Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2012 PC AgendaPLANNING FILE COPY COMMISSION AGENDA February 28, 2012 7:00 P.M. City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (New Location) 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. DIA��IOND Dill: Please 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 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 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 requestedto 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. Commentsand 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 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 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) 83977030 General Agendas (909) 839-7030 email: infoAci diamond-bar.ca.us CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 28, 2012 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Next Resolution No. 2012-05 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kwang Ho Lee, Jimmy Lin; Steve Nelson, Tony Torng 2. MATTERS ,FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC 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 publican opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman - _- 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approvedby a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda, by request of the Commission only: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meetincr January 24, 2012. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Code Amendment No. PL2011-454 — (Under the authority of DBMC Section 22.70) is a request to amend the following sections of Title 22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code:` 22.43; 22:10.040; 22.10.030 Table 2-5 and Table 2-6; 22.42.100; 22.38.030; 22.36.130 Table 3-14; . 22.34.030; 22.42._130(g)(3)(d); 22.56.020; 22:47.020; 22.68.030(b); 22.66.050(c) and, (d); 22.80.020; 22.22.080(b)(6); 22.16.060; 22.22:120; 22.20.040; 22.22.080(b)(7); 22.42.110(c); 22.42.060(2)6); 22.22. 1 00(a). FEBRUARY 28, 2012 Project Address Applicant: PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Citywide City of Diamond Bar Environmental Determination: The City has determined that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as prescribed under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines (No potential for causing a significant effect on the environmental), therefore, no further review is required. Recommendation: Continue to March 13, 2012 7.2 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2012-08 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.58, the applicant, Jaime Dietz -Velez, and the property owner, Diamond Bar/Grand LLC, are requesting Conditional Use Permit approval for a jiu-jitsu studio for students ages four years and older on Mondays through Fridays from 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and Saturdays from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The subject property is zoned Regional Commercial (C-3) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. Project Address: 1273 S. Diamond Bar Blvd Property Owner/ Diamond Bar/Grand LLC Applicant: 2717 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 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(a) (interior alterations, involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances) of the CEQA Guidelines. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL2012-08, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 7.3 Revision to Development Code Review No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No 2007-06 (Planning Case No. PL2011-387) - Under the authority of DBMC Section 22.66.060, applicants Pete Volbeda and Sam Bhogal, and property owner Paul. Ghotra, are requesting approval for revisions'. to the -height of the building pad and finished grades for a new single-family residence approved by Planning Commission on July 24, 2007. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Project Address: 22909 Ridge Line Road Property Owner: Paul Ghotra 1241 S. Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicants: Pete Volbeda 180 N. Benson Ave., Suite D Upland, CA 91786 and Sam Bhogal 23415 Pleasant Meadow Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmental Determination: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality (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 15,304 (minor alterations to land) of the. CEQA Guidelines. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, consider all testimony and evidence, direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve or deny the requested revisions, and continue the matter . to March 11, 2012 for adoption of said resolution. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:' - 9. STAFF COMMENTS I INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future Proiects: 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 - 6:30 p.m. Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium - 21865 Copley Drive FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: STATE OF THE CITY ADDRESS: 11. ADJOURNMENT: Thursday, March 8, 2012 - 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Conference Room _ 21810 Copley Drive Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:30 p.m. — 7:30 p.m. (Doors open at 6:00 p.m. for refreshments Mayor's presentation begins promptly at 6:30 p.m.) Diamond Bar Center — Grand Ballroom, 1600 Grand Avenue MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Shah called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PT/Tobon led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Steve Nelson, Tony Torng, and Chairman Jack Shah Absent: Vice Chairman Kwang Ho Lee was excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; David Alvarez, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 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 January 10, 2012. C/Torng moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 10, 2012, as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None None Lin, Nelson, Torng None Chair/Shah VC/Lee 7.1 Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11 — Recommend approval to the City Council for a one-year time extension for a nine -unit residential condominium project on a 0.62 acre lot. Under the authority of Diamond JANUARY 24, 2012 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Bar Municipal Code Section 22.66.050, the applicant submitted a request for a one-year extension of time to begin construction. The project was approved on November 20, 2007, with a three (3) year timeframe to obtain building permits and -begin construction. On February 15, 2011, the City Council approved a one-year time extension. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 23671 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 GSDB Investment LLC 625 Fair Oaks Avenue #115 South Pasadena, CA PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Joseph Kwok, representing the owner, stated that the applicant is requesting a one-year time extension for the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review. The applicant has been working diligently with the Public Works to get the plans approved. However, the grading plan process seems to be a lot more complex than originally anticipated. The third plan check corrections were processed last Friday and he believes they are very close to complete approval. He hopes to resubmit the plans before the end of January, early next week, and hopes to begin construction very soon thereafter. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Shah closed the public hearing. C/Nelson moved, C/Torng seconded, to recommend City Council approval of the Time Extension for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 .and Development Review 2006-11, 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: Lin, Nelson; Torng, Chair/Shah None VC/Lee- COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JANUARY 24, 2012 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.2 Development Review and Minor Conditional use vermn No. PL2011-423 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, applicant Ben Kawachie and property owner Karen Lui, requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,188 square foot, ground floor addition to an existing 1,906 square foot, one- story single family residence. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was also requested to continue a nonconforming building separation of 14' 6" distance to the residence on the adjacent lot to the west. PROJECT ADDRESS:. 1228 Calbourne Drive Diamond bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Karen Liu 1915 W. 235th Street Torrance, CA 90501 APPLICANT: Ben Kawachi .: 19210 Allwood Court Rowland Heights, CA 91748 AP/Alvarez presented staff's report and. recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2011-423, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution: C/Lin asked for clarification that the side setbacks that do not conform- to . the City's current standards. are grandfathered in to which AP/Alvarez responded affirmatively and further clarified that the new addition must comply with current development standards. C/Nelson said he.was not opposed to the project but wanted to know - whether the Cityhad ever acted in such a way that a non -conforming use where the wall does not change, but in.the _addition to it, conform to current standards; be upheld? CDD/Gubman-asked for clarification that such a request had ever been rejected and C/Nelson responded "right." This is an existing non -conforming structure (non -conforming to the City's standards because it was approved under County standards), and an addition to -that structure, the line continues on, and he wanted to know if such a proposal had ever been .rejected in favor of any addition to the structure being in conformance with the City's standards. CDD/Gubman said he did not believe such a proposal had ever been rejected and it is a good question because the City is preparing to bring to the Commission an omnibus code cleanup in about a month. And in light of the fact that staff brings these Conditional Use Permits to allow the addition to continue JANUARY 24, 2012 L`1 1'1 A11 ` �.:, PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION - that same non -conformity, it supports the argument that the requirement to go through the CUP process is overly burdensome. So in the code amendment language that staff will be bringing to the Commission, staff is going to be proposing that this be allowed to be approved administratively rather than requiring a Conditional Use Permit. Ben Kawachi, ,applicant, spoke about the neighboring home, the side setbacks, explained the project and asked for approval of the Minor Conditional Use Permit for the higher grade improvement which he felt would be an improvement for the neighborhood. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. Herbert Rudeking, Ackfold Drive, directly behind the proposed project, asked what the height of the new roof would be because he was concerned it would block his view. AP/Alvarez responded that the existing roofline height is 12 feet 10 inches and the new roofline is proposed to be 20 feet 10 inches which is eight feet higher. C/Nelson asked the speaker what view he currently enjoyed that he felt would be blocked. Mr. Rudeking said he currently overlooks the entire area. He has a five foot fence and was concerned about whether the project was proposed to be a single story or multiple story structure that would not be higher than his fence which would block what little view he currently has. It appears that is not the case and thanked the, Commission. Chair/Shah closed the public hearing C/Torng moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2011-423, 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: Lin, Nelson, Torng, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Lee CDD/Gubman advised the speaker that the Planning Commission's decision may be: appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days. .The appeal, along with the appeal fee, would need to be filed with the City Clerk no later than 10 calendar days from tonight. n!j_ RAS JANUARY 24, 2012 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION In response to.C/Torng, CDD/Gubman reminded the Commission and speaker that the City has no view regulations, particularly when the Commission is reviewing individual projects. When subdivisions are laid out view factors are taken into consideration but when there are existing lots, there are no view regulations. 7.3 Development Review Minor Variance and Tree Permit No. PL2011- 449 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.38, 22,48 and 22.52, the applicant, Simon T Shum and property owners Tengly and Anna Tan, requested Development Review approval to construct a new 10,414 square foot single family residence on a 1.33 gross acre (53,040 square foot) lot; a Minor Variance for reduction of the front setback from .30 feet to 24 feet; and a Tree Permit to remove protected trees and replace at a 3:1 ratio. The lot is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS:_ 23540 Mirage Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNERS: Tengly and Anna Tan 16808 Sunny Ridge Court Cerritos; CA 90703 APPLICANTS: Simon T. Shum 385 S. Lemon Avenue #E383 Walnut, CA 91789 AP/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review, Minor Variance and Tree Permit No. PL2011-449, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. C/Nelson asked if there were any, Pepper Trees on site to which AP/Alvarez responded no, just Black Walnuts. C/Torng asked if this permit would last for another two years and AP/Alvarez responded "yes.". . C/Lin 'asked the `difference between a major and minor variance. AP/Alvarez: responded that a minor variance is 20% or less reduction and anything greater would be a major variance. CDD/Gubman stated that the JANUARY 24, 2012 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION threshold is 20% so in this case, the minimum setback is 30 feet, A 20% reduction would be six feet. The project proposes 24 feet. Anything that deviates more than 20 percent would be a major variance. C/Lin felt the property sloped more east to west and a 25 percent grade is equal to one and a half feet in elevation in a six foot run so if the building is lowered by one and a half feet, the property could maintain the 30 foot setback. He felt there would not be that much difference in the cost because some areas would be filled and some would be excavated. There is 70 feet of backyard area to accommodate the building and he wondered if there was a compelling reason to approve this. minor variance? Chair/Shah asked the rationale for the first variance. AP/Alvarez said he included the staff report and resolution as an attachment. CDD/Gubman stated that the findings that were originally made had to do with the amount of retaining walls to build up the pads to accommodate this site. The issue with this particular parcel was the amount of flat pad on the front of the property was relatively small which would result in a lot of retaining wall. construction to build up the buildable area for the site. The consideration at that time was the amount of the grade was so extreme that it seemed reasonable to allow the 20 percent encroachment to reduce the impact of additional retaining walls. So the `consideration was the tradeoff between complying strictly to all of the Development- Code standards and require more retaining walls and more intensive grading, or allow the 20 percent reduction in the setback,. so as to allow that encroachment/deviation.to reduce the grading impacts somewhat. The judgment on approving this original variance was the relative benefit of reducing some of the grading in exchange _for. allowing that the encroachment to occur was preferred. Chair/Shah said he had similar concerns about justifying the variance. He wanted to know what kind ofsetbacksneighboring properties had and AP/Alvarez said he did not know. what kind of setbacks the neighboring properties have. C/Lin said that if the pad were lowered by one and a half feet the fill at the back of the building would be substantially less as would the retaining wall at the back of the house. According to the report, four foot and seven foot tall retaining walls are called for and there is a massive fill in the back. So if the building pad was lowered by. a foot and a half there would be a lot less grading required for this project (drawing A-6). �.�;T JANUARY 24, 2012 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION SP/Lee asked for clarification. The current fill for the proposed project is approximately 4000 cubic yards. She asked if C/Lin was saying that by lowering the pad an addition foot and one-half it would result in less fill? Would it not in fact, mean additional fill? She believes the reason staff recommended a Minor Variance in 2008 was to minimize the fill. CDD/Gubman said it would take time to go back and review how this project came about but it may have had to do with where the grade at the front of the existing pad was at that time and he would guess at this point that the goal was to bring the grades up to what the current pad was rather than take that amount of existing pad down. He said he understood what C/Lin was saying and felt the applicant would be able to shed more light on this issue. CDD/Gubman said it would appear that they were raising the rear to bring it up to the existing front of the property. With that said, if the pad was.following the natural elevation, the amount of fill would certainly be less. C/Lin asked if the City had encountered conditions similar to this in recent years and was there a precedent in granting minor variances on a lot of projects? CDD/Gubman responded that minor variances have been granted previously and part of the justification and the decision to do so has been that the remaining vacant parcels are becoming increasingly difficult to develop. Theeasier parcels were _built out long ago which is Why the currently vacant lots remain vacant — because of the difficulties in developing those lots. The other question that arises is certainly this is a massive house and another. solution would be to make the house a little bit smaller so that it would not have, to sprawl out over the site so much and that would take care of the setback issue as well. However, that is an issue of precedence as well, because .the bar keeps getting raised in terms of how large these developments are becoming,. C/Lin said his basic concern was that such a massive building should be set back from the street as far as possible. