City's parcel be sold
along with the school district's parcel and states that the parcel can be
sold whenever one of the two entities decides to dispose of the property.
Because of the timing, the City is not getting appreciation on the property.
There are two ways to look at it. One is to negotiate with the school
district for a higher percentage split because they want to sell it during a
down market or, consider the overall benefit to the City because that
parcel is sitting fallow and when the parcel is developed, the City will be
the ultimately benefactor. Today the issue is the resolution for possible
disposal of the City's parcel to be in conformance with the City's General
Plan and he believes Council should proceed and approve the resolution.
Perhaps this is the best benefit to the City.
C/Torng moved, VC/Lee seconded, to adopt a. Resolution No. 2011-26
finding the possible disposal of the approximately 0.97 -acre vacant parcel
located on the southeasterly corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea
Canyon Road to be in conformance with the City's General Plan as
corrected by staff. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee,
Chair/Shah -
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2011-349 — Under the authority of
Diamond Bar Development Code Section 22.58, the applicants, Randy
Dimacali and Rafael Nunez, are requesting approval to install a micro -
cellular antenna on a new concrete pole in the Public Right -of -Way (ROW)
along the west side of Chino Hills Parkway south of. Chino Avenue.'
PROJECT ADDRESS: Chino Hills Parkway Right -of -Way
PROPERTY OWNER: City of Diamond Bar
DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICANT: Randy Dimacali,
Coastal Communications
3355 Mission Avenue, Suite 234
Oceanside, CA 92058
And
Rafael Nunez
NextG Networks of California, Inc.
2125 Wright Avenue, Suite C9
La Verne, CA 91750 .
AP/Alvarez presented staff's report, and recommended Planning
Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2011-349; based
on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed
within the resolution.
C/Nelson asked what the future anticipated use was and .AP/Alvarez
responded that staff included a condition that improvements would need to
be made in the event of future development such as. having the unit
mounted on top of a street light. C/Nelson said he was asking if there was
any future development planned in the area and CDD/Gubman responded
that this project is in the center of, Tres Hermanos which consists of about
700 acres in the City of Diamond Bar, which is owned by the City of
Industry. As far as staff knows, there are no plans in the foreseeable
future for any development so this wireless facility is strictly to close the
gap along that roadway section for motorists traveling along Chino Hills
Parkway:
Chair/Shah asked if this network leases out to different providers.
ACA/Wohlenberg responded that NextG does not serve retail customers
directly but lease capacity on their network to existing retail carriers, as
needed.
Chair/Shah opened the public hearing.
Joe Malone, Next G Networks of California, Inc., said he was present to
answer questions from the Commissioners.
With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Shah
closed the public hearing.
DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Nelson moved, C/Torng seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. PL2011-349, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the
conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson Torng, VC/Lee,
Chair/Shah
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin
7.2 Tentative Parcel Map and Parking Permit Case No. PL2011-260 - The
applicant requested approval of a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide an
existing 4.4 -acre shopping center into three separate parcels and a
Parking Permit to share driveway access and parking between the newly
created properties. No new construction will take place and there will be
no physical changes to the building and property. The Planning
Commission is asked to recommend review.and approval to the City
Council of the entitlements. The property is zoned Community
Commercial (C-2) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use
designation of General Commercial
PROJECT ADDRESS: 300-324 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Black Equities Group, Ltd.
433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 1070
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
APPLICANT: Joseph C. Truxaw and Associates, Inc.
265 S. Anita Drive, Suite 111
Orange, CA 92868
SP/Lee presented staffs report and recommended that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and Parking Permit No.
PL2011-260 to the City Council, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to
the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution:
C/Torng asked how the applicant would benefit by creating separate parcels.
SP/Lee said she does not know the exact intent of the applicant at this time but it
would allow the current property owner to sell off each individual parcel. C/Torng
DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
asked if multiple owners might present an obstacle to future development and
SP/Lee said that it was a possible outcome; however, separation of the parcels is
allowed via the Subdivision Map Act as well as the Municipal Code.
Chair/Shah pointed out that Chase has two fewer parking spots than what is
required and SP/Lee pointed out that while Chair/Shah is correct, there is a
reciprocal parking agreement among the three properties.
Chair/Shah opened the public hearing:
Steven Hagar, Joseph. C. Truxaw and Associates, Inca the surveyor who is.
preparing this parcel mp, spoke on behalf of the property owner in support of
the project. With respect to the purpose of subdividing, while it would allow for
properties 'being disposed of separately, to his knowledge and through
discussions with the property owner, it is not his intent to do so at this time. -
However, the property owner wants the flexibility of having separate properties.
for the purpose of having buildings on separate properties which allows for
flexibility in refinancing- portions of the property without encumbering the entire
parcel. -
Chair/Shah closed the public hearing;
VC/Lee moved to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and Parking Permit No. PL 2011-260 to the
City Council, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of.
approval as listed within the draft resolution. C/Nelson said he could not think of
another reason to subdivide this property other than to sell it at the highest and
best value for each parcel and does not believe the case presented convinced
him otherwise. He has no reason and believes the Commission has no reason -to
deny the proposal and seconded the motion pending comments from other
Commissioners.
