Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2006PLANNING FILE Copy COMMISSION AGENDA February 28, 2006 7:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Government Center Building - Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Joe McManus Ruth M. Low Kwang Ho Lee Dan Nolan Tony Torng Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Dept. of Community & Development Services, located at 29825 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. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 9990, 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 Department of Community & Development Services at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. 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 requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with 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 and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Friday. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030 General Agendas (909) 839-7030 email: info(cDci.diamond-bar.ca.us CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 28, 2006 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Next Resolution No. 2006-08 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice - Chairman Ruth M. Low, Kwang Ho Lee, Dan Nolan, Tony Torng 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recordina Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntarv.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only. 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: February 14, 2006. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review 2005-31/Minor Conditional Use Permit 2006-03 — In accordance to Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, this is a request to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of approximately 9,288 square feet (including porches, balconies, covered patios, swimming pool, tennis court and an attached six car garage) on an existing vacant 1.68 acre parcel in the R1 20,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential. The applicant also request approval of a Minor Conditional FEBRUARY 28, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Use Permit to allow a driveway width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street property line. (Continued from February 14, 2006) Project Address: 2502 Razzak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30578; APN 8713-009-066) Property Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Wasif Siddique 11076 Venture Drive Mira Loma, CA 91752 Applicant: Mr. Bob Larivee 17 Rue Du Chateau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Environmental Determination: 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 under Article 19 Section 15303 Class 3 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental assessment is necessary. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item to March 14, 2006, to allow the applicant time to submit revised drawings. 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 8.1 Development Review No. 2006-06 — In accordance to Code Section 22.48 - this is a request to construct a three story single-family residence of approximately 7,360 gross square feet Including the three car garage, porte cochere, terraces, balconies and deck. The request also includes a play court, swimming pool/spa, and retaining walls with maximum exposed eight feet height. Project Address: 24141 Lodge Pole Road (APN 8713-043-007) Property Owner/ Mr. and Mrs. Juzer Jangbarwala Applicant: 1441 Autumn Hill Lane Chino Hills, CA 91709 Environmental Determination: The City has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(a). FEBRUARY 28, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 8.2 Development Review No. 2006-04/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01/Minor Variance No. 2006-01 — In accordance to Code Section 22.48, 22.52, 22.56, and 22.68 - this is a request to remodel and construct an approximate 1,683 gross square feet addition including porch, balcony/patio cover, storage room and garage to an existing 2,577 livable square feet two story single-family residence. A Minor Conditional Use Permit approval permits the continuation of legal nonconforming front and side yard setbacks. The Minor Variance approval permits a decrease of the required setback/yard area for this irregularly shaped lot. Project Address: 22088 Cedardale Drive (APN 8293-039-033) Property Owner: Dr. Jacob Said 22088 Cedardale Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Khanjian Agop 2721 N. Michigan Avenue Pasadena, CA 91106 Environmental Determination: The City has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006-04/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01/ Minor Variance No. 2006-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. 8.3 Development Review No. 2006-03 - In accordance to Code Section 22.48.020 (a) - this is a request to construct a two-story office building of approximately 25,000 square feet on a vacant lot within Gateway Corporate Center. Project Address: 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive Property Owner/ Dr. Acbar Omar Applicant: 222 N. Sunset Avenue W. Covina, CA 91790 FEBRUARY 28, 2006 9. 10. PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration's review period begins February 1, 2006 and ends February 20, 2006. The Planning Commission will also consider the adoption of Negative Declaration 2006-01 on February 21, 2006. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006-03, Negative Declaration No. 2006-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: RIBBON CUTTING AT SYCAMORE CANYON PARK TRAIL HEAD: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: 12. ADJOURNMENT: Saturday, February 25, 2006 —10:00 a.m. Diamond Bar Blvd. Tuesday, March 7, 2006 - 6:30 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Thursday, March 9, 2006 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive Tuesday, - March 14, 2006 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Thursday, March 23, 2006 SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive DRAFT MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Dan Nolan Tony Torng, Vice -Chairman Ruth Low and Chairman Joe McManus Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Milan Garrison, Contract Planner; Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 10, 2006 — Approved as corrected with C/Nolan abstaining. 4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 24, 2006 — Approved as submitted with VC/Low and Chair/McManus abstaining. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-15 AND MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2006-03 — In accordance to Chapters 22.48 and 22.56 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of approximately 9,288 FEBRUARY 14, 2006 DRAFT PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION square feet (including porches, balconies, covered patios, swimming pool, tennis court and an attached six -car garage) on an existing vacant 1.68 acre parcel in the R-1 20,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential. The applicant also requested approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street property line. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2502 Razzak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30578; APN 8713-009-066) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Wasif Siddique 11076 Venture Drive Mira Loma, CA 91752 APPLICANT: Bob Larivee 17 Rue Du Chateau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 ICDD/Fong requested that the item be continued to February 28, 2006, to allow the applicant time to submit additional revised project drawings. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus continued the public hearing to February 28, 2006. 7.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2005-37. MINOR VARIANCE 2005-10 AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-02 — In accordance to Chapters 22.48, 22.52 and 22.56 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new two-story dwelling of approximately 7,200 square feet (including porches, balconies, covered patios, swimming pool and an attached four car garage) on an existing vacant 34,848 (.89 acre) square foot parcel in the R-1 8,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium Density Residential (RLM). The applicant also requested approval of a Minor Variance to permit retaining walls with an exposed height of eight (8) feet; and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street property line. DRAFT FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: 3121 Steeplechase Lot 3 of Parcel Map 23382 (APN 8713-017-112) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Arun and Indira Jain 20825 Quail Run Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue Upland, CA 91736 Milan Garrison, Contract Planner, presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2005-37, Minor Variance 2005-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2006-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. CP/Garrison responded to VC/Low that the apparent discrepancy in the size of the driveway was because the site entry at the east and west entrances were 20 feet wide at the turn into a half -circle and staff recommended a reduction from 20 feet to 12 feet to provide additional landscaping to meet the 50 percent requirement. A width of 14 feet is the maximum allowed at the half -circle area and staff is recommending that it be reduced to 12 feet to reduce the amount of paving in the front yard area. C/Torng asked if it was normal to seek Planning Commission approval prior to the applicant receiving approval from "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association and ICDD/Fong responded that it was not unusual even though staff would prefer that the applicant get conceptual approval from the association before the Planning Commission's review of the project. CP/Garrison stated that in this case staff received confirmation that "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association approved the project. VC/Low said she was interested to know the height of the attic and the purpose of having an attic in this development. CP/Garrison asked VC/Low to address her question to the applicant. PC/Garrison explained to C/Lee that the 4800 cubic yards of fill was derived from the grading plan provided by the applicant. Staff inserted the larger amount because upon review by staff it was determined that slightly more fill would be required to create the graded pad to comply with current code &DRAFT FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION provisions. C/Lee wanted to know where the numbers came from and PC/Garrison responded that he thought the applicant was indicating the amount of cut and the amount of fill in the triangular portion — the distance between the end of the natural grade to the finished grade and estimates the area to be 815 square feet x 150 feet of depth for a total of the estimated cubic yards. C/Lee said it would be helpful to view a detailed plan of the proposed retaining wall because reference to a 7' or 8' retaining wall" did not mean anything to him. He wanted to know what kind of material would be used for the wall, how deep the footings, etc. and there was not enough information about the wall for him to make a decision and the wall was very important. TCDD/Fong explained that typically, staff conditions the project that the applicant must conform to code and use decorative materials such as split - faced block or slump stone block. The details are plan checked by the City's Building Official to make certain the wall is constructed to the City's safety standards. In this case, the retaining wall is not seen from the street because it is holding up a portion of the street. Someone driving on Steeplechase would not see the retaining wall only the homeowner would see the wall. Certainly the City wants to make sure that the retaining wall materials are compatible with the architectural style of the building. C/Lee said that the retaining wall and safety were co -related and when an applicant applies for a Minor Variance he should provide a plan that the Commissioners can view and understand because if the Commissioners do not have the information they cannot vote yes or no. ICDD/Fong referred C/Lee to the illustration on Section 8 a. on Sheet ss. The scale is small but it shows that there is a retaining wall and that it slopes down into the driveway that leads to the garage. C/Lee asked staff for the structural detail of the retaining wall, what kind of footing, what kind of concrete, etc., because there is pressure on a retaining wall and if it is not constructed properly it could fall down. If staff provided these details and a cross-section of the wall, for example, then he could easily make a decision. Seven or eight feet mean nothing to him. There is no way he can reach a conclusion. ICDD/Fong reiterated that the Planning Commission's role is to grant entitlement. Technical matters involving construction and engineering of the walls is a staff function. Commissioners need to review whether or not the Minor Variance is a necessary item for the project to move forward. C/Lee said he understood that and that he did not want to invade functions of City departments but in order to decide he needed sufficient information and he asked the City Attorney for clarification about whether as a Commissioner he was entitled to the information in order to make a decision. ACA/Wohlenberg explained that a variance is requesting to exceed the retaining wall height allowed by code. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION The engineering data and technical information should not be relevant to the decision because it is an aesthetic question if the City wants to allow the applicant to exceed the height limit. Based on the City's standards for granting a variance which are outlined in staff's report, the height limit is an aesthetic limit that affects the appearance of the neighborhood and one should assume that the project would be properly engineered according to the City's' Code. C/Lee said he was confused about what information he should use to make his decisions. C/Nolan said he had sufficient information to move forward and would like for the applicant to make his presentation. Chair/McManus said that if Commissioners wanted to review the technical aspects of a project they could ask staff for a copy of the plan check drawings. Pete Volbeda, applicant, said he had built several houses in "The Country Estates." This particular lot requires more fill due to the existing condition of the lot. The reason for the variance request is because the pad is lower and the intent is to hide the garage from street view that necessitates a driveway in front of the house and creates the need for a taller retaining wall at the corner. If the higher retaining wall were disallowed it would necessitate moving the house further down on the lot and create more fill. This is the first step in acquiring a number of approvals in order for the project to move forward. If the Planning Commission failed to approve the variance there would be no need to provide plans and specs for a seven -foot wall. In addition, the applicant intends to screen the walls in accordance with staffs conditions. Mr. Volbeda stated that with respect to the attic space, the owner may at some point wish to convert the attic to a living area. In that case, the applicant would submit the proper application and drawings through the Planning Department. At this point in the project the space will be an unfinished attic. Mr. Volbeda responded to C/Nolan that he had built more than 20 homes in "The Country Estates." VC/Low asked if Mr. Volbeda intended to leave the tree in place and build around it. She asked if the tree was on the applicants or neighbors property. Mr. Volbeda responded that the tree was on the neighbor's property and that part of the parcel conditions for splitting the three lots included maintenance of the oak tree. The tree appears to him to be thriving and he said there would be no construction near the tree. DRAFT FEBRUARY '14, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said that he was seeking a basic plan or cross section of the wall and the depth so that he could understand what it would look like. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. ICDD/Fong recommended that the following condition be added: "Conversion of the attic space to livable space is subject to the City's review process." C/Nolan asked for confirmation that the specifications of the retaining wall were within the purview of staff and that it met all of the specifications of the City's Building Code. ICDD/Fong said she believed so because the City's Engineering Department reviews the plans prior to Planning Commission review. This would be constructed to the specifications of a typical seven -foot retaining wall that is allowed within the Hillside Ordinance because of the topography of "The Country Estates." Prior to the issuance of the building permit the construction specifications would have to meet code. C/Lee said that it would be helpful to have the inside elevation (floor plan). ICDD/Fong explained that typically, staff does not have the elevation of the inside walls. The floor plan indicates how the space will be used. Staff asks for exterior elevations only because the City is concerned with the exterior design and aesthetics only. If the applicant decided to convert the attic to livable space he would need to provide information about the use of the space for staff to determine that the use was appropriate for the zone and that it met the City's standards and requirements. ICDD/Fong confirmed to VC/Low that the permit to finish the attic space would be subject to staff review only. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review 2005-37, Minor Variance 2005-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2006-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of Condition (mm) to wit: "Building plans for converting unfinished attic space to livable space shall be subject to staff review priorto issuance of building permits." ADRAFT FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Low stated that with some of the issues voiced during the discussion of this item page 6 of the Draft Resolution - subsections (n) and (o) clearly referenced the criteria for granting a Minor Variance. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Lee, Torng, VC/Low, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Low wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. C/Torng said that many residents have asked him about the progress of the Country Hills Towne Center and asked staff for an update. He wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. C/Lee thanked ICDD/Fong for her help and wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. ICDD/Fong reported that she met with Mike McCarthy today to discuss the conditions of approval and plans for proceeding with the refurbishing of the Country Hills Towne Center. The applicant intends to submit plans in a timely fashion so that the supermarket could be fully functional by the end of the year. The new HMart is a Georgia based company and this location will be the first prototype in California. There will also be a Starbuck's drive-through. Mr. McCarthy said that he had signed many letters of interest and was working with existing tenants to retain their business as well. Mr. McCarthy plans to approach the Planning Commission with a request for modification to the Conditional Use Permit for the two-story building because he has acquired enough leases that he needs to build the new building to relocate some of the existing tenants while he renovates the existing buildings. The website for HMart is www.hmart.com. The owner of HMart is a Korean family and the market is a multi-ethnic "World Market" type of business. EDRAFT FEBRUARY `14, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ICDD/Fong responded to C/Nolan that Dr. Doshi had indicated that,he wanted to move to the second floor of the new two-story building. C/Nolan felt that his decision was a win-win for everyone. Chair/McManus said it was unfortunate that everyone could not make the Economic Workshop on February 6 because it was very enlightening. The moderator was very good at keeping everyone on point. ICDD/Fong reported that the City Council, Chair/McManus and staff participated in the Economic Workshop. Council set priorities for economic goals. For example, redevelopment of the Kmart center is a high priority project and Council wants staff to move forward. Building a golf course is a top priority project as well and is part of the annexation being pursued by the City. Council wanted to conduct a land use study for Site D and perhaps change the General Plan to make it clear that the site would be available for commercial development and not as residential in the future. Chair/McManus said the redevelopment of the Kmart area included the area from the SR60 to Golden Springs Drive to the condominiums to the west and to Diamond Bar Boulevard to the south. ICDD/Fong explained that the condominiums would not be demolished but rather included within the Specific Plan area for pedestrian connections. ICDD/Fong responded to VC/Low that the area including the Chevron and Shell stations across Diamond Bar Boulevard and excluding the condominiums was recently rezoned from C-2 to C-3. VC/Low suggested that the City Council and Planning Commission meet with individuals concerned about economic development during discussions involving the Form Based Code. 9.2 Form Based Codes At the request of Chair/McManus to investigate Formed Based Codes staff provided the Commission with information and sent a memorandum to Council indicating that the Planning Commission was interested in a mutual discussion of the subject. Because Diamond Bar is somewhat built out, there would be certain areas of the City that could fall under Formed Based Code and redevelopment. In order to facilitate the Formed Based Code the Planning Commission could forward a recommendation to the City Council that the General Plan could be amended to add policies and goals that referenced Form Based Code as a tool for use as part of the future Specific Plan. In response to VC/Low, TCDD/Fong said that it would be a general recommendation to consider implementing the Formed Based Code FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION specific to the project areas. Adding the words "Formed Based Code" or "urbanism" would set the tone for developing the Specific Plan. VC/Low thanked staff for an excellent report. She felt that in spite of the City being pretty well built out the Formed Based Code could be useful. On the other hand, this concept was 25 years old and she would not want to push the Form Based Code if something better came along. TCDD/Fong said that Diamond Bar would most likely use a hybrid form of the Form Based Code rather than a pure Form Based Code. She believed that cities should be able to regulate what types of uses would be compatible with each other as well as compatible to the surrounding area. TCDD/Fong responded to C/Torng that from a public purpose (quality of life) standpoint Form Based Codes were established as a tool prescribed to a Specific Plan so that cities could describe what form and architectural style the buildings should take on, where the buildings should be placed, what kind of pedestrian connections should be included and what kind and size the plaza areas should be to attract pedestrians to remain and enjoy the environment. She pointed out that The Groves on Third Avenue in Los Angeles is a very vibrant area with lots of pedestrian traffic and it would be that type of atmosphere that Diamond Bar would seek to create for its residents and using the Form Based Code it would be feasible to prescribe that kind of environment. ICDD/Fong indicated to C/Torng that the approval process would remain the same as it is today. 9.3 Art in Public Places ICDD/Fong presented the Commission with a report including a chart that compared several cities from Brea and Claremont to Laguna Beach, Pasadena and Rancho Cucamonga. Art could be obtained through a prescribed program. For example, Brea requires that each project of a certain value would have to contribute a specific amount of money. Another way of acquiring art is through the entitlement process on a project -by -project basis. For example, if the City has something in its design guidelines or General Plan Goals and Objectives to encourage the placement of art, the City could, through entitlement — a Conditional Use Permit, condition the Country Hills Towne Center to place an art piece within the project site. The Brea concept is for any project that exceeds a certain value contributes one percent toward art in public places. The question is whether the City is attempting to achieve a "public purpose" and how does the City define that "public purpose." Obviously, the "public purpose" is for aesthetics and quality of life that the City wants to achieve. On the other hand, how would that fiscally affect the development community because they would have to set aside funds in advance for placement of A& DRAFT FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION art. Staff would recommend that the City develop guidelines or General Plan goals that would encourage art in public places and explore the idea of creating an "art fund." Chair/McManus recalled that an artist obtained private funding for donation of the Cougar at Summitridge Park and wondered how that project came about. ICDD/Fong felt that not too many private individuals would fund an art project unless they were compelled to do so. C/Nolan commended staff on the report. He said he believed in this type of program and said that the onus was on the City to figure out how to fund the program and whether it should be funded primarily through commercial projects. C/Nolan felt the City's entryways were aesthetically pleasing. ICDD/Fong thanked CP/Campbell for preparation of the report. C/Torng asked if staff planned to discuss this matter with the Council and VC/Low asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to amend the design guidelines. ICDD/Fong said that staff's recommendation was for the Commission to send a recommendation to the City Council to initiate a General Plan amendment that would add language to facilitate art in public places as well as the Form Based Code. C/Nolan asked if the General Plan supported the notion of art in public places. ICDD/Fong said she read through the General Plan and did not recall that there was any mention, policy or goal that spoke to art in public places. Chair/McManus stated that if the City went to Form Based Code it could dictate the parameters under which contractors were to build. VC/Low recalled Mr. DeStefano, former Assistant City Manager, indicating that art in public places would not conflict with the General Plan and that there was no such prohibition within the General Plan. ICDD/Fong said that at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff would prepare a memorandum to the City Council. VC/Low felt there was a better word than "extract" and ICDD/Fong said that staff would make the change. &DRAFT FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION VCILow moved, C/Nolan seconded to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the City adopt Form Based Code for Specific Plans and that policies and goals be incorporated for an "art in public places" program. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Nolan, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Interim Community Development Director Joe McManus, Chairman INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners 4A, �,-- »OMMR COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner TI/ DATE: February 23, 2006 SUBJECT: Development Review No. 2005-31 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 for a project located at 2502 Razzak Circle The above referenced project was noticed and scheduled for the February 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. However, the applicant did not submit required corrected plans in a timely manner for staff to review and prepare a staff report. As a result, the Commission continued the public hearing to February 28, 2006. Staff has tried to contact the property owner and applicant several times and has not received a response. Therefore, another continuance is needed. Per the City Attorney's recommendation, this is the last continuance. The project will need to be advertised and noticed again. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this project's public hearing to March 14, 2006. If the project is not ready for the March 14, 2006, it will need to be noticed and advertised for another date. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT 21825 COPLEY DRIVE—DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765—TEL (909) 839-7030—FAX (909) 861-3117—www.Cityofdiamondbar.com AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.1 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2006 REPORT DATE: February 22, 2006 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. 2006-06 PROJECT LOCATION: 24141 Lodge Pole Road (Lot 7 of Tract Map No. 30093) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICATION REQUEST: Approval to construct a three-story Single-family residence of approximately 7,360 gross square feet including the three car garage, porte cochere, terraces, balconies and deck. The request also includes a play court, swimming pool/spa, and retaining walls a maximum eight feet exposed height. PROPERTY OWNERS/ Juzer and Farzana Jangbarwala, 14451 Autumn Hill APPLICANTS: Lane, Chino Hills, CA 91709 STAFF Approve RECOMMENDATION: DR 2006-06 - PAGE 1 BACKGROUND: This proposed project was previously approved with Administrative Review No. 2003-12, however, it expired. The property owners request the same project with the Development Review No. 2006-06 application for a single-family residence on a vacant lot. The project site is an irregular shaped vacant lot that slopes downward from Lodge Pole Road and is approximately 48,787 gross square feet (1.12 acres) located within the Country Estates gated community. The site has street, utility, and sewer easements in the front and a flood hazard area at the rear of the lot. ANALYSIS: A. Applications and Review Authority A new single-family structure on a vacant parcel requires Development Review by the Planning Commission per the City's Development Code (DC) Section 22.48. B. General Plan/Zoning General Plan designation: Rural Residential (RR), Maximum 1 DU/AC Zoning: Single-family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 40,000 Square Feet (R-1- 40,000) Surrounding Zones and Uses: North: RPD -20,000-2U zone and single-family residential use South: R-1-40,000 zone and single-family residential use East: R-1-40,000 zone and single-family use (and San Bernardino County Line) West: R-1-40,000 zone and single-family residential use C. Development Standards The following comparison indicates the proposed project complies with all City development standards: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development RR Zoning District Proposed Meets Feature Requirements Requirements Minimum Lot 43,560 S.F. 1.12 acre 5,000 usable S.F. LA County Lot Area 48,787 gross S.F. Averaging Residential 1 Single-family Unit; 1 Single-family Unit Yes Density 1 per gross acre 'DR 2006-06 - PAGE 2 Front yard 30 feet 30 feet Yes setback Side yard 15'-0" & 10'-0" 15'-0" & 10'-0" Yes setback each Side yard minimum between 25 feet Exceeds 25 feet Yes structures -on adjoining parcels Rear setback 25 feet Exceeds 25 feet Yes Building Height 35 feet -0" (maximum) 35 feet Yes Limit Hillside As required by Chapter Three stories with Development 22.22 (Hillside created pad Yes Management) As required by Chapter Landscaping 15% Landscaping 22.24 (Landscaping) overall & 50% in Yes front yard 2 in fully enclosed Enclosed Parking garage (20'X20'). 3 -car garage Yes 30% 11.4% Yes Lot Coverage Less than one-half 48,787 gross square Preserved/ acre lots - exempt from feet is more than None on-site Protected Trees Tree Permit one-half acre requirements Pool 5 feet to waterline Play Court 10 feet from PL Meets all standards Yes Retaining walls Maximum 8'H in rear D. Proposed Single-family Residence 1. Architectural Features/Colors and Materials The proposed project's Tuscan architectural design and variety of earth tones palette are compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within the Country Estates and are consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and Design Guidelines. The design of the proposed single-family structure considers the project site's topography. The creativeness of the design is enhanced by the proposed colors and textures, variety of varying planes and elevation heights/levels. DR 2006-06 - PAGE 3 2. Floor Plans: The proposed residence is three floors as shown in Exhibit "A". The basement is approximately 1,137 square feet and noted for storage and game room. The first floor has a foyer, staircase to the second floor, bedroom with bathroom and closets, living room, dining room, butler's pantry, office with closet, kitchen with nook and panty, family room, mud room, powder room, three exterior terraces, garages and porte cochere. The second floor has a master bedroom suite with bathroom, closets, service area, sitting room and exterior deck, hall and two bedrooms each with a bathroom. 3. Accessory Structures The landscape plan and grading plan include a gazebo, shed, and sports court. The location and concept are a part of this approval process, but each structure's architectural plans shall be submitted later to the Planning Division and Building and Safety Division for review, approvals, and separate permits. An approval condition requires the sports court's fencing and lighting comply with Development Code Sections 22.16.050 and 22.42.110. 4. Site Work: a. Grading/Soils Report The grading of the site for the house pad and play court will generate approximately 1,320 cubic yards of cut and 1,130 cubic yards of fill. As part of this project's conditions of approval, the applicant will be required to submit a final grading plan and soils report to the City's Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division for review and approval. The drainage patterns and techniques shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to any permit issuance. b. Septic Tank Area The lot is located in an area of the Country Estates that does not have public sewers. This area has septic tanks and this owner like his neighbors is required to obtain approvals from the Los Angeles County Health Department Engineering Division, the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City's Building and Safety Division. c. Retaining Walls The proposed retaining walls are located within the front, side and rear of the project site. A condition of approval requires all walls to be decorative materials, slump stone, split -face block or stucco to match structure. The standard maximum approval height of walls and fences is six (6) feet exposed height. Yet, in certain circumstances the Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC Section 22.20) allows exposed heights to eight (8) feet without Variance approvals. The circumstances include location and topography. 