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing.. Simon Shum, Architect, stated that this house is. sitting on a corner property with two sides to meet the requirement. He referred to the site plan to provide a perspective of. the setback variance to the Commissioners, which is on Mirage Lane. The long side which borders Indian Creek has met the setback requirement. The grade runs steeper from. Mirage Lane to. the west than it does from Indian Creek to the north. He conducted a surrey of the neighborhood and found that most of the houses built in "The Country Estates" by the residents across the street on Mirage Lane, as well as, on Indian Creek. have a 20. foot setback . requirement which was inplace at the time of the subdivision filing. In JANUARY 24, 2012 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION addition, as CDD/Gubman stated, most of the easier lots are already built out and the lots that are left have a legacy of steep slopes. Mr. Shum said he believed that 30 foot setbacks were initiated in about 2000, well after "The Country Estates" subdivision recordation of 1975. This proposal is a request to help with the grading situation on Mirage Lane. Because the house is in the corner he wants to design a smooth transition from Mirage Lane onto Indian Creek by anchoring a rotunda in the corner which would add a great deal of transition and be a focal point for the street. Mr. Shum pointed out that the 24 foot setback is not to the building, it is only to the canopy at the one story roof which transitions to a two-story. The long side (Indian Creek) meets the 30 foot setback and the building down the street has only a 20 foot setback. His architectural attempt has been in keeping with the subdivision design done in 1975 and later, in order to keep the same flavor and minimize grading. In addition, the architecture of the building has broken up to assimilate different building elements to minimize its impacts. This structure is designed to take advantage of the view toward the ocean area and believed that the addition would add to the City of Diamond Bar. C/Nelson asked if this project was approved by "The Country Estates' Architectural Review Committee and Mr. Shum responded "yes." Chair/Shah stated that the project is a very nice design and. particularly the stepping back and reducing of the mass. His main concern is that if the trees are removed from the street the structure is imposing.. Mr. Shum confirmed to Chair/Shah that the reason for this request was to minimize the grading. Chair/Shah said he admired Mr. Shum's work. C/Lin asked Mr. Shum to explain the negative impact to the project if the Commission were to require him to comply with the setback requirement, Mr. Shum used the drawings to again point out that from the Mirage Lane side going down into the canyon is much steeper than it is on the other side (Indian Creek). He could create an ugly building by taking the canopy out and putting the building there to meet the requirement. But the question is, can the City work with him to design a building that the City can be proud of that meets the architectural requirements. Strictly from a code compliance standpoint he could remove the canopy and the eye would immediately encounter a two-story building. He felt that in addition to the grading issue there was some cooperation between the builder and the City to have an avenue to address this touchy issue:. Ninety percent of the buildings surrounding the project site meet the 20 foot setback.' Because.of the code change they are working with the 10% Code change M D F1 Cab -T JANUARY 24, 2012 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION which to him places a burden on the owner. Because aesthetics are involved he stepped forward to work with the City to overcome the. adversities to create a better product. Chair/Shah asked if it was 2000 when the setbacks changed from 20 feet to 30 feet and CDD/Gubman stated that it was actually 1998, but in the bigger picture, the development of the surrounding homes did occur beginning in the mid 1960's. C/Torng asked for clarification that without the canopy the setback would exceed 30 feet. Mr. Shum responded that the one-story canopy is about 10 feet which reduces the impact of having a two-story structure sitting at the corner. Chair/Shah felt the elevation was enhanced by the canopy because it is part of the architectural design he created. Sometimes little people get trapped. in= new regulations. and his concern is . to compromise to everyone's advantage for this corner lot and they are only asking for the short side to' be 24 feet and not the long side which actually meets the requirement. Mr. Shum responded to Chair/Shah he believed Mirage Lane was dedicated at 60 feet in width. Chair/Shah closed the public hearing. C/Nelson commented that the Commission has made the decision in the. past to reduce the front yard setback to reduce grading on several occasions. He has not changed that view. There is no one present who opposes this project and he believed that, any variation, to what was approved previously for this project he will oppose. C/Torng stated that the Commission always has a problem with a minor variance but after the applicant's explanation he believes there is merit to the project. Although he . personally does not favor variances, in this situation it is acceptable to him. C/Lin reiterated his contention that a two-sforystructure would look okay and if the elevation were lowered, the applicant would reduce the fill in the back by about a foot and a half. He does not see a lot of impact by moving it -back to 30 feet from a 24 foot setback at all. Chair/Shah agreed that variances have been. approved before: Once a building is moved back the design would have to be revised and the geotechnical impacts would have to be recalculated.• JANUARY 24, 2012 ;3 9 PAGE 10 �FT PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nelson stated that the Commission just discussed a proposal to extend a house toward the rear using the same setback as when the county was in charge. Any building, any residence in "The Country Estates' is considered imposing by anyone who does not live in "The Country Estates and he does not find that a valid reason to re-engineer the project. C/Torng moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Development Review, Minor Variance, and Tree Permit No. PL2011-449, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried 3-1 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Torng, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Lee PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Torng said he would miss having the Commission meetings in the SCAQMD Auditorium. He thanked staff for their reports and for a good meeting. Chair/Shah said he would miss the SCAQMD Auditorium and looked forward to the new City offices location. He said he, appreciated tonight's spirited discussions. C/Lin said he agreed with Chair/Shah and if everyone agreed there would be no need for meetings and discussions. He wished everyone a Happy New.Year. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/Gubman reported that the February 14 Planning Commission is being canceled for lack of agenda items. Staff anticipates the February 28 meeting will be held in the community room at the new City Hall. Projects for the February 28 agenda are the following:. Proposed modifications to a. home under construction . at 22909 Ridge Line Road and a code, amendment/code cleanup. In reference to the February 28 meeting, Chair/Shah stated that he. most.likely would have to recuse himself from the item concerning proposed modifications to 22909 Ridge Line Road. C/Torng asked if an open house was planned for the new City Hall. CDD/Gubman responded. that an open house was proposed for February and Commissioners would be advised by email of the date. M O P . JANUARY 24, 2012 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Shali adjourned the regular meeting at 8:15'pm to February 28, 2012. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 28th day of February, 2012. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development. Director Jack Shah, Chairman l u} M 111 ll� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21825 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NO. MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICATION REQUEST: APPLICANT: 7.1 February 28, 2012 Development Code Amendment Planning Case No. PL2011-454 Citywide To amend the following sections of Title 22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code: 22.43; 22.10.040; 22.10.030 Table 2-5 and Table 2-6; 22.42.100; 22.38.030; 22.36.130 Table 3-14; 22.34.030; 22.42.130(g)(3)(d); 22.56.020; 22.47.020; 22.68.030(b); 22.66.050(c) and (d); 22.80.020; 22.22.080(b)(6); 22.16.060; 22.22.120; 22.20.040; 22.22.080(b)(7); 22.42.110(c); 22.42.060(2)6); 22.22.100(a) City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department Staff requests that the Planning Commission continue this matter to March 13, 2012. Katherine Laufe rger Contract Senior Planner tU/ r- Greg Gubn an, AICP Community Development Director i I I I = = 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: 7.2 ME=ETING DATE: February 28, 2012 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. PI- 2012-08 PROJECT LOCATION: 1273 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN 8293-044-005) PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar/Grand LLC 2717 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 APPLICANT: Jaime Dietz -Velez 1353 W. Hill Ave. Fullerton, CA 92833 Summary The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow a jiu-jitsu studio in an existing 1,860 square -foot unit located in Towne Centre Village, a shopping center located at the southwest corner of Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard, anchored by an Albertsons supermarket. The proposed operator under this CUP request is an international franchiser of jiu-jitsu studios for children and adults. The jiu-jitsu studio offers classes Monday through Friday in the evening and Saturday during the day. The proposed jiu-jitsu studio is compatible with other existing businesses at Towne Centre Village. After evaluating the application, staff finds that the proposed Conditional Use Permit application complies with the City's development standards and meets the findings required of the project. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08, subject to the conditions of approval contained in the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND: The proposed jiu-jitsu studio (Gracie Barra Diamond Bar) is located within Towne Centre Village, a 6.76 -acre shopping center located on Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue. Tenants of the center include a supermarket, retail, restaurants, fast- food take-out, a bank, a veterinary office, and personal services. Total leasable area is approximately 78,651 square feet. The applicant proposes to occupy an existing 1,860 square -foot, first -floor unit located at the south end of Towne Centre Village. The site was developed in 1983 under Los Angeles County standards. The existing unit was previously occupied by a custom frame shop. The project site is legally described as Lot 5 of Tract No. 40972, and the Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 8293-044-005. Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 Page 2 of 6 General Plan Designation Zoning District Land Use General C-3 Retail, Service, and Commercial Restaurant Uses Retail, Service, and Nortl� General Commercial C-3 Restaurant Uses South General Commercial C-3 Post Office Medium -High East RMH Residential Condominiums Densi Residential West Medium Density RLM Residential Condominiums Residential Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 Page 2 of 6 ANALYSIS: Review Authority (Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.581 A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required for uses whose effect on the surrounding area cannot be determined before being analyzed for suitability at a particular location. The C-3 zone requires approval of a CUP for a martial arts studio. When reviewing a CUP, consideration is given to the location, design, configuration, operational characteristics and potential impacts to determine whether or not the proposed use will pose a detriment to the public health, safety and welfare. If it can be found that the proposed use is likely to be compatible with its surroundings, the Commission may approve the proposed use subject to conditions stipulating the manner in which the use must be conducted. If the Commission finds that the proposed use is likely to be detrimental to the general peace, health and general welfare, then it must deny the request. Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 Page 3 of 6 When a CUP is approved, it runs with the land and all conditions placed on the CUP are binding on all successors in interest. In other words, if the owners of the proposed jiu-jitsu studio were to close the business after it has begun operating, a new tenant could locate in the space and operate the same type of business. The new tenant would be required to comply with the same conditions as the previous tenant and would not be permitted to expand the studio without full review and approval by the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permit Gracie Barra is an international franchiser of jiu-jitsu studios for children and adults that started in 1986. Currently, there are locations across the country with the United States headquarters located in Irvine. The proposed hours of operation are from 4:00 pm to 8:00 pm Monday and Wednesday, 6:00 pm to 8:30 pm Tuesday and Thursday, 6:30 pm to 7:30 prn Friday, and 11:30 am to 12:30 pm on Saturday (see schedule below). Each class lasts one hour. There will be two employees at the location at all times. Each class will have eight students with a total number of 10 people at the location at one time. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Kids Class Kids Class Fuentals ndam Closed 4:00 pm- 4:00 pm- 11:30 am - 5:00 m 5:00 m 12:30 m Fundamentals Advanced Fundamentals Advanced Fundamentals Closed 5:30 pm- 6:00 pm- 5:30 pm- 6:00 pm- 7:30 pm - 6:30 pm 7:00 pm 6:30 pm 7:00 pm 8:30 pm Advanced Fundamentals Advanced Fundamentals 7:00 pm- 7:30 pm- 7:00 pm- 7:30 pm- Closed 8:00 Pm 8:30 pm 8:00 Pm 8:30 pm Parking and Circulation Shopping centers over 50,000 square feet in size are required to provide one parking space for every 300 square feet of gross floor area. The parking requirements for businesses approved under a CUP (i.e., the veterinary office and massage business) are calculated separately. Towne Centre Village provides 290 off-street parking spaces. The existing gross floor area of the shopping center, excluding the veterinary office and massage business, is 72,891 square feet, and therefore requires 243 parking spaces. The 2,400 square -foot veterinary office requires 10 spaces. The 1,500 square -foot massage business requires six spaces. With the proposed jiu-jitsu studio, a total of 273 spaces will be required, and therefore a surplus of 17 spaces will remain if the proposed CUP is approved (see following table). Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 Page 4 of 6 Parking Requirement Compatibility with Neighborhood The existing business is located commercial shopping centers to ti family residential to the east, and a is compatible with the surrounding homes, which is a convenient neighborhood. within an existing shopping center, surrounded by -le north, single-family residential to the west, multi - post office to the south. The proposed jiu-jitsu studio neighborhood because it is located near single-family location for families located in the immediate The shopping center has numerous different uses including a grocery store, restaurants, and other retail and service uses. As such, the operational characteristics of the proposed jiu-jitsu studio are compatible with the existing uses in the shopping center. -.--- ------ Proposed Jiu-Jitsu Studio Location Project Site Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 Page 5 of 6 Parking Parkings Use Sq. Ft. Parking Ratio Required Provide Shopping Center 72,891 1/300 sq. ft. 243 Diamond Bar Vet 2,400 1/250 sq. ft. 10 AA&FC Health Center 11500 1/250 sq. ft. 6 (Massage Business) Proposed Jiu-Jitsu 1,860 1/150 sq. ft. plus one 14 Studio per employee Total 78,651 273 290 Compatibility with Neighborhood The existing business is located commercial shopping centers to ti family residential to the east, and a is compatible with the surrounding homes, which is a convenient neighborhood. within an existing shopping center, surrounded by -le north, single-family residential to the west, multi - post office to the south. The proposed jiu-jitsu studio neighborhood because it is located near single-family location for families located in the immediate The shopping center has numerous different uses including a grocery store, restaurants, and other retail and service uses. As such, the operational characteristics of the proposed jiu-jitsu studio are compatible with the existing uses in the shopping center. -.--- ------ Proposed Jiu-Jitsu Studio Location Project Site Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 Page 5 of 6 Additional Review The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project and included their comments in the attached resolution as conditions of approval. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site on February 17, 2012, and the notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Tribune and San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspapers on February 17, 2012. The project site was posted with a notice display board, and a copy of the public notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This 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 the provisions of Article 19 Section 15301(a) (Interior alterations involving partitions and electrical conveyances) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment #1) approving Conditional Use Permit No. PL2012-08, to allow a jiu-jitsu studio, based on the findings of DBMC Section 22.58, subject to conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Prepared by: Natalie Tobon Planning Technician Attachments: Reviewed by: r � r Katherine Laufen rger Senior Planner 1. Draft Resolution No. 2012 -XX and Conditions of Approval 2. Site Plan and Floor Plan Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 Page 6 of 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PL 2012-08, TO OPERATE A JIU-JITSU STUDIO IN AN EXISTING 1,860 SQUARE -FOOT UNIT LOCATED AT TOWNE CENTRE VILLAGE, LOCATED AT 1273 SOUTH DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 8293-044-005). A. RECITALS I 1. Property owner, Diamond Bar/Grand LLC, and applicant, Jaime Dietz -Velez, have filed an application for Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 to operate a jiu-jitsu studio in an existing 1,860 square -foot unit located at 1273 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California ("Project Site"). 2. It is located in the Regional Commercial (C-3) zone and is consistent with the General Commercial land use designation of the General Plan. 3. The legal description of the subject properties is Lot 5 of Tract 40972. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 8293-044-005. 4. On February 17, 2012, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site and public notices were posted at the City's designated community posting sites on February 17, 2012. In addition to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a display board and the notice was posted at three other locations within the project vicinity. 