C/Torng felt the applicant's comments were honest and the applicant has
followed the rules.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson Torng, VC/Lee,
Chair/Shah
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin
DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION
8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/Torng wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays.
C/Nelson, VC/Lee and Chair/Shah echoed C/Torng's comments.
9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
AP/Alvarez reported on the six month review of the CUP for the tutoring center at
782-784 Pinefalls Avenue. The applicant submitted a notarized affidavit stating
that 1) the business commenced on August 12, 2011; 2) the current student
enrollment is 30 students, and 3) the applicant has not received any complaints
regarding parking at the facility. Staff visited the site on November 30, 2011, at
approximately 2:30 p.m. and counted four vehicles on the property with
10 students and 2 'instructors in session. No parking issues related to the
operation of the tutoring center were observed. Moreover, the City has not
received any. complaints about the site. On the basis of the representations of
the applicant and observations of staff, no changes to the current approval are
recommended at this time.
9.1 Public Hearina dates for future projects.
CDD/Gubman stated that there will not be a Planning Commission
meeting on December 27. During that week staff will be packing and
moving to its new City Hall location on December 28 and 29, City Hall
functions will be temporarily relocated to the Diamond Bar Center to
ensure ongoing customer service during the relocation.The next
scheduled Planning Commission meeting is January 10, 2012, with two
items on the agenda, one for a room addition and one for a time extension
-for the condominium map for the. Diamond Jim's Dairy location approved
by the Planning Commission a couple of years ago. This project is
nearing grading permits and there are technical issues regarding the
sewer pump which is required for the property.
CDD/Gubman reported that the January 10 and 24; 2012, Planning
Commission meetings will continue to be held in the current AQMD
Auditorium. Beginning in February, the Planning Commission meetings
will be held in the Community Room of the new City Hall .pending any
delays in getting the audio video essentials online.
DECEMBER 13, 2011 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Nelson asked if there was any activity on the Ralph's location and
CDD/Gubman responded that the shopping center owners are in lease
negotiations with a national retail tenant and the City has been asked not
to disclose any of the related information at this time until negotiations
conclude. Staff is optimistic that it will have good news to present to the
Commission in the near future.
On behalf of staff, CDD/Gubman wished the Commissioners Happy
Holidays and a Happy New Year.
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in tonight's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chairman Shah adjourned the regular meeting at 8:13 pm to January 10, 2012._
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 10th day of January, 2012.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Gubman
Community Development Director
Jack Shah, Chairman
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21810 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 TEL. (909) 839-7030 -FAX (909) 861-3117
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.1
MEETING DATE: January 10, 2012
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review and Minor Conditional Use
Permit No. PL2011-420
PROJECT LOCATION: 2696 Shady Ridge Lane, Diamond Bar, CA
91765 (APN 8713-036-031)
PROPERTY OWNER: Peter and Linda Ma
1371 Rangeton Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APPLICANT: James Qiu
2201 Cathryn Place
Rosemead, CA 91770
summary
The applicant is requesting Development Review approval to construct a 1,588 square -
foot first and second story addition to the front of an existing 4,468 square -foot, single-
family residence. A Minor Conditional Use Permit is also requested to continue a
nonconforming front setback of 20' from the front property line (30' is required),
nonconforming 12' rear setback (25' is required), and nonconforming side setbacks of
10' to the north and 11'to the south (10' is required on one side and 15' is required on
the other).
The residence is a 1970s one-story Ranch style single -story home with hipped and
gabled roofs, wood siding, stone veneer, and large overhanging eaves. The proposed
becompatiblempatible with gthe character of the eclectic vely affect the existing u neighborghoodds in The Country Estauses, and the desin ill
tes.
After evaluating the application, staff finds that the proposed project complies with the
City's development standards, and is consistent with the Development Review and
Minor Conditional Use Permit application set forth in the Development Code standards.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development
Revew and Minor
fact! and subject to hecndi Conditional Permit
ons of pp oval containedl
in findings20, based on the
the attachhed Resolution. of
BACKGROUND:
Site Description:
The project site is located within The Diamond Bar Country Estates (The Countr)) and
is located at the south end of Shady Ridge Lane. In 1979, the property was developed
under Los Angeles County standards with a 4,468 square -foot single -story home and
713 square -foot garage on a 56,628 square -foot (1.3 -acres) lot. There are no protected
trees on-site.
The property is legally described as Lot 12 of Tract No. 30092, and the Assessor's
Parcel Number (APN) is 8713-036-031.
Project Description
The applicant requests approval to construct a 1,588 square -foot addition to the front of
an existing house consisting of a family room extension on the first floor and two new
bedrooms on the second floor.
A Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) is requested to continue an existing
nonconforming front setback of 20 feet from the front property line to the existing home
and a rear setback of 12 feet from the structure to the edge of the buildable pad on a
descending slope (25' is required from the structure to the edge of the buildable pad on
a descending slope). An MCUP is also being requested to maintain the nonconforming
side setbacks of 10' to the north and 11 feet to the south (10' is required on one side
and 15' is required on the other)..