1. Front Courtyard Walls The lot is lower than the street grade. To support the house and pad and to minimize the grading quantities, two retaining DR 2006-06 - PAGE 4 walls will be constructed at the courtyard (see section AA on page two of the grading plan). These walls will only be seen by the residents and have six (6) feet exposed height. 2. Driveway Walls The driveway cuts into the grade and a retaining wall approximately 42 inches exposed height supports the cut. 3. Rear Walls The structure's design considers the topography with minimal grading and proposes dual retaining walls to an eight foot exposed height to support the house (see section CC on page two of the grading plan). Walls in the rear yard may be this height with the Director's approval. The retaining walls in the rear yard that support the recreational area and sports court are approximately four (4) feet exposed height. There is an existing retaining wall on the project site that was permitted and a final inspection completed. This wall will remain. 4. Side Walls The walls in the side yard hold a cut and vary from two (2) feet to seven (7) feet (see section BB on page two of the grading plan). Walls in the side yard may be seven (7) feet exposed height with the Director's approval. 5. Landscaping a. Preserved/Protected Trees The project site does not contain oak, walnut, sycamore, arroyo willow or pepper trees. There are a few existing trees on site but not of the specified tree species that are preserved and protected pursuant to the Development Code. The proposed landscape plan incorporates oak trees adjacent to the sports court. b. Landscape A landscape plan was submitted with this project's application. The landscaping and irrigation installation is required prior to final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. E. Covenant and Agreements 1. Covenant to Maintain a Single-family Residence A condition of approval requires the property owner to complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single-family Residence" on a City form. The covenant must be recorded with the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office prior to building permit issuance. DR 2006-06 - PAGE 5 2. Sewer condition of approval requires the property owner to complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to permit construction of sanitary sewer" on a City form. The covenant must be recorded with the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office prior to building permit issuance. F. Additional Review The Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. Their comments are included in both the report and the approval conditions. G. General Plan/Design Guidelines/Compatibility with Neighborhood 1. Strategy 1.2.4, Maintain residential areas which provide ownership for Single- family housing and require that new development be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood's prevailing character; and 2. Strategy 2.2.1, New developments shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Staffs review as described in the following sections, finds the application consistent with the General Plan, Development Code s, City's Design Guidelines, and compatible with the neighborhood. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: On February 14, 2006, 22 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other locations were posted within the application's vicinity. On February 17, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that this project is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(a) - (new Single-family residence). RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006- 06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the attached resolution. DR 2006-06 - PAGE 6 Prepared by: Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Associate ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval; 2. Covenant and Agreement; 3. Aerial; 4. Exibit "A" - site plan, floor plans, elevations, roof plan, sections, grading plan, landscape plan, and materials/colors dated February 28, 2006. DR 2006-06 - PAGE 7 DRAFT ATTACHMENT 1" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-06 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT ATHREE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 7,360 GROSS SQUARE FEET INCLUDING THE THREE CAR GARAGE, PORTE COCHERE, TERRACES, BALCONIES AND DECK. THE REQUEST ALSO INCLUDES A PLAY COURT, SWIMMING POOL/SPA, AND RETAINING WALLS WITH A MAXIMUM EIGHT FEET EXPOSED HEIGHT. THE PROJECT SITE IS 24141 LODGE POLE ROAD (LOT 7, TRACT MAP NO. 30093; APN 8713-043-007), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. Recitals 1. The property owners/applicants, Juzer and Farzana Jangbarwala, filed the Development Review No. 2006-06 application for a property located at 24141 Lodge Pole Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On February 14, 2006, 22 property owners in a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other locations were posted in the application's vicinity. On February 17, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site. 3. On February 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that Application is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15303(a). 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is assessor parcel number 8713-043-007, addressed 24141 Lodge Pole Road (Lot 7, Tract Map No. 30093), Diamond Bar, California, in the Country Estates gated community. The parcel is an irregularly shaped, 1.12 gross acres vacant lot. The site has street, utility, and sewer easements in the front and a flood hazard area in the rear of the lot. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), maximum one dwelling unit pr acre. The site is zoned single-family residence, R-1-40,000. (c) The surrounding zones and uses are: North - RPD -20,000,2U zone and single-family residential uses; south - R-1-40,000 zone and single-family residential uses; east - R-1-40,000 zone and single- family uses and the San Bernardino County Line; and west - R-1- 40,000 zone and single-family residential uses. (d) The Application is requests to construct a three-story single-family residence of approximately 7,360 gross square feet including the three car garage, porte cochere, terraces, balconies and deck. The request also includes a play court, swimming pool/spa, and retaining walls a maximum eight feet exposed height. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (e) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments). The single-family project site, a 48,787 (1.12 acres) gross square feet vacant lot, was approved with the subdivision of Tract 30093 prior to the City's incorporation. Although the Tract was established prior to 2 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" the General Plan's adoption, it complies with its land use designation of RR -Maximum 1 DU/AC. The Application complies with the City's General Plan's elements, objectives, and strategies related to maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and open space. The site is zoned for single-family residence at R-1-40,000. The applicant has obtained the approval of the Country Estates Homeowners Association Architectural Committee. There is no specific or additional community planned development for the site. (f) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The Application is an infill development in an area of high-end single- family residences and is consistent with other single-family residences in the Country Estates. The Application meets the current Diamond Bar Municipal Code standards and is not expected to interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development. Lodge Pole Road adequately serves the project site and was established to handle minimum traffic created by this type of development. This street and the other streets in the Country Estates are private streets managed and maintained by the homeowners association in this gated community. (g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The Application's Tuscan architectural style, mixed earth tone colors, and textures add contrast, variety, and low maintenance levels. The design is integrated into the site's topography and uses creative varying planes and elevation heights/levels that are consistent and compatible with the eclectic architectural style, materials and colors of other homes in the Country Estates. The Application is consistent with and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, and City Design Guidelines. Additionally, there is not a specific plan for this area. (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its 3 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. The proposed colors, materials, and textures are consistent with and complimentary to the existing homes in the area while offering variety and low maintenance levels. The Application's design uses the existing site topography with minimal grading and the retaining walls create the pads for the residential structure and recreation area in the rear portion of the lot are required. The retaining walls in the front yard will be viewed by the residents of the proposed single-family structure. The proposed retaining walls are consistent with the other properties in the Country Estates. (i) The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The Application meets Municipal Code building standards. Structural plan check, city permits and inspections, soils analysis as needed, and Fire Department approval are required for construction. These standards and processes ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, a recorded Covenant and Agreements are required and run with the land to: 1) maintain a single family residence; and 2) to permit construction of sanitary sewer. (j) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); The City has determined that the Application is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(a). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: GENERAL (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, floor plans, elevations, roof plan, sections, grading plan, landscape plan, and 0 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" materials/colors board collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated February 28, 2006, as submitted to, amended herein, and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas in the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) Prior to construction, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing pursuant to the Building and Safety Division's requirements. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS (d) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a precise grading plan, prepared by a civil engineer, licensed by the State of California, in accordance with the City's grading requirements for the City's review and approval. The precise grading plan shall delineate the following: (1) Cut and fill quantities with calculations; (2) Existing and proposed topography; (3) Flow lines and drainage/drainage outlets; (4) Finish surface and finished grade; (5) Retaining wall elevations at top of wall and finished grade on both sides of the wall, calculations and detail to show how runoffs behind the retaining wall will be mitigated. (e) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a geotechnical report for the City's review and approval. The geotechnical report shall reference the stability of the retaining walls to withstand pressure of the retained soils. (f) Applicant shall obtain a Rough Grade and Fine Grade Certification prior to the project's final inspection. (g) Before the issuance of any city permits, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for the City's review and approval. The erosion DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" control plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). Additionally, the applicant shall obtain the necessary NPDES permits. (h) The driveway slope shall not exceed 15 percent and shall be approved by the Fire Department. (i) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit the proposed septic system to Los Angeles County Health Department Engineering Division, the State Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City's Building and Safety Division for review and approval. (j) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the property owner shall sign, notarize and record a covenant and agreement with the City to commit and not protest the formation of a sanitary sewer district and agree to pump/empty the septic tank at a minimum on a monthly basis. The applicant shall make a new application for sewer connection with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and the Sanitation District. (k) Applicant shall comply with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan requirements to the satisfaction of the City engineer. (1) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall provide adequate drainage facilities protective walls, suitable fill, raising the floor level or the combination of these methods for structures constructed in the flood hazard area. Additionally, the applicant shall provide a hydrology/hydraulic analysis with the precise plan for the City's review and approval. BUILDING & SAFETY (m) The proposed residence shall comply with the State Energy Conservation Standards. (n) Surface water shall drain away from the proposed residence at a two - percent minimum slope. (o) The proposed single-family residence is located in "high hazard fire zone" and shall meet all requirements of said zone including that 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 No PLANNING DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" more than 1/2 inch in dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door. (p) Plans shall conform to the provisions of the 2001 California Building Code. Specify group occupancy, type of construction and sprinkler system requirements. (q) Construction plans shall be engineered to meet wind loads of 80 M.P.H. with a "C" exposure. (r) Plans shall indicate '/ inch slope for all decks and balconies with approved water proofing material. Plans shall indicate guardrail connection details (height, spacing, etc.). (s) Applicant shall delineate adjacent slopes on the plans. Building setbacks shall be in compliance with Chapter 18 of the 2001 California Building Code. (t) All sleeping rooms shall have windows that comply with egress requirements. (u) Smoke detectors shall be provided in conformance with the 2001 California Building Code. (v) Prior to the issuance of any construction permits, the applicant shall submit construction plans to the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review and approval. (w) Sports court lighting shall conform to Development Code Section 22.16.050 and sport court's fencing shall conform to 22.42.110. (x) Retaining walls in the 30 -foot front yard setback shall not exceed and exposed height of 42 inches except for the courtyard walls that protect a cut below the natural grade. Retaining walls on the sides and the rear of the pad shall not exceed eight (8) feet exposed height. (y) Walls shall be decorative materials, slump stone, split -face block or stucco to match structure. (z) All landscaping/irrigation shall be installed prior to the project's final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy issuance. 7 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" (aa) The applicant shall complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single-family Residence" on a form to be provided by the City. The covenant shall be completed and recorded with the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. (bb) Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and City Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Divisions. (cc) Maximum height of the structure shall not exceed 35 feet from the finish grade at any exterior wall of the structure to the highest point of the roofline. Evidence of compliance may require a height survey at framing completion. (dd) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, in fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. (ee) The single-family residence shall not be used in a manner that creates adverse effects upon the neighborhood and environmental setting of the residential site to levels of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other disturbances to the existing residential neighborhood and shall not result in significantly adverse effects on public services and resources. The single-family residence shall not be used for commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise used as a separate dwelling. The property shall not be used for regular gatherings which result in a nuisance or which create traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. (ff) This approval is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e., construction) in that period or this approval shall expire. A one - (1) year extension may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code. 0 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Juzer and Farzana Jangbarwala, 14451 Autumn Hill Lane, Chino Hills, CA 91709. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. in Joe McManus, Chairman I, 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 28th day of February 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary 9 RECORDING REQUEST BY: City of Diamond Bar WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ATTACHMENT "2" Space Above Line For Recorder's Use Only COVENANT AND AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DR 2006-06 The undersigned hereby certify that JUZER JANGBARWALA AND FARZANA JANGBARWALA are the owners of the hereinafter described real property located at 24141 LODGE POLE ROAD in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, commonly known as: Legally described as Lot 7 Tract Map No. 30093 Assessor's Book and Parcel Number 8713-043-007 And, I/we do hereby covenant and agree for ourselves, heirs, assigns, transferees and successors, with the City of Diamond Bar (hereinafter "City") that the above described property shall be used for single family residential purposes only. This covenant and agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon ourselves, future owners, their heirs, and successors and assignees and shall continue in effect until and unless approved otherwise by the City of Diamond Bar is specifically intended that the benefits and burdens of this covenant run with the land. If the City is required to bring legal action to enforce this covenant, then the city shall be entitled to its attorney fees and court costs. DATED: ATTACHMENT "2" STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On this day of . 200_ before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that executed the same in authorized capacity(ies), and that by signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State n O N 7 Q CD CU 01 CD fl! CD CD � CD 03 � CA)CD � rt N y CD Q CD CD 7 O n n O 3 1n c DAX z N = C -'a UJ X C) < C) om N � OO rnr m O D m 23 3 0 m m n m CD a 0 CD cm_Q r. n CD w m rn C CL TI D 2 D 2 D D ll 3 1 n D is Cn S 3 Q 1D T O .01 D 7 D C CD QA w U1 N Gw G !v 0 N S A (D w � 1 CD i 0 73 CL °' 1 U) m0X D�rn-i � u 6'6 "> m w N o d O m X b 0 DE CCaM JANGBARWALA-RESIDENCE 1 f� ,S .v DE CCaM JANGBARWALA-RESIDENCE 1 „Fg i eF a' A' l Xgg W6 pi, AA '!R; N11; ON lit I'7��s�€ '” a^ a mm ,� s $4� gym$ I11 4 20 9 gfil gg@ a b42 1 . a� R ; PaR V $ � 5; p p ,� R° tax °R 09 4- g � x t I15 —IL4 � g11R11��I�1sN�1m 0.1111 5 ®aye � o $ Iz a I 110 'qll Is �•�oi I" co clvolai t M 6-9 N ZFE 7�e C-unw— JANG'BARWALA M RESIDENCE =?A7NGBARWALA a N O RESIDENCE FF'FAA ALF i A A,$ WON Yp p p F ON, Fp Fp p :a n .• .. + .. s€ � A r st®F etl g¢sacF AA A tl pA EF tl3 a A 'A A d, qa - gA+ @ v A e A F q $F IIAd �f34 E�� J€pp $g d� 6EF Es�ggs� SA aA�g p€�A�§€1€pAe $44 9q g e °� a � ��'�'��'�'g'�€8 $ASdtltl ��gp�A�� ���$���¢ � ■ a F"�� � � ����� P�$� €a�Tim,� 8 1tl3r Yy; g Y -y a } , 7 7°y; 1 1, € gpa$p£°�'I �} 4, +1, � 9 � R= ne COWW JANGBARWALA RESIDENCE e� ■ 11111 �' --�IIIII� 's' r, i r r �I i i __..,11111Z2131d1313�1132:•�,iii�"__. � FF'FAA ALF i A A,$ WON Yp p p F ON, Fp Fp p :a n .• .. + .. s€ � A r st®F etl g¢sacF AA A tl pA EF tl3 a A 'A A d, qa - gA+ @ v A e A F q $F IIAd �f34 E�� J€pp $g d� 6EF Es�ggs� SA aA�g p€�A�§€1€pAe $44 9q g e °� a � ��'�'��'�'g'�€8 $ASdtltl ��gp�A�� ���$���¢ � ■ a F"�� � � ����� P�$� €a�Tim,� 8 1tl3r Yy; g Y -y a } , 7 7°y; 1 1, € gpa$p£°�'I �} 4, +1, � 9 � R= ne COWW JANGBARWALA RESIDENCE �''' JANGBARWALA RESIDENCE 1 5y.^�1 2m "t , neeao 8 `r� I (�� ■ COWM JANGBARWALA RESIDENCE � R;. ];'ImA A9gII? A��� �, \�,\,�\„ „W • &/t@PIT 'd oil t� ) JAN ARWALA RESIDENCE ; |� ---.----�---______._--.--� -� --.--� )I�� B1111111111110 t4E ccyttrar ! ,TANGBARWALA RESIDENCE � • �� il•�' �i� i t'{�' .. •�`� y d•5 y t a {��{••''{{' at i J 1P • u 1! , j• il: jf � f l Af rj JA • .,,' � 1: a j''• ... ; "�, ^; P :::— : IS , Y : ! ; 1 ,` {{ 9• @i N es•• +i if • �6 a n � t4E ccyttrar ! ,TANGBARWALA RESIDENCE � • �� � | THE CO" rM § w ( 7JrANCGBARWALA _RESIDENCE |§ PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT 21825 COPLEY DRIVE—DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 -TEL (909) 839-7030—FAX (909) 861-3117—www.Cityofdiamondbar.com AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.2 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2006 REPORT DATE: February 21, 2006 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review 2006-04/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01/Minor Variance No. 2006-01 PROJECT LOCATION: 22088 Cedardale Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN: 8293-039-033, Lot 23, Tract 31153) APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to remodel and construct an approximate 1,683 gross square feet addition including porch, balcony/patio cover, storage room and garage to an existing 2,577 livable square feet two-story single- family residence. A Minor Conditional Use Permit approval permits the continuation of legal nonconforming front and side yard setbacks. The Minor Variance approval permits a decrease of the required setback for this irregularly shaped lot. PROPERTY OWNER: Dr. Jacob Said, 22088 Cedardale Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Khanjian Agop, 2721 N. Michigan Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91106 STAFF RECOMA4ENDATION: Approve DR 06-04/MCUP 06-01/MV 06-01 PAGE 1 BACKGROUND: The property owner, Dr. Jacob Said, and applicant, Khanjian Agop, request Development Review No. 2006-04, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01, and Minor Variance No. 2006-01 approvals to remodel and construct an addition. The usable lot is approximately 15,000 square feet in size and is irregularly shaped. The existing two-story, single-family residence was approved and completed in 1983. ANALYSIS: A. Applications and Review Authority An addition greater than 50 percent of the existing structure's livable floor area requires Planning Commission discretionary Development Review per the Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.48. The Planning Commission as the highest authority also reviews and approves the concurrent Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01 (DBMC 22.56 and 22.68) and MinorVariance No. 2006-01 (DBMC 22.52) applications. The Minor Conditional Use Permit approval allows the continuation of legal nonconforming setback distances and the Minor Variance approval permits a decrease of the required setback for this irregularly shaped lot. B. Site and Surrounding Uses General Plan designation — Low Medium Residential (RLM), Minimum 8,000 SF Zoning - Single-family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Surrounding Zones and Uses —The R-1-8,000 zone and single-family uses surround the site C. Development Standards The following comparison indicates that the proposed project meets the City's Development Standards: Development RLM Proposed Meets Feature Requirements Requirements Minimum Lot 8,000 S.F. .54 acre 15,000 usable S.F. LA County Lot Area 23,400 gross S.F. Averaging Residential 1 Single-family Unit; 1 Single-family Unit Yes Density 1 per gross acre DR 06-04/MCUP 06-01/1\4V 06-01 PAGE 2 Front yard 20 feet 16'6" Legal Nonconforming* setback Side yard 5'-0" & 10'-0" 66" x 5' Legal Nonconforming* setback each Side yard minimum between 15 feet Exceeds 15 feet Yes structures -on adjoining parcels Rear setback 20 feet Exceeds 20 feet Yes Building Height 35 feet -0" (maximum) 26 feet Yes Limit As required by Hillside Chapter 22.22 Two -stories on pad Yes Development (Hillside Management) As required by Landscaping 15% Landscaping Chapter 22.24 overall & 50% in Yes (Landscaping) front yard 2 in fully enclosed 2 -car garage Yes Parking garage (20'X20'). 40% 13% Yes Lot Coverage Less than one-half 23,400 gross square Preserved/ acre lots - exempt feet is more than None on pad Protected Trees from Tree Permit one-half acre requirements *Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01 requests continuation of legal nonconforming front and side setback distances and Minor Variance requests moving into existing setback as described below. D. Proposed Addition/Remodel, Minor Conditional Use Permit and Minor Variance 1. Minor Conditional Use Permit/Legal Nonconforming Structures Today's front setback requirement is 20 feet from the property line. However, the subject house and other houses of this tract were approved by Los Angeles County before the City incorporation where the setback includes the six feet parkway behind the sidewalk. Therefore all houses in this tract have legal nonconforming front setbacks that vary from 15 to 17 feet to the legal property line. The City recognizes that property owners should be allowed to have addition, reconstruction or improvements to their properties even with the legal DR 06-04/MCUP 06-01 /MV 06-01 PAGE 3 nonconformities. The City established the Minor Conditional Use Permit process (Section 22.68) to allow such additions so the legal nonconformities may be continued if it is necessary to secure safety or aesthetic advantages through improved architecture. The applicant's proposed additions and the improvement to the architecture increase the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. 2. Minor Variance/Setback Adjustment: The applicant requests a Minor Variance to reduce the legal nonconforming front setback from 16.5 feet to 16 feet for a short distance or width of 3 feet. The width of the lot is 55 feet and the rest of the structure meets and exceeds the 16.5 feet of legal non -conforming front setback. Because the lot is located at a "knuckle" (Cedardale and Sunbluff Drives), it is irregular in shape while most lots in this neighborhood are rectangular, which created a special circumstance. The strict application of the Municipal Code's front setback standard denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts. This creates an unnecessary and non -self created hardship that makes it impractical to require compliance with the development standards, 3. Architectural Features and Colors The proposed project's Architectural design and palette are compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes in the neighborhood and are consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and Design Guidelines. The project's architectural features include the porch and entry columns; second story decorative windows, balcony/patio cover with decorative wrought iron railing; layering of materials and finishes via multi - leveled roof lines in clay tile; and stucco with trim moldings at door, roof and windows to add texture, contrast, variety, and low maintenance materials. 4. Floor Plans The proposed single-family structure exists as two -stories and the remodel enlarges the existing rooms and adds storage, a bedroom with bath, and opens a two-story foyer on the first floor. The second story adds a hall bath and the master suite are enlarged with a bath, walk -in -closet and balcony. 5. Site Work: a. Walls in the Public Right of Way There are existing walls in the public right- of-way. The Public Works Department requires and a condition of approval states that the owner/applicant shall execute and record a covenant agreement to maintain and hold the City harmless for all existing improvements within the public right-of-way. b. Grading The subject addition is on the existing pad and no grading or retaining walls are proposed. An Engineering/Public Works Division approval condition requires a drainage plan submittal and an erosion control plan for work starting after October 1, 2005 through April 15, 2006. DR 06-04/MCUP 06-01 /MV 06-01 PAGE 4 c. Fence The plans indicate reworking the existing fence at the top of the slope in the rear yard. A separate permit is required for any accessory structures from the Building and Safety Division. d. Driveway The driveway will be redone with the remodel.'The flatwork in front of the new downstairs bedroom will be removed and reworked so that the front yard complies with the 50 percent landscape regulation and driveway width. The required landscape softens a two-story element with reduced setback. 6. Landscaping Replacement and/or restoration of landscaping is required prior to the Planning Division's final inspection. E. Covenant and Agreement To Maintain a Single-family Residence An approval condition requires the owner to sign, notarize, and record with the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single-family Residence" on a City form. The covenant must be recorded and submitted to Planning staff prior to building permit issuance. F. Additional Review The Public Works Division and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. Their comments are included in both the report and the approval conditions. G. General Plan/Design Guidelines/Compatibility with Neighborhood 1. Strategy 1.2.4, Maintain residential areas which provide ownership for single- family housing and require that new development be compatible with the prevailing character of the surrounding neighborhood; and 2. Strategy 2.2.1, New developments shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff's review finds the application is consistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code Standards, the City's Design Guidelines and the project is compatible with the neighborhood. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: On February 14, 2006, 107 property owners within the project's 500 -foot radius were mailed a public hearing notice and three other locations within the application's vicinity were posted. On February 17, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site. DR 06-04/MCUP 06-01/MV 06-01 PAGE 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that the Application is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e) - (additions to existing structures where all public facilities are available). RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006- 04/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01/Minor Variance No. 2006-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. Prepared by: Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Associate ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval; 2. Covenant and Agreement; 3. Aerial; 4. Exhibit "A" — cover, site plan, floor plans, elevations, roof plan, and sections dated February 28, 2006. DR 06-04/N4CUP 06-01/MV 06-01 PAGE 6 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2006-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-04/MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2006-01/MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2006- 01 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15301(e), A REQUEST TO REMODEL AND CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE 1,683 GROSS SQUARE FEET ADDITION INCLUDING PORCH, BALCONY/PATIO COVER, STORAGE ROOM AND GARAGE TO AN EXISTING 2,577 LIVABLE SQUARE FEET TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL PERMITS THE CONTINUATION OF LEGAL NONCONFORMING FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS. THE MINOR VARIANCE APPROVAL PERMITS A DECREASE OF THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR THIS IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 22088 CEDARDALE DRIVE (LOT 23, TRACT NO. 31153, APN 8293-039-033), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS The property owner, Dr. Jacob Said, and applicant, Khanjian Agop, filed Development Review No. 2006-04/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006- 01 and Minor Variance No. 2006-01 applications for a property located at 22088 Cedardale Drive (Lot 23, Tract No. 31153, APN 8293-039-033), Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review, Minor Conditional Use Permit, Minor Variance, and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On February 14, 2006, 107 property owners in and near the project's 500 - foot radius were mailed a public hearing notice and three other locations in the application's vicinity were posted. On February 17, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site. 3. On February 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: DRAFT ATTACHMENT "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 Application is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e). 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the Application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is addressed 22088 Cedardale Drive (Lot 23 Tract 31153, assessor parcel number 8293-039-033), Diamond Bar, California. The parcel is approximately .54 gross acres: 15,000 usable square feet. The lot is irregularly-shaped with an existing two-story, legal nonconforming single-family residence approved and completed in 1983. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Low Medium Residential (RLM), minimum lot area 8,000 square feet. The site is zoned Single- family Residence, R-1-8,000. (c) The R-1-8,000 zone and single-family uses surround the site. (d) The Application requests to remodel and construct an approximate 1,683 gross square feet addition including porch, balcony/patio cover, storage room and garage to an existing 2,577 livable square feet two- story single-family residence. A Minor Conditional Use Permit approval permits the continuation of legal nonconforming front and side yard setbacks. The Minor Variance approval permits a decrease of the required setback for this irregularly shaped lot. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (e) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable DRAFT ATTACHMENT "'I" district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments. The project site, developed with a two-story single-family residence, was established before the July 25, 9995 General Plan adoption and current Municipal Code. The Application complies with the City's General Plan's elements, objectives, and strategies related to maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and open space, and the Low Medium Residential (minimum lot 8,000 SF) land use designation. The proposed use is zoned for single-family residence at R-9-8,000. There is no specific oradditional community planned development for the site. (f) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. Cedardale Drive and Sunbluff Drive adequately serve the project site. These and neighboring streets are designed to handle minimum traffic created by residential development. The project site is developed with a two-story, legal nonconforming single-family residence. The Application does not change the existing single-family use. The Application maintains the existing style consistent with surrounding properties. The Application is not expected to unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development. (g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The Application's multi-level roofs, decorative windows, balcony/patio cover with wrought iron railing, stucco and window, door and frim moldings add texture, contrast, variety, and low maintenance materials. The Application's architectural design and palette are compatible with other neighboring homes architectural style and are consistent with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and Design Guidelines. There is no specific plan. (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. 3 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" The proposed colors, materials, and textures are consistent with and complimentary to the existing homes in the area while offering variety and low maintenance levels. (i) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Structural plan check, City permits and inspections, soils analysis as needed, and Fire Department approval are required for construction. These standards and processes ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, a recorded Covenant and Agreement is required and runs with the land to maintain a single-family residence. (j) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has determined that the Application is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e). NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES (k) The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming incompatible with other structures in the neighborhood. As stated in Item (g), the Application is compatible with other structures in the vicinity. Many structures in the vicinity have remodeled and increased square footage. (1) The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming inconsistent with the General Plan or any applicable specific plan. As stated in Items (e) and (g), the Application is consistent with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies, Municipal Code Section 22.48, and City Design Guidelines. 0 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" (m) The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming a restriction to the eventual/future compliance with the applicable regulations of this Development Code. The parcel was approved by Tract Map No. 31153, Lot 23, as .54 acres. The existing structure was completed per the Los Angeles County Code in 1983 and met the required setbacks of that Code prior to the City's incorporation. Legal nonconforming is defined as any parcel or structure that was legally created or constructed prior to the current Diamond Bar Municipal Code's adoption, November 3, 1998, and which does not conform to current Code provisions/standards prescribed for the zoning district in which the use is located. Many structures in this tract were approved with the 15 feet front setback measurement and a six feet city parkway. Today's front setback requirement is 20 feet from the property tine. Therefore, legal nonconforming findings and Minor Conditional Use Permit approval are required by the Planning Commission. The new construction does not exceed the applicable height limit and with the approval of the Minor Variance encroaches minimally into the front setback on this irregularly shaped lot and is consistent with other properties in the neighborhood. No further nonconforming status of this parcel is anticipated. (n) The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood. Structural plan check, City permits and inspections, soils analysis as needed, and Fire Department approval are required for construction. These standards and processes ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, a recorded Covenant and Agreement is required and runs with the land to maintain a single-family residence. (o) The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming detrimental and/or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. 5 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" As stated in Items (e -h), the Application's architectural design is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Municipal Code Section 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. Structural plan check, City permits and inspections, soils analysis as needed, and Fire Department approval are required for construction. These standards and processes ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, a recorded Covenant and Agreement is required and runs with the land to maintain a single-family residence. MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (p) The proposed use is allowed within the subject -zoning districtwith the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. As stated in Items (e -o), the proposed use is allowed in the zoning district and complies with other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. (q) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. As stated in Item (e), the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (r) The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. As stated in Items (e -o), the design, location, size, etc. are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. (s) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. As stated in items (e -o), the subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, X DRAFT ATTACHMENT I" provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. (t) Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. Structural plan check, City permits and inspections, soils analysis as needed, and Fire Department approval are required for construction. These standards and processes ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, a recorded Covenant and Agreement is required and runs with the land to maintain a single-family residence. (u) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has determined that the Application is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e). MINOR VARIANCE (v) There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g. location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions), 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 make it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. The owner requests six (6) inches at a small portion of the front elevation because of the street's curvature. Most of the structure maintains or exceeds the existing legal nonconforming 16.5 feet front setback except for approximately three (3) feet of the 55 feet front elevation width. Many of the lots in this neighborhood are rectangular, but this irregularly shaped lot is narrow at the front setback and widens at the rear. The main structure's placement and lot configuration are special circumstances for this application. The adjustment of six (6) inches in the front setback when added to the city's six feet parkway provides the appearance of a 22 feet setback. The strict application of the 7 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" Municipal Code's front setback standard denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts. This creates an unnecessary and non -self created hardship that makes it impractical to require compliance with the development standards. (w) 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. There are homes in the same vicinity that have added square footage to their homes. Granting the Minor Variance will allow the applicant the enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity. The Diamond Sar Development Code Minor Variance approval may allow up to a 20% for setback variation. The Applicant is requesting 20% or four (4) feet for a 16 feet distance. However, the existing project is legal nonconforming at 16.5 feet and the actual request is for six (6) inches for approximately three (3) feet of the 55 feet front elevation width (x) Granting the Minor Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed single-family residence is consistent the City's General Plan. The proposed single-family residence complies with the applicable standards for the R-1-8,000 zoning district with the exception of this front setback. (y) The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. Structural plan check, City permits and inspections, soils analysis as needed, and Fire Department approval are required for construction. These standards and processes ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Additionally, a recorded Covenant and Agreement is required and runs with the land to maintain a single-family residence. (z) The proposed entitlement has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has determined that the Application is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301(e). 8 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: GENERAL (a) The project shall substantially conform to cover, site plan, floor plans, elevations, roof plan, and sections collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated February 28, 2006, as submitted to, amended herein, and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition that is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas in the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS (c) The applicant shall submit a Drainage Plan illustrating the drainage pattern and an erosion control plan; surface water shall drain away from the building at a 2% minimum slope. Erosion control measures shall be in place for construction started after October 1 through April 15. The erosion control plan shall conform to national Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). The standards for the preparation of erosion control plans can be obtained from the Public Works/Engineering Division. (d) If applicable, the applicant shall comply with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (e) The owner shall execute and record a covenant and agreement to maintain and hold the City harmless for all existing improvements in the public right-of-way. 01 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" BUILDING AND SAFETY (f) The applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities during construction. (g) If required by the Building Official, a construction fence shall protect the project. (h) A permit for demolition shall be obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (i) The single-family structure shall meet the 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code requirements. Q) This single-family structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards. (k) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and "C" exposure. The City is in seismic zone four (4). Applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a licensed architect/engineer with wet stamp and signature. (1) Applicant shall verify Fire Department requirements and shall meet the High Hazard Fire Zone as required including that 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. (m) Applicant shall provide accurate square feet for existing/new/remodeled areas on structural plans. (n) Separate submittals and permits are required for accessory structures (o) Structural plans shall specify location of tempered glass as required by code including glass at tub in master bath. (p) Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent fixtures (q) Structural plans shall specify 1/4"/ft slope for all decks and balconies with approved water proofing material and indicate guardrail connection detail and calculations. 10 PLANNING DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" (r) Structural plans shall indicate door between garage and the house and shall be 1 3/8" solid core door self closing. Walls and ceiling between living space and garage shall be 5/8 type X. (s) Hard wired smoke detectors with battery back-up shall be installed in all bedrooms and hallways leading into sleeping areas. (t) All bedrooms shall comply with rescue window requirements. (u) The flatwork in front of the new downstairs bedroom shall be removed and reworked so that the front yard complies with the 50 percent landscape regulation and driveway width. (v) The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Division, the Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. (w) The landscaping/irrigation shall be installed or replaced in the front yard priorto the Planning Division's final inspection. Any walls, gates, fountains, dense plant material, etc. that may be proposed in the front setback shall not exceed a maximum height of 42 inches. (x) The single-family residence shall not be used in a manner that creates adverse effects upon the neighborhood and environmental setting of the residential site to levels of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other disturbances to the existing residential neighborhood and shall not result in significantly adverse effects on public services and resources. The single-family residence shall not be used for commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise used as a separate dwelling. The property shall not be used for regular gatherings which result in a nuisance or which create traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. (y) The owner shall complete, notarize, and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single-family Residence" on a City form. The covenant must be completed and recorded with the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. (z) This approval is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e. construction) in that period or this approval shall expire. A one -(1) year extension may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed 11 DRAFT ATTACHMENT "1" public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code. (aa) This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, in fifteen (15) days of approval, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of this approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Dr. Jacob Said, 22088 Cedardale Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and Applicant, Khanjian Agop, 2721 N. Michigan Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91106. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Joe McManus, Chairman I, 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 28th day of February 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioner: ABSENT: Commissioner: ABSTAIN: Commissioner: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director Word: comdev/Iinda smith/piancomm/projects/M 2006/DR 2006-04.../Reso... 12 RECORDING REQUEST BY: City of Diamond Bar WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ATTACHMENT "2" Space Above Line For Recorder's Use Only COVENANT AND AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DR 2006-04 The undersigned hereby certify that JACOB SAID is the owner(s) of the hereinafter described real property located at 22088 CEDARDALE DRIVE in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, commonly known as: Legally described as Lot 23 Tract Map No. 31153 Assessor's Book and Parcel Number 8293-039-033 And, I/we do hereby covenant and agree for ourselves, heirs, assigns, transferees and successors, with the City of Diamond Bar (hereinafter "City") that the above described property shall be used for single family residential purposes only. This covenant and agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon ourselves, future owners, their heirs, and successors and assignees and shall continue in effect until and unless approved otherwise by the City of Diamond Bar is specifically intended that the benefits and burdens of this covenant run with the land. If the City is required to bring legal action to enforce this covenant, then the city shall be entitled to its attorney fees and court costs. DATED: ATTACHMENT "2" STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On this day of , 200_ before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that executed the same in authorized capacity(ies), and that by signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State =z v Z ao m3x' a LaJ X58 ��u 1wa= In0 €,R H Eg z »p� Ha =Fzom to m 3 asez 141 �m 1n e m C> �. = aim z g w. f aR c n $y Eli Z u u 0 0 o z I ,W x; a =z v Z ao m3x' i zvY o�m In0 »p� Ha =Fzom to m m �m 1n e m C> = aim z 11 00m c n Z u u 0 0 13 u PM C- 0 O � W DNC 0 OD z co >OM >cf) D D °mz 4 m g � nnlb C ssg ono ga gs R a , Aoilz u a �� 2R iDFmn nan�m @ R � •+n sn s. �$ a tim Nieo T $ Wao:igm �;K+p ��9�W�6zo��p '--I _ z v:N NR mKlpn0 eoeno m=" sa' nq@@ pprg gsp�5&ppC Z D o A6� t Rg'�RSSy B _ I•r k I T o � - e � DE9IGNW BY: AGOP G. KHANJIAN 272 N. MICHIGAN AVE.S PASMX31A CA91105 1 �e fDQRDA I R B 3� L6.9 � �➢ I� r. .I•�i�,tilrl•I�IL SS =�3Ty W, I U a _ a G 0. u N-. r 0 D e Iq � T 3 SITE PIAN Dr. JACOB SAID RESIDENCE 220B. R t]918 CEDAR DALE DR DIAMOND EAR.CA 917651969 ::�a I I I - _ is I IF o� ae9g �g R l'� Q m 0 M w e. L ^• $8R5.5�_s ria M ergo s ���4 _ \ �m v ~ v W A 272 MICHIGAN AVE. PASADENA CA 97106 •ci ic�c� c.n conn O, JACOB SAI D RESIDENCE :m _..... rro� ,, ..... n....- ... ........... ..... .. ....... ...... ip_ $ 0 = n - _ is I IF o� ae9g �g R l'� m 0 _ w e. 1 DESIGNED BV: M� MAIN- FLOOR PLAN _ \ �m ACOP G. KHANJIAN W A 272 MICHIGAN AVE. PASADENA CA 97106 •ci ic�c� c.n conn O, JACOB SAI D RESIDENCE :m _..... rro� ,, ..... n....- ... ........... ..... .. ....... ...... MMn®® 0 I jig p gq$g�� g ]t �g gym; 45� y y m �Z SPS ES 18 A HIM E' g g DESIGNED BY: AGOP G. KHANJIAN 272 MICHIGAN AVE.PASADENA CA 91106 TEL 16761577-5003 UPPER FLOOR PLAN a Dr JACOB SAID RESIDENCE ro /➢qEa F ���� a �OFEAo�R � y'g s���R a„�E�Eg•�s�°� R I U I l II II m v � a �_` $a ga x tqq F 2@ 5 E® 4'S aa' m ea �'� BAR4H1�0� i� ape €al; @p p" 0 3a 55.a illi p m p �� a �S 33 •� N mms R Ln w'�@yE�E P Hmm�" �m os8 et: a n .ac@ #pR R y 8 qy E W 6�0 �' � e b e £ c�i � ga�3 0� � � g '✓] f. C. 3� Sb maoe�� ° D : C• - DESIGNED BY: R O'O F ^ P L^A,.N,,.,.- AGOP G. KHANJIAN Dr. JACOB SAID RESIDENCE 272 MICHIGAN AVE.PASADENA CA 91106 ^-I TFI i—I 5IA-wIDl I c) O Cn m 0 z rol (f) m 0 z I > '.•t DESIGNED Y 'I -- CROSS SECTION A -A_ 8, 8-6- � AGO G. KHANJIAN 7 JACOB SAID RESIDENCE 272 MICHIGAN cn AVE. PASADENA A ?IIM -- is TEL 16261 57-5003 i I .... -------- -- -I.,.-..- — — —1— P I. A rol (f) m 0 z I > '.•t DESIGNED Y 'I -- CROSS SECTION A -A_ 8, 8-6- � AGO G. KHANJIAN 7 JACOB SAID RESIDENCE 272 MICHIGAN cn AVE. PASADENA A ?IIM -- is TEL 16261 57-5003 i I .... -------- -- -I.,.-..- — — —1— 15'-4' 8 A m O0 T Tl Z °m 4m DJill o o Z O i ®000 or�000 7 'f 40 �o m m m m D � O Z � n Y 2 n m a y 0 2 u T � I y g � � O oww. e...wanaw Eryi,fTir�G ���!/R T/ONs DESIGNED BY ELEVATIONS AGOPG KHANJIAN ? p d znasaoErGin lci. m )ns rELEPXONE (c]e)Et/E003 9 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 NUMBER MEETING DATE: REPORT DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER- PROJECT UMBER PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY OWNERS/ APPLICANT: a11.31at] 00615101921 MAN I ��►d February 28, 2006 February 13, 2006 Development Review 2006-03 21671 Gateway Center Drive (Tract Map No. 39679, Lot 4) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Approval to construct a two-story office building of approximately 25,000 square feet. Dr. Akbar Omar 222 N. Sunset Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 Approve Development Review No. 2006-03 BACKGROUND: A. Previous Approval: The Planning Commission approved this project as Development Review No. 2002-03 on December 10, 2002. It was required that the approval be exercised by December 10, 2004 or it would expire. From December 2002 to July 2003, the project was inactive. In August 2003, the first set of structural plans was submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan check. In November 2004, the first submittal for geotechnical review occurred. The applicant realizing that the Planning Commission approval was about to expire, requested an extension of time. The Planning Commission approved a one year extension of time that expired December 10, 2005. Attached is a chronology showing the project's inactivity, many submittals and plan reviews before permits were issued. In October 2005, the applicant obtained a grading and building permit. However, the Planning Commission approval was not exercised by December 10, 2005. Exercised means the applicant has obtained a building permit and continuous on- site construction activity including pouring foundation, installation of utilities, or similar substantial improvements has commenced. Consequently, the Commission's approval expired. Since the Development Code only allows one extension of time up to one year, the City Attorney determined that the applicant is required to resubmit the project. B. Site Description: The project site, located in Gateway Corporate Center, is an irregular-shaped, vacant lot, approximately 2.033 gross acres. It has a ten feet wide sanitary sewer easement that follows the north property and angles toward the west property line. It also has a graded pad of approximately 40,000 square feet. Currently, the project site is surrounded by protective construction fencing and has been grubbed. C. General Plan/Zoning: The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Professional Office (OP). The zoning designation for the project site is Comm ercial-M anufacturing- Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral Contract (C-M-BE-U/L). Generally, the project site is surrounded by the C-M-BE-U/L zoning. ANALYSIS: A. Application/Review Authority: The resubmitted project requires approval of a Development Review application, which is an architectural/design review. Pursuant to Development Code Section DR 2006.-03 Page 2 22.48.020(a)l , the Planning Commission is the review authority for this application. Since the original Planning Commission approval and extension of time have expired, the applicant has submitted a new Development Review application. B. Development Review: The staff has reviewed the application and plans and finds that the resubmitted project is consistent with the Development Code, City's Design Guideline and Gateway Corporate Center's Design Guidelines. Additionally, the resubmitted project is consistent with the original Planning Commission approval. Furthermore, the resubmitted project has been approved by Gateway Corporate Center's architectural committee. C. Architectural Features/ Colors and Materials: The proposed architectural style, colors and materials are consistent with the requirements of the City and Gateway Corporate Center and compatible with existing buildings within the center. In order to break-up the vertical monotony of a tall flat wall at the north elevation, cornices (horizontal moldings or bands) along with varying planes, varying shades of light beige and pale green and windows are proposed. These design features have also been added to the front and side facades. However, the arched window shown on the west elevation is not consistent with the arched window style on the north and east elevations. The applicant is required to submit a revised west elevation with window style consistent with the north and east elevations. D. Parking Lot/Exterior Lighting The parking lot and exterior lighting plan was submitted for the original project in September 2005. The City's lighting consultant reviewed the plan and two sets of revised plans due to corrections. The plan was approved is December 2005. For this project, the same approved lighting plan will be used. E. Landscaping A landscape/irrigation plan was submitted for the original project. It was plan checked by the City's landscape consultant and approved in April 2005. As required by this project's original approval, the plan meets the City's Water Efficient Landscape Regulations. The landscape plan includes proposed plant species, size, quantity and location, existing plant material on all slopes and replacement plant material due to damaged that will occur during construction. Furthermore, the landscape plan delineate all trees on the north facing slope adjacent to the building at 24 inch box size and bougainvillea and acacia according to the original approval to enhancing slope coverage and screening of the building's retaining wall. DR 2006-03 Pd6e 3 F. Additional Review: The City's Public Works and Building and Safety Divisions reviewed this project and have issued permits for construction. The permits that were issued are valid for six months or from the date of last inspection. If the Planning Commission approves the resubmitted project, the permits can be reinstated. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration's review period begins February 1, 2006 and ends February 20, 2006. The Planning Commission will also consider the adoption of Negative Declaration 2006-01 on February 21, 2006. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on February 3, 2006. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 23 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site on January 30, 2006. Furthermore, the project site was posted with a display board and the public notice was posted in three public places by February 3, 2006. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006-03, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. Prepared by: Oji-J`Lungu�Ass�Iate RI'%anner Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution; 2. Negative Declaration No. 2006-01; 3. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations and colors and materials board/color rendering dated February 28, 2006; 4. Chronology of the project's processing; and 5. Aerial. DR 200603 Page 4 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -XX , A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-03 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-01, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING OF APPROXIMATELY 25,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 21627 GATEWAY CENTER DRIVE, (LOT 4, TRACT NO. 39679) DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. RECITALS The property owner, Dr. Akbar Omar has filed an application for Development Review No. 2006-03 and Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 for a property located at 21627 Gateway Center Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review and Negative Declaration shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. Notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on February 3, 2006. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 23 property owners of record within a 500 -foot radius of the project on January 30, 2006. Furthermore, the project site was posted with the required display board and public notice was posted in three public places on February 3, 2006. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Baron February 28, 2006 conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Initial Study review and Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 have been prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in compliance with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15070. The Negative Declaration review period began, February 1, 2006 and ended February 20, 2006. Furthermore, Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is an irregular-shaped, vacant lot corporate located within a business complex identified as Gateway Corporate Center. The project site is approximately 2.033 gross acres with an existing pad of approximately 40,000 square feet. The site is bound by a descending slope on the north facing the Orange (SR -57) Freeway, by Gateway Center Drive on south, by Lot 5 — V -Tek on the west and the Holiday Inn Select hotel on the east. The project site contains a sanitary sewer easement, approximately ten feet wide, that follows the north property and angles toward the west property line. The project site was graded with a pad as part of the overall grading for the corporate complex. The pad is generally free of vegetation with the exception of moderate weed growth. The north descending slope is vegetated with trees and bushes planted as part of the Gateway Corporate Center's master landscape plan. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Office, Business Park (OB). (c) The project site has a zoning designation of Commercial - Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral Contract (C-M-BE-U/C). (d) Generally, the following zones and use surround the project site: To the north is the Orange Freeway (SR 57); and to the south, east and west is the C-M-BE-U/C zone. (e) The Application request is to construct a two-story office building of approximately 25,000 gross square feet (23,250 net square feet) to be utilized for general office. 2 Development Review (f) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments); The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Professional Office (OP), which provides for the establishment of office -based working environments for general, professional, and administrative offices, as well as support uses. The proposed project is for office -based uses and therefore consistent with the General Plan. Pursuant to the General Plan, the proposed project will yield a pleasant environment for those working and visiting the office facility through its exemplary design, use of materials and colors, and landscaping that will offer a variety of plant species and adequate on- site parking. The proposed architectural style, colors and materials are consistent with the requirements of the City and Gateway Corporate Center as prescribed in Gateway Corporate Center Unilateral Contract and compatible with existing buildings within the center. The proposed project has received the approval of the Gateway Corporate Center Architectural Committee. In order to break-up the vertical monotony of a tall flat wall at the north elevation, cornices (horizontal moldings or bands) along with varying planes, varying shades of light beige and pale green and windows are proposed. These design features have also been added to the front and side facades. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the City's Design Guidelines. (g) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; The proposed project is in Commercial -Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral Contract (C-M-BE-U/L). Pursuant to the Development Code, standards for the Office, Business Park (OB) zone are applicable to this project. This zoning designation permits large scale, headquarters -type office facilities and business park developments, and similar related compatible uses. Although future tenants for this project are not known at this time, the proposed office building will be able to accommodate various office uses. As such, 3 the proposed project complies with the zoning designation. As stated in Item (t) above, the design and layout of the proposed project is not expected to interfere with the use and neighboring and future development in that it is consistent and compatible with surround development. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers prepared a traffic impact analysis and site access evaluation report date October 29, 2002. The report studied: ♦ Site access/internal circulation; ♦ Existing year 2002 traffic counts; ♦ Estimated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment; ♦ Estimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution/ assignment; ♦ AM/PM peak hour intersection capacity for existing and future conditions without and with project traffic; and ♦ Key Intersections: 0 Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive; 0 Gateway Center Drive at Golden Springs Drive; 0 Copley Drive at Golden Springs Drive; and 0 Golden Springs Drive at Grand Avenue. The results of the study indicates that: the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the four key intersections studied, the project driveway will be able to accommodate ingress and egress traffic without undue congestion; the approximate throat length of 50 feet at the project driveway is sufficient for storing potential queuing vehicles; the on-site circulation layout is adequate; and curb return radii are adequate for small service/delivery trucks, as well as trash trucks (h) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; As referenced above in Items 4. (t) above and (i) below, the proposed project will be consistent and compatible with the architectural design, materials, and colors of the other buildings within the Center Gateway Corporate Center and its Unilateral Contract originally reviewed and approved by Los Angeles County and adopted by the City of Diamond Bar. The Unilateral Contract sets forth land restrictions/development standards. The development standards require an architectural style that is Contemporary with materials, textures and colors that complement this style. The proposed project has received the Gateway Corporate Center's architectural committee's approval. 4 Therefore, the proposed project will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by the City's Development Review requirements and General Plan. (i) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance; As referenced in the above Items (t) through (h), the proposed project will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. The construction materials, glass and plaster will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. (j) The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, Health Department and Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies' involvement will ensure that the proposed revision is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (k) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. According to CEQA Section 15070, Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration's review period began February 1, 2006 and ended February 21, 2006. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to compliance with the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, grading plan, floor plan, elevations, final landscape/irrigation plan dated April 4, 2005, final exterior and parking lot lighting plan/study dated December 5, 2005 and colors/materials board/color rendering collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated February 28, 2006, as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission, as amended herein. (b) The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) Before the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a final landscape/irrigation plan that delineates plant species, size, quantity and location, for the City's review and approval. The final landscape plans shall also include existing planting material on all slopes and the species, size, quantity and location of the replacement plant material destroyed during construction. Said replacement plant material shall match the existing slope landscaping. Additionally, all trees on the north -facing slope adjacent to the building shall be 24 - inch box size and the proposed quantity of bougainvillea and acacia plants shall be increased on this slope to the City's satisfaction, thereby enhancing slope coverage and screening of the building's retaining wall. Furthermore, the proposed project shall comply with the City's established Water Efficient Landscape Regulations and shall be plan checked accordingly. All landscaping/irrigation shall be installed before final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. (d) Before the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan/study for the City's review and approval. (e) All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view behind the roof parapet. The roof -mounted equipment shall not be visible from surrounding streets, driveways, or adjacent buildings on a horizontal sight line. Materials utilized for screening shall be complementary to building and integrated with the architectural design. 0 (f) The arched window shown on the west elevation is not consistent with the arched window style on the north and east elevations. Within 10 days of this approval, the applicant shall submit a revised west elevation with window style consistent with the north and east elevations. (g) All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view behind the roof parapet. The roof -mounted equipment shall not be visible from surrounding streets, driveways, or adjacent buildings on a horizontal sight line. Materials utilized for screening shall be complementary to building and integrated with the architectural design. (h) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final detail of the trash/recycle bin enclosure for the City's review and approval. The trash/recycle bin enclosure shall be compatible with the proposed building. (i) Prior to final inspection/occupancy, the applicant shall correct traffic impact and/or pay their "fair share" towards mitigation of said impacts to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. (j) Applicant shall removed and replace that portion of highway facilities damaged by the construction activities to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Additionally, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, etc. damaged during construction shall be removed and replaced by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. (k) Before the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for the City's review and approval. The erosion control plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). Additionally, the applicant shall obtain the necessary NPDES permits. (1) Applicant shall comply with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan requirements to the satisfaction of the City engineer. (m) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a complete grading plan in accordance with the City's grading requirements for the City's review and approval. The grading plan shall: (1) Be signed/stamped by a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer and geologist as required; (2) Delineate the proposed and existing topography; 7 (3) Delineate proper drainage with details and sections; and (4) Delineate slope ratio. (n) All handicap parking shall comply with current State handicap accessible regulation. Van parking shall be provided. Site plan shall delineate path of travel from parking lot to building. Cross slope shall not exceed two percent. All bathroom and ramps shall be designed in compliance with State handicap accessible regulations. Required handicap signage shall be installed at each entrance. (o) Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e. 2001Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements. (p) Construction plans shall be engineered to meet wind loads of 80 M.P.H. with a "C" exposure. (q) Pursuant to the Building and Safety Division requirements, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing along the project perimeter. (r) Applicant shall submit construction plans to the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Plans shall comply with all applicable fire codes. (s) This project shall comply with the Health Department and Industrial Waste requirements. (t) As required by the City, the applicant shall provide guardrails at top of slope in the parking lot. (u) Building setback from top of slope shall meet Section 18 of the Building Code H/3 and/or provide a special footing design if closer than H/3. (v) Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e. 2001 Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements. (w) Applicant shall comply with all Planning Division, Building and Safety Division and Public Works/Engineering Department and Fire Department requirements. (x) This grant is valid for two years and shall be exercised (i.e., construction started) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one-year extension of time may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code. (y) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. (z) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section, 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to Dr. Akbar Omar, 222- N. Sunset Avenue, West Covina, CA 91790. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Joe McManus, Chairman 9 I, Nancy Fong, 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 of February 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director 10 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-01 for Development Review No. 2006-03 City of Diamond Bar 21825 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, CA 91765 January 20, 2006 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-01 Project Description and Location CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR INITIAL STUDY Pursuant to Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act §15063 (f), this form, along with the Environmental Information Form completed by the applicant, meets the requirements for an Initial Study. This form is comprised of four parts: Part 1 Background Part 2 Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Part 3 Determination Part 4 Evaluation and Discussion of Environmental Impacts PART 1 - BACKGROUND 1. City Project Number: Development Review No. 2006-03 2. Project Address/Location: 21671 E Gateway Center Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 3. Date of Environmental Information Form submittal: January 19, 2006 4. Property Owner/Applicant: Dr. Akbar Omar Address: 222 N. Sunset Avenue City/State/Zip: W. Covina, CA 91790 Phone: (626) 338-7359 Fax: N/A 5. Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar Contact: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner Address: 21825 E. Copley Drive City/State/Zip: Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Phone: (909) 839-7032 Fax: (909) 861-3117 6. General Plan Designation: Professional Office (OP - Max. 1.0 FAR) 7. Zoning: Commercial -Manufacturing Unilateral/Contract (C -M U/C) Zone 8. Description of Project: The applicant submitted the required Development Review application for this project. Development Review is an architectural review by the Planning Commission. The application is a request to construct a two-story office building of approximately 25,000 gross square feet with on-site parking and landscaping. The office building will probably house general office uses. However, future tenants are not known at this time. Each tenant will be reviewed on a case- by-case basis to determine whether or not the use is allowed in C -M U/C zoning district and if the site can accommodate the use. The project site is a vacant lot located within a business center identified as "Gateway Corporate Center", approved by Los Angeles County and grading and several office buildings were completed by 1986. It is bound on the north by a slope that descends to the SR -60 Freeway; on the south by Gateway Center Drive; on the east by the Holiday Inn hotel; and on the west by an office building. The project site (Lot 4 of Tract 39679 is approximately 2.033 gross acres, mass graded as part of the overall grading for the corporate center. The project site has an existing pad area of approximately 40,000 square feet. The pad area is generally free of vegetation with the exception of moderate weed growth. The descending slope is vegetated with existing trees and bushes planted by the corporate center. Gateway Corporate Center is a 255 -acre business center serving the eastern San Gabriel Valley's demand for professional office facilities in a location with regional access. Development within the center can generally be characterized as professional office, research and development and commercial. The center was approved with extensive attention place on compatibility with the community through the Unilateral Contract/Design Guidelines adopted by the Los Angeles County and adopted by the City upon incorporation. Additionally, the Center was approved with off-site improvements to respond to impacts created by the project. A Master Environmental Impact (MEIR) was prepared and approved by Los Angeles Regional Planning. The document identified impacts principally related to geotechnical hazards, air quality, biota, archeological/paleontology, scenic quality and traffic /access. The mitigation measures approved for Gateway Corporate Center identified the need for: Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs); detailed design guidelines and standards related to grading, pad development and circulation within the Center; off-site traffic mitigation measures that included expansion of Golden Springs Drive; and contribution to funds for improvements required for future development phases. The developer of the center has met these mitigation measures (off-site improvements), as prescribed in the MEIR. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The proposed project is located on Lot 4 of Tract No. 39679 at 21671 Gateway Center within Gateway Corporate Center. Generally, the following uses and zones surround the project site: north is the SR -60 Freeway; to the south is the CM-BE- U/C zone; to the west is the CM-BE-U/C zone; and to the east is the SR -57 Freeway and CM-BE-U/C zone. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): None. 0a 11. List City of Diamond Bar related applications for this project that must be processed simultaneously: None. 12. List prior projects for this parcel: Several projects were processed for this parcel in the past. The projects are as follows: CUP90-0070, CUP93-04/DR93-01 for a restaurant that was never constructed. DR 2002-03 and one year extension of time for this project were both approved by the Planning Commission for the project site. However, this project was not constructed. Therefore, because the permit was not exercised prior to the entitlement expiration, the proposed project is required to be process as a new Development Review application as presented in this Negative Declaration. PART 2 - SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Hazards ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Noise ❑ Geology/Soils 0 Public Services ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Air Quality ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Agricultural Resources PART 3 - DETERMINATION Project Number: DR 2006-03 To be completed by Lead Agency On the basis of this initial evaluation: >� I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" OR "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. v January 30, 2006 nat Date _Ann J. Lunqu, Associate Planner Print Name 5 PART 4 - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis.) 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated "applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced and effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant "impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects where addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impact (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggestion form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. rA CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-01 Initial Study and Findings (Environmental Information and Environmental Checklist) LAND USE AND PLANNING ANALYSIS: a. No Impact. The project site is located within the General Plan land use designation of Professional Office (OP). This land use designation provides for the establishment of office -based working environments for professional, and administrative offices, and support uses. The proposed project is an office building and could support the types of office uses listed; however future tenants are not known. Future tenants will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not the site could accommodate the requested office type. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as well as standards and guidelines established by the Gateway Corporate Center's Unilateral Contract. The project site is located within the Commercial -Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion-Unilateral/Contract (C-M-BE- U/C) Zone, This zone allows a variety of land uses by right and with a Conditional Use Permit. The land uses allowed within this classification includes the following: general professional, administrative office, research and development, light manufacturing, medical offices and clinics, commercial retail, restaurants, hotels, physical fitness centers and government services. Other ancillary and support uses such as day care facilities, gymnasiums, dry cleaning services, and automobile rental and leasing agencies are permitted. This zoning classification encourages uses that benefit the community in many ways including sales tax revenues and attracting an employee base with additional buying power. The proposed use fits into the referenced zoning criteria and is not in conflict with the zoning, b. No Impact. The City of Diamond Bar does not have a habitat conservation plan/ or natural community plan for the project site or surrounding area. Additionally, the project site was mass graded as a part of the overall grading for Gateway Corporate Center. Therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1 I _ LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or X mitigating an environmental effect? Source #s: General Plan, p. I, 10-27; Project application; Development Code, Title 22, Article III, Section 22.42.130, p. 1-17; b Conflict with applicable habitat conservation plan or natural i community conservation plan? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1,10- 27; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Title 22, Article III, X Section 22.42.130, p. 1-17; Project application; c Physical divide an established community? Source #s: Project site plan; General Plan, 1-1 et seq., II -1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Title 22, p. II -8-18 Zone; Project application; X LAND USE AND PLANNING ANALYSIS: a. No Impact. The project site is located within the General Plan land use designation of Professional Office (OP). This land use designation provides for the establishment of office -based working environments for professional, and administrative offices, and support uses. The proposed project is an office building and could support the types of office uses listed; however future tenants are not known. Future tenants will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not the site could accommodate the requested office type. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as well as standards and guidelines established by the Gateway Corporate Center's Unilateral Contract. The project site is located within the Commercial -Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion-Unilateral/Contract (C-M-BE- U/C) Zone, This zone allows a variety of land uses by right and with a Conditional Use Permit. The land uses allowed within this classification includes the following: general professional, administrative office, research and development, light manufacturing, medical offices and clinics, commercial retail, restaurants, hotels, physical fitness centers and government services. Other ancillary and support uses such as day care facilities, gymnasiums, dry cleaning services, and automobile rental and leasing agencies are permitted. This zoning classification encourages uses that benefit the community in many ways including sales tax revenues and attracting an employee base with additional buying power. The proposed use fits into the referenced zoning criteria and is not in conflict with the zoning, b. No Impact. The City of Diamond Bar does not have a habitat conservation plan/ or natural community plan for the project site or surrounding area. Additionally, the project site was mass graded as a part of the overall grading for Gateway Corporate Center. Therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan. C. No Impact. The proposed project is a vacant lot located within and existing corporate center. The zoning, General Plan land use designation and Gateway Corporate Center Design Guidelines do not plan for low-income or minority income housing or any kind of housing within corporate center. The proposed project is consistent with uses within the corporate center. Therefore, the proposed project will not physical divide an established community. Population and Housing Analysis: a. The proposed project is a vacant lot located within an established corporate center that does not permit housing of any kind. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Office Professional (OP) which does not provide for housing of any kind. Therefore, the proposed project will not displace numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The proposed project site is a vacant, graded lot with a buildable pad and infrastructure within the corporate center, zoned for commercial -manufacturing development, consistent with the policies presented in the General Plan and standards presented in the Development Code. The proposed office building, approximately 25,000 square feet, is considered small-scale compared to many of the existing building within the center. When the center was reviewed by Los Angeles County, it was expected that the project site would be developed. So infrastructure was planned and install in anticipation of development. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project will induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly by proposing a new business or by the extension of roads or other infrastructure. C. The proposed project will be located within an existing corporate center. As such, it will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2 I POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: I a Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Source #s: 2000 Census of Population; Housing, MEA, p. II -1-19; X b Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g, through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Source #s: 2000 Census X of Population and Housing; MEA, p. II -1-19; General Plan EIR, p. 38; General Plan Land Use Map, p.1-27; project site Ian/application; c Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? Sources #s: Source #s: 2000 Census of Population and Housing; MEA, p. II -1-19; General Plan EIR, p. 38; General Plan Land Use Map, p.1-27; project site plan/application; Population and Housing Analysis: a. The proposed project is a vacant lot located within an established corporate center that does not permit housing of any kind. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Office Professional (OP) which does not provide for housing of any kind. Therefore, the proposed project will not displace numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The proposed project site is a vacant, graded lot with a buildable pad and infrastructure within the corporate center, zoned for commercial -manufacturing development, consistent with the policies presented in the General Plan and standards presented in the Development Code. The proposed office building, approximately 25,000 square feet, is considered small-scale compared to many of the existing building within the center. When the center was reviewed by Los Angeles County, it was expected that the project site would be developed. So infrastructure was planned and install in anticipation of development. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project will induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly by proposing a new business or by the extension of roads or other infrastructure. C. The proposed project will be located within an existing corporate center. As such, it will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Geology and Soils Analysis: a.,b. Less Than Significant: No portion of the City has been identified as in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The closest fault is the Diamond Bar Fault that is described as a "small inactive local fault". Historically, there is no record of any earthquake with an epicenter in Diamond Bar or its Sphere of Influence. No significant movement has ever been recorded for the Diamond Bar fault. The project area is bound on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the west and south by the Whittier Fault and Elysian Fault and to the east by the Central Avenue -Chino Fault. The project site is located in highly seismic Southern California region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project site will periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of small to moderate magnitude earthquakes. However, faults ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation _ Incorporated 3 i GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a Seismic related ground failure? Source #s: General Plan, p, IV -2, and 3, Fig. IV -1; MEA, p. II -B-7 et seq.; General Plan X EIR, Section II I A., pg. 7-10; Project application; b Seismic related ground shaking? Source #s: MEA, p. II -B-14, p. II -B-10, Fig. II -B -S; Project application; X c Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death? Source #s: X Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc dated May 11, 2004/July 19, 2005; General Plan, p. IV -2, and 3, Fig. IV -1; MEA, p. II -B-7 et seq.; General Plan EIR, Section III A., pg. 7-10; Project application; d Landslides? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -3, Fig, IV -1; MEA, p. II -B-3, Fig. II -B-2; II -B-15 State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map dated April 15, 1998; Project application; X City's Public Works Division; e Erosion or lose of top soil? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -3, Fig. IV -1; Project application; City's Public Works Division; X f Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for disposal of waste water? Source #s: MEA, p. II -B-16; Project application; City's Public Works Division; g Be located on expansive soil? Source #s: MEA, p. II -B-16; Project application; City's Public Works Division; Pacific Soils X Engineering, Inc dated May 11, 2004/July 19, 2005 Geology and Soils Analysis: a.,b. Less Than Significant: No portion of the City has been identified as in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The closest fault is the Diamond Bar Fault that is described as a "small inactive local fault". Historically, there is no record of any earthquake with an epicenter in Diamond Bar or its Sphere of Influence. No significant movement has ever been recorded for the Diamond Bar fault. The project area is bound on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the west and south by the Whittier Fault and Elysian Fault and to the east by the Central Avenue -Chino Fault. The project site is located in highly seismic Southern California region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project site will periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of small to moderate magnitude earthquakes. However, faults identified by the State as being either active or potentially active are not known to be present on-site. The site is not located within the State of California designated Earthquake Fault Zone; nor is the site located within a Seismic Hazard Zone. The proposed project lies within Seismic Zone 4. The proposed office building will be designed in accordance with the latest adopted edition (2001) of Uniform Building Code. Therefore, likelihood of fault rupture is limited. c. -d No Impact. The proposed project has an approved geology/soils report and grading plan, The project's geology/soils report incorporated recommendation for the design of the project. These recommendations are now a part of the project. The project has also been plan checked for structural safety and approve. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death. No Impact: The proposed project will connect to an existing sewer system that can accommodate the site. g. No Impact: According to the soils report, the project site is believed to have a medium to high expansion potential. Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may cause unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs, or pavements. Depending on the extent and location below finished sub -grade, these soils could have a detrimental effect on the proposed project. However, as recommended in the geology/soils report additional testing on the project site occurred and the report was approved. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER. Would the project: a Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar X Public Works Division; Project site/grading/drainage plan; b Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -4, Fig. IV -2, FEMA X Flood Panel No. 0650430980 B, Zone C, 12/2/80; Project application; c Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? X Source #s: MEA, p. II -C-3, 4, Fig. II -C-1; Project application; d Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Source #s: MEA, p. II -C-3, 4, Fig. II -C-1; X e Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements? Source #s: MEA, p. II -C-3, 4, Fig, II -C-1; City of Diamond Bar Public Works Division; Project application; X f Changes in the quantity of ground waters either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of X groundwater recharge capability? Source #s: MEA, p. II -c-3, 4, Fig. II -C-1; Project application; g Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar Public Works Division; Project application; X h Impacts to groundwater quality? Source #s: MEA, p. II -P-3-8; Project application; X i Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Source #s: MEA, p. II -P-3- X 8; Project application; j Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place with X 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or re -direct flood flows? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -4, Fig, IV - 2; MEA, p. II -C-1 et seq.; HYDROLOGY AND WATER ANALYSIS: a. Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project site will reduce pervious surfaces, thereby increasing surface runoff. Runoff will be directed from on-site drainage devices to off-site drainage devices that are designed to accommodate project site runoff. The impacts associated from the increased runoff are expected to be insignificant. Additionally, as a project condition of approval, a hydrology study shall be required for the City's review and approval. Furthermore, the project will be required to comply with the appropriate recommendation within the report. b. No Impact. The project site is not located within a flood hazard area and adequate drainage devices have been incorporated into the drainage plan Gateway Corporate Center, as well as the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to expose people or property to water related hazards. No Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and incorporated the appropriated Best Management Practices (BMP's) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSUMP) requirements in order to prevent pollution by reducing potential pollutants at the source. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project will violate any water quality standards. d.,e. No Impact. No body of water exists around or near the project site or in the City of Diamond Bar. No Impact. Due to the proposed project's small-scale, changes in the quantity of ground waters either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability is not expected to occur. No Impact. Because of this proposed project's small size, it will not effect the direction or rate groundwater flow. Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the discussion above in Item c, groundwater quality may be impacted by the proposed small-scale development, but its extent is likely to be minimal. No Impact. The construction of one office building in an urbanized area is not considered to cause a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater for public water supply. Additionally, groundwater is only utilized for reclaimed water supply. No Impact. he proposed project is within an existing corporate center, Therefore, it will not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on the Federal flood hazard Boundary or flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS: a. -e, No Impact. This project will generate 1,705 cubic yards of cut and 225 cubic yards of fill and export 1480 cubic yards of earth which does not exceed SCAQMD air quality standards for this type of project. Air quality may be affected during grading operation; however, it is not expected to be significant or violate SCAQMD standards with procedures that will be implement to reduce air emissions. Additionally, such emissions are not expected to exceed those listed within the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, Tables 9-1 and 9-7 are screening tables for operations and construction of specified primary land uses. Pursuant to the tables and significant thresholds listed on page 6-2, an office building under 96,220 square feet, will not have a significant impact on air quality in relationship to operations; and an office building under 559,000 square feet will not have a significant impact on air quality in relationship to construction. The proposed project is requesting approval for 25,000 square feet. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan; expose sensitive receptors to pollutants; create objectionable odors; violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation _ Incorporated 5 ' AIR QUALITY: Would the project: — - a Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Source #s: SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook; Project X grading plan. b Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Source #s: MEA, p. 11- F-8-10, Fig. II -F-3; Project application; X c Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for X ozone precursors)? Source #s: SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook; Project application; d Create objectionable odors? Source #s: SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook; Project application; X i e Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to and existing or projected air quality violation? Source #s: SCAQMD X Air Quality Handbook; Project grading plan; AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS: a. -e, No Impact. This project will generate 1,705 cubic yards of cut and 225 cubic yards of fill and export 1480 cubic yards of earth which does not exceed SCAQMD air quality standards for this type of project. Air quality may be affected during grading operation; however, it is not expected to be significant or violate SCAQMD standards with procedures that will be implement to reduce air emissions. Additionally, such emissions are not expected to exceed those listed within the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, Tables 9-1 and 9-7 are screening tables for operations and construction of specified primary land uses. Pursuant to the tables and significant thresholds listed on page 6-2, an office building under 96,220 square feet, will not have a significant impact on air quality in relationship to operations; and an office building under 559,000 square feet will not have a significant impact on air quality in relationship to construction. The proposed project is requesting approval for 25,000 square feet. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan; expose sensitive receptors to pollutants; create objectionable odors; violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 6 i TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project: a Cause an increase in vehicle trips which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at X intersections) Source #s: Project application/site plan; Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan dated October 21, 2002 updated April 21, 2005; b Substantially increase hazards due to design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g. farm equipment)? Source #s: City's Public Works Division; X Project application/site plan; Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan dated October 21, 2002 updated April 21, 2005; c Inadequate emergency access? Source #s: City's Public Works Division; Project application; X d Inadequate parking capacity on-site? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Tittle 22, p. 111-91, et seq.; X Project site Ian; e Exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? Source #s: City's Public Works Division; Congestion Management Plan, X Ordinance No. 01 (1993); City of Diamond Bar Development Code, III -157 et. seq.; Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan dated October 21, 2002 updated April 21, 2005; f Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnabouts, bicycle racks)? Source #s: General Plan, p. V-22; Congestion Management Plan, Ordinance No. 01 (1993); City of Diamond Bar X Development Code, III -157 et. seq.; g Change in rail, water, or air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risk? Source #s: MEA, p, 11-T-36; Project X application; TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC ANALYSIS: a. -c. No Impact. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan dated October 21, 2002 and updated April 21, 2005 for the City's review and approval. The report reviewed: Site access/internal circulation; existing year 2002-2005 traffic counts; estimated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment; estimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution assignment; AM/PM peak hour intersection capacity for existing and future conditions without and with project traffic; and key ilntersections: Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive; Gateway Center Drive at Golden Springs Drive; Copley Drive at Golden Springs Drive; and Golden Springs Drive at Grand Avenue. The results of the study indicates that: the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the four key intersections studied; the project driveway will be able to accommodate ingress and egress traffic without undue congestion; the approximate throat length of 50 feet at the project driveway is sufficient for storing potential queuing vehicles; the on-site circulation layout is adequate; and curb return radii are adequate for small service/delivery trucks, as well as trash trucks. However, the City's traffic engineer, Warren Siecke, has reviewed the traffic impact analysis and site access evaluation report. It is required that the applicant address Mr. Siecke's comments and concerns, The applicant addressed Mr. Siecke's comments and concerns and the traffic study was approved. The proposed project will not have an impact on traffic. d. No Impact. The proposed office building is approximately 25,000 gross square feet and 23,250 net square feet. Pursuant to the City adopted Gateway Corporate Center Design Guidelines, one parking space is required for each 250 square feet of net floor area of general office use. Therefore, 93 parking spaces are required and provided. As a result, it is anticipated that the proposed project will provide adequate on-site parking. e. No Impact. Due to the small-scale of the proposed project, it is not anticipated that the project will exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads and highways. f. No Impact. The proposed project's design is consistent with the General Plan's goals, objectives and strategies supporting circulation and transportation. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No Impact. No rail, waterborne, or air traffic facilities or operations are in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, the project will not impact these facilities or operations. 10 11 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than ' No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated- ncorporated17 17 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would. the project: a Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plan, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish X and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8; General Plan, p. III -11; Project site plan/ application; b Have a substantial adverse effect on and riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 clean Water Act, or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife X Services? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8; General Plan, p. III -11; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -149 et seq.; Project site plan/application; c A conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8; General Plan, p. III -11, X City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -149 et. seq.; i d Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Source #s: X General Plan, p.1-15-16, p. III -11; MEA, p. II -D-1-8; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -149 et. seq.; e Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident I or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of X native wildlife nursery sites? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8 & 18; f Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) X through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-15-16, p, III -11; MEA, p. 11-D-1-8; 11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: a. -f. No Impact. The proposed project is located within an existing corporate center approved by Los Angeles County and completed by 1986, The project site was mass graded as part of the overall grading for the corporate center. The mass grading also incorporated the buildable pad for the project site. Currently, the pad area is free of vegetation with the exception of moderated weed growth. The project site's descending slopes are heavily vegetation with ornamental trees and bushes planted by the corporate center as part of its landscape plan. As a result, it is anticipated that the project site does not contain species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or region plan, policies, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services or riparian habitat and federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 Clean Water Act, or other sensitive natural communities. The project site does not contain trees that require protection and/or preservation as described in the City's Development Code. 12 MINERAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: a. -b. No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the development of land that could potentially result in the loss of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the State. Additionally, the project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan, specific plan or any other land use plan. 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Inc_o_rporated 8 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: _ — I a Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery sited delineated on a local general plan, X I specific plan or other land use plan? Source #s: General Plan, p. III -14; b Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? X Source #s: MEA, p. III -B-17; Project application; MINERAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: a. -b. No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the development of land that could potentially result in the loss of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the State. Additionally, the project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan, specific plan or any other land use plan. 13 9 , HAZARDSIHAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material? Source #s: MEA, p. II -M-1; Project application, General Plan, p. IV -1 et seq.; b Impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Source #s: Multihazard Function Plan, City of Diamond Bar, 1992; Project application; c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or actively hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Source #s: Walnut Valley Unified School District; Pomona Unified School District; City of Diamond Bar House Numbering Map; d Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Source #s: MEA, p. II -M-1 et seq.; project application/ site plan; Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources #s: MEA, p. II -K-1; General Plan, p. IV - 1 et. seq.; Uniform Building Code, 2001; project application/site plan; a 0 X a X f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in X the project area? Sources #s: Project application/site plan; General Plan, P. IV -1 et. seq.; Zoning Map. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ANALYSIS: Less Than Significant. The proposed office building is for office use only. It would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The operational characteristics of offices in this zoning district would not include activities that involve hazardous wastes or materials. The proposed project will likely utilize hazardous materials, such as oil, diesel fuel, etc. during the construction phase. As a result, it is not anticipated that that proposed project will create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, 14 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 9 , HAZARDSIHAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material? Source #s: MEA, p. II -M-1; Project application, General Plan, p. IV -1 et seq.; b Impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Source #s: Multihazard Function Plan, City of Diamond Bar, 1992; Project application; c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or actively hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Source #s: Walnut Valley Unified School District; Pomona Unified School District; City of Diamond Bar House Numbering Map; d Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Source #s: MEA, p. II -M-1 et seq.; project application/ site plan; Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources #s: MEA, p. II -K-1; General Plan, p. IV - 1 et. seq.; Uniform Building Code, 2001; project application/site plan; a 0 X a X f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in X the project area? Sources #s: Project application/site plan; General Plan, P. IV -1 et. seq.; Zoning Map. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ANALYSIS: Less Than Significant. The proposed office building is for office use only. It would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The operational characteristics of offices in this zoning district would not include activities that involve hazardous wastes or materials. The proposed project will likely utilize hazardous materials, such as oil, diesel fuel, etc. during the construction phase. As a result, it is not anticipated that that proposed project will create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, 14 use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. b. No Impact. It is not expected that the proposed project will impair the implementation of or physically interfere with the City's adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. C. No Impact. The project site is located approximately one-half mile plus from an existing school. There are no schools proposed closer than one-half mile from the project site. Additionally, with circumstances as referenced in Item a. above, it is not expected that the proposed project will emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or actively hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No Impact. The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5, and as a result will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e. No Impact. The proposed project is in an urbanized area and not adjacent to areas where the possibility for wildland fires exist or near wetlands. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. No Impact. The proposed project is not located in proximity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan or crash hazard zone. 15 NOISE ANALYSIS: a. -c. No impact. The project site is located within an area impacted by noise generated by the SR 57 and SR 60 Freeways and Golden Springs Drive, The proposed project's development will generate noise impacts but not to a 16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 10 NOISE: Would the project: a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -15; MEA, p. II -G-1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -81 et.seq.; Project application; b A substantial permanent increase or temporary or periodic in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Source #s: General Plan, p. IV- X 15; MEA, p. II -G-1 et seq,; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -81 et, seq.; Project application; c Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Source X #s: General Plan, p. IV -15; MEA, p. II -G-1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -81 et. seq.; Project application; d For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not be adopted, within two miles of a X public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -15; MEA, p. 1I - G -1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p, III - 81 et. seq.; Project application; e For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip would the project wxposed people residing or working in the project X area to excessive noise levels? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -15; MEA, p. II -G-1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -81 et. seq.; Project application; NOISE ANALYSIS: a. -c. No impact. The project site is located within an area impacted by noise generated by the SR 57 and SR 60 Freeways and Golden Springs Drive, The proposed project's development will generate noise impacts but not to a 16 level that surpasses existing sound levels. With the completion of development, noise levels related to construction will cease. Typically, an office use does not generate excessive goundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to expose persons to or generate significant noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan, noise standards, or applicable standards of other agencies; or expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. d. -e, No impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Additionally, the proposed project is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. 17 PUBLIC SERVICES ANALYSIS: a,, b. No impact. The proposed project is located within an existing corporate center that has been and will continue to receive police and fire services from the Los Angeles. Development of the project site was anticipated in the original approval of the corporate center. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed project will not require the development of new or expanded facilities or services for police and fire protection. C. No Impact. The proposed project is located within the Walnut Valley School District. The District is in need of permanent facilities. It is not anticipated that the proposed office project will create a significant demand to the District. However, the project is required to pay school fees as part of the development fees paid to the City. No Impact. Because the project is an office development that would not generate an additional need for park facilities, there would be no direct impact on park services e. No Impact. No other specific governmental services have been identified that may be impacted by the proposed project. 18 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11. PUBLIC SERVICES.. Would the project have an effect j i `upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services, in anyof the following areas: a Fire Protection? Source #s: General Plan, p. VI -3; Project ' application; X b Police Protections? Source #s: General Plan, p, VI-3;Function Plan, City of Diamond Bar, 1992; Project application; X c Schools? Source #s: MEA, p. II -0-1; X d Parks? Source #s: General Plan, p.111-1-18 X e Other governmental services? Source #s: General Plan, p. X VI -1 et seg.; PUBLIC SERVICES ANALYSIS: a,, b. No impact. The proposed project is located within an existing corporate center that has been and will continue to receive police and fire services from the Los Angeles. Development of the project site was anticipated in the original approval of the corporate center. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed project will not require the development of new or expanded facilities or services for police and fire protection. C. No Impact. The proposed project is located within the Walnut Valley School District. The District is in need of permanent facilities. It is not anticipated that the proposed office project will create a significant demand to the District. However, the project is required to pay school fees as part of the development fees paid to the City. No Impact. Because the project is an office development that would not generate an additional need for park facilities, there would be no direct impact on park services e. No Impact. No other specific governmental services have been identified that may be impacted by the proposed project. 18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: a. -g. No Impact. The proposed project is considered small scale and will not result in the need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following: electrical power or natural gas; communication systems; local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities; sewer systems; storm drainage systems; and solid waste disposal systems. All systems and supplies necessary for the proposed project are existing. 19 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated_ _ 12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project i result in a `need for new systems or supplies, or i substantial alterations to the following utilities:_' a Power or natural gas? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-18, VI- 2; Project application; X b Communication systems? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-18, VI-2; Project application; X c Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Source #s: General Plan, p, 1-18, VI-2; Project application; X d. Sewer or septic tanks? Source #s: General Plan, p.1-18, VI- F 2; Project application; X e Storm water drainage? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-18, VI- 2; Project application; X f Solid waste disposal? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-18, VI- 2; Project application; X g Local or regional water supplies? Source #s; General Plan, p. 1-18, VI-2; Project application; X UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: a. -g. No Impact. The proposed project is considered small scale and will not result in the need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following: electrical power or natural gas; communication systems; local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities; sewer systems; storm drainage systems; and solid waste disposal systems. All systems and supplies necessary for the proposed project are existing. 19 AESTHETICS ANALYSIS: a. -c. No Impact. The proposed project will be developed in compliance with the Design Guidelines of Gateway Corporate Center and the City's Development Review and Design Guideline standards. As a result, the proposed project will be consistent with the existing development within the corporate center and surrounding area by utilizing good architectural design and features, as well as compatible and pleasing colors and materials. The only source of light and glare may emanate from the sunlight reflected on windows and the on-site lighting. However, on-site lighting will be shielded and installed in a manner that will not reflect light or glare on to neighboring properties and public streets. Furthermore, the project site is not located adjacent to a scenic vista, historic buildings and/or a state scenic highway. The project site is previously graded with a buildable pad. It does not contain natural resources such as tree, native vegetation or rock outcroppings. 20 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 13 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista or damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock out croppings, and historic buildings within a state X scenic highway? Source #s: General Plan, p. III-10;Project application; b Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Source #s: General Plan, p. III -10; City of Diamond Bar's Development Code, p. IV -11 X et. seq.; City Design Guidelines, p.1-25; Project plans/application; photo simulation; G Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar's Development Code, p, IV- X 11 et.seq,; City Design Guidelines, p.1-25; Project plans/application; AESTHETICS ANALYSIS: a. -c. No Impact. The proposed project will be developed in compliance with the Design Guidelines of Gateway Corporate Center and the City's Development Review and Design Guideline standards. As a result, the proposed project will be consistent with the existing development within the corporate center and surrounding area by utilizing good architectural design and features, as well as compatible and pleasing colors and materials. The only source of light and glare may emanate from the sunlight reflected on windows and the on-site lighting. However, on-site lighting will be shielded and installed in a manner that will not reflect light or glare on to neighboring properties and public streets. Furthermore, the project site is not located adjacent to a scenic vista, historic buildings and/or a state scenic highway. The project site is previously graded with a buildable pad. It does not contain natural resources such as tree, native vegetation or rock outcroppings. 20 CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: No Impact. There are no paleontological sites identified within the City and the site has sustained extensive grading as part of the Center's development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the site's development will disturb paleontological resources. b. No Impact. There are no archaeological sites identified within the City and the site has sustained extensive grading as part of the Center's development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the site's development will disturb archaeological resources. No Impact. No historical sites have been identified within the vicinity of the project site and none are expected. Therefore, development of the proposed project will not affect historical resources. No Impact. No unique ethnic cultural values, religious, sacred or formal cemeteries are located within a quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not have the potential to create adverse impacts on said resources. 21 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated _ _ 14 I CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features? Source #s: MEA, II -H-1 et. seq.; Project application; X b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5. Source #s: MEA, II -H-1 et seq.; Project plans/application; X c Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources as defined in 15064.5? Source #s: MEA, II-1-1-1et seq.; Project plans/application; X d Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Source #s: MEA, II -H -let seq.; Project plans/application; X CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: No Impact. There are no paleontological sites identified within the City and the site has sustained extensive grading as part of the Center's development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the site's development will disturb paleontological resources. b. No Impact. There are no archaeological sites identified within the City and the site has sustained extensive grading as part of the Center's development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the site's development will disturb archaeological resources. No Impact. No historical sites have been identified within the vicinity of the project site and none are expected. Therefore, development of the proposed project will not affect historical resources. No Impact. No unique ethnic cultural values, religious, sacred or formal cemeteries are located within a quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not have the potential to create adverse impacts on said resources. 21 RECREATIONAL ANALYSIS: a., b. Considering the type and small-scale of the proposed project, it is not expected that the proposed project will increase the demand for demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities or affect existing recreational opportunities to the extent that deterioration of such facilities would occur; nor that the expansion of such facilities would occur, thereby causing an adverse physical effect on the environment. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 15 1 RECREATIONAL. Would the project: Increase the demand use of existing neighborhood and _ a regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be X accelerated? Source #s: General Plan, p. II -1 et seq.; Project application; b Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Source #s: X General Plan, p. II -1 et seq.; Project planslapplication; RECREATIONAL ANALYSIS: a., b. Considering the type and small-scale of the proposed project, it is not expected that the proposed project will increase the demand for demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities or affect existing recreational opportunities to the extent that deterioration of such facilities would occur; nor that the expansion of such facilities would occur, thereby causing an adverse physical effect on the environment. 22 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: a. -c. No Impact. There are no agricultural activities on or near the proposed project site, which are currently parkland, single-family residential and municipal land uses. The project would not convert land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, according to 1997 Natural Resources Conservation Service mapping, to non- agricultural uses. The project site is currently zoned CM-BE-U/C and would not conflict with agricultural zoning, Additionally, the project site is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, the proposed project is within a highly urbanized area and would not impact any agricultural land or farmland. 23 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact j Mitigation Incorporated 16 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: i a Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of i Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program X of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Source #s: General Plan, p.1-1 et seq.; Project application; b Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Source #s: General Plan, p.1-1 et seq.; Project plans/application; X c Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due X to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-1 et seq.; Project plans/application AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: a. -c. No Impact. There are no agricultural activities on or near the proposed project site, which are currently parkland, single-family residential and municipal land uses. The project would not convert land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, according to 1997 Natural Resources Conservation Service mapping, to non- agricultural uses. The project site is currently zoned CM-BE-U/C and would not conflict with agricultural zoning, Additionally, the project site is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, the proposed project is within a highly urbanized area and would not impact any agricultural land or farmland. 23 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS: a. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted and site survey, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of Fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining level, threatened to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or pre -history. b. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted, site survey, and analysis within this document, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. C. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted, site survey, and analysis within this document, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 24 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact i Mitigation Incorporated 17 ' MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE _ a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop X below self sustaining level, threaten to eliminate a plant or j animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre- history? b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X c Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are X considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the affects of probable future projects.) d Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS: a. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted and site survey, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of Fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining level, threatened to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or pre -history. b. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted, site survey, and analysis within this document, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. C. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted, site survey, and analysis within this document, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 24 Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted, and analysis within this document, it is anticipated that the proposed project is not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial as adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 25 a 11001 Romil 100, fi .n r , +h r .,...,, 1:11111 OR ft. r , i GEQVIEWER WIN OOWS 9519,12O /NT �-IT T (� m c) �n ox vS "J , sA � -�A C �O D J- � c�5 ~ �0 A O ' rg es m T1 m� m � n mg g g s 7 .y C7 v�ag€ s C)z T` �n ox vS "J , sA � J- m� mg g g s 7 .y C7 v�ag€ s C)z T` fTl z D z 7 _ s p ? T7 o x ag s O z � gg ss ware 44 lip, qa 4 - ■ � AC� W � '� Rk � � i�p - [' ds �� � PT.E SHEET I € u ..:..v iw nne GI IFMAY A'Fiq eolniEY .S- ' �' � � !•1-\ivr: C1 -M � TAIIAIya DIAMgyD BAR, CNiT(w1,'IA � •• __ —� M1::: •:J:1H; l - a1M.r "� I�' 14 A^J' M +:A' ^ �—'�'^++. � M I .v. ;;. •.A ., u2 1111.v'�v, . "' • -.J I :'! ',(.15)962 C p]16 2 11 so M n 8 i RUN MOM I a l N 1 i e I� it _ mk x all i ' X i� o p 9 m�S T m 11 so M n 8 i RUN FA I a l i e I� x 11 a m L7 8 i I a i e I� i ' X i� m i ;III it11 II 'i §RrU $ nizs; 93 .ITE PLAN -- wrv«sloe OCASANT & ASiOC10.iES1 �•• •___�_ •• o ux_xx_ �y ox coua�pr6 8°s°.t 5°Adew AIA. aR(HTFGr O� ' • ., P.LA ,n r29a5 iA GATEWAY OtHCE COManw +" w�¢ + € AS t10TE0 - area IIImA, cA 9`d9: 15855E EDNA 11 #118 E-- e�9s5On`t�°�4 IRYMDAIE, CA 91706 .., £1671 E GATEWAY C�N1EN G� �� (pM1) (626)962 1332 fax (626)961 0716 rnnA+n 01 AMONG BAR, CALIFORNIA �'�f� ai � — 'r^� rte•. a �; u � "' �Z § I> i ;III it11 II 'i §RrU $ nizs; 93 .ITE PLAN -- wrv«sloe OCASANT & ASiOC10.iES1 �•• •___�_ •• o ux_xx_ �y ox coua�pr6 8°s°.t 5°Adew AIA. aR(HTFGr O� ' • ., P.LA ,n r29a5 iA GATEWAY OtHCE COManw +" w�¢ + € AS t10TE0 - area IIImA, cA 9`d9: 15855E EDNA 11 #118 E-- e�9s5On`t�°�4 IRYMDAIE, CA 91706 .., £1671 E GATEWAY C�N1EN G� �� (pM1) (626)962 1332 fax (626)961 0716 rnnA+n 01 AMONG BAR, CALIFORNIA 1 m r (n L � 12" L�'6" IONCLJ� �' o�'" V CD D Z 'A z y�to• � � r I� � �� ➢ mA% � 12" L�'6" IONCLJ� �' o�'" V CD D Z 'A z y�to• � � r I� � �� ➢ m C.7 � m � 7' O m I I\� I a �z 8mP V-0 l i I ti fI f knNs m- _ c _ u �yyrS � 5 F � I O f c1 N s� `� OlT� °' m nl AgY_SSBL6E SXNµ) i __ WT�OF-3G111 9< F K9 gyISr6,e jT STROM,, OFTA11., WNECL STOP PETAL GATE'WA" OFFICE CENTER 21671 E GATEWAY MIR OR OIANONO 8AR C411FORN14 � 12" L�'6" IONCLJ� �' o�'" V CD z y�to• � � r I� � �� M cTY=ni� �' I I\� I a �z 8mP V-0 l i I ti fI f knNs m- _ c _ u �yyrS � 5 F � I F K9 gyISr6,e jT STROM,, OFTA11., WNECL STOP PETAL GATE'WA" OFFICE CENTER 21671 E GATEWAY MIR OR OIANONO 8AR C411FORN14 STROM,, OFTA11., WNECL STOP PETAL GATE'WA" OFFICE CENTER 21671 E GATEWAY MIR OR OIANONO 8AR C411FORN14 M BASAVT & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS "_„,• �* Bosent Sade , AIA. MailTECT 15855 E EDNA PL #1113 YORBA L110A,1 CA69- 87 IRMOALE, CA 91706 ,,;• •',,1„. ”"•' �Rme M/69t-u]t {¢e /l 928 (Ph) (625)962 1332 fax (626)962 0716 E-ktai boson tl®ear=knet 12" L�'6" IONCLJ� M cTY=ni� �' I I\� I C) l i I ti fI m- �! 1 nm mm \I F � I M BASAVT & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS "_„,• �* Bosent Sade , AIA. MailTECT 15855 E EDNA PL #1113 YORBA L110A,1 CA69- 87 IRMOALE, CA 91706 ,,;• •',,1„. ”"•' �Rme M/69t-u]t {¢e /l 928 (Ph) (625)962 1332 fax (626)962 0716 E-ktai boson tl®ear=knet m A. z„r11o��� T' V _ / -O AO Ol'OAF 11 O A Z z ~ m I \\ n l R 4 I — I— — — — — — -- — — — — — — -- — — I N — —— s Op -- — —— — — — I — 0 m w I w 1 s o _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 17iF �J {� �i�proa v n — _--- II .I� a < vA I v `Z ratio A z _ � � - •I I r�N I I I � w EY�A °1290 1 "� R I A$, a 25 03 Roof It -AN not sASANT & %SSOCIA.TEs� U-t Sack K A, MUtTECT AKAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS''o-..'GAILW ,. OFFICE COMPLEX En 22"5 LA P N AVE. -TE Bim' voRaw ow` z 15855 E. EDNA PL 9116 V1 Tom'• '• •' ,•,' ' '~' � •',• axox6N 21671 L G,TFW" CENTER OR 'A IIANA OIAMW BAR, CAUFMRIA dmc ]I4/®1-tM ] m T. r/69FI166 E -Mol bas�n:t@an, t111,r4 net IRNNDALE. CA 91706 •'� (ph) (626)962 1332 fax (626)962 071. a I n v !( m 11 I N i To tl, 2J/US 4f.7AON A -A, SECTION R -R ( Y2 Al NOTED nye GAIEWAf OFFICE COMPLEX I b u rxmwx ev Aoa�s )1671 E OAXWAY (DIM1 DR TA744NA DIAMOND DAR, CALIFORNIA P aLaM* s A,-,,,-- I AKAL ENGINEERS 6mmt Sq.90ew At9, ARGn0CC1 t 1CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 15855 E. EDNA PL 1#118 ., IRYMDALE, CA 91706.""•" (1h) (626)962 1332 fax (626)962 0716 6 Nj IV) 11 Ll L l�' ''^' zL 'N ' : tE�€ x -KAL It i II Zl -KAL =ta � i I L�JiUuL�IJ- I F— F-9 < Ic I�I IL LJ a. D r I m ED;©o'El o aao Ie"'I I --------U— L a� Fll L�JiUuL�IJ- I a. r I JI 0 o aao i Ig 1 01 ElJ0 m Q o ,oR] WEs, E EVATi0N5 6725]03 easANr s .asscclAres AKAL ENGINEERS n 8i -...E GSIIWAY D�rcL ceurxEx i!8"=i'-0" Bcxwl Su:Mem Aie,Aern IEC1 CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 15855 E EDNA PL #118 exma�sc 2:6T CAIEWA�C01hR OR ->TANA DAW14D BAR. CAJVDRNIA IRWNDALE, CA 91706 (ph) (628)962 1332 far (626)962 0718 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM T�-� DIAMOND BAR COMMiJNM & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner DATE: December 8, 2005 SUBJECT: Development Review No. 2002-03/Dr. Omar's Office Building Located at 21671 Gateway Center Drive 2/22/02 Project submittal 3/20/02 Correspondence to applicant/address Planning concerns 8/26/02 Revised plans submitted 9/25/02 Prepared Initial Study/Negative Declaration 10/04/02 Prepare staff report 10/22/02 PC Public Hearing; continued public hearing to 11/26/02 to allow applicant to prepare traffic impact analysis report 11/26/02 PC continued public hearing; applicant request continuance do to scheduling conflict of the applicant; public hearing continued to 12/10/02 12/10/02 Planning Commission Public Hearing; project approved; expiration date of approval 12/10/04 12/12/02 Prep NOD; submittal to L.A.C. Recorders Office 12/12/02 Transmit PC approved plans to the Building and Safety and Public Works Division 10/29/04 Applicant is seeking to obtain Building Permit; checked file and applicant asked in writing to (1) submit fees owed to Planning Division for process project; (2) Submit Affidavit of Acceptance; (3) submit landscape/irrigation plan; (4) submit exterior lighting plan/study; and (5) trash enclosure detail 11/22/04 Applicant submits extension of time request for PC approval; applicant will not be able to exercise (i.e. construction started/per PC Resolution No.2002-47) PC approval prior to 12/10/04 11/29/04 Requested PC required landscape plan not yet submitted by the applicant 1/8/05 Extension of time public hearing by PC; no changes in original plans approved by PC; PC approve a one year extension of time to expire on December 10, 2005 (one year from the original expiration date of 12/10/05 1/10/05 Submitted landscape/irrigation plan 1/10/05 Received Affidavit of Acceptance 1/13/05 Landscape /irrigation plan submitted to David Evans for plan check 1/20/05 Submitted trash enclosure detail 1/29/05 Submitted lighting plan study; resubmitted 4105 and 5/26/05 due to staff comments that needed to be addressed; submitted to lighting consultant to review twice and finally approved 1215/05 4/4105 Landscape plan approved after third plan check with City's landscape consultant 10/2/05 Discovered applicant made changes to architecture design of the project 10/3/05 Sent copy of changes to Gateway Corporate Center architectural committee 10/4/05 Planning Division approved the architectural changes. 