5. On February 28, 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: RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1 2. 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. 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(a) (Interior alterations involving partitions and electrical conveyances) 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 22.58 this Planning Commission hereby finds and approves as follows: Conditional Use Permit Review Findings (DBMC Section 22.58) 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a conditional use permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code; Pursuant to DBMC Section 22.10.030, Table 2-6, a martial arts studio is permitted in the C-3 zoning district with approval of a conditional use permit. Through compliance with the conditions of approval stipulating the manner in which the use must be conducted, the proposed use will be compatible with neighboring uses in the shopping center and surrounding neighborhood. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan; The proposed use is consistent with General Plan Strategy 1.3.3: ("Encourage neighborhood serving retail and service commercial uses') in that the proposed jiu jitsu studio meets Strategy 1.3.3 because the proposed business provides services to Diamond Bar residents. 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 Proposed Use is located within a multi -tenant shopping center occupied by various restaurants, office, and service uses. As such, the operational characteristics are compatible with the existing uses within the shopping center and surrounding neighborhood: 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 project site is located within an existing commercial shopping center that currently has other uses that service the community, such as various service and retail uses. The proposed jiu jitsu studio is physically suitable with the subject site because it is an existing building and no additional square -footage is being proposed. Additionally, the jiu jitsu studio will be using existing access and parking with the existing shopping center. 5. Granting the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located; and 2 CUP PL2012-08 - Prior to the issuance of any city permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions of approval within the resolution, and the Building and Safety Division. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15301(a) (Interior alterations involving partitions and electrical conveyances) of the CEQA Guidelines. D. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Basedupon the findings and conclusion 'set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: 1. The establishment is approved as a jiu-jitsu studio as described in the application on file with the Planning Division, the Planning Commission staff report -for Conditional Use Permit No. PL2012-08 dated January 10, 2012, and the Planning Commission minutes pertaining thereto, hereafter referred to as the "Use". The use shall be limited to a jiu-jitsu studio. 2. The Use shall substantially conform to the approved plans as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and on file with the Community Development Department. . 3. This Conditional Use Permit shall be valid only for 1273 South Diamond Bar Boulevard, as depicted on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. If the proposed use moves to a different location or expands into additional tenant spaces, the approved Conditional Use Permit shall terminate and a new Conditional Use Permit, subject to Planning Commission and/or City Council approval shall be required for the new location. If the Use ceases to operate, the approved Conditional Use Permit shall expire without further action by the City. 4. If, at any time, the City finds that the proposed use is the cause of a parking deficiency or other land use impact, the Community Development Director may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to consider amending this Conditional Use Permit to address such impacts. 5. No changes to the approved scope of services comprising the use shall be permitted unless the applicant first applies for an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit, pays all application processing fees and receives approval from the Planning Commission and/or City Council. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and 3 CUP PL2012-08 (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to the property owners, Diamond Bar/Grand LLC, 2717 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA 92663; and applicant, Jaime Dietz -Velez, 1353 West Hill Ave, Fullerton, CA 92833. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: I, Greg Gubman, 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 28th day of February 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary CUP PL2012-08 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT #: Conditional Use Permit No. PL2012-08 SUBJECT: To allow a liu-iitsu studio in an existing 1,860 square -foot unit located in Towne Centre Village PROPERTY Diamond Bar/Grand LLC 2717 West Coast Highway, Newport OWNER(S): Beach, CA 92663 APPLICANT: Jaime Dietz -Velez 1353 West Hill Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92833 LOCATION: 1273 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. 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 Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 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. (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 5 CUP PL2012-08 approval of this Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. The business owners and all designers, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond Bar Business License, and zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 5. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of. the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 7. To ensure compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable codes, the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to periodic review. If non-compliance with conditions of approval occurs, the Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit. The Commission may revoke or modify the Conditional Use Permit. 8.- Property owner/applicant shall remove the public -hearing notice board within three (3) days of this project's approval: 9. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and - Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. B. FEES/DEPOSITS 1. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but. not limited to Planning, - Building and Safety Divisions, and Public Works Department) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building permits, 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. 6 CUP PL2012-08. - C. TIME LIMITS 1. The approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2012-08 shall expire within two (2) years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per DBMC 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. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020J. FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 11 2. 3. 4. 9. Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e., 2010 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the California Electrical Code) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of plan check submittal. If the existing building is fire sprinklered, LA County Fire shall review and approve plans for fire sprinkler location. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all California Building. Code and State Fire Marshal regulations. have been met. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. Every permit issued by the Building and Safety Division shall expire if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or work has discontinued and not been signed -off on the job card by the building inspector. Construction activities causing the operation of any tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall be conducted Mon. — Sat. between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 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. This project shall comply with -all Accessibility Code requirements including accessible parking, path of travel, restrooms, drinking fountains, etc. Provide compliance with van accessible parking, path of travel, etc. Reception counter shall comply with the Title 24 accessibility requirements. Existing components shall be upgraded to current code per CBC 11346.2:1. "Separate permit shall be required for all wall and monument signs" and shall be noted on plans. The existing parking and path of travel to the tenant improvement shall be upgraded as required per CBC 11346.2:1 and 1129B. 7 - CUP PL2012-06 10. Doors to the accessible bathroom shall maintain 5' clear on the push side and 4' on the pull side. 11. Number of plumbing fixtures shall be in compliance with CPCT-4-1. 12. Occupant load sign shall be posted which indicates occupant load below 50. 13. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 14. AQMD notification is required at least 10 days prior to any demolition. 15. All workers on the job shall be covered by workmens compensation insurance under a licensed general contractor. 16. Any changes to approved plans during the course of construction shall be approved by the City prior to proceeding with any work. 17. Electrical work shall be performed by a licensed electrician for relocation of electrical panel. END 8 CUP PL2012-00 W �0 uj uj U z w Co U °o w E 0 rti JnkIIA'V (JfkV4o i� 6 U rW 1 r fr. . 011 n Attachment 2 POGENERAL I -SPA GENERA SPECIFICATIONS ISPECIFICATIC AwMULENGTH - MAI N1oiH - �. BOUARE FOOTAGE 1 PERIMETER DEPW TO RASED BOND BM. 6I l' ' GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS __ I 1 JY,o WS -1�nC• 'tUGa��(?'/l o k F a41e ON ... EQUIPMENT IXGAYATI I - (J -_ I �. �' p 1, AOCESS, FEET FILTER TYPE DOU{�V CR2ItX' G`e I TRACTOR TYPE SEPARATION TANK — — — 21 ✓ I 'aha 1%t Q\CGW rat HEATER Ilnt),J�/E:�S LCt,+ty' 'l�U•\ MOUTION be vh°vea t.'qd aVF 4revka� DEEP -END SPBPUMOOSTER 3..k`AYWv� N" _I MCY\S `ock,rY, � WP �flvV\ _ pyCCSGcTV, I.Jgk) W\AY�U � ��I��YNSiT� GRADINGDDG pEANEROF JETS n n I N OF LOADS INC CLEANER \ - I1�' Calcc� v 1��•b"c^td�� wry}I Yc STEEL _.ELECTRICALURCHARGE PER DT- - I) kO "' ,�,,L�'��T'p _t+1r�1�T. TRANS BARS RUN �-"ocki' [�tlw.$, 1 SPECIAL DETAILS SUB -PANEL REMOTE YI I��t AR SINTCH - -_ I. MCjnS A+l� IYq (1 YYtev\� �OGi( OXVe+tC GUNNE' J.BOX LOCATION INSPECTION ' qVi (� (n V4: A\ (loyf2 IlN� f V\`)i Mi/l1a"t I1 IEOE 1 RED BRA55. 3'la I �I 11 V"^ t A f V�V� ROPE RINGS U,,T(S)- POO cn SURCHARGE UGHT(S)- SPA AA � W i . l � �Yjli OUTLETS �^� we✓ P\vn a\o pETAILS' ELECTRONICS 1 �1� urm�l �' �� d�;�iNq TV��✓aT�\ PLASTER OPTION EQUIP. MLOR �� I 1 �l ' l (!, ! r5�� EQU P(ME SPECIAL �� y\TEJ�t Wi� Imo^ PLUMBING I TM `CC4Svi G ; NT Ir IV\��j tl kfi� ��i ? '1'wQ , '.' f Ip'{ \ FLOWS FILTER RUN C v �` AIMAOE MOF RETURN LINE ro C3S s / I lj lZ 0\5 V'Y(a _ . BACKWASH LINE TILE COPING NEATER LOCATION CR HEATF_R CAS LINE - \\ SPA DAM WIDTH TILE ON STEPS ADDPL GAS UNE. TLE 1SEAT SHUT-OFF VALVE MA MASTIC0 ' - HYDRO REUEF VAL REQ.'0-- ` q1 ya 1�0tV1 \.l N��d I4ROUNDS FOUNTAIN . aV\a OCPe 'iG V'C ( IROUT SOLAR SNB OUT ?Sevk �VI/'V,e.. 7\ Y COPNG TYPE i 1 DECKING // %% MASONRY FINISH �I 66� S 11, STEPS COLOR CONTROL JOINTS . BRICK RUNNERS PLANTERS FOOTINGS RETAINING WALL(S) MASTIC BLOCK FENCE DRAN UNE SIZE FIRE PIT TERMINATION POINT CANT. FORMING - INSTAL JIG NOTES: PLOT PLAN SCALE 1/8°=1'-O° EXCLUSIVELY I s'EET CITY HOME PHONE FOR: DAYTIME PHONE - - 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: 7.3 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2012 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 PROJECT LOCATION: 22909 Ridge Line Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN 8713-005-006) PROPERTY OWNER: Paul Ghotra 1241 S. Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANTS: Pete Volbeda Sam Bhogal 180 N. Benson #D 23415 Pleasant Meadow Upland, CA 91786 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Summary On June 28, 2011, it was brought to the Planning Commission's attention that the new residence under construction at 22909 Ridge Line Road was not being built per the approved plans. Staff inspected the site and found that portions of the site were graded to higher elevations than what was indicated on the approved plans, and that retaining walls exceeded maximum permissible heights. The Country Estates Homeowner's Association (HOA) was also aware of the discrepancies and ordered the owner to halt work on the project. Staff and HOA representatives have since met with the property owner and construction manager several times to determine how the issue of noncompliance can be addressed. The applicants are requesting approval for revisions to the height of the building pad for the new single-family residence that was approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2007. The project designers have devised a plan to reduce the exposed heights of the retaining walls to comply with the height limits set forth when the project was originally approved; but are requesting as -built approval for the elevated pad and finished grade elevations, which average approximately two feet higher than the originally approved plans. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a hearing for this matter, take all factors into account, consider the applicant's proposal, and direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve or deny the applicant's request. BACKGROUND: Site Description: The project site is located within The Diamond Bar Country Estates (The Country) and is located on the north side of Ridge Line Road.. The property is legally described as Lot 30 of Tract No. 30091, and the Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 8713-005-006. Project History Project Site On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Development Review No. 2006-38 for an 11,321 square -foot, three-story residence, and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 to reduce the front setback to 24 feet (30 feet is required in the Rural Residential zoning district) and increase the height of the proposed retaining walls to 8 feet (6 feet is the maximum height allowed by the Development Code). The original staff report and resolution are provided as Attachment 4. Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 2 of 9 Grading plans were approved on August 13, 2008, and a grading permit was released on August 25, 2008. Retaining wall permits were issued on April 26, 2010. The project is currently in the foundation stage, where the foundation has been poured for the lower building pad. On June 28, 2011, Dr. Michael B. Madanat attended the Planning Commission meeting to raise concerns that the project at 22909 Ridge Line Road was not being built according to approved plans. Dr. Madanat's family resides at 22835 Ridge Line Road, which is next door and down slope from the subject property. Dr. Madanat expressed concerns regarding the visual impacts that the project's retaining walls had created as a result of being too tall and high, and provided the Commission with photographs of the walls in question. The minutes for this meeting are provided as Attachment 5. In response to Dr. Madanat's concerns, the City's Grading Inspector visited the site on June 30, 2011, and found that the retaining wall heights were not in conformance with the approved grading plans. On July 19, 2011, staff met with Jim Gardner, general manager, and Debbie Simonian, Community Services Director, from The Country to discuss the subject property. They informed staff that The Country hired an engineer to survey the site and found that the walls and building pad elevations were on average two feet higher than the approved plans. The Building Official also confirmed that the wall heights in excess of eight feet were not in conformance with the approved retaining wall plans and permits. On July 20, 2011, Mr. Gardner sent the property owner a letter to stop all work on the property until the height of the retaining walls and the building pads were lowered to comply with the Planning Commission approved plans. On November 19, 2011, staff received a letter from George Madanat, 22835 Ridge Line Road, stating his family's opposition to anything other than what was originally approved by the Planning Commission. The letter is included as Attachment 2. Mr. Gardner also indicated to staff that the HOA would likely not approve as -built grading plans to reflect the current field conditions on the project site. (The owner is required to obtain both Planning Commission and HOA approval to modify the project.) Staff has had a number of meetings with the applicants, property owner, and civil engineer to address and discuss solutions to the existing issues on site. The project proponents were advised that any proposal other than lowering the grades to be consistent with the originally approved plans would be referred back to the Planning Commission. Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 3 of 9 Applicant's Request The applicants are requesting Planning Commission approval to maintain the height of the building pads, and lower the height of the structure by two feet so that the building envelope remains consistent with the height that was originally approved. The applicants are also proposing to reduce the exposed height of the retaining walls to comply with the height approved by the Planning Commission; however, because the finished grades adjacent to the walls are higher than what is shown on the original plans, the walls would be at higher elevations. In addition, the applicants are proposing to build a retaining wall, maximum fou -foot high, at the west property line (adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road) and install landscaping along the west portion of the property to screen the retaining walls and structure. The graphics below will assist in understanding the reduction in wall heights and the two- foot reduction of the main structure that is proposed. Existing Wall Heights Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 4 of 9 4.6' 4.7' 11.3' 10.2' u.a 7.4' za' 14.5' F1021 10.7' 4.5 5.4' 6.2' Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 4 of 9 Rear F -- � 7.0' 6.21 Proposed Wall Heights r 2A.I.pe 8' Section Showing the Changes in the Proposed Building Height (Section A -A of the Grading Plan included in Attachment 7) proved Finished Floor -1179 onosed Finished Floor— Approved Finished Floor —1189 Proposed Finished Floor — 1190.8 Legend — — Previously Approved Height/Elevation Proposed Height/Elevation - Ridge Line Rd. Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 5 of 9 Landscaoin The applicants are proposing to modify their landscaping plan to have additional landscaping within the side and rear yards adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road for additional screening. Shrubs such as Texas Privet and New Zealand Flax are being proposed adjacent to the west property line. Both of these shrubs grow to approximately eight feet in height. New Zealand Flax is a perennial and Texas Privet is an evergreen, therefore, landscaping will be there year-round. In addition, three 24" box Brisbane Box trees are proposed along the property line for additional screening. ANALYSIS: Review Authorit Staff is referring the proposed project revisions to the Planning Commission because staff deems them to be major changes. "Major changes" to a project as defined under Development Code Section 22.66.060, include revisions to features of the project that were (1) a basis for finding in a negative declaration or an environmental impact report; or (2) specifically addressed or were a basis for conditions of approval for the project that was a specific consideration by the review authority in the approval of the permit. Any major changes shall only be approved by the review authority through a new entitlement or modification, processed in compliance with the Development Code (Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.66.060). Required Findings for Approval: While the proposed changes meet the Development Code standards, and are consistent with the Minor Variance approved in 2007, the Planning Commission must also be able to still make all of the Development Review findings in the affirmative, as set forth under Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48.040. The findings originally made by the Planning Commission are found on page 2 of Resolution No. 2007-37 (Attachment 4). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission revisit the Development Review findings in light of proposed changes to the project, and determine if the findings can still be made in the alternative. Finding No. 1: Is the design and layout of the proposed development 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)? Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 6 of 9 Staff Discussion: The proposed changes to the approved plans are consistent with the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and development standards. Therefore, staff believes that this finding can still be met. Finding No. 2: Will the design and layout of the proposed development not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will it not create traffic or pedestrian hazards? Staff Discussion: The neighbors, most directly affected by the project expressed objections about the heights of the retaining walls and elevated pad that were not built to the approved grading plans and Planning Commission approved plans. The applicant has tried to address these issues by lowering the overall height of the residence by two feet and lowering the height of the existing retaining walls and adding landscaping to screen the walls. The Planning Commission must determine if the proposed changes are sufficient so that this finding can still be made in the affirmative; or if additional measures must be taken, up to and including regrading the entire site to be consistent with the approved plans. Finding No. 3: Is the architectural design of the proposed development compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will it maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48: Development Review Standards, the City's Design Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan? Staff Discussion: The proposed changes will not change the architectural design of the residence. It is designed to be compatible with the eclectic character of the neighborhoods in The Country. Therefore, staff believes this finding can still be met. Finding No. 4: Will the design of the proposed development provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, color, and will remain aesthetically appealing? Staff Discussion: No changes to the materials, textures, and colors that were approved with the Planning Commission approved plans are proposed. Therefore, staff believes that this finding can still be met. Finding No. 5: Will the proposed development not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious [e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property] to the properties or improvements in the vicinity? Staff Discussion: The neighbors have gone on record at the Planning Commission meeting and in writing that the increased grading elevations and retaining walls have a negative effect on the enjoyment of their property. The HOA has stated that it is not inclined to approve the modifications to the site. In response to these concerns the applicant is proposing to reduce the height of the retaining walls and enhance the screening between the subject property and the down-slope property. The Planning Commission must consider these factors and determine whether the remedies Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 7 of 9 proposed by the applicant ameliorate those concerns raised by the affected parties to the extent that this finding can still be made in the affirmative. Finding No. 6: Has the proposed project been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)? Staff Discussion: The proposed changes do not change the intensity of the project and are exempt from CEQA. Therefore, staff believes that this finding can still be met. Based on staff's discussion, staff finds recommends Findings 2 and 5 as the basis for the Commission's discussion on whether approve or deny the project. ALTERNATIVES: After holding the public hearing and considering all testimony, the Planning Commission may take one of the following actions: 1. Determine that the findings for the changes of the Development Review approval, contained in Section 22.48 of the Diamond Bar Development Code cannot be made, continue the matter to March 13, 2012 and direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial based on the negative findings articulated by the Commission; OR 2. If the Planning Commission determines that there is evidence and information to support findings for approval, continue the matter to March 13, 2012, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval based on the positive findings articulated by the Commission; OR 3. Continue the matter to a later date for additional information. CONCLUSION In light of the analysis provided in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take all factors, history, and issues into account and consider the applicant's proposal, and provide direction to staff. Additional Review The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project, and their comments will be included in the resolution as conditions of approval if the project is approved. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: On February 17, 2012, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 8 of 9 posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This 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 the provisions of Article 19 Section 15304 (minor alterations to land) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Prepared by: Natalie Tobon Planning Technician Attachments Reviewed by: I A6�z Greg Gubman Community Development Director 1. Applicant's Written Request and Burden of Proof 2. Neighbor's Letter 3. Photo Index 4. Staff Report and Approved Resolution from July 24, 2007 5. Minutes from the June 28, 2011 6. Grading Inspector's report 7. Planning Commission Approved Plans from July 24, 2007 8. Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, Sections Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 9 of 9 Attachment 1 City of Diamond Bar Planning Department Date 9 20 2011 22909 Ridge Line, Diamond Bar Request for Paul Gotthra 22909 Ridge Line, Diamond Bar November 01, 2011 This is a history and background of why we are requesting a new approval from the city of Diamond Bar This problem was caused by a surveyor error. The builder contracted with a consultant to set the stakes and location of all the retaining walls. The surveyor starts at the bottom of the site and sets the lowest walls 1st. The lowest walls are constructed, backfilled, and then the next wall is staked and constructed. We do not have a means of checking our surveyor unless we obtain another survey. We basically have to trust our surveyor that he did it correctly. In this case we did not find out that we were off until we poured the basement retaining walls and the slab for the basement. The way we found out was that the owner of this property requested his neighbor to remove the fence that was 8 ft inside ,our property. The neighbor discussed this with the Homeowners association and they retained another surveyor to verify the completed work on our site and the association was infonned that we built the retaining walls and slab 2 ft higher than the approved plans. The Homeowners association then issued a stop order and to submit for corrections. These are the following changes we are making. We are submitting revised drawings showing all walls a maximum of 8 ft exposed. We are also revising the steps between the retaining walls to keep the walls less than 8 ft. height. Since the new grades surrounding the house are approximately 2 ft higher than our approval, the envelope showing the maximum permitted height of the house is also 2 ft higher. Thus the house, even though 2 ft higher than the approved Finish Floor elevation, is still in compliance with the Municipal Code. This does mean that the house sits 2'-2" higher than the street level as approved, but there is no criteria in the Municipal Code about the height of the house as it relates the street elevation. We understand the neighbor is concerned about the appearance of the 8 ft high retaining walls, and although the walls were approved with landscaping to screen their appearance, we have added additional trees on our landscape plan to screen these walls further from view. We look forward to the Planning Commission approval Pete Volbeda, Architect r d' CM 0 DIA' ONO BAR 2012 JN 25 P11 5' 12 City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765 Re: 22909 Ridge Line Paid Ghotra residence Builder: Sam Bhogal for United Development Date 123 2012 Plarnvng Case No. PL 2011-387 Additional notes regarding Paul Ghotra house. To mitigate the effects of constructing retaining walls and a residence that are elevated 2 feet higher than originally proposed, we have screened the retaining walls with extensive landscaping, especially on the west side of the property and we have the reduced the overall height of the residence by 2 ft so that the overall height and appearance from adjacentpropelties is the same. The wall between the 2 properties is proposed since the neighbor graded his lot at that side necessitatig the new wall., Peteb J/ Attachment 2 George M. Madanat 22835 Ridge Line Rd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 November 16, 2011 Mr. Greg Gubman Community Development Director City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear Mr. Gubman, First and foremost, my family and I want to thank you (and your staff) for your effort the last several months in examining the series of violations that have emerged from the development of our neighbor's property at 22909 Ridge Line Rd. As you are aware, the project at 22909 Ridge Line has caused me and my family to suffer from an enormous amount distress, especially at a time when the cost to renovate our fire damaged home is approaching the $2 million mark. My family and I have placed a great deal of trust in the City of Diamond Bar and the Country Estates Association, and we have gone great lengths to remain patient and compliant with the rules and regulations of both the City of Diamond Bar and the Country Estates Association. To date, the Contractor's State Licensing Board, EDD, CAL OSHA, the Country Estates Association, the City of Diamond Bar, and licensed surveyors have all conducted investigations into the project at 22909 Ridge Line, all of which have confirmed their suspected violations. As you are probably aware, the surveyor retained by Mr. Bhogal and Mr. Ghotra a couple of months ago indicated in writing (directly on the walls immediately adjacent to my family's home) by how many feet each retaining wall should be cut. This surveyor's findings were consistent with those of the City of Diamond Bar and the Country Estates Association. Our understanding is that Mr. Bhogal and Mr. Ghotra are attempting to submit new development plans reflecting their site "as built." I want to emphasize that my family will not agree to anything different from what was originally approved by the Country Estates Association and the City of Diamond Bar, or anything that should not have been approved by the City of Diamond Bar to begin with. This is not a standard appeal where Mr. Bhogal and Mr. Ghotra might be able to prove that no violation has been committed, or that there isn't enough evidence to enforce a corrective sanction. On the contrary, Mr. Bbogal and Mr. Ghotra have been proven without doubt of knowingly committing a series of very severe violations, violations of which have and continue to substantially interfere with my family's rights, and the submission of "as built" plans are ultimately nothing more than an opportunity to escape punishment, the enforcement of which is necessary to preserve my family's rights. The nearly $2 million my fainly has spent thus far designing and renovating our home was done in reliance that neither the City of Diamond Bar nor the Country Estates Association would allow the lot at 22909 Ridge Line to be engineered to such a horrific state. My family has no desire to modify our landscape or hardscape plans firom what was originally planned and approved because any such modification will be contrary to our original intention to take advantage of the pre-existing abundance of natural light, unobstructed panoramic views from indoors and outdoors, and all other natural characteristics of the terrain that have added not only to the use and enj oyment of our property, but to its desirability and overall value as well. Our expectation is that the City of Diamond Bar and the Country Estates Association will fulfill all of their respective obligations without more delay. Otherwise, my family and I will be left with no choice but to exercise our other options. We sincerely hope that this will be avoided. Thank you for your time. George M. Madanat Cc: Steve. Tye@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us Ling-Liiig-Chaiig@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us CityClerk@diainondbarca.gov TheCountryGM@verizon.net ears 2 a eFN�, apo SCq V/✓t` rsoaz?' �O� <F r• z auw� ?p- 06 q >ers `?On_ EXIST RES PATOI EXIST Cl 6 X 4 X 21/2 FIRE HYDRANT RIDGE PHOTO �N Attachment 3 "M NOV 23 AM 0: 1170 _ —_ IounAx N 53D5445 1180 �xrSl Np" rl� N ICS°mnm.Y Psllcr q fD� R P.1bp N OLLt. - WNIIIY tdK q qe T PPWO LINE SMN ROAD TQ�R,"e f SITE PLAN ay> S MAP rNeq �S9J C a(fJ TIRO AW1TSfi 065' .991.9991 F.0 FT TOTIA YARD VOPN ATIYk6E • X& FT ]199M2o9 ,ZIT'PJM Y Sel&RA C F IT YMO D .. 7140 i Tm A eA rwn r 1150 I eft AN m AFI. Ptl146 N PBNPIHK •1 PAVec TYP AT .i f PPM YW 0 •'_�- 1160 P�1 1o'9o• 1170 _ —_ IounAx N 53D5445 1180 �xrSl Np" rl� N ICS°mnm.Y Psllcr q fD� R P.1bp N OLLt. - WNIIIY tdK q qe T PPWO LINE SMN ROAD TQ�R,"e f SITE PLAN ay> S MAP RECEIVED BY THE CITY GF DIAMOND BAR Q/�j t-tA-1,j _ TM f ti F t Q/�j t-tA-1,j 2gwra-- -L.3Aus OK Attachment 4 KIRI"ar`' PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SII 21825 COPLEY DRIVE -.DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765—TEL (909) 839-7030—FAX (909) 861-3117—www.Cityofdiamondbar.com AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.4 MEETING DATE: July 24, 2007 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. DR 2006-38 & Minor Variance No. MV 2007-06 PROJECT LOCATION: 22909 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICATION REQUEST: To construct an 11,321 sq. ft. three-story single-family residence with an attached 1,350 sq. ft. garage on a 50,767 sq. ft. (1.16 -acre) parcel of land. The applicant is requesting relief from the required front setback and the maximum allowable height of retaining walls. PROPERTY OWNERS: Paul Ghotra 24251 Delta Drive Diamond Barg CA 91765 APPLICANTS: Sam Bhogal 23415 Pleasant Meadow Diamond Bar, CA 91765 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval BACKGROUND: A. Protect Description: The applicant requests approval of a Development Review Application to construct a new 3 story, 11,321 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,350 square foot garage, a swimming pool and a gazebo. The project includes a request to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet and increase the allowable retaining wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet. B. Site Description: The site is located on the north side of Ridgeline Road approximately 450 feet west of Rocky View Road. It is legally described as Lot 30, Tract 30091 and the Tax Assessor Parcel No. is APN 8713-005-006. The lot is 50,767 gross square feet in size and currently undeveloped. The site slopes downward in a northerly direction at an average slope in excess of 50%, therefore it is subject to the City's Hillside Management Ordinance (Section 22.22). ANALYSIS: A. Review Authority (Chapter 22.48) and (Chapter 22.52) The construction of a single family residence requires approval of a Development Review Application. The reduction of the front yard setback from the required 30 feet to 24 feet and the increase in retaining wall height from 6 foot to 8 feet requires approval of a Minor Variance. The Director is the review authority for Minor Variance; in this case, it is the Planning Commission. B. Site and Surrounding General Plan, Zoning and Uses C. Development Review (22.48) 1. Residential District General Development Standards: The following Table 2 compares the proposed project with the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (40,000) RR Zone: General Plan Zone Uses Site Single Family Residential R-1 40,000 RR Vacant North Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential South Single Family Residential R-1 40,000 RR Water Reservoir East Single Family Residential R-1 40,000) RR Residential West Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential C. Development Review (22.48) 1. Residential District General Development Standards: The following Table 2 compares the proposed project with the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (40,000) RR Zone: Page 2 DR 2006-36 R-1(40,000) RR-- Meets. Development - ,Development Proposed Requirements Feature Standard - Minimum lot area 1 Acre 1.16 -acre. Yes Page 2 DR 2006-36 Residential density 1 single-family unit 1 single-family unit Yes - No. Front setback - 30 feet - - 24 feet - Requires a Minor - - Variance 15 ft on one side and 10 ft on 26'-9" - West side Yes the other 17 ft- East side Side setbacks 25 ft between structures on 25 ft between structures _ adjoining parcels - on adjoining parcels 25 ft from property line or 10 to 32 ft from edge of Rear setback buildable pad on a descending buildable pad and Yes slope whichever is applicable average more than 25 ft Lot coverage. 