The existing height of the home is 21'-3" and the proposed height of the home is 27'-6".
The project has been reviewed and approved by The Diamond Bar Country Estates
Association.
ueveiopment Keview and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. PL 2011-420 Page 2 of 7
and Surroua4inU General Plan Zonin and Land Uses
ANALYSM
'LL.ao 1
hat results in a substantial change to the appearance of an existing
An addition t
Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit Page 3 of 7
No. PL 2011-420
Single -Family Residential
Site
Rural Residential
RR
ISR
Single -Family Residential
North
Rural Residential
Undeveloped Land
(Los Angeles County
Agriculture/Specific
NSA
Unincorporated Area/
Diamond Bar Sphere of
South
Plan
Influence
RR
Single -Family Residential
Gast
Rural Residential
Residential
West
Rural Residential
RR
Single -Family
ANALYSM
'LL.ao 1
hat results in a substantial change to the appearance of an existing
An addition t
Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit Page 3 of 7
No. PL 2011-420
residence requires Planning Commission approval of a Development Review (DR)
application.
Changes to an existing nonconforming structure require the approval of a Minor
Conditional Use Permit (MCUP), typically by the hearing officer. However, because the
DR application requires Planning Commission approval, the MCUP application is
automatically forwarded to the Planning Commission so that the entire project may be
reviewed under a single public hearing process.
Approval of a DR and a MCUP is required to ensure compliance with the City's General
Plan policies, development standards, and design guidelines to minimize adverse
effects of the proposed project upon the surrounding properties and the City in general.
Development Review
The following table compares the proposed project with the City's development
standards for residential development in the RR zone:
30 feet
5 feet on one side ar
10 feet on the other
side.
25 feet
25 feet
Maximum of 30%
35 feet
2 -car garage
*A
20'
10'— north side
11' — south side
25'— north side
No structure south of
the property
12'
13.1%
21'-3"
20'
10' — north side
11' — south side
25'— north side
No structure south of
the property
12'
14.2%
2T-6"
3 -car garage I 3 -car garage
to allow the continuation of a nonconforrr
No*
No*
Yes
No`
Yes
Yes
Yes
Site and Grading Configuration: The site is on an existing leveled pad. Therefore, no
grading is required for the proposed project.
Elevations: The existing architectural style of the home is a 1970s Ranch design with
gable and hipped roofs, wood siding, stone veneer, and large overhanging eaves. The
Proposed addition includes adding a second floor to an existing one-stonj residence.
Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permi[
No. PL 2011-420
Page 4 of 7
Additionally, the applicants are proposing to remove the wood siding on the first floor
and replace it with stucco.
All existing windows will be replaced with dual -pane, vinyl windows to match the new
windows.
Proposed Front L=levailon
P-andscaping: Landscape plans are not required because the site is already
developed, and because the project is exempt from the6 ty000 sgater Consere feet orymore
ation
Landscaping Ordinance. The ordinance would only apply if
being altered.
However, landscaping
of the irgandscapeea need tobe restored upon project completion. This
damaged dugconstruction
requirement is included as a condition of approval.
Minor Ceur��iti®nal Use Permit
use existing nonconforming
A Minor
of Conditional
Use the font it isprorequired
line eca 30fisnfront
requ'ired, nonconforming
from
setback
setback of 12' from the edge of the buildable pad where 25' is required, an
nonconforming side setbacks of 1b' to the north and 11' to the south where 10' is
required on one side and 15' is required on the other.
The City encourages homeowners to make appropriate improvements to their
properties, even if the existing improvements do not fully conform t ocessr
P p for
development standards. Therefore, the City has established the MCU
such additions, subject to the findings set forth in the development Code.
Staff believes that approving the MCUP as described above is appropriate and
compatible with other residences in the neighborhood, based on the following facts and
observations:
The existing dwelling was built in 1979, prior to the incorporation of the City of
• Diamond Bar;
Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit
Page 5 of 7
No. PL 2011-420
• The proposed addition will maintain and not further encroach into the existing
nonconforming front setback of 20', nonconforming rear setback of 12' to edge of
the buildable pad, and side setback of 10' to the north side and 11' to the south
side; and
• By maintaining the existing nonconfonning setbacks, the proposed project is
consistent with other homes within the neighborhood.
cgmaatlbllitV wit% Nel llbol°ho®d
The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives as set forth in the adopted
General Plan in terms of land use and density. The project will not negatively affect the
existing surrounding land uses.
The project is designed to be compatible with the character of the eclectic
neighborhoods in The Country Estates. The applicant is proposing to construct a first
and second story addition to the existing home. The project incorporates the principles
of the City's Residential Design Guidelines as follows:
• Placement and relationship of windows, doors, and other window openings are
carefully integrated with the building's overall design;
• Window forms and other key exterior architecture features, such as wall moldings
and paving materials match the existing structure;
• The front entry is articulated through massing treatment and incorporates
detailed design elements, such as a proposed porch and popped out windows on
the second story;
• Large wall expanses are avoided;
• Roof type, pitch and materials match the existing structure; and
• The addition is visually integrated with the primary structure, by utilizing similar
forms, and colors.