10/12/05 Grading permit / construction permit issued Nancy Fong drove by the project site and noticed that constructed had not started. I checked the extension of Time expiration date. On December 6, 2005, 1 called Mrs. Omar and notify her of the expiration date as a courtesy. The expiration date monitoring is the applicant's responsibility. 2 21671 Gateway Center Drive Public Works/Engineering Chronology 11/19/04 1" Submittal Geotechnical Report (11 Day Review) 11/30/04 Geotechnical Review comments returned to applicant 12/8/04 1" Submittal Trac Study (21 Day Review) 12/29/04 Trak Study Review comments returned to applicant 3/21/05 2nd Submittal Geotechnical Report (9 Day Review) 3130/05 Geotechnical Review comments returned to applicant 4/25/05 2nd Submittal Trak Study (16 Day Review) 5/11/05 Traffic Study Review comments returned to applicant 5/20/05 3`d Submittal Geotechnical Report (7 Day Review) 5/26/05 1st Submittal Grading/SUSMP Plan (8 Day Review) 5/27/05 Geotechnical Review comments returned to applicant 6/3/05 Grading/SUSMP Review comments returned to applicant 6/23/05 3rd Submittal Traffic Study (4 Day Review) 6/27/05 Trak Study Review comments returned to applicant -APPROVED 7/8/05 2nd Submittal Grading/SUSMP Plan (19 Day Review) 7/27/05 Grading/SUSMP Review comments returned to applicant 8/1/05 4"' Submittal Geotechnical Report (7 Day Review) 8/8/05 Geotechnical Review comments returned to applicant -APPROVED 916105 3`d Submittal Grading/SUSMP Plan (6 Day Review) 9/12/05 Grading/SUSMP Review comments returned to applicant -APPROVED 10/12/05 Grading Permit Issued Plan Check Tracking Form j DATE PC#; PROJECT ADDRESS PROPOSED USE Lj_��� CONTACT4 r1(� -P t.krl. ;Z.. C� OG, - G Z IV 6r, JYC�Kv Rs ji��r-r?o-�t: c.d o-�- ' . : � rtj4ns r „�',G:�i-,'� ��'`�-t•�7� �:.�c�.r:.' �'CL�''t "I-- !•�1,....T� rlr—.—I.,-wre Ti'nrm -� r ,r, rc •sub-r,', �- Z- (bo. . h Q13131 r)✓l C --V- Pi 14 ' .t -�," S�1u �'./•-� . o.� ICS � � Sc 1 1 S �^-�t-�'� 1 "fi^•�• C'�r-cat( L'� f' `�'r�Corr11P1��E Si.,JorY1•�- �) No Pl-:nr -pet- C-- WO) et-crl1 �v� �j��t�►e�1 fl -o C•r<�S rl a ( � 1 ��5 3�fo � �l� f � �. •: {�c�v-� rC - ��..b.'�n ; �c�i � � lob �jg� , � ��P� cr, Ic Plan -Check Tracking Form DATE PC# © 3 PROJECT ADDRESS PROPOSED USE M -c <::k C 42 CONTACT rr\v-S• PHONE NO. -712• '10� rr•e r 4f --s j o S-' m rs • Orn c.,.• �..�b �-n'�'�r a 42S a• r,s , rn nYJ ,/t aS/cy5-: Mrs- 52pg r,j . Cal -�-- p c o,r- -�•o erg - - Plan Check Tracking Form DATE PC# - PROJECT ADDRESS PROPOSED USE I CONTACT PHONE NO. ( ) a l C Cal -�-- p c o,r- -�•o erg - - Plan Check Tracking Form DATE PC# - PROJECT ADDRESS PROPOSED USE I CONTACT PHONE NO. ( ) ns •cr $ �f1�1r aC�✓� �'1'1e r 1 -te ��Yl Perm�� � Sim �n-� c3,•ks coyer �l \�-�IC;o-�.s 'o a z w C7 w J I o O U j I I I I U I - O O O -j O CD ( Q Q _O ~ LL H 4. ` I J J J W U Ma -1 W Z J I QZ �Z O CL O CL QZ U w w� Q w� LU Q N J a a J � W< J 2 W -1 2 — 2O O LL �O O LL �o 20 0zw 20 0z IO co vo I UZ ZJ UZ ZJ UZ zJ zJo ZJ W O Z O Z LL Z Z LL w LL Z ❑0 ❑� ❑9 ❑ �w p0 w_ Lu wi- wf-❑ WI_ Co LL ❑ IL ❑ ~a tea°' �Q oQ oQ n Z� W �I – -- O u� zU- Z� zL 0 w O zW z0 zwui z0� zw 0 zLL Q Cl I W UZ Uz w (L 0 Uzm UZ a W 0 Z IL N CS U a m a m Il m a. U O J F- a- Q> JI- a- Q U O Z J- a ~ J -Z) a~ m J- w F - U) N d Q> Q d W Q LLJ Q m (L Q w U �Iw U) I CO m z 10 Z, J W c z W W Z c W J Q Il Q 0 m U Q U CL V ❑ zy Q ❑ O W OJ O Q N Q ❑ U' ❑ W 0 I- '� U 0 z O z m � a. W z U p Z W w a V < a >- C y p oo O u ❑ m Q = Q ❑ N co - ❑ O O Y co Iti I O 06lOf) } N N N d N O N Lf)O O co � N a U Q 0O0 O I I N N Z) dLO -nl Q' J J Q O d U Q J Q Z Q Y J Q 0 I U .- O 910 Oco N Oco 9 O to r O to O — O O N M WM M O MOeY N Lo O (� O O O C 0 O pO 0pO 0 LO p 0 N N 04 04 ONO N N O CN N N N N O N NCL of ❑ DU oU ❑ ❑ U U n > >❑ N , U U U75 ❑ w ❑ ❑ F- ❑ 0 I l c V to C y W N f6 C > ECID a) 0 rn O 4 a � W N v C 0 sti- °I V M� LL m Q) O H� -0 m U _ m' 0 NI ¢� W W p ❑ o� 5 �' U z Z a E J U 7 OY� o CD O� m ii0 OLLJ '0 Q _ �� Q NI Q 7 ��j - W� 2 m V W a� m� C'4 0o m �I CD 0. ❑ , , E c� M.0 Yw I- o Oc a zL 0 c, �F-m y z aw F -LL °' Ww _T O @ e� J m N Za LLI . Z I W I Qol LI) QLL m QDIN ? C7 z Ov_, O Quo N CO a m ❑ C ❑ O (n .'C^ gO (0 Q WD U) L >w z W {. >_ Q w. a �,� C� o, Q o o > E w O O c� w z , vJ w .2 L -� – n. a) LL dQ'I JZ fQ� ] N� Z C_ W fA '� ONI d C Z Z d, N m_ U❑ .� N ZLu Z_ X•• — > W (� N N Z C ,G U�❑ Ul1J ❑Q Y� Y� .Q_I� z w C7 w J a> 0° w ❑ U) Z O Q w o a LL o OJ w > W 6,0 N 0 IL 0 0 zQ z O zQ OJ z O z z z O z z OJ IL a O O O O Uw Uw UW U U U U U U aZ as O dZ a CL a a a a Q0 Qw Q0 Q0 Q0 Q0 a0 Q0 ¢0 w- ,- I- Q w> �- W O w- � h- Q w- E- F- Q W- - t- Q w- F-- F- W- �- ,- Q W- f-. h Q W- � I- W J W -J W J W J W J2 W Q J W J W -i W Q J� as am air a aCe as a- 2 0 W :p MOW �O 20 M0 20 �0 ZiO Ou-w OW 0LLW Oa Oa Oa Oa 0U- Oa UZ_a U Z UZ_a z 0Z_ Z UZ_ 0Z_ 0z_ U_Z UzCO _ I z J 0 J 0 J Z J z J z J z J Z J O m w O a W W W LL O Z> 02W ❑❑ z > ❑OW O Z ❑O 0 Z O 0 O Z ❑O O Z ❑O O Z ❑O 0 Z O p0 WHO wCf3 Wt=0 w wL: w wL- WF' w I Hm E: a) - p❑ p❑ �❑ H� f -❑m p❑ PW-.❑ 0Q0 00 OQ❑ OQ OQ oQ oa oQ oQ z W w zE- ZWW ZX Zfl� z[if zC� zW (D z 0 j �O� Z �z z oF- z �o z �-0 z �o z �o z o z z U) F-0 z z Fn Q(D Q� <02 QC7 QO QU QC7 <0 fn QCi fn _U Z m J�-� _U a J _U Z m J�� _U Z JF _U Z _U Z _U Z DP: U Z w U U z Jp W U a- aw a- a- -i --• a- JF- a- a- JF- a- O a- o (L < co a.w Qz aQw Q3m aQ Q aQ aQ as aQ Q3: a a aQ Q3: a a U) � ❑ 0 w z W w z IL W Q Z ❑ m U °a Z w 0_ U w w w2 U w ❑ z a (n z o J a = lxp w Q O a O U U H F= Q O U) z Q ❑ 2 ,w -Z Ur) O Q Y LL Q LU to N F52 w w W z Q In LO u7 J M v U U Q Cl) � o Q N Y J N �Ji Q I- U N U' N N a -J) p Q J Q Q J Uco U) 2 J Q J p NI M O M co O OM co O O nLn L U)U O O C0 O LO Ln O O d 0 6m CD 0 Oa)O U N N N N O 2 N O N O N O N N N 2 O O N N N O N O N as ❑F �cr �2 F- a ❑ a ❑ U�n=� NU❑(n �> 0 a- U❑ > < Q O F--' _ U OCD O } m N N ;a V L y > C UJ w Oa' Z a' 0— Q O O 3 .co y C 'O W W-0 a = '° Cl) JE AR LL a� v -0 0 a OLL } m c Q 'o c a@ Q LL. O LL. J (D O a � M m -a 3 uJ °� Q.a m p v a) �:2 a v o Z m a) Y- Q C m W- W c o '� C L Co cu z° Q '� p� m F- J c o Z w 'y Z Y Q _ T (`� O = V !- CLo (n O ❑ Cl) z 2 (n C J O a) S O N Co o � ,N W > O F- = N U p Z w z Q 2❑ E O2 CD Q p 2 J O `u W E _ U U J zrn O N ? 0 p J m a V =1 N 7 U a O `V U) Z Q U) 0 (n c (n T I- Q }- CO X W LL. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On February 28, 2006, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular session at 7:00 p.m., at the South Coast Quality Management District/Government Center - Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On February 23, 2006, a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on February 28, 2006, was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Center 1600 Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 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 23, 2006, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community and Development Services Department g:\\affidavaposting.doc Fiie i ed b and tisready r on.= scorning g � nnlb C ssg ono ga gs R a , Aoilz u a �� 2R iDFmn nan�m @ R � •+n sn s. �$ a tim Nieo T $ Wao:igm �;K+p ��9�W�6zo��p '--I _ z v:N NR mKlpn0 eoeno m=" sa' nq@@ pprg gsp�5&ppC Z D o A6� t Rg'�RSSy B _ I•r k I T o � - e � DE9IGNW BY: AGOP G. KHANJIAN 272 N. MICHIGAN AVE.S PASMX31A CA91105 1 �e fDQRDA I R B 3� L6.9 � �➢ I� r. .I•�i�,tilrl•I�IL SS =�3Ty W, I U a _ a G 0. u N-. r 0 D e Iq � T 3 SITE PIAN Dr. JACOB SAID RESIDENCE 220B. R t]918 CEDAR DALE DR DIAMOND EAR.CA 917651969 ::�a I I I - _ is I IF o� ae9g �g R l'� Q m 0 M w e. L ^• $8R5.5�_s ria M ergo s ���4 _ \ �m v ~ v W A 272 MICHIGAN AVE. PASADENA CA 97106 •ci ic�c� c.n conn O, JACOB SAI D RESIDENCE :m _..... rro� ,, ..... n....- ... ........... ..... .. ....... ...... ip_ $ 0 = n - _ is I IF o� ae9g �g R l'� m 0 _ w e. 1 DESIGNED BV: M� MAIN- FLOOR PLAN _ \ �m ACOP G. KHANJIAN W A 272 MICHIGAN AVE. PASADENA CA 97106 •ci ic�c� c.n conn O, JACOB SAI D RESIDENCE :m _..... rro� ,, ..... n....- ... ........... ..... .. ....... ...... MMn®® 0 I jig p gq$g�� g ]t �g gym; 45� y y m �Z SPS ES 18 A HIM E' g g DESIGNED BY: AGOP G. KHANJIAN 272 MICHIGAN AVE.PASADENA CA 91106 TEL 16761577-5003 UPPER FLOOR PLAN a Dr JACOB SAID RESIDENCE ro /➢qEa F ���� a �OFEAo�R � y'g s���R a„�E�Eg•�s�°� R I U I l II II m v � a �_` $a ga x tqq F 2@ 5 E® 4'S aa' m ea �'� BAR4H1�0� i� ape €al; @p p" 0 3a 55.a illi p m p �� a �S 33 •� N mms R Ln w'�@yE�E P Hmm�" �m os8 et: a n .ac@ #pR R y 8 qy E W 6�0 �' � e b e £ c�i � ga�3 0� � � g '✓] f. C. 3� Sb maoe�� ° D : C• - DESIGNED BY: R O'O F ^ P L^A,.N,,.,.- AGOP G. KHANJIAN Dr. JACOB SAID RESIDENCE 272 MICHIGAN AVE.PASADENA CA 91106 ^-I TFI i—I 5IA-wIDl I c) O Cn m 0 z rol (f) m 0 z I > '.•t DESIGNED Y 'I -- CROSS SECTION A -A_ 8, 8-6- � AGO G. KHANJIAN 7 JACOB SAID RESIDENCE 272 MICHIGAN cn AVE. PASADENA A ?IIM -- is TEL 16261 57-5003 i I .... -------- -- -I.,.-..- — — —1— P I. A rol (f) m 0 z I > '.•t DESIGNED Y 'I -- CROSS SECTION A -A_ 8, 8-6- � AGO G. KHANJIAN 7 JACOB SAID RESIDENCE 272 MICHIGAN cn AVE. PASADENA A ?IIM -- is TEL 16261 57-5003 i I .... -------- -- -I.,.-..- — — —1— 15'-4' 8 A m O0 T Tl Z °m 4m DJill o o Z O i ®000 or�000 7 � _ a M m � 40 �o m m m m D � O Z � n Y 2 n m a y 0 2 u T � I y g � � O oww. e...wanaw Eryi,fTir�G ���!/R T/ONs DESIGNED BY ELEVATIONS AGOPG KHANJIAN ? p d znasaoErGin lci. m )ns rELEPXONE (c]e)Et/E003 9 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 NUMBER MEETING DATE: REPORT DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER- PROJECT UMBER PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY OWNERS/ APPLICANT: a11.31at] 00615101921 MAN I ��►d February 28, 2006 February 13, 2006 Development Review 2006-03 21671 Gateway Center Drive (Tract Map No. 39679, Lot 4) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Approval to construct a two-story office building of approximately 25,000 square feet. Dr. Akbar Omar 222 N. Sunset Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 Approve Development Review No. 2006-03 BACKGROUND: A. Previous Approval: The Planning Commission approved this project as Development Review No. 2002-03 on December 10, 2002. It was required that the approval be exercised by December 10, 2004 or it would expire. From December 2002 to July 2003, the project was inactive. In August 2003, the first set of structural plans was submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan check. In November 2004, the first submittal for geotechnical review occurred. The applicant realizing that the Planning Commission approval was about to expire, requested an extension of time. The Planning Commission approved a one year extension of time that expired December 10, 2005. Attached is a chronology showing the project's inactivity, many submittals and plan reviews before permits were issued. In October 2005, the applicant obtained a grading and building permit. However, the Planning Commission approval was not exercised by December 10, 2005. Exercised means the applicant has obtained a building permit and continuous on- site construction activity including pouring foundation, installation of utilities, or similar substantial improvements has commenced. Consequently, the Commission's approval expired. Since the Development Code only allows one extension of time up to one year, the City Attorney determined that the applicant is required to resubmit the project. B. Site Description: The project site, located in Gateway Corporate Center, is an irregular-shaped, vacant lot, approximately 2.033 gross acres. It has a ten feet wide sanitary sewer easement that follows the north property and angles toward the west property line. It also has a graded pad of approximately 40,000 square feet. Currently, the project site is surrounded by protective construction fencing and has been grubbed. C. General Plan/Zoning: The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Professional Office (OP). The zoning designation for the project site is Comm ercial-M anufacturing- Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral Contract (C-M-BE-U/L). Generally, the project site is surrounded by the C-M-BE-U/L zoning. ANALYSIS: A. Application/Review Authority: The resubmitted project requires approval of a Development Review application, which is an architectural/design review. Pursuant to Development Code Section DR 2006.-03 Page 2 22.48.020(a)l , the Planning Commission is the review authority for this application. Since the original Planning Commission approval and extension of time have expired, the applicant has submitted a new Development Review application. B. Development Review: The staff has reviewed the application and plans and finds that the resubmitted project is consistent with the Development Code, City's Design Guideline and Gateway Corporate Center's Design Guidelines. Additionally, the resubmitted project is consistent with the original Planning Commission approval. Furthermore, the resubmitted project has been approved by Gateway Corporate Center's architectural committee. C. Architectural Features/ Colors and Materials: The proposed architectural style, colors and materials are consistent with the requirements of the City and Gateway Corporate Center and compatible with existing buildings within the center. In order to break-up the vertical monotony of a tall flat wall at the north elevation, cornices (horizontal moldings or bands) along with varying planes, varying shades of light beige and pale green and windows are proposed. These design features have also been added to the front and side facades. However, the arched window shown on the west elevation is not consistent with the arched window style on the north and east elevations. The applicant is required to submit a revised west elevation with window style consistent with the north and east elevations. D. Parking Lot/Exterior Lighting The parking lot and exterior lighting plan was submitted for the original project in September 2005. The City's lighting consultant reviewed the plan and two sets of revised plans due to corrections. The plan was approved is December 2005. For this project, the same approved lighting plan will be used. E. Landscaping A landscape/irrigation plan was submitted for the original project. It was plan checked by the City's landscape consultant and approved in April 2005. As required by this project's original approval, the plan meets the City's Water Efficient Landscape Regulations. The landscape plan includes proposed plant species, size, quantity and location, existing plant material on all slopes and replacement plant material due to damaged that will occur during construction. Furthermore, the landscape plan delineate all trees on the north facing slope adjacent to the building at 24 inch box size and bougainvillea and acacia according to the original approval to enhancing slope coverage and screening of the building's retaining wall. DR 2006-03 Pd6e 3 F. Additional Review: The City's Public Works and Building and Safety Divisions reviewed this project and have issued permits for construction. The permits that were issued are valid for six months or from the date of last inspection. If the Planning Commission approves the resubmitted project, the permits can be reinstated. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration's review period begins February 1, 2006 and ends February 20, 2006. The Planning Commission will also consider the adoption of Negative Declaration 2006-01 on February 21, 2006. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on February 3, 2006. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 23 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site on January 30, 2006. Furthermore, the project site was posted with a display board and the public notice was posted in three public places by February 3, 2006. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2006-03, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. Prepared by: Oji-J`Lungu�Ass�Iate RI'%anner Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution; 2. Negative Declaration No. 2006-01; 3. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations and colors and materials board/color rendering dated February 28, 2006; 4. Chronology of the project's processing; and 5. Aerial. DR 200603 Page 4 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -XX , A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-03 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-01, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING OF APPROXIMATELY 25,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 21627 GATEWAY CENTER DRIVE, (LOT 4, TRACT NO. 39679) DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. RECITALS The property owner, Dr. Akbar Omar has filed an application for Development Review No. 2006-03 and Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 for a property located at 21627 Gateway Center Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review and Negative Declaration shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. Notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on February 3, 2006. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 23 property owners of record within a 500 -foot radius of the project on January 30, 2006. Furthermore, the project site was posted with the required display board and public notice was posted in three public places on February 3, 2006. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Baron February 28, 2006 conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Initial Study review and Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 have been prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in compliance with the requirement of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15070. The Negative Declaration review period began, February 1, 2006 and ended February 20, 2006. Furthermore, Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is an irregular-shaped, vacant lot corporate located within a business complex identified as Gateway Corporate Center. The project site is approximately 2.033 gross acres with an existing pad of approximately 40,000 square feet. The site is bound by a descending slope on the north facing the Orange (SR -57) Freeway, by Gateway Center Drive on south, by Lot 5 — V -Tek on the west and the Holiday Inn Select hotel on the east. The project site contains a sanitary sewer easement, approximately ten feet wide, that follows the north property and angles toward the west property line. The project site was graded with a pad as part of the overall grading for the corporate complex. The pad is generally free of vegetation with the exception of moderate weed growth. The north descending slope is vegetated with trees and bushes planted as part of the Gateway Corporate Center's master landscape plan. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Office, Business Park (OB). (c) The project site has a zoning designation of Commercial - Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral Contract (C-M-BE-U/C). (d) Generally, the following zones and use surround the project site: To the north is the Orange Freeway (SR 57); and to the south, east and west is the C-M-BE-U/C zone. (e) The Application request is to construct a two-story office building of approximately 25,000 gross square feet (23,250 net square feet) to be utilized for general office. 2 Development Review (f) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments); The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Professional Office (OP), which provides for the establishment of office -based working environments for general, professional, and administrative offices, as well as support uses. The proposed project is for office -based uses and therefore consistent with the General Plan. Pursuant to the General Plan, the proposed project will yield a pleasant environment for those working and visiting the office facility through its exemplary design, use of materials and colors, and landscaping that will offer a variety of plant species and adequate on- site parking. The proposed architectural style, colors and materials are consistent with the requirements of the City and Gateway Corporate Center as prescribed in Gateway Corporate Center Unilateral Contract and compatible with existing buildings within the center. The proposed project has received the approval of the Gateway Corporate Center Architectural Committee. In order to break-up the vertical monotony of a tall flat wall at the north elevation, cornices (horizontal moldings or bands) along with varying planes, varying shades of light beige and pale green and windows are proposed. These design features have also been added to the front and side facades. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the City's Design Guidelines. (g) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; The proposed project is in Commercial -Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral Contract (C-M-BE-U/L). Pursuant to the Development Code, standards for the Office, Business Park (OB) zone are applicable to this project. This zoning designation permits large scale, headquarters -type office facilities and business park developments, and similar related compatible uses. Although future tenants for this project are not known at this time, the proposed office building will be able to accommodate various office uses. As such, 3 the proposed project complies with the zoning designation. As stated in Item (t) above, the design and layout of the proposed project is not expected to interfere with the use and neighboring and future development in that it is consistent and compatible with surround development. Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers prepared a traffic impact analysis and site access evaluation report date October 29, 2002. The report studied: ♦ Site access/internal circulation; ♦ Existing year 2002 traffic counts; ♦ Estimated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment; ♦ Estimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution/ assignment; ♦ AM/PM peak hour intersection capacity for existing and future conditions without and with project traffic; and ♦ Key Intersections: 0 Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive; 0 Gateway Center Drive at Golden Springs Drive; 0 Copley Drive at Golden Springs Drive; and 0 Golden Springs Drive at Grand Avenue. The results of the study indicates that: the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the four key intersections studied, the project driveway will be able to accommodate ingress and egress traffic without undue congestion; the approximate throat length of 50 feet at the project driveway is sufficient for storing potential queuing vehicles; the on-site circulation layout is adequate; and curb return radii are adequate for small service/delivery trucks, as well as trash trucks (h) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; As referenced above in Items 4. (t) above and (i) below, the proposed project will be consistent and compatible with the architectural design, materials, and colors of the other buildings within the Center Gateway Corporate Center and its Unilateral Contract originally reviewed and approved by Los Angeles County and adopted by the City of Diamond Bar. The Unilateral Contract sets forth land restrictions/development standards. The development standards require an architectural style that is Contemporary with materials, textures and colors that complement this style. The proposed project has received the Gateway Corporate Center's architectural committee's approval. 4 Therefore, the proposed project will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by the City's Development Review requirements and General Plan. (i) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance; As referenced in the above Items (t) through (h), the proposed project will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. The construction materials, glass and plaster will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. (j) The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, Health Department and Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies' involvement will ensure that the proposed revision is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (k) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. According to CEQA Section 15070, Negative Declaration No. 2006-01 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration's review period began February 1, 2006 and ended February 21, 2006. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to compliance with the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, grading plan, floor plan, elevations, final landscape/irrigation plan dated April 4, 2005, final exterior and parking lot lighting plan/study dated December 5, 2005 and colors/materials board/color rendering collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated February 28, 2006, as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission, as amended herein. (b) The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) Before the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a final landscape/irrigation plan that delineates plant species, size, quantity and location, for the City's review and approval. The final landscape plans shall also include existing planting material on all slopes and the species, size, quantity and location of the replacement plant material destroyed during construction. Said replacement plant material shall match the existing slope landscaping. Additionally, all trees on the north -facing slope adjacent to the building shall be 24 - inch box size and the proposed quantity of bougainvillea and acacia plants shall be increased on this slope to the City's satisfaction, thereby enhancing slope coverage and screening of the building's retaining wall. Furthermore, the proposed project shall comply with the City's established Water Efficient Landscape Regulations and shall be plan checked accordingly. All landscaping/irrigation shall be installed before final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. (d) Before the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit an exterior lighting plan/study for the City's review and approval. (e) All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view behind the roof parapet. The roof -mounted equipment shall not be visible from surrounding streets, driveways, or adjacent buildings on a horizontal sight line. Materials utilized for screening shall be complementary to building and integrated with the architectural design. 0 (f) The arched window shown on the west elevation is not consistent with the arched window style on the north and east elevations. Within 10 days of this approval, the applicant shall submit a revised west elevation with window style consistent with the north and east elevations. (g) All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view behind the roof parapet. The roof -mounted equipment shall not be visible from surrounding streets, driveways, or adjacent buildings on a horizontal sight line. Materials utilized for screening shall be complementary to building and integrated with the architectural design. (h) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a final detail of the trash/recycle bin enclosure for the City's review and approval. The trash/recycle bin enclosure shall be compatible with the proposed building. (i) Prior to final inspection/occupancy, the applicant shall correct traffic impact and/or pay their "fair share" towards mitigation of said impacts to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. (j) Applicant shall removed and replace that portion of highway facilities damaged by the construction activities to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Additionally, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, etc. damaged during construction shall be removed and replaced by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. (k) Before the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for the City's review and approval. The erosion control plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). Additionally, the applicant shall obtain the necessary NPDES permits. (1) Applicant shall comply with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan requirements to the satisfaction of the City engineer. (m) Prior to the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit a complete grading plan in accordance with the City's grading requirements for the City's review and approval. The grading plan shall: (1) Be signed/stamped by a civil engineer, geotechnical engineer and geologist as required; (2) Delineate the proposed and existing topography; 7 (3) Delineate proper drainage with details and sections; and (4) Delineate slope ratio. (n) All handicap parking shall comply with current State handicap accessible regulation. Van parking shall be provided. Site plan shall delineate path of travel from parking lot to building. Cross slope shall not exceed two percent. All bathroom and ramps shall be designed in compliance with State handicap accessible regulations. Required handicap signage shall be installed at each entrance. (o) Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e. 2001Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements. (p) Construction plans shall be engineered to meet wind loads of 80 M.P.H. with a "C" exposure. (q) Pursuant to the Building and Safety Division requirements, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing along the project perimeter. (r) Applicant shall submit construction plans to the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Plans shall comply with all applicable fire codes. (s) This project shall comply with the Health Department and Industrial Waste requirements. (t) As required by the City, the applicant shall provide guardrails at top of slope in the parking lot. (u) Building setback from top of slope shall meet Section 18 of the Building Code H/3 and/or provide a special footing design if closer than H/3. (v) Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Code (i.e. 2001 Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, and the 2001 National Electrical Code) requirements. (w) Applicant shall comply with all Planning Division, Building and Safety Division and Public Works/Engineering Department and Fire Department requirements. (x) This grant is valid for two years and shall be exercised (i.e., construction started) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one-year extension of time may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code. (y) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. (z) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section, 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to Dr. Akbar Omar, 222- N. Sunset Avenue, West Covina, CA 91790. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Joe McManus, Chairman 9 I, Nancy Fong, 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 of February 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director 10 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-01 for Development Review No. 2006-03 City of Diamond Bar 21825 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, CA 91765 January 20, 2006 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-01 Project Description and Location CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM FOR INITIAL STUDY Pursuant to Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act §15063 (f), this form, along with the Environmental Information Form completed by the applicant, meets the requirements for an Initial Study. This form is comprised of four parts: Part 1 Background Part 2 Summary of Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Part 3 Determination Part 4 Evaluation and Discussion of Environmental Impacts PART 1 - BACKGROUND 1. City Project Number: Development Review No. 2006-03 2. Project Address/Location: 21671 E Gateway Center Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 3. Date of Environmental Information Form submittal: January 19, 2006 4. Property Owner/Applicant: Dr. Akbar Omar Address: 222 N. Sunset Avenue City/State/Zip: W. Covina, CA 91790 Phone: (626) 338-7359 Fax: N/A 5. Lead Agency: City of Diamond Bar Contact: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner Address: 21825 E. Copley Drive City/State/Zip: Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Phone: (909) 839-7032 Fax: (909) 861-3117 6. General Plan Designation: Professional Office (OP - Max. 1.0 FAR) 7. Zoning: Commercial -Manufacturing Unilateral/Contract (C -M U/C) Zone 8. Description of Project: The applicant submitted the required Development Review application for this project. Development Review is an architectural review by the Planning Commission. The application is a request to construct a two-story office building of approximately 25,000 gross square feet with on-site parking and landscaping. The office building will probably house general office uses. However, future tenants are not known at this time. Each tenant will be reviewed on a case- by-case basis to determine whether or not the use is allowed in C -M U/C zoning district and if the site can accommodate the use. The project site is a vacant lot located within a business center identified as "Gateway Corporate Center", approved by Los Angeles County and grading and several office buildings were completed by 1986. It is bound on the north by a slope that descends to the SR -60 Freeway; on the south by Gateway Center Drive; on the east by the Holiday Inn hotel; and on the west by an office building. The project site (Lot 4 of Tract 39679 is approximately 2.033 gross acres, mass graded as part of the overall grading for the corporate center. The project site has an existing pad area of approximately 40,000 square feet. The pad area is generally free of vegetation with the exception of moderate weed growth. The descending slope is vegetated with existing trees and bushes planted by the corporate center. Gateway Corporate Center is a 255 -acre business center serving the eastern San Gabriel Valley's demand for professional office facilities in a location with regional access. Development within the center can generally be characterized as professional office, research and development and commercial. The center was approved with extensive attention place on compatibility with the community through the Unilateral Contract/Design Guidelines adopted by the Los Angeles County and adopted by the City upon incorporation. Additionally, the Center was approved with off-site improvements to respond to impacts created by the project. A Master Environmental Impact (MEIR) was prepared and approved by Los Angeles Regional Planning. The document identified impacts principally related to geotechnical hazards, air quality, biota, archeological/paleontology, scenic quality and traffic /access. The mitigation measures approved for Gateway Corporate Center identified the need for: Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs); detailed design guidelines and standards related to grading, pad development and circulation within the Center; off-site traffic mitigation measures that included expansion of Golden Springs Drive; and contribution to funds for improvements required for future development phases. The developer of the center has met these mitigation measures (off-site improvements), as prescribed in the MEIR. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The proposed project is located on Lot 4 of Tract No. 39679 at 21671 Gateway Center within Gateway Corporate Center. Generally, the following uses and zones surround the project site: north is the SR -60 Freeway; to the south is the CM-BE- U/C zone; to the west is the CM-BE-U/C zone; and to the east is the SR -57 Freeway and CM-BE-U/C zone. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): None. 0a 11. List City of Diamond Bar related applications for this project that must be processed simultaneously: None. 12. List prior projects for this parcel: Several projects were processed for this parcel in the past. The projects are as follows: CUP90-0070, CUP93-04/DR93-01 for a restaurant that was never constructed. DR 2002-03 and one year extension of time for this project were both approved by the Planning Commission for the project site. However, this project was not constructed. Therefore, because the permit was not exercised prior to the entitlement expiration, the proposed project is required to be process as a new Development Review application as presented in this Negative Declaration. PART 2 - SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Hazards ❑ Population and Housing ❑ Noise ❑ Geology/Soils 0 Public Services ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Utilities & Service Systems ❑ Air Quality ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Agricultural Resources PART 3 - DETERMINATION Project Number: DR 2006-03 To be completed by Lead Agency On the basis of this initial evaluation: >� I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATION NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 1 find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" OR "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. v January 30, 2006 nat Date _Ann J. Lunqu, Associate Planner Print Name 5 PART 4 - EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis.) 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated "applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced and effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant "impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects where addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impact (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggestion form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. rA CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2006-01 Initial Study and Findings (Environmental Information and Environmental Checklist) LAND USE AND PLANNING ANALYSIS: a. No Impact. The project site is located within the General Plan land use designation of Professional Office (OP). This land use designation provides for the establishment of office -based working environments for professional, and administrative offices, and support uses. The proposed project is an office building and could support the types of office uses listed; however future tenants are not known. Future tenants will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not the site could accommodate the requested office type. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as well as standards and guidelines established by the Gateway Corporate Center's Unilateral Contract. The project site is located within the Commercial -Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion-Unilateral/Contract (C-M-BE- U/C) Zone, This zone allows a variety of land uses by right and with a Conditional Use Permit. The land uses allowed within this classification includes the following: general professional, administrative office, research and development, light manufacturing, medical offices and clinics, commercial retail, restaurants, hotels, physical fitness centers and government services. Other ancillary and support uses such as day care facilities, gymnasiums, dry cleaning services, and automobile rental and leasing agencies are permitted. This zoning classification encourages uses that benefit the community in many ways including sales tax revenues and attracting an employee base with additional buying power. The proposed use fits into the referenced zoning criteria and is not in conflict with the zoning, b. No Impact. The City of Diamond Bar does not have a habitat conservation plan/ or natural community plan for the project site or surrounding area. Additionally, the project site was mass graded as a part of the overall grading for Gateway Corporate Center. Therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1 I _ LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the General plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or X mitigating an environmental effect? Source #s: General Plan, p. I, 10-27; Project application; Development Code, Title 22, Article III, Section 22.42.130, p. 1-17; b Conflict with applicable habitat conservation plan or natural i community conservation plan? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1,10- 27; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Title 22, Article III, X Section 22.42.130, p. 1-17; Project application; c Physical divide an established community? Source #s: Project site plan; General Plan, 1-1 et seq., II -1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Title 22, p. II -8-18 Zone; Project application; X LAND USE AND PLANNING ANALYSIS: a. No Impact. The project site is located within the General Plan land use designation of Professional Office (OP). This land use designation provides for the establishment of office -based working environments for professional, and administrative offices, and support uses. The proposed project is an office building and could support the types of office uses listed; however future tenants are not known. Future tenants will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not the site could accommodate the requested office type. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan as well as standards and guidelines established by the Gateway Corporate Center's Unilateral Contract. The project site is located within the Commercial -Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion-Unilateral/Contract (C-M-BE- U/C) Zone, This zone allows a variety of land uses by right and with a Conditional Use Permit. The land uses allowed within this classification includes the following: general professional, administrative office, research and development, light manufacturing, medical offices and clinics, commercial retail, restaurants, hotels, physical fitness centers and government services. Other ancillary and support uses such as day care facilities, gymnasiums, dry cleaning services, and automobile rental and leasing agencies are permitted. This zoning classification encourages uses that benefit the community in many ways including sales tax revenues and attracting an employee base with additional buying power. The proposed use fits into the referenced zoning criteria and is not in conflict with the zoning, b. No Impact. The City of Diamond Bar does not have a habitat conservation plan/ or natural community plan for the project site or surrounding area. Additionally, the project site was mass graded as a part of the overall grading for Gateway Corporate Center. Therefore, the proposed project is not in conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community plan. C. No Impact. The proposed project is a vacant lot located within and existing corporate center. The zoning, General Plan land use designation and Gateway Corporate Center Design Guidelines do not plan for low-income or minority income housing or any kind of housing within corporate center. The proposed project is consistent with uses within the corporate center. Therefore, the proposed project will not physical divide an established community. Population and Housing Analysis: a. The proposed project is a vacant lot located within an established corporate center that does not permit housing of any kind. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Office Professional (OP) which does not provide for housing of any kind. Therefore, the proposed project will not displace numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The proposed project site is a vacant, graded lot with a buildable pad and infrastructure within the corporate center, zoned for commercial -manufacturing development, consistent with the policies presented in the General Plan and standards presented in the Development Code. The proposed office building, approximately 25,000 square feet, is considered small-scale compared to many of the existing building within the center. When the center was reviewed by Los Angeles County, it was expected that the project site would be developed. So infrastructure was planned and install in anticipation of development. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project will induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly by proposing a new business or by the extension of roads or other infrastructure. C. The proposed project will be located within an existing corporate center. As such, it will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 2 I POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: I a Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Source #s: 2000 Census of Population; Housing, MEA, p. II -1-19; X b Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g, through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Source #s: 2000 Census X of Population and Housing; MEA, p. II -1-19; General Plan EIR, p. 38; General Plan Land Use Map, p.1-27; project site Ian/application; c Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? Sources #s: Source #s: 2000 Census of Population and Housing; MEA, p. II -1-19; General Plan EIR, p. 38; General Plan Land Use Map, p.1-27; project site plan/application; Population and Housing Analysis: a. The proposed project is a vacant lot located within an established corporate center that does not permit housing of any kind. The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Office Professional (OP) which does not provide for housing of any kind. Therefore, the proposed project will not displace numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The proposed project site is a vacant, graded lot with a buildable pad and infrastructure within the corporate center, zoned for commercial -manufacturing development, consistent with the policies presented in the General Plan and standards presented in the Development Code. The proposed office building, approximately 25,000 square feet, is considered small-scale compared to many of the existing building within the center. When the center was reviewed by Los Angeles County, it was expected that the project site would be developed. So infrastructure was planned and install in anticipation of development. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project will induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly by proposing a new business or by the extension of roads or other infrastructure. C. The proposed project will be located within an existing corporate center. As such, it will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Geology and Soils Analysis: a.,b. Less Than Significant: No portion of the City has been identified as in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The closest fault is the Diamond Bar Fault that is described as a "small inactive local fault". Historically, there is no record of any earthquake with an epicenter in Diamond Bar or its Sphere of Influence. No significant movement has ever been recorded for the Diamond Bar fault. The project area is bound on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the west and south by the Whittier Fault and Elysian Fault and to the east by the Central Avenue -Chino Fault. The project site is located in highly seismic Southern California region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project site will periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of small to moderate magnitude earthquakes. However, faults ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation _ Incorporated 3 i GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a Seismic related ground failure? Source #s: General Plan, p, IV -2, and 3, Fig. IV -1; MEA, p. II -B-7 et seq.; General Plan X EIR, Section II I A., pg. 7-10; Project application; b Seismic related ground shaking? Source #s: MEA, p. II -B-14, p. II -B-10, Fig. II -B -S; Project application; X c Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death? Source #s: X Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc dated May 11, 2004/July 19, 2005; General Plan, p. IV -2, and 3, Fig. IV -1; MEA, p. II -B-7 et seq.; General Plan EIR, Section III A., pg. 7-10; Project application; d Landslides? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -3, Fig, IV -1; MEA, p. II -B-3, Fig. II -B-2; II -B-15 State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map dated April 15, 1998; Project application; X City's Public Works Division; e Erosion or lose of top soil? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -3, Fig. IV -1; Project application; City's Public Works Division; X f Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for disposal of waste water? Source #s: MEA, p. II -B-16; Project application; City's Public Works Division; g Be located on expansive soil? Source #s: MEA, p. II -B-16; Project application; City's Public Works Division; Pacific Soils X Engineering, Inc dated May 11, 2004/July 19, 2005 Geology and Soils Analysis: a.,b. Less Than Significant: No portion of the City has been identified as in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The closest fault is the Diamond Bar Fault that is described as a "small inactive local fault". Historically, there is no record of any earthquake with an epicenter in Diamond Bar or its Sphere of Influence. No significant movement has ever been recorded for the Diamond Bar fault. The project area is bound on the north by the San Gabriel Mountains, on the west and south by the Whittier Fault and Elysian Fault and to the east by the Central Avenue -Chino Fault. The project site is located in highly seismic Southern California region within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active. Therefore, it is anticipated that the project site will periodically experience ground acceleration as the result of small to moderate magnitude earthquakes. However, faults identified by the State as being either active or potentially active are not known to be present on-site. The site is not located within the State of California designated Earthquake Fault Zone; nor is the site located within a Seismic Hazard Zone. The proposed project lies within Seismic Zone 4. The proposed office building will be designed in accordance with the latest adopted edition (2001) of Uniform Building Code. Therefore, likelihood of fault rupture is limited. c. -d No Impact. The proposed project has an approved geology/soils report and grading plan, The project's geology/soils report incorporated recommendation for the design of the project. These recommendations are now a part of the project. The project has also been plan checked for structural safety and approve. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death. No Impact: The proposed project will connect to an existing sewer system that can accommodate the site. g. No Impact: According to the soils report, the project site is believed to have a medium to high expansion potential. Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may cause unacceptable settlement or heave of structures, concrete slabs, or pavements. Depending on the extent and location below finished sub -grade, these soils could have a detrimental effect on the proposed project. However, as recommended in the geology/soils report additional testing on the project site occurred and the report was approved. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 4 HYDROLOGY AND WATER. Would the project: a Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar X Public Works Division; Project site/grading/drainage plan; b Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -4, Fig. IV -2, FEMA X Flood Panel No. 0650430980 B, Zone C, 12/2/80; Project application; c Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? X Source #s: MEA, p. II -C-3, 4, Fig. II -C-1; Project application; d Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Source #s: MEA, p. II -C-3, 4, Fig. II -C-1; X e Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements? Source #s: MEA, p. II -C-3, 4, Fig, II -C-1; City of Diamond Bar Public Works Division; Project application; X f Changes in the quantity of ground waters either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of X groundwater recharge capability? Source #s: MEA, p. II -c-3, 4, Fig. II -C-1; Project application; g Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar Public Works Division; Project application; X h Impacts to groundwater quality? Source #s: MEA, p. II -P-3-8; Project application; X i Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Source #s: MEA, p. II -P-3- X 8; Project application; j Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place with X 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or re -direct flood flows? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -4, Fig, IV - 2; MEA, p. II -C-1 et seq.; HYDROLOGY AND WATER ANALYSIS: a. Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the project site will reduce pervious surfaces, thereby increasing surface runoff. Runoff will be directed from on-site drainage devices to off-site drainage devices that are designed to accommodate project site runoff. The impacts associated from the increased runoff are expected to be insignificant. Additionally, as a project condition of approval, a hydrology study shall be required for the City's review and approval. Furthermore, the project will be required to comply with the appropriate recommendation within the report. b. No Impact. The project site is not located within a flood hazard area and adequate drainage devices have been incorporated into the drainage plan Gateway Corporate Center, as well as the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to expose people or property to water related hazards. No Impact. The proposed project is required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and incorporated the appropriated Best Management Practices (BMP's) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSUMP) requirements in order to prevent pollution by reducing potential pollutants at the source. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed project will violate any water quality standards. d.,e. No Impact. No body of water exists around or near the project site or in the City of Diamond Bar. No Impact. Due to the proposed project's small-scale, changes in the quantity of ground waters either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability is not expected to occur. No Impact. Because of this proposed project's small size, it will not effect the direction or rate groundwater flow. Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the discussion above in Item c, groundwater quality may be impacted by the proposed small-scale development, but its extent is likely to be minimal. No Impact. The construction of one office building in an urbanized area is not considered to cause a substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater for public water supply. Additionally, groundwater is only utilized for reclaimed water supply. No Impact. he proposed project is within an existing corporate center, Therefore, it will not place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on the Federal flood hazard Boundary or flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map or place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows. AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS: a. -e, No Impact. This project will generate 1,705 cubic yards of cut and 225 cubic yards of fill and export 1480 cubic yards of earth which does not exceed SCAQMD air quality standards for this type of project. Air quality may be affected during grading operation; however, it is not expected to be significant or violate SCAQMD standards with procedures that will be implement to reduce air emissions. Additionally, such emissions are not expected to exceed those listed within the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, Tables 9-1 and 9-7 are screening tables for operations and construction of specified primary land uses. Pursuant to the tables and significant thresholds listed on page 6-2, an office building under 96,220 square feet, will not have a significant impact on air quality in relationship to operations; and an office building under 559,000 square feet will not have a significant impact on air quality in relationship to construction. The proposed project is requesting approval for 25,000 square feet. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan; expose sensitive receptors to pollutants; create objectionable odors; violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation _ Incorporated 5 ' AIR QUALITY: Would the project: — - a Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Source #s: SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook; Project X grading plan. b Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Source #s: MEA, p. 11- F-8-10, Fig. II -F-3; Project application; X c Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for X ozone precursors)? Source #s: SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook; Project application; d Create objectionable odors? Source #s: SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook; Project application; X i e Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to and existing or projected air quality violation? Source #s: SCAQMD X Air Quality Handbook; Project grading plan; AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS: a. -e, No Impact. This project will generate 1,705 cubic yards of cut and 225 cubic yards of fill and export 1480 cubic yards of earth which does not exceed SCAQMD air quality standards for this type of project. Air quality may be affected during grading operation; however, it is not expected to be significant or violate SCAQMD standards with procedures that will be implement to reduce air emissions. Additionally, such emissions are not expected to exceed those listed within the SCAQMD Air Quality Handbook, Tables 9-1 and 9-7 are screening tables for operations and construction of specified primary land uses. Pursuant to the tables and significant thresholds listed on page 6-2, an office building under 96,220 square feet, will not have a significant impact on air quality in relationship to operations; and an office building under 559,000 square feet will not have a significant impact on air quality in relationship to construction. The proposed project is requesting approval for 25,000 square feet. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan; expose sensitive receptors to pollutants; create objectionable odors; violate air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 6 i TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC: Would the project: a Cause an increase in vehicle trips which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at X intersections) Source #s: Project application/site plan; Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan dated October 21, 2002 updated April 21, 2005; b Substantially increase hazards due to design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e,g. farm equipment)? Source #s: City's Public Works Division; X Project application/site plan; Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan dated October 21, 2002 updated April 21, 2005; c Inadequate emergency access? Source #s: City's Public Works Division; Project application; X d Inadequate parking capacity on-site? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar Development Code, Tittle 22, p. 111-91, et seq.; X Project site Ian; e Exceeding, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? Source #s: City's Public Works Division; Congestion Management Plan, X Ordinance No. 01 (1993); City of Diamond Bar Development Code, III -157 et. seq.; Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan dated October 21, 2002 updated April 21, 2005; f Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnabouts, bicycle racks)? Source #s: General Plan, p. V-22; Congestion Management Plan, Ordinance No. 01 (1993); City of Diamond Bar X Development Code, III -157 et. seq.; g Change in rail, water, or air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risk? Source #s: MEA, p, 11-T-36; Project X application; TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC ANALYSIS: a. -c. No Impact. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis Report prepared by Linscott Law & Greenspan dated October 21, 2002 and updated April 21, 2005 for the City's review and approval. The report reviewed: Site access/internal circulation; existing year 2002-2005 traffic counts; estimated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment; estimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution assignment; AM/PM peak hour intersection capacity for existing and future conditions without and with project traffic; and key ilntersections: Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive; Gateway Center Drive at Golden Springs Drive; Copley Drive at Golden Springs Drive; and Golden Springs Drive at Grand Avenue. The results of the study indicates that: the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the four key intersections studied; the project driveway will be able to accommodate ingress and egress traffic without undue congestion; the approximate throat length of 50 feet at the project driveway is sufficient for storing potential queuing vehicles; the on-site circulation layout is adequate; and curb return radii are adequate for small service/delivery trucks, as well as trash trucks. However, the City's traffic engineer, Warren Siecke, has reviewed the traffic impact analysis and site access evaluation report. It is required that the applicant address Mr. Siecke's comments and concerns, The applicant addressed Mr. Siecke's comments and concerns and the traffic study was approved. The proposed project will not have an impact on traffic. d. No Impact. The proposed office building is approximately 25,000 gross square feet and 23,250 net square feet. Pursuant to the City adopted Gateway Corporate Center Design Guidelines, one parking space is required for each 250 square feet of net floor area of general office use. Therefore, 93 parking spaces are required and provided. As a result, it is anticipated that the proposed project will provide adequate on-site parking. e. No Impact. Due to the small-scale of the proposed project, it is not anticipated that the project will exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads and highways. f. No Impact. The proposed project's design is consistent with the General Plan's goals, objectives and strategies supporting circulation and transportation. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No Impact. No rail, waterborne, or air traffic facilities or operations are in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, the project will not impact these facilities or operations. 10 11 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than ' No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated- ncorporated17 17 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would. the project: a Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plan, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish X and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8; General Plan, p. III -11; Project site plan/ application; b Have a substantial adverse effect on and riparian habitat, federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 clean Water Act, or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife X Services? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8; General Plan, p. III -11; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -149 et seq.; Project site plan/application; c A conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8; General Plan, p. III -11, X City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -149 et. seq.; i d Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Source #s: X General Plan, p.1-15-16, p. III -11; MEA, p. II -D-1-8; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -149 et. seq.; e Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident I or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of X native wildlife nursery sites? Source #s: MEA, p. II -D-1-8 & 18; f Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) X through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-15-16, p, III -11; MEA, p. 11-D-1-8; 11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: a. -f. No Impact. The proposed project is located within an existing corporate center approved by Los Angeles County and completed by 1986, The project site was mass graded as part of the overall grading for the corporate center. The mass grading also incorporated the buildable pad for the project site. Currently, the pad area is free of vegetation with the exception of moderated weed growth. The project site's descending slopes are heavily vegetation with ornamental trees and bushes planted by the corporate center as part of its landscape plan. As a result, it is anticipated that the project site does not contain species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or region plan, policies, or regulation, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services or riparian habitat and federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 Clean Water Act, or other sensitive natural communities. The project site does not contain trees that require protection and/or preservation as described in the City's Development Code. 12 MINERAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: a. -b. No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the development of land that could potentially result in the loss of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the State. Additionally, the project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan, specific plan or any other land use plan. 13 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Inc_o_rporated 8 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: _ — I a Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery sited delineated on a local general plan, X I specific plan or other land use plan? Source #s: General Plan, p. III -14; b Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? X Source #s: MEA, p. III -B-17; Project application; MINERAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: a. -b. No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the development of land that could potentially result in the loss of a known mineral resource of value to the region or the State. Additionally, the project site is not designated as a locally important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan, specific plan or any other land use plan. 13 9 , HAZARDSIHAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material? Source #s: MEA, p. II -M-1; Project application, General Plan, p. IV -1 et seq.; b Impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Source #s: Multihazard Function Plan, City of Diamond Bar, 1992; Project application; c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or actively hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Source #s: Walnut Valley Unified School District; Pomona Unified School District; City of Diamond Bar House Numbering Map; d Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Source #s: MEA, p. II -M-1 et seq.; project application/ site plan; Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources #s: MEA, p. II -K-1; General Plan, p. IV - 1 et. seq.; Uniform Building Code, 2001; project application/site plan; a 0 X a X f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in X the project area? Sources #s: Project application/site plan; General Plan, P. IV -1 et. seq.; Zoning Map. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ANALYSIS: Less Than Significant. The proposed office building is for office use only. It would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The operational characteristics of offices in this zoning district would not include activities that involve hazardous wastes or materials. The proposed project will likely utilize hazardous materials, such as oil, diesel fuel, etc. during the construction phase. As a result, it is not anticipated that that proposed project will create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, 14 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 9 , HAZARDSIHAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material? Source #s: MEA, p. II -M-1; Project application, General Plan, p. IV -1 et seq.; b Impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Source #s: Multihazard Function Plan, City of Diamond Bar, 1992; Project application; c Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or actively hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Source #s: Walnut Valley Unified School District; Pomona Unified School District; City of Diamond Bar House Numbering Map; d Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962,5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Source #s: MEA, p. II -M-1 et seq.; project application/ site plan; Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources #s: MEA, p. II -K-1; General Plan, p. IV - 1 et. seq.; Uniform Building Code, 2001; project application/site plan; a 0 X a X f For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in X the project area? Sources #s: Project application/site plan; General Plan, P. IV -1 et. seq.; Zoning Map. HAZARDS/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ANALYSIS: Less Than Significant. The proposed office building is for office use only. It would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The operational characteristics of offices in this zoning district would not include activities that involve hazardous wastes or materials. The proposed project will likely utilize hazardous materials, such as oil, diesel fuel, etc. during the construction phase. As a result, it is not anticipated that that proposed project will create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, 14 use, or disposal of hazardous materials; or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. b. No Impact. It is not expected that the proposed project will impair the implementation of or physically interfere with the City's adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. C. No Impact. The project site is located approximately one-half mile plus from an existing school. There are no schools proposed closer than one-half mile from the project site. Additionally, with circumstances as referenced in Item a. above, it is not expected that the proposed project will emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or actively hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. No Impact. The project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5, and as a result will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e. No Impact. The proposed project is in an urbanized area and not adjacent to areas where the possibility for wildland fires exist or near wetlands. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. No Impact. The proposed project is not located in proximity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan or crash hazard zone. 15 NOISE ANALYSIS: a. -c. No impact. The project site is located within an area impacted by noise generated by the SR 57 and SR 60 Freeways and Golden Springs Drive, The proposed project's development will generate noise impacts but not to a 16 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 10 NOISE: Would the project: a Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; or exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -15; MEA, p. II -G-1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -81 et.seq.; Project application; b A substantial permanent increase or temporary or periodic in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Source #s: General Plan, p. IV- X 15; MEA, p. II -G-1 et seq,; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -81 et, seq.; Project application; c Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Source X #s: General Plan, p. IV -15; MEA, p. II -G-1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -81 et. seq.; Project application; d For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not be adopted, within two miles of a X public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -15; MEA, p. 1I - G -1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p, III - 81 et. seq.; Project application; e For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip would the project wxposed people residing or working in the project X area to excessive noise levels? Source #s: General Plan, p. IV -15; MEA, p. II -G-1 et seq.; City of Diamond Bar Development Code, p. III -81 et. seq.; Project application; NOISE ANALYSIS: a. -c. No impact. The project site is located within an area impacted by noise generated by the SR 57 and SR 60 Freeways and Golden Springs Drive, The proposed project's development will generate noise impacts but not to a 16 level that surpasses existing sound levels. With the completion of development, noise levels related to construction will cease. Typically, an office use does not generate excessive goundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to expose persons to or generate significant noise levels in excess of standards established in the City's General Plan, noise standards, or applicable standards of other agencies; or expose persons to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. d. -e, No impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Additionally, the proposed project is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. 17 PUBLIC SERVICES ANALYSIS: a,, b. No impact. The proposed project is located within an existing corporate center that has been and will continue to receive police and fire services from the Los Angeles. Development of the project site was anticipated in the original approval of the corporate center. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed project will not require the development of new or expanded facilities or services for police and fire protection. C. No Impact. The proposed project is located within the Walnut Valley School District. The District is in need of permanent facilities. It is not anticipated that the proposed office project will create a significant demand to the District. However, the project is required to pay school fees as part of the development fees paid to the City. No Impact. Because the project is an office development that would not generate an additional need for park facilities, there would be no direct impact on park services e. No Impact. No other specific governmental services have been identified that may be impacted by the proposed project. 18 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 11. PUBLIC SERVICES.. Would the project have an effect j i `upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services, in anyof the following areas: a Fire Protection? Source #s: General Plan, p. VI -3; Project ' application; X b Police Protections? Source #s: General Plan, p, VI-3;Function Plan, City of Diamond Bar, 1992; Project application; X c Schools? Source #s: MEA, p. II -0-1; X d Parks? Source #s: General Plan, p.111-1-18 X e Other governmental services? Source #s: General Plan, p. X VI -1 et seg.; PUBLIC SERVICES ANALYSIS: a,, b. No impact. The proposed project is located within an existing corporate center that has been and will continue to receive police and fire services from the Los Angeles. Development of the project site was anticipated in the original approval of the corporate center. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed project will not require the development of new or expanded facilities or services for police and fire protection. C. No Impact. The proposed project is located within the Walnut Valley School District. The District is in need of permanent facilities. It is not anticipated that the proposed office project will create a significant demand to the District. However, the project is required to pay school fees as part of the development fees paid to the City. No Impact. Because the project is an office development that would not generate an additional need for park facilities, there would be no direct impact on park services e. No Impact. No other specific governmental services have been identified that may be impacted by the proposed project. 18 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: a. -g. No Impact. The proposed project is considered small scale and will not result in the need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following: electrical power or natural gas; communication systems; local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities; sewer systems; storm drainage systems; and solid waste disposal systems. All systems and supplies necessary for the proposed project are existing. 19 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated_ _ 12 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project i result in a `need for new systems or supplies, or i substantial alterations to the following utilities:_' a Power or natural gas? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-18, VI- 2; Project application; X b Communication systems? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-18, VI-2; Project application; X c Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Source #s: General Plan, p, 1-18, VI-2; Project application; X d. Sewer or septic tanks? Source #s: General Plan, p.1-18, VI- F 2; Project application; X e Storm water drainage? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-18, VI- 2; Project application; X f Solid waste disposal? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-18, VI- 2; Project application; X g Local or regional water supplies? Source #s; General Plan, p. 1-18, VI-2; Project application; X UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ANALYSIS: a. -g. No Impact. The proposed project is considered small scale and will not result in the need for new systems or supplies or substantial alterations to the following: electrical power or natural gas; communication systems; local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities; sewer systems; storm drainage systems; and solid waste disposal systems. All systems and supplies necessary for the proposed project are existing. 19 AESTHETICS ANALYSIS: a. -c. No Impact. The proposed project will be developed in compliance with the Design Guidelines of Gateway Corporate Center and the City's Development Review and Design Guideline standards. As a result, the proposed project will be consistent with the existing development within the corporate center and surrounding area by utilizing good architectural design and features, as well as compatible and pleasing colors and materials. The only source of light and glare may emanate from the sunlight reflected on windows and the on-site lighting. However, on-site lighting will be shielded and installed in a manner that will not reflect light or glare on to neighboring properties and public streets. Furthermore, the project site is not located adjacent to a scenic vista, historic buildings and/or a state scenic highway. The project site is previously graded with a buildable pad. It does not contain natural resources such as tree, native vegetation or rock outcroppings. 20 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 13 AESTHETICS. Would the project: a Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista or damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock out croppings, and historic buildings within a state X scenic highway? Source #s: General Plan, p. III-10;Project application; b Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Source #s: General Plan, p. III -10; City of Diamond Bar's Development Code, p. IV -11 X et. seq.; City Design Guidelines, p.1-25; Project plans/application; photo simulation; G Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Source #s: City of Diamond Bar's Development Code, p, IV- X 11 et.seq,; City Design Guidelines, p.1-25; Project plans/application; AESTHETICS ANALYSIS: a. -c. No Impact. The proposed project will be developed in compliance with the Design Guidelines of Gateway Corporate Center and the City's Development Review and Design Guideline standards. As a result, the proposed project will be consistent with the existing development within the corporate center and surrounding area by utilizing good architectural design and features, as well as compatible and pleasing colors and materials. The only source of light and glare may emanate from the sunlight reflected on windows and the on-site lighting. However, on-site lighting will be shielded and installed in a manner that will not reflect light or glare on to neighboring properties and public streets. Furthermore, the project site is not located adjacent to a scenic vista, historic buildings and/or a state scenic highway. The project site is previously graded with a buildable pad. It does not contain natural resources such as tree, native vegetation or rock outcroppings. 20 CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: No Impact. There are no paleontological sites identified within the City and the site has sustained extensive grading as part of the Center's development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the site's development will disturb paleontological resources. b. No Impact. There are no archaeological sites identified within the City and the site has sustained extensive grading as part of the Center's development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the site's development will disturb archaeological resources. No Impact. No historical sites have been identified within the vicinity of the project site and none are expected. Therefore, development of the proposed project will not affect historical resources. No Impact. No unique ethnic cultural values, religious, sacred or formal cemeteries are located within a quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not have the potential to create adverse impacts on said resources. 21 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated _ _ 14 I CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features? Source #s: MEA, II -H-1 et. seq.; Project application; X b Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5. Source #s: MEA, II -H-1 et seq.; Project plans/application; X c Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources as defined in 15064.5? Source #s: MEA, II-1-1-1et seq.; Project plans/application; X d Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Source #s: MEA, II -H -let seq.; Project plans/application; X CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: No Impact. There are no paleontological sites identified within the City and the site has sustained extensive grading as part of the Center's development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the site's development will disturb paleontological resources. b. No Impact. There are no archaeological sites identified within the City and the site has sustained extensive grading as part of the Center's development. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the site's development will disturb archaeological resources. No Impact. No historical sites have been identified within the vicinity of the project site and none are expected. Therefore, development of the proposed project will not affect historical resources. No Impact. No unique ethnic cultural values, religious, sacred or formal cemeteries are located within a quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not have the potential to create adverse impacts on said resources. 21 RECREATIONAL ANALYSIS: a., b. Considering the type and small-scale of the proposed project, it is not expected that the proposed project will increase the demand for demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities or affect existing recreational opportunities to the extent that deterioration of such facilities would occur; nor that the expansion of such facilities would occur, thereby causing an adverse physical effect on the environment. 22 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 15 1 RECREATIONAL. Would the project: Increase the demand use of existing neighborhood and _ a regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be X accelerated? Source #s: General Plan, p. II -1 et seq.; Project application; b Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Source #s: X General Plan, p. II -1 et seq.; Project planslapplication; RECREATIONAL ANALYSIS: a., b. Considering the type and small-scale of the proposed project, it is not expected that the proposed project will increase the demand for demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities or affect existing recreational opportunities to the extent that deterioration of such facilities would occur; nor that the expansion of such facilities would occur, thereby causing an adverse physical effect on the environment. 22 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: a. -c. No Impact. There are no agricultural activities on or near the proposed project site, which are currently parkland, single-family residential and municipal land uses. The project would not convert land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, according to 1997 Natural Resources Conservation Service mapping, to non- agricultural uses. The project site is currently zoned CM-BE-U/C and would not conflict with agricultural zoning, Additionally, the project site is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, the proposed project is within a highly urbanized area and would not impact any agricultural land or farmland. 23 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact j Mitigation Incorporated 16 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: i a Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of i Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program X of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Source #s: General Plan, p.1-1 et seq.; Project application; b Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Source #s: General Plan, p.1-1 et seq.; Project plans/application; X c Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due X to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Source #s: General Plan, p. 1-1 et seq.; Project plans/application AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS: a. -c. No Impact. There are no agricultural activities on or near the proposed project site, which are currently parkland, single-family residential and municipal land uses. The project would not convert land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, according to 1997 Natural Resources Conservation Service mapping, to non- agricultural uses. The project site is currently zoned CM-BE-U/C and would not conflict with agricultural zoning, Additionally, the project site is not covered by a Williamson Act contract. Furthermore, the proposed project is within a highly urbanized area and would not impact any agricultural land or farmland. 23 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS: a. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted and site survey, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of Fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining level, threatened to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or pre -history. b. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted, site survey, and analysis within this document, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. C. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted, site survey, and analysis within this document, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 24 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact i Mitigation Incorporated 17 ' MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE _ a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop X below self sustaining level, threaten to eliminate a plant or j animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre- history? b Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X c Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are X considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the affects of probable future projects.) d Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS: a. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted and site survey, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of Fish or wildlife species, cause fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining level, threatened to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of major periods of California history or pre -history. b. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted, site survey, and analysis within this document, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. C. Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted, site survey, and analysis within this document, it is anticipated that the proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 24 Due to the information presented in the application, plans submitted, and analysis within this document, it is anticipated that the proposed project is not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial as adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 25 a 11001 Romil 100, fi .n r , +h r .,...,, 1:11111 OR ft. r , i GEQVIEWER WIN OOWS 9519,12O /NT �-IT T (� m c) �n ox vS "J , sA � -�A C �O D J- � c�5 ~ �0 A O ' rg es m T1 m� m � n mg g g s 7 .y C7 v�ag€ s C)z T` �n ox vS "J , sA � J- m� mg g g s 7 .y C7 v�ag€ s C)z T` fTl z D z 7 _ s p ? T7 o x ag s O z � gg ss ware 44 lip, qa 4 - ■ � AC� W � '� Rk � � i�p - [' ds �� � PT.E SHEET I € u ..:..v iw nne GI IFMAY A'Fiq eolniEY .S- ' �' � � !•1-\ivr: C1 -M � TAIIAIya DIAMgyD BAR, CNiT(w1,'IA � •• __ —� M1::: •:J:1H; l - a1M.r "� I�' 14 A^J' M +:A' ^ �—'�'^++. � M I .v. ;;. •.A ., u2 1111.v'�v, . "' • -.J I :'! ',(.15)962 C p]16 2 11 so M n 8 i RUN MOM I a l N 1 i e I� it _ mk x all i ' X i� o p 9 m�S T m 11 so M n 8 i RUN FA I a l i e I� x 11 a m L7 8 i I a i e I� i ' X i� m i ;III it11 II 'i §RrU $ nizs; 93 .ITE PLAN -- wrv«sloe OCASANT & ASiOC10.iES1 �•• •___�_ •• o ux_xx_ �y ox coua�pr6 8°s°.t 5°Adew AIA. aR(HTFGr O� ' • ., P.LA ,n r29a5 iA GATEWAY OtHCE COManw +" w�¢ + € AS t10TE0 - area IIImA, cA 9`d9: 15855E EDNA 11 #118 E-- e�9s5On`t�°�4 IRYMDAIE, CA 91706 .., £1671 E GATEWAY C�N1EN G� �� (pM1) (626)962 1332 fax (626)961 0716 rnnA+n 01 AMONG BAR, CALIFORNIA �'�f� ai � — 'r^� rte•. a �; u � "' �Z § I> i ;III it11 II 'i §RrU $ nizs; 93 .ITE PLAN -- wrv«sloe OCASANT & ASiOC10.iES1 �•• •___�_ •• o ux_xx_ �y ox coua�pr6 8°s°.t 5°Adew AIA. aR(HTFGr O� ' • ., P.LA ,n r29a5 iA GATEWAY OtHCE COManw +" w�¢ + € AS t10TE0 - area IIImA, cA 9`d9: 15855E EDNA 11 #118 E-- e�9s5On`t�°�4 IRYMDAIE, CA 91706 .., £1671 E GATEWAY C�N1EN G� �� (pM1) (626)962 1332 fax (626)961 0716 rnnA+n 01 AMONG BAR, CALIFORNIA 1 m r (n L � 12" L�'6" IONCLJ� �' o�'" V CD D Z 'A z y�to• � � r I� � �� ➢ mA% � 12" L�'6" IONCLJ� �' o�'" V CD D Z 'A z y�to• � � r I� � �� ➢ m C.7 � m � 7' O m I I\� I a �z 8mP V-0 l i I ti fI f knNs m- _ c _ u �yyrS � 5 F � I O f c1 N s� `� OlT� °' m nl AgY_SSBL6E SXNµ) i __ WT�OF-3G111 9< F K9 gyISr6,e jT STROM,, OFTA11., WNECL STOP PETAL GATE'WA" OFFICE CENTER 21671 E GATEWAY MIR OR OIANONO 8AR C411FORN14 � 12" L�'6" IONCLJ� �' o�'" V CD z y�to• � � r I� � �� M cTY=ni� �' I I\� I a �z 8mP V-0 l i I ti fI f knNs m- _ c _ u �yyrS � 5 F � I F K9 gyISr6,e jT STROM,, OFTA11., WNECL STOP PETAL GATE'WA" OFFICE CENTER 21671 E GATEWAY MIR OR OIANONO 8AR C411FORN14 STROM,, OFTA11., WNECL STOP PETAL GATE'WA" OFFICE CENTER 21671 E GATEWAY MIR OR OIANONO 8AR C411FORN14 M BASAVT & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS "_„,• �* Bosent Sade , AIA. MailTECT 15855 E EDNA PL #1113 YORBA L110A,1 CA69- 87 IRMOALE, CA 91706 ,,;• •',,1„. ”"•' �Rme M/69t-u]t {¢e /l 928 (Ph) (625)962 1332 fax (626)962 0716 E-ktai boson tl®ear=knet 12" L�'6" IONCLJ� M cTY=ni� �' I I\� I C) l i I ti fI m- �! 1 nm mm \I F � I M BASAVT & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS "_„,• �* Bosent Sade , AIA. MailTECT 15855 E EDNA PL #1113 YORBA L110A,1 CA69- 87 IRMOALE, CA 91706 ,,;• •',,1„. ”"•' �Rme M/69t-u]t {¢e /l 928 (Ph) (625)962 1332 fax (626)962 0716 E-ktai boson tl®ear=knet m A. z„r11o��� T' V _ / -O AO Ol'OAF 11 O A Z z ~ m I \\ n l R 4 I — I— — — — — — -- — — — — — — -- — — I N — —— s Op -- — —— — — — I — 0 m w I w 1 s o _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 17iF �J {� �i�proa v n — _--- II .I� a < vA I v `Z ratio A z _ � � - •I I r�N I I I � w EY�A °1290 1 "� R I A$, a 25 03 Roof It -AN not sASANT & %SSOCIA.TEs� U-t Sack K A, MUtTECT AKAL ENGINEERS CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS''o-..'GAILW ,. OFFICE COMPLEX En 22"5 LA P N AVE. -TE Bim' voRaw ow` z 15855 E. EDNA PL 9116 V1 Tom'• '• •' ,•,' ' '~' � •',• axox6N 21671 L G,TFW" CENTER OR 'A IIANA OIAMW BAR, CAUFMRIA dmc ]I4/®1-tM ] m T. r/69FI166 E -Mol bas�n:t@an, t111,r4 net IRNNDALE. CA 91706 •'� (ph) (626)962 1332 fax (626)962 071. a I n v !( m 11 I N i To tl, 2J/US 4f.7AON A -A, SECTION R -R ( Y2 Al NOTED nye GAIEWAf OFFICE COMPLEX I b u rxmwx ev Aoa�s )1671 E OAXWAY (DIM1 DR TA744NA DIAMOND DAR, CALIFORNIA P aLaM* s A,-,,,-- I AKAL ENGINEERS 6mmt Sq.90ew At9, ARGn0CC1 t 1CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 15855 E. EDNA PL 1#118 ., IRYMDALE, CA 91706.""•" (1h) (626)962 1332 fax (626)962 0716 6 Nj IV) 11 Ll L l�' ''^' zL 'N ' : tE�€ x -KAL It i II Zl -KAL =ta � i I L�JiUuL�IJ- I F— F-9 < Ic I�I IL LJ a. D r I m ED;©o'El o aao Ie"'I I --------U— L a� Fll L�JiUuL�IJ- I a. r I JI 0 o aao i Ig 1 01 ElJ0 m Q o ,oR] WEs, E EVATi0N5 6725]03 easANr s .asscclAres AKAL ENGINEERS n 8i -...E GSIIWAY D�rcL ceurxEx i!8"=i'-0" Bcxwl Su:Mem Aie,Aern IEC1 CONSULTING STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS 15855 E EDNA PL #118 exma�sc 2:6T CAIEWA�C01hR OR ->TANA DAW14D BAR. CAJVDRNIA IRWNDALE, CA 91706 (ph) (628)962 1332 far (626)962 0718 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM T�-� DIAMOND BAR COMMiJNM & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner DATE: December 8, 2005 SUBJECT: Development Review No. 2002-03/Dr. Omar's Office Building Located at 21671 Gateway Center Drive 2/22/02 Project submittal 3/20/02 Correspondence to applicant/address Planning concerns 8/26/02 Revised plans submitted 9/25/02 Prepared Initial Study/Negative Declaration 10/04/02 Prepare staff report 10/22/02 PC Public Hearing; continued public hearing to 11/26/02 to allow applicant to prepare traffic impact analysis report 11/26/02 PC continued public hearing; applicant request continuance do to scheduling conflict of the applicant; public hearing continued to 12/10/02 12/10/02 Planning Commission Public Hearing; project approved; expiration date of approval 12/10/04 12/12/02 Prep NOD; submittal to L.A.C. Recorders Office 12/12/02 Transmit PC approved plans to the Building and Safety and Public Works Division 10/29/04 Applicant is seeking to obtain Building Permit; checked file and applicant asked in writing to (1) submit fees owed to Planning Division for process project; (2) Submit Affidavit of Acceptance; (3) submit landscape/irrigation plan; (4) submit exterior lighting plan/study; and (5) trash enclosure detail 11/22/04 Applicant submits extension of time request for PC approval; applicant will not be able to exercise (i.e. construction started/per PC Resolution No.2002-47) PC approval prior to 12/10/04 11/29/04 Requested PC required landscape plan not yet submitted by the applicant 1/8/05 Extension of time public hearing by PC; no changes in original plans approved by PC; PC approve a one year extension of time to expire on December 10, 2005 (one year from the original expiration date of 12/10/05 1/10/05 Submitted landscape/irrigation plan 1/10/05 Received Affidavit of Acceptance 1/13/05 Landscape /irrigation plan submitted to David Evans for plan check 1/20/05 Submitted trash enclosure detail 1/29/05 Submitted lighting plan study; resubmitted 4105 and 5/26/05 due to staff comments that needed to be addressed; submitted to lighting consultant to review twice and finally approved 1215/05 4/4105 Landscape plan approved after third plan check with City's landscape consultant 10/2/05 Discovered applicant made changes to architecture design of the project 10/3/05 Sent copy of changes to Gateway Corporate Center architectural committee 10/4/05 Planning Division approved the architectural changes. 10/12/05 Grading permit / construction permit issued Nancy Fong drove by the project site and noticed that constructed had not started. I checked the extension of Time expiration date. On December 6, 2005, 1 called Mrs. Omar and notify her of the expiration date as a courtesy. The expiration date monitoring is the applicant's responsibility. 2 21671 Gateway Center Drive Public Works/Engineering Chronology 11/19/04 1" Submittal Geotechnical Report (11 Day Review) 11/30/04 Geotechnical Review comments returned to applicant 12/8/04 1" Submittal Trac Study (21 Day Review) 12/29/04 Trak Study Review comments returned to applicant 3/21/05 2nd Submittal Geotechnical Report (9 Day Review) 3130/05 Geotechnical Review comments returned to applicant 4/25/05 2nd Submittal Trak Study (16 Day Review) 5/11/05 Traffic Study Review comments returned to applicant 5/20/05 3`d Submittal Geotechnical Report (7 Day Review) 5/26/05 1st Submittal Grading/SUSMP Plan (8 Day Review) 5/27/05 Geotechnical Review comments returned to applicant 6/3/05 Grading/SUSMP Review comments returned to applicant 6/23/05 3rd Submittal Traffic Study (4 Day Review) 6/27/05 Trak Study Review comments returned to applicant -APPROVED 7/8/05 2nd Submittal Grading/SUSMP Plan (19 Day Review) 7/27/05 Grading/SUSMP Review comments returned to applicant 8/1/05 4"' Submittal Geotechnical Report (7 Day Review) 8/8/05 Geotechnical Review comments returned to applicant -APPROVED 916105 3`d Submittal Grading/SUSMP Plan (6 Day Review) 9/12/05 Grading/SUSMP Review comments returned to applicant -APPROVED 10/12/05 Grading Permit Issued Plan Check Tracking Form j DATE PC#; PROJECT ADDRESS PROPOSED USE Lj_��� CONTACT4 r1(� -P t.krl. ;Z.. C� OG, - G Z IV 6r, JYC�Kv Rs ji��r-r?o-�t: c.d o-�- ' . : � rtj4ns r „�',G:�i-,'� ��'`�-t•�7� �:.�c�.r:.' �'CL�''t "I-- !•�1,....T� rlr—.—I.,-wre Ti'nrm -� r ,r, rc •sub-r,', �- Z- (bo. . h Q13131 r)✓l C --V- Pi 14 ' .t -�," S�1u �'./•-� . o.� ICS � � Sc 1 1 S �^-�t-�'� 1 "fi^•�• C'�r-cat( L'� f' `�'r�Corr11P1��E Si.,JorY1•�- �) No Pl-:nr -pet- C-- WO) et-crl1 �v� �j��t�►e�1 fl -o C•r<�S rl a ( � 1 ��5 3�fo � �l� f � �. •: {�c�v-� rC - ��..b.'�n ; �c�i � � lob �jg� , � ��P� cr, Ic Plan -Check Tracking Form DATE PC# © 3 PROJECT ADDRESS PROPOSED USE M -c <::k C 42 CONTACT rr\v-S• PHONE NO. -712• '10� rr•e r 4f --s j o S-' m rs • Orn c.,.• �..�b �-n'�'�r a 42S a• r,s , rn nYJ ,/t aS/cy5-: Mrs- 52pg r,j . b�-'�- � •'S- s� m`� ���.._ `<'�_r1�-. �;y-e� �1 %�1 � � r; � nom. Cal -�-- p c o,r- -�•o erg - - Plan Check Tracking Form DATE PC# - PROJECT ADDRESS PROPOSED USE I CONTACT PHONE NO. ( ) a l C Cal -�-- p c o,r- -�•o erg - - Plan Check Tracking Form DATE PC# - PROJECT ADDRESS PROPOSED USE I CONTACT PHONE NO. ( ) ns •cr $ �f1�1r aC�✓� �'1'1e r 1 -te ��Yl Perm�� � Sim �n-� c3,•ks coyer �l \�-�IC;o-�.s 'o a z w C7 w J I o O U j I I I I U I - O O O -j O CD ( Q Q _O ~ LL H 4. ` I J J J W U Ma -1 W Z J I QZ �Z O CL O CL QZ U w w� Q w� LU Q N J a a J � W< J 2 W -1 2 — 2O O LL �O O LL �o 20 0zw 20 0z IO co vo I UZ ZJ UZ ZJ UZ zJ zJo ZJ W O Z O Z LL Z Z LL w LL Z ❑0 ❑� ❑9 ❑ �w p0 w_ Lu wi- wf-❑ WI_ Co LL ❑ IL ❑ ~a tea°' �Q oQ oQ n Z� W �I – -- O u� zU- Z� zL 0 w O zW z0 zwui z0� zw 0 zLL Q Cl I W UZ Uz w (L 0 Uzm UZ a W 0 Z IL N CS U a m a m Il m a. U O J F- a- Q> JI- a- Q U O Z J- a ~ J -Z) a~ m J- w F - U) N d Q> Q d W Q LLJ Q m (L Q w U �Iw U) I CO m z 10 Z, J W c z W W Z c W J Q Il Q 0 m U Q U CL V ❑ zy Q ❑ O W OJ O Q N Q ❑ U' ❑ W 0 I- '� U 0 z O z m � a. W z U p Z W w a V < a >- C y p oo O u ❑ m Q = Q ❑ N co - ❑ O O Y co Iti I O 06lOf) } N N N d N O N Lf)O O co � N a U Q 0O0 O I I N N Z) dLO -nl Q' J J Q O d U Q J Q Z Q Y J Q 0 I U .- O 910 Oco N Oco 9 O to r O to O — O O N M WM M O MOeY N Lo O (� O O O C 0 O pO 0pO 0 LO p 0 N N 04 04 ONO N N O CN N N N N O N NCL of ❑ DU oU ❑ ❑ U U n > >❑ N , U U U75 ❑ w ❑ ❑ F- ❑ 0 I l c V to C y W N f6 C > ECID a) 0 rn O 4 a � W N v C 0 sti- °I V M� LL m Q) O H� -0 m U _ m' 0 NI ¢� W W p ❑ o� 5 �' U z Z a E J U 7 OY� o CD O� m ii0 OLLJ '0 Q _ �� Q NI Q 7 ��j - W� 2 m V W a� m� C'4 0o m �I CD 0. ❑ , , E c� M.0 Yw I- o Oc a zL 0 c, �F-m y z aw F -LL °' Ww _T O @ e� J m N Za LLI . Z I W I Qol LI) QLL m QDIN ? C7 z Ov_, O Quo N CO a m ❑ C ❑ O (n .'C^ gO (0 Q WD U) L >w z W {. >_ Q w. a �,� C� o, Q o o > E w O O c� w z , vJ w .2 L -� – n. a) LL dQ'I JZ fQ� ] N� Z C_ W fA '� ONI d C Z Z d, N m_ U❑ .� N ZLu Z_ X•• — > W (� N N Z C ,G U�❑ Ul1J ❑Q Y� Y� .Q_I� z w C7 w J a> 0° w ❑ U) Z O Q w o a LL o OJ w > W 6,0 N 0 IL 0 0 zQ z O zQ OJ z O z z z O z z OJ IL a O O O O Uw Uw UW U U U U U U aZ as O dZ a CL a a a a Q0 Qw Q0 Q0 Q0 Q0 a0 Q0 ¢0 w- ,- I- Q w> �- W O w- � h- Q w- E- F- Q W- - t- Q w- F-- F- W- �- ,- Q W- f-. h Q W- � I- W J W -J W J W J W J2 W Q J W J W -i W Q J� as am air a aCe as a- 2 0 W :p MOW �O 20 M0 20 �0 ZiO Ou-w OW 0LLW Oa Oa Oa Oa 0U- Oa UZ_a U Z UZ_a z 0Z_ Z UZ_ 0Z_ 0z_ U_Z UzCO _ I z J 0 J 0 J Z J z J z J z J Z J O m w O a W W W LL O Z> 02W ❑❑ z > ❑OW O Z ❑O 0 Z O 0 O Z ❑O O Z ❑O O Z ❑O 0 Z O p0 WHO wCf3 Wt=0 w wL: w wL- WF' w I Hm E: a) - p❑ p❑ �❑ H� f -❑m p❑ PW-.❑ 0Q0 00 OQ❑ OQ OQ oQ oa oQ oQ z W w zE- ZWW ZX Zfl� z[if zC� zW (D z 0 j �O� Z �z z oF- z �o z �-0 z �o z �o z o z z U) F-0 z z Fn Q(D Q� <02 QC7 QO QU QC7 <0 fn QCi fn _U Z m J�-� _U a J _U Z m J�� _U Z JF _U Z _U Z _U Z DP: U Z w U U z Jp W U a- aw a- a- -i --• a- JF- a- a- JF- a- O a- o (L < co a.w Qz aQw Q3m aQ Q aQ aQ as aQ Q3: a a aQ Q3: a a U) � ❑ 0 w z W w z IL W Q Z ❑ m U °a Z w 0_ U w w w2 U w ❑ z a (n z o J a = lxp w Q O a O U U H F= Q O U) z Q ❑ 2 ,w -Z Ur) O Q Y LL Q LU to N F52 w w W z Q In LO u7 J M v U U Q Cl) � o Q N Y J N �Ji Q I- U N U' N N a -J) p Q J Q Q J Uco U) 2 J Q J p NI M O M co O OM co O O nLn L U)U O O C0 O LO Ln O O d 0 6m CD 0 Oa)O U N N N N O 2 N O N O N O N N N 2 O O N N N O N O N as ❑F �cr �2 F- a ❑ a ❑ U�n=� NU❑(n �> 0 a- U❑ > < Q O F--' _ U OCD O } m N N ;a V L y > C UJ w Oa' Z a' 0— Q O O 3 .co y C 'O W W-0 a = '° Cl) JE AR LL a� v -0 0 a OLL } m c Q 'o c a@ Q LL. O LL. J (D O a � M m -a 3 uJ °� Q.a m p v a) �:2 a v o Z m a) Y- Q C m W- W c o '� C L Co cu z° Q '� p� m F- J c o Z w 'y Z Y Q _ T (`� O = V !- CLo (n O ❑ Cl) z 2 (n C J O a) S O N Co o � ,N W > O F- = N U p Z w z Q 2❑ E O2 CD Q p 2 J O `u W E _ U U J zrn O N ? 0 p J m a V =1 N 7 U a O `V U) Z Q U) 0 (n c (n T I- Q }- CO X W LL. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On February 28, 2006, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a regular session at 7:00 p.m., at the South Coast Quality Management District/Government Center - Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On February 23, 2006, a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission, to be held on February 28, 2006, was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Center 1600 Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 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 23, 2006, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community and Development Services Department g:\\affidavaposting.doc Fiie i ed b and tisready r on.= scorning