30% 12.5% Yes 4 -ft to create a building pad No Retaining Wall Height6-ft. permitted 8 -ft. high retaining walls Requires a Minor 7 -ft allowable by Director. variance Building height limit_ 35 feet maximum 35 feet Yes No information provided Conditional Landscaping 50% of Front Yard Appears to comply approval One permitted Number of driveways If site has 70 ft. of frontage two 2 driveways Yes are permitted Width of Drive 14 ft. maximum permitted 14 ffi Yes Approach Parking __F2 spaces fully enclosed 6 spaces fully enclosed Yes 2. Site and Grading: The house pad is sited on the relative flat portion of the lot. A two tier terraced retaining walls are used to create a level pad from the edge of the house. Because of the steepness of the lot at the northeast side of the house, the rear yard pad closest point is 10 feet and thA further point is 32 feet; however, the average rear yard is more than 25 feet. Staff believes it meets the intent of the setback. The applicant has used terraced retaining wall of 4 feet or less to create the house pad, which is allowed by Hillside Ordinance. The higher retaining wall of 6 to 8 feet is used to create the pad for the pool deck. This design solution is unique and can be considered necessary because of the site's topography: The applicant indicates that the project will require the import of 4,500 cubic yards of fill to create the building pad. 3. Elevations: The architecture is contemporary with tile roof, stucco wall and. a tower entry element with corithian columns and stained glass. The building design is further treated with elements such. as arched and multi -pane Windows, multiple Corinthian columns and balustrades. The rear elevation is a three-story building plane with roof decks, which create bulk. The building mass at the rear. elevation should be reduced by stepping the roof decks, Page 3 DR 2006-38. - which would give the visual impression of terracing. A condition of approval is _ placed in the attached resolution to eliminate the roof deck at the second floor. 4. Landscaping: The applicant indicates that there are no existing mature trees within the proposed building site. The submitted landscape- plan indicates that seventeen(17) Twenty-four inch box trees are to be planted as part of the proposed project. The Development Code requires that at least 50% of the required front yard setback be landscaped. The applicant has not provided the requested calculations; however, it appears that the proposed project complies with this standard. Staff recommends that a condition of approval to require compliance with the standards for front yard landscaping. Compliance with Hillside Management Ordinance The house pad is sited on a relative flat portion of the lot and oriented parallel to the contours. It used a two-tier terraced retaining wall at 4 feet o r less to create the pad for the house as well as the rear yard. The house comply with the maximum height of 35 feet, however the rear elevation shows excessive bulk. With the condition of approval that eliminates the second story roof deck, the rear elevation would appear to be terraced. As such, staff believes that the project would comply with the Hillside Ordinance: . E. Minor Variance Review .The applicant requests approval of a Minor Variance from the following development standards: 1: A 20% reduction of the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet. 2. An increase in the maximum allowable height of a retaining wall from 6 feet to 8 feet. . In reviewing.the request, staff found that the site's topography and it's shape are unusual that justified for the minor deviation from the development standards. F. Additional Review The Public Works Department, the Building and Safety Department reviewed this project. Their comments are included in both the report and the recommended conditions of approval. - Page 4 - DR 2006-38 G. HOA Review The applicant has been advised to submit the project plans to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Homeowners Association for review and approval. The City's file does not contain any information that this has been accomplished. The project architect has indicated that submittal to the HOA will be accomplished at a later date. H. General Plana Design Guidelines and Compatibility with Neighborhood 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 proposed projectwill not negatively affect the existing surrounding land uses and the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling unit is compatible with the existing neighborhood.' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuantto Sections 15303 and 15332 of the CEQA guidelines:. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution conditionally approving Development Review No. DR 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 subject to the conditions set forth in the attached resolution. Prepared by: Kevie a eo David D. Meyer Nancy F n , AICP LDM Associates, Inc. Commun t Develop nt Plan n.ingConsultant Attachments: 1 Aerial 2. Draft Resolution of Approval with required findings 3. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, and elevations. Director PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, . CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006.38 AND MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2007-06 FOR THE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON LOT NO. 30 OF TRACT 30091, LOCATED AT 22909 RIDGELINE ROAD, - APN: 8713-005.006 A. RECITALS 1. The Planning Commissionconsidered an application filed by Mr. Sam Bhogal, on behalf ofthe property owner, Mr. Paul Ghotra, requestingapprovalof plans to construct anew three-story, 11,312 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,350 square foot garage, a swimming pool and a gazebo at 22909 Ridgeline Road. 2. The subject property is zoned R1-(40,000) RR and it contains 50,767sq. ft. of land area. 3. , The subject property is legally described as Lot 30, Tract 30091 and the Assessor Parcel Number is (APN) 8713-005-006. 4. Public Hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified of the proposed project by mail. Further, a public hearing notice display board was posted at the. site, and at three other locations within. the project vicinity. 5 On. July 24, 2007, 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. 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 proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) in accordance to Sections 15303 and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. 3. Based upon the information contained In the submitted plans, the associated staff report and testimony given at the public hearing the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: MINOR VARIANCE a. There are special circumstances applicable to the property so that the strict application of this development code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self-created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards: The subject property has an average slope in excess of 50% and the buildable portion of the site is substantially reduced because of the natural lot configuration. In an effort to create a dwelling consistent with the size and mass of the surrounding dwellings the project architect has requested that the front yard setback be reduced from 30 feet to 22 feet; and that retaining walls reaching a height of 8 feet be allowed. b. Granting the minor variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district and denied to the property owner for which the minor variance is sought. The adjacent dwelling units were constructed in compliance with development standards that are no longer applicable in the City of Diamond Bar. The current more restrictive development standards significantly impact the design alternatives available to the project architect. In an effort to meet the setback requirements the standard design solution would be to construct more terraced retaining walls. The additional retaining walls may reach a point of being cost prohibitive and the appearance of the numerous walls is contrary to the City's design objectives. C. Granting the minor variance is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. The granting of the setback variance and the increase in the allowable height of retaining walls will aid in achieving the design goals and objectives of the community. The use of additional retaining walls will require additional site grading and the import of substantially more IN material. d. The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The public welfare and safety would be enhanced by the reduction of grading of the portion of the site that will be left in a natural state if the setback and wall height variances are approved. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: 3 Planning Commission Resolulion No. 2007-37 b. Building and Safety Division (1) Fire Department approval is required. Please contact the Fire Department. (2) Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction` (3) Applicant shall submit an application to the Walnut Valley Water District to obtain a "Will. Service" certificate that will meet the domestic and Fire Flow requirementsforthe proposed project. . Written verification shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. C. 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 b. Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this. Resolution, by certified mai! to Mr, Paul Ghotra, 24251 Delta Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, and Mr. Sam Bhogal, 23415 Pleasant Meadow, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: teve Nelson, Chairman L, Nancy Fong, 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 24�h day of July 2007, by the following.vote: AYES: Commissioners: Nolan, Chair/Nelson, Lee, VC/Torng NOES: Commissioners: Wei ABSENT:. Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ATTEST: Nancy Fon retary 5 I I I { COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT No: Development Review No. 2006-38 & Minor Variance No. MV 2007.06 SUBJECT: Construction of a new 3 -story Single -Family Dwelling and Accessory Structures PROPERTY Mr. Paul Ghotra OWIJER: 24251 Delta Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Mr. Sam Bhogal 23415 Pleasant Meadow Diamond Bar, CA 91765 LOCATION: 22909 Ridgeline Road 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 No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 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. _. - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-37 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 No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22.66.050(b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code 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 referenced herein as Exhibit "A" including: site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, and grading on file in 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 owner/occupant. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES 1. Prior to issuance of any permits, detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. 2. Prior to plan check submittal, a final landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted with the type of planting materials, color, size, quantity and location including proposed sites for the planting of protected/preserved trees and additional species to mask the retaining wall height. 3. Prior to the Planning Division's final inspection and/or Certificate of Occupancy issuance, the landscaping/irrigation shall be installed or replaced. Any dense plant material or fencing proposed in the front setback shall not exceed 42 inches maximum height. 4. Prior to releasing occupancy, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that any and all slope vegetation is in satisfactory condition. 8, 'Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-77 - 2. Upon approval of the geolechnical report, the applicant shall submit drainage and grading plans prepared by a Civil Engineer, licensed by the State of California, prepared in accordance with the City's requirements for the City's review and approval. A list of requirements for grading plan check is available from the Public Works Department. All grading (cut and fill) calculations shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the grading plan. 3. Finished slopes shall conform to City Code Section 22.22.080 -Grading. 4. All easements and flood hazard areas shall be clearly identified on the grading plan 5. The grading plan shall show the location of any retaining walls and the elevations of the top of wall/footing/retaining- and the finished grade on both sides of the retaining wall. Construction details for retaining walls shall be shown on the grading plan. Calculations and details of retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. 6. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot -high chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised. . 7. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 8. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 15 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or required by the City Engineer. Driveways with a slope of 15 percent shall incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 9. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 10. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials, and the route of transport. 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a pre -construction meeting shall be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 12. Rough grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundation of the residential structure. Retaining wall permits may be issued without a rough grade certificate: 10 Planning Commission ResoNlion No. 2007-37 6. This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California. Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. 7. Submit Public Works Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations. 8. A height survey shall be required at completion of framing. 10. Building setback from any slope (toe or top) shall meet Chapter 18 of the 2001 California Building Code. 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. 15. Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 16. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.). 17. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. 18. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 19. Specify 1/4/ft slope for all flat surfaces/ decks with approved water proofing material. Also, provide guardrail connection detail (height, spacing, etc.). 20. Private property sewer/septic system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Health > Department and the California Water Control Board. End - 12 - - - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-37 Attachment 5 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28, 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: Commissioner Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Steve Nelson and Tony Torng, Vice Chairman Kwang He Lee and Chairman Jack Shah. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 24, 2011. VC/Lee moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve the May 24, 2011, Regular Meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lin, VC/Lee, Torng, Chair/Shah None Nelson None 7.1 Development Review PL 2011-50 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Development Code Section 22.48, the applicants requested approval to construct a new 11,083 square foot single family residence, 925 square foot second unit, and two garages and a workshop totaling 4,857 square feet on an 8.51 gross acre (370,695 square foot) lot. The subject is zoned Rural JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 2244 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mike Tsai 18240 Senteno Street Rowland Heights, CA 91748 APPLICANT: Roland Wahlroos-Ritter WRoad, LLC 2404 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 9E Los Angeles, CA 90057 CDD/Gubman stated that the applicant requested that this matter be continued to July 12, 2011, to allow for changes to the grading plan to reduce the overall project impact. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. C/Torng moved, C/Nelson seconded, to continue the public hearing to July 12, 2011. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review No. PL2010-401 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Development Code Section 22.48, the applicants requested approval to construct a new 11,266 square -foot single family residence, 1,666 square -foot garage and 588 square feet in patio covers and porches, on a 1.68 gross acre (73,283 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 2127 Derringer Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Sumermal Vardhan 320 Woodruff Walnut, CA 91789 JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 180 N. Benson Avenue, Suite D Upland, CA 91786 PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL 2010-401, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nelson asked what would happen to the second parcel when the 1,000 plus yards is moved to the project site. Is there erosion potential, how will it be restored and what it will look like. PT/Tobon explained that the applicant is currently grading at 2137 Derringer and whatever is being graded for pools and footing is being brought to the project site. C/Nelson asked for confirmation that 2137 Derringer needed to lose some fill and PT/Tobon concurred. C/Lin said that based on the drawing, the garage will be constructed on top of an easement and wondered if the easement had been relocated or vacated. CDD/Gubman said that he did not see a clear delineation of the easement but as he recalled there will be some flat work improvements within the easement area but no structures which may be acceptable to the utility that the easement favors. C/Lin asked if staff knew who owned the easement and CDD/Gubman responded that since there is no clarification on the plans, he would refer the Commissioner to the architect. Pete Volbeda, Architect, stated that at last week's meeting two designs were presented — one house for each lot. And the easement is actually on the southern lot and no plans have yet been submitted for the southern lot, The easement, 'a sewer easement owned by LA County, is not on the subject property and is about 30 feet away from the southern property line. Chair/Shah asked if the easement was moved and Mr. Volbeda responded that rather than moving the easement, they moved the property line between the two parcels farther north of the sewer easement because he realized he could only build south of the easement to make the middle lot look bigger. Chair/Shah asked if the easement stopped on the west end of the project site. Mr. Volbeda explained that the six foot easement runs from the road to the rear property line where it stops. Chair/Shah asked how much dirt would be imported and Mr. Volbeda said he expected the maximum import that would be needed on the site would be less than 1000 cubic yards. There is some extra dirt available on the lot but there is pool excavation, backfilling and final grading to be done so the dirt from the project site will be used first and whatever else is needed will come from outside of the lot. He does not expect the final amount will be anywhere near a 1000 cubic yards but wanted to provide an envelope of that amount just in case. JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Volbeda confirmed to C/Torng that the easement is the same easement referred to at the last Planning Commission meeting. C/Torng said that during the last meeting the applicant indicated they would pave over the easement but not construct a building over the easement. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Shah closed the public hearing. C/Nelson moved, C/Torng seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL 2010-401, 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: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: C/Shah reopened Public Comments: CDD/Gubman advised the Commission that no action can be taken on items raised during public comments.. Chair/Shah repeated to the Commission that no action was to be taken and the matter would be taken under advisement only. Dr. Michael Madanat, 22835 Ridge Line Road, read from a prepared statement regarding apparent misrepresentations to the City and "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association with respect to the 22909 Ridge Line Road project next door to his home which has been shut down by the State of California. He encouraged the Commission to implement more effective safeguards to prevent against unlicensed activity in the future. Dr. Madanat submitted photographs of the project and its possible adverse affects on his property to city staff. Chair/Shah thanked Dr. Madanat and said that they would take his statements under advisement. Dr. Madanat responded to VC/Lee that the retaining wall between his property and 22909 Ridge Line has been built and he is unaware if the wall had been inspected. He asked if he could show photos of the site. JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Torng suggested that staff be given an opportunity to respond to Dr. Madanat's statements before the Commission continued to ask questions or review the photos. Chair/Shah repeated that it is his intention to only take the matter under advisement. At C/Shah's request, CDD/Gubman reiterated his advice that the matter being presented to the Commission is not within its purview. The Commission is a land use authority and not a building commission. His understanding is that the speaker's legal counsel has advised him to make this presentation to the Commission; however, it is totally outside the purview of this Commission. If there are violations of the building code, construction without permits, if there is a contractor who is operating in violation of his license, these are matters that are taken up at City Hall and not by the Planning Commission. C/Nelson asked that if at any point that a violation has been determined, would this Commission be asked to take any action and CDD/Gubman responded no, unless part of that remedy is to seek some land use approval for something that was not previously permitted. For example, if there is illegal and unpermitted construction and that construction requires as an alternative to demolition or other correction of the violation to seek approval of that improvement, the property owner may wish to apply for a variance or seek some other type of entitlement in which case it would come before the Commission. C/Nelson said that he would advise that the speaker be very specific about the violations. Dr. Madanat continued showing the photographs. Chair/Shah requested that the Commission stop discussions on this matter because it was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and suggested that Dr. Madanat share the photos with city staff. He advised Dr. Madanat to take the matter up with the proper city department, state agencies and any other agencies that may be involved, and the Commission will take it under advisement. C/Nelson asked if the neighbor removed the speaker's fence without permission and Dr. Madanat responded yes. C/Nelson told Dr. Madanat that the matter of the fence was an important issue. CDD/Gubman said he was very concerned about what he was hearing and although this is not a matter for the Planning Commission to deliberate or decide, these are serious issues that have been raised and he is more than happy to begin a dialogue with the speaker and work with staff to find out what the background is on this matter and pursue resolution. He preferred to know more about the issue and it is a bit unconventional to have it brought to his attention in this forum but he is looking forward to looking into the matter and would be glad to follow up with the Commission as a JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION matter of interest as to what further actions, if any, will be taken. CDD/Gubman said that there were enforcement issues raised and there are certain limitations to how much he can respond when allegations of that nature are made but he asked that it be perfectly clear that as the director that oversees Code Enforcement and Building and Safety Divisions, he and his staff are very active and very aggressive in dealing with building and zoning violations and staff actively pursues the abatement and prosecution methods to deal with those issues. He assured the Commission that staff does not hesitate to deal with these matters, takes them very seriously and proceed appropriately. Whatever direction the Commission wishes to provide this evening is well -taken but he again assured the Commission that staff takes all of these issues very seriously. Staff deals with a rather sizeable caseload in the enforcement and prosecution matters and staff does follow through. While this is not a matter that the Commission considers, this is something that as the Director, CDD/Gubman deals with on a daily basis and he has the resources to deal with these issues appropriately. C/Torng agreed with C/Nelson that he would like for the Commission to be given an update at the appropriate time as to how these matters will or have been resolved. CDD/Gubman said he would be happy to comply with that request and it would most likely be in a sequence of updates because his experience in these matters is that the City is headed down a long path in pursuit of remedy. C/Lin said he agreed with his colleagues but he cautioned that tonight the Commission is hearing one side of the story. He cautioned the Commission that as CDD/Gubman stated, this matter is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. C/Lin indicated to Dr. Madanat that the proper forum for him to voice his concerns is the City Council and not the Planning Commission. C/Shah said he agreed with his colleagues that this matter should be referred to the proper departments and he concurred with his fellow Commissioners that he too would appreciate updates on a regular basis and especially regarding the matters that reflect the land use. 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nelson said he understood that the Commission made land use decisions but he believed the Commission had to show some degree of accountability and even though it may not be the Commissions final decision about enforcement or violation actions, he believed that the Commission had to give speakers like Dr. Madanat the benefit of the doubt and assure them that they would look into the matter and he appreciated CDD/Gubman's cooperation in that effort. If this body makes decisions and those decisions are not upheld, why is the Commission making decisions at all, and that is the way he feels. VC/Lee said that Dr. Madanat complained about many things which had to do with construction and clearly, this matter should be dealt with by Code Enforcement. As C/Lin said, all sides must be considered. People can share their concerns about JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION anything from their point of view and the Commission should not spend its time dealing with matters that are not of their concern. The speaker can call the City's Building and Safety Department to state his concerns and the proper department will follow up to make certain the project applies with the code. C/Lin asked if the City allowed two side by side and vacant properties to raise elevations by building retaining walls by as much as 15 or 20 feet and CDD/Gubman responded that generally speaking, the property would have to be extremely wide to get a series of four foot tall terraced retaining walls to reach that ultimate pad elevation. If he had more information about what type of entitlements were granted, whether a variance was granted, when a project, if any was approved and so forth, but generally speaking, based on what he heard, it is not something that is provided for in the code without granting a variance. Chair/Shah stated that he believes there is more that meets the eye on the project that the speaker discussed during Public Comments. The Commission does not have the whole story and it should be up to staff to investigate and take any action necessary. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. CDD/Gubman stated that a project the Planning Commission approved for 2488 Alamo Heights Drive was contiguous to a neighboring existing development that has been doing unpermitted grading and construction of retaining walls which has had an effect on the site where the house is proposed because there is potential redirection of drainage onto the new site where the home has been permitted. These unpermitted improvements are preventing the developer's ability to proceed with construction of the project. This is one case where staff is moving forward with filing of a misdemeanor complaint. This is one example and there are others wherein the City deals with these kinds of complaints and takes appropriate action. This is one example of when these situations occur where the project is unpermitted, un -entitled and is creating a nuisance, obstruction or potential hazard staff is doing its best to correct those violations. CDD/Gubman stated that there are two projects on the July 12 agenda, the project that was Indian Creek that was on tonight's agenda and has been continued as well as, a proposed single -story addition to a two-story home on Cold Stream. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Shah adjourned the regular meeting at 8:05 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 26th day of July, 2011. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Jack Shah, Phairman DATE: 6/30/11 TO: Hall & Foreman,. Inc. ATTENTION: Edward Oune FROM: Erwin Ching NAME OF OO NE Mr. Sam Hhogal Attachment 6 21825 EAST COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765.4177 909-839-7040 FAX 909-861-3117 PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION REQUEST FOR INSPECTION JN: 070118.0070 PLAN CHECK NO:. PERMIT NO: JOB LOCATION:_ 22909 Ridge Line Road TELEPHONE NO. (909) 455-2320 GRADING RETAINING WALLS - Pre -Contract . . - ( ) Pre -Contract . . .( J Clearing & Grubbing . ( ) Footing Excavation . .[ ] Rough Grading . . . . . . (X ) Reinforcing Steel _ [.) Sub Drains . . _ . . ( ) Wall Construction (XJ 'Terrace & Down Drains . . ( ) Grouting . . . . . . .[ Final Grading . . . . . . ( ) - Drainage . . . . . . .( ] Other . . . . . . . . . . ( ) - Final . . - . . . • ( ) Other . . . . . . ( ) STORM DRAINS STREETS - Pre -Contract . . . . . . [ ) Pre -Contract Excavation . . . .. ( ) Subgrade . . . .(-) Laying Pipe . . . . . . . ( ) Base . . . . . . .[ ) Manholes . . . . . . . . ( ] Curb and Gutter . . .[ 7 Catch. Basins . . . . . . [ ) sidewalk . . . . . . .( 1 Reinforcing Steel . . . . ( ) Driveway Approach ( 1 Other Structures . . . . ( 1 Cross Gutter . . . . .l ) Final . . . . . . . . . . I J Final . . . . . . . , l 1 Other . . . . . [ 7 Other . . . . . . . . ( ) SEWER Pre -Contract . . .( ) Excavation . . . .[ J Laying Pipe . . . . . ( J Manholes . . . . . . .( J Air Pressure Test . . ( ) Balling . . . . ( ) Final . . . . . Other . . . . . . . . ( i UTILITIES Pre -Contract . . . . .l ) Edison . . . . . . . ( 7 Gas . . . . . . . C 1 GTE . . .. . ( ] Cable T.V. . . . . . .( ) Final . . [ ] Other . . . . . ( ) REMARKS: Please forward all comments to Erwin at Fax # 909-861-3117 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Morning 8:00 am ATTACHED: SUBMITTED: PERMITS . . . . . ( 1 PERMIT & PLANS ON PLANS . . . . . . . REMARKS: Inspect retaining wall heights for verification and changes to approved grading plans. The middle southwesterly retaining looks to have additional retaining wall height added to the original construction and extended since the last inspection back on 11/30/10. Additional slope grading has also been added along this portion of the retaining wall and side yard. Theupper most retainingwallhas been buried over except for the front yard portion, which is still visible. The buried depth is 12" to 18" deep over the upper most retaining wall.. Most of the retaining wall heights _ are not in conformance with the approved grading plan. The wall height elevations range between +/-5'.0 COPY TO File SIGNED - DATE t IGNED: DATE: Edward T. Oune Attachment 7 LOT 30 TRACT 30091 APN 8713 030 006 LOT AREA 50,767 SO FT BLDG FOOTPRINT 6350 SO FT LOT COVERAGE 12.5 % OWNER PALL GOTHRA 860 2145 ` IAIIICV T of AAIC 2 GRADINGPLAN 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN 4 BASEMENT PLAN 5 1ST FLOOR PLAN 6 2ND FLOOR PLAN 7 ROOF PLAN 8 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SS SITE SECTION A B SS2 SITE SECTION D SCALE 1 INCH = 16 H DQ =1-36 w U C � W D F n U Approved With of Conditions � o erAabnwmerryora 0 M1 O D z O Power f J J �c^wnrrssi.._�a.. oo d Z c.,.m. eeme..J a.¢�/N✓Roo r-aL, (� '� ZO m m SITE PLAN SCALE 1 INCH = 16 H DQ =1-36 or DIAMOND BAR*• m � rrxm _ GRADING PLAN �2 c<nN� Vll s xev Im�si-pl RIP RAP LIKE DRY N GAY, RIDGE LINE BPO RHU fT ROAD t150 LANDCSAPE CONCEPTS W W Q PRELIMINARY PLANT LEGEND U r NET DOiANICAL NAME COMMON NANE 92E PEMMAS TREES LOAN/G, LGapeetio ogrlVello iw o p yy Coon lligak 154•gdx MUI111rvnN W U RHO Rruv lances Aiticen Sum- Y4' box C G K SHRGHS W IRD GAM GAV pp GnGmlvAl}ea RVlEeeo'Mplyy G=lo 'VetotV MyeteG*111rkYV Ca 111.1 plea 5 gal m O LIC prminvlEae pgueWm ppmlau� iexenum' VetcM1O Cart Teme Privet 5 gal 5 qvl O W Z NAH GSN NenYlno Evmesliw HONwr DwaT Oemonfbue Rvgwa DwarfHearmly Hombw Sweet give 1 gd b O L� PHR Pboenlx rv<btlenll F,., M. Pd. qd 15.,vl multi ¢ PIITTH Plwl,_;wum %I'. Mack IXmgedlow-woo0 5 9vl, W Q PIT PHoepwuvm iMl fraaa Molck Mmgev 5 gN C) SMALL SHRGBS O¢ M AGP HEY A".Pthue-GI-d.. 'P.W Pon' Hwnwavllb n lea Dwarf Uy of qe We oajlny y 1 gd I qa mh.a cd— Q W N MR IiriWe muew D, 1 qA - GRGUNDG01£A I Z Ln LAM PEL \ Pd.,Mp idl feta! app.\„ l 1M. MpmwatlnOm •wo. ¢ m' cwlad 6�MTO Q W PRIOR TO PLANNING COMMISSION A LANDSCAPE 0 WIL BE SUBMIITED SHOWING NUMBER OF SPECIES - M� BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. N PIP RAP TO APPEAR LIKE DRY RIVER BED LANDCSAPE CONCEPTS QGAZEBO PLAN %�-tb 4�y �sm 6E �' / `R4MQ X4,0 a p SITE, `pE pp p�0 pE� VICINITY MAP N.T.S. N© I I I I I I l� RIDGE LINE ROAD .---------------------------- r— / 0 ' PLANTING NOTES 1. Contractor is to review plans, verify site conditions and plant quantities prior to Installation, Contractor shall take sole r sponsibllty for any cost Incurred due to damage of existing utilltles. Plant material quantities are listed for the convenliance of the Contractor. Actual number of symbols shall have priority over quantity designated. Conflicts between the Owner and these plans a within these plans shall be brought to the attention of the Landscape Architect prior to landscape Installation Any deviation(s) fromthe plans or specifications will require written approval from the Owner and/or Landscape Architect. The Contractor shall assume full responslidity for all necessary revisions due to foiiure to give such notification 2. The Contractor shall maintain a qualified supervisor on the site at alt times during construction through Completion of pick-up work. 3. The Contractor shall receive site graded within 0.10 feet of fhlsh grods. commencement of work Indicates Contractor's acceptance of existing grades and conditions. Final grades shall be adjusted by Contractor as directed by Owner's representative. All grading shall be completed prior to commencement of planting operation. 4. The Contractor shall f ... lsh and pay for ell container grown trees, shrubs, vines, seeded/sodded turf, hydronulches, and flatted groundcovers. The Contractor shall also be responsible for and pay for planting, staking, and guarantee of Alt plant materials. See planting details for planting and staking/guying requlrements. S. The Landscape Architect and/or Owner shall approve plant material placement by Contractor prior to Installation. 6. Fertl112er far all lawn areas shall be . slow-release, high -nitrogen fertilizer Incorporated Into the sail during planting. >. For ares to be landscaped and Irrigated the following amendments shall be uniformly broadcast and thoroughly incorporated 6' deep by means of a rototlller or equal. Amount 1000 square�feet 4 c .yds. nitrogen st..Alzed org.nlc camp.st 50 pounds agricultural gypsum e. TheetbML The pl.nting pita,AaO far s tosbehdlugb1, the three enter timesthe tilled ter of the hall be o0 bell ideand and dl twoeinchesllo er shallower n the than, the rootball. Planting pits for shrubs and perennials shot be dug twice asswide as one -and -a -half tines as deep As the roatb.R. d The Landscape Contractor shall maintain all planted areas shown on the plans, Including (but not limited to) watering, pruning, edging, And ...log, for . period of thirty (30) days after completion of project and acceptance by Oener. 10. The Landscape Contractor shall warranty and replace any plant material that shows signs of tack of vigor or other unheaLthfuL appearance within ninety(90) days of completion of contract. Trees that have been topped or otherwise Improperly pruned by the Contractor AFAIL be removed and replaced by the Contractor at no cost to the Owner. TREE PLANTING DETAIL IN SECTION NDT TO SCALE nSHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO tx L Me O 24' box O O SYA us Syaggru r,manz.ftianum TRI --F-omuum s O O Buxus robro. japonica O O KEY BOTANICAL NAME TREE 24' box OLE Oleo euro,¢. 'Swan Hill' SYA us Syaggru r,manz.ftianum TRI TxConten. SHRUB 5 gal BOX Buxus robro. japonica OG LiguslrumcNpomcund Rexonuln' PERENNIALS AMP Agapanlhus .fnconus 'Peter Pan' DIB Dletes bicolor HEM Hemerocollis hybrids PHA Phormium tenox At........ don' GROUNDCOVER MV Myoportm pmvifolium PEL Pelargonium petiotum TRA IAWN Trachel0spermum jasminoides nGROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE MULCH INSTALLATION After Al Fleming ontl imgaton aperdr..ne are omPlele, s v all exp—d land s...w 0 with —PWB, I,., n(a ehr.dded rarest m.kb asfdrama by Recycled Want, Prod d, (626-613-0400), or .quo PLANT LEGEND COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS Fruitless ON. Tree 24' box 0 24' box Brisbane box umm akdoneek. Japanese Boxwood 5 gal Texas Privet 5 gal Ewalt Lily of the Nile �LI.Mem r I gal i 5 aamet ixed co l bMl� ]PMRIu�K #e nGROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SCALE MULCH INSTALLATION After Al Fleming ontl imgaton aperdr..ne are omPlele, s v all exp—d land s...w 0 with —PWB, I,., n(a ehr.dded rarest m.kb asfdrama by Recycled Want, Prod d, (626-613-0400), or .quo PLANT LEGEND COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS Fruitless ON. Tree 24' box Queen Palm 24' box Brisbane box 24' box Japanese Boxwood 5 gal Texas Privet 5 gal Ewalt Lily of the Nile I got Fortnight ply I gal DayNewkIZealand Flax 5 aamet ixed co l Pgqrosbate Myo,., nd BI.rMs J.mii e Tali Fescue spp. PLANT COON \4-$Y]g'—PLANT `LEADER LINE eP / / .each / a wF o- *,,a SITE �pf P]Pae` VICINITY LAAP N. T.S.rA rJ RluUt LINE ROAD I9 N PLANT LEGEND KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TREE OLE Oleo euro... 