Adjacent Nome to North Project Site
Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. PL 2011-420
Undeveloped Land to South
Page 6 of 7
Additional Review
The Public Works Department and Building
and Safety Division reviewed this project,
and their comments are included in the attached resolution as conditions of approval.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
On December 30, 201the San Gabriel
1, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a
tice \N
1,000 -foot radius Of th
d Valle Dailsite aBullnd letin r°ewspapersuAlnoticeshed ldisplay board
v v —
Valley Trite
and of the notice was posted at the City's three designate
posted at the site, and a copy
community posting sites.
Public Comments Received
At the time the staff report was published
public.
staff had not received any comments from the
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality
This prof provisions of
Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has dinto the ed the project to e
Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant
Article 19 Section 15301(e.2.b) (additions to existing structure provided that the additithe
on
oo
will not result in an increase eof more than nvironmentally sensitive) e) of the CEQAuare feetfGuidelines. No the area ir
is not env further
project is located
environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution
(Attachment 1) approving Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. PL 2011-420 basrovaled on the as listed fi ndin
hings i drDaftMresolutins resolution.
22 48 and 22.56, subject to
conditions of app
Reviewed by:
Prepared by:_
Grace 5.Lee
Na*hobori Senior Planner
Planning Technician
Attachments: r oval
1. Draft Resolution No. 2011 -XX and Standard Conditions of App"
2. Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations page7of7
Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Perinit
No. PL 2011-420
Attachment 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX
RESOLUTION
PLANNINGTHE COMMISSION THE (TY OF IT
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MINOR CONDITIONAL
NSTRUCT A 1,588 SQUARE -FOOT FIRST AND
USE PERMIT NO. PL 2011-420 TO
STORY ADDITION TO HEOFRONT OF AN EXISTING 4,468 SQUARE FOOT
SECOND
RESIDENCE, AND CONTINUE A NONCONFORMING FRONT
SETBACK OF 20' FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE (30' IS REQUIRED),
SINGLE D
NONCONFORMING REAR SETBACK OF 12' HE NORTH (25' IS REQUIRED), THE
SNONCONFORMING
UTH (10 RSREQUIRED ON ONE SIDE AND 1b' IS REQUIRED ONN THE OTHER),
SOUTHSOUTH (1
LOCATED AT 2696 SHADY RIDGE LANE, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 (APN 8713-03
031).
A. —RE.CITALS
1. ter and Linda Ma, and applicant, James Qiu, have filed
The property owners, Pe
an application for Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. PL 2011-420 to construct a 1,588 square -foot first and second story
addition to the front of an existing 4,468 square -foot, single-family residence,
and to continue a nonconforming front setback of 20' from the front property I
(30' is required),ide setred), and
backs of 10' tobthe knorth and 11 to the south (lu i
nonconforming s
96 Shady
requid nCity of Diamond Is- is require
e ui edC unty ofn the eLos o 6
Angelescated at , California.
Ridge ane,
iect
inor
Hereinafter
in this resolution, the sub.
shall collectively bereferredtone Review
hee"Project "The
Conditional
project site is depicted in Exhibit 1.
in
The subject property is made up of one parcel totaling 1
2. General al Plan locatedes. it is land use
the Rural Residential (RR) zone with an underlying
designation of Rural Residential. is Tract 30092 Lot 12. The
3. The legal description of the subject property
Assessor's Parcel Number is 8713-036-031.
ic hearing for
his Project
4. On December he , 20Gabr e1
notification
Ilte T Ibune andf the lthe Inland Valltey Daily Bulletin
published in v
newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a
500 -foot radius of the Project site and public notices were posted at the City's
s on
ition to
published and ma ledy notices, the December
posting projecctsite was post d with�aad�play boalyd
p
and the notice was posted at three other locations within the project vicinity.
5 On January 10, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested
individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date.
E. 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 the Project to be Categorically
Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15301 (e.2.b) (additions to
existing structure provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more
than 10,000 square feet if the area in which the project is located is not
environmentally sensitive) of the CEQA Guidelines, Therefore, no further
environmental review is required.
C. FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under
Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48 and 22.56, this Planning
Commission hereby finds as follows:
Development Review Findinqs (DBMC Section 22 48 040)
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);
The design and layout of the proposed 1, 588 square -foot first and second story
addition to the front of the house is consistent with the City's General Plan, City
Design Guidelines and development standards by meeting all of the setbacks
and continuing the existing non -conforming front, rear, and side setbacks. The
front, rear, and side setback will maintain the existing nonconforming setbacks,
and will not further encroach into the nonconforming setback.
The project site is not part of any theme area, specific plan, community plan, `
boulevard orplanned development.
2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the
use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not
create traffic or pedestrian hazards;
The proposed addition will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of
neighboring existing or future developments because the use of the project site
is for a single family residential home and the surrounding uses are also for
single family residential homes.
The proposed addition will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian
movements, such as access or other functional requirements of a single family
residential home because it is a continuation of an existing use.
2
DR/MCUP PL2011420
f the proposed
developent is
ible
the
sign 0
3 characterltof the )sue surrounding neighborhood ghborhood and will maintain n aridtenhai'cle the
attractiveharmonious, orderly development
and contemplated
Chapter 2248: Development Review Standards, the ciysDesign
the city's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan;
The proposed first and second story addition is designed to be compatible wThe
ith
ds
The country
th o character f osed additiontwill mhe aintaincticnthe Ranch s yleeighborhoolof a ch tectu e with ea th-tone
p p
shades for the exterior finish to soften the building's visual impact and assist in
preserving the hillside's aesthetic value.
will ment
4. The design of the proposed development
well pasvits neighbors ide a l through good
for its occupants and visiting public
aesthetic use of materials, texture, color, and will remain aesthetically
appealing;
The design of the existing single-family home is a 1970s Ranch design.
eved
Variation
architectural
rch tec rlalrr features rts has and buiileen lding a'terialsthroTge theutilization
building
varying
colors will remain the same. ublic health, safety or
5. The proposed development will not be detrimental top property values or
welfare or materially o the (pros properties or improvement n the vicinity; and
gative effect or
resale(s) of property) p
Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed Project is required to
comply Safety Divsioln and conditionswithin
rWorksthe
Department requresolution
ements the
The referenced
S y
agencies, through the permit and inspection process, will ensure that the
proposed Project is not detrimental fo the public health, safety or welfare or
materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
in compliance with the provisions of
g. The proposed project has been reviewed
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQAprovisions of the
The proposed project is categorically exemptsr° e the
forth under Article 19
California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQA)
Section 15301 (e.2.b) (additions to existing structure provided that the addition
will not
hresult in i located of not envronment0allygsensitive)re t ofif fthearea
CEQA
more
which there
p 1
Guidelines.
it Findings
Minor Conditional Use Perm(DBMC Section2
Section ) royal
1. The proposed use is allowed within the subzoning district with the approval
of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable
provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code;
The existing single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RR zone. A Minor
Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) is requested to continue an existing
nonconforming front setback of 20' from the front property line, nonconforming
3 ORINICUP PL20"-430
rear setback of 12', and nonconforming side setbacks of 10' on one side and
11'on the other.
The substandard front, rear, and side setbacks of the building renders the
project nonconforming. The addition of a nonconforming structure requires
approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit. The proposed addition of a 1,588
square -foot family room addition on the first floor and two new bedrooms on the
second floor complies with the development standards of the RR zone and will
not further encroach into the nonconforming setbacks.
2. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable
specific plan;
The proposed addition to a single-family dwelling unit is consistent with the
City's adopted General Plan. The site is not subject to the provisions of any
specific plan.
3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are
compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity;
The existing single-family dwelling and the proposed addition of a 1, 588 square -
foot family room addition on the first floor and two new bedrooms on the second
floor is consistent with the development standards for the site and the
surrounding neighborhood. The design of the existing single-family dwelling
and the proposed addition are compatible with the character of the eclectic
neighborhoods in The Country Estates.
4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use
being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with
adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints;
The subject site is physically suitable for the existing single-family residential
dwelling and the proposed addition. The existing and proposed use of land is
consistent with the surrounding land uses. The proposed addition of floor area
is consistent with the development standards for the RR zone and will not
further encroach into the existing nonconforming setbacks.
5. Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public
interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to
persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which
the property is located; and
The granting of the Minor Conditional Use Permit will allow the addition of the
existing single-family dwelling unit in a manner similar with existing dwelling
units located in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed expansion of the
dwelling unit will not negatively impact the public interest, health, safety
con venience or welfare.
6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
0
ORIMCUP PL2011-420
The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth unrticl
der Ae 19
Section 15301 (e.2.b) (additions to existing structure provided that the addition
Which
the proin ject isincrease
located is notmore
envronmen 10 0nttallysquare
sensitive)feet
ofthe
t earea
CEQA
whi
Guidelines. n set forth above.
Based upon the findings
ication and subject t conclUSiO following conditions: Planning Commission hereby
approves this App
A. Planning Division plans and documents
1. Development shall substantially comply with the
presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing regarding this
proposed project;
B. _ Standard Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the standard development
conditions attached hereto.
The Planning Commission shall:
a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
of this Resolutionby certified mail to
, Forthwith transmit a certified copy ,
p
the property owners, Peter and
Diamond Bar, CA 917, and applicant, LinlJames Oiu�2201aCathryn Placngeton e,
65
Rosemead, CA 91770.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED
THIS I oth DAY
DIAMOND BAR.