'Swan HIII' Fmitless Olive Tree SYA Eye99m m n offionum Oueen P.Im TRI Tristonia conferl. Brisbane box SHRUB a$ BU% evxus micro, japonica J,re.e a Boxw.od LIG LiguMWm j.po0mum Texonum' Texas Privet PERENNIALS ACP A9 ...thus .fdc.nus 'Peter Pan' Dw.rt Lily f IM1e Nile DIB Oietes bicolor Fortnight Lily HEM Hemero<.Ilis hybrids 'Alropurpureum' DoylA PHA Phormium ten.x New Z .l.nd Flrx GROUNUCOVER WE MyOpomm porvifolium Prostrote Myopomm PEL Pelargonium Deftaum 1vY Geranium TRA Tr.cM1elospermum j.sminoides St.r Jasmine LAWN E, Tell Fescue sp.. /�PLAHT COUNT PLANT SYMBOL `LEASER LINE mutt LINE ROAD f g REVISIONS BY [ M[. Id 0 4 g "He 4 y gB a$ g3 d §k CM Bsta 9 yM 3 1Xr[T b °M 3a NV obi �Qm 2 55 a r_ - f `a € n TT aryl r E+ E, '3 U 6 k@ 4 5 5 s p� 8 d s �fl B `ate r� o� "sa � 5 F� b3 See o cm Wee; e go W E cc E p G m = ON Myyi W i➢I. ea O CD cm s N O 6 [ M[. Id 0 g "He 4 zu[[ a$ XO CM Bsta 1Xr[T b FLOOR ABOVE L _______` L________ I � � I I I I I I J n 10 c� z J W Lil U) o z¢ BASEMENT PLAN m SCALE -1/4"=1' �` 4 PLAN ___j IN LL s 0 ROOF PLAN SCALE 1/4' = 1 H-0 IN. ENVELOPE AT POINT A \ SEE GRADING PLAN \ / I I I VDO n I J FF 11 I J titli■ tlt tit r.rro ENVELOPE B SEE GRADING PLAN s THIS ENVELOP / IS NOT APP CABLE BECAUSE IT IS TA 13 FT FROM BUILDING '--1- .' 1 SHUTTERS PL AT REAR ` EXTERIOR PLASTER SETBACK J PIASTER OVER 2%6 N90 TRIM \ � PLASTER OVER FOAM L iii ' I .i., iii iii "" .�. iiii iii I„nn iii iii iii iii iii iiiiii iii iiiii iii iii iin iii iii iIi ilii 1i1 i11 iii iii. iii Oi Bill iii ii1 i11 _ \ WEEP SCREED \ `m , I I •I I --ir ; Tw O U � LLJ2 Z U K Q O o N O N o LC LLJ Ln O � Q z�0 z Q= Jia Q J tW d 1 � M Z � s ' - — -- ------- - - --- --- — — j - — -nom,-- N1177 7 TW 1177 RETAINING WALL— H=4 FT i a AEE -1 f4•'=1'_._ __ __ __ - — — — __ _ __ __. __ __ __ __ __ — — — — SEE .. _.--'PLAN - - - - TW 1172 _ JJJ 1163 -J� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - �� - - — BW 1Tr 1165 - - Lil, 1E11 �y '-4 1'J1 55 —_ {- H _ T C .'f - _ - 11 e DG FN / ____ — /8 / 1160 a q Y EXTERIOR PLASTER / — PLASTER OVER 2X6 WDO TRIL / PLASTER OVER FOAM - - — — /— — — - 1210.16 PLASTER OVER 2%6 WDO TRIM 'I NEEP SCREED I n I I T j q FF 1200 I fel --� - ------ a TW 1163 yiBW 1155 f=8- FT .na.......rl..1r........ - .::: .'''a: Y IN 1111 ue.:.......:...... r:::.v:�e:iie:eiee:.ea:nrse.a:anev.eveee:ra:.e•.e:e.:a:.cv:nae.eam�A \\ :.a:rn>ne:e.:e�:c�.Tije1.-_aft. _ .nn.von�:.ou-.-..:zz::• ronrunnri%nu.rn.o.....4.v.:un..n.v.nn. _.. --no�•._v-_u__ ue..v.:..nm....e:.n ..nv..n...n no...n....go' ....noe.o.urinr. .nrinYinrY.fo.nn.aro..nrni..l n._ in - ...�._.. I�T___ ._� /��l\off �( li(i' i�� I�'T�1i. 'I^r, illi ili�illi�illi I� i �I 6tit�titl f� I�1 �itttitl illill .. iF........13l/9 Iwmj ICII I 1 - I (nnl I III i. nnn - iii•iiii fiilil - irl Put 1�: .:I ��ItI IIi �� 'IJill """ " ' ' ":IMI iii' ii I �il�' ii �,�� 111111 111111 I'. I nl _ u i �� II llllll III I i 111 _ II- iii i tai i nl ���i�i - 7--- -- FRONT/SOUTHELEVATION iSCALE-1/4"=l' STREET EUVA�ON wm m-acoo IF n SIDE WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1/8 IN = 1 FT - 0 IN ROOF TIIE EXTERIOR PLASTER SCREED SEE 1/4" ELEVATIONS ON SHEET 9 o� U z� w �mCD o N O ¢ N o Lo U -J LO D o J 0 ¢ Cr QQ Q J w� Z � l00 lo SECTION A A SCALE 1 INCH = 16 FT - — - 1SP5 ._ 1110 _— vP __. ._. ueP neo _ !J40. — — 11)5 II75 —"45- 1140 »q0 PIXl _..RLI ....___. .. __J4J _. ______—_ na5___ ______145 "."• _.___..__.__ _11 0_._____ _ ..1114._,.___ SECTION A A SCALE 1 INCH = 16 FT - — - 1SP5 ._ 1110 _— vP __. ._. 1I7o___. !J40. —"45- 1140 »q0 SECTION A A SCALE 1 INCH = 16 FT - — - 1SP5 ._ 1110 _— vP __. ._. 1I7o___. PIXl _.___..__.__ _11 0_._____ _ ..1114._,.___ »ss 11]5 tl]s 11]s Ilss SECTION B B SCALE 1 INCH = 16 FT t SITE SECTION E E r 1 . —�_btto�V4Ea�W.P ne19 .- �_�� eKO rsryimM2lsnipiiL' __'�beU icHimduz-sfl MNa.e wemt++a � �.Fmmwn c +xc —mrna o re:m n M GRADINGGENERA7,NOTE8 i, All Namok46iliMumpipwaNiheparv,fonsafsution l80iand ApplBdi23afR,pEilii'o>nia>No1NTig CMe(2N0) avdallemmd,nmbadoytd 6ytheCtity. 2; ARhillaiaegrbdingm'I.slnyeain««v'a[YTwA sna!wmylywlwfAekiliaideTfon6gtrdtAlardb,vzE andahaBt,dGeByaoteXUd2:1:- - ), Nolp+diugaLail:cern,maReuoNnpjaffiogpEmT(baetiemicTdedbyTLegtydfDfminGH3P I. ABRRNopasbillMdmp'aLldbfdllea NAd 90poeui6F)hbmadMbgdeYBBEy; 5: b1(fifimliesNofsalilHoptdies,i,IclmRrtl; mO typedmdeNuraRenBNa sRMlbn{d4d8dmieggbdly� ver->Paadr<poN(mara,ea rthtApNirmtaic� ume>. or6uponre3natnfmngmtp�A mmE ;o'mwa mmiber S[Eerd dulsicy trs me lobe mage ss tollowe: Onaiesttr<sbtwa-fiatru6ezl wl: b, onttat6rmah Sa00mbinyaNaofbulaiilplAr.M- q AmBeiwtmwbtr-Otfw'shilopetuewVEd[ymmP'A<danSlthEafdpCtivfecc %: xa fdis'aillbaP1vM11n61 aldppmgbfve8<lefim,,<mbvetbfwzoYY61Caa1N,md'vunitWaitaP aubdreirtR(ifned<d)&accepted byWe.-wiR4bpjnKrormghlcerwg8utdglsY. }. Nof➢aL§IlbEpleenimWlll4plateAtvTe(etD6iavcm,881 m<asWC(ar'WCpmj<cf35tttFy(Cdtiy56e Ltiry. g. TRaubdersigad gvRY'aBfiner+fiaebyAltiedll,il thetepluswempdpa,dtiy him atyda Lir od EdlmL ApP adLslPGmdingafttieCellpkWaBvildmg Cade(2 to djontao3,saavaaan,cndiaq RegiMaeE Erato, ROE. Data 9, A onvedpnedpri emassamldlwlpalarydnma8e(havin'Maaba)i MproviooRpabl5ridjoft peopediu Gore tpotitind ofmslefil ofdived AGeX Bata dared, and After Mlplwuarum.Wctiaa ILFAll olfuta,'sm111a4tlodeu atia75E ump941<d b Me MoSertinu oftlie L5ty ffogihee£, 1I.A..JLGaWiegeealid<alemazibos(gudbpsoi@eda ClrilFdpinetivaftsvadebdbpprondtiyA'a CitybVaJ pdoitoissWa bfBWld'mepom boal2. Atlaloned-a baavdbYandbaborded, Stale-giatoPresrddurircg grafi)mksofilee.nyadvdao bNiiva vaai)elmPmved enduomedd, li AnYmaaiGuh d' changed ln,W. pprbYdgaAnkplMN ib epPnnv�bYibegiy. ih.Allgmdddls ,WjRw NonaBebwala, li3th,irandbtha dYemag dvriaq approVedMNdfmWJL gmdulgcmg4. 15.Nomekofaimilasneten'nigidrtrR,ti, g"id garreAdWill beGbEd fnmefill oris APAMA'NKISE as- mrsoehplazmenthavebeu w1,rNtld bythtaniRsttginvsaotl aPpr@>ComadvAoa<bYNegry. 1d. rr&in M,p oisMNPod3W1sdna1d11wdU`4w<w1lmadWbiihRbTdaoitlaE aoRSze®v<ss me engNeerkAologiMafaemE. 17.a uvelianc%iaWuOlykeyAtndaemovtiofimtuilablemJSmunbeOWecvdmd tueptai ipmiWL9 bytheaniMeogins¢of<npjntvi88m1n8ALofrauNPderW ihEPlecing 8fL11. 18.14eadiRa,IdntRanNmtTgNeNOkgbio@AofaeedNABgdu amtaxl aru{,tSaWpykLedivgb'y fnaitgoMPBmlo N,prbvai bYthe O'p: 11L<foal SAport mvslwciudeanu.gedede<ofecbdWorap. IR]bodalGmrN'tl<#«d+orwglaurillg;k<uloghtafaemN MfuLmakcYfmfidgiaaem,deil<a5vil6 Bdlioa]Llo[ibE Lospng<IaLonnry13Mi1dibBCoda f_ Negeddtibpdmbnppmvll bythegly 2d paginebron mdlmwunre-KNlefie,ovapaobtendv Per"N,atmTvnuagtigttidaeiH ®�Aeerox -Mgmeefvg eulogislefreEord PdorioPixldBMalorunaeip - 2LAReg3Ms�LtiViLEey'nma'6auaubmiia GL:&dg CeklifideiE161RetitityB,erteetn6 mait1Tm1V workvgtlg3bvpbb umpiE600RFfinalgNaing opailiam. to lifiaie otOscOpencYabell beiaSAed ubJeafamegtyl?rlglear'tgOptoVNlofoad BMgmar's LXDfiutalttioMMgredingaNNbeappmved. bythaprybetme rcupmoyo[building wiltbeillnwed - 22.`Ihe $ofsmApeology#tpofpiepaMfhy and3n'Izd a5d sll<EfaencEdudTwiewalaepOM1ilimdboowfiilibaameaPaHofNlsgtdNg Plan Adan <umlhudMiom coWdodih<r<inabellbestrictiyadhelcd to Olbas<viewd arymkameefollows: 23. Aeo yoffe, ra ngperett and approved grading plus muH be fin Aaron andavillebie M O,rSto Sell Torso. 24.E al refin, III be approved beforpre oyencyofbaildinM will be allowed 25. Thede plans have been blocked bythe AlyrdlosmudBar only for conronmanu will qty Slmdear, wmplinase withdevelopment exertions and tar board w,nePNal appnrvel ofthe drainage eM pahwnyimpmvanotelearMhPown. No daoldmaNematiulebe«wmmedetorlheaalmAcyif Ne existing orporderd dimensions,linu, or grades Mown ioNudine Of relNng UTliTee shoran moat almwn. 26.Cavtr Jornball notify The qty Engineer's offies In (909) 839-7040 kny-nighl (48) havers Madvuee of i atentiw to begin 9mdirg. 27. ContMorshall umplytrith Ne Catifomia Storm Wets Best Mon arb nl Pm4cea Mood6uks and Nep jmi's standard Uden stem WbrMid' on PIan(SUSw)rapun®oft asnaaray. 28. Mora ill rooftop mnofilo pe,vioos uses. 29. Sllific orttatdfill soils abed beuredo during Ne gradingto verify that Na soils propertied comply will W<design vduiteme.1,m40.ind by the Engineering GeolOgiNOznhuhnieai Engineer including oils types, shearalrengdo paramnae no onno ending usul weights. 30.R -veto, tub shall be unduad for all pubho and privmemdway imp obsereote to identify the minimmMpavemml aheamel oerkes earyuemols fer me slip Mb1es otherwise not m,ftel by the ON,, 31. Type V Fema,l shot be bred for all coeds work coming N CbnhMM with Ne®Doad, Males o0,anvire Indicated by Me P jeove it off moa. .. 32 GmSmH and ransLureon arroMme and Me MempMAUm of equipment end nalen Ka and notation at beaW praSng equament rho be Tolled to batmen Pe boars ol]:W em and 590 pm, Monday Nme9b Sorday. Lost p roraded by :Ban Soaatloast JM DAIYY yonageorneaade0.dby GO Oind Nees@pdabaMd vaaler O be MsMlrtaanmmne. PBOWn Cad JM DAIRY M.,nood Lep R,My funded RWe4D3.flealal evils. erabadbeusNxfieneverposs0k. AWilbwWy, 89 wrsWtlonequpmenlshey be pmpedYtmrMkdrortN„vrwtee levels. SUSMP NOTES: 1. DETERTONE AND PROVIDE THE PRE AND POST DEVELOPMENT PREVIOUS AND MPERVIOUS AREAS CREATED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. POSTOEVELOPMEM IMPERVIOUS AREA DMACRE3PERCENT IMPERVIOUS 22% PERVIOUS AREA 1.02 ACRES PERCENT PERVIOUS 78% PREDEVELOPMEM IMPERVIOUS AREA DACRES PERCENT IMPERVIOUS W% PERVIOUBAREA 1.31 ACRES PERCENT PERVIOUS I00% 2 ANY MODIFICATIONS TO ME APPROVED SUSMP PLAN MUST BE RESUBMITTED TO ME CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 3. A WRY OF APPROVED SUSMP PLAN MUST BE IN THE POSE RESIGN OF A RESPONSIBLE PERSON AND AVAILABLE AT THE SITE ALL TIM ES. 4. ALL STRUCTURAL MRS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE GOR INSPECTION AND MNMETANCE. 5. PRIOR TO COMMETAEN ENT OF ANY WORK WITHI N THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY ANWOR CONNECTIM TO COUNTY MAINTAINED STOR14 DRAM. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORJ(S IS REQUIRED I!XMlSUB 58741, AS WELL AS PROOF OF PERMIT FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, PERMIT SECTION (1628) 4583129). 6. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORKANONR DISCHARGE OF DRAMAS TOA WATERCOURSE. A PERMIT FROM BOTH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAM E AN D U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY BE REM] RED. T., AD ME CIVIL ENGINEER OF ME PROJECT, I HAVE REVIEWED THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR ME STANDARD DEEM STORMWATER MMGysW)N PLAN(SUSMM.. AND HAVE PROPOSED THE IMPLEMENTATION GEMS PERMANENT BEST MANAGFJAEM PRACTICES(BLIPS) APPLICABLE TO EFFECTIVELY MINIW]E THE NEGETIVE IMPACTS OF ME PROJECTS STORMWATER RUNOFF. ME SELECTED 8NIPS WILL WILLBEINSTALLEDPMR EAPPROVEOPLWSMDABREMMMENDEOBYTHEPRODUCT MANUFACTURER AS APPLICABLE. FROM. 0.0E 3a5BT STORM WATER POLLUTION PLAN NOTES: ATTACHMENTA NOTES 1. EVERY FEFORTSHOMM BE MADE TO ELIMINATE THE DISCHARGE OF NM SMRMWAMR FROM THE PROJECT SITE AT ALL TIMES. b. ERODED SEDIMENT AND OTHER POLLUTANTS MUST BE RETAINED ONSITE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE VN SHEET, SWALIM AREA NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES OR WIND. 3. STOCKPILER OF EARTH AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION RELATED MUMERMUS MUST BE PROTECTED FROM BEING TRANSPORTED FROM THE SIZE BY THE FORCES OF WIND OR WATER 4. FUELS, OILS SOLVENTS, AND OTHER TOXIC MATERNLS MUST BE STORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR LISTING AND ME NOT TO CONTAMINATED THE 8083 AND SURFACE WATERS. ALL APPROVED STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM ME WEATHER. SPILLS MUST BE CLEAN EO UP IMMEDIATELY AND DISPOSED OF IN A PROPER MANNER SPILLS MAY NO BE WASHED AWAY IWO ME DRAMME SYSTEM. B. EXCESS WASTE CONCRETE MAY NOT BE WASHED IMO THE PUBLIC WAY OR ANY OTHER DRAINAGE SYSTEM. PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE TO RETAIN CONCRETE WASTES ON31TE THEY CAN BE DISPOSED OF AS SOLID WASTE. 6. TRASH AND CONSTRUCTION RELATED SOLID WASTES MUST BE DEPOSITED INTO A COVERED RECEPTACLE TO PREVENT COMAMIMTION OF RAINWATER AND DISPERSAL BY WIND. E SEDIMENTS AND OM ER MATERIALS MAY NOT BETMCKED FROM THERE BY BEHICLE TRAFFIC. THE CONSTRUCTION EMMNCE ROADWAYS MUST BE STAN ENDED SO AS TO MUMIT SEDIMENTS FROM BEING DEPOSITED INTO THE PUBLIC WAY. ACEJEMAL SEEMS MONS MUSTBESLVEPr UP IMMDEONTELY AND MAY NOT BE WASHED DOWN BY RAIN OR OMER MERGE. 8. ANY SLOPES WITH DISTURBED SO LS OR DENUDED OF VEGRATKIN MUST BE SEMEMD 60 AS TO INHIBIT EROSION BY WINDAND WATER - ATTACHMENT B NOTES THE FOLLOWING BMPS AS OUTLINED IN, BUT NOT LIMITED TO. THE BEST LMNAGEMEM PRACTICE HANDBOOK. CALIFORNIA STORMWATER QUALITY TASK FORCE, SACRAMENM. CALIFORNIA 2003, OR ME LATEST REVISED EDITION, MAY APPLY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT (ADDMOHAL MEASURES MY BE REQUIRED IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY COUNTY INSPECTORS). SAUDI - DEWATERING OPERATIONS CARGO - PAVING OPERATIONS CARS - STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION AND PAWING - BASIS - M4TERMLDELNERYANDSTORAGE - CASH - METERVL USE - CM12 - SPILLPREVEMI MOWM .. ... CAMO SOUDWASTEMANAGEMEM CA021 - WSARWUSWASME AGEIAEW CAM - CONCRETE HIGH POINT ELEVATION - WASTE MANAGEMENT M30 CAO3O WHICRETEWABTEIAANAGEIAEM - VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENTCLEANING CAb3i VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CAM VEHICLEADWUIPMENTMAINAN CE CROPS - - - ESCO1 M - SHEDUYEE,StIBCOYTRACTORTRAINING LING ESCO2 PRESERVATION - PRESERVATIONOFEXISTING VEGETATION E5G10 OPLMRING ESC11 MULCHING - MULCHINGG - ESC20 - GEOTEKTILEBANDMATS - ESC21 - DUST CONTROLS R - - --- ES022S34O ROA STABILIZATION EEESBBCC2 .'CONSTRUCTION STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRhNCE EARTH DIKE ESC3 - PMINSAND SWPLES .. ESC82 - SLOPE DRAWPROI ESC40 - PROIEGTON EBfA1 - CHECK DAMS CHECK LEGEND TC - TOP OF CURB ELEVATION IT - FLOWUNEELEVATION NG - NATURALGRADEELLIVATION M - FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION FS - FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION AS - ASPHALTICCONCRETEELEVATION WV - TOPOFWALLELEVATION TF TOP OF FWTMG ELEVATION WE - WALL FACE SHOWING DIMENSION H WALL HEIGHT OWENSION TO - TOP OF GRATE ELEVATION INV -MVERTELEVANON HE HIGH POINT ELEVATION FF FINISH ED FLCORELWATION PAD - FINIS HED PAD ELEVATION BE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION GPAO- GARAGE PAD ELEVATION EP . EDGE OF PAVEMENT ELEVATION 0 INDICATES POWER ROLE U INDICATES FIRE HYORAM PT` INOIGTES PtAN]Eft AREA MDOFGRADING: H MNR;M OCT,M2 INDICATES HANDICAP PARKINGAREA - - - - INDICATES CONCENTRATED FLOW PATH INDICATES SHEET FLOW DIRECTION H%MIN HARDSCAPE, 2%LAIN DIRT) DINDICATESACPAVEMEM iaJ iTq r1; ` INDICATESCONCREMPAVEMEM ® INOICAM'MAOVALOFIMPROVEMEM ® INDICATES BLOM RETAINING WNL VINDICATES BTOCKGARDEN WALL F UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT Col: TOL FREE 811 L IWpMti WlSSMIGNSRW NOTES TO CONTRACTORS 1. AL.CON]R ORSMDSUBCONTM=MPERFORMINGWORKSHOWNONORRELATED TO THESE PLANS SHALL CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS SO THAT ALL EMPLOYEES ARE PROVIDED ASAFE PLACE TO WORK AND ME PUBLIC IS PROTECTED. 2. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS PERFORMING WORK SHOWN ON OR WIATEO TO THESE PLANS SHALL CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS SO THAT ALL EMPLOYEES ARE PROVIDED A SAFE PLACE TO WORK AGO ME PUBLIC IS PROTECTED. S. THE CML ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE RES PONS IBM M AM WAY FOR THE CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS COMPIUNGE WITH ANY OF THE GOVERMAEM, STATE OR CITY RULES AND REGULATIONS. CONTRACTORS FURTHER AGREES THAT HE 6INLLASSUME SOLEMN COMPLETE RESPONSI B ILRY FOR THE JOB S M CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCDON OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING ME SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY COHN NUOUSLY AM D NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS; THAT ME CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND,INDEMNIFY AND HOLD ME OWNER AND THE CNIL ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND LIABILITY,REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH ME PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPT FOR ME LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIG ONCE OF THE OWNER OR ENGINEER. 4. ME EXISTENCE ANO LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPES OR STRUCTURAL SHOWN ON THESE FLAGS ME OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF THE AVAILABLE RECORDS, TO THE B EST OF OUR Kh'O W LEDGE, WEEK E ARE NO EXISTING MRNIES EXCEPT AS BHO W N ON THIS IMP. THE CCMRACTORIS MOUIREO TO TAKE DUE PRECALHIONARY MEASURESTOPROTECTME MILKY LINES SHOWN AND AM' OTHER LINES NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SH0 W N ON THIS DRAWING. PRIOR TO EXCAVATION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL UNDERGROUND SERMCE ALEWAT13004224133. ESC%2 SLOPE ROUGHENINETERRACINGPPF➢YIM BENCH MARK BY: ESC5S _ BILTFENDE CENTERLINE BEG. CURVE GILBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. ESM - STRAWBALEBARRIER ELEV-1189.77 RECORORO AS MB 70W51-76 ESC62 - SAND BAG BARRIER 2026 EAST RATE 66, WIVE 203 ESC53 - BRUSH OR ROCK FILTER - o"Gooda..'BaNIA od'o ESC51 STORM DRAN INLET PROTECTION TUSTIRCA92780 626 852-I6C0 ESC55 - SEDIMEMTPAP PROJECT NO.33200] FAV 626 652-166 _ ESCaG SEDWEW BASIN ONMCNDBAR, CA81]65 DIUMONEABAMM1765 Bg eA sorsa - Albvltlr9 m .um Attachment 8 LINE "ODA g O MB VICINITY MAP TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE )4i BENCH MARK BASIS OF BEARINGS TEMPORARY BENCHMARK fy CENTERLINE BEG. CURVE Try ASBHOWNO4SHEET2 f"� 1 ELEV-1189.77 RECORORO AS MB 70W51-76 SHOULD SUPPLY THE PROJECTOWNER WITH A COMPLETE BID BASED UPON SOILS ENGINEER INDEX GLOBAL GEO£NGINEERINGING V p 2712WWAVENUE IMEPRECISE TUSTIRCA92780 CUTYAROME cw- 300 C.Y. 714 5059W0 GR PLAN PROJECT NO.33200] FILLYARDAGE KRBBY- 300 G.Y. TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE PERFORMED by BOYD SCHNIEDWIVENT, L.B. BENCH MARK BASIS OF BEARINGS TEMPORARY BENCHMARK THEBASISOFBEMINGSARETHE CENTERLINE BEG. CURVE CENTERLINE OF HOGE LINE ROAD BEING ASBHOWNO4SHEET2 N.63-M-4VE, AS SHOWN ON TRACT 30391. ELEV-1189.77 RECORORO AS MB 70W51-76 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE THIS PLOP HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY MW& CEO -ENGINEERING, INC. ANO BETTER TO BE MCONFORMWCE VON THE RECOMMENOATMNS IN OUR REPORT WE. DECEMBER 4, 2001. REVIEW WAS UMRED TO ME GMTECHNMK ASPECTS OF THE PIAN ONLY - WE MANE NO REPRESENTATION AS TO ME ACCURACY OF DIMENSIONS, MEASUREMENTS, CNCULMONS, OR AM PORTION OF DESIGN, CITY OF DIAMOND BAP, 200 R MEADOW DRIVE CA 91765 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1 OF 4 EARTHWORK QUANTITIES THE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE FOR ME PURPOSE OF CNCMATING THE PLAN CHECK FEES BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHOULD SUPPLY THE PROJECTOWNER WITH A COMPLETE BID BASED UPON SHEET INDEX OWNER COMPLETE GRADING PROJECT. SMet One- IMEPRECISE SAMBHOGPL CUTYAROME cw- 300 C.Y. EMe1Teq- GR PLAN GROVE FILLYARDAGE KRBBY- 300 G.Y. SneatM6e- SECTISEGFADING SECTIONS ONMCNDBAR, CA81]65 DIUMONEABAMM1765 OVEREXCAVATON bSBBV- 9T946S2320 TOTAL ASTRMEOAREA A MA AF STARTOFGRADING: 'PH PONS MAR, 2012 MDOFGRADING: H MNR;M OCT,M2 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE THIS PLOP HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY MW& CEO -ENGINEERING, INC. ANO BETTER TO BE MCONFORMWCE VON THE RECOMMENOATMNS IN OUR REPORT WE. DECEMBER 4, 2001. REVIEW WAS UMRED TO ME GMTECHNMK ASPECTS OF THE PIAN ONLY - WE MANE NO REPRESENTATION AS TO ME ACCURACY OF DIMENSIONS, MEASUREMENTS, CNCULMONS, OR AM PORTION OF DESIGN, CITY OF DIAMOND BAP, 200 R MEADOW DRIVE CA 91765 IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1 OF 4 5 3 , ;I 1, Nay°OsbPW -- I �$ 3 10. f RIVER ROCK NP -RAP PAD (\- r BETEOR Guwre vW6.v10110 B WRE MESH lJ 1, / .