JANUARY 2012, BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE
By:
Jack Shah, Chairman
Commission Secreta do hereby certify that the foregoing
I, Greg Gubman, Planning
Secretary
lar
Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at
following vote:meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 10th day of January, 2012, by
AYES:
Commissioners:
NOES:
Commissioners:
ABSENT:
Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
ATTEST:
Greg Gubman, Secretary
5 URIMICUP PL2011,420
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND
REMODELED STRUCTURES
PROJECT #: Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. PL 2011420
SUBJECT: To construct a 1,588 square -foot first and second story addition to
an existing single-family home
PROPERTY Peter and Linda Ma
OWNER(S): 1371 Rangeton Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APPLICANT(S): James Qiu
2201 Cathryn Place
Rosemead, CA 91770
LOCATION: 2696 Shady Ridge Lane Diamond Bar CA 91765
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839-7030, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1), the applicant shall
defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and
employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or
annul, the approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. PL 2011-420 brought within the time period provided by Government Code
Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and
employees are made a party of any such action:
(a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's
option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable
attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims.
6
3/h4Cl1P PL2011420
(b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City
defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim,
action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof.
2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and
owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of
vMinor Conditional Permit
arovlothis
Dv nd BaCommunity Develom
No tthe City of Dam
Department, their affidavit stating that they are a Ovral shalln agree
otbe effectivepuntill
the conditions of this approval. Further, this app
the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the
review of submitted reports.
with this project
3. All designers
a D amtond BargBusiness Liicensm and a zoning approval for those
shall obtain
businesses located in Diamond Bar. Standard
4. Signed copies of Planning Commission Resolution No.
Conditions, and all environmentals shall
mitigationt ball parties plansn the
involved in (thle
size). The sheet(s) are for information only P
construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped
by a licensed Engineer/Architect.
ations ng
elev
5. Prior to the plan check,revised be submittelans d buildior ng ng Division review and
all Conditions of App
approval.
g. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced
thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed.
in full
7. The project site shall
and all laws, maintained
and other appli able regulat oplsance with the
conditions of approval
all
g, Approval of this request shall not waive City ordinances
ance Specific
and sany applicable
Development Code, all other applicable permit issuance.
Specific Plan in effect at the, time of building p
All site, grading, landscape/irrigation, and roof plans, and elevaaio { plans shall
g.
be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permroved use has
grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.,) or app
commenced, whichever comes first.
MR
10. The property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board
within three days of this project's approval.
11. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and
lic Works Department, and the Fire Department.
Safety Divisions, Pub
FEESIDEPOSITS
1
I'cant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to
Planning,
App r 7 CRIMCUP PL2011-420
Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation
Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading
permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required
shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant
shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to
issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first.
2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project
shall have no deficits.
C. TIME LIMITS
1. The approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. PL 2011-420 expires within two years from the date of approval if the use
has not been exercised as defined per DBMC Section 22.66.050 (b)(1). The
applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to DBMC
Section 22.60.050(c) for Planning Commission approval
D. SITE DEVELOPMENT
1. The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance
with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the
Planning Commission, collectively attached hereto as Attachment 2 including:
site plans, floor plans, and architectural elevations on file with the Planning
Division, the conditions _contained herein, and the Development Code
regulations.
2. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning
condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened
through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or
landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division.
3. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view.
4. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures, canopies, etc., shall be
maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly
appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the property
owners/occupant.
5. All landscaping, structures, architectural features and public improvements
damaged during construction shall be repaired or replaced upon project
completion.
E. SOLID WASTE
1. 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
approved 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
9
DR/MCUP PL2011-420
residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It
shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has
obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services.
2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City
franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this
project. UBLIC
APR (CANT SHALL
COMPLIANCE WIOTH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040,
TIONSA
FOR
A. GENERAL
tly
1
clearlyAn an
Erosion
Control
Plan
clobtrolub meas
implemented
Thesew'meth asurreslnshallplbe
implemented during construction. The erosion control plan shall n
allln conformards and
to
national Pollutant Discharge
Best r r (Management P imination System actices (BMP's) as specified in
incorporate the appropriate
the Storm Water BMP Certification.
B. DRAINAGE
of
e lot
th careful
syste
floodon to any
lhazardlarea shall be submitted. informatioAAll drlainage/rlunoff from the devvelopment
shall be conveyed from e site to the natural arcelsraainage c
oursunlessthat es the natural
drainage shall be cone ed to adjacent p
drainage course.
C, UTILITIES
all not econstructed
arboristwithin the drip line of any mature
Underground utilities sh
tree except as approved by
D. SEWERSISEPTIC TANK
1, ing
Any homeowner that installs a n fixture trunits oc tank r ystem bedroom equivalents repairs t
ew se to
septic tank or adds any plum
facility served by an existing septic system will need to submit a Notice of Intent
(Not) to the Regional Water y oflthe sent NOControl Banddfor checkvto the City.aste This
Requirements and submit a copy
issuance.
shall be fulfilled prior to bldg. p
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 2010 California
1. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e.,the
Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechali able on trunical Code,dction
California Electrical Code) requirements and all other app
codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal.
2. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California
Building Code and State Fire Marshal regulations have been met. The
9 DRIMGUP PL2071-420
buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
3. The project shall be protected by a construction fence or barricade to the
satisfaction of the Building Official.
4. All underground utilities shall be marked and identified prior to any construction.
The applicant shall contact Dig Alert (811).
5. All structures and property shall be maintained in a safe and clean manner
during construction. The property shall be free of debris, trash, and weeds.
6. All equipment staging areas shall be maintained in an orderly manner and
screened behind a minimum 6' high fence.
7. Solid waste management of construction material shall incorporate. recycling
material collection per Diamond Bar Municipal Code 8.16 of Title 8.
8. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 85 M.P.H. exposures "C" and
the site is within seismic zone D or E. The applicant shall submit drawings and
calculations prepared by a California State licensed Architect/Engineer with wet
stamp and signature.
9. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the
State of California Energy Commission. All lighting shall be high efficacy or
equivalent per the current California Energy Code.
10. A height survey may be required at completion of framing.
11. All balconies shall be designed for 601b. live load.
12. Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail.
13. Indicate all easements on the site plan.
14. Fire Department approval shall be required. Contact the Fire Department to
check the fire zone for the location of your property. If this project is located in
High Hazard Fire Zone it shall meet of requirements of the fire zone.
a. All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior wall.
b. 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 or more
than 1/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped
with sash or door.
c. Eaves shall be protected.
d_ Exterior construction shall be one-hour or non-combustible.
15. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the
NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.)
16. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall
drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope.
10
DR/MCUP PL2011-420
17 Specify location of tempered glass as required by code.
e for all flat surfacesl decks with approved water proofing
guardrail connection detail (height, spacing, etc.)
18. Specify 1/4"/ft slop
material. Also, provide g
19. Private property sewerlsep
tic system shall be approved by the Los Angeles
ent and the Caoi
County Health Department a water Control Board. The sewer
or septic system shall be identified on Plans.
20. Special inspectiosnd structural observation will be required in conformance
to CBC 1704 to 1709.
ort shall be
21. A soils report is required and all recommendations of the soils rep
adhered to.
Code Figure 1805.3-1-
22.
22. Slope setbacks consistent with California Building
Foundations shall provide a minimum distance to daylight.
Alert and have underground utility locations Alert by
23. The applicant shall contact prior to any excavation. Contact Dig
marked by the utility comp digalert orq.
dialing 811 or their website at
24. The location of property, lines and building pad may require a survey.
lace that is equivalent to visqueen.
25. A method of water infiltration shall be in -p
Outdoor air ventilation shall be provided in accordance with ASHRAE Standard
26. Code 149(0)•
62.2 per California Energy
End
11 DRIMCUP PL2011-420
U.
Plans found in ro'ect file
z
Z
W
F-
K
Q
0.
Qp
Q7
Oz
02
:�E IL
Q 0
Q
W
LL
O�
}
U�
z
O
U
N
C
p
D
W
6
@
Q
c
G
CO ._
CO
p
O
c
O
O
._
'
o
W
o_
@
J
E
N
C
N
C
m
a
o
w
w
Cli m
n
o
a
LL
_tNV
.❑NcLLa
o
0
Z
c
Z
Z
J
0
Q
EL
.q!@
E0
(0 v
m
=E
❑
3
n
'D
coo
i
oNZ
I
I
I
I
c
I
o
I
0
6
0
fn m
Co J a
Un
�.
C� LL o
�-
N
c
y:
W
6,
o
O
w
N
C)
CL
a
a
n�
3
as
a_
W
O
C)
W
o
o
p
w
z
z
0
O a
fn U
mo
fl)
J
I•rL
C {p C
J m p
0
Q
C ?
N J
N'.
U
E
'o
ry
-: C7 LL
T -@ N
O N
v
Z
a
oo
o-.
me
�c
U
C
N O
.o
C O
C CQ
C CO
N q N
C
N¢~
O
C
p
D
W
6
@
Q
c
G
CO ._
CO
p
O
c
O
O
._
'
o
W
o_
@
J
E
N
C
N
C
m
a
o
w
w
o
0
o
a
LL
_tNV
.❑NcLLa
Q
m
Z
c
Z
Z
J
0
Q
EL
.q!@
E0
m
=E
❑
3
n
'D
coo
i
oNZ
I
I
I
I
c
I
o
I
0
6
0
0
❑
0
C
0
r
N
c
y:
u
6,
o
a
a
N
C)
a
a
n�
as
a_
??Ja
O
C)
d
o
o
p
z
0
0
'o
v
v
v
o
C
.O
C
.o
C O
C CQ
C CO
C CO
C
O
O
V F
U
U C
U G
t6 E
V
U
C
p
D
W
0
co
Q
o
wco
L
o
O
o
W
o_
@
J
E
N
C
N
C
m
LLLLcOUom
.