• / � „598 Ec WALL GUTTER "- DETAIL NOT TO SCALE le n' P. F 11 I I 11.4FG IN _Ew1,cG I I:II 1161.4FG I iIf AL 5IEL5L 2 -OING xEUHTSTOrralM1roN . .... I I I I (118G.00)TW NS vN=9R.' /ill°I Wx]svP'2p� \G t° n69as / I 1 .�H 11169]11W 2 ^ 7. ° 11. EG , 9 F FB _ ,g1,.4.:. . FG A II ( Y3 . PE=1159.0TO CO"FI SLOPE -� 3STRw:LLo°` 2 ON. - W147 RIVERRCCKRIPiNPPAO- e A F I p nn' 9 11 "All N />°„27• y,. &6; ; Y - t' 1 '� m i} �\ `. /'�< \ on M�JST P\ a ...•W 7 t 1 1 ! y 4-5 EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN AS "AS -BUILT” IN AUGUST, 2011 AND WILL BE.MODIFIED AS LISTED BELOW' �ccE 3 1 614 1 CONSTRUCT V -DITCH AND RIP -RAP PADS ALONG C• I 4 I9929g ” � BOUNDARY LINES PER APPROVED GRADING PLAN. & r C ^ ]E° WALLS ALONG NORTH SIDE OF EXISTING STEPS I O Do r LL LL II )O 03 I•-01 0) 0 II I I 0- u- II TR L G.F. = 1188.80 CONSTRUCTION NOTES QREMOYEEKISTINOSLOPEANOREGRADEANDRECONSTRUCT PER SOIM ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS TO 2:1 OR FLATTER O2 CONSTRUCT4-THICKCONCRETEIMTHSM 10GAWRE MESH Q3 INSTALL 1T x 12• GRATEAND HASIN QCONSTRUCTCONCRETE DRIVE APPROACH -SEE PLAN FOR WAND QINSTALL --PIPE QCONSTRUCT WALL GUTTER PER DETAIL HEREON QINSTALL 42° MGH FENCE ON TOP OF EXISTING WALL QE%ISTNO WALL AN. GUTTER BEHIND, TO REMAIN WH = WALL HEIGHT TW = TOP OF WALL EG = EXISTING GRADE FG = FINISHED GRADE REDUCE THE WALL HEIGHT TO 8. SECTION W -W ENc1NPER S s ATEVENT OF CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMPLIARCE x09CA,E ADD ADDITIONAL STEPS AS SHOWN TO REDUCE WALL THIS PIAN HAS BEEN REAMS BY GLOBAL CEO -ENGINEERING. 4 HEIGHTS TO 8' MAXIMUM. INC. AND MOVED TO BE INCONFORMINCE WITH THE REVIEWEDFORTHECITYOF DIPMOND BARKY: m RECOMMENDATIONS IN OUR REPORT CITED DECEMBER 4, MI. HALLANDFOREMAN, INC. GILBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. RDIM WAS ENDED TO THE GEOTECHNIC<L ASPECTS OF THE 17782 nm STREET, SUITE 2DD 2020 GST RWTE 66, SURE 203 PLAN ONLY - WE MAKE NO REPRESEMATION AS TO THE TUSTIN, CA 92780 NOTE: EROSION CONTROL PER GRADING PLAN APPROVED AUGUST 13, 2008 °BCGN6DRxrA W0ACCUM T OF DIMENSIONS, M UgDMEN 4CUU OxS, OR 01418 OD FAC( (6E6)E&5366°O MT PORTON OF DESIGN. . .,,,m - 9a6maw9yroe.<enr EO ECKERT-­­RCE JON E. BOVRGEDIG, RCE 30242 GATE GRAPHIC SCALE (w Tyr) LW°Il=m m 5N SAN 311 G 23415 PLVS4ir MEADOW DRIVE DIAMOND BM, CA 91765 909-455-2320 22909 RIDGE LINE ROAD IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR GRADING PLAN 2 OF 614 1 CONSTRUCT V -DITCH AND RIP -RAP PADS ALONG 4 I9929g ” BOUNDARY LINES PER APPROVED GRADING PLAN. & r C ^ ]E° WALLS ALONG NORTH SIDE OF EXISTING STEPS 2 WILL BE CUT TO A HEIGHT OF 18" ABOVE THE STEPS. M x4x R.6 W pR TOSECON9wxsrE EwsnxG SLorE A 2:1 SLOPE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN TO 3 . GEOTECHNICALA CONSTRUCTION NOTES QREMOYEEKISTINOSLOPEANOREGRADEANDRECONSTRUCT PER SOIM ENGINEERS RECOMMENDATIONS TO 2:1 OR FLATTER O2 CONSTRUCT4-THICKCONCRETEIMTHSM 10GAWRE MESH Q3 INSTALL 1T x 12• GRATEAND HASIN QCONSTRUCTCONCRETE DRIVE APPROACH -SEE PLAN FOR WAND QINSTALL --PIPE QCONSTRUCT WALL GUTTER PER DETAIL HEREON QINSTALL 42° MGH FENCE ON TOP OF EXISTING WALL QE%ISTNO WALL AN. GUTTER BEHIND, TO REMAIN WH = WALL HEIGHT TW = TOP OF WALL EG = EXISTING GRADE FG = FINISHED GRADE REDUCE THE WALL HEIGHT TO 8. SECTION W -W ENc1NPER S s ATEVENT OF CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMPLIARCE x09CA,E ADD ADDITIONAL STEPS AS SHOWN TO REDUCE WALL THIS PIAN HAS BEEN REAMS BY GLOBAL CEO -ENGINEERING. 4 HEIGHTS TO 8' MAXIMUM. INC. AND MOVED TO BE INCONFORMINCE WITH THE REVIEWEDFORTHECITYOF DIPMOND BARKY: m RECOMMENDATIONS IN OUR REPORT CITED DECEMBER 4, MI. HALLANDFOREMAN, INC. GILBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. RDIM WAS ENDED TO THE GEOTECHNIC<L ASPECTS OF THE 17782 nm STREET, SUITE 2DD 2020 GST RWTE 66, SURE 203 PLAN ONLY - WE MAKE NO REPRESEMATION AS TO THE TUSTIN, CA 92780 NOTE: EROSION CONTROL PER GRADING PLAN APPROVED AUGUST 13, 2008 °BCGN6DRxrA W0ACCUM T OF DIMENSIONS, M UgDMEN 4CUU OxS, OR 01418 OD FAC( (6E6)E&5366°O MT PORTON OF DESIGN. . .,,,m - 9a6maw9yroe.<enr EO ECKERT-­­RCE JON E. BOVRGEDIG, RCE 30242 GATE GRAPHIC SCALE (w Tyr) LW°Il=m m 5N SAN 311 G 23415 PLVS4ir MEADOW DRIVE DIAMOND BM, CA 91765 909-455-2320 22909 RIDGE LINE ROAD IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR GRADING PLAN 2 OF — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .. ........ 46- (IlDB- - - - - - - - EXISUNG V -DITCH �--PBSIWML TOREMN -SED-1-AY OPOSEDORNEWAY B01) - - - - - - - - I DEDI T-1 S]IR — — — — — — EPLOE... G_E ISTINOVUtt T. 1.BE.NF%ISiIXGIIL—] TO REAVJN FF -1161- VIe REMOVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — fill I — — — — — — — "ISMNG SLOPE "P. - — — — — — — — — TOREMN — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- ---- - — TO R�� (11]01— — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — — — — — — R Ep R S 11170; ("n) — — — — — — --- — — — — — — — — — - .LEB"I'D BE.. . STING 11 To PROPOSEDEl. BE. AI&P- P R, ED 1 2:1 MM SLOPE 118,0 V�CH ..8,0 - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ------ Ilull — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — dID n -NG M ODST. — —DI — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ----- ——(1155 — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — -- EX.B. Bl.. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- ----- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SECTION A -A SECTION B -B 35FOOTHEIGHTI-HAff . .. ........ 46- EXISUNG V -DITCH S]IR —111551 ISTINOVUtt T. 1.BE.NF%ISiIXGIIL—] TO REAVJN ml-- — — — — — — — — fill I — — — — — — — "ISMNG SLOPE – $LVODCH (11]01— — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — — — — — — 11170; RUNNINGWALL TO BE CONSIRUEMED SECTION C -C .LEB"I'D EXISTING WALL HEIGHTS PROPOSED WALL HEIGHTS GILBEF .. .. _ ./ 2 RIP RAP SEE G DG PLN rhFq _ s s CCF ee<F s J 0. IP RAP EE GRADING PLAN BY - - x/$ ALL RETAINING WALLS CL - SHOWN IN THIS AREA - o�Ie WERE PREMOULSY APPROVED - 1140 D �n Q : U C C '6082 n9/e <O q�F '„ T POOL p ALL EXPOSED RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE COLOR COATED TO MATCH HOUSE LLJ . 2>.• '2Ro 30 116 ° I STUCCO. COLOR a- m o • - 20, °°o e m w AND. BE SCREENED BY LANDSCAPING SEE LS PLAN O N T ti> a�uu� m S es 30pwxenHTW o' -o 97 wT wNL T o T av 0 0� p ® 116 sws �d"e SCALE 1 INCH = tOFT - - w.w. x�. HT a, w/ ®. CATCH BASIN io n U. I S RENSED BASE 'T RET WALL (PREMOUS 1163 PROPOSED 1164.99 PROPOSED BASEMENT FF 1181.31 % - PROPOSED NEW RETAININGRU85 WALL , ty 11 I _ �. l I PT SCRE N - . r C AC OR IAN N01 _- .. .... EXIST RES IS ...-.., 1 o �a /1010 ' .. :. - PATIO DECK. °a<w' ;'. gA• ': 4°a .-: _____.._ _.- &' "fig EXIST E 1. --'"< I ss - r GARAGE FF 1188.8 i .. /yp 0SF . r I 1190 :. --r ..-_.-- - _ :I I I 1 5 E 92.00 -- _ _ w..-, a W M 5 ¢ o M H s 0 o J J W — - FRONT SETBACK AREA 24. FT SETBACK 4080 SO FT 14'-0" — _ - ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE 507.= a 2040 sq ft - o m :. IMPERVIOUS AREA SHOWN 1640 SO FT OK� OAD SCALE 1/10 1 FT -0 IN. SS 11$0S� RIDE LINE 6s o IgE ��R�1�� � 'ti SITE PLAN S -- SCALE 1 INCH = 10 FT SITE SECTION E E SCALE 1 INCH = 10 FT TOP OF WALL AT ROOF _____ _ _ __ _____________________I___-_____ ------------------------------------ \ 45 de4ree____ _______ ------------------ - - - � - u --------------- _ U e� - SII " - it o vw ILII Z � < III ine O z N J N LlJ g q Il _ u u _ fL- ------------------ _ o o - - _ - m z: Q z= -- . o a LLJ - SCALE 1 INCH --10 FT 1_ ____ __ _______ �. •I I -.LEGEND .. ___ __ PROPOSED _... ... - �III-III __ ________ -------- PREV APPROVAL - - - - \ — I IIIIII— ff PREVIOUS APPROVAL Nil ! --_ . PROPOSED, BUILDING M j� ONN/ IIII M � �` 10//\�/4 in0.. /1/l<05 am/ ---_ UN g ® NOTE:. SINCE THE PAD WAS RAISED 2 FT (APPROX) AND B THE BUILDING 'WILL BE: LOWERED BY VI U 2 FT THE TOP OF ROOF IS o 00 THE SAME AS ORIGINAL APPROVALo Lu a� � N . NOTE: SINCE THE PAD WAS RAISED 2 -FT (APPROX) AND C-)� LEGEND THE BUILDING WILD BE LOWERED BY z� PROPOSED 2 FT THE TOP OF ROOF IS LLJ - PREV APPROVAL. m THE SAME AS. ORIGINAL O ozN APPROVAL >¢N 1220 Lo - ... - 1215.. .. .. JzgF o ALL-EXPOSED-RETAINING -WALLS,-SHALL-BF- - SLUMP BLOCK TAN COLOR AS WELL - — Q AS-BE-SCRE€NED--BYLANDSGAPING-SEE-LS-PLAN ", zv¢ - - g- oo T 1zo1200 — a_ __. 1195 _— ._ ii i. ii ii __ V 1 u - OAD _ v� - 1190 1190 i5T BOOR `V —. _______ --- ----------- 1190 � .. - 1185 1185_— ... 3o-T _.. _. - -;--- _ i1'-a• 1185 ___ 11' i ' ' --,- L ... — -----118s.. - - .ansulQii---' ._-1180 — __�' 118D�'�Tu °�_. ____ 118 30 ;_ _i'�— —__- -_ 1180'. "- 1180�..� -. 1175_ --_ —_—__ .1175_-- 1175 '- —_-, _ ____--------- .-.. ---.__`_.-------- ..1175 .. 1175 - _ . .. - 1170 _ _ 1170 _ 170, 1170 1170,9 - 11651165 _—>—_ weu E,w-_165__—__--- i _ 1165_ —_1165 ._ .a 1160 1,6Q____ .._—.. ___-- - 1160 l ' _. 1160-______________—_ 1160- - 1160 65 R D905f0 . RfLWdNO WIIL __ - 1155 _--- _ . 1155 1155_ 1155 t 1150 1750 _� - __. 1150____1150_ 1150 §6 1145..._ _ . _ 1145 - ..- 1145_ - 1140 - - 1140- �- - 1135 1135 1135 y gp SECTION F F . - SCALE 1 INCH = 10 FT - U O w t1 . - .. 'Z O,M. - _ O U ~ Z - _ F ¢ - CO Z Q 0 SS3 ROOF TILE MISSION TILE BERMUDA BLEND. US TILE i----------- /SHUTTERS __/SHUTTERS PAINT PAINT DUNN EDWARDS QUIET SPLENDOR 5323 P"S" OVER 2X6 MO lftl Pt Si OVER FOM, it 11 IIIIIII �I [FF: 1201 .8 .1.12 i. li il:: a-.40.00.0.010.10,.x �Il11I��i i !� i�15 iGf.iifi 1 G Gi i 1 „ , .r..►..►. .►..►..►..►. FF l 1190. ; t■ t■ � t■ � I 0 NOW WINDOW FRAMES - ENTRY DOOR, GARAGE DOORS, FRENCH DOORS DUNN EDWARDS DE5211 OFFWHITE EXTERIOR WALL STUCCO �— LA HABRA X-82 HACIENDA SMOOTH STUCCO EXTERIOR STUCCO ACCENT. PRECAST STONE EAVE. PRECAST STONE TRIM, WINDOW SILLS ETC CORONADO STONE OFFWHITE .. . 11111 • - • . . 6i@nl.n�uilii6ii$.;�I;�lii5;i.;�1;�\i�d�li�l;�.;�n'�.i�l;�.;�"� "'•'�R�Ii�li�d�1;S�;�dvliio�. iil.uiPli:vno\..........ai\L.1. .1. \liiva.a.......a...- - \li\ii\IGO•Ri .lvlino lG l\ si:rr,�r•r.:r:s�a�.;_ r.�r�. :ili.l�\.i\ice\li\.i\\ •� • I&V ��i.iiY�illii.\�.�..�•-.:.��• a■ 111111 8 mm � n mm n � ,,;; � _oma: �� o•, � �IIIII 11�;.�11 111111 — il'�I1IgSGi�:�l n•n nrn '�rl 111111 i�iiii IIID i n 1191 IP,;1 ;11,11 ��� III — IIIIII I!!��l1 i�llll n sl nim n � ni'�ni � �� , �,� 111111 Illtll 111114 olio �� ���1 �� �1 .I::,.1 II,al1 i 11 171111 In;i1�1 111111 111 � ninn Un �in n' II ��� 111111 111111 11 �� non Ituln� 1111:1 it �B . \ 11111111/ REVISED FRONT ELEVATION SCALE 3/16" = I FT -0 IN. ALL EXPOSED RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE COLOR COATED TO MATCH HOUSE STUCCO COLOR AND BE SCREENED BY LANDSCAPING SEE LS PLAN Z Q LLJ J w LL z w 0 Z a 0 ry 02 LL J � a LLJN >o wa 2 PLANTING NOTES PLANT LEGEND 1. Contractor Is to revlew^ lams, verify el[e condi lass andplantquantities prior to Installation Contractor shau take SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME sate res .nemnn or yuan p y y cost Incprrea <o asymbo f existing u Pant material tae: are natal far the COMMON NAME SIZE QTY. convenience of the Contractor. or number number symbols shalt have priority over quantity designated. Conrticts aneAct between the Owner and these piny or within these plans shell he ought t brought to the the Landscape Architect TREE prior Any deviatlon(s) from the halos r reenrol written wtll requk'e wrnece approve( iron speolt landscape Oleo ears 'Swan Hill' n and/or toe Owner nod/or Architect. s The Contractor shall assume full responslbRiq far all necessary revisions due respo ea O P Fruitless Olive Tree 24" box 4 to failure to give alta such nota ca 0e°n - Syogrus, romonzoffianum Queen Palm 24" box 8 2. iri.in -antrnctor shall maintain o quallFlea supervisor on the site at al( tines during construction through completion of pit pick-up work. � Tristania conferta Brisbane box 24" box 5 3. The Contractor shall receive site graded within 0.10 foot of finish grade. Commencement of nark Indicates Contractor's SHRUB acceptance of existing grades and conditions. Final grades shalt be adjusted by Contractor as directed by Owner's Buxu. micro. JapONCO Japanese Boxwood 5 gal 56 representative. All grading shalt be completed prior to commencement of planting operation (� Phormi.m teal/ Atropurpureum' ' New -Zealand Flax 5 gol 65 4. The Contractor shalt furnish and pay for alt container grown thele, shrubs, vines, seeded/sodded turf, Ligustrrm. japonicum `Texanum' - Texas Privet 5 al 9 176 - and The Contractor shall Iso be responsible for and pay far planting, staking, end guarantee of stoking, d guarantee erols, plant Seeers. NI plant materials. see plonang details for planting and stnklne/guying requirements. � PERENNIALS ' s. The Landscape, Architect and/or. Owner shalt approve plant material placement by Contractor prior to Installation. ^� Agap.01ms Citicorp. 'Peter Pan' Dwarf Lily Of the Nile 1 112 `.I Dietes bicolor Fortnight Lily - Fortnig gal 1 gal 45 6. F`riR^zer for pa. town areas shat( be a slaw -release, high -nitrogen fertilleer Incorporated Into the sell during O Hemerocollis hybrids 1 109 P ant g. gal m >. For areas to be Ondecaped and Irrigated, the following amendments shalt be uniformly broadcast and thoroughly GRQUNDCOVER incorporated 6' deep by Can n otoaner or equal. Amount per et s ante feet - LAWN _ Toll Fescue spp. sod sod 4 , yds. sl. norganic compost - - ral a pounds as agricultural gypsum gypsum -and Myoporum parvifolium .Prostrate Myoporum flats flats 1 for tree 8. The Planting Plans for trees elan he tlue three times the diameter of the boos ball two Inches shallower than the The planting to be In she center of the tilled area, shalt be as 6s, two Inches. . than, ® Pelargonium pe tatum , Ivy GCfOpiUm flats flats fdugor tmeatlower awry the h Planting ll. Planting pks far shrubs and perenMn(s shall be au9 [wlce as wltle as one -pad -a -half ;Imes ns deep d. n.- � Trochelospermum ' as the rodtban. � tIvdL jasminoides Sfar Jasmine flats flats 9. The Landscape Contractor shat( maintain all planted areas shownon the plans, Including mut not limited to) watering, pr.ah,, edging, and mowing, for a period of thirty (30) days after completion of project and acceptance by Owner. 10. The LonaseaPe Contractor shall warranty and replace any plant material that shows signs of lack of vigor or. other unhealthful ppearonew wOhio sTrat, (90) days of completion of contract. Trees that have been topped or otherwise ' improperly pruned by the Contractor shalt be removed and replaced by the Contractor at no cost to the owner. MULCH INSTALLATION nTREE PLANTING DETAIL IN SECTION NOi TO SCLLE RIDGELINE ROAD REMARKS mixed colors Marathon II or equal plant ® 12" .... plant ® 12" o.c. plant ® 12" a... bb // / wff / ao 9 F p0" SITE—� VICINITY !AP N.T.S.R O O O M 0 CD O 1t lie 0' 10' 32' AO' 40' (77�lto W Mi' s v C2 D®m W CZ Osm N. Z N O oanv Rs,x FXeo 10,0846 salt ills, r11 - Its N0. 0,11 zxrn H 2 ./tris ld- OL = ROM L 31VOS 3 3 N01103S 311S LL6QU j1 9MtA -----iron ix sr y-------------- IVAOJddd �VN101J0 .SV IINVS ]Hi S1 300J 30 d01 3H1 13 Z J.O O3J3MM SVM ONimin8 11 HI (INV (XOJddb) ld Z O3SIVl SVM . Odd 3H1 33NIS :310N AS 1-3 0 � t� 0 z z y 4" z� x z 0 d m ld- OL = ROM L 31VOS 3 3 N01103S 311S LL6QU j1 9MtA -----iron ix sr y-------------- IVAOJddd �VN101J0 .SV IINVS ]Hi S1 300J 30 d01 3H1 13 Z J.O O3J3MM SVM ONimin8 11 HI (INV (XOJddb) ld Z O3SIVl SVM . Odd 3H1 33NIS :310N z z W CL CL LUm O Z Z Lu a.. QO W W 0 } F- t Uz Z 2 0 U U cd c c c c c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N 0 U ro n: o 0 0 0 0 0 0- M = O) C Ol C 01 C OI C 0) G O) C m C N I I I I I I I Uo. 0 V N - 0 0 0 0 0 0 m Q a a a a a a N C) M N N N N N N N m m d _ E E E E E E E o C o C 0 C 0 C 0 C 0 C c0i C N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U.� U a o 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N � G w Cr Ci% G iw C ✓ CL Gi-w @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ C Sa2 .2a �aE �ao �aE a o Qo ao o a a wE- vE VE- .- a `m IL C � m c c Q" > O W O @ N > O a z z Y a a 0 z 0 z z � z O r O N a v o ro a N N tp `O J O O O N p N' J N J p J -. N a - a co UN D Ir O 0 a a @ m 0 N O O U U Czu U O U y V J w V > J J 7 a O m 0] C c 'O W E U M h o O N C W O TO U `m m E �'-o-o no o O a ii @' o a` m E 0 anti a._. mm 0 LL' Ow moN JN Q ?�0 0_' Uo Ua C'm ,0 O'U Od E E �' -o v 'a-. a _U ¢: o o a @ .. @ .o N@ — E v@ @ U @ Q @ 3 N O U fn @ t z C C O Dcn D --0 m o�_ Z o Z u-«. m U E N Q M? omo -o ov coo vt X03 w= �3 M N NU UU O O W N¢ M NZ W Z MC) Z h C N O Q W N (L �- N �- M N +- zW O� c7� nw zw n� Z Q ¢ 2i U<Z ULo D W Z Z O Ja � Z - } ::)z 2':�UE a-0ILa-<0 II Z II II II II S it :EUKU aXaa¢U 0 z W C9 W J 7 m m a Q m z z O Q LL O } h U ,, F - Z W a.w w 0 z z w a O w W W 'D N 7 G M G O U w 0 C O a � z J Z � U Z w O LL IL t0 I6 t6 t6 (6 t0 N @ O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 m m m m m m m m c c c c c c c c I I I I I I I I C c C C G C G C O O O O O O O O m m m m m m m m m a m a m a a d a a a n "a a a a E E E E E E E E OU U OU U U U U U C G C C C C C G 0 O 4 O O W O O O O O N N N N N N N N Oc C Oc Oc C C C C c C C C C 0 C C N c C 0 C 0 C 0 C'A G G 0 C 0 C 0E .UE 2E �E �E�@ 'a€ 'a ao ao ao ao ao a a a.=_ a.=_ ¢.G_ ¢.G_ a = <.s a = ¢.G_ m L N O G j N N L L L O e 0 > Y m 3 N J N W N c m K Ll 0) Y W CD C' J Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z U` z Z ❑ n i0 Nct (h N p � M N O 0 N 0 o J a a a n a a- a m a < D - m n. D ❑ ❑ U ❑ ❑ ❑ U `m c U c 0 C C N C c U 75 Y � N � N N JO 0 E � O v O 0E O U o :° :� vE w .E U) m W N C y � N N c N L 3 y O N @ Y c J J a'C D c c C C O G C C N .� M ro N V' U N ' O ' N¢ N Z W Z LL Z a Z m N¢ N Z N N CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: On February 28, 2012, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular session at 7:00 p.m., at City Hall, Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On February 24, 2012, a copy of the agenda of the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Library 1061 Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA Heritage Park 2900 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 24, 2012, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community Development 9partment CWzslel I a\affidavilposti ng. doe