=
a
LL
_tNV
.❑NcLLa
Q
m
Z
c
Z
Z
J
0
Q
EL
.q!@
E0
m
=E
❑
3
n
'D
coo
i
oNZ
Q
0
rn
M
ZNN
o
o
r
N
c
y p
6,
o
a
a
N
C)
a
a
n�
as
a_
??Ja
O
C)
d
o
o
p
z
C
p
D
W
0
co
D
mo
G
C C
o_
E
mU_
Cp`�
Nc
m
LLLLcOUom
.
aC
_tNV
.❑NcLLa
E�Oa
Uo
c
O
.q!@
E0
m
=E
❑
3
n
'D
coo
i
oNZ
Q
M
ZNN
Z
O�
n
ZWO_tY
U R O g W
Z W Z = J
�xQO�U
Q
co Lo Lo 70
U W Z Z O
7aozz��
m
a0IL a. QU
II z u u u n
x II 0-U
n.Xaa<U
0
Z
W
0
W
J
H
Z
W
o l o 10 I o 10 I z 10 I z I z l z t o
c
G
rn
C
O
O
O-
O
C
O O O p
N
h
M
L9
C
O
Y
0
0
o
oo
o o w o
N
O
U
O
O
O
O
fl�C"14
Q�
QU
W
F
L
n
C
o
I
E-
C
E
I
I
I
I
a
W
m
O
c
C
O
C
O
C
O
p I I
C
O O O
J
O
C
C
.E
M
a
U
: v
U
K E
cmi
v..E
v.E
�_c
'E
c_- o
U
N
N
U1 N N m,
ym-
n
JLL
J m
Ja
N-
mL
m
N
c
m—
❑01
cv
«3
N 0
rn0
a E a a
N
rn8
01
U` c
ami5
LL N
0
0
0
-.
0
U
U
0 0 E
U O
ma
D. N
'4 *-'
p
.0
m.
N�
n
v
v3'�3
U U U
-
U N
•'�
O
v
N `m
O
O
O
_
O O- O O
-o
N Q
Mm
N Z
CAm
m Z
Mm
N Z
M3
d Z
d 2
a-
a3
N Z
om
N L
0
3
o]
N
c c
N
0
C C
0
C C
0
C C
o a -
C C C C C c m C
N'
C
p
O c o c O
m
�E�E
m•N
uE c �m
ao
ao
Q C
c
Q.E
a.c
Q c
n0
'Q G
n0 ao a0 a ao
c C C
c
Q Q Q C Q
o l o 10 I o 10 I z 10 I z I z l z t o
G
rn
N
U
N
h
M
L9
C
O
Y
r-
N
O
U
O
O
O
O
fl�C"14
Q�
QU
W
F
L
n
C
o
rn
c
t>0
>
O
C
E-
C
E
t
}
L
}
a
O
O
3
a
W
m
O
o l o 10 I o 10 I z 10 I z I z l z t o
G
rn
U
N
h
M
L9
C
O
O
r-
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
fl�C"14
Q�
QU
d
dO
J.
d
LL
O_
J
U_
O -
C
C
.E
M
a
U
: v
U
K E
cmi
v..E
v.E
�_c
'E
c_- o
U
N
N
Nwm-
ym-
C C
JLL
J m
Ja
N-
mL
m
N
c
m—
❑01
cv
«3
N 0
rn0
m w
rnw
N
rn8
01
U` c
ami5
LL N
o
Eo
3
��
JC
Jc
.N
ma
D. N
'4 *-'
p
aoy
G
U
�
C
C
C
U_
O -
C
C
.E
M
a
U
: v
U
K E
cmi
v..E
v.E
�_c
'E
c_- o
U
N
N
Nwm-
ym-
C C
JLL
J m
Ja
N-
mL
m
N
c
m—
❑01
cv
«3
N 0
rn0
m w
rnw
N
rn8
01
U` c
ami5
LL N
o
Eo
3
��
JC
Jc
.N
ma
D. N
'4 *-'
p
aoy
m.
N�
n
v
v3'�3
m
O N
V 3
U N
•'�
U
!E 3
v
N `m
CO=
N
p�.N
(n p
-o
N Q
Mm
N Z
CAm
m Z
Mm
N Z
M3
d Z
d 2
'ta
N't Q
a3
N Z
om
N L
-c�-o
a
o]
N
N
N
N a
NUS
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS CITY OF DIAMOND BARES
j
I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: regular
Commission will hold a reg
On January 10, 2012, the Diamond Bar Planning ement District/Government
session at 7:00 p.m: at the SOutt Coast D amondQuallty BarMCali California.
Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley
Drive,Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda.
2012,n was posted
a copy of the
I am employed by the City f t eID amond Bar Plannamond Bar- On ringCory 1 mmissio
agenda of the. Regular Meeting o
at the following locations:
gement Heritage Park
2900 Brea Canyon Road
South Coast Quality Maria
District AuditoriumDiamond Bar, CA 91765
Copley 21865 East Cop Y Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar Library
1061 Grand Avenue
Diamond Bar, CA
er ur that the foregoing is true and correct.
of I
I declare under penalty p Y California.
Executed on January 5, 2012, at Diamond Bar,
Stella Marqu z
Community Developme
g:\\,f idav4POSting.doc
File n' ew by
on �4
soari